Was Thomas Jefferson a socialist??!! Did he believe in "soaking the rich" and that paying taxes is patriotic??!!
Say it ain't so, Tom!
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
~Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic."
~Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."
~Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811
"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."
~Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806
And on and on I could go. Apparently, Jefferson also thought the rich paying more taxes was patriotic.
Darned socialists, sneaking into our history books and "founding fathers" all sneaky-like!
Here's another Jefferson quote, for the road:
"Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."
"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom."
42 comments:
Just so as to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Jefferson was a socialist. I'm suggesting that if he were alive today saying these sorts of things, the same people on the Right who call Obama a socialist would be flipping out over Jefferson, preparing to arrest him for being a commie.
Dan,
Define "rich".
The "rich" already pay over 40% of the taxes collected. What percentage would be "fair" in your opinion? You, I'm sure, realize that if we were to tax the "rich" 100% of their income we would not be able to operate te government for any significant amount of time, and the economy would sustain significant damage.
Looks like Jefferson supported getting most of gov't's money from the rich. You think he was wrong?
It would seem that a straightforward answer to how much the wealthy pay in taxes (and by wealthy, I'd accept Obama's $250,000/year line, but I'm flexible, too). Some of the truly wealthy seem to pay a smaller percentage than average middle classers. From an article earlier this year:
At a recent fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, the billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that rich guys like him were not paying enough.
Buffett asserted that his taxes last year equaled only 17.7 percent of his taxable income, compared with about 30 percent for his receptionist...
BUT, this same article goes on to say that this is not the norm. The article says:
Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.
At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.
To the extent that this is relatively valid, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
If the person who is making over $1.25 million/year has to pay 31% of their income (ie, ~$400,000), they still hang on to $800,000 A YEAR.
I don't begrudge them their money. But I agree with Jefferson that it is reasonable to expect those who benefit most to pay the most.
Dan,
First, I don't know that I would go to Buffet, without knowing how much he effort he puts into avoiding taxes. No to mention the fact that his fortune is significantly built on the fallout from the inheritance tax, and he stands to make a killing on the "bailout".
What you ignore is the important part which is government revenue. When tax rates go down revenues go up, Kennedy knew that. But when the top 5% of income earners who earn @20-25% of the wealth pay over 40% of the total taxes collected, that seems to be about twice their "fair share". When you add to that the fact that BHO will take some of the tax increase on the "top 5%", or those who earn over 250K (hopefully he will make up his mind), to use in order to give a "tax cut" to those whohave no income tax liability that doesn't seem "fair".
Again, what percentage of total taxes should be paid by the "rich"?
Just a little perspective, if you own the home where you live you are in the weathiest 5% in the world.
Jefferson was not talking about a tax on income, it didn't exist. It sounds a lot more like a consumption tax, or a national sales tax, which I would embrace wholeheartedly. However, let's not forget the last time a "luxury items tax" went into effect, it damaged the people who work in the industries who make those items.
Again, what percentage of total taxes should be paid by the "rich"?
I don't know that I have an opinion on what part of the total taxes should be paid by the rich. And I don't have a hard opinion about what percentage should be paid by the rich. Obviously not 100%.
But 25-35% seems entirely reasonable to me. Feel free to disagree.
Craig wrote the following: "When tax rates go down revenues go up"
This is simply false. Study after study, government report after government report has put the lie to this too-oft reported nugget of nonsense. Tax cuts do not result in increased revenue. No way. No how. No McCain (sorry, couldn't resist).
Dan,
If you agree that it is "fair" for the top 5% of income earners to pay 25-30% of all taxes, then I can only assume you are supporting a tax cut for them. I'm curious as to why you think 25-30% is "fair". Glad to see you are coming around.
Goeffry,
Since you failed to provide any evidence for your assertion, we'll have to leave you to your opinion.
I'm curious as to why you think 25-30% is "fair". Glad to see you are coming around.
I'm not sure what you mean about coming around. I said that I don't think that 25-35% seems unreasonable. The reason why I think taxing at so high a rate is reasonable is because if you are making tens of millions of dollars thanks to the US economy, it is no serious problem to pay millions of dollars to continue to support it.
Craig is as wrong as his armchair mind can be. The evidence can be gotten from the clear numbers of the Census Bureau that give the following conclusions. This has been widely reported in discussions of the book, Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Make of them what you will.
Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all.
Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.
I hate commenting on this site because it always sinks to Ad-hominem attacks but one cannot stand still while history is misinterpreted.
other quotes by TJ:
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
But then again the first income tax in American History was passed 55 years after Jefferson's death. So to say Jefferson had a opinion on income tax doesn't make sense.
