Tax the Rich! An Alt-Right Plan to Virtually Eliminate Income Tax

Everybody loves to hate taxes.  As the old saying implies, taxes are right up there with death among humanity’s least favorite things.  Yet they are as old as civilization itself; tax records have been found from as far back as the Ur III dynasty of 2,000 BC, and possibly older.  And we can be sure that its residents paid them grudgingly.  Tax resistance is a perennial theme in history, dating back to Jesus, at least, and his alleged “forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2).  Lady Godiva’s mythic ride through Coventry was allegedly on behalf of excessive taxes.  Dozens of wars, revolts, and uprisings in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries occurred over taxation.  We all know of the infamous “no taxation without representation” and the Boston Tea Party, leading to the American Revolution.  Thoreau was briefly jailed in 1846 over a failure to pay taxes, in an act of civil disobedience against the Mexican-American War.  Among the American public, there was significant resistance to tax increases during both World Wars and the Vietnam War.  Even today, scarcely a month goes by without some anti-tax action making the news somewhere in the world.

And yet, everyone except pure anarchists wants some level of service from their government, and thus we all more or less accept the inevitable.  Everyone has their favorite governmental program that they want funded; but they always want someone else to pay for it.  We all would love to get something for nothing from the feds.  But most of us realize that government cannot function without revenue, and that it cannot simply create money out of thin air—at least, not indefinitely.  And so we pay.

Most galling of all, I suppose, is income tax:  government “tribute” taken directly from our paychecks, before we see a single penny.  Long hard hours put in, the daily grind, dealing with obnoxious bosses and coworkers, moronic customers, deadlines, 60-hour weeks…and then the government steps in and takes its “fair share.”  We can sometimes get tricky and defer payment until Tax Day, but eventually the bill comes due; and we pay.  In the US, the average worker pays 20–25 percent of income to the federal government, and another 5 percent to state or local governments: upwards of a third of our income, gone, lost, squandered.

But what if we—most of us, anyway—didn’t have to pay any income tax?  What if we could have all the same governmental services that we do today, but surrender nothing from our hard-earned paychecks?  It may surprise the reader to know that, for most of the history of the USA, citizens paid no income tax at all.  And for decades more, only a very small percentage paid them.  For 150 years, it worked.  What if we could have that again?  And what if the lost funds could be covered, in large part, by that most prosperous of ethnic minorities?  There would be a sort of sublime justice in that, would there not?

A Short History of Taxation in America

Born out of tax revolt, the early United States government was uniquely sensitive to the question of taxation.  Much of the debate centered on the role and size of a federal government.  The so-called federalists, like Madison and Hamilton, argued for a strong central government and hence significant taxation, whereas others like Jefferson defended a small, decentralized, states-rights model that necessarily required lesser federal taxes.  But neither side wanted to tax the nation’s farmers and small businessmen, and so it was agreed that import taxes—tariffs—would be employed to fund the government.  These were easy to collect at ports of entry, and they had the added benefit of protecting nascent American industries.  Tariffs, along with a few selected excise taxes on specific commodities, funded the entire federal government.

Correspondingly, the early government was relatively small.  At no time in those early years did federal spending exceed 5 percent of the nation’s GDP; whereas today, the figure is around 21 percent.[1]  Jefferson’s argument evidently held sway, for well into the nineteenth century.  The US continued to rely almost exclusively on tariffs and minor excise taxes, right up to the Civil War.  Thus, for the first 85 years of its existence, the United States had precisely zero income tax.

With the advent of the Civil War in 1860, things changed, at least temporarily.  The Revenue Act of 1861 imposed a 3% tax on income over $800 (equivalent to about $25,000 today).  The income threshold was lowered the following year to $600, thus bringing in additional revenue.  In 1864, the rate increased to 5% for most wage-earners, and up to 10% for the highest incomes.  In any case, it was all justified only by the exigencies of war.  With Union victory in 1865, the on-going need vanished and the income tax was rightly abolished a few years later.

For the next two decades, the nation again relied on tariffs for the vast majority of its funding.  But meanwhile, pressure to reduce them steadily grew, in part to allow for lower prices for businesses and consumers on imported items.  Congressmen realized, however, that another tax would be needed to offset the lost revenue.  Hence came the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which reintroduced income taxes, now of 2% on earnings over $4,000—equivalent to about $120,000 today.  It was truly a tax for the well-off.

Unfortunately for the government, it was also unconstitutional.  When a New York company, Farmer’s Loan and Trust, attempted to enforce the law, a wealthy stockholder, Charles Pollock, objected, sued the company, and won in the Supreme Court.  It seems that, at the time, the US Constitution had no provision for a “direct” tax on income without a complex system of apportionment, i.e., payment back to the states.  In effect, by the court’s ruling, the income tax was functionally abolished.  For the next 20 years, the feds again had to rely on import tariffs.

