Posted on 09/30/2017 8:04:42 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Chalk another one up for big government progressivism. I recently posted about progressive republicans and the 16th amendment, having learned during that research that this was the case: I did not know previously that TR supported the death tax. Here is what he said in 1906:
As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax of course, to be imposed by the national and not the state government. Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. Again, the national government must in some form exercise supervision over corporations engaged in interstate business-and all large corporations engaged in interstate business-whether by license or otherwise, so as to permit us to deal with the far reaching evils of overcapitalization."
Perhaps we should propose an amendment which would strike out "We the People" and replace it "We the Government". This is insanely insulting, but it's typical for people who's minds have been infected and polluted by the ideologies of social justice.
I will have to give him this: TR was a masterful, masterful propagandist. His skill was that of omission. Note the things I bolded.
So who will determine which fortunes are "swollen" beyond health limits? Of course! You guessed it, commissars in bureaucracies! Big government will do it.
Who will supervise the supervisors? Nobody. Government controls you.
Who determines what a "healthy limit" is? What if you are just below that "healthy limit", will you be endlessly harassed by overzealous regulators? Well we can't allow you to amass too much, now can we?
It is interesting to note in what speech Theodore Roosevelt made these comments. "The Man with the Muck Rake" That's right! While TR was lauding his journalist friends who were pimping fake news across the country, he was currying favor with them with the sweet, sweet sound of death tax lullibies. Here, read the speech. Right before that paragraph that I quoted, here's what he said:
It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well won and fortunes ill won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law honesty. Of course, no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them.
You see, government should be in the business of determining the use of your fortunes.
Government should determine if your fortune was ill won.
Government knows best, not you.
Government, government, government. By leaving so many things open to government, this leads to the largest government the world has ever seen.
Theodore Roosevelt clearly believed that the most beautiful words in the English language were as follows:
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".
I'm quite convinced that most people don't actually read Theodore Roosevelt's own words or look at his actions directly, thus they don't really know just how big of a big government guy he truely was. Instead, a bunch of propagandist fake-historians have falsely portrayed him in ways that are unwarranted by the facts, thus the re-invention of him as a "conservative".
Ping..............
Bullshit then...Bullshit now!
Teddy’s Bull Moose Party was the progressive party.
Inheritance taxes are inherently immoral. There should be none. Not at any level of government.
Over a twenty-year period...with the Teddy-period, and the eight years that followed Taft....this is all a progressive-period in US history, and it should leave you with no doubt why 1920 was the start-up of the ‘roaring twenties’.
Inheritance taxes are inherently immoral. There should be none. Not at any level of government.
>><<
Absolutely!
Ben Franklin also expressed concerns about the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few
At least TR switched parties rather than try and corrupt the Republican party unlike some rotten Senators we all know.
The first Roosevelt was courageous but not conservative.
No, TR ran as a Bull Mooser after he won all of the then Republican presidential primaries of 1912 (I believe there were six.) and still lost the nomination to Taft. Taft had no chance anyway; the American people wanted The Woodrow.
Well he’s dead so it don’t mean a thing what he liked or didn’t like. That was then, this is now and I hope “now” wins out and gets rid of that tax!
I the rich think that raising the tax on the wealthy is a good thing, seeing that they are talking about earned income subject to all the loopholes they use. I have a better ides for them. How about an annual tax on net worth from those above say five million.
Some on FR swear they’re the greatest thing since slice bread.
Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive.
But this is bigger IMHO. Everybody on our side is pissing and moaning how bad the tax bill is. So I will put on my Nomex underwear and tell what I see cause and effect.
* Death Tax elimination keeps family businesses intact without a plethora of Attorneys and other parasites sucking the cream off the top from what should be a natural transfer of an asset.
* The 20 & 25% new tax rates on business should be the same, but it is a start, perhaps it will become the same percentage.
* The repatriation of Capital brings capital where it belongs IMHO so business can do things, and that is here.
* 100% expensing for 5 yrs, should be permanent, but might set a precedent.
* The new 20%/25% business tax rate, the 100% expensing up front, and the Capital back get rid of the parasitic drag of accountants and attorneys on business, they can concentrate on product and making money, not lobbyist, my sweet heart deal, and paying all those professionals.
* We go to 3 rates. If I remember correct TEFRA in 1986 with Reagan had us at 2 rates before Darmon-Sununnu-Bush-Mitchell FUBAR'd that. I have been saying for eons here, PDJT is a reset to 1988, this is almost Reagan's bill by eliminating all the time consuming unproductive crap in the Tax Code. Again focus on making money, Nuke the Tax code enough so we don't worry about it.
* The State Tax deduction elimination? Again, The Art of the Deal, it will be surrendered when the Blue States that have all the Sanctuary Cities give them up to keep their tax break, end of story.
Tell me were the heck I am wrong here, again Perfect is the enemy of the good and getting anything done. I'll take this bill, and my guess is my brilliant CPA gnome who I haven't spoken too yet will as well as they can concentrate and change their practice to help businesses make money, not play the tax game...
And he would have never been able to have the life style he lived without his inheritance.
I agree, but dear old departed dad (a FDR disciple) would argue that confiscatory estate and income taxes helped curtail the development of an "elite" class of American citizens and helped to minimize income inequality which he felt led to civil strife. Of course his thought process developed during the depression and while attached to the British army in India during part of WW2. The poverty in in what is now Bangladesh shook his values.
Without a death tax you end up with a hereditary elite; even if you just consider it an income tax on the recipients, I have no issue with preventing that system from forming.
Not only are they immoral they're economically dumb. Under dynamic analysis they actually provide a net loss to government at all levels. Of course congress is too stupid to use dynamic analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.