By Ellen Brown / Original to ScheerPost

---

In February, President Trump said that tariffs would generate so much income that Americans would no longer need to pay income taxes.

The latest plan, according to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, is to abolish income taxes for people who earn less than $150,000 yearly. That move would affect roughly 75% of workers, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. On its face, this could narrow the wealth gap by boosting disposable income for low- and middle-income households without raising taxes on the wealthy — a politically clever alternative to progressive tax hikes.

Eliminating the burden of income taxes is an exciting proposition, due to savings not just in money but in man-hours — the time spent anguishing over ledgers, forms and receipts. In 2024, according to the Tax Foundation, Americans spent 7.9 billion hours complying with IRS tax filing and reporting requirements. That is equivalent to 3.8 million full-time workers—roughly the population of Los Angeles — doing nothing but tax paperwork for the full year.

The question is, can tariffs and DOGE replace income taxes? If not, how else could the government fund itself? Is a growing debt bubble that is now carrying a $1.2 trillion interest tab, which must continue to expand just to sustain itself, the only alternative?

How Eliminating Middle Class Taxes Would Affect the Budget.

In a March 21 article titled “Ending Taxes Below $150,000 Would Lose $10 to $15 Trillion,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concludes:

“Even if enacted in a targeted manner, we estimate such a change would reduce revenue by roughly $10 trillion through 2035 if applied to income taxes only and $15 trillion if applied to employee-​side payroll taxes as well. …

If enacted relative to current law, ending taxes on income below $150,000 would boost debt by $12 to $18 trillion with interest, increasing debt-​to-​GDP to between 145 and 160 percent – compared to 118 percent under current law.… Importantly, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said the proposal would be contingent on achieving budget balance first.”

Dividing the $10 trillion lost over 10 years (2025–2035) gives a $1 trillion loss per year on average, though there may be year-to-year variations. Trump’s team proposes to offset this loss with savings from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and new tariff revenues, but the math doesn’t look good.

The Prospects from Tariffs and DOGE.

Elon Musk’s DOGE has identified significant areas of federal “waste, fraud and abuse,” but the program was originally projected to save $2 trillion by slashing misused funds. At Trump’s cabinet meeting on April 10, Musk said he expects the agency to find $150 billion in savings in fiscal year 2026, a number significantly lower than even the $1 trillion he said in February he was confident DOGE would find.

Tariffs remain Trump’s primary funding mechanism. He has frequently referenced the 19^th century, when there was no income tax, and tariffs were the principal source of revenue for the U.S. government. In his Liberation Day speech on April 2, he said, “From 1789 to 1913, we were a tariff-backed nation, and the United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been.” Trump’s particular hero is Pres. William McKinley, whose 1890 tariff of nearly 50% was a high point of the tariff policy.

The problem is that in the 19^th century, the U.S. government had far fewer costs. Among other expenses, there was no Social Security, no Medicare and no trillion dollar interest to be paid to investors.

As originally proposed, Trump’s tariffs included a 10–20% universal tariff and up to 60% on Chinese imports. At that rate, the Tax Foundation estimated that the tariffs could raise $1 trillion over a decade ($100 billion/year) after accounting for reduced imports, while the Tax Policy Center put the figure as high as $2.8 trillion ($280 billion/year).

These projections remain speculative, since the results of the trade deals being negotiated are yet to be reported. On April 30, the president stated that negotiations had already resulted in $8 trillion in promised investment in U.S. production, an impressive number, but investments take several years to manifest as new tax income.

For the near term, DOGE cuts at $150 billion per year and tariffs estimated at $280 billion per year would cover less than half the trillion dollar loss projected from middle-class tax cuts. And that is without touching the $1.9 trillion deficit already projected by the Congressional Budget Office, something Commerce Sec. Lutnick said would have to be eliminated before income tax relief could be considered.

The Elephant in the Room.

Even if new trade deals manage to cover the full deficit, the unprecedented federal debt will continue to loom. Currently standing at $36.21 trillion, the debt comes with interest payments projected to hit $1.2 trillion in 2025. That works out to $3.3 billion per day. In effect, all of our middle-class income taxes are being spent just to pay interest to bondholders, foreign and domestic.