This little dilemma was resolved in 1913 with the passing of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  It reads, in full:  “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”  There were some oddities connected with both the wording of the amendment and the ratification process, but I won’t go into those here.[2]  In any case, Congress wasted no time, and the Revenue Act of 1913[3] reduced tariffs but imposed a 1% tax on income over $3,000, rising to a rate of 6% on incomes over $500,000.  The income threshold of $3,000—about $78,000 today—effectively applied only to the top three percent of earners; a full 97% of Americans were unaffected.  The vast majority of people continued to pay no income tax.

The Revenue Act of 1913 was gladly signed into law on October 3rd of that year, by first-term president Woodrow Wilson.  For his part, Wilson seems to have been the first president elected with the full blessing of the Jewish Lobby.  As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews.  His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish”.[12]  His major political donors were Jews, including the likes of Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff, Samuel Untermyer, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and Louis Brandeis.  Wilson was also the first president to fully reward their support; Morgenthau was named ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and Warburg was appointed as the first chairman of the newly-formed Federal Reserve.  Later, Baruch would assume vast powers in his War Industries Board, and Brandeis would become the first Jew on the Supreme Court.

Onset of War

Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Europe.  A complex series of treaties and alliances, combined with the untimely assassination of Archduke Ferdinand on 28 June 1914, inaugurated the First World War.  For a full two years, the US avoided entanglement.  Wilson ran for his second term in late 1916 with the slogan “He kept us out of war.”  But to no avail; soon after winning, he declared war on Germany, in April 1917.

With the US now involved, revenues would need to be drastically increased, and one obvious means was via the income tax.  Hence the War Revenue Act of 1917: a quadrupled rate of 4% (still with a $3,000 per year income threshold), along with incremental marginal rates ranging from 1% to 50%.

Into the last year of the war, 1918, rates again increased:  combined rates ranged from 6% to 77%.  Also, the income threshold was lowered to $1,000 per year (for individuals), drawing in many more taxpayers—though still amounting to just five percent of all taxpayers.

Postwar, the US experienced both the Roaring ‘20s and the Great Depression of the ‘30s, all while retaining the same basic tax structure.  As Benjamin Ginsberg explains,

Prior to the New Deal [of the 1930s]…a high tax threshold and numerous exemptions meant that only about 3 percent of American adults were subject to [income] tax. …  The system depended on more or less voluntary compliance by a small number of well-to-do individuals.  This meant that income taxation was not at first a major source of federal revenue.[13]

Thus, right up until the eve of World War Two, and excepting for a few years during the Civil War, the vast majority of Americans paid no income tax at all—in over 150 years.  But that was about to change, thanks to Hebraic influence in the US Treasury.

Onset of War (again)

Just as Henry Morgenthau, Sr.’s political patronage of Wilson earned him a prime governmental post, so too his son, Henry Jr, earned the favors of the next wartime president, Franklin Roosevelt.  Henry Jr and FDR went back many years, well before the latter’s stint as governor of New York in the late 1920s.  As FDR prepared for his run for president, Henry and other Jews were there, happy to donate.  As Myron Scholnick explains, “A number of wealthy Jewish friends contributed to Roosevelt’s pre-nomination campaign fund: Henry Morgenthau Jr., Lt. Gov. Lehman, Jessie Straus, [and] Laurence Steinhardt.”  Once the primaries were out of the way, “Roosevelt’s campaign was heavily underwritten by Bernard Baruch”.[14]  As with Wilson, FDR did not fail to reward his donors; Morgenthau, for example, was named Secretary of Treasury in early 1934.

But it wasn’t only Morgenthau, of course.  In time-honored tradition, Henry brought in a host of fellow Jews to help direct American economic policy.  “Among those working for Morgenthau at Treasury were large numbers of Jewish economists and statisticians, including such contemporary and future luminaries as Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein, and Milton Friedman, who helped to fundamentally change America’s tax system…”[15]  And change it they did.

War came again to Europe in September 1939, and by late 1940 it was becoming increasingly apparent that the US would get drawn in, one way or another.[16]  Total federal spending in 1939 was about $8 billion, of which around $1 billion (12%) came from personal income taxes.  But with war looming, Morgenthau and friends knew that spending, and thus revenue, would need to dramatically increase.  They had three options:  personal income tax, corporate income tax, and war bonds.   So they set to work; “in the realms of both taxation and bond sales, Jews played major roles,” writes Ginsberg.[17]

Special emphasis was placed on increasing personal income taxes, both by lowering the threshold for paying, and by increasing the tax rates.  The effect was dramatic.  The number of taxpaying adults increased from a very modest 1 million in 1939, to 5 million in 1941, to 40 million in 1942—at the time, constituting virtually all non-farm wage-earning adults.  Corresponding revenues soared from $1 billion to $40 billion by the last years of the war.  Revenue increases matched spending increases, as federal expenditures rose from $8 billion in 1940 to over $100 billion by 1945.

