In his 1907 State of the Union address, Roosevelt advocated for a graduated income tax. This despite the fact that not only did such a thing not exist at the time, but the Supreme Court had actually held that even a flat-rate tax on income would be unconstitutional. Talk about radical!
[A] graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional. The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation.
Later, in 1910, Roosevelt explained at greater length why he thought these taxes were important.
We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows…. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community…. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.
Roosevelt knew that some would call him a “socialist” because of these ideas. He dismissed the charge.
We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country–a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows.
And in his autobiography, he wrote:
Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even to notice the epithet. I am not afraid of names, and I am not one of those who fear to do what is right because some one else will confound me with partisans with whose principles I am not in accord.
Actually, that whole section of TR’s autobiography is well worth reading. It reflects, among other things, a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between labor and capital, and between the wealthy and the less so, and how you don’t have to be a “socialist” to believe that advocating for the less well-off in society is a good idea both on its own merits and in the larger context.
The truly disappointing thing is that McCain knows all this. He knows that the argument he has with Obama is over a marginal tax rate on the highest income earners of 39% (the Obama/McCain 1.0 position) vs. 36% (the Bush/McCain 2.0 position). That’s not an argument about socialism. McCain knows full well that he’s just using an “epithet” in the hopes that he can — in TR’s words — “confound [Obama] with partisans with whose principles [he is] not in accord.”
If certain modern-day pols who like to invoke TR actually understood what he stood for, those pols’ campaigns might not have degenerated the way that they have.
You can always change your mind or twist facts to your advantage.
We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency;
<
p>Now, remember from that Wall Street Journal article on Obama’s 95% Illusion:
<
p>A “disincentive to working harder” is very similar to putting laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on par with industry, thrift and efficiency, isn’t it?
<
p>And, where did McCain ever say he was opposed to a graduated income tax? That’s Steve Forbes, isn’t it? Huckabee was against income tax and the IRS and wanted a consumption tax. I don’t recall McCain ever agreeing with either of them about that.
That sounds like WSJ editorial page economic theory to me — I’d like to see the “practical” evidence for that proposition. Losing Medicaid benefits when you hit an income threshold is quite a different kettle of fish. Here, it seems a great deal more far-fetched.
I agree few people would turn down a dollar raise (~$2000 a year) so they can keep that 40 cents (~$800 a year?) from the government, but if it involves doing a lot more work or getting out of bed earlier for that raise, then maybe. Lots of people value their work much higher than the market does, and would rather get a little money for doing nothing than be exploited by a boss, even if they get more, out of principle.
<
p>I think it is the credits, the checks from the government to people that pay no taxes, not the graduated tax, that McCain and WSJ types consider the outrage. You’re pretending that people are against the graduated tax, Steve Forbes’s Flat Tax was never a big hit with people and McCain never was for it, was he?
but nowhere do I read TR proposing transfer payments. TR discussed TAXING at a graduated rate. Taking money from those who are producing. Did I miss the part where TR said he wanted to use the monies gathered from taxation to pay those who do not produce? It is that reality upon which McCain bases his “socialist epithets”.
to back up your assertion of the “reality” that Obama’s plan would “pay those who do not produce.” If you’re talking about those who don’t pay income tax, though, don’t bother, since you’re just mouthing silly talking points. TR didn’t anticipate social security taxes, among other things.
<
p>How do you feel about TR’s advocacy for the
deathestate tax?Let’s be honest about this.
<
p>And it’s not even close in terms of percentage.
Johnny Mac keeps suggesting that Obama would send checks to people who aren’t paying anything in taxes. But that’s not true. That’s the point. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could debate the actual policies, instead of each side’s caricature of the other’s?
Would you have to pay FICA taxes to get a check? Not everyone pays FICA taxes, and some people even manage to avoid sales taxes (which are state revenue anyhow). You’re saying they wouldn’t get a check? Probably only because they wouldn’t bother to file a 1040?
no, they wouldn’t get a check.
<
p>(That’s “they” as in “those people,” not “they” as in “the user on BMG known as ‘they.'” Although the latter “they” might not get a check either.)
If I have to start working, I might not be able to post here as much (not that working stopped me before – actually, that’s what stopped me working).
“He says they don’t pay taxes!”
OK then, they don’t pay income taxes.
<
p>”He called Obama a socialist!”
Actually, he called some of Obama’s economic policies socialist.
<
p>And yes, it would be nice if everyone’s cards were on the table.
That’s a huge quibble there. The Congressional Budget Office looked into this quibble and found that, as of 2005, the lowest quintile pays an effective federal tax rate of 4.3%, comprising 2.1% in excise taxes, 0.4% in corporate income taxes, 8.3% in social insurance taxes, and -6.5% in income tax. (Why count excise and corporate taxes? The page has a lengthy explanation of this, but the essence is that, as Republicans like to argue, these taxes get passed along to the consumer – raise the corporate tax and prices will go up, so it’s fair to attribute a share of a consumer’s spending to these taxes.)
<
p>It all starts at the same place – the individual – and goes to the same place – the government – so why are conservatives (who usually like to emphasize how much we pay in taxes!) tying themselves up in knots trying to claim that income tax is somehow different?
Progressive tax policy = good
wealth distribution = bad
Progressive taxation, de facto, takes more money from some than from others. When it gets down to it, what’s the difference between progressive taxation and wealth distribution?
Purely and simply put, Obama’s plan is to restructure the unfair tax policy of the Bush administration. Get it?
If it is “distributed” by providing a national defense and building roads and schools and helping the destitute, that’s good, but if it is distributed by giving checks to able people directly because they feel a right to other people’s money, that’s socialism.
<
p>I agree taxes are too high for low income workers, and too low for high earners, but restructuring so that workers keep more of their earnings is not the same thing as redistribution, even though it would have that effect. Letting people keep money is not the same thing as giving them someone else’s money, and having the rich pay a bigger share is not the seizing their money if it is used for purposes they accept and consent to.
the memory of ‘Bully!’, the charge up San Juan Hill, and the image of him hunting, but don’t look any deeper into his history, then are flummoxed when they learn ‘the rest of the story’.