-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.

Look at it realistically, not

Look at it realistically, not from a philosophical perspective. Realistically, we will NEVER see a United States free of all taxation, barring top-to-bottom collapse and that is simply wishful thinking.

Philosophically I'm right there with you. I hate taxes and I never vote for taxes, but we will never live in a world without extortion of one kind or another. That's how pack mentality (predator/prey) works.

Not with that kind of attitude...

If the problem you identify is pack mentality, joining the pack is only hurting your cause.

In case you hadn't noticed

In case you hadn't noticed friend, "the pack" already runs things. You don't have to be a collectivist to know it when you see it.

I'm not disputing that. I'm

I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying joining "the pack" doesn't help, in fact it perpetuates the problem.

The laying and collecting of

The laying and collecting of taxes is currently a Constitutionally allowed function of the Federal government. You or I may not "like" that, but it is a fact.


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

ok, I think we have correctly identified the problem:


Organizing a different formula for calculating how much to steal from each person doesn't fix the problem.

Removing the power of the Congress to lay and collect taxes does fix the problem.

The Fair Tax is an oxymoron, no different than trying to say Fair Theft.

Velveeta seems to be the consistency of your spine

Don't be offended, though. The average U.S. military man and the average man in U.S. intelligence has just as soft and cheesy a spine, no harder than the average American couch potato. That's why the New World Order is destined to lose.

Personal attacks are

Personal attacks are unbecoming to the credibility of your argument. Make your point by addressing the issue. You don't know me. I don't know you. There is no need to be an asshole.

I stand up to the status quo, not bow down to it

I actually like your moniker. I assumed by your defense of the 16th Amendment that you are on the payroll of Uncle Sam or an NGO. Perhaps, you have simply been brainwashed by NGOs like the rest of us have been all our lives. The 16th and 17th Amendments must be repealed. Anybody who defends them is an a**hole, to use your word. All personal income, sales, property, and estate taxes must be permanently abolished. The Founding Fathers intended that tariffs be the primary means of funding the federal government. Tariffs therefore need to be reinstated. The only 2 historical reasons for the imposition of the income tax was to pay for war (the Civil War) and to pay for tariff reductions. So, we must bring all the troops home and stop all foreign military entanglements. Then, the income tax can be eliminated without the need to replace it with another tax.

Before you can justify any

Before you can justify any specific tax, you have to justify the concept of taxation, itself, which has never been shown, only assumed. Also, the total amount of taxes that are stolen from us matters infinitely more than HOW we are robbed. The gov't being able to pay for all of it's "plans" would mean poverty for us people, so piling on debt is the only way they can give handouts now and still get elected 4 years later. Any time horizon longer than that, and they are screwed anyway. However.....

Yes, great plan if your goal is to entice people to abandon their property, and live purely on credit with no savings/investment OR cash balances. I can only imagine the horrific boom/bust cycles resulting from the large discrepancy between "market" and natural interest rates.

Of course, the right-wingers would probably support socialism, just to get out of their asset tax. if the gov't owns everything, there are no assets to tax.

Any wealth that a person wanted to accumulate would have to be stored outside of the country, causing extreme capital consumption domestically. Maybe it would allow prejudice/racist people to finally see why protectionism is a cruel joke from pre-economic history, Iunno.

Remember, an idea is only good if you desire it's results. Taxing decreases standard of living, reduces capital, lowers production, mis-allocates resources, leaves fewer wants satisfied, pushes those just above subsistence BELOW subsistence(IOW starve to death), and pushes the consumption/savings ratio toward the consumption side, and introduces calculational chaos into our lives.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

why not???

because it's stealing.

because in order to make it work you are going to have to report to the government all your assets.

but mainly because it's stealing. It's immoral to steal you know.

You lost me at


No taxes, period. Just

No taxes, period. Just tariffs on imported goods.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

just stop after the period.

just stop after the period. We don't need to penalize free trade.

We don't need to trade freely

We don't need to trade freely between nations. There is nothing wrong with exporting for free, but importing for free just encourages moving industry offshore. Only domestic goods should be freely-traded.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

A tax on imports is a tax on exports.

That is why it is called "trade." Exporters do not ship things to other countries for free. They expect to get something in return.

The use of the import tariff as an economic tool instead of just a way to collect revenue goes back to 1816 when Northern protectionism got the first protective tariff through Congress to protect manufacturers from European competition. The international trading planters of the South ended up paying all of the taxes while the domestic manufacturers got to keep their prices high and product quality low.

An attempt to really jack the tax up in 1828 nearly caused the break-up of the Union. That finally happened in 1861 when it was jacked again and the cotton-exporting states seceded. Lincoln had to go to war in order to be able to collect the tax.

Look at the Confederate Constitution. It limited the collection of the tariff to revenue needs only; It could not be used as a tool to favor one part of the economy over another. The use of tax revenue could not be put to internal improvements except to maintain the ports where the tariff was collected.

Lincoln wanted the revenue to build the transcontinental railroad in the North while letting the cotton-exporting South pay for it.

Government, if it should exist at all, should run on charity donations.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

A tax on imports is not a tax

A tax on imports is not a tax on exports. If there was no government you would be damn sure that there would be insane premiums for imported goods. Then you would be crying for someone to stop them.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Woah!!! Maybe tax exports,

Woah!!! Maybe tax exports, but NOT imports. I'll ignore the fact that national boundaries are arbitrary and POLITICAL, not economic boundaries(IOW have nothing to do with allocating scarce resource to their most beneficial ends). If there were no monopoly on violence, no one could tell the difference between trading with a china man or trading with the family across the street, not even a conservative(unless skin color or accent was noticeably different, lol).

Taxing imports means that WE have to pay %100 of the tax ourselves!!! At least with an export tax the foreigners pay some of the direct costs.

Of course, either will lower the standard of living at home AND abroad, simply because taxes are imputed backwards to land and labor(NOT forward to the customer).....

.... But what sense does it make to cause the American people to suffer ALL of the direct costs? For the "privilege" of working harder to pay more for the same stuff?

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

What??? Why would you tax

What??? Why would you tax exports but not imports? That would most certainly be bad for industry here. Having no borders in the world makes zero sense. If there are no borders for nations, then there should be no borders for your property (no nations, no property). Taxing imports means that we live on what we produce here. We are perfectly capable of sustaining ourselves as a country.

If you want some exotic tropical fruit, then you should build a greenhouse, pay more for it to be imported, or move to its native country. If you want some import car, then you should pay more for it. That's traditionally how any prosperous nation works.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Why, you ask? I answered that

Why, you ask? I answered that in the above post: so the foreigners pay for some of the direct costs.

To equate "national" borders to private property is called "conceptual realism". It is a logic fallacy wherein you pretend that imaginary constructs are real entities separate(and usually above) from the individuals who imagine them. The border on your property signifies where YOUR authority stops. You see, national borders can be drawn anywhere, because there is no logical, objective way to determine them. OTOH, your property consists of the things you have put labor into, and get some sort of satisfaction out of. Ever homesteaded, bought, leased, of been gifted a harbor? If not not, then it ain't yours, or "ours".

Feel free to tax or boycott all items produced off of your property, if you insist that protectionism does something, ANYTHING good for you. If living on what you can produce at home is so great, then stop shopping. That isn't called prosperity, though. It's called subsistence level barbarism.

If I want tropical fruit, IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!..... However, I'll exchange something I have produced for it. And here's the kicker: You'll have to put a gun to my head to stop me, you violence sociopath, you.

BTW, a monopoly price ALWAYS benefits a specific industry, which is the DIRECT affect of tariffs, licensing, regulations, prohibitions, and subsidies. Of course, giving an industry money without that same industry supplying a useful, competitive product is the POINT(acknowledged even by you) of restricting trade, no matter the method used. Are you a fan of gov't privilege and corporate welfare? I'm not.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

More nonsense I see. A world

More nonsense I see. A world without borders is insanity. It's a utopian dream of the fool.

How are tariffs protectionism? Why should we import goods from countries that are able to produce for cheap because of immoral reasons rather than just make the shit here.

I didn't say your fruit was my business. The point is, if you want something foreign and are too lazy to grow it yourself, or to buy it domestically from someone who can produce it, you should pay a hefty price for it.

Who said anything about lack of competition? What makes you think that if there were tariffs on imports that it would kill competition here? I guess your idea of competition is foreign underage sweatshops versus dignified middle class workers here.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

How are tariffs

How are tariffs protectionism? By definition, of course. You are thinking that tariffs will(brace yourself) PROTECT domestic business form "cheap slave labor" of foreign manufacturers.

