-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.

We're not talking about

We're not talking about services, we're talking about goods. I don't know why or how anyone could import a service. I highly doubt that it would cheaper to hire a foreign person to do a service here, or to take whatever you need service on and go there.

No ONE person is establishing this tariff thing, so stop talking about borders and acting like an individual is trying to step on your freedoms. DIY, do domestic, or pay the price to import. It's really not that hard.

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

Keep in mind that we're

Keep in mind that we're talking about using violence, guns, and badges to protect ourselves from rice farmers who make T-shirts. We are talking about REPLACING economical ideas with political ideas. We are talking about REPLACING freedom with violence and coercion. Since it is well known that politics is the antithesis and polar opposite to economics, you shouldn't try to make economic sense of politics. The uneconomical effects of politics shouldn't confuse anyone or catch them off guard. A relative drop in the quality of life is EXPECTED.

Anyway, WHY grow fruit myself, when the guy 2 streets over is better? And why would the guy 2 streets over repair his own car when I'm a better mechanic?

Now, you're thinking, "who said anything about the guy 2 streets over?" I don't think you have any problems with me trading my auto repair abilities with the agricultural abilities of the guy 2 streets over.

Now, let's throw in your qualifier: The national border is only 1 street away. The military decided NOT to conquer the next block. See how the border completely changes the entire situation? Cuz I don't.

How to import a service: A guy, or group of guys, in Japan build a car. I buy the car. I have hired these men to perform a service, namelt that of building me a car. Another group of guys puts the car on a ship, and sends to me. I buy their service, namely the service of transporting my car. The labor services of these men have been imported into my total stock of assets. I get all of the benefits of labor in china right here in good ol' America. And now, instead of giving my money to gov't motors, I save money, get a better car....... AND use the money I saved to support a local AMERICAN OWNED diner. By ignoring your "border", I can have a car, and dinner, instead of just the car. What a miracle!!!

ALL exchange is consists of an imported service AND an exported service. You exchange your service for his service. If you try to stop the imports, guess what happens to exports?

As I have said in other posts, you never want that "border" anywhere near your house. Not your own property, not your family's property, not the street you live on, or the neighborhood you live in, not your town, or your state. No, no, you want that border to be as far away as possible, preferably at the "frontier of civilization".

Why do you not respond to that specific rebuttal? Why do you want such a "good" idea to affect you as little as possible. Well, the same reason that no one wants to drop the grenade: You know what will happen.

"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."

This is not freaking

This is not freaking political. There's a national border. Bam.

If you buy a car you have not bought a service, you bought a good. Services don't produce anything.

Where do you get this crap that a tariff on imports will make exports stop?

I don't respond to specific rebuttals because your posts are too long and rambling and too hard to read. Get to the damn point and be terse, or I will ignore it.

What I am talking about made our country prosper. What you're talking about has made our country bankrupt.

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

Sure I can respond like a

Sure I can respond like a neandrathal with limited vocabulary:

How the FuQ are the Chinese supposed the pay for the Fuqn exports if they never sell anything, smarta$$? They need american dollars to buy american shyt, retard.

Why the fuQ would someone buy are car if it doesn't provide the service of easy transportation?

Why are harping about stupid @$$ ideas that are demolished in CHAPTER FUQN ONE of every economics book EVER WRITTEN?

You have no clue what you are talking about. Which is why you resort to violence.

Oh, you say no violence? Then FuQ off. I'm not paying your stupid FuQn tariff. My supplier says go FuQ yourself as well. I'll keep buying my cheap Chinese knockoffs, and Chinese people will continue making them for me until I find a better deal, or until you gather the balls to physically stop me.

Is that barbarian enough for ya?

"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."

Ooohooo, insults because of

Ooohooo, insults because of the language I use. I must be unintelligent because I swear (even though I do so because I deal with incompetence that would rather read a book and apply it to something that doesn't exist instead of actually observing the world around him)!

What American stuff is the Chinese buying? We buy their stuff. They get our dollars, and they use dollars to buy oil from whoever.

