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. "

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!

I agree. I'll check out Paine's "Agrarian Justice", thank you for the reference!

 

[Gadawg73]

If wealth is not obtained by illegal means what business is it of anyone?

But there is never a shortage of the left that want to steal that wealth because they claim that they deserve a portion of it.

All the while they sit on their lazy asses doing nothing productive.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Shouldn't the amount Americans earn be based upon the particular education, skill, and experienced they received? Obviously a steam fitter has attained a higher skill level than an employee at McDonalds flipping burgers. Also, I don't know many people that can simply slide right into a position as CEO of Prudential Financial Inc, do you? It's as it should be, as the amount you earn should be based upon your performance and the amount of "value" you hold to a particular company. If you desire to earn more, what exactly is stopping you from getting a B.S. degree or equivalent in Engineering, Physics, or Mathematics? I'm sure everyone is also familiar with Telemetry, Command, and Ranging (TC&R), RF Auto-Track (RFAT), Camera, and Mission Data Link subsystems. So why should we begin to substitute pay, for experience and a little motivated discipline to acquiring a particular set of skills that makes you more valuable as an individual? Is not establishing yourself to become a rare greater asset to a particular company the true goal to attaining more personal wealth in your life? Have we truly become lazy in America, that we simply want what some ELSE has without striving to make any effort to increase our own education, and particular set of skills or experience towards increasing our own personal value with a company?

 

[Sallow]

So Jefferson wanted to be like FDR? Wow.

Jefferson was a complicated fellow. And his views changed through out his life. For example, he gave up on that idea of "refreshing the tree of liberty" thing after the French Revolution.

 

[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.

Shouldn't the amount Americans earn be based upon the particular education, skill, and experienced they received? Obviously a steam fitter has attained a higher skill level than an employee at McDonalds flipping burgers. Also, I don't know many people that can simply slide right into a position as CEO of Prudential Financial Inc, do you? It's as it should be, as the amount you earn should be based upon your performance and the amount of "value" you hold to a particular company. If you desire to earn more, what exactly is stopping you from getting a B.S. degree or equivalent in Engineering, Physics, or Mathematics? I'm sure everyone is also familiar with Telemetry, Command, and Ranging (TC&R), RF Auto-Track (RFAT), Camera, and Mission Data Link subsystems. So why should we begin to substitute pay, for experience and a little motivated discipline to acquiring a particular set of skills that makes you more valuable as an individual? Is not establishing yourself to become a rare greater asset to a particular company the true goal to attaining more personal wealth in your life? Have we truly become lazy in America, that we simply want what some ELSE has without striving to make any effort to increase our own education, and particular set of skills or experience towards increasing our own personal value with a company?

That's all well and good. But we live in a very prosperous country. There should be no one starving or living in poverty. And there should be no one with so much wealth that person have more influence over legislation and policy then over 300 million of that person's fellow citizens.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

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.

Old money understands your points.

There is no evidence today's nouveau riche understands anything outside their own personal best interests.

The most amusing part of today's situation is that tens of millions of white trash are locked down boosters of unrestrained capitalism that offers them no hope and promises to ensure 75% of their children have no hope.

None of which implies fake-liberals have anything close to an answer. Two of the stupidest acts in modern history were Reagan's "supply side" bogusness and Obama's stimulus through state and local government, an almost note for note identical stimulus except through the stupidest money managers in the history of western civilization.

The bottom line is the US is headed to a bad place. About all one can hope is there is retribution for crimes at the policy level.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jefferson was talking about the evils of a monarchy where the labors of the people were not their own but belonged to the King.

Sort of like the same place obama wants to take us.

 

[Agit8r]

The amount of denial around here is amazing. Some people forget that the American Revolution was actually fought AGAINST something.

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"
-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Shouldn't the amount Americans earn be based upon the particular education, skill, and experienced they received? Obviously a steam fitter has attained a higher skill level than an employee at McDonalds flipping burgers. Also, I don't know many people that can simply slide right into a position as CEO of Prudential Financial Inc, do you? It's as it should be, as the amount you earn should be based upon your performance and the amount of "value" you hold to a particular company. If you desire to earn more, what exactly is stopping you from getting a B.S. degree or equivalent in Engineering, Physics, or Mathematics? I'm sure everyone is also familiar with Telemetry, Command, and Ranging (TC&R), RF Auto-Track (RFAT), Camera, and Mission Data Link subsystems. So why should we begin to substitute pay, for experience and a little motivated discipline to acquiring a particular set of skills that makes you more valuable as an individual? Is not establishing yourself to become a rare greater asset to a particular company the true goal to attaining more personal wealth in your life? Have we truly become lazy in America, that we simply want what some ELSE has without striving to make any effort to increase our own education, and particular set of skills or experience towards increasing our own personal value with a company?

That's all well and good. But we live in a very prosperous country. There should be no one starving or living in poverty. And there should be no one with so much wealth that person have more influence over legislation and policy then over 300 million of that person's fellow citizens.

Education as well as advancement of personal skills are an individual choice. Those who choose NOT to take advantage of a free public education, rather they reject such opportunities to pursue another life out in the streets through drugs or other self interests, become victims of their OWN environment and personal decisions. Accountability and personal responsibility are derivatives to the individual freedoms we seek to enjoy in this country, and become the resulting consequences we face as to whether we succeed or fail. Placing that role on "Government" only makes them the enabler of what we choose ourselves not to accept.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Shouldn't the amount Americans earn be based upon the particular education, skill, and experienced they received? Obviously a steam fitter has attained a higher skill level than an employee at McDonalds flipping burgers. Also, I don't know many people that can simply slide right into a position as CEO of Prudential Financial Inc, do you? It's as it should be, as the amount you earn should be based upon your performance and the amount of "value" you hold to a particular company. If you desire to earn more, what exactly is stopping you from getting a B.S. degree or equivalent in Engineering, Physics, or Mathematics? I'm sure everyone is also familiar with Telemetry, Command, and Ranging (TC&R), RF Auto-Track (RFAT), Camera, and Mission Data Link subsystems. So why should we begin to substitute pay, for experience and a little motivated discipline to acquiring a particular set of skills that makes you more valuable as an individual? Is not establishing yourself to become a rare greater asset to a particular company the true goal to attaining more personal wealth in your life? Have we truly become lazy in America, that we simply want what some ELSE has without striving to make any effort to increase our own education, and particular set of skills or experience towards increasing our own personal value with a company?

That's all well and good. But we live in a very prosperous country. There should be no one starving or living in poverty. And there should be no one with so much wealth that person have more influence over legislation and policy then over 300 million of that person's fellow citizens.

How do we increase our wealth as a nation+end poverty? We can increase wealth by creating more successful people, but some people just don't want to improve themselves. I mean some people really don't or can't...

How is giving it to less productive people=increasing our wealth? I was watching some economic stuff and they said that taking away from the productive does diminish the potential return some(leaky bucket) as the poor are less skilled.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That's all well and good. But we live in a very prosperous country. There should be no one starving or living in poverty.

Nice theory, but it's completely naive and unrealistic.