This Made Me Sad

[AmericaFyeah92]

From a liberal website:

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "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." "

What is it with T-Jeff? It seems his views went all over the place as he got older, to the point where conservatives, progressives, and libertarians can now just cherry-pick quotes to suit their ideology

[sevin]

From a liberal website:

"Progressive taxation has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "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." "

What is it with T-Jeff? It seems his views went all over the place as he got older, to the point where conservatives, progressives, and libertarians can now just cherry-pick quotes to suit their ideology

It depends on how you take it. When he said, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property" I don't think he meant it as a good thing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That quote of his is certainly true. It will lesson the inequality because you are stealing from those who have more to give to those who have less, but no where in that quote does he advocate for such a position. There is nothing to be sad about there -- just a recognition of the facts of reality.

[EndDaFed]

Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you; this [Fontainebleau] is a village of about 5,000 inhabitants when the court is not here and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley thro' which runs a brook, and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains most of which are naked rock. The king comes here in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps. But as this is not indispensably required, and my finances do not admit the expence of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the king's levees, returning again to Paris, distant 40 miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league. As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the labouring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstance. She told me she was a day labourer, at 8. sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no emploiment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. 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. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

[EndDaFed]

Speaking of Jefferson there is a great podcast called the Thomas Jefferson Hour. It's worth a listen and will shatter anyone's preconceived notions as to who Jefferson was. He was a true individual in his own right and can't be placed into any labeled box.

http://www.jeffersonhour.org/

[Dr.3D]

Doesn't this quote contradict the one in the OP?
"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be
just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

[Vessol]

All forms of taxation are theft, but a progressive tax is certainly better than a flat tax.

[AmericaFyeah92]

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

That is a pretty interesting anecdote. Hard to see quite what he is getting at, though. I sympathize with his claim that "uncultivated lands and unemployed poor" indicate that "the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights."

[AmericaFyeah92]

All forms of taxation are theft, but a progressive tax is certainly better than a flat tax.

Interesting. Care to share why you think so?

[Dr.3D]

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

I finally found the quote from the OP in that quote.
Seems he was just mentioning it as something that is done but not endorsing it.

Am I correct? So then the so called 'Progressives' latch onto it as if he was endorsing it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

All forms of taxation are theft, but a progressive tax is certainly better than a flat tax.

I wouldn't say that. If you like higher tax rates then sure, institute a progressive tax where those who pay less tax vote to raise the taxes on those above them for their own benefit. At least with a flat tax every individual has an incentive to keep taxes at a minimum.

[Vessol]

Interesting. Care to share why you think so?

It's not to say that I prefer it.

I live in what would be considered the poverty level. If there was to be a flat tax, I would be completely fucked because even 10% of what I earn taxed would ruin me.

I'd prefer a system with no taxes, but one progressive is better than the flat tax garbage that Huckabee and Chuck Norris peddle.

So I guess you could say it's a matter of perspective. I've always lived as a member of the lower/working class, I never could've been considered part of the middle class like most of those who post here.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's not to say that I prefer it. But I believe that if you were to have a more effective tax system, it would be better to tax more those who are more wealthy.

I live in what would be considered the poverty level. If there was to be a flat tax, I would be completely fucked because even 10% of what I earn taxed would ruin me.
I'd prefer a system with no taxes, but one progressive is better than the flat tax garbage that Huckabee and Chuck Norris peddle.

So I guess you could say it's a matter of perspective. I've always lived as a member of the lower/working class, I never could've been considered part of the middle class like most of those who post here.

That is a benefit of a flat tax over a progressive tax. It provides an incentive for all individuals to continually lower it. Or you know, they could very well become like you and just steal from those who make more.../shrug. (Imagine for a moment those on the lower rung of nominal wages advocating for lowering taxes instead of raising them! Oh joyous joyous)

[Vessol]

That is a benefit of a flat tax over a progressive tax. It provides an incentive for all individuals to continually lower it. Or you know, they could very well become like you and just steal from those who make more.../shrug.

I'd prefer no taxes at all, much prefer. But if it came down to it, I'd rather the middle class and upper class get taxed more than I would. Selfish and not far-thinking but that's just my opinion.

Look I'm not advocating it or anything, both flat-tax and progressive are utter bullshit, but one from my perspective is a bit less.

[EndDaFed]

It's not to say that I prefer it.

I live in what would be considered the poverty level. If there was to be a flat tax, I would be completely fucked because even 10% of what I earn taxed would ruin me.

I'd prefer a system with no taxes, but one progressive is better than the flat tax garbage that Huckabee and Chuck Norris peddle.

So I guess you could say it's a matter of perspective. I've always lived as a member of the lower/working class, I never could've been considered part of the middle class like most of those who post here.

