EPISODE · Jul 6, 2026 · 9 MIN
Frady advocates using civil asset forfeiture against left-wing groups.
from Straight Talk With Bill Frady
In this audio clip, host Bill Frady delivers a critique of taxation, framing it as the most destructive weapon ever invented due to its profound costs on individual life, wealth, and property. He argues that instead of using taxes to fund public expenditures, governments should shift entirely to public borrowing. By performing a cost-benefit analysis, Frady contends that taxation imposes massive hidden costs through systemic government waste and a severe "deterrent effect" that functions as a penalty on economic activity. According to his calculations, replacing the tax system with public borrowing would eliminate these economic deterrents and drop wasteful public expenditures. He claims this shift would effectively double the public's share of the wealth and transform the U.S. economy from $33 trillion to $46 trillion, freeing citizens from what he describes as the crushing boot of a corrupt government.
Embed this episode
What this episode covers
Bill Frady: Now, I think everybody out there understands the need to be ruthless, because we're going to have to be ruthless. But at the same time, a lot of people out there today who are ruthless... today who are ruthless, are not ruthless enough, and let me explain what I'm talking about. Um, we pay taxes. And on April the 15th, if we don't owe any taxes, everybody's high-fiving. "I didn't have to pay anything extra!" But we have $39 trillion in debt. We still funded a government that is completely ineffective. And we should all be up in arms right now about taxation. Taxation is the most destructive weapon ever invented. The cost it takes out of your life, out of your wealth, out of your property, throughout your life, has no peer. But it is the scourge—it is the primary means of raising funds for public expenditures. Many claim that taxation is necessary for government to function, and they admit that it is injurious—it—it injures you. But is it really necessary? Because no one has ever supplied proof that taxation is the best means of raising funds for government. Very few people have actually gotten out there and performed a cost-benefit analysis, which is surprising given that the, you know, the money and the researchers are available. I'm sure they could get some tax money for that. All you have to do is add up the cost of taxation. There had to be two categories: and the benefits of taxation, of which there is one. If the benefit exceeds costs, one retains taxation. If the opposite, the days of taxation should end. When you commence this analysis, you find a flaw at the base of public finance—a flaw that everybody knows but refuses to acknowledge and incorporate into their reasoning. Two short questions on the nature of a def—deficit exposes it. First question: Should the government of a jurisdiction take in $5 billion in tax revenues and spend $7 billion, what would the deficit be? The obvious answer is $2 billion, right? But the follow-up is, how much did the government contribute to its expenditures? This is the dilemma. Is the deficit only the borrowed portion of public expenditure? A lot of disputes in economics are going to center on how you define it. And it's well known that government does not fund government. Never has funded itself, never going to fund itself. Government supplies none of the funds or resources employed in the provision of goods or... and you might conclude that the deficit as defined—the borrowed portion of the public expenditures—is inadequate and misleading. But the deficit is clearly every dime government spends. So, in—in that particular case I just referenced, the full $7 billion and not the illusion of $2 billion. The people of a jurisdiction fund government—all of it—through charges on their assets: property and incomes, or through the state borrowing against them. So, then you can now turn your attention to the question of whether a government should tax. But once again, taxation is very destructive. It costs—falls into two categories: waste and deterrence. Government at all levels of the US spends $10 trillion, I guess annually. And when you work with that figure, uh, I would have to guess they waste 80% of public expenditures, or $8 trillion. The second great cost in taxation, and the greater, is its deterrent effect. Taxes are fines; they're—they're penalties, and they're used to discourage bad behavior. So, fines and penalties on incomes and property and assets discourage you from engaging economically as you would if there were no taxes. [laughs] And um, deterrence in an economy of $33 trillion roughly is 40%, which comes to $13 trillion. And totaling up the costs of taxation places one at $21 trillion in a $33 trillion economy. Now, what's the benefit of taxation? Well, it actually—it actually just boils down to one thing: you're saving on interest. Interest savings on money the government chose not to borrow. Now, suppose there's a needed public expenditure ...
Ready to play
Frady advocates using civil asset forfeiture against left-wing groups.
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
No similar episodes found.
Similar Podcasts
No similar podcasts found.