What Would Jefferson Do? - Income Redistribution - by Pinko the Bear

by: Pinko the Bear

Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 18:17:42 PM EST

Thomas Jefferson witnessed first hand what bad choices by greedy men can spawn. The bloody French Revolution was the result of greed. The Haves wanted more and more and the Have Nots got less and less. It resulted in a populous so oppressed, so denied, pushed so far, that when a Tipping Point was reached, the people rose up slaughtered tens of thousands of oppressors, friends of oppressors and countless innocents. This did not have to happen. Jefferson knew it. Jefferson wrote about this very issue in a letter to Madison. He was very interested in preventing the kind of obscene income inequality he saw in France from happening here in America. He knew it would take many generations before enough aggregated wealth could start to buy off the Government. He knew that once obscene amounts of generational wealth accumulated at the top, it was only a matter of time before that wealth would infect, corrupt and literally purchase those controlling the  levers of power. He warned us. Well, more rightly, his letters to Madison warned us.

The property of this country is absolutely concentrated 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 laboring.

They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work.

Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.

So the question  was and still is, "How do we maintain some equality without too much Government intrusion?" Jefferson was opposed to hierarchy and aristocracy and  he tried to address it in Virginia through a series of laws  he passed that ended some of the old practices of the aristocratic class. When land passed from generation to generation, the eldest boy inherit it all. This was stopped by Jefferson in Virginia. This was a start, but it really didn't solve the broader issue and didn't catch on in the other colonies. But it was start. Years later, while serving as a diplomat to France, and witnessing the horrid conditions under which the majority of the people suffered under,  he realized that it was the  profound distortion in  the distribution of wealth that led to the French Revolution. As a solution he proposed a "geometric" tax solution should be instituted. As one's income rises, the percentage of income that is taxed should rise "Geometrically" he said. In other words, he proposed a  Progressive tax system that says as your income gets higher, you pay a higher percentage. As it gets stratospherically high the tax gets "confiscatory".

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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

He was not saying that people should be punished for their hard work or that they should have their earned wealth taken from them. He was saying that we need to  devise a system that will prevent the kind of income inequality that caused the French Revolution. He said we will need a system that will keep that kind of bloody uprising from happening here in America sometime down the road. He was right. It is kind of interesting that this man was thinking about these thing over 100 years before the personal income tax system was put into place. It is more than interesting. It was brilliant. Too bad we did not heed his advice. I don't want to go through all the details and numbers about the marginal tax rates again here since I have beat it to death in other posts and radio shows. Just know this. The reason we should have what Jefferson called "confiscatory" tax rates for the obscenely high income earners is because the Republic is at risk when gross amounts of Capital aggregates in the hands of a few people. Income inequality is the greatest threat to a functioning democratic society. No government can stand in the face of this obscene kind of wealth at the top. Jefferson knew, I know and now you know it. Others have known it. Under Eisenhower we had top marginal rates in the low 90s. They stayed high until the late 70s and early 80s and have been forever going down. The rich truly get richer and the poor truly get poorer.

This is our current reality but it  isn't the only reality possible. There is nothing natural about this. There is nothing inevitable about this. This is not simply the normal progression of mankind. This is a choice that was made by folks who at one time used force to gain some power. Each time these marginally more powerful people gained a bit more power, they gamed the system a bit more. More power led to more gaming of the system. Even more power led to even more gaming of the system. Absolute power is their goal. How will you fare under that kind of gamed system?

The French Revolution didn't have to be so bloody. The Russian Revolution didn't have to be so bloody. There comes a tipping point in every society that forever changes that society. People will always do what they have to do to survive. They will do what they have to do to feed their families. Self preservation is in our DNA. The masses of oppressed people in any society will do what has to be done in order to live. Jefferson's proposal to institute a progressive tax system which exempted the poor and then got progressively higher seems like a fine idea to me considering the certainty of mankind's will to survive and its demonstrated ability to do so. The rise of the oligarchy is a result of a populous that was asleep or inept for too many generations. Instituting a tax policy that prevents gross amounts of  generational wealth to be passed and accumulated seems like a perfectly rational, logical and reasonable tool to be used to prevent the corrupting power of obscene wealth. The tipping point won't come if the people can eat, clothe and shelter themselves. Our society is inching its way to that point. I concur with Jefferson. Do you?