Lincoln was the first president to imposed an income tax and it was declared unconstitutional in 1872.
Income taxes as we know them today came about in 1912, 86 years after Jefferson's death.
Your comparing Jefferson's opinion on Tariffs to income taxes. If one didn't want to pay a tariff then they wouldn't buy lavish stuff. If one doesn't pay income tax then they will be imprisoned.
Income tax is the government taking money from its citizens with the threat of force. I wonder where Jefferson would stand on that.
-----------------
Feodor you make a good point but not a great point. The President only represents one third of the government. I have never seen a study but it would be interesting the see how the economy did when different parities ran congress as well as the White House.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
which has nothing to do with income tax brackets.
Simply googling TJ quotes on taxes and then posting them here isn't really an argument.
Edwin:
In terms of economic policy, it may be nearer the mark to say the Executive branch is 80% of the power. The New Deal is Roosevelt's show. The War of Poverty and Great Society is Johnson's show.
But see the following:
After the Democratic Party again won back control in the elections of 1954, it was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next 40 years. (This would suggest that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter did indeed determine the national economy, Congress being constant).
The Republicans were only able to win control of the Senate for a six-year period (1981–87, the bulk of the Reagan years).
The Republicans won a majority position in both houses of Congress in the elections of 1994. The Republicans controlled both houses until 2006, except the Senate for most of 2001 and 2002 when the Democrats had the majority after Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats.
In 2006, the Democratic Party regained control of the House of Representatives and a bare voting majority with Lieberman caucusing with the Dems.
I've previously suggested, or elsewhere suggested, that GHW Bush's tax cuts, which cost him reelection may have generated the economic engine Clinton, et al, revved up.
What do you make of all this?
Then what about John McCain's hero, Theodore Roosevelt:
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
This quote is an argument itself -- and a socialist one according to current Republican smears.
Dan,
If you believe that the "rich" are currently paying more than their "fair share" then that sounds like you are coming around.
To clarify, here are income tax revenues from 1982-1990, in billions of dollars. (usgovernmentrevenue.com)
82-$347.0
84-353.3
86-412.1
88-495.7
90-560.4
The Kennedy years show a similar increase
These numbers would seem to bear out the fact that during the Regan years tax revenues to the federal government increased. I would want to look at the GNP numbers since those would seem to cross administration lines and may not reflect accurately. As was also pointed out, balance of power between congress and the president would have a fairly significant effect on those numbers as well.
Despite the detours, my original point stands, Jefferson was not a proponant of an income tax progressive or otherwise. I have repeatedly stated, I would be perfectly happy to return to a more Jeffersonian tax system.
If you believe that the "rich" are currently paying more than their "fair share" then that sounds like you are coming around.
But I have not said that I believe the rich are currently paying more than their fair share.
Despite the detours, my original point stands, Jefferson was not a proponant of an income tax progressive or otherwise. I have repeatedly stated, I would be perfectly happy to return to a more Jeffersonian tax system.
As noted, Jefferson was living in a time when we did not have an income tax, so no, he was not an advocate of something they did not have. I did not say he was. You're arguing a point that no one is debating.
I said his words indicate that he was an advocate of a PROGRESSIVE taxation system. Are you happy to have a progressive tax system of some sort? If so, then we can agree - you and I - with Jefferson.
Dan,
As the "rich" are currently paying more than 40% of all taxes, and you suggest that 25-30% is the level you would be comfortable with, it would seem that you believe that the "rich" are paying more than your definition of their fair share. Simple.
Again, you are trying to apply Jefferson's quotes to a system of taxation that did not exist when he spoke. This is what I am agruing, be consistant. If you are advocating a return ro a consumption based form of taxation, in which those who consume more (usually the "rich") pay more, then I have no problem with that. If you (or Jefferson)are arguing that the "rich" in this consumption tax system should pay higher rates for what they consume, then I would disagree. As I have stated repeatedly, I could favor (in principle) a consumption or national sales tax to replace our current income based system. So, in that sense I agree with Jefferson. I could not agree with the proposition that Jefferson would be supportive of an income tax system, progressive or otherwise. Unfortunately, neither of our presidential candidates favor this system so in many ways the arguement is moot.
Dan,
What do you thnk Jefferson would have said about taking the taxes paid by the "rich" and giving tax cuts to those who have no tax liablity?
Ted Rall's comic from 10/25 is a rather amusing take on this "Oh, woe are the rich!" line coming from folks like Craig...
