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".
It isn’t the fortunes that are the problem, it is the foundations that let them shelter the wealth they still control while others pay heavily for the privilege of accumulating wealth in their own lifetimes.
Sure they can benefit; is the death tax rate 100%?
I have no issue with elites; all the power to them! I have issues with hereditary elites - we used to call them aristocracies and such.
You are talking about a handful out of tens of thousands. If you are OK with your great-grandchildren being ruled by Walton’s heirs, that is your choice/right.
You’re probably right in the sense they may have figured their heirs would have an easy time of it; this really was a land of opportunity a long time ago.
Some responding to my post seem to think I’m advocating for a 100% death tax; I said no such thing.
The thought process long preceded the Depression and came from the 19th Century, from the intellectual roots of so-called “progressivism” or socialism. It took decades for the progressives to sell the idea. The Depression simply was them stepping up to sell the stupid that had been previously better resisted.
Even then they pitched these things as only applying to the ultra-rich ... whom they always them (”they” also being “them”) would be protected. The intent, as with income taxes billed the same way, was to get them in and then expand them down. Incrementalism, just like with all leftist and those opposed to Liberty.
I would also point out that Social Security was ALSO just about funding the government, no matter what FDR etc claimed. They ALWAYS turned the money left over to Congress to spend. The “savings” were in the form of “bonds” where the same entity both owned the bond and owed the debt, which is an absurdity. They were always from the beginnings unsecured promissory debts.
I like to think of it this way: have your right hand write out a promise to repay to your left hand and then take that promise to repay in your left hand to a bank and claim it is an asset to be used for collateral. If you do so, barring the possibility that you’ve just found the dumbest bank officer in the country, they will be laughing their asses off while they are likely calling the Feds on you for securities fraud.
As for what LBJ started spending, and which ran dry early in Reagan’s tenure, that could have only been the reputed value on the books on the one set of ledgers completely ignoring that said “assets” were entirely offset by the matching obligations (plus “interest”). Poetically: they found a way to spend the same money TWICE. Realistically: they were printing money outta nothing on the sly, unreported and without official congressional approval to print it.
It may not entirely be a coincidence that accelerated inflation started spiking after this inflating of the money supply started, went down after it ran out, and hasn’t returned to that extent since.
In short: “progressivism” is founded on lies, abuses and fraud ... no wonder it has gone and keeps going from bad to worse ... till there is now nothing of the old extreme left that is extreme to the left anymore.
Even national destruction (rejecting sovereignty) perversions and insanity are now openly celebrated by the powers that be on the left.
In a society that doesn’t let them protect and control the wealth that is the source of their power but goes after others they will eventually sort themselves out.
Aristocrats weren’t aristocrats just because they had money, indeed many didn’t, but because they could PROTECT what they had and act to keep others, even if they had money, out.
It’s money that was already taxed when earned. Doing it again is double taxation. So while removing state tax exemptions, money is indeed being doubly taxed. But as with the inheritance tax, double taxation is alive and well in the US.
Tax was taken when mobey earned. Property taxed annually. Then you want to steal children’s inhertance.
Thief.
Not so. 80% of US millionaires are first generation affluent US millionaires.
If you are OK with your great-grandchildren being ruled by Walton’s heirs, that is your choice/right.
I take a Darwinian approach to inheritance. If the Walton heirs inherit the wit, wisdom and frugality of Sam Walton I would far rather they inherit the money than Uncle Sam. If they don't they will spend it in some way to increase the GDP and bankrupt themselves ( See the Vanderbilts, Hartfords, Kluges, Strohs, Pulitzers, Goulds, etc etc)
What do you expect? Teddy was a big government progressive.
TR was also an Imperialist...we should embrace that too?
Don’t you pay sales tax on items after you’ve paid income tax on the money you’re spending?
bkmk
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.