Look, I'm willing to admit that a person MIGHT desire the results of protective economic policies. I'm sure there are people in this world with strong ascetic principles, people with strong prejudice toward others, and even people that hate the poor.

I'm not willing to let any of those people appear to have the moral high-ground. I'm also not going to let someone pretend like protective economic policies do anything but lower our standard of living.

Protective economic policies are pure evil. They are so obviously flawed that NO ONE would base them on any REAL border, such as the border of your OWN personal property.

You hark about "cheap slave labor", yet you speak against the very thing( the ONLY thing) that can raise their standard of living. You are no champion of the poor.

You speak of workers here, yet you advocate a policy that will allow domestic manufacturers to establish a monopoly price, and cause the paychecks of those very same workers to buy less. You are no champion of the middle class.

You speak of the "sanity" of national borders, yet you ignore the borders around your own property. You have no respect for borders... and no understanding of sanity.

...And to top it all off, you think I should pay you an extortion fee if I want to buy fruit from someone in the tropics, because who the hell knows why!!! Care to explain how you have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with my fruit purchases? You'll get nothing, unless you got the balls to put a gun to my head. I suggest another plan: I'll buy whatever I feel like from whoever I feel like, and if you have a problem with that, TOUGH SHYT!!!

So much for adjectives like "immoral", and "dignified". Your idea resembles nothing that I would equate with either term.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

How would they lower your

How would they lower your standard of living? What's lowering the standard of living is imported goods being cheaper and all of our jobs disappearing. When our country was prosperous, it was cheaper to make something here than to import it.

Where do you get this monopoly nonsense? Why do you think that domestic stuff being cheaper automatically means there won't be domestic companies competing here? History has shown the opposite.

They're tariffs, not taxes. Grown your own fruit here or pay the price. It's simple, and it's not immoral. You have no dignity if you are incapable of producing such items yourself.

You're out of your damn mind.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I was just reading through

I was just reading through our little discussion and notice this little gem. I must have passed right over it early.

LMAO, you said cheap goods are lowering our standard of living. Oh yay, time for a little reductio ad absurnum!!!

/start sarcasm

Imagine how poor we would be if manna flowed from heaven.

Imagine the impoverishment and destitution that would result from having everything we could possibly want for free.

Heaven must be simply unbearable!!!

Come to think of it, why did we waste so much on transportation technology? if we blew the ships, planes, trains, roads, bridges, etc., up we wouldn't need the gov't to protect our jobs from Chinese rice farmers anymore. We would just have to find something to waste the money saved on something we don't want before Utopia is lost forever.

Peace is war. No is yes. Starvation is Luxury. Freedom is slavery. Free will is doing what you are told.

/end sarcasm

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

How a tariff lowers your

How a tariff lowers your standard of living? You answered yourself: imported goods being cheaper, how could a tariff NOT lower standard of living.

The idea behind a protective tariff is to make a (admittedly vain) attempt at making imports so expensive to the average American, that he substitutes a domestic product. This creates Supposedly creates artificial demand(demand backed by a gun, rather human satisfaction) without changing the supply, but I'll get to that below. Basic econ 101 reveals that an increase in demand with no change in supply will RAISE the market clearing price of your beloved domestic manufacturer.This is the cause of the monopoly price, but you can call it nonsense if you like.(Of course, ANY price above the price of the Chinese product for a homogenous or substitutable product would be defined as a "monopoly price").

Hell of a way for your "neighbors" to say "thank you", ain't it? The tariff also artificially lowers demand of the hated foreigner, meaning that the foreigner receives fewer American dollars(that can, ultimately, ONLY be invested in American manufacturing, btw). Less investment means less capital, which means less service, the very definition of a lower standard of living, IN AMERICA.

Why do you think domestic stuff will be cheaper, when, as you say, history(and economic law) has shown the opposite: That when a company uses the gov't to secure income that it can't get voluntarily, it uses that gov't privilege to RAISE prices, not lower them. If they could lower prices so easily, then they could compete with the Chinese!!!

All of this also causes distortion in the structure of production. Money is taken from the Chinese, who are quite efficient at making stuff that we are willing to pay for. That money is then given to people who have a comparative advantage at wielding violence(or courting the favor of those that do). The end result is that the production structure shifts from satisfying YOUR wants, towards better satisfying the gov't's wants, which typically involves buying votes, and consolidating power over people. This creates a FURTHER lowering of your standard of living.