If you make at or less than 8,375 dollars a year you are already paying 25% in federal taxes. That would be 15% in the form of payroll taxes and another 10% in the form of income taxes. Unless of course you work under the table and don't pay taxes that would be a whole different matter. Married people pay a heck of a lot less than single people.

[Dr.3D]

I'd prefer no taxes at all, much prefer. But if it came down to it, I'd rather the middle class and upper class get taxed more than I would. Selfish and not far-thinking but that's just my opinion.

Look I'm not advocating it or anything, both flat-tax and progressive are utter bullshit, but one from my perspective is a bit less.

LOL... and Jefferson said:

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be
just, must be uniform."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd prefer no taxes at all, much prefer. But if it came down to it, I'd rather the middle class and upper class get taxed more than I would. Selfish and not far-thinking but that's just my opinion.

Look I'm not advocating it or anything, both flat-tax and progressive are utter bullshit, but one from my perspective is a bit less.

I would call it biting your face off, because the natural progression of a progressive tax is for the wealthiest to continually pay more, and for those lower than them to continually pay less because of the way it incentivizes voting and political habits. It is no surprise those who make less advocate to tax those above them more. If you like to drive out anyone who makes more than you and have little to no employment opportunities, well then go ahead and advocate for a progressive tax over a flat tax. However, if you would like lower taxes and a better market environment (Not to mention a more just system (This is comparing two taxation systems mind you)), then it is obvious which system you should support if you only had the option of the two. If you want to remain poor in a poor country choose option #1. If you want to become more prosperous in a more prosperous country choose #2.

You think the great mass of people in the median wages are going to advocate to keep raising taxes on themselves? Yeah right.

[EndDaFed]

That is a benefit of a flat tax over a progressive tax. It provides an incentive for all individuals to continually lower it. Or you know, they could very well become like you and just steal from those who make more.../shrug. (Imagine for a moment those on the lower rung of nominal wages advocating for lowering taxes instead of raising them! Oh joyous joyous)

That is assuming one uses services. Many poor people don't use government programs. If someone is not paying income taxes and is not taking government handouts its a neutral position.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That is assuming one uses services. Many poor people don't use government available government programs. If some is not paying income taxes and is not taking government handouts its a neutral position.

Since federal dollars do go to fund roads today, and in absence of a libertarian revolution, and that almost everyone uses the roads because it is monopolized by the Government, they therefore should pay for these services just like the rest of the people. Besides, my goal in such a situation if we have to have taxation is to keep at as minimal and low as much as possible. That is only possible through a flat tax because of its incentives it foists on the body politic. The by-product is it is also more just as everyone who uses Government provided services and goods, pays for it. I really hate this line of argument in the first place, because we artificially confine ourselves to a set of circumstances which I find abhorrent (Government/State), but nonetheless flat tax is far preferrable over a progressive tax.

[EndDaFed]

Since federal dollars do go to fund roads today, and in absence of a libertarian revolution, and that almost everyone uses the roads because it is monopolized by the Government, they therefore should pay for these services just like the rest of the people. Besides, my goal in such a situation if we have to have taxation is to keep at as minimal and low as much as possible. That is only possible through a flat tax because of its incentives it foists on the body politic. The by-product is it is also more just as everyone who uses Government provided services and goods, pays for it. I really hate this line of argument in the first place, because we artificially confine ourselves to a set of circumstances which I find abhorrent (Government/State), but nonetheless flat tax is far preferrable over a progressive tax.

They do pay them. The bottom federal tax bracket is 25% on the federal level with S.S. That does not include state income taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. Speaking as if the poor pay nothing is bullshit. The only way to get out of paying is to not be on payroll and barter for goods and services. Considering poor people are more likely to be on payroll this is less plausible. Given that cheap property is far from city centers they probably pay more in gas taxes than you do.

[Vessol]

Well I'll take your word on it gentlemen. I'm more focused on ending taxation rather than which system is more fair, so I'm just really just saying my gut feeling rather than any study.

[BenIsForRon]

Well it looks like TJ is talking about a monopoly on property ownership and how to prevent it.

Look at Honduras. Chiquita and Dole own the whole fucking coastline. How are the people supposed to get some of their land back without government force?

[Dr.3D]

Well it looks like TJ is talking about a monopoly on property ownership and how to prevent it.

Look at Honduras. Chiquita and Dole own the whole fucking coastline. How are the people supposed to get some of their land back without government force?

I doubt he was using that phrase as an endorsement. If you read the entire context of when that was said, he was talking about other things.

Thomas Jefferson also said:

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be
just, must be uniform."

This of course would imply he felt a tax on income should be uniform in order to be just. This would of course imply that he would consider a progressive tax to be unjust.

If while talking, I happened to mention that there are many ways to steal peoples property and then explained one of them, it wouldn't mean I was justifying stealing peoples property and thought it was a good thing to do.