Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Alan Grayson

(485 posts)
Fri Apr 20, 2012, 05:02 PM Apr 2012

Thomas Jefferson on the Buffett Rule

I don't know what Founding Father and President Thomas Jefferson would have thought about TV, cars, spaceships, cellphones, skyscrapers, computers or nuclear weapons. But I do know what Jefferson would have thought about the Buffett Rule. He would have liked it.

The Buffett Rule is the Obama Administration's proposal to adopt a 30% minimum tax rate on personal income above $1 million a year. It would promote one of the central tenets of progressivism: that the burden of taxes should fall on the rich, not the poor.

In 1811, two years after Jefferson left the Presidency, Jefferson wrote a letter to General Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a hero of the American Revolution. Jefferson said that he supported taxes (then tariffs, since there was no income tax yet) falling entirely on the wealthy. As Jefferson explained: "The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of this country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."

Here is someone else who was an outspoken proponent of progressive taxation: Adam Smith, who literally "wrote the book" on capitalism. In 1776, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

(I wonder: When Adam Smith wrote about the "luxuries and vanities" of the rich, was he contemplating Mitt Romney's elevator for Romney's car? Or is that simply beyond contemplation?)

Two hundred years ago, when America was founded, progressive taxation was viewed as just common sense. We still have common sense, don't we?

First, let's see the Buffett Rule for individuals. Then the Buffett Rule for corporations. That would be progressive. And that would be progress.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Justice wanted

(2,657 posts)
2. How sad the words and ideas of the founding fathers can get perverse by those who would twist it
Fri Apr 20, 2012, 05:28 PM
Apr 2012

to claim that the founding fathers wanted this to be a CHRISTIAN nation OR that the founding Fathers where interested in allowing the rich to get richer while the poor suffered.


Great find Mr. Grayson.



Why is it that in the riches country in the world one should have to struggle to pay bills and put food on the table. Why is it so wrong for "poor"/Working Class to want to be able to pay all the bills, put food on the table, save a few dollars AND still have the "luxury" of enjoying the chance to rent a movie or go out to dinner with the family or buy a book and not be called moochers?

Klukie

(2,237 posts)
7. Love this....I want to add what Smith thought about a living wage.......
Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:38 PM
Apr 2012

"Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine." Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Thomas Jefferson on the B...