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tedrall
Enjoy. LOL
Craig said:
As the "rich" are currently paying more than 40% of all taxes, and you suggest that 25-30% is the level you would be comfortable with
1. I have not suggested that "25-30%" is the level I'm comfortable with. Read my stuff. That figure is yours, not mine.
2. I HAVE said that 25-35% does not sound unreasonable at all. I'd probably go further and say upwards to 50% taxation on those making millions of dollars a year does not sound unreasonable.
3. I'm not at all sure that "the rich" pay 40% of their income on taxes. Do you have a source? Buffett suggested somewhere between 17-32%.
Craig said:
Again, you are trying to apply Jefferson's quotes to a system of taxation that did not exist when he spoke. This is what I am agruing, be consistant.
And what I have said is that no one is saying that Jefferson was dealing with income tax in his day. I'll repeat: NO ONE HAS SAID THAT JEFFERSON WAS ADVOCATING SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T EXIST - THE INCOME TAX.
If that is what you're "arguing," you're arguing with yourself. No one is disputing your argument on that point.
MY POINT is and has been that Jefferson clearly favored a progressive tax system of some flavor. Period. That is and has been my point.
My further point was that if Jefferson were to argue such a progressive tax system today, he'd be called a socialist by people like you.
So, as to the topics we're actually discussing, do you have a point to make?
"But 25-35% seems entirely reasonable to me."
Dan Trabue
8:13 AM post
"
I have not suggested that "25-30%" is the level I'm comfortable with."
Please show me where I have introduced the 25-30% figure into this conversation.
Dan Trabue
11:23 post
Dan,
I have repeatedly said that the "rich" pay (or account) for 40%(actually I think the figure is 44%) of all taxes paid in the U.S. I have never discussed the tax rates they pay, or the percentage of their income they pay. In reality, the % of income figure is a fairly worthless number as those who have higher incomes also have more options to have income classified as something other than income. So, maybe you could respond to my question. How much (expressed as a percentage) of the total tax burden should the rich share?
I have never argued that Jefferson was not in favor of a "progressive" tax system. What I am struggling with is you trying to superimpose Jefferson's views on our current situation. Do you really think Jefferson would advocate our current tax system? I have repeatedly agreed with you that I have no problem with a return to a Jeffersonian tax system. I have also never suggested that we should not have a system of tax rates that vary according to income. So I'm not quite shure why you keep on with the ALL CAPS. I've actually agreed with some of your basic points.
For the record, I have never called Jefferson or BHO a socialist. For you to imply that I have is a strange accusation coming from one so sensitive. Under other circumstances I could see you accusing someone of fasle witness were the situation reversed.
not to mention fasle spelling, of course I meant false
Okay, perhaps we have a failure to communicate here.
I have repeatedly said that the "rich" pay (or account) for 40%(actually I think the figure is 44%) of all taxes paid in the U.S. I have never discussed the tax rates they pay
Early on I answered (perhaps ambiguously) your question about what percentage of the WHOLE of taxes the rich should pay for. I said:
I don't know that I have an opinion on what part of the total taxes should be paid by the rich. And I don't have a hard opinion about what percentage should be paid by the rich. Obviously not 100%.
And then I went on to say that 25-35% of any individual person's income did not seem unreasonable. THAT is what I have been talking about all this time: What percentage of ANY INDIVIDUAL's income ought someone be paying.
As I noted, I don't really have an opinion about what percentage of the total of tax dollars collected "ought" to come from the wealthy. I guess if I were to offer an opinion on that, it might be higher than 50%, but I don't really have an opinion, at least right now.
My quotes from Jefferson were to make two points:
1. That Jefferson clearly favored a progressive taxation scheme - one in which the wealthy paid a great percentage of the whole of taxes (as you were referring to) - or even ALL the taxes.
2. That IF Jefferson were alive today and making those sorts of comments, HE WOULD BE called a socialist. I didn't say that you said he was a socialist.
Do you doubt that if Jefferson were saying those sorts of quotes today that he would be called a socialist by some - many of your comrades?
Do you really think Jefferson would advocate our current tax system?
I have no idea what he would think of our current system. He'd clearly be glad to see free public education, as that was one of his goals that didn't happen in his lifetime. And he'd be glad to see a progressive tax system in place.
Also, he would be horrified by the size of our military, I am sure (based on what he had said).
But, what he would think of an income tax (or it's incredible complexity and many loopholes), I simply don't know.
