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.
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!
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%
HMM
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!
Obama is taking us back to the 3rd world, don't you worry. Excessive taxes is how 3rd world crap holes stay 3rd world crap holes...the government takes everything from the individual, and leave them poor...that is what you morons want.
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%
HMM
Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
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!
Obama is taking us back to the 3rd world, don't you worry. Excessive taxes is how 3rd world crap holes stay 3rd world crap holes...the government takes everything from the individual, and leave them poor...that is what you morons want.
MORE right wing garbage. SHOCKING
See how the EFFECTIVE tax rates paid by the "job creators" has shrunk? How has the Bottom 90% done since?
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%
HMM
Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
Your fantasy worlds is BS
Dems stopped Dubya? lol
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
2004 Republican Convention:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...
Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
June 17, 2004
Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%
HMM
Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%
HMM
Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)
You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?
Your fantasy worlds is BS
Dems stopped Dubya? lol
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
2004 Republican Convention:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...
Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
June 17, 2004
Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....
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!
Moron....if you believe that......who let them get away with it.....? The politicians you want to give more tax money to......gosh you are stupid. You want to give more money to the very people who allowed Wall St. to get away with whatever you believe they got away with....
What fucking sense does that make?
You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird
Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%
HMM
Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.
No, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves
In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves
Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."
Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."
Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."
Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."
Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
Yeah....another lefty liar on the site....
The True Origins of This Financial Crisis The American Spectator
There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of theClinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?
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!
Yes...keeping taxes low stimulates and economy.....if the government doesn't spend every penny they get and then spend even more till we have 18 trillion in debt...
Historic Tax Cuts and Economic Growth Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.
Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....
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!
Conservatives want to take US back to third world nations? What third world nation has a strong middle class and economic policies fertile for small business entrepreneurship? Most small business owners don't buy the "you didn't build that" mantra from the side that does not understand economic risk. A small business owner builds with his/her risk. An infrastructure risk economically speaking is borne by and distributed among taxpayers. If it fails, taxpayers are simply called to fund another infrastructure project. Hardly third world thinking.
What was wrong with shrimp running on treadmills?Somehow, "The Beast" always seems to be social spendingFine, then cut spending BEFORE you cut taxes
You need to cut taxes before you cut spending...otherewise they will just keep spending. Or, both at the same time.
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spendingby cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I'm more than happy to stop funding shrimp running on treadmills...besides, there is a well known equation in government. If the tax payers demand you cut spending you make it a choice between a vital service and something frivolous, then cut the vital service...then the tax payers will demand you keep funding the service and they keep the junk they wanted to keep as well.
Notice how in local election cycles the first thing they threaten to cut is police, fire, and education.......and then the tax payers fall in line for whatever tax increase they want.....that is why you cut the tax revenue...they have more than enough for the essentials but refuse to cut their pet projects...force them to cut their crap and leave the vital services alone.
OF COURSE I DO.
FROM A FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT STANDPOINT "EFFECTIVE" TAX RATE IS 100% CONFISCATION.
Next question, please.
.
So NO, you can't back up the posit that tax rates paid, EFFECTIVE, are about what they were. Even if I showed they dropped DRAMATICALLY as the share going to the top has tripled. Thanks anyways
We live with a Gov't that allows US to elect leaders who make LAWS. If you don't like it, try Honduras or Somalia?
MR FUCKTARD
YOU ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT OUR CRIMINAL LEGISLATORS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO INFLATE THE CURRENCY THEREBY LEVYING AN INDIRECT TAX.
NO, I AM PLANNING TO STAY HERE, MAKE SURE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS RESTORED AND THEN ENFORCED AND THE CRIMINALLY INSANE LIKE YOURSELF IS PROPERLY EXECUTED.
.
Oh a nuttjobber antiFed.. Name the nation without a federal reserve? Oops
OH, A NUTJOB SOCIALIST , ANTI-CONSTITUTION,
NAME THE NATION WHICH WILL SURVIVE AN ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL.
.
The US?