We are not under the laws of economics. Your precious economy textbooks only apply to free, self-regulating markets. Our entire world is under central planning. Grasp this, or stop replying.

I am not resorting to violence. What the FUCK are you talking about?

It's not MY tariff. Where do you get this shit?

Seriously? Where do you get this shit? Look at the fucking world around you. Stop trying to act smart by citing economics and looking like a dumbass when they don't apply because we have centrally-planned economies that work against the laws of economics.

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

Ok, so, I looked around, and

Ok, so, I looked around, and shyt's going down EXACTLY like ALL of my economics books said it would. There is a PERFECT match between economic law and the real world. I only read causal-realist economic books, so that makes perfect sense to me. Why do your ideas have no evidence, yet my ideas are backed by the entire historical record of human existence since the beginning of time?

You are patently wrong once again. Economic law applies at all times, in all situations, and for all SCARCE resources. In fact, you, personally, can't think of a SINGLE instance where economic laws do not apply. Notice that I said YOU PERSONALLY. What I'm saying is you can't prove your statement, AND YOU KNOW IT. I'm accusing you of a purposeful lie. Remember, it only takes a single solitary piece of evidence to prove me wrong. *raspberries*

You can stay confused about what the Chinese buy from us if you insist. Of course, you won't be able to answer this question: Why someone accept American dollars as payment, if those dollars have no value? The answer is, of course, that they do value those dollars. So, here's the next question: What does China's oil supplier plan on doing with those dollars, exactly?

You are also wrong about the content of my economics books. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has an extensive analysis of gov't intervention. In fact, one of my books, "economics in one lesson", available fro FREE, consists ENTIRELY of intervention analysis(central planning is simply a large degree of intervention, and is also included in EVERY SINGLE BOOK). Besides, what use would an economics book be, if it didn't explain how the gov't screws everything up? That's the main friggin point of economic law!!!

You damn good and well that no one is going to pay ANY tax, unless they are forced to, and this includes import taxes(don't get smacked down by the dictionary again). No violence = no tax revenue..... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

EVERY instance of making someone do something they don't want to do involves violence as a matter of necessity.... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

The laws of economics are based upon 2 self-evident axioms, and a single empirical observation. The entire body of human action is deduced from these 3 bases. These bases are:

1. Humans purposefully act.(self-evident axiom)
2. Humans make mistakes.(self-evident axiom)
3. Humans enjoy leisure and dislike labor.(empirical observation)

Since economic laws are deduced, rather than induced, they can ONLY be proven wrong by disproving one of those 3 bases. Economic law does NOT suffer from the problem of induction. Google deduction and induction for yourself(or not).

Of course, you have NO FUCKING CLUE what I'm talking about, because you refuse to use a textbook, a dictionary, common sense, Wikipedia, AND empirical evidence.

The undeniable fact is that if I want tropical fruit, or any import, I owe the owner, and no one else on the entire planet. ANYONE else who thinks I owe them for something that is not theirs is, by definition, a thief and an extortionist.

Besides, thinking that a business needs to be protected from it's own customers is stupid as fuck. I'd like to think that ALL competent humans are more intelligent than this. I don't think you are retarded. I think you are prejudice.

"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."

We value goods BECAUSE OF THE

We value goods BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE THEY PROVIDE. Goods are made by by laboring, which a service.

Individually, I wouldn't pay you squat for the things I buy from places/people you don't like. I would call your bluff. I would buy my product for a price that I and my supplier agree, otherwise known as the FAIR PRICE.... And, if anyone, including you personally, tried to stop me, I would defend my self from your violence, which is an obvious "step on my freedom".

So, who would win? we aren't talking about prosperity, of happy living. By trying to collect an import tax from me, you would reduce the situation to a mindless brute strength competition, a war, might vs. might. Your idea of economic protection makes the women, children, old poor, and disabled would suffer THE MOST. How the hell are these people going to compete with brain-dead muscle heads prone to violence..... And what happens when you get old or sick? In this scenario, do you starve to death, fight to the death, or blow a politician?

There is no way I would EVER volunteer to give you money every time I bought something on the other side of some line you drew in your head, wherever you decide that line is. You will have no other choice but to "step on my rights" if you want to get paid without providing me a SERVICE. Without an angry mob behind you, I would literally punch you in the face before physically removing you from my property if you tried to steal from me, no matter how your try to justify your assault on my freedom.

Protectionism is so flawed it can be attacked from every angle. Even the people that gain in the short run(inefficient producers who can't get you to buy their stuff)lose all of their gains once the distortions are arbitrated away, and conditions approach the new state of equilibrium. Unless you plan on constantly increasing the "protection" over time, domestic manufacturers will still be in the same place as soon as your import tax "wrinkles" are ironed out. Do you think the majority of people will let a minority of inefficient producers rob perpetually?

"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're killing domestic jobs

You're killing domestic jobs if you import stuff we could be making here. The whole point.

WTF violence are you talking about? No one is talking about collecting a tax from you. A tariff is added to the price of the good before you even buy it. A ship pulls into a port, unloads, it's inspected, and an import tariff is paid. It has nothing to do with the individual consumer. You keep acting like some individual is going to come knocking on your door to steal something from you. You're an absolutely delusional weirdo. Go bother someone else.

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

I left out a response to the

I left out a response to the "killing domestic jobs" chimera. Sorry about that, but here it is:

Unemployment is caused by one thing, and one thing alone. Unemployment is a surplus of a good, human labor. Surpluses are caused by a price that is above the equilibrium price, the price where supply and demand are equal. Since it takes labor to produce a good, all goods surpluses are surpluses of labor(ie: labor that no one wants to pay for).

Whatever is killing jobs, it is doing so by keeping wages too high to hire everyone that wants a job. Two that come to mind immediately are unionism and minimum wage laws. Now, I'm not inserting an arbitrary moral judgement here. You might think it moral for workers to get a minimum income. In that case, you shouldn't complain about lost jobs. Increased unemployment is how you know that minimum wage laws are working. The extra income has to come from somewhere, and we already know that it has to come from either labor wages or ground rent. In the case of minimum wage laws, the extra income comes from the pockets of the unemployed.

But that is what unemployment benefits are for, right? Ah, but where does that money come from? From the employed laborers and landlords, of course.... But if artificially heightened wages come from the unemployed, and unemployment benefits come from those that received the higher wages, all minimum wages laws (and unions) can POSSIBLY accomplish is making people hand their newly gotten gains over to the bureaucracy to pay for enforcement.

This leaves no room for you to explain how I, personally, could kill domestic jobs even if I wanted to. I'm not in a union, and I don't support minimum wage laws, therefore unemployment can't be blamed on me, or any freedom loving person.

"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."

The jobs just aren't here.

The jobs just aren't here. It's not like there is tons of manufacturing waiting to go on here, but no one to fill the jobs because the wages are too low. The jobs aren't here. We are undercut by cheap imports and their slave labor, and mexicans working for pennies and living like rats.

Importing only looks good when you have a non-backed fiat currency.

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

Wrong again, sir. There are,

Wrong again, sir.

There are, and will always be, jobs to do, wants to satisfy, and things to make until we reach heaven/utopia. The proof lies in the fact that there are always technological developments that aren't used simply because we don't have the capital saved. There quite literally IS tons of manufacturing waiting for the necessary capital.

You are also wrong about wages being too low (by who's subjective standard?). If either of these were true, we would not have a surplus of workers, otherwise known as unemployment(except voluntary, such as retirement), but a scarcity of workers(econ 101 again).

You see a gap between Chinese wages and American wages for the same labor. In the real world, these gaps are eliminated through arbitration(otherwise known as entrepreneurship). Capital is directed away from the higher priced areas (lowering wages) to the lower priced area (raising wages) until wages equalize.

