-18 votes

What about an asset tax instead?

What if we had an asset tax to replace all other taxes?

The total wealth of the US is $300 trillion and a 1% yearly tax on it would cover the current budget of $3 trillion.

There would be no other taxes. No property tax, sales tax, duties, tariffs, nor the most dreaded tax of all: the income tax.

Taxes would be on net worth. If someone is in debt they don't have to pay any taxes which gives them a chance to catch up.

A startup that borrows to buy it's equipment would also pay no taxes since it's net worth would also be zero.

Taxes of course are never ideal but to avoid income tax, this seems like a better plan.

What do you all think?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am always against theft..

But the thought of all these Federal Reserve discount window welfare queens getting pwnd is funny to me.

Spending tax


http://youtu.be/tyv9uOozi7g

“Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a central bank, and he can rob a country and the world.”
www.dailypaul.com/donate

Horrible idea.

I bet it is real attractive to someone who doesn't have many assets. Taxes are the best way to ensure the people will never have many assets.

How about they STOP SPENDING? Just a thought.

We will not all fall over and die without the government. Really, it is true.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

Sounds like a great idea

as long as it's voluntary.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Once again the lack of

Once again the lack of understanding of what constitutes liberty, all based in property rights, shows itself here at the Daily Chemtrail/911 Truth Paul.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN ME. I OWN ME. I OWN MY PROPERTY AND NO ONE HAS A GREATER CLAIM TO IT THAN I DO.

What's so god damned hard to comprehend? How could you come up with an idea where you NEVER own your property. Can't pay your taxes, say bye bye to everything you own.

Stupid stupid stupid.

How about we eliminate the federal leviathan instead, then they don't need a budget and they don't need to rob us under the threat of force and violence?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I Apologize

You asked an honest question, and several people have shown their preference for ridicule as a tool to win people over to their ideas.

My question would be, is this a one-time tax? The Constitution, if I remember 8th grade correctly, prohibits double taxation, so if you already paid sales tax, you shouldn't have to pay any other tax on the same item. Of course, I haven't looked it up, but I assume we just ignore that prohibition.

Would it be fair? An old person on a fixed income who owns a house they paid for--should they pay more than someone who owns no real estate, leases their cars, and has a very high income?

Morally, is it still theft to take property (money) from someone against their will to give to other people or to blow up in another country?

Typically, one taxes what one wants to discourage. To discourage auto sales, tax autos. To discourage smoking and drinking, tax cigarettes and booze. To discourage eating, tax food. To encourage home-ownership, give a credit for mortgage interest.

What are the consequences of a tax on assets? Especially, on non-productive assets? An asset, such as an assembly-line, would have to produce more than it costs, or it won't be built. Do you want to encourage assets being sent to the land-fill earlier than they are, now?

Keep on thinking: the great thing about Austrian economics is that you can discover it for yourself by posing the type of question you posed, above. To quote AT&T, "It's not complicated." (At least at one level.)

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

User fees and aportioned taxes will do the job

In the United States, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes), this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes).[10]

“Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a central bank, and he can rob a country and the world.”
www.dailypaul.com/donate

I agree Barracuda

The way the constitution was originally written specifically guards the individual from the Federal government. The founders recognized that if you are not allowed to keep the product of your own labor (by making Federal income taxes illegal), then we become nothing more than slaves. This owing to the fact that the primary difference between a slave and a free-man, is a free-man works for his own benefit, whereas the slave works for the benefit of others.

It is true that under such a system, a particular state may choose to implement an income tax. However such a state would find its citizens changing their residency quickly.

I live, and am a PCO in Clark County WA. Following the presidential elections last year, a group of conservative and liberty republicans banded together, ran for PCO, and managed to take over the local party. Since that time we have enacted a number of resolutions, that we are promoting to other conservative/liberty GOP chairs throughout the state and country. One such resolution involves returning to constitutional taxation (apportioned to the states) in order to abolish the IRS.

http://www.abolitiontax.org/

This is the worst idea I have ever heard. My God man!

They already have a version of this tax but your idea is outright criminal. If you own a business the government already makes you pay tax on inventory and on assets and it is the most draconian tax there is.

Now you say that I who have worked all my life to get what I have and live on my paid for property and live off of my hard earned savings should be taxed on a yearly basis because I have something. It is not dependent on how much is spend or how much I make but purely on the fact that I have something. So in the end your form of taxation would wipe me clean simply for existing. You must love the Obamacare mandate then since it mandates we purchase something just because we exist.

Seriously, if I met you and you suggested this tax to my face I would beat the living shit out of you on the spot. You are the problem with this country. My God where do you people come from.

LMAO! you are correct, too.

LMAO! you are correct, too. over time this would transfer all wealth to the government. how wonderful for them.

I find all taxes offensive.

How about eliminating all taxes and if government needs money, let them ask for voluntary contributions. That way we will get the amount of government we are willing to support, not the amount that we are forced to pay for. It works for charities, and it would work for government.

Among suggestions for tax reform, I find this one particularly weak because of the impracticality of determining values of assets. Is the originator of this thread an appraiser trying to increase his business?

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

And while we're dreaming,

wouldn't it be neat if we could not only choose whether or not to give money to the government, but could decide to which specific programs the money would go?

Absurd! It couldn't possibly work! Giving people what they want at a price they're willing to pay? I mean, you think you can run government like a grocery store or something? It wouldn't be a government any more, if it couldn't boss you around and take your money.

Hey . . .

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Lots of lovely arguments for and against this

and lots more that don't justify the very existence of a given tax.

How about we tax LIEs? Not falsehoods, although that would be fun, but Leveraged Investment Earned or Leveraged Income Earned. Basically, if you use borrowed money to multiply it, you pay a tax. This means that anything productive and saved/asset based wouldn't get taxed while activities like fractional reserve banking, high finance things like shorting or derivatives and even money printing by the FED would get taxed.

The justification is that since these activities aren't productive and instead create money from nothing (inflationary), they deserve to pay for profit to compensate for the losses imposed on the productive and the savers.

Looking at the numbers just roughly, a 1% tax on the $1.5 quadrillion derivative market would pay off the national debt in 1 year and a 0.1% tax would keep it paid off each following year.

Downvotes without any explanation?

Sounds like people can't read past the first line.

at first glance it sounds

at first glance it sounds nice but the problem is where would the government get the jurisdiction to seize a percentage of profits from a particular segment of the economy like that? if they had that much authority, they would shortly expand it into every other segment. I still think the existing constitutional limitations on taxation are adequate but we have to restore private property rights. The real problems behind our current system are that we don't hold true title to ANYTHING. Since all title is held in the state, they can tax us on anything and everything since we are using or leasing the state's property. any discussion of new tax systems that don't restore private property rights is just urinating into the wind.

Did you miss the part where it only taxes the creation of money?

When fractional reserve banking is used, it creates money. That's a function reserved via the Constitution for congress only. To my way of thinking, this means that it should not be allowed at all, but if they want to delegate it out, then they should have the sole ability to regulate how much money is created (or how much is returned from the process). In actuality, it's not only FRB process that "creates" money, any other leveraged investment creates it as well.

All other taxes are not constitutional and should be ended but since we're no longer an export country (other than debt), how could we fund any government at all? That's what led me to going after those who inflated the money supply (mainly the FED and other banks) Lastly, in looking at the full process, even derivatives and other CDS/naked short type deals are in the same category.

The thing in common with all these is leverage being used to gain from an investment. The vast majority of people will never make a leveraged profit so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I'm sorry...

Did you say ass hat tax? That might work.

now that's funny!

now that's funny!

how about a "Stupid" tax

the more stupid you are the more you pay.

oops, you might be in a high tax bracket with this asset tax idea

.

guess you love income tax then. Enjoy it. Cause you got it and won't consider something else.

They've already got that one.

State lotteries.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

How do you measure stupid?

