Thomas Jefferson "spread the wealth"?

[Pheonixops]

Writing from France, Jefferson describes extreme inequality of wealth as a violation of natural right, and an evil against which all wise legislators will guard. Suggests, among other things, a form of graduated taxation.



Excerpt from a
Letter To James Madison
Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 28, 1785)
[NOTE: This letter was written while Jefferson was in France. In it, he talks about a trip he's made to a village where the king goes in the fall.]

...I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place.... As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate as myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her... She told me she was a day labourer, at 8 sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could percieve was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before recieved so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occaisions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I have observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

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 labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after these comes them most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state. "

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt that he intended to pay his slaves once he got them back to VA.

 

[Agit8r]

Correct. He believed in that qualification to the rightful accumulation of property which Locke made; "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's because the private centralized banking systems had monopolized the currency and allodials (and most other forms of hard wealth). Oh, kinda like today.

Welcome to the End the Fed movement.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wait a minute, I thought we hated Jefferson for being an Old, White, Slave owner. Are we supposed to like him now?

Why wasn't I informed of this?

 

[auditor0007]

Wait a minute, I thought we hated Jefferson for being an Old, White, Slave owner. Are we supposed to like him now?

Why wasn't I informed of this?

Even the wealthy eventually realize when they have gone too far and left too many behind. It's not good for society for all the wealth to be in the hands of the very few. In the long run, it's not even in the best interest of the few who hold all the wealth, because their wealth will be taken away, one way or another.

The problem we come across when discussing how all the wealth is moving into the hands of the very few is that all of a sudden conservatives think that means we want and support all out socialism, which isn't even close to the case. But despite that, cons will get all bent out of shape and start making ridiculous statements like we hear so often in these threads.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Atleast the OP stated the true purpose of the libtard taxation policies, it's not to generate revenue....which is why I laugh at them whine about deficits after tax cuts....it's about socialism.....and I dont think ole Tom would agree with that......

But Tom did bluntly state that murderers should be executed the next day (unless it falls on a Sunday)....I really like that plan.......and rapists should be casterated....another good one.....

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wait a minute, I thought we hated Jefferson for being an Old, White, Slave owner. Are we supposed to like him now?

Why wasn't I informed of this?

Even the wealthy eventually realize when they have gone too far and left too many behind. It's not good for society for all the wealth to be in the hands of the very few. In the long run, it's not even in the best interest of the few who hold all the wealth, because their wealth will be taken away, one way or another.

The problem we come across when discussing how all the wealth is moving into the hands of the very few is that all of a sudden conservatives think that means we want and support all out socialism, which isn't even close to the case. But despite that, cons will get all bent out of shape and start making ridiculous statements like we hear so often in these threads.

The Banks are the "very few" yet Eric Holder said Banks are "too big to prosecute".

Ben Bernanke is giving 82 Billion a month to Banks, gotta' way to stop THAT? Of course you don't.

Bankers OWN this country and it's currency yet all you can talk about is "wealth redistribution"? You're like those guys that memorize worthless Sports Stats.

Dumb, Fat, Lazy, Ignorant American.

 

[Gadawg73]

Jefferson was on opiates and 4 bottles of wine when he made that claim.
Jefferson died owing $110,000 to creditors which would be about 3 million in today's dollars.
He inherited all his $$$ and never worked a day in his life.

 

[editec]

Macro was NOT TJ's forte.

His vision for America was based on some notion of the nobility of an agricultural society.

Meanwhile Hamilton was back in the trenches actually DEALING WITH figuring out how to get the new nation back on track paying off its giagantic national debts, the State's debts, trade policies and where to find the cash to run this nation.

Hamilton's vision won the day.

Which turned out to be good for TH because that made it possible for Jefferson to grab the Louisiana Purchase when he was POTUS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Writing from France, Jefferson describes extreme inequality of wealth as a violation of natural right, and an evil against which all wise legislators will guard. Suggests, among other things, a form of graduated taxation.



Excerpt from a
Letter To James Madison
Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 28, 1785)
[NOTE: This letter was written while Jefferson was in France. In it, he talks about a trip he's made to a village where the king goes in the fall.]

...I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place.... As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate as myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her... She told me she was a day labourer, at 8 sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could percieve was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before recieved so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occaisions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I have observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

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 labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after these comes them most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state. "

"...legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one."


1. Adam Smith, whose seminal work was, interestingly published the same year as the birth of this great nation, wrote:
"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."

2. The idea was advanced in the nascent nation by Thomas Jefferson.
"Entail" and "Primogeniture" was the age-old idea that one's land could only be passed to one's eldest son...
Jefferson wrote:
Some of the founders were not satisfied with curtailing entail and primogeniture; they advocated more radical measures for rectifying the imbalance in access to the intergenerational commons. Paine argued that the poor had in effect been wrongfully ousted and excluded from their natural legacy for many generations.
Thomas Jefferson and Entail



3. From 1776 to 1779, Jefferson served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, where he successfully sought to abolish entail and primogeniture,...
http://millercenter.org/president/je...ys/biography/2

 

[editec]

I just happen to be reading a book about Hamilton, right now.

The Founders and Finance by Thomas K McCraw

Fascinating stuff for those of us trying to understand the history of US macroeconomics.

One cannot help but wonder how history might be different if Burr hadn't killed Hamilton in a duel.

The USA lost a great mind, and a true patriot that day.

If some of you are marveling that I am waxing poetic about the man who was the most aggressive advocate for a CENTRAL BANK and a strong central government, too, understand that I am not an idealist, I am a prgamatist.

What was right for this nation in 1789 -1830, is not necessarily right for the nation today.

But if any single person deserves credit for this nation becoming the economic powerhouse it ultimately became?

Hamilton is the top of the list.

 

[Nemo]

Thomas Jefferson had a significant influence on the founding of the nation; albeit his ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. (Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.) Jefferson’s main contribution was the Louisiana Purchase, which opened the way to westward expansion, and the rise of America to become one of the great nations of the world. The epitaph on his tomb recites: "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, & Father of the University of Virginia." He died bankrupt; but he nevertheless left a rich legacy for all of us.

 

[whitehall]

What is this, cherry picked letters from the 18th century used as socialist propaganda in the 21 century?

 

[Sallow]

Wait a minute, I thought we hated Jefferson for being an Old, White, Slave owner. Are we supposed to like him now?

Why wasn't I informed of this?

Even the wealthy eventually realize when they have gone too far and left too many behind. It's not good for society for all the wealth to be in the hands of the very few. In the long run, it's not even in the best interest of the few who hold all the wealth, because their wealth will be taken away, one way or another.

The problem we come across when discussing how all the wealth is moving into the hands of the very few is that all of a sudden conservatives think that means we want and support all out socialism, which isn't even close to the case. But despite that, cons will get all bent out of shape and start making ridiculous statements like we hear so often in these threads.

Which has been really, the cause for a great many revolutions and wars. The French Revolution is a great example.

"Let them eat cake" indeed.

 

[Sallow]

What is this, cherry picked letters from the 18th century used as socialist propaganda in the 21 century?

It's not "cherry picked".

Many of the founders were loathe to move from one aristocracy to another.

Even Locke cautioned against excessive wealth.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wealth always excessive to those who do not have it.
The politics of envy and jealousy.
"Mommy, Jimmy has more candy than I do, I WANT MORE CANDY NOW"

 

[g5000]

Writing from France, Jefferson describes extreme inequality of wealth as a violation of natural right, and an evil against which all wise legislators will guard. Suggests, among other things, a form of graduated taxation.



Excerpt from a
Letter To James Madison
Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 28, 1785)
[NOTE: This letter was written while Jefferson was in France. In it, he talks about a trip he's made to a village where the king goes in the fall.]

...I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place.... As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate as myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her... She told me she was a day labourer, at 8 sous or 4 d. sterling the day; that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment, and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could percieve was unfeigned, because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before recieved so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occaisions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I have observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

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 labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after these comes them most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state. "

I've quoted from this letter many times on this and other forums. Jefferson believed in a progressive tax system, and that lower incomes should be exempt from taxes.

Very much like the system we have today.

You should read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice for some real eyebrow raising stuff, too. He proposes welfare and social security in it!

 

[ScienceRocks]

So Jefferson wanted to be like FDR? Wow.

 

[g5000]

Jefferson was aware there are natural and unnatural concentrations of wealth, and the need to mitigate the unnatural concentration of wealth. He was not out to penalize the guy who built a better mousetrap. He was out to make sure the legislative field was level and not granting advantages to a few which thereby created unnatural concentrations of wealth.

He also realized that any society is going to violate natural right, no matter how well constructed that society was. Therefore, it was necessary to alleviate those violations with progressive taxation. He saw that any society which had a large poor population was seriously broken and that the governmental system was providing advantages to a select few, unnaturally concentrating wealth.

The solution is not to take the wealth, or "spread the wealth". The answer is to prevent wealth from being unnaturally concentrated in the first place. The answer is to address the legislation which creates or fosters an unlevel playing field.