# Think Tank > History >  Did Jefferson support a progressive tax?

## Catatonic

I stumbled across this little quote from Jefferson:

"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"

I didn't think he was pro-taxation.

----------


## Danke

> "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"


Never read that one, but I have expressed similar ideas on taxes.

----------


## jclay2

http://books.google.com/books?id=JNb...ise%22&f=false

According to that, Jefferson turned away from any idea of progressive taxation later in life.

----------


## TastyWheat

> I stumbled across this little quote from Jefferson:
> 
> "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"
> 
> I didn't think he was pro-taxation.


Do you have the full quote?  There's no real context here.  People have also claimed he favored estate taxes but taken in context he was only expressing his displeasure for the British tradition of eldest sons inheriting the family estate.

----------


## Catatonic

> Do you have the full quote?  There's no real context here.  People have also claimed he favored estate taxes but taken in context he was only expressing his displeasure for the British tradition of eldest sons inheriting the family estate.


Yeah, thats what I thought.  In the quote he just says "this is one way to try to do it".  I couldn't find the full context of the quote.

----------


## theoakman

there's nothing wrong with a progressive tax as long as the increased rate kicks in beyond the middle class.  Progressive taxes on people making more than a million dollars will not affect their standard of living or will to work one bit.  On the other hand, when you have progressive taxes kick in at 50k, you just piss of the middle class while you corn hole them.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> there's nothing wrong with a progressive tax as long as the increased rate kicks in beyond the middle class.  Progressive taxes on people making more than a million dollars will not affect their standard of living or will to work one bit.  On the other hand, when you have progressive taxes kick in at 50k, you just piss of the middle class while you corn hole them.


Wrong. Theft is always wrong. 

Anyways, no Thomas Jefferson never supported such a tax. In fact, he got rid of all domestic taxation during his Presidency.

----------


## RSLudlum

> there's nothing wrong with a progressive tax as long as the increased rate kicks in beyond the middle class.  Progressive taxes on people making more than a million dollars will not affect their standard of living or will to work one bit.  On the other hand, when you have progressive taxes kick in at 50k, you just piss of the middle class while you corn hole them.



If we are talking in a "class" mindset...
Your proposal would affect the middle class by limiting the amount of money the 'millionaires" have to spend on goods/services that the middle class produces therefore limiting the possibilities they have to become millionaires themselves.

----------


## treyfu

Progressive taxes are destructive and unconstitutional. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

----------


## theoakman

> Wrong. Theft is always wrong. 
> 
> Anyways, no Thomas Jefferson never supported such a tax. In fact, he got rid of all domestic taxation during his Presidency.


Please....give me a break.  99% of the people that make more than million bucks in this country do it at the expense of the tax payers in some form or another.  Even if they didn't,  Not for nothing, but people don't start to get negatively affected by taxes until they notice their standard of living decreasing as a result of them.  The filthy rich can afford to pay progressive taxes. The middle class can't.  This country would have no time having solid economic growth and prosperity if 96% of the population paid one tax rate and the other 4% who make more than a million dollars pay just a little more.  The problem with progressive taxes is that our country taxes the hell out of people making 50k a year while they let people making under 30k a year get off scott free.  Furthermore, they also let the filthy rich pay zero taxes through loopholes.  Income tax should be abolished.  Flat tax for all with some luxury taxes on expensive properties.  That's all I suggest.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Please....give me a break.  99% of the people that make more than million bucks in this country do it at the expense of the tax payers in some form or another.  Even if they didn't,  Not for nothing, but people don't start to get negatively affected by taxes until they notice their standard of living decreasing as a result of them.  The filthy rich can afford to pay progressive taxes. The middle class can't.  This country would have no time having solid economic growth and prosperity if 96% of the population paid one tax rate and the other 4% who make more than a million dollars pay just a little more.  The problem with progressive taxes is that our country taxes the hell out of people making 50k a year while they let people making under 30k a year get off scott free.  Furthermore, they also let the filthy rich pay zero taxes through loopholes.  Income tax should be abolished.  Flat tax for all with some luxury taxes on expensive properties.  That's all I suggest.


Obviously you have no economic understanding. That's ok. I recommend Man, Economy, State and Economics in One Lesson. 

Secondly, on a moral ground taxation is immoral and criminal. Why is the State allowed to violate it's own laws? If I go around and take your money, and then donate that money to charity I am a criminal. If the State does that, but instead lines the pockets of special interests thats just fine and dandy.

----------


## theoakman

> If we are talking in a "class" mindset...
> Your proposal would affect the middle class by limiting the amount of money the 'millionaires" have to spend on goods/services that the middle class produces therefore limiting the possibilities they have to become millionaires themselves.



See there is the problem.  You think that I want to tax the majority of income millionaires make.  I don't.  It's not unreasonable to have the rich pay a little extra.  It doesn't affect their standard of living or productivity one bit.  The mega rich?  They can easily afford to pay more taxes.

You are also grossly overestimating the ability of millionaires to consume and affect demand.  Not for nothing, but a lot of average bums consume way more food than Warren Buffett.  The rich do not drive demand.  The public does.  You cannot tax the middle class without killing the economy.

The Democrat's wet dream tax structure is equal to:
Lowest 20% pay no taxes.
Middle class pays 50% of their income.
The rich pay 80% of their income.

The Republican's wet dream tax structure is equal to:
The lowest 20% pay 15% of their income
The middle class pays 50% of their income
The rich pay 0% of their income.

