Thomas Jefferson Repealed All Internal Taxes

[Zippyjuan]

The really big ticket items are not the black programs but Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid. Add in the interest on the debt and you already have almost two thirds of government spending (according to the 2009 budget). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Customs duties and excise taxes currently account for only about three and a half percent of government revenues.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

The really big ticket items are not the black programs but Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid.

Paid for by FICA taxes, etc. - not the income tax.

Add in the interest on the debt and you already have almost two thirds of government spending (according to the 2009 budget). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Customs duties and excise taxes currently account for only about three and a half percent of government revenues.

The national debt could be paid by selling off most federal assets, as former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne demonstrated.

The revenues for excise taxes and tariffs would increase as overall economic activity increased from the other major tax repeals.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Now THAT sounds like the kind of America I want to live in. Jefferson had quite a mind. Still not so sure about that Louisiana Purchase and the contradictory slave/anti-slavery deal, but his mind was an absolute utopia of knowledge. I can't imagine what would happen if he saw what happened to his country.

Jefferson did end the overseas slave trade, but, yes, he still continued to own slaves.

I recently found some new information that helps to explain that contradiction, as well as defend him from charges of raping his female slaves (Sally Hemming):

"Why Didn't Jefferson Free His Slaves?

A good question. Thomas Jefferson did not free his own slaves for several reasons, we can surmise. First "freeing" slaves was not an easy task. The owner had to put up a bond to pay for any transgressions the slave commited on society while free. Also, slaves being considered property, they were subject to debt and property laws. If an owner of slaves was in massive debt, as was Thomas Jefferson to the tune of $100,000.00, freeing them was impossible. In fact once Jefferson died his creditors seized the slaves along with Monticello and sold them at auction. Thomas Jefferson also knew that his own fellow Virginians were not ready nor willing to support emancipation. Jefferson's many attempts at emancipating slaves in the state failed. Also he knew that it would not be humane to free a people into a society that did not want them, and who had their habits nurtured in slavery. Jefferson was a progressive. Many of his fellow Virginians felt he was a dangerous radical on slavery. Being progressive he knew that time and patience would eventually destroy the institution. It is amazing how modern Americans want simple solutions to complex social problems, i.e: slavery in the 18th century. We must remember 18th century Americans had no example of a multi-racial society with blacks and whites living together in a state of equality. Thomas Jefferson was very radical and progressive for his time (and ours to a certain extent) and to judge him by 21st century morals and standards is ahistorical and unscientific. Many modern Americans forget that Jefferson lived in a time where equality even between different economic classes of white men was considered dangerously radical."

Link

Secondly...

"While Jefferson did not free all of his slaves on his death (as did Washington), a law passed in Virginia in 1806 required that the legislature pass a special bill that would attest to the exemplary behavior of each slave to be freed. If freed, the slave had to leave the state without his or her family. Jefferson tried unsuccessfully to get this law changed. Further, Jefferson trained his slaves in skills that would be useful when they were free. He believed that to free them first would be irresponsible -- since they would be homeless and without family."

Link

From the same source:

Jefferson's anti-slavery efforts include:

--Introduction of a bill in 1769 the Virginia legislature to abolish the importation of slaves into that state.

--Inclusion of an anti-slavery provision in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

--Initiated the Congressional ban on slavery in all federal lands in 1784 (his effort to extend the act to the 13 states lost by only one vote).

--In 1808, as President, he signed into law a bill banning the slave trade with Africa.



"For two excellent articles that address the subject of the DNA tests, see: "Research Report on the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: A Critical Analysis" by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.; and "The Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study" as told by Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian.

And, for two other excellent articles that address the unproven "facts" of the Jefferson-Hemings allegations, see "The Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings Myth and the Politicization of American History" by David N. Mayer; and "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Case Closed?" by Lance Banning."

 

[gimmeliberty]

The really big ticket items are not the black programs but Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid. Add in the interest on the debt and you already have almost two thirds of government spending (according to the 2009 budget). ...

....what about the other BIG ticket, military spending, defense manufacturing contracts, etc.,
aren't black budgets a part of it? not to mention the secrecy behind the black programs that entitle them to not even disclose the means and ways in which the money is spent?
and if so how can "we" even begin to understand and judge their importance to the "common defence" ?
my point is, what middle ground is there, between NATIONAL SECURITY and genuine responsible governance?

oh, and lets not forget what Rumsfeld said,.. "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

 

[Zippyjuan]

The DOD would be the next largest item after those I listed.
Black budget items are included in the regular Department of Defense budget. It is just hidden exactly what the money is actually going for. Obviously that makes it diffifiult to know exactly how much goes to such programs, but estimates put it at about $30 billion- out of a total US budget of $3 trillion this is not much and getting rid of that spending would have little impact on the deficit. Not saying that it should not be looked at- it is just not a significant target as far as trying to get rid of your debt and in turn taxes. There are a lot of educational funding programs in the Department of Defense as well including federal student loans. I don't know how they got the $2.3 trillion figure, but that is some four years of the total defense budget.

Paid for by FICA taxes, etc. - not the income tax.

FICA is an income tax. True it is not counted as part of the Income taxes but it is a tax based on your income. If you want to get rid of all internal taxes you would include FICA as well. If you were to keep tarrifs and excise taxes where they are now and got rid of all internal taxes you have to get rid fo 97% of current government spending. If you keep current spending then excise taxes need to be increased thirty two times what they currently are. This would severely reduce your imports and thus mean you need to raise the taxes even more. You need to get rid of the spending before you get rid of the taxes otherwise the debt continues to grow.