What's fairer than identical wages for identical jobs? That's not a rhetorical question, btw. You want to maintain this discrepancy, and even make the spread greater with your words, but, OTOH, you use your pay check to narrow the spread. That is what is known as a contradiction.

Importing goods looks good EVERY TIME someone does it voluntarily. In fact, the ONLY reason exchanges take place at all, is because both parties rate the exchange as "good". Why else would a free person, absent of any violent coercion, agree to these trades?

The jobs are here, but the capital keeps flowing into the gov't through taxation, regulation, and protective policies. An import tax would just be MORE capital sucked away from us and wasted by the gov't.

There is no mystery to saving and investing. People do it all of the time.

"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."

The jobs that exist are

The jobs that exist are service jobs, not manufacturing and labor. Manufacturing has moved to China.

Wages are too low. We don't have a surplus of workers? WTF world are you living in? Wages are too low and people are refusing to work crappy service jobs. Manufacturing has moved to China because they make counterfeit goods and have forced slave-wage labor. Unemployment here is close to 30%. Underemployment is pretty much 100%. There is no going into business on your own to make a product here. You're always going to be undercut by someone overseas, because of political policies that make it free to import stuff but not import the money for free. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur. Some people just want to put in 40 their hours working for someone else, to be able to support a middle class family, not have a 30 year mortgage, and be the only spouse working.

Stop making such long posts to try to sound smart. You're just wrong. No one is talking about tariffs on top of all of the taxes we already have. I'm talking about having only import tariffs as revenue. Look at WTF foreign free trade has done, alongside regulations here. Are you fucking blind?

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

Man, your reading

Man, your reading comprehension sucks!!!

A price that is too low causes a SHORTAGE. A price that is too high causes a SURPLUS.

You sure you don't need to read a book? This is all basic high school econ stuff. How do you, an American, not already possess this knowledge?

"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."

Seriously, this shit is

Seriously, this shit is getting old. Just look at the fucking country. THERE ARE NO JOBS AND THE ONES THAT EXIST ARE VERY LOW-PAYING. UNEMPLOYMENT IS REALISTICALLY LIKE 30%. Grasp some common sense and look around you. Don't come on here telling people they need to read a book while ignoring reality. Economic laws only apply in a free market. When everything is controlled by central planning, supply and demand don't matter. The Fed works against them. Sheesh.

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

LMAO!!! Economics applies


Economics applies everywhere you want to...brace yourself... economize your resources. I know, I know, two different words, right? Well, it is the trendy thing to do.

Tell someone from a socialist/fascist/communist worker's paradise that economics doesn't matter under central planning.

"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."

Try to follow me. Countries

Try to follow me. Countries have central banks. They print money and inject it into sectors to work against the fundamental laws of economics. Your precious economics textbooks assume a completely free-market system. These laws do not apply under central planning with mad-men like the Bernanke mafia at the helm.

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

None of my economics books

None of my economics books assume a completely free market...

... Or angels among men, or any infallible "economic man" while we're at it.

SO, they work AGAINST economic laws? Well that's the smartest thing you've said thus far. Explains why they make economizing scarce resource WORSE.

Yeah, a political laws have about the same chances of counteracting the laws of economics as religious laws have of counteracting the laws of physics. Namely, when pigs fly!!!

"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."

Jebus Crikey!!! My god, again

Jebus Crikey!!! My god, again with the "added to the price" crap. I'm tired of rebutting this claim. Read a friggin economics book!!!

It's added to the price, but doesn't affect the consumer? Contradict yourself much?

I've already explained:

- why the import tax CAN'T be added to the price.
- how the tax is SUBTRACTED from income.
- why and how taxes are paid by labor wages and ground rent, NOT the consumer.
- how a tariff let's domestic business rob you, and keeps foreign business from making your life better.
- how import taxes lower standard of living
-why you want the "border " as far away from you as possible
- how the very people who are being "protected"
- how protectionism moves production away from satisfying your wants
- how protectionism moves production toward satisfying the wants of your gov't

.... And I've already explained the violence, but here it is again: You will have to get violent to keep me from laughing in your face, and buying imports anyway.