Interest costs are expected to rise from 9% of federal revenue in 2021 to 23% by 2034, crowding out federal priorities like infrastructure and healthcare. And that assumes bond buyers keep rolling over the debt at current rates. For FY 2025, an estimated $9.2 trillion — fully a quarter of the debt — will come due and need to be refinanced. What if foreign countries, which hold approximately 30% of the debt, decide to invest elsewhere?

The most efficient to fill the trillion dollar hole left in the budget if middle-class income taxes are eliminated might be to take an axe to the trillion dollar interest tab and the federal debt sustaining it. But how?

Even Quantitative Easing Won’t Work to Eliminate the Interest Burden.

Many economists think new rounds of quantitative easing (QE) are necessary, as the only way to keep Treasury interest rates low. QE is a maneuver by which Treasury debt is purchased by the Federal Reserve with newly issued bank reserves. The debt could theoretically be eliminated by having the Fed buy the securities as they come due. Assuming $9.2 trillion in debt maturing annually, the whole debt could be moved onto the books of the Fed in about four years, and since the Fed is required to rebate its profits to the Treasury after deducting its costs, this could theoretically eliminate the interest burden. But there are two wrinkles:

1. The Fed is not allowed to buy federal securities directly from the Treasury. It primarily conducts its open market operations, including QE Treasury purchases, through primary dealers, a select group of large financial institutions designated by the Fed to act as its counterparties in the open market.
2. Ever since 2008, the Fed has been paying interest on the banks’ reserve balances (IORB), which counts in the costs it deducts from the profits it returns to the Treasury. The rate on IORB set by the Fed is 4.4% as of May 2, 2025, while the average interest rate on the federal debt is approximately 3.3% for the fiscal year-to-date 2025.

Thus if the Fed were to buy $9.2 trillion in federal securities this year, it would receive $9.2 trillion × 3.3% in interest but would have to pay IORB on the same $9.2 trillion at 4.4% to the banks, a net loss to the Fed. In effect, the banks would be receiving the interest rather than the Treasury, unless a couple of laws were changed, and changing them would no doubt meet with heavy resistance from the powerful banking lobby.

Why, you may ask, does the Fed feel it needs to pay interest on bank reserves? Good question. It’s a monetary policy tool designed to curb inflation by setting a floor on the fed funds rate, the rate at which banks lend to each other. Since banks won’t lend at rates lower than they can safely earn from the Fed, it’s a way to keep interest rates high. But the result has been that the banks have simply reduced their lending. Why lend to risky local businesses when they can sit back and collect a safe and ample return from the Fed itself?

It’s a controversial windfall to the banks, to support an interest rate that is itself controversial. But the bottom line is that the Fed is not able to bail out the government from its trillion dollar interest tab. What then is to be done?

A Radical Alternative Whose Time Has Come.

Given the president’s predilection for 19th century economics, he could go a bit further back than to President McKinley. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, avoided a crippling national debt by resorting to the funding mechanism of the American colonists: let the government print the money directly, not through a banker-controlled central bank but through the Treasury. The government could buy back its debt with U.S. Notes or “Greenbacks,” as permitted under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) and declared legal by the Supreme Court. These new currencies could then be used to repurchase maturing Treasury securities debt- and interest-free.

Critics will cry “hyperinflation,” arguing that the newly-issued currency would flood the economy, spiking demand and prices. But if new money is directed to productive investments — for example infrastructure, energy, and healthcare — supply and demand will rise together, stabilizing prices. The Chinese demonstrated this in the 25 years from 1996 to 2025, when their domestic money supply was inflated from 4,840 CNY (Chinese yuan) to 320,526 CNY, or by 5500%; yet the price level remained stable and low. For a fuller explanation with data, see my earlier article here.

