100th Birthday of The Income Tax

[Conan71]

The idea of redistribution is as old as the nation. Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Thomas Paine wanted a 100% inheritance tax. No transmission of wealth between generations in order to solve the problem of wealth inequality.

Who's your avatar right now again?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

I don't pretend to be a scholar on the Founding Fathers but Jefferson's views must have evolved over time:

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'"
-Thomas Jefferson

Today is the 268th birthday of one of America's most well-known Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson. While Thomas Jefferson is well-known for his many contributions to America's political culture, few may realize that he repealed America's first death tax.

In 1797 President John Adams imposed a stamp act on wills and estates to help pay the military costs for countering French shipping attacks. After Jefferson was elected President and the conflict ended, he signed legislation to repeal the tax.

This was no small matter for Jefferson. As he made clear in his writings, government had no business using tax policy to redistribute the property of America's citizens. Indeed, he believed that taxing estates or otherwise preventing inheritances was immoral and economically and socially disastrous.

In his second inaugural address, he expressed: "Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." Jefferson did not believe that inequality was an excuse for government to plunder the fruits of one generation's labor when they were bequeathed to the next.

In fact, he appealed to the "laws of civil society" and "the encouragement of industry" as justifications for protecting the right to leave the "property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases."

Jefferson left a great legacy with America – the legacy of death tax repeal. Jefferson articulated the moral case against the death tax with clarity and force. It is time for America to take his lesson to heart and permanently repeal the Federal Estate Tax.

http://nodeathtax.org/happy-birthday-thomas-jefferson--hero-of-death-tax-repeal

[AquaMan]

That's good stuff. And likely he did change his views over time as the country changed from one dependent on import taxes and low cost labor to a more complex system.

He was no saint you know. He also didn't think women or non landowners should be able to vote. Shall we take that lesson to heart and repeal women and minority rights to vote?

[Gaspar]

That's good stuff. And likely he did change his views over time as the country changed from one dependent on import taxes and low cost labor to a more complex system.

He was no saint you know. He also didn't think women or non landowners should be able to vote. Shall we take that lesson to heart and repeal women and minority rights to vote?

Don't we all!

25 years ago you and I would have likely agreed on most points.   

[swake]

I don't pretend to be a scholar on the Founding Fathers but Jefferson's views must have evolved over time:

If it evolved, it happened over several seconds.

Your quote

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--"the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

is followed by this sentence in the same letter:

If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.

Text of the entire letter here:
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp

[AquaMan]

Its interesting to see how they wrestled with these issues even in the 18th century. To extract any one sentence without wading through their complex thoughts is truly a disservice to them.

Its humbling to see how coarse and shallow our level of discourse and analysis has become.

[swake]

Its interesting to see how they wrestled with these issues even in the 18th century. To extract any one sentence without wading through their complex thoughts is truly a disservice to them.

Its humbling to see how coarse and shallow our level of discourse and analysis has become.

Context is everything.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think you just made my point.  Progressivism grew out of the desire to fight economic inequality. Before the income tax, there was little or no mechanism within our government for the progressive movement to use.

The income tax had a singular purpose and a very narrow scope. Before it's institution the progressive movement struggled to find a foothold, because the concept of redistribution would have been viewed as outright Communistic (still is to most).  A tax on income once established, like any government mechanism, was sure to grow, and offered the missing tool for redistribution and future progressive policy.  i.e. the baby was born.

The income tax was initially viewed as an innocent tax on the wealthy with a very narrow scope, of course, when a child is born, you have no way of knowing if he/she will be a great scientist or a serial killer.  The best you can do at that point is give the kid a good name.

And an income tax was not, by the definition of the time, a direct tax, i.e. being laid upon a person by reason the person's very life or existence - like a poll tax or head tax, so NOT, therefore unconstitutional.  Since there was a whole lot of confusion, and some serious redefinition of language over time (as shown in microcosm by encrease versus increase) the 16th amendment was deemed necessary to mostly allow the Fed to collect money without having to redistribute equally between the states.

All from one of those "reactionary" judicial rulings....

[Conan71]

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--"the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

is followed by this sentence in the same letter:

If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.

That still says nothing about Jefferson favoring a 100% inheritance tax unless I don't know how to read post colonial-era English.  That's always a distinct possibility.