Any thoughts on consolidating all the current federal taxes into a federal flat tax based on property and asset valuation? It would attempt to capture the value of land including improvements, intellectual property, licenses to natural resources, FCC spectrum licenses, etc. For a corporationi nstead of trying to directly assess the value of these things, one would tax the stockholder as the stock price should reflect the value of their holdings. Small businesses such as sole proprietorships pose an interesting problem as to how to valuate. (Could a sales tax work as customers in a small business work as de facto shareholders–they wish the business to suceed to the extent that they continue to contract with them–perhaps a small sales tax would be implemented on any finished item that is not regularily assessed?) Individuals would be regularily assessed for the things that can be like cars, homes, and financial instruments. I found an assesment that US assets are valued at 200 Trillion, thus I estimate a 3% federal asset based tax would meet our current budget (to include SSI). Please note I’m not a tax fan but rather am interested in who should be taxed if needed.
Property and asset owners would fight tooth and nail to prevent this.
Politicians would gain nothing unless there was a net increase in taxation in the immediate time.
This is never going to happen.
If taxes are needed, why tax Americans? Lets tax the Germans, French, Azeri, Argentinians and Thai instead. In so long as we’re going around the globe and fighting everyone who stares at us funny we should establish a direct tributary system and plunder wherever we go.
(Or you know, we could just not tax anyone.)
This is meant to be a thought expirment if you could implement it. The rational is that the citizenry and its state provide the service of defense of property through its military and legal system. The people are armed for the common defense and also enable the judicial process, enabling things like a drug patent to exist, thus why should they not reap the dividends?
We are talking about a state, aren’t we?
Any sovereign that gains its power through the consent of the people. Please elucidate.
There’s a state that rules with the consent of all the people? Or are we referring to a state with the consent of ‘some’ of the people?
Rules to the extent that the people choose to remain under its jurisdiction.
BTW, Google is paying 1/3 of it’s collective share (by my back of the napkin calcs) of the federal budget (things like defense, law enforcement, state department, etc that allow it to exist)
Are you asserting that a person in contemporary times has the ability to elect whether it remains under the jurisdiction of a state? I just want to clarify things. You’ll have to pardon me, I’m a bit slow at comprehending things at times. Old age and such.
As for the second post, again for clarification, are you asserting that Google requires state services in order to maintain its existence? And if so, why would Google be unable to provide these same services for itself in the absence of the state, or otherwise hire a third party to provide it said services?
First of all, welcome. Regarding your imperial tax on everything, it certainly sounds like something the empire would do if it could.
What does the “value” of something have to do with a tax?
What business is it of government to “valuate” a business?
Customers are defacto shareholders? How so? The reason you give (“they wish the business to succeed…etc.”) makes no sense to me.
Small?
Why? So, every piece of privately owed property would have to be reported to the Federal government? Do you see any conflict with liberty here?
It is interesting that you use the word “our” when referring to the budget. Do you really believe it is “our” budget? $200 Trillion? A mere 3% tax could pay for the empire’s “current” budget? I firmly believe it is not possible to meet any Federal budget, with 3% of the figure you mention, or even 10% or 100%. What ever amount is extracted from the citizens, the Federal government will spend (or “need”) 50% more than that amount. How could anyone dispute this? Simply look at what the Federal government actually does.
Here is a question for you: Have you thought about why the Federal government is so large that a tax must be assessed on literally everything in order to fund its operations? Do you realize the Federal government does not create anything? It is a cement anchor tied to legs of the economy. What exactly are all these “services” that require such a tax system? Would children in such an system have to be indoctrinated from an early age to accept such a plan? Would this indoctrination have to be reinforced in government run universities to provide an “intellectual” justification for such a plan? How would you propose to handle someone who disagrees with the system? What about someone who refuses to pay, or makes a mistake? Are there any limits on government’s power, authority, or knowledge of our personal affairs? It seems the Federal government looms large under this plan, and liberty is no where to be found.
Hmm, lots of questions here. Sorry I could provide no insight about your proposal. As far as “who should be taxed if needed”? That’s easy: Nobody.
Can you share your back of the napkin computations with us?
Wow. All I can say is “Wow”. Allow it (Google) to exist. Amazing. Without the Federal government, Google would not exist? Please, do explain.
I will answer your points but first answer me what do you think the role of the state is in providing services and if any, how do you pay for them? I get the impression I am dealing with anarcho-capitalists in which case there’s obviously no reason to argue about any tax, right?
Calculation: You are comparing Total Earnings (current corporate income tax liability) versus Market Cap (value of assets). This is a simple manipulation of P/E ratio. Assuming a 35% corporate income tax and the proposed 3% asset tax, I get a threshold of 11.66. A company with a P/E over 11.66 is “free riding”. A company under 11.66 would generate less of a tax liability, interestingly enough like the pharmaceuticals. (Thus reduced costs to drug customers?)
