-28 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?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Very good idea

Zombies don't tire.

Sorry about that.


"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

How about an asset sale instead?

The sale of all government land?

Worked great for Russia

Worked great for Russia

Taxing people for just having something.

Most states already do that and it is called a property tax. Most business are already taxed that way and it is called an inventory tax. Most counties already want to tax your possessions in your house. That is the WORST tax their is. It is even worse than the income tax.

Let me say that again. IT IS WORSE THAN THE INCOME TAX.

I have a shirt on my back and you want me to pay tax on it every year that I have that shirt just because I have it. So much for any reason to ever try to better yourself.

Your proposal reminds me of Obamacare which taxes me just for being alive.

Less bad, sure...

..but as you've already conceded, still not ideal.

Advantages: least destructive of productive activity, REALLY EASY to hide gold and silver, and an accounting nightmare for the collectors.

Super DISADVANTAGE: Abrogates the Fourth Amendment. Asset Revenue Service Enhanced Home Operations Law Enforcement Squads (or ARSEHOLES) would pretty much have "probable cause" to believe EVERYBODY is hiding SOMETHING.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america


It isn't "less bad". It is the opposite of that... it is actually worse than an income tax.

Not to mention

that your tax is actually a punishment on those who do better in life.

HEY! If you don't stop being so successful we're going to take more of what you've earned!

Why don't you start with asking why does the feds need so much

answer: they don't

solution: end the income tax and replace with nothing

result: a small, limited government without the resources to cause so much mischief around the world and tyranny at home.

You do know that the income tax is only about 1/3 of the federal governments revenue. Right?


Pre Civil War the total rate of taxation, City, State and Federal never rose above 6.5%.

So why are we now at 65% effective taxation rate.

Production per man hour of labor is much greater now than at the time of the Civil War, so the % of production required to run the government should have been falling not rising, and falling dramatically 10 to 100 fold.

0.5% taxation rate.

I wonder how productive and free we could be at that rate of taxation? And that I believe is the point.

The purpose of taxation and wars is not to run the government or make "them" richer. It is to make "us" poorer and less free.

If we were truly free to express our full potential solving the ultimate problem facing humanity would be trivial.

That is of course managing the incorrigible sociopath/pschopath ie criminally insane.

What if someone had no debts,

What if someone had no debts, was able to grow their assets over the course of years... and then one day lost their job? Or decided to retire? Would gov then be able to consume it all via taxation? Surely this person would need to start selling 1% of their assets per year in order to be able to satisfy the government's hunger for that which is not theirs.

Maybe it would be better to tax spending. If someone is spending it basically means that they can afford to spend. Because someone who cannot afford to spend has no money to spend at all. Not sure if this is a good idea but just a thought to consider.


thought about it

I've thought about this one before. How would you stop the multimillionaire who also has multi- million dollar debt (e.g., a mortgage on a $10 million property) from paying $0 in taxes.

An asset tax would be so easy to fake at tax time for those with limited knowledge of accounting.

This is bigger than any individual


They'd still be above water on that property. Just because someone has a mortgage doesn't mean they have no assets. Good luck buying that prop without 20% down - that's the point of the down payment.

If you owe 100k on a prop worth 200k then you own an asset worth 100k. If you went renting and sold your prop you'd pocket 100k.

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

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.


Liberty = Responsibility

Sounds like a great idea

as long as it's voluntary.


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.


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]

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.


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 by Larken Rose

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.