Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
.
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
So. It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he? So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
[
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
.
Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed. It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
I don't think that's so.
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
Not if other taxes were eliminated. If you cash your paycheck and every dollar is yours, you will be inclined to spend it; it's more money in your pocket.
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
So. It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he? So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.
Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.Absolutely, they should pay more.
Why should we all get looted more?
Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes. The rich are our employers and producers. They make that money up elsewhere. They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat. They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant. That only works in the movies. Real life doesn't work that way. In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
I love this leftist theory that we can impose confiscatory taxation on corporations and it won't affect the "working man." That just shows what a gang of dishonest covetous sleazebags they are.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
So. It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he? So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
[
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
.
Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed. It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
I don't think that's so.
No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone. Everyone pays the same rate. And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
So. It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he? So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
Yes.....your true colors have come out....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
I doubt the move to tax the rich more would effect you.Absolutely, they should pay more.
Why should we all get looted more?
Which is where leftists make the same mistake.
What do you think the rich guy does when he is hit with an expense? He just has to dig deeper into his pocket?
I have bad news for you: we all pay for those tax hikes. The rich are our employers and producers. They make that money up elsewhere. They don't give raises to their workers, they increase the cost of their products or services to us, they move some or all of their operations overseas, but they will recoup that lost money somewhere.
In the fantasy of the left, when we increase taxes on the rich, they just have to do with one less Hummer or boat. They have to cut their staff down by one maid or servant. That only works in the movies. Real life doesn't work that way. In real life, the big guy never loses and the little guy always pays.
I love this leftist theory that we can impose confiscatory taxation on corporations and it won't affect the "working man." That just shows what a gang of dishonest covetous sleazebags they are.
Yes, we see how "supply side" has worked the past 30+ years for the "working man". Bottom 90% has been stagnant. Hmm
We could go to a simple progressive tax that would be fairer.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
[
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
.
Going to a flat tax assumes that currently the rich are overtaxed and the not rich are undertaxed. It assumes that the Americans who are most in need of tax relief are the rich,
and the Americans who can most easily afford to pay more taxes are the not rich.
I don't think that's so.
No....what it assumes is that the flat tax is fair to everyone. Everyone pays the same rate. And you lefty morons still get to get more taxes from the rich...a win win....
Fairness is more than a math measurement.
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Consumption tax. Incentivize more purchases, no income tax, no property tax
A consumption tax discourages purchases.
And an income tax takes money by force...a sales tax is voluntary....you guys sure love to force people to do things don't you.....
Force? Oh right, Gov't by and for the people is wrong, in right wing world
ONE nation to SUCCESSFULLY function in your fantasy world without "forced" taxation? How is Greece doing again, among the highest unreported income revenues in the world?
And the government spent them into the crap hole they have now become.
BZZ nope, it was more than anything else, Wall Street Banksters and the inability to collect revenues via taxes. But thanks for not giving ONE example of the society you fetishists dream of!
Really? The bottom 50% of US make about 11% of ALL US income, how much should they pay? BTW the top 1/10th of 1% make about what the bottom HALF of US make, WHILE they pay record low tax rates (EFFECTIVE) of around 20% ON RECORD INCOMES!!!)
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
So. It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he? So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
Yes.....your true colors have come out....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.
The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?
About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.
Maybe you ought to look up how our graduated income tax works, and not worry so much about the very wealthy. Keep in mind they pay lawyers and elected officials to take care of themselves, they don't need you.
So what's wrong with the same percentage for everybody? After all, even if we all paid the same percentage, the wealthy would still be paying much more than the rest of us.
But if you think that the wealthy should pay more only because they have more, why not apply that to other things?
For instance, if you have a nice row of bushes on your front lawn, wouldn't it only be fair that government take some of your Bushes and give them to your neighbor down the street that has none? Or maybe you are an entertainment nut. You have four televisions in your home. Would it not be right that government take two of your televisions and give them to people that have none? How many cars do you own?
Does this sound ridiculous? Of course it is, yet, that's exactly how the left views wealth in this country. It would be insanity for government to be confiscating bushes, jewelry, cars or televisions, but not money. Why is that?
How much a citizen makes is irrelevant if we actually believe that all men are created equal or that there is equal protection under the law. It's really none of governments business.
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
Shall we call it socialism when govenment uses tax policy and regulation to share the nation's wealth to deliberately cause some level of equity? If so, America has lost touch with vital parts of the original foundation of American democracy. Men such as Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, William Gates Sr. and others would disagree heartily with modern conservative claims of "socialism." In fact, according to these men, equitable distribution of wealth in America is one of the founding principals of American democracy.
.....The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith
Death, Taxes, and the American Founders
So, as with other political issues — even independence itself — Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege. Keeping a robust estate tax today would further that goal, and it would be consistent with a long-standing tradition of American democracy.
Death Taxes and the American Founders History News Service
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
So. It is called freedom....which they supported above all else.....they actually increased freedom, not lessened it when and if they got rid of mandatory primogeniture laws....and it is nice that you quote Thomas Jefferson when you like him....considering how you guys drone on constantly about his owning slaves.....oh yeah.....apparently he didn't free that property to "every generation," did he? So sell your crap to a lefty drone who will believe in the benefits of being slaves of the government.....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense. Shocking. Cons support "freedom" for a new generation of the Gilded Age we've reached and support the "job creators" to be a small group of perpetual "job creators" AT everyone's else expense. Weird
Yes.....your true colors have come out....
'Freedom" lol, More right wing nonsense.
You lefty assholes don't believe in freedom of the individual.....you worship the state...it is your god and you will punish anyone who denies your god it's tribute......
lol, How's that "freedom" work out for most of the guys in third world nations that you conservatives/libertarians want to take US back too?
Those who refuse to acknowledge PROGRESSIVE policies created the modern middle class are morons and liars!