Maybe a flat tax would be better. The flatter one's chest the less your tax.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

State Lotteries?

Every ticket's a winner!
..for the mob what runs the racket!

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Oh man you beat me to the

Oh man you beat me to the punch...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

in my "real" life...

..that is, paying the rent and keeping kitty in kibble, I'm into drugs, gambling, and extortion. That is, I work retail and sell beer, cigarettes, LOTS of lottery tickets to starry eyed statist optimists ("I'm heppin edge-occasion"), and of course, collect sales taxes on qualified purchases. Sadly, i am intimately acquainted with the (Ohio) state lottery scene. Sad fools coming up to the counter with their candy and soda pop asking, "Y'all take EBT?" When I answer that we DON'T, they sigh, pull out cash, and in addition to the "food items" also purchase alcohol, nicotine, and scratch-offs. They "can't" afford to feed themselves, but somehow WE'RE on the hook for their hobbies.

Poor example: what my dad said about Adlai Stevenson: "He had the thinking man's vote, but it takes a majority to win."

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Consider a few examples

Consider the case of a farmer whose net worth, in terms of the value of the land they own, is fairly high, but whose annual income is pretty low. This is typical of many family farms.

Similarly, a widow with significant equity in the house she and her husband owned for forty years, now living on small retirement income.

How about a thirty year old banker who makes a high salary for managing a portfolio of derivatives or some such, whose net worth is zero or even negative because he's in a big house with a big mortgage and little equity, and the rest of his income goes into car payments on a car he can't really afford, country club dues, fancy dinners, maybe cocaine, etc. This is a lot more common that you'd think.

How about someone who has been diligently socking away as much as they could save each month, living frugally but paying off a mortgage, investing in some rental property, etc.. They're the "millionaire next door" you hear about. They spend very little, and don't necessarily have much income, but they're well-prepared to weather an economic downturn, to pay for their own retirement, and to leave something to their kids, because of the net worth they've accumulated.

What about assets that are hard to assign objective values to, like jewelry and artwork? Would there be official IRS appraisers who get to decide what that piece by German Expressionist painter Heinrich Campendonk you bought a few years back is worth today? What about assets that are leased, rather than owned? (Or would you tax those assets at the corporation level?)

I think it would be a mess, impossible to define fairly, a goldmine for lawyers and accountants who create complicated ownership structures to get around whatever definitions are used, and in some ways completely backwards in terms of what behaviors it rewards with low taxes and what it punishes with high taxes. Oh, and it gives the government a greater incentive to track down and monitor ownership of precious metals, and to make unreported ownership of gold and silver a tax evasion crime.

Just for starters.

facepalm

tax me on my net worth? ok, what is my net worth?
I say my net worth is $1...what do you say it is?
and prove it.

I mean really, do you have to look any farther than
the current state of affairs to see the end result?

half of the tax payers will be under-reporting or opting
out altogether and the other half will labor on until
they finally realize that it's not worth it anymore.
you know, like Atlas shrugging...

and none of this even comes close to dealing with the
immorality of it all and property rights.
May I recommend Bastiat?

ps
one final thought...who would want to own anything? what incentive
would you have to save and invest? once the tax rate rose above a certain threshold most would spend their income on consumable goods and services. Think blow and hookers, but it would be a smashing good time, wouldn't it?

The only logical tax, to me,

is a land tax, by area, that pays for the collective defense of the country. If I own 5% of the United States' collectively defended land, I should pay roughly 5% of the cost to defend it.

Harder-to-defend places like Hawaii might pay a higher tax to live there under the protection of their countrymen.

This could also provide for tax/defense free zones for those who wish to self-insure, so to speak.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

The romans tried an asset tax...

It didn't end well. Will humanity ever break out of this cycle of doing the same stupid things over and over? It's all so predictable. I know how this ends if we continue the cycle... in tears and more broken lives.

.

Did you miss the part where Ron Paul says the worst tax is income tax because it actively punishes working?

Since this plan has no income tax is it not an improvement?