By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Ron Wyden criticized President-elect Trump’s proposed “External Revenue Service,” arguing it’s a deceptive tactic to mask massive tax cuts for the wealthy funded by increased taxes on families and small businesses. Trump intends to use tariff revenue, potentially collected by a renamed Treasury Department office, to offset the cost of extending 2017 tax cuts. However, analysis shows that resulting price increases from tariffs would outweigh the tax cuts for most Americans, benefiting only the wealthiest 5%. This proposal follows reports that Trump is considering a national economic emergency declaration to justify widespread tariffs.
Read the original article here
The proposed creation of an “External Revenue Service” by a certain political figure is generating significant controversy. The core argument against this initiative centers around the belief that it’s a thinly veiled attempt to significantly reduce taxes for the wealthy, shifting the burden onto American families and small businesses.
This isn’t just a minor tax adjustment; the proposed changes are projected to result in a multi-trillion-dollar tax cut for the ultra-rich. The sheer scale of the potential tax cuts is staggering and raises concerns about the long-term economic consequences for the nation as a whole.
The rebranding of the tax collection process, under the guise of an “External Revenue Service,” is seen as a cynical attempt to obscure the true nature of the plan. Critics argue that no amount of clever relabeling can mask the substantial tax increases that ordinary Americans would likely face to fund these massive tax breaks for the wealthy.
This proposed “External Revenue Service” is intended to collect revenue from foreign sources, including tariffs and duties. However, the ambiguity surrounding the scope of this new agency raises concerns that it could be used to target individuals and entities that the proponents find convenient, potentially further exacerbating the imbalance in the tax system.
The concern isn’t solely about the financial implications but also about the broader implications for fairness and equity in the tax system. Critics argue this plan represents a continuation of policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, perpetuating existing economic inequalities.
The assertion that this new agency will focus solely on foreign revenue sources is questionable at best. It’s plausible that this agency could ultimately be used to collect more revenue from a broader range of sources, potentially increasing the tax burden on many Americans.
This plan bears a striking resemblance to previous tax policies that have been criticized for their preferential treatment of the wealthy. History seems to be repeating itself, with those in power seemingly determined to once again shift a larger share of the tax burden to the middle and lower classes.
The lack of transparency and the ambiguous nature of the proposal fuel concerns about potential misuse and abuse of power. The potential for hidden agendas and backroom deals is a legitimate worry that needs to be addressed openly and honestly.
The potential impact on small businesses is particularly alarming. Many small businesses operate on thin margins, and a significant tax increase could force closures or severely limit their growth potential. This would have a ripple effect throughout the economy, potentially leading to job losses and reduced economic activity.
The proposal’s lack of detail further intensifies the skepticism. The absence of concrete figures and a clear explanation of how this “External Revenue Service” would operate raises concerns about the overall plan’s transparency and accountability.
The argument that this is simply a “rebranding” is not convincing to many. The proposed changes are substantial, and attempting to downplay them as a simple name change is disingenuous and disrespectful to the concerns of the American public. A deeper explanation and clearer details are absolutely necessary.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the “External Revenue Service” highlights deeper issues within the political and economic systems. Concerns about wealth inequality, the fairness of the tax system, and the lack of transparency in government policies are all central to the ongoing debate.
The long-term consequences of this plan, if implemented as proposed, are likely to be far-reaching and potentially devastating for a substantial portion of the American population. The potential for increased economic inequality and the strain on small businesses are significant concerns that cannot be ignored.
The lack of public discussion and input on this plan is deeply troubling. A robust and open debate is crucial before such drastic changes are implemented, ensuring that the needs and concerns of all segments of society are considered and addressed.
The very idea that such a significant tax policy could be proposed and potentially enacted without widespread public support is a clear indication of a broken system. It’s crucial that those in positions of power prioritize the needs of their constituents over the interests of a select few.
Without significant changes, and a fairer distribution of the tax burden, the future for many Americans looks bleak. A system that continually favors the wealthiest, at the expense of the majority, cannot be sustainable in the long term.