Which Side Are You On?

by: davidseth

Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 22:08:11 PM EST

Yesterday, Bernie Sanders spoke in the Senate for 8 1/2 hours to remind us that while millions of people in the United States are suffering, others are doing quite well, thank you.  Those doing spectacularly well represent 1 or 2 per cent of the population.  The rest of us, well, we're not doing so great.  Those who are doing so well, of course, don't need the government's assistance, but they've bought and sold this government, so it's only natural that their investment in politicians should be rewarded in the current tax deal even if there is no rational reason for doing so.  These people have power and money and they get what they want, even if they don't need it; everyone else, not so much.

Not just top 1%; raise taxes on richest 10%

by: fairleft

Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:49:25 AM EST

(Chart originally here.)

Social Security: If The Rich Paid Taxes Like You And Me...Problem Solved

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 10:53:39 AM EST

Today we take on another bite-sized chunk of economic analysis: how can you get to a situation where Social Security is financially stable for the next 75 years?

We'll describe some proposals that are out there-but the big focus of this conversation will be to look at one change that, all by itself, could not only solve the entire funding problem, but could actually allow us to lower the Social Security tax rate, immediately, and still achieve fiscal balance.

"Well, if that's such a bright idea" you might ask, "why haven't we adopted it already?"

That's a great question-and after you hear the proposal, you may well have explanations of your own.

$75

by: augurgirl

Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 04:17:39 AM EDT

Ok, I guess I'm a socialist. Better Red than Dead. I should probably just break down and get Lenin's face tattooed on my bicep. What can I say, I'm hopelessly pro-firefighting. And, call me unreasonable, but I think firefighting services should be available, for free, for every person in America, regardless of where they live or if they are rich, poor, middle class or even Republican. If Dino Rosi's house is on fire, I really don't mind if some of the taxes I paid this year go toward putting it out. I know we don't really have HUAC any more, but I'm sure Michele Bachmann can whip something up to take care of me, right?

I'm writing in reference to a house fire in Tennessee. Because one home owner failed to pay the $75 rural residents are required to pay per year for firefighting services, his house burned to the ground. The man offered to pay for any expenses the firefighters might incur, and he was refused. The firefighters put out the part of the blaze that spread to his fee-paying neighbor's home, but sat outside in trucks with the necessary equipment to save his home and watched it burn.

If there's one policy area where you'd think that people could come together on, firefighting seems like it ought to be a strong contender.  I do understand that this man's house was outside of city limits and so the fee for protecting him was to make up for the fact that his taxes didn't fund the fire department as those of city residents did. I get this. But when the moment comes and the firefighters are faced with a fire and don't put it out over $75, well, I think that something important is being missed. Emergency services should help people first, and worry about jurisdiction or expense after. Send the homeowner a bill, for God's sake. The fact that some people on the right are suggesting this man had it coming really upsets me. Forgive me, but what the hell kind of country is this? Whatever happened to love thy neighbor? Also, not to continually kick the issue of federal defense spending, but maybe if we were spending less money burning other countries to the ground, state and local emergency services wouldn't be quite so strapped for cash. Maybe we should apply this logic at the Federal level and stop offering tax evaders the services of the Federal government. Cease their mail delivery, refuse to allow them to fly or drive on federal highways and deny them Social Security.

While I may decry the policies that led to this, I have to indict the behavior of the firefighters themselves, as well. We have an obligation to help one another to the best of our abilities, on the clock or off. I don't have a whole lot of useful skills, but when I saw an old woman being assaulted at the bus stop, I stepped in to stop her assailant. Because I could. Because I have the training and the ability. My coworker is red-cross certified in First Aid, and you can bet he'd be the first to step up in a medical emergency, regardless of his likelihood of being compensated. My roommate speaks Spanish and will step up to translate for customers struggling to be understood. We all have skills and abilities and we all have a moral obligation to use those skills to help one another. These firefighters were trained professionals with the equipment (and also the time) to help put out the fire in this man's house and they refused to. That's shameful as public servants and shameful as human beings. Conservatives can spin and wring their hands and quote Ayn Rand all they want; at the end of the day there is right and there is wrong, damn it, and sometimes we're lucky enough know the difference.

So paint me red and call me comrade, because I guess I've been a socialist all along.  

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Cross-posted at dearmrpresident365.

Another Damned Rant on the Damned Nation

by: Diny

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 10:30:24 AM EST

Right now I want to talk about income inequality -- the greatest evil a nation can endure -- and the terrible punishment you and your loved ones are facing as a result.

You are probably familiar with this chart, which shows when and how the United States became a Banana Republic through regressive tax policies:

Now, let's take a look at what the nation-killing policy of regressive tax cutting has done to human life in America: