![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/money-gears-300x169.jpg\")
\nMakes the world go ’round.<\/p>\n
\nMakes the world go ’round.<\/p>\n
VoV has been kind enough to take time from his busy schedule to pen this essay for our entertainment and discussion. Somehow I think there will be discussion, and rather a lot. Exactly why I’m happy to post up his work.<\/p>\n
Tax The Rich, or What Are We Really Talking About Here?<\/strong><\/p>\n In our current hotbed of political debate we\u2019ve managed to find a way to make taxing the rich seem like a communist plot of some nature, the propaganda from the billionaire class is so effective that people beholden to those billionaires seem willing to die for the concept of protecting the wealth of the billionaire class. I like to read the founders as you may or may not know and review their thoughts. My favorites among them of course are Jefferson, Thomas Paine, the rabble rousing Sam Adams\u2026among others.<\/p>\n The men who started the nation had different views than most billionaire capitalists of today, in fact the founders views today would be described as socialist\/communist when it comes to taxing the rich because the founders believed the rich were largely to blame for the problems of the era. The rich contributed nothing while taking all, and did so for generations. The founders felt that to be an abomination, largely because the colonies at the time were the most equal wealth distribution places on this earth. The colonies were so new that intergenerational wealth had not become a presence in the local politics for the most part and some of the founders wanted to keep it that way forever.<\/p>\n We all see what we want to see I think when it comes to the reading of any individual or in any literature. As a consequence there are many quotes taken in small bites out of context used by the wealthy today to support the notion the founders were looking to create an oligarchy for the monied classes. These quotes when viewed in the context of the larger writings of the founders indicate a slightly different picture.<\/p>\n Thomas Jefferson often quoted Adam Smith when expressing his thoughts on such things, \u201cA power to dispose of estates forever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding generation can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural. There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death\u201d<\/p>\n North Carolina\u2019s 1784 statue explained it like this (regarding the old system of keeping large estates together for generation after generation): “only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic” and promoting “contention and injustice.” Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast “tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic.”<\/p>\n Thomas Paine wanted to take that notion even further, he found that the concept of \u201clanded property\u201d such an affront to the natural rights of succeeding generations to the usufruct of the earth that he proposed the nation adopt a \u201cground rent\u201d which was basically an inheritance tax to be applied to the conveyance of land title upon the death of the previous holder and that money be then distributed to all citizens at the age of 21 as compensation in part only for the loss of his or her natural inheritance due to the system of landed properties.<\/p>\n We can see in more recent Republican presidents a similar disdain for inherited wealth\u2026the much maligned Herbert Hoover for instance who said the only problem with capitalism is capitalists who are far too regularly too damned greedy. He proposed the notion of the rich having a larger social responsibility to the Republic, so much so that he was in favor of a steeply graduated tax on legacies and gifts for the deliberate purpose of disintegrating large fortunes. He stated that those who worshipped unrestricted capitalism were basically immoral and gave no consideration to the simple fact that property or the power over property could easily be used to abuse the liberty of our society at large. He further stated it would be abused to limit and dominate the freedom of those less endowed with property and money.<\/p>\n One of my personal favorites Teddy Roosevelt (his man in the arena remains one of my favorite essays\/speeches) was actually the first president to propose the graduated tax on inheritance as such wealth transfer to young men \u201cdoes not do them any real service and is of great and genuine detriment to the community at large.\u201d<\/p>\n Eisenhower warned that the corporate wealth of government contracts would also be a potential means of overwhelming the Republic through corruption and abuse of money, property, and power. One might argue based on corporate political power today he was largely correct in his assessment. In fact in my view he was so spot on that when viewed objectively the reality of our politics today are those of a single party corporate oligarchy with two distinct factions designed to keep the population at each other\u2019s throats and away from the throats of those abusing them for personal gain through wealth transfer upwards. The propaganda creating the distinction between those two factions is so powerful that the Orange Man Bad crowd felt defeating Bernie Sanders was more important than defeating Trump. A most interesting discussion for another essay I suspect.<\/p>\n The founders and those who believe their vision was a good and accurate one had little use for the monied classes gaining control over the Republic using their money and wealth to abuse and corrupt the systems of government. Typically to suit their fortunes at the expense of those of the great masses of the population of this great Republic.<\/p>\n Thus tax the rich isn\u2019t some socialist degradation of the Republic, but as the founders and others have envisioned it is perhaps the safest way to keep those with vast wealth and power from corrupting the Republic further into nothing more than a wealth conduit to their personal bank accounts.<\/p>\n As always, thank you for reading. No doubt many of you will find this objectionable, as is appropriate feel free to tell me exactly why. Thanks, VoV. Keep ’em comin’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nVeritas Omnia Vincit<\/p><\/blockquote>\n