TribCast: A special legislative session is coming
Watch the video above, or subscribe to the TribCast on iTunes, Spotify, or RSS. New episodes every Tuesday.
Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer.
Get tickets.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News
No one likes paying taxes. Maybe that's why President Donald Trump has proposed nixing the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs. Tariffs, he believes, would make us so rich we could all kiss the tax man goodbye — at least the income tax man. Tariffs are basically a tax, paid by the importer, and passed onto the consumer. Learn More: Find Out: But what would things really look like if income taxes were a thing of the past? We asked ChatGPT. It had four main points. Constitutional Viability Could Trump put an end to income taxes by executive order or another unilateral way? That, said ChatGPT, is a hard no. 'Income taxes are codified in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1913), which explicitly authorizes the federal government to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states,' it said. Abolishing income taxes would require legislation from Congress, with a two-thirds vote by both houses. With that stated, it's not likely to happen. Read Next: Budgetary Reality The fact is, individual and corporate income taxes have made up the bulk of federal revenue for the past 50 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. ChatGPT noted that equals $2.2 trillion in personal federal income tax, and $460 billion from corporate income tax, per 2023 figures. The Bipartisan Policy Center puts the figures at $2.4 trillion and $530 billion, respectively. Either way, it's a lot of money, with personal income taxes making up for 49% of total federal government revenue, and corporate income taxes making up 11%. Wipe them out, and the federal government loses 60% of its income. Tariffs, on the other hand, bring in a mere $98 billion, according to ChatGPT — NPR put the figure for the fiscal year ending September of 2024 at $80 billion. Politico, which tracks the tariff income, reported that this year, U.S. tariffs, which include Trump's tariffs, have brought in $100.5 billion as of July 13 — $53 billion more than at this time last year. That is not going to cut it, according to ChatGPT: 'Tariffs would need to be increased more than 20-fold to make up for the loss [in income tax].' It added that everything would have to be tariffed — all consumer goods, tech products, energy and industrial goods — at rates that would be inflationary and spark massive trade wars. Economic and Social Impact ChatGPT did throw some pros in with the cons. Hypothetically, it said, no federal income tax would make all our lives easier, simplifying the month of April. Taxing spending — retail, tariffs, etc. — might also benefit some groups that spend little compared to their income, ChatGPT said. For instance, this would include high earners who are somewhat restrained in their spending and frugal retirees. Now for the flip side. Tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, ChatGPT explained. It disproportionately hits low- and middle-income households who spend more of their income — as a percentage — than the wealthy. In other words, buying a book or computer or car is a larger percentage of income to someone making $50,000 a year than to someone making $5 million. Additionally, because of the shortfall in federal revenue, massive budget cuts would be required. Large cuts to Medicaid and Medicare would be required — much larger than the ones in the One Big Beautiful Bill — in addition to the military and other entitlements and services. So, Would We All Be Richer? According to ChatGPT, that's another hard no (in bold, no less). It claims that according to 'almost all mainstream economists,' tariffs raise prices, reduce efficiency and can hurt job growth. In addition, ending the income tax would destabilize public finances and increase inequality. The move would benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. For his part, Trump believes that the period between 1870 to 1913, before income taxes were a thing and when tariffs were a very big thing, was America's Golden Age. On April 15, he told Fox Noticias it was that era when we were our richest. That's debatable at best, and very much depends on who you define as 'we.' After all, Mark Twain coined it as the Gilded Age for its massive corruption and rampant inequality. The wealthy were very wealthy, to be sure, but according to Digital History, supported by a consortium of government, university and public organizations, in 1877, the average annual income of an urban family was $738 ($22,594 in today's money). After housing, food, heating and clothing, an average of $44 per year ($1,347) was left over for fun, emergencies and retirement savings — and without Social Security, they'd need it. For that, the average unskilled or semi-skilled person worked 10 hours a day for 20 cents ($6.12) per hour, and 939 out of 1,000 died with no property to pass on to heirs. Frankly, that's not sounding very golden. More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News
No one likes paying taxes. Maybe that's why President Donald Trump has proposed nixing the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs. Tariffs, he believes, would make us so rich we could all kiss the tax man goodbye — at least the income tax man. Tariffs are basically a tax, paid by the importer, and passed onto the consumer. Learn More: Find Out: But what would things really look like if income taxes were a thing of the past? We asked ChatGPT. It had four main points. Constitutional Viability Could Trump put an end to income taxes by executive order or another unilateral way? That, said ChatGPT, is a hard no. 