To ensure that the Greenbacks finance growth, a national infrastructure bank could channel funds into projects such as affordable housing, high-speed rail, broadband, the power grid and large water and transportation projects. China is again the modern model. It has three giant “policy banks” assigned to implement the policies of the government, including China Development Bank, the world’s largest infrastructure and development bank. A U.S. version could prioritize projects with high economic returns, vetted by transparent, DOGE-like algorithms to prevent waste and cronyism.

We desperately need infrastructure funding, and the current federal budget has no room to adequately address those needs. A viable proposal for a national infrastructure bank, H.R. 4052, currently has 47 cosponsors. The bank would use off-budget financing on the model of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the federal financial agency that rebuilt the country’s infrastructure during the banking crisis of the 1930s. For more information, see the NIB Coalition website.

For state and city governments, public banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota could address local infrastructure needs. See my earlier article here and the Public Banking Institute website.

Prosperity Without Debt.

It has been argued that “just printing the money” would jeopardize the federal government’s credit rating. Perhaps, but we wouldn’t need credit if we could create our own, debt-free. To repeat an editorial directed against Lincoln’s debt-free Greenbacks attributed to the 1865 London Times, which may be apocryphal but nevertheless demonstrates the possibilities:

“If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

Lincoln’s Greenback policy was indeed destroyed, along with the president who dared to implement it. But the U.S. government is powerful enough today to pull that “mischievous financial policy” off. A Greenback-funded debt buyback could offer a way to pay down debt without interest costs, while spurring growth through targeted investments monitored through a national infrastructure bank and local public banks to absorb demand productively. In several years, the whole $1.2 trillion interest tab could be slashed from the budget, making our trillion dollar middle-class income tax payments that barely cover that expense unnecessary.

The full budget could even be funded with Treasury-issued Greenbacks, eliminating the need for taxes at all. DOGE has demonstrated the possibilities for monitoring the government’s expenditures transparently and accountably with artificial intelligence. And as AI progressively replaces jobs, the government will need some form of universal basic income to supplement or replace worker salaries, perhaps “Social Security for All.”

Granted, that raises new issues around the privacy and programmability of a government-issued digital currency. But as Cornell Prof. Robert Hockett argues in his book, The Citizens’ Ledger, these can be overcome with cryptographic protections. For people leery of digital government-issued dollars, the Treasury could exercise its constitutional power to issue coins and paper dollar bills. Those are all complicated issues for another article, but the possibilities are provocative. We can escape the debt trap engineered by a private banking system that creates money as debt at interest – and escape the middle-class income taxes paying for that interest – by returning the sovereign power to issue money to the Treasury.

First published on Scheerpost..com.

Shared via Creative Commons.

—

Posted on May 5, 2022 by Ellen Brown

We have a serious debt problem, but solutions such as the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” are not the future we want. It’s time to think outside the box for some new solutions.

In ancient Mesopotamia, it was called a Jubilee. When debts at interest grew too high to be repaid, the slate was wiped clean. Debts were forgiven, the debtors’ prisons were opened, and the serfs returned to work their plots of land. This could be done because the king was the representative of the gods who were said to own the land, and thus was the creditor to whom the debts were owed. The same policy was advocated in the Book of Leviticus, though it is unclear to what extent this biblical Jubilee was implemented.

That sort of across-the-board debt forgiveness can’t be done today because most of the creditors are private lenders. Banks, landlords and pension fund investors would go bankrupt if their contractual rights to repayment were simply wiped out. But we do have a serious debt problem, and it is largely structural. Governments have delegated the power to create money to private banks, which create most of the circulating money supply as debt at interest. They create the principal but not the interest, so more money must be repaid than was created in the original loan. Debt thus grows faster than the money supply, as seen in the chart from WorkableEconomics.com below. Debt grows until it cannot be repaid, when the board is cleared by some form of market crash such as the 2008 financial crisis, typically widening the wealth gap on the way down.