Regarding the role of the state in providing services and how to pay for them, I believe there are existing threads you could read through, or I suggest you start a new thread. There are others in this forum far more able to answer this question than I am. As far as dealing with anarcho capitalists, why argue about taxes? Why not instead attempt to understand why they believe what they believe? If you already have this understanding, then I guess that’s the end of it.
I have not seen analysis like this since my socialist days in college. How do you get “11.66”? How do you conclude this is “free riding”?
EDIT: How do you conclude it is free riding if the P/E exceeds 11.66?
If you are an anarchist, I have no argument here other than anarchism (I have a respectable understanding of its arguments) vs. minarchism (presumed me) but I don’t wish to change the focus on this topic. If you are any level of minarchist, this asset taxation idea is one to consider. Look, I’m new here, but I am a paid Mises member so that should show you I am an Austrian fan and not a troll. I actually was inspired by this idea of asset taxation while reading The Law by Bastiat for the first time (I’m new to the libertarian front just by virtue of my youth and recently finding it). Bastiat said:
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
This got me thinking. What is property other than ownership guarenteed by the state? (common force – CONSENTED by participation in its jurisdiction… don’t like it? Move out of jurisdiction) The government grants me a monopoly on my land (leaving out undesirable government interventions aside). They provide institutions for defense, tort, transferability, etc. that creates value (property is value as Bastiat says). However, these institutions come at a cost thus a property tax collects in proportion the value it has created. Anything the goverment grants a monopoly on is property. My premise is that an asset based tax reimburses the government for guarenteeing property in proportion to the size of the property (ie. more land needs more officers of the peace).
Take for example you own a radio station. You buy off the market a license to run off 1460 kilohertz. But wait, an unlicensed competitor down the street is overpowering your signal! Thus you use the tort system to mitigate infringement. An anarchist might prefer a paid arbiter, but how do you enforce his or her decision? Use your own force? Then why did you ever buy a license in the first place? And if there’s no license, how do you guarentee the ability to broadcast without interference? You could contract with neighboring stations to keep different frequencies and keep distance, but what keeps an uncontracted party from playing rogue other than dog-eat-dog sabotage and self-initiated force? What’s the difference if I delegate those powers of force to the government? Don’t I owe the government for the value it has created for me in guarenteeing my monopoly on 1460?
In addition to property guarentees, state guarenteed liberties create value for property as well. The 2nd Amendment provides for the common defense. It provides parity against criminals which take away from value. The 1st Amendment makes the US a more desirable place for Google to make HQ rather than China. However, again these liberties come at a cost to the state, but at relatively minimal cost to the value they create (which you profit from). In the end due to economies of scale and collective bargaining, your getting a better deal than if every one person was responsible his own defense and protections of liberty.
Just as an aside, my small, rural, conservative town of 9,000 not only owns its trash, sewer, water and gas but also the electric plant (which gets us great rates and subsidizes the other services) and city wide broadband fiber optics. They attempted to purchase the single cable company a couple years ago. Is this socialism? Or is it really a corporation where every resident is a stockholder with a vote for the Board of Directors? Don’t like the policies? You can go to the board, run for the board or move the mile outside of town. This probably wouldn’t work well for a town much larger than this as my view is government monopolies should be inversley proportional to its area of control. My view is if there’s going to be a monopoly, its better if its run by the citizenry. Property and force are both government created monopolies and I don’t care if your “government” is collobarotion between two paleolithics out in the stoneage, there is an agreement on property and force between the two to collude. Don’t like it? Move down the river.
Even if we take the minarchist approach to austrolibertarianism, I fail to see why’d we ever want to create a new tax to fund the federal government. From your example it seems as if the nation-state (federal-state?) has been replaced by a city-state; if that’s the occasion why is there a need to fund a federal government? If the federal government actually provides a good that your individual city-state finds of value, then should your city-state not pay for it without forcing others to pay for it? If you argue that the services done by the federal government are self evident and you must tax people outside your city-state in order to fund its existence and ensure no free riders, why tax Americans? In so long as you’re taxing people you don’t know, as I already asked earlier on, why not tax foreigners?
On another note, Why must we move down the river if we don’t like it?
Foreigners would be taxed to the extent they hold corporate shares… as well as any property held within the boundaries. I read the rest, after some rest 
Living in a jurisdiction does not imply consent. Please elucidate how you think it does. That besides, the market process is not an expression of democracy. In the market, you pay for those services which you find beneficial and withhold payment from those you don’t, but you do not ever force someone to pay for something they don’t like. Being forced to be “a stockholder” is not the same as voluntarily being a consumer.
Please Enslave Me!
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority