In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats
"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might created dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society."
That sounds, to me, very much like a progressive taxing structure is preferred by one of the principal framers of the Constitution. And this was before there was a United States.
Does it to you?
Since there are several Federalist Papers in a series concerning taxation, perhaps you mixed up your numbers. I could not find your quoted material in Federalist paper #36.
Since I can't give you a page number, let me try this ... it is the 4th paragraph from the end beginning "As to the suggestion ..." It might be the 3rd paragraph if your copy doesn't include both endings to the essay.
I guess I must be reading something different. My link was from congress.gov Federalist paper #36
Here is the header:
|| Federalist No. 36 ||
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 8, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
3rd paragraph lead:
There is another objection of a somewhat more precise nature that claims our attention.
4th paragraph lead:
Nations in general, even under governments of the more popular kind, usually commit the administration of their finances to single men or to boards...
My only point is to see the context of your quote. I am not nitpicking the error or correctness of your number citation, whether or not it is paper #36, or #35, or #37 is only important as a location to read what surrounds your quotes.
I don't see it either, but Hamilton does use the word "practicable" elsewhere.
It is the 3rd to "last" paragraph. If full, it reads (I bolded the quote, I hope ):
As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!
Got it! Thanks for your patience. I did read that, (twice even), but it did not register because I was looking for the inferred "progressive taxation" point of your post.
Taken in context - I get a completely different read on your quotes. With the exception that the quoted section does include the words "rich" and "poorer," (compounded by the alluring sequence of the partial phrase; "luxury of the rich"), I don 't see it as relating to tax rates at all.
I read the point of the paper to be a discussion of the Federal government having the power of taxation first, and the method of sharing the power of enacting and collecting taxes second. In other words the paper reads to me to be focused on authority and process - nothing at all to do with rates or proportional individual burden.
For instance; I read "...luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury,..." as a reference to the flow of taxes to the government, and the discussion of it to be about the methods and processes to maintain that flow. ie. Redundant and/or burdensome Federal and State collection expenses and processes vs. a co-function of the two, sharing or piggy-backing laying authority, collection and processing duties.
And to me the "...dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society..." section pertains to the same issue, the costs and burden of the laying of taxes and their collection processes. Not at all related to progressive taxation or individual rates of taxation.
It has been a long time since I read The Papers, but I do remember that the issues involved in taxation, relative to the Federal level, were covered in a series of 3 or 4 papers, (I think). and I don't recall any that were specific to taxpayer tax rates relative to what you view as progressive taxation. All that I remember were discussions about taxation as a power and its appropriate venue, (Federal vs. State level power).
I think you have mistaken the point of Hamilton's writing, because, if taken out of context they contain a flow of words that could be misrepresented to indicate support for a perspective of your own.
So no, I do not think Hamilton's words "sound like a progressive taxing structure is preferred by one of the principal framers of the Constitution."
And if you look deeper into the methods our early government used, before income taxes and such, there were no uniform taxes on everyone Taxes, both direct and indirect were laid on material products and actions, not individual income. (oops, there may be some instances that maybe could be otherwise, but in even those cases the taxes would have applied to merchants and tradesmen - just the folks that you seem to think should pay more).
You are quite correct, the thrust of that essay, and the others, was to alley the fears that the federal gov't won't use the power to tax to the detriment of the states. But that is incidental the "object" at hand, to use their idiom.
The object at hand is the statement I highlighted ";.and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society."
This is one complete thought, not two. It begins with a semi-colon which, in grammar means what follows it complete in that it has an object, subject, and verb. Consequently, in this case, it also ended with a period, the end of the thought. Everything in between must be read as one thing, not two.
The sentence itself has three parts, the original idea and two related and embellishing additional thoughts. To paraphrase the theme of the sentence:
- Keep in mind, we are talking excise taxes on imports and exports and he is making the point that either the federal gov't of the state gov't is going assess these taxes and that "The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case ..." but the federal gov't can do it better.
Then comes the next related idea preceded by the first semi-colon. It basically says the feds can do a better job at collecting these taxes . Finally, we get to the statement under consideration.
To rehearse, the sentence starts out by saying that as far as the individual is concerned, it makes no difference as to whether the Feds or the State collects the taxes, but that it is best the feds do it. Why? Because, unlike the states, the feds would be better at controlling the " choice and arrangement of the means" of collecting the taxes.
And to what purpose? Hamilton suggests that the Feds must make a "point of policy in the national administration to ..." collect as much as is practical from the rich; the "... practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, ..." part. And why tax the rich more than others? "in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society"; in other words, so the poor won't suffer.
By definition, that is a progressive tax.
Finally, Hamilton drives the point home with the last sentence, to wit:
"Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
Personally, I don't see any other possible way of interpreting Hamilton's meaning without doing great damage to the English language.
Either I have been schooled, or this is just one more example of the power of the hidden hands of the Illuminati and the Free Masons as they are used by The Seven that control all governments.
I think I will go with the former and dust off a couple of my old grammar books.
Your point was well made and well defended, but...
... in light of my previous certainty, I must offer a partial explanation that I think mitigates some of the sting. It was that damn word tributary.
With my preformed perception of the point, my reading of #36 naturally, (at least I think it was natural), lead me to read "tributary" in the context of flow, (which is a valid definition), when in fact, considering the times of the papers, I should have interpreted tributary by its historical use - that is as a tribute, a payment from one to another. Which makes the "luxury of the rich" the tributary. As you originally posed.
My first interpretation made sense to me as fitting the context of the topic being discussed. Oh well, its not the first time I have been wrong, there was another time back in 78' when I thought I was mistaken, but it turned out I was wrong.
Your final point, the "Happy it is..." quote was the coup de gras.
So, as to my thoughts on your OP... I will go back and give it another go.
I think My Esoteric gave himself a creative writing assignment! (If so, he did a pretty good job copying the writing style of Hamilton.)
We need a link, ME!
Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury. He wanted to protect manufacturing interests, promote a strong central govt. and establish a national bank. He had experienced poverty and misery as a youth in the treacherous West Indies / mid 1700s.
I am reading a book and retyped the words, Kathryn, hard to link to that, but GA provided one to which I answered with the paragraph that contains the quote. And yes, that would be the Alexander Hamilton I am referring ... before he was Sec Treas.
"- to go as far as may be practicable -" We cannot squelch the impulse to become rich.
… when it comes down to it we must remember what it is to be human.
We are flawed, we are happy, we are ambitious, we are motivated toward some self-interest.
We have to work with it.
Taxing the rich according to their earnings makes it so they are taxed too much. After all, they are providing jobs and should be encouraged, rather than penalized, to do so. That is the argument from the Right is it not? Hamilton added: Practice-able. what is "practicable," what works in real life.
Motivation must be taken into consideration.
realistic, feasible, possible, within the bounds/realms of possibility, viable, reasonable, sensible, workable, achievable; doable.
That is not the way Hamilton saw it, and he was one of the more influential authors of the Constitution. I just finished the first series of essays written by John Jay and then Hamilton; am starting the series written by Madison.
I am writing a series of hubs summarizing and commenting on what I read.
Read "The Reece Committee Investigation" by Norman Dodd
The agenda came from the White House during Eisenhower at the peek of the Cold War to use tax exempt status to change America so it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.
Is that what is happening now ... the diabolical conspiracy...the socialist / communist overthrow of America? Marxists!
Chapter 36, paragraph 4: There is another objection of a somewhat more precise nature that claims our attention. It has been asserted that a power of internal taxation in the national legislature could never be exercised with advantage, as well from the want of a sufficient knowledge of local circumstances, as from an interference between the revenue laws of the Union and of the particular States. The supposition of a want of proper knowledge seems to be entirely destitute of foundation. If any question is depending in a State legislature respecting one of the counties, which demands a knowledge of local details, how is it acquired? No doubt from the information of the members of the county. Cannot the like knowledge be obtained in the national legislature from the representatives of each State? And is it not to be presumed that the men who will generally be sent there will be possessed of the necessary degree of intelligence to be able to communicate that information? Is the knowledge of local circumstances, as applied to taxation, a minute topographical acquaintance with all the mountains, rivers, streams, highways, and bypaths in each State; or is it a general acquaintance with its situation and resources, with the state of its agriculture, commerce, manufactures, with the nature of its products and consumptions, with the different degrees and kinds of its wealth, property, and industry?
Paragraph 5 Nations in general, even under governments of the more popular kind, usually commit the administration of their finances to single men or to boards composed of a few individuals, who digest and prepare, in the first instance, the plans of taxation, which are afterwards passed into laws by the authority of the sovereign or legislature.
Paragraph 6 Inquisitive and enlightened statesmen are deemed everywhere best qualified to make a judicious selection of the objects proper for revenue; which is a clear indication, as far as the sense of mankind can have weight in the question, of the species of knowledge of local circumstances requisite to the purposes of taxation.
Paragraph 7 The taxes intended to be comprised under the general denomination of internal taxes may be subdivided into those of the DIRECT and those of the INDIRECT kind. Though the objection be made to both, yet the reasoning upon it seems to be confined to the former branch. And indeed, as to the latter, by which must be understood duties and excises on articles of consumption, one is at a loss to conceive what can be the nature of the difficulties apprehended. The knowledge relating to them must evidently be of a kind that will either be suggested by the nature of the article itself, or can easily be procured from any well-informed man, especially of the mercantile class. The circumstances that may distinguish its situation in one State from its situation in another must be few, simple, and easy to be comprehended. The principal thing to be attended to, would be to avoid those articles which had been previously appropriated to the use of a particular State; and there could be no difficulty in ascertaining the revenue system of each. This could always be known from the respective codes of laws, as well as from the information of the members from the several States.
Paragraph 8 The objection, when applied to real property or to houses and lands, appears to have, at first sight, more foundation, but even in this view it will not bear a close examination. Land taxes are co monly laid in one of two modes, either by ACTUAL valuations, permanent or periodical, or by OCCASIONAL assessments, at the discretion, or according to the best judgment, of certain officers whose duty it is to make them. In either case, the EXECUTION of the business, which alone requires the knowledge of local details, must be devolved upon discreet persons in the character of commissioners or assessors, elected by the people or appointed by the government for the purpose. All that the law can do must be to name the persons or to prescribe the manner of their election or appointment, to fix their numbers and qualifications and to draw the general outlines of their powers and duties. And what is there in all this that cannot as well be performed by the national legislature as by a State legislature? The attention of either can only reach to general principles; local details, as already observed, must be referred to those who are to execute the plan.
Paragraph 9 But there is a simple point of view in which this matter may be placed that must be altogether satisfactory. The national legislature can make use of the SYSTEM OF EACH STATE WITHIN THAT STATE. The method of laying and collecting this species of taxes in each State can, in all its parts, be adopted and employed by the federal government.
We cannot allow this one remark by Hamilton to be taken from the Federalist Papers for the purpose of giving too much power to the FED. Madison discusses the importance of limiting/balancing the power of the central govt, thank God. In paper 38 he asks: "Is an indefinite power to raise money dangerous in the hands of a federal government?" We cannot exaggerate the suggestion of Hamilton from the 1700's to determine policies today that would give the FED an excuse to unfairly tax the rich, "'til there are no rich no more …" Would Hamilton himself want the rich to end up, by necessity, sending jobs and financial holdings out of the country? Could Hamilton even foresee the true/ultimate potential for wealth in this country?? Trump, for instance. (Why do you think he is running for president. To protect his money from the likes of Hillary. Possibly?) Could Hamilton have seen to what extent the people could become dependent and dumbed down due to excessive and indiscriminate distribution of welfare benefits? Could he have foreseen to what extent the FED could mishandle, (Polite Understatement,) our tax dollars?
James Madison, from somewhere in Paper 38: "It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect. No man would refuse to give brass for silver or gold, because the latter had some alloy in it. No man would refuse to quit a shattered and tottering habitation for a firm and commodious building, because the latter had not a porch to it, or because some of the rooms might be a little larger or smaller, or the ceilings a little higher or lower than his fancy would have planned them. But waiving illustrations of this sort, is it not manifest that most of the capital objections urged against the new system lie with tenfold weight against the existing Confederation? Is an indefinite power to raise money dangerous in the hands of the federal government? The present Congress can make requisitions to any amount they please, and the States are constitutionally bound to furnish them; they can emit bills of credit as long as they will pay for the paper; they can borrow, both abroad and at home, as long as a shilling will be lent. Is an indefinite power to raise troops dangerous? The Confederation gives to Congress that power also; and they have already begun to make use of it. Is it improper and unsafe to intermix the different powers of government in the same body of men? Congress, a single body of men, are the sole depositary of all the federal powers. Is it particularly dangerous to give the keys of the treasury, and the command of the army, into the same hands? The Confederation places them both in the hands of Congress. Is a bill of rights essential to liberty? The Confederation has no bill of rights. Is it an objection against the new Constitution, that it empowers the Senate, with the concurrence of the Executive, to make treaties which are to be the laws of the land? The existing Congress, without any such control, can make treaties which they themselves have declared, and most of the States have recognized, to be the supreme law of the land. Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new Constitution for twenty years? By the old it is permitted forever.
I am not sure where you get "We cannot allow this one remark by Hamilton to be taken from the Federalist Papers for the purpose of giving too much power to the FED. " It had nothing to do with that.
What it did have to do with is Hamilton's belief that taxes should be progressive in nature.
Geesh! I composed and long detailed response - and somehow lost it when I hit the submit button!!!!!!!!!!!
But, I thanked you for bringing up the Madison quote concerning not discarding the better solution just because it was not the perfect solution. Imagine how many discussions have come to blows because they ignored that point.
Anyway, I would not be too discouraged by the Hamilton quote the OP pointed out, (and which I have to agree he correctly interpreted), until a further look at Hamilton is taken.
Was a progressive government taxation burden his perspective, or was his view pertinent to the times, ie. it was the merchants and the tradesmen who could afford to finance a new Federal government?
Since I have already been proven mistaken in my reading of #36, I will hold off until I can do some more reading on Hamilton before I form an opinion of his "progressive" proclivities.
I have a feeling this thread could be for the purpose of discussing flat tax vs progressive. Here are two arguments against progressive taxation:
1.) "Taxing wealthy people at high rates leaves them with less cash left over to put into their businesses and other investments, so they create fewer jobs. Fewer jobs means there are fewer workers earning income that the government can collect taxes from, which ultimately reduces tax revenue. A common conservative argument is that reducing taxes will increase hiring and economic growth, creating more income that the government can tax, which makes up for the revenue lost by lowering tax rates in the first place."
2.) "Since progressive tax systems make you pay more as you earn more, conservatives argue that such systems punish success, which leads to undesirable consequences. For instance, conservatives argue that progressive taxes create a disincentive to work hard, which hurts productivity and makes people more likely to rely on government assistance. Punishing success also has the potential to hurt innovation, since people are less likely to take risks on new ideas if the government takes a big cut of profits."
disincentive |ˌdisinˈsentiv| noun
a factor, esp. a financial disadvantage, that tends to discourage people from doing something:
http://people.opposingviews.com/conserv … -6013.html
Thanks for responding Kathryn,
I disagree, I do not think it is a discussion of flat tax vs. progressive tax at all. I take it as a discussion about a founding father's view on progressive taxation relative to the financing of a new Federal government.
Regarding your "points" of argument, I think you have taken the Conservative" talking points a little too literally.
cONCERNING your point #1, the wealthy have continued to expand their business' and investments regardless of the tax rates. They are still making money and generating jobs whether their tax rate is 15% or 52%. A quick look at the stats will show you the proof of this.
As to your point #2, I think it is balderdash and challenge you to present any facts to back it up. Just consider the blowhards that brag of making money on a down market as well as an up market. The only variable is how much money they make.
I don't disagree with your philosophy, just the rational you swallow to defend it.
It's a conspiracy. Happens to me frequently.
Madison, Paper 37:
"The experience of ages, with the continued and combined labors of the most enlightened legislatures and jurists, has been equally unsuccessful in delineating the several objects and limits of different codes of laws and different tribunals of justice. The precise extent of the common law, and the statute law, the maritime law, the ecclesiastical law, the law of corporations, and other local laws and customs, remains still to be clearly and finally established in Great Britain, where accuracy in such subjects has been more industriously pursued than in any other part of the world. The jurisdiction of her several courts, general and local, of law, of equity, of admiralty, etc., is not less a source of frequent and intricate discussions, sufficiently denoting the indeterminate limits by which they are respectively circumscribed. All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications. Besides the obscurity arising from the complexity of objects, and the imperfection of the human faculties, the medium through which the conceptions of men are conveyed to each other adds a fresh embarrassment. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined. When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated."
Talk about awareness.
Yes, I have read that, what's your point?
This should be kept in mind. Thats all:
"The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined."
copious |ˈkōpēəs| adjective
abundant in supply or quantity:
equivocal |iˈkwivəkəl| adjective
open to more than one interpretation; ambiguous:
perspicuous |pərˈspikyo͞owəs| adjective
(of an account or representation) clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid:
discriminate |disˈkriməˌnāt| verb
1 recognize a distinction; differentiate:
1 originality, newness, freshness, unconventionality, unfamiliarity; difference, imaginativeness, creativity, innovation, modernity.
Can you rephrase that in common English that I might understand? Are those your words; " ... Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly..." or something quoted?
After a bit of interpretation, I can agree with the sentiment, relative to the discussion of Hamilton's words, but after that I am lost.
Can you elucidate, (ha! how about that - I spent a quarter when a dime, ("can you explain"), would have done just as well), in your own words?
Illuminati: the Soviet system and the Capitalist system to control society.
Obama, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … ry-just-c/
As the FED gets the huge amount of taxed money from the rich what do THEY do with it????
Properly redistribute it or grow the government?
Don't you think this is Trump's main concern and motivation for running for President? protecting his wealth, (through being taxed at a progressive rate,) from the central govt. And keep in mind that Hamilton could not foresee the future as it has come about today. Maybe he WOULD be a liberal today. (But, he went for the central bank.)
That is a quote from James Madison, from "somewhere in Paper 38." I took it from the excerpt I contributed. See full paragraph above. (Who knows what it actually refers to. )
TO ME, the explanation just sounds right in regards to this discussion in that Words Matter, as you have been wisely contemplating Hamilton's meaning based on the particular words he used.
Take a breath Kathryn, and don't get me me wrong. I was serious in my appreciation for noting Madison's quote; "It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect".
You have participated in a lot of these forum threads, just consider how many have gone off the rails because of the acrimony that ignored the truth of Madison's words.
I was serious in my thankfulness.
And I am just as serious when I say that I need to look further into Hamilton's writings before I can form a confident opinion of the weight of his remarks, as noted by MyEsoteric in paper #36.
You make a good point; "words matter." That is why I must look further into Hamilton's writings before I can comfortably agree or disagree with MyEsoteric's OP.
As it stands now, I must agree that his, ((?)give me a break ME, are you a guy or a gal), interpretation - that Hamilton preferred a tax burden on the rich that was a more equitable solution to a burden on the masses, equated to a progressive tax mindset.
At this point, even though I can agree with his interpretation as stated in the OP, I am not confident, (given the times - relative to the Papers, that his view of Hamilton's attitude is completely accurate).
It could be that, (again, given the times), Hamilton understood that it was only the merchants and tradesmen, (the "rich"), that could provide the currency to establish a Federal government.
"... and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society."
- a fixed point of policy?
- as far as practicable?
- a rich tributary?
person or state that pays tribute to another state or ruler:
He adds. When the government is able to preserve its own power and also distribute money to alleviate the "public burdens" of the "least wealthy part of the community," through taxation, it is a good thing.
- public burdens?
"He adds. When the government is able to preserve its own power and also distribute money to alleviate the "public burdens" of the "least wealthy part of the community," through taxation, it is a good thing."
Where did you get this?
I would like to read more.
"Most importantly, Hamilton closes the paper (36) by recalling the central theme of “energy,” and reminding voters that in order for a government to be effective, it must have sufficient revenue. Life in America under the Articles had shown the futility of expecting states to reliably and consistently contribute funds to the national government. It was essential, according to Hamilton, that the national government have extensive powers to raise revenue directly without the interference of the states."
http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalis … y-essay-36
As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants (needs) of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another;
if to be done by the authority of the Federal government, it will not be able to be done by that of the State government.
The quantity (amount) of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case;
with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital (money) resource of commercial (profit) imposts (taxes), which is the most convenient branch (feeder) of revenue,(income) can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under Federal rather than State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur (repeat itself) to more inconvenient methods;
and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal (domestic) taxation, it will impose a disposition(law?) to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means (method ?);
and must naturally tend to make it a fixed (set) point of policy (procedure) in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury (opulence) (great wealth) of the rich tributary(a noun) to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions
(taxes) which might create dissatisfaction (vexation) (worried) in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest (attention) which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution (doling out) of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression (prolonged cruel treatment.)
"...proper distribution of the public burdens ..."
A minor distribution back then has become a major redistribution TODAY!
Am I not getting it?
Where does Hamilton even use the word PROGRESSIVE? He is discussing double taxation!
"Where did you get this?
I would like to read more." GA
Okay here you go …
As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. (Really? ) The monetary needs of the country are to be supplied by either the federal or State governments, but not both. The amount of taxation paid to State governments must be the same as paid to the Federal government.(?) The provision(?) is to be made (?) by the Union(?) with this benefit: the "capital resource of commercial imposts (taxes)" are prudently improved (how?) to a greater extent under Federal rather than State regulation, making it unnecessary to repeat itself to more inconvenient(?)methods. A further advantage: If there is a difficulty in collecting domestic taxes, it can carefully impose laws in order to arrange a method. And it must naturally tend to cause the method to be set into a national policy and go as far as possible in having the rich contribute to the public treasury, in order to tax the poor less. Fortunate it is when the concerns of the government, through preserving its own power, coincides with relieving the 'public burden" (?) as it protects the poor from prolonged hardships.
Best I could do.
What I learned by trying to translate this: You have to read the entire chapter.
It is not accurate because I do not have the time or patience to read the whole chapter. I would have to start with the first paragraph and even work my way back from that. My conclusion: They talked funny in those days. We talk better now. Surprise.
Moral of the story: One cannot attempt to form/support contemporary public policy from small tidbits of archaically worded remarks from the 1700's WITHOUT READING THE ENTIRE BOOK!
by My Esoteric2 years ago
... are trying to encourage those who fall in the Medicaid gap they created to move out of their State? Hospitals in those States are reporting increased unpaid (meaning you paid) emergency room visits from this...
by ptosis4 years ago
It has been said that "Immigration is a federal issue and we can't have 50 states making 50 laws." but we have 50 different rules for voting for the president which is also a federal issue.I'm not asking if...
by niall.tubbs6 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
by Cagsil6 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I know everyone has their own view about it, but I'd like to get your view about it.Is the taxation on business too much?Please realize- any taxation business incurs is passed along to you the citizen.So,...
by egiv7 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
Is nobody going to call Peter Schiff on his "I pay 50% tax" crap?Recently, Peter Schiff marched into OWS and confronted demonstrators, claiming that he pays 50% of his income to taxes. Unfortunately, the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.