What more explanation could you possibly want?

I choose the efficient, economical way. You choose violent, political way. My way won't win any elections, and your way won't make anyone's life better. Let's just agree to disagree and follow our own moral compass.

Can we at least agree that any plan that MUST initiate violence is, at the very least, immoral? Can we at least agree that any plan that contradicts itself is, at the very least, delusional?

"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're wrong. The import

You're wrong.

The import TARIFF (stop saying tax) is added to the price through the supplier.

It does not affect your income because no one is forcing you to buy those imported goods.

Import TARIFFS do not lower the standard of living. They were around when we prospered and had a huge and wealthy middle class. Now that everything is imported and cheaply, our country is dying.

Your crap about the borders and protectionism is nonsensical rambling.

Your crap about violence is nonsensical rambling. Not once did I mention anything violent. You keep trying to mention how these tariffs will be some direct tax on what you purchase and that someone is going to come around collecting from you.

What is violent is income tax. Tariffs on imported goods...no one is forcing you to buy them. If you feel it's violent (delusion) to have a tariff on them, then you earned it because you're purposely exposing yourself to the violence.

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

Like I said, read a friggin

Like I said, read a friggin economics book. I suggest refraining from arguing with the dictionary. You make this too easy.

I reject your definition and revert to the common definition of tariff:

tariff [ˈtærɪf]
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy)
a. a tax levied by a government on imports or occasionally exports for purposes of protection, support of the balance of payments, or the raising of revenue
b. a system or list of such taxes

tax [tæks]
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a >>>>COMPULSORY!!!<<< financial contribution imposed by a government to raise revenue, levied on the income or property of persons or organizations, on the production costs or sales prices of goods and services, etc.
2. a heavy demand on something; strain a tax on our resources


I never said anyone was forcing me to buy imports, I do so voluntarily because it makes my life better. You on the other hand, want to FORCE be to buy domestic products. But you said no violence, so I don't know how you plan on FORCING me to do anything? No Violence, you say? Then I ain't friggin paying, period!!! What consequences do you propose(remember, no violence, and you have no hope persuading me peacefully)?

...BUT, as the dictionary, states in plain, easy to understand English, A TARIFF IS A TAX. it also states that taxes are enforces by compulsion. Do I need to go grab the definition of compulsion, or are you ready to admit that enforcement of your idea REQUIRES violence.

I suppose that your done now, being beaten down by a standard English dictionary, huh? Feel free to name call, shoot the messenger, or any other logical or rhetorical fallacies that fancy you.

"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."

Ah yes, the trendy "read a

Ah yes, the trendy "read a book" bullshit. I don't need to read a book on a subject. Economies can regulate themselves. I don't need some asshole to write a book to try to explain something that can't be explained because it's so complex. I can look at history.

I never said anything about forcing you to buy domestic stuff. Why do you keep harping on that false notion? A ship comes into port with goods, and they go through customs and are tariffed accordingly. HOW THE FUCK IS THIS FORCING ANYTHING ON YOU? Delusional...

Tariffs are not taxes. It's why there is a distinction between taxes and tariffs. Two different words. Trendy.

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

Ha, nice concession

Ha, nice concession speech.

Let me know when you want to use English, with English definitions for your English words. I am not bi-lingual, sorry. When I say "tax" I mean the standard English definition of "tax". When I say "tariff", I mean the real old, easy to understand import tax.

Please, please, stop pretending that I addressed the "force" question you spewing. Here is it is again fro the THRID time(or is it 4th?):

If you don't FORCE people to pay the import tax/duty/price/contribution/wtf-ever, THEY WILL NOT PAY!!!!!!