And, lastly, the worker's wage: The price of foreign products can't be raised to cover the losses due to the import tax. Actual demand (ability to pay) doesn't change as a result of the import tax. Neither do the supply of goods, reservation demand of the goods, of people's demand to hold money("hoarding") change. If nothing that affects price changes, then the price will obviously stay the same. The company will have to take the loss itself. It has less to invest in expansion/growth/progress, meaning fewer products in the future.

If it is beneficial for an individual to trade with another, then it is is beneficial for a group of 2 people to trade with another group of 2 people. It is still beneficial if the group grows to 5, to 10, to 100, and even if the groups number in the millions. Of course, the very fact that protectionists always make sure to use a "border" that is as far away from their personal lives as possible. A person would never view their property line as the proper place to start "protecting".

All said, it is utterly retarded, nonsensical, insane, immoral, and just plain sort-sighted to ask some who specializes in violence to "protect" you from a Chinese rice farmer on the other side of the world that makes T-shirts FOR US.

Tariff = tax on imports (puts head in hand)

YOU wouldn't tax your family's "imports", because YOU know that would be a horrible thing to subject your family to. Yet, it's perfectly fine, sane, and moral to subject an entire nation to.... Your own nation? The one filled with people you supposedly care about?

....And you CERTAINLY wouldn't like if China adopted such a "wonderful" plan. Imagine if all of the other countries done the exact same thing.... to "protect" their people from the American Import tax. What a joke!!!

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Reasons for imported goods

Reasons for imported goods being cheaper is because of crap quality and almost zero-wage forced labor.

Get your head out of your ass. History has shown that domestic stuff has been the best quality and the least expensive. Those were in times of basically no regulation here except for taxes on imports. Oh, but I guess there was zero competition. Nevermind (as an example) that there were Chevy, Ford, and Mopar all competing, making some of the greatest cars in history, making a few times more power than cars today and were actually safe and made of metal, and costing only a few thousand bucks.

As I said before, make something yourself, get someone domestic to make it, or pay the import tariff. You're acting like imports are so magical in quality and so much less expensive. Get your head out of your ass. People who pinch pennies instead of supporting one's own economy are a huge problem.

My nephews and niece were selling kool-aid on the corner one day when some asshole drove by and yelled at them about how the economy is suffering and how people should be giving money to places like Wal-Mart. Was that you?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

You don't want to talk about

You don't want to talk about automobile technology with me. You can't hang, I don't care what you do for a living.

The most powerful muscle car engine America ever produced was the 426 Hemi, which made 471 at the crank. (don't give me the "advertised" numbers, I already know them.) The Chevy 454 never made over 390hp at the crank. These numbers were on the dyno, with no A/C, no alternator, no water pump, and custom dyno headers(not in stock trim)

Fast forward a half century, and we have Subaru making 350HP WITH accessories, pollution controls, and 30 MPG. These cars have airbags, crush zones, go through EXTENSIVE crash testing, and are incomparably safer than than any land yacht from the 60s or 70s.

The most powerful production car in America in 1983 was a Toyota Supra. My personal Supra makes enough ponies to split a stock 454 block in two. Hell, my 4-banger talon makes enough juice to rip the front main out of a 350 chevy or a 302 ford. An American engine won't even stay in once piece at the power levels of my toys. You have to buy aftermarket block, made in India and China. Ask me how I know, I dare ya. I grew up in the 90's. Preaching to me about the "superiority" of American cars over Japanese cars will get you laughed at.

...Like I said, no. I'll refuse to pay the tariff until you gather the balls to get violent. I feel safe, though. You won't even bother to read the dictionary.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."


you broke it down pretty good.

Taxing exports is prohibited by the Constitution.

Taxing interstate commerce is also unconstitutional.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

So what? Making the recipient

So what? Making the recipient of a service pay for said service is the moral way, and is the way we all acquire our services. Why make an exception for industries who are too dense to realize that someone else offers a superior service?

And of course, there are foreign manufacturers who ARE superior at producing certain things. The fact that American consumers choose their services over "American made" services is the undeniable, irrefutable proof....

...Unless one thinks that words speak louder than action.

My father can do auto repair, although he isn't as efficient as the mechanic down the road. Should the head of house charge his wife an "import tax" for using the mechanic which is "foreign" to our family?

...And why arbitrarily choose the national border as the limit? Why not the state border, or the county border, or continental borders? After all, your dominion stretches to the end of your property, and no further. Why the "national" border? Conceptual realism?

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."