The national debt could be paid by selling off most federal assets, as former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne demonstrated.

Try selling national parks and buildings. See how far you get. That is the major portion of government owned lands. Leasing resources (such as for mining or farming) brings in a continuous stream of funds. Selling them brings in a one-time amount.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/914109

Government land is used comprised mainly of military bases, testing areas, nature and wildlife reserves, Indian reservations, or commercial leasing for mining or agriculture. Administrations that oversee these lands include the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Department of Defense, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among others. Altogether, government land makes up about 30% of the entire territory of the United States.

 

[sratiug]

A tariff based tax system supports free trade much more than an internal tax system. Internal taxes destroy the free trade of Americans far more than a flat tariff. We could actually replace internal taxes with tariffs over a period of 10 years. People would vote for this.

The argument that tariffs would have to be increased too much is bogus, that just shows how much imports are subsidized currently and makes it obvious why our economy is being destroyed. With a 10 year phaze in there would be time to cut government spending to acceptable levels and time for manufacturers to reopen factories here to benefit from real free trade.

Foreignors do not pay internal American taxes, and foreignors do not pay our tariffs. Americans pay the tax either way, so the obvious choice is the one that supports free trade for Americans the best, and that is a flat tariff system.

 

[Zippyjuan]

A tarrif is a restriction on competing firms entering an industry and are thus a barrier to free markets and free trade. Subsidies are also market distortions. China subsidising their producers by keeping their currency artificially valued is a distortion. Tarrifs raise the cost of imports and act as a subsidy to domestic producers- allowing them to sell their goods for higher prices than they could without the foreign competition.

It is true that foreign manufacturers do not pay things like US income taxes and Social Security taxes but they do pay whatever labor taxes are assesed in their own countries. They also have to pay higher transportation costs to get their goods to other markets. It is also true that US consumers end up paying the taxes either way (unless the foreign producers absorb some of the costs via lower profits to keep their sales level going).

The argument that tariffs would have to be increased too much is bogus,

How much money do you need to raise? That will determine how high your tarrifs will have to be. If you have to raise the $3 trillion we currently spend, your tarrifs have to rise by a factor of 32. But these tarrifs only apply to a portion of our imports. In 2008, we imported some $2 trillion worth of goods. If we taxed all of them the same then you could use a 150% import duty at current spending levels. That would raise the price of oil for example from $70 a barrel to $105 a barrel. OOps. That is just the tax on a barrel of oil. The price of a barrel would actually go to $175 ($70 cost plus the $105 tax). Obviously if you are spending less you can have lower tarrifs. Remember that if you start raising your tarrifs by a lot, the people you are raising the tarrifs on may respond in kind- making your exports to them much more expensive and lower in number as well meaning your own domestic producers will sell less abroad.

 

[sratiug]

A tarrif is a restriction on competing firms entering an industry and are thus a barrier to free markets and free trade. Subsidies are also market distortions. Tarrifs raise the cost of imports and act as a subsidy to domestic producers- allowing them to sell their goods for higher prices than they could without the foreign competition.

A flat tariff is not a subsidy of American producers. Replacing internal taxes with a tariff removes the subsidy for imports that exists today. Internal taxes prevent American production and are more of a barrier to free trade and competition than a flat tariff can ever be.

It is true that foreign manufacturers do not pay things like US income taxes and Social Security taxes but they do pay whatever labor taxes are assesed in their own countries. They also have to pay higher transportation costs to get their goods to other markets. It is also true that US consumers end up paying the taxes either way (unless the foreign producers absorb some of the costs via lower profits to keep their sales level going).

What foreignors pay in taxes is not under our control. Certainly most of the world has far lower taxes than Americans who pay for our global military empire and the rest of our crazy unconstitutional programs.

How much money do you need to raise? That will determine how high your tarrifs will have to be. If you have to raise the $3 trillion we currently spend, your tarrifs have to rise by a factor of 32. Obviously if you are spending less you can have lower tarrifs. Remember that if you start raising your tarrifs by a lot, the people you are raising the tarrifs on may respond in kind- making your exports to them much more expensive and lower in number as well meaning your own domestic producers will sell less abroad.

Internal taxation makes our production more expensive now and makes us sell less at home and abroad now, not after some hypothetical trade war. Foreign tariffs are none of our business.

It is worse to raise prices of American products enough to pay our 3 trillion dollar budget as we do now than it would be to raise prices on imports to pay for the same budget. That is an inescapable fact of logic. Free trade must begin at home. High internal taxes with low to nonexistant tariffs are subsidizing foreign production.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

FICA is an income tax. True it is not counted as part of the Income taxes but it is a tax based on your income. If you want to get rid of all internal taxes you would include FICA as well.

Yes, FICA should ultimately be repealed as well. But the point is that Social Security is not paid for by the general income tax.

Since corrupt politicians have made many senior citizens dependent on Social Security, we would need to gradually phase it out in order not to hurt those who had blind faith in government and rely solely on Social Security as their means of survival.

If you keep current spending

That's just the point - we will not keep current spending levels.

Try selling national parks and buildings. See how far you get.

Try raising the national debt to $1 quadrillion and taxes by 90% at all levels - and see if the country still exists.

 

[tmosley]

Cut taxes first. Then we can talk about raising tariffs. I think you will find that without taxes or regulations, America will be quite prosperous again without the need for any destructive tariffs.