---

---

Today the remedy for an unsustainable debt buildup is called a “reset.” Far short of a Jubilee, such resets are necessary every few decades. Acceptance of a currency is based on trust, and a “currency reset” changes the backing of the currency to restore that trust when it has failed. In the 20th century, major currency resets occurred in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was instituted following a major banking crisis; in 1933 following another catastrophic banking crisis, when the dollar was taken off the gold standard domestically and deposits were federally insured; in 1944, at the Bretton Woods Conference concluding World War II, when the US dollar backed by gold was made the reserve currency for global trade; and in 1974, when the US finalized a deal with the OPEC countries to sell their oil only in US dollars, effectively “backing” the dollar with oil after Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard internationally in 1971. Central bank manipulations are also a form of reset, intended to restore faith in the currency or the banks; e.g. when Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised the interest rate on fed funds to 20% in 1980, and when the Fed bailed out Wall Street banks following the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09 with quantitative easing.

But quantitative easing did not fix the debt buildup, which today has again reached unsustainable levels. According to Truth in Accounting, as of March 2022 the US federal government has a cumulative debt burden of $133.38 trillion, including unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises; and some countries are in even worse shape. Former investment banker Leslie Manookian stated in grand jury testimony that European countries have 44 trillion euros in unfunded pensions, and there is no source of funds to meet these obligations. There is virtually no European bond market, due to negative interest rates. The only alternative is to default. The concern is that when people realize that the social security and pension systems they have paid into for their entire working lives are bankrupt, they will take to the streets and chaos will reign.

Hence the need for another reset. Private creditors, however, want a reset that leaves them in control. Today a new sort of reset is setting off alarm bells, one that goes far beyond restoring the stability of the currency. The “Great Reset” being driven forward by the World Economic Forum would lock the world into a form of technocratic feudalism.

The WEF is that elite group of businessmen, politicians and academics that meets in Davos, Switzerland, every January. The Great Reset was the theme of its (virtual) 2021 Summit, based on a July 2020 book titled Covid-19: The Great Reset co-authored by WEF founder Klaus Schwab. Some of the WEF’s proposals are summarized in a video on its website titled “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” The first prediction is, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. Whatever you want you’ll rent. And it will be delivered by drone.”

Schwab’s proposal would reset more than the currency. At a virtual meeting in June 2020, he said, “We need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” But as talk show host Kim Iversen observes, the proposed solution is more capitalism by a new name: “stakeholder capitalism,” where ownership will be with corporate stakeholders. You will have an account with the central bank and a mandatory federal digital ID. You will receive a welfare payment in the form of a marginally adequate basic income – so long as you maintain a proper social credit score. Your central bank digital currency will be “programmable” – rationed, controlled, and canceled if you get out of line or disagree with the official narrative. You will be kept happy with computer games and drugs.

According to WEF speaker and author Prof. Yuval Harari, “Covid is critical, because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize total biometric surveillance…. We need not just to monitor people, we need to monitor what’s happening under the skin.”

Harari is aware of the dangers of digital dictatorships. He said at a pre-Covid Davos presentation in January 2020:

In Davos we hear so much about the enormous promises of technology – and these promises are certainly real. But technology might also disrupt human society and the very meaning of human life in numerous ways, ranging from the creation of a global useless class to the rise of data colonialism and of digital dictatorships.…

We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls – we are now hackable animals. … [I]f this power falls into the hands of a twenty-first century Stalin, the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in human history…

In the not-so-distant future, … algorithms might tell us where to work and who to marry, and also decide whether to hire us for a job, whether to give us a loan, and whether the central bank should raise the interest rate….

What will be the meaning of human life, when most decisions are taken by algorithms?

Clearing the Chessboard by Controlled Economic Demolition?

Before the game can be reset, the board must be cleared. What would make the population accept giving up their private property, surviving on a marginal basic income, and submitting to constant surveillance, internal and external?

The global pandemic and the lockdowns that followed have gone far toward achieving that result. Lockdowns not only eliminated smaller business competitors but drove up the debts of small countries, forcing them to increase their loans from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF is notorious for onerous loan terms, including imposing strict austerity measures, relinquishing control of natural resources, and marching in “lockstep” with pandemic restrictions.