Yeah, look at history, I DARE YA!!! Look at the history of a country that tried protective political policies. How did it go for, Iunno, Germany? Ok, ok, Germany is a bad example. There aren't enough natural resources in the country to sustain the population. Russia? Ooh, I got it!!! Let's use China!!! They learned their lesson and coming up fast. Or maybe you prefer the good ol' US of A leading up to the civil war period? Still think the civil war was about slavery? Know of any other country that went through a civil war to end slavery?

...On second thought maybe Germany is a good place to start. They did try to take over the world to escape the consequences of their anti-economic gov't policies.

"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."

Fucking again...no one is

Fucking again...no one is fucking forcing YOU to pay anything! If there is a tax on a good, YOU choose to pay that tax by buying that good. Import tariffs would be applied when they are imported. You wouldn't keep receipts of imported stuff you bought and then have a tax man come take your money.

When our country was booming we had import tariffs. The founders didn't think they were so immoral. Now that we have free trade with countries like China our country is in the shitter. No, I don't think the civil war was about slavery. WTF resources do we supposedly not have to survive here?

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

Who the FuQ is just trying to

Who the FuQ is just trying to survive? You have a computer!!! Humans don't stop at survival, we aim at thriving!!!

Not forcing me? THEN I AIN'T PAYING!!! Neither is my importer.

"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."

fireant's picture

Why not just let the Feds tax the States, as the Constitution

The answer is right there in black and white, and easy to understand. Return the Senate to true representatives of the States, let the Feds tax the States, and this insane money-go-round will come to a screeching halt, putting the FedGuv back in it's rightful box.

Undo what Wilson did

Right on.

Plus, the opportunity for an invaluable check on the federal government can be mandated:

States could hold monies due the federal government in escrow--thus removing the behemoth federal tax collection apparatus--and only release those for appropriately-funded / Constitutional federal edicts / programs / laws and their enforcements.

This could tie in nicely with a state's lawful right to nullify unConstitutional federal "laws" / actions / etc. States would, of course, need to have a competent review committees for such interpretations.

(All this assuming we can get our state legislatures to quit cold turkey their addictions to the crack rock of federal funding.... Or could states, in essence, "nullify" their own adherence to the 17th Amendment, too? Hmmmm.... It would be almost impossible in this day and age to convince any state's populace of the importance of such a move....)

What would the Founders do?

What is taxed is discouraged.

Accumulation of wealth is what allows the acquisition of capital assets, which capital assets magnify economic output.

All taxes have some negative effect. If you want to get the economy to be productive, the tax that least discourages economic output is what we should have. Income taxes and taxes on wealth discourage economic output. Taxes on consumption discourage consumption of that output.

Instead of thinking up ways to help government extract wealth from us, wouldn't your time be better served thinking up ways to discourage government, much of which is destructive to our lives.

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

I'm not concerned with the

I'm not concerned with the taxation; it is the spending I am concerned with.

As far as I am concerned, however taxes are collected, you are simply shifting the burden on to different groups. This is why the rich support flat and sales taxes while the poor income taxes, the homeless property taxes, and the atheistic religious taxes.

If you reduce government spending, then you reduce the need for that taxation.

We don't need a government that spends 2 trillion/year in discretionary spending.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

So Misguided

First, we don't need a government that costs $3T per year. Not even close.

Second, we don't need the current income tax at all to pay for "resonable" sized government. They have plenty of revenue from other sources to cover what is necessary.

Third, who the hell wants to have the government determining the value of your stuff for tax purposes. They will have to know all what you have and make an assessment. That is retarded

I think this is a horrible

I think this is a horrible idea. I strongly suggest you study the history of taxation in this country to learn what the federal government can and cannot tax and why. Then you will understand why this asset tax is not possible at all. Unless they make it voluntary just like today's income tax, in which case you can bet Warren Buffett will figure out how not to volunteer, while Joe Public continues to get fleeced. I think one of the primary false assumptions behind these types of hairbrained ideas is that you think the income tax pays for government services or contributes in some way towards the government budget when it does not. I like Ron Paul's idea the best. Get rid of the IRS and replace it with nothing. Make the federal governmet learn to live within its means like every other person.