'Income taxes are codified in the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1913), which explicitly authorizes the federal government to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states,' it said. Abolishing income taxes would require legislation from Congress, with a two-thirds vote by both houses. With that stated, it's not likely to happen. Read Next: Budgetary Reality The fact is, individual and corporate income taxes have made up the bulk of federal revenue for the past 50 years, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. ChatGPT noted that equals $2.2 trillion in personal federal income tax, and $460 billion from corporate income tax, per 2023 figures. The Bipartisan Policy Center puts the figures at $2.4 trillion and $530 billion, respectively. Either way, it's a lot of money, with personal income taxes making up for 49% of total federal government revenue, and corporate income taxes making up 11%. Wipe them out, and the federal government loses 60% of its income. Tariffs, on the other hand, bring in a mere $98 billion, according to ChatGPT — NPR put the figure for the fiscal year ending September of 2024 at $80 billion. Politico, which tracks the tariff income, reported that this year, U.S. tariffs, which include Trump's tariffs, have brought in $100.5 billion as of July 13 — $53 billion more than at this time last year. That is not going to cut it, according to ChatGPT: 'Tariffs would need to be increased more than 20-fold to make up for the loss [in income tax].' It added that everything would have to be tariffed — all consumer goods, tech products, energy and industrial goods — at rates that would be inflationary and spark massive trade wars. Economic and Social Impact ChatGPT did throw some pros in with the cons. Hypothetically, it said, no federal income tax would make all our lives easier, simplifying the month of April. Taxing spending — retail, tariffs, etc. — might also benefit some groups that spend little compared to their income, ChatGPT said. For instance, this would include high earners who are somewhat restrained in their spending and frugal retirees. Now for the flip side. Tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, ChatGPT explained. It disproportionately hits low- and middle-income households who spend more of their income — as a percentage — than the wealthy. In other words, buying a book or computer or car is a larger percentage of income to someone making $50,000 a year than to someone making $5 million. Additionally, because of the shortfall in federal revenue, massive budget cuts would be required. Large cuts to Medicaid and Medicare would be required — much larger than the ones in the One Big Beautiful Bill — in addition to the military and other entitlements and services. So, Would We All Be Richer? According to ChatGPT, that's another hard no (in bold, no less). It claims that according to 'almost all mainstream economists,' tariffs raise prices, reduce efficiency and can hurt job growth. In addition, ending the income tax would destabilize public finances and increase inequality. The move would benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. For his part, Trump believes that the period between 1870 to 1913, before income taxes were a thing and when tariffs were a very big thing, was America's Golden Age. On April 15, he told Fox Noticias it was that era when we were our richest. That's debatable at best, and very much depends on who you define as 'we.' After all, Mark Twain coined it as the Gilded Age for its massive corruption and rampant inequality. The wealthy were very wealthy, to be sure, but according to Digital History, supported by a consortium of government, university and public organizations, in 1877, the average annual income of an urban family was $738 ($22,594 in today's money). After housing, food, heating and clothing, an average of $44 per year ($1,347) was left over for fun, emergencies and retirement savings — and without Social Security, they'd need it. For that, the average unskilled or semi-skilled person worked 10 hours a day for 20 cents ($6.12) per hour, and 939 out of 1,000 died with no property to pass on to heirs. Frankly, that's not sounding very golden. More From GOBankingRates 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen if Trump Ended Income Taxes — There's Good News and Bad News Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBS News
2 days ago
- CBS News
Texas Senate passes THC ban bill, sends it to House for consideration
Legislation to ban THC products statewide — revived during the special session after a veto by Gov. Greg Abbott — passed the Texas Senate on Friday and now heads to the House for consideration. Senators approved Senate Bill 5 by a 21–8 vote. The bill would ban delta-8, delta-9, and all intoxicating forms of THC, including beverages, and prohibit the retail sale of any cannabinoid except cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabigerol (CBG). Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, the bill's author, has rejected the governor's call to regulate hemp like alcohol, arguing that law enforcement lacks the resources to oversee THC products. He also contends that the hemp industry is not interested in regulation, but rather in profit. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick supports the bill, citing loopholes in hemp law exploited by "bad actors," health risks to children from THC products marketed like candy, and backing from law enforcement, medical associations, and concerned families. Just over a month ago, Abbott vetoed a similar bill banning products containing THC. He explicitly asked lawmakers to regulate, not ban, hemp products, calling on them to "craft a law that does as much as possible to corral the problems while also being structured so that it can go into effect this year." Advocates argue a ban would close hundreds of businesses and hurt Texans who use these products. "Hemp-derived consumables are affordable, accessible and effective," said Mitch Fuller, who represents the Texas VFW, in a previous interview with CBS News Texas. Fuller said many of the VFW's 65,000 veterans see the industry as an alternative to alcohol and opioids. But senators dismissed those claims. "We're taking a stance on this," Fuller said. "Again, no one's using us; we are doing this on our own volition because it helps us. It works great." The federal and Texas governments legalized hemp in 2018 and 2019, respectively, with agricultural uses in mind. The laws differentiated hemp from illegal forms of cannabis by defining it as having 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or less. The laws didn't explicitly cap other forms of THC, such as delta-8 and delta-10, which aren't naturally found in large quantities but have similar psychoactive effects to delta-9. Cannabis companies capitalized on the loophole, supplying Texas retailers with products containing these unregulated compounds. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are produced by the same cannabis plant and have similar chemical structures but differ dramatically in their effects on brain function, according to the National Institutes of Health. Both compounds have therapeutic properties, but THC is associated with impairments and increased incidence of mental health disorders when used acutely or chronically. The NIH also notes that chronic use of high-dose CBD can lead to significant side effects. The bill now heads to the House for consideration. If passed, it will go to Abbott for approval, veto or inaction. The Senate's approval could lead to another standoff with the governor.