In a June 2020 article on the blog of the IMF titled “From Great Lockdown To Great Transformation,” IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva called the global policy response to the 2020 crisis the “Great Lockdown.” She is quoted as saying to the US Chamber of Commerce:

We call the current period ‘the Great Lockdown’ because we are fighting a health emergency by bringing production and consumption to a standstill….

In March, around one hundred billion dollars left emerging markets and developing countries—three times more than during the global financial crisis.

But in April and May—thanks to this massive injection of liquidity in advanced economies—some emerging markets were able to go back to the markets and issue bonds with competitive yields, with total issuance of around seventy-seven billion dollars. This is almost three and a half times as much as in the same two months last year. [Italics added.]

In other words, by bringing production and consumption to a standstill, the Great Lockdown had already, by June 2020, managed to strip emerging markets of $100 billion in additional assets and to lock them into $77 billion in new debt.

That helps explain why so many countries acquiesced to the Great Lockdown so quickly, even when some had only a handful of Covid-19 deaths. Lockdown was apparently a “conditionality” required for getting an IMF loan. At least that was true for Belarus, which rejected the offer. Said Belarus’ President:

We hear the demands … to model our coronavirus response on that of Italy. I do not want to see the Italian situation to be repeated in Belarus. We have our own country and our own situation. … [T]he IMF continues to demand from us quarantine measures, isolation, a curfew. This is nonsense. We will not dance to anyone’s tune.

Unlike Belarus, most countries acquiesced, and so did households and businesses locked into the debt trap by an economy in which production and consumption were brought to a standstill. Like most emerging economies, they acquiesced to whatever terms were imposed for returning to “normal.”

The lockdowns have now been lifted in most places, but the debt trap is about to snap shut. A moratorium on U.S. rents and student debt is due to come to an end, and cumulative arrears may need to be paid. Debtors unable to meet that burden could be out in the street, joining the “useless class” described by Prof. Harari. They may be forced into accepting the technocratic feudalism of the WEF Great Reset, but is not the sort of future most people want. However, what are the alternatives?

A Eurasian Jubilee?

For sovereign debt (the debt of national governments), a form of jubilee is envisioned by Sergei Glazyev in conjunction with the alternative monetary system currently being designed by the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), detailed in my last article here. Glazyev is the Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasia Economic Commission, the regulatory body of the EAEU. An article in The Cradle titled “Russia’s Sergey Glazyev Introduces the New Global Financial System” is headlined:

The world’s new monetary system, underpinned by a digital currency, will be backed by a basket of new foreign currencies and natural resources. And it will liberate the Global South from both western debt and IMF-induced austerity.

The article quotes Glazyev as stating:

Transition to the new world economic order will likely be accompanied by systematic refusal to honor obligations in dollars, euro, pound, and yen. In this respect, it will be no different from the example set by the countries issuing these currencies who thought it appropriate to steal foreign exchange reserves of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, and Russia to the tune of trillions of dollars. Since the US, Britain, EU, and Japan refused to honor their obligations and confiscated wealth of other nations which was held in their currencies, why should other countries be obliged to pay them back and to service their loans?

In any case, participation in the new economic system will not be constrained by the obligations in the old one. Countries of the Global South can be full participants of the new system regardless of their accumulated debts in dollars, euro, pound, and yen. Even if they were to default on their obligations in those currencies, this would have no bearing on their credit rating in the new financial system. Nationalization of extraction industry, likewise, would not cause a disruption. Further, should these countries reserve a portion of their natural resources for the backing of the new economic system, their respective weight in the currency basket of the new monetary unit would increase accordingly, providing that nation with larger currency reserves and credit capacity. In addition, bilateral swap lines with trading partner countries would provide them with adequate financing for co-investments and trade financing.

That may largely eliminate the sovereign debt overhang in the EAEU member countries, but what of the United States and other Western countries that are unlikely to join? Some innovative possibilities will be covered in Part 2 of this piece. Stay tuned.

Originally published on Web of Debt.

---

This article was first posted on ScheerPost. Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. 

Note:  Follow the link to the Scheerpost posting of this article and read the submitted comments listed below it for some very interesting ideas and alternative scenarios to The Great Reset.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License