Dan,
To clarify; you think that the "rich", who earn approx. 20% of the total income, should pay more than 50% of the total tax burden. I assume you think that this would have no effect on the economy, or on how the "rich" structure their income.
Dan, you may be correct that some on the right might call Jefferson a socialist were he to make the comments you quoted. However, they might not after he made the comments El quoted. You also have to admit, that if Jefferson were here today, that there would be a significant number on your side of the aisle who would be calling him a rascist, a slave owner, and other nice things. Oh forgot, the left has already done that. Sorry.
Ummm, it IS racist to hold slaves. And it was racist back then.
And sexist and oppressive to have sex with your slave girls.
Do you think not?
To clarify; you think that the "rich", who earn approx. 20% of the total income, should pay more than 50% of the total tax burden.
To clarify, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to do that. It might not be fiscally advisable, I don't know the answer to that, but I find nothing at all morally wrong about expecting the richest 20% (and by this, I assume you're talking about those who make more than $250k/year?) pay 50% of tax dollars. I'm like Jefferson in that regards.
Dan,
The fact thet you are so unaware of the percentages of taxes paid by various groups, really begins to undermine your credibility.
For Tax Year 2006
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$388,806
39.89
Top 5%
$153,542
60.14
Top 10%
$108,904
70.79
Top 25%
$64,702
86.27
Top 50%
$31,987
97.01
Bottom 50%
<$31,987
2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
As you can see the top 1% pays almost 40% of all of the taxes. Which is the situation you and Jefferson are trying to create.
The top 5% which (contrary to BHO'BidenTrabue) does not stop at $250k, it stops at $153k (agi). So when BHO says that he is going to give 95% of us a "tax cut", but is going to raise taxes on incomes over $250k (or $200k, or $150k, whatever the figure is today), he is either confused or lying.
But if we go down the chart a little we find that the top 50% of wage earners ($31k agi) is paying 97% of the taxes. Again, we've already got what you and Jefferson want.
Why are you bitching. What you want already exists, it's here now. Enjoy it.
BREAK
So if Jefferson's quotes do indicate that on this matter he might lean toward the socialist side, it's ok to call him one. Further, when did TJ become the source for the right answers on everything? I still haven't seen a substantive response to the TJ quotes that undermine your point.
You know, the bottom line is we don't live in 1805. It's 2008 and I'd much rather see you defend what BHO says about taxes, and using the courts to redistribute wealth, than TJ. Move on.
Why are you bitching. What you want already exists, it's here now. Enjoy it.
You have not heard me complain about the way it is set up. What you have heard me say repeatedly is that IF Jefferson were to say the things he said, today, he'd be called a socialist, when clearly he was not.
I've said that, and that I and Jefferson prefer a progressive scheme. I have not said that we don't have it already.
You're still arguing against yourself, it seems.
I gotta admit -- these quotes are challenging. What are your sources, Dan? I'd like to read them in context.
Google 'em.
Jefferson's 6th annual message is here, for starters.
I don't see any quotes there related to welfare, but thanks for trying.
Dan,
Then you didn't read them, I will re copy them for you.
A wise and frugal government, which shall LEAVE MEN FREE TO REGULATE THEIR OWN PURSUITS OF INDUSTRY AND IMPROVEMENT, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR AND BREAD IT HAS EARNED - this is the sum of good government."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from WASTING THE LABORS OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PRETENSE OF TAKING CARE OF THEM." (emphasis added)
"The democracy will cease to exist WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY FROM THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK AND GIVE TO THOSE WHO WOULD NOT."
Now, we've been down this road before, the fact that he doesn't actually the word welfare does not mean that he is not describing welfare as we know it.
As I have stated, ultimately this is not about cherry picking a few TJ quotes to make a point. Which you won't deal with anyway. It is about what we can expect the next 4years (I know BHO keeps saying 8 but that's either confusion or positive confession so it's all good). It seems same to say that TJ would take issue with much of that which is being proposed. I also think that he highly prized honesty and integrity. After hearing BHO make significant changes to what he has been saying about his tax policy, I question his integrity. What has BHO said through out the campaign.
1) His tax plan will give a "tax cut" to 95% of the population. 2) he will raise taxes on the "top 5%". 3 The top 5% has moved from $300,000 to $250,000 to $200,000 to $150,000 back up to $200,000.
What he has not said, or has been ignored. 1) His floating definition of "rich" 2) The fact that he will allow the current tax rates to "expire" which will increase everyones taxes 3) His tax increase on the "rich" will not come anywhere near paying for the trillions in new spending he is proposing.