I think the middle class should never be taxed more than 5% of their income.  If the Federal Government were forced to obey the constitution, we could easily fund it with a tiny fraction of our wages.  That being said, if we ever got to the point where we had the amount of freedom to keep taxes that low, I'm pretty sure the rich would be comfortable enough to pay a higher rate than the average citizen.  Besides, I'm talking rates of 20% higher.  People flashing pictures of Karl Marx at me is just ludicrous.  Contrary to what you guys may believe, progressive tax structures don't have to involve redistribution of wealth.  It doesn't turn into socialism until the worker becomes penalized for his production rather than rewarded.  If a millionaire paid a 10% tax while you paid 5%, it's not socialism.  The millionaire still enjoys the full benefit of his labor, which would only be possible with an honest government.  He should be so fortunate to be in such a country.  

You guys are trying to associate all progressive tax structures with the vision of Barack Obama.  You can shape a progressive curve any way you want.  Honestly, Warren Buffett can afford to pay more taxes.  Besides, you are completely ignoring the systemic risk of what happens when the rich use their money to influence the government.  Mega rich billionaires are just as dangerous to the country as a bloated federal government.  JP Morgan proved that.  When someone gets that rich, they are able to create centralized power.  Most Austrian economic analysis completely ignores the aristocracy that exists from old money.

----------


## theoakman

> Obviously you have no economic understanding. That's ok. I recommend Man, Economy, State and Economics in One Lesson. 
> 
> Secondly, on a moral ground taxation is immoral and criminal. Why is the State allowed to violate it's own laws? If I go around and take your money, and then donate that money to charity I am a criminal. If the State does that, but instead lines the pockets of special interests thats just fine and dandy.


Maybe you should read some of my past posts before you shoot your mouth off.

----------


## BenIsForRon

All taxes should be consumption based (sales and carbon taxes).  Income tax will always be controversial because somebody thinks they're getting the shaft.

----------


## Stary Hickory

Well if you are naive enough to believe that a tax on the rich isn't a tax on us all then you deserve what you get. They simply pass the increased burden back to other people. Tax the man who makes your shoes, and he makes his shoes more expensive. Don't wear shoes? Ok then maybe your barber does, and he hates the more expensive shoes so he charges more for a hair cut.

Don't get hair cuts? Well maybe the grocer at the down town store buys SHOES and gets HAIRCUTs and now he's barely making ends meet so he passes the costs onto the groceries. I am sure you like to eat?


The whole idea that you can tax one thing and it not effect everyone else is silly. Taxes on cigarettes are paid by us all. Every good and every service enters into the array of goods and services that are compared and priced by the free market system. If you increase the cost of one of these goods it will force prices of everything to go up, as people will now have to trade more for the more expensive item.

When thinking of taxation, think of free market (uncoerced) versus the Government(coerced). We have been trying to progressively tax the rich for decades now and the wealth gap is at it's widest ever.

----------


## axiomata

All income taxes are evil.  But I can agree with theoakman, who has made many contributions to this forum on economic matters and definitely does not have "no economic understanding," that a progressive system of taxation is less evil than a perfectly flat system which hurts the poor and middle class especially hard.

My ideal "realistic" federal tax scheme would include small import tariffs, an increase in use of user fee taxation (why should a guy without a car pay as much for the construction of a major bridge than a guy that drives across it every day?), no corporate taxation, no death taxes, no capital gains taxes, a small VAT-type tax with negative income adjustment (ie poor don't pay), and a small progressive income tax that must be renewed every year used mainly to fund above and beyond costs such as war, and optional withholding for SS and Medicare.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> All income taxes are evil.  But I can agree with theoakman, who has made many contributions to this forum on economic matters and definitely does not have "no economic understanding," that a progressive system of taxation is less evil than a perfectly flat system which hurts the poor and middle class especially hard.
> 
> My ideal "realistic" federal tax scheme would include small import tariffs, an increase in use of user fee taxation (why should a guy without a car pay as much for the construction of a major bridge than a guy that drives across it every day?), no corporate taxation, no death taxes, no capital gains taxes, a small VAT-type tax with negative income adjustment (ie poor don't pay), and a small progressive income tax that must be renewed every year used mainly to fund above and beyond costs such as war, and optional withholding for SS and Medicare.


Except for the fact if we even believe such statement, we KNOW that those who pay no income taxation will always vote for the candidates who raise the taxes on other's to pay for free stuff. This is current America.....so your thesis is flawed on it's face. Your proposition makes it a known, a guarantee, for the State to ALWAYS grow. If the poorer and the middle-class payed their share, do you think they would keep voting in people who increases the size of the State? I doubt it. Self-interests at work once again.

Besides, income taxation is immoral and criminal no matter what "pragmatist" reasons you are trying to give. Secondly, I said he has no economic understanding, because we are all inter-connected in the market and one persons increase in taxation is my increase in consumer prices.

----------


## greengood

For those interested in the full context of the quote, it can be found here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch15s32.html

----------


## redbluepill

> I stumbled across this little quote from Jefferson:
> 
> "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"
> 
> I didn't think he was pro-taxation.


That quote was taken from a letter from Jefferson to Madison. This puts it into better context:

_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 commonstock 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 provided 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 land holders are the most precious part of a state._

http://wealthandwant.com/themes/Jeff...an_Ideals.html

----------


## redbluepill

> Please....give me a break.  99% of the people that make more than million bucks in this country do it at the expense of the tax payers in some form or another.


While I do not believe there is anything wrong with making a lot of money, the means of how some people make that money is indeed wrong. Those who call themselves 'libertarians' will defend the same fat cats who violate the freedoms of others. These violations include bailouts, patent laws, and land monopolies, etc. And its not just the government's fault. The companies lobby for these privileges.

----------


## SpicyTurkey

> For those interested in the full context of the quote, it can be found here:
> 
> http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch15s32.html


Welcome to the Forum! + rep

----------