What he is saying now. 1) 95% of tax payers will get a tax cut. 2) If you make under $200,000 your taxes will go up. 3) If I want to keep a significant portion of what I earn (not withstanding whatever charity I may engage in with my income) I am now selfish. What a concept.
Why is that a concern, a significant number of small buisness gross $200,000 or more. (t's not that tough to do, I used to gross near that with a very small buisness) A number of these buisness file individual tax returns (as I did). This is bound to have a negative effetct on our economy. Will the tax increase be enough to prevent hiring new employees, or making a capital investment? If you look at what TJ said beyond his views on a "progressive" tax system. he seems pretty committed to letting people keep what they earn.
Nice attempt at nit picking, keep trying.
Now, we've been down this road before, the fact that he doesn't actually the word welfare does not mean that he is not describing welfare as we know it.
No, of course not. The fact that he doesn't describe welfare as it is practiced means that he is not talking about welfare.
Your problem is, I would hazard to guess, that you don't really know much about welfare. Rather, you appear to be operating on strawman caricatures of welfare.
Generally, "welfare" (TANF which is what most people are talking about when they're talking about welfare) is designed to assist people to move from the unemployed to the employed, NOT for the purpose of "taking care of them."
Or are you talking about removing assistance to those who are disabled and who have no other means of dying a slow, drawn out death on our city streets? That might sort of fit Jefferson's description of "taking care of" people. Is that your proposal? To remove the assistance for the severely disabled?
IF that was Jefferson's position (and I'm not sure it was, based on this one snippet of a portion of a quote), then I'd disagree with him. Along with most people in the US including many if not most conservatives.
Dan,
News flash! BHO announces that $97,000 is now "upper class". The tax cut floor just keeps dropping.
Interesting approach, you pick one small section of a long list and nit pick. (of course your quotes were not snippets of portions of quotes) It is very clear what TJ is saying. We should not take from people who can and do work to give to people who don't work. To paraphrase from the Bible, if you don't work, you don't eat. In theory, you may be right about what welfare is designed to do. In practice, it is a different matter. When our welfare system rewards single mothers for additional children, and "punsihes" them if the father stays around, that's messed up. If the SSI program is so screwed up that the only way to recieve assistance is to hire a lawyer (who pockets 30% of the benefits paid) drag the process out for years and them when they lose pay out the back payments in small instalments. (I walked through this with a freind) While at the same time making SSI payments to drug addicts. Sorry to burst your utopian bubble, but the welfare system just perpetuates itself.
Do I think there are people who the govt should help, sure. Do I think that the best form of help is giving them a check, not always. Do I think that you should completely lose medicaid because your pay goes from $9.00/hr to $9.25, no. (one I walked through with one of my employees. Before you start, I offered him insurance, and he got turned down for lying on the app.) Do I think that the private sector (any non govt./relious charity) can do a better job, most of the time. What the bulk of people recieving welfare (of whatever kind) need are jobs and stable housing.
Your assumptions about my knowledge of welfare are quite obviously based on both your prejudices about me personally, and the fact that you are responding to a characture of your own construction. You started the appeals to TJ, If I thought you would deal with them I'd spend the time finding quotes from the founders that go after all of your sacred cows.
The point of this excersise was to demonstrate the folly of you appealing to TJ as if he was some sort of definitive source on everything. You have been trying to force his words into your box. I'll try to be very clear. If TJ was advocating a socialist approach to taxation I would call him a scoialist because the shoe fits. If you were serious about actually advocating returning government to the Jeffersonian ideal, I'd be with you. But instead you cherry pick a snippets of portions of quotes to try to support a point that is not a part of current political discussion.
So cherry pick away, it's fun to watch you flail.
"Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."
How would you explain TJ's concept of just, uniform, progressive taxes?
The first quote provided in context on p.464 of this online text. It is clearly a rejection of socialism, as it calls for individual ownership of property, and that the absence thereof is detrimental to a healthy economy. But yes, the passage in Jefferson clearly advocates progressive taxation.
The second quote is found on p.849 of this online text. It clearly supports a progressive taxation on the sale of imported goods.
The forth quote can be found on p.494 of this online text. Jefferson is proposing what the federal government should do with a budgetary surplus. He proposes that the patriotic thing to do would be use the excess funding on "public education, roads, rivers, canals, and other objects of public improvement".
I cannot find the fifth quote on any quick, online source.
But Dan makes a very sound case that Jefferson supported progressive taxation for redistributionist purposes.
Thanks, John. Sorry for the late posting, but thanks.
That's all I was saying.
Post a Comment