At the start of the war, however, the Treasury Jews knew that enforcement of new tax laws would be difficult.  Millions of Americans who had never even considered the possibility of paying an income tax were suddenly asked to contribute thousands of dollars.  What to do?  Morgenthau’s boys devised a clever plan:  “a number of Jewish economists [including Milton Friedman and Morgenthau himself] championed the introduction of payroll withholding, or ‘collection at the source,’ which to this day ensures a smooth, regular flow of billions of dollars into the federal government’s coffers”.[18]  That is, the government would work with employers to extract the worker’s share of taxes prior to paying their wages.  Corporations were much easier to coerce than unruly citizens, and rates could be arbitrarily raised in the future with little fuss.  This tactic was a “central feature” of the 1943 Revenue Act, and would remain in effect for all future years.  Thanks to payroll withholding, income tax evolved “from a minor tax levied on wealthy Americans into a major tax levied on all Americans”.[19]

With this glorious new cash cow in place, the Treasury Jews—currently headed by Steven Mnuchin—never looked back.  As a result, Americans today pay an astonishing $2.1 trillion in income and “payroll” (FICA, or social security plus Medicare) taxes, accounting for roughly 68% of all federal revenue.  In other words, over two-thirds of the entire funding of our federal government comes directly out of citizens’ paychecks.  This monumental burden is carried by 84% of all households, who pay either income tax, or payroll tax or, most likely, both.  Most of the remaining 16% of households—representing about 50 million people—earn too little to pay any income tax at all.

And yet even this is not enough for our voracious feds.  The $2.1 trillion is supplemented by some $760 billion in corporate taxes (income tax plus their share of payroll), and another $260 billion in excise and estate taxes.  In sum, the government currently takes in about $3.3 trillion.  But it spends around $4.1 trillion annually, mostly on defense and military-related costs, which approach a breath-taking $1.25 trillion per year.[20]  The difference—an annual deficit of about $800 billion—is pushed onto future taxpayers, in the form of additions to the federal debt, which currently stands at nearly $22 trillion.  We may be excused for holding the feds in contempt.

Return of the “3 Percent” Plan

So:  What to do?  Here’s one idea:  Let’s return to the old “3 percent” rule—that is, that the entire income tax burden should again be borne by the richest 3% of households.  It worked for the decades leading up to World War II, and it could work again.  After all, we’re not at war—the last formally-declared war was in fact World War II—and apart from sporadic ‘terrorist’ actions, the world is generally at peace.  In a peacetime economy, the wealthiest Americans should rightly bear the full cost of income taxation.

There are several ways to make this happen, but let me lay out one proposal here.  Data exists to make a reasonably accurate set of calculations.  Here are the numbers:

At present, we have about 160 million tax households in the US, representing our 325 million people.  The top one percent—that is, the richest 1.6 million households—earn an average of about $880,000 per year.[21]  The second-richest one percent earn around $400,000 on average, and the 3rd one-percent about $325,000.  Altogether, our top 3% are paid about $2.6 trillion every year.

The problem, however, is that we need to raise $2.1 trillion in taxes from these folks.  The simplest way would be to tax them at a flat rate of 80%.  Imagine:  you earn a hefty $1 million per year from your vulture capitalist hedge fund, and you have to pay $800,000 to the feds.  Hard to make those yacht payments on just $200,000 a year.

Cruel, you say?  Perhaps.  Fortunately, we have an alternative.  It turns out, unsurprisingly, that most of our top 3-percenters (in terms of income) are also millionaires or billionaires (in terms of assets).  They have real assets—assets that can be taxed.  Each household in the top one-percent, in fact, owns an average of $22 million in assets—mostly in property, stocks and bonds, and corporate equity.  The second percentile household owns some $7.5 million, on average; the 3rd percentile, $5 million.  In total, this group of individuals owns or controls about $56 trillion in assets—an utterly incredible sum, to say the least.

Here then is my proposal:  tax the upper 3-percenters income at a flat rate of 60%; this will raise about $1.5 trillion annually.  Then let’s also impose a mere 1% wealth tax on their assets, which will raise another $560 billion.  In sum, we get nearly exactly the desired total of $2.1 trillion.  Our richest people have fully funded the federal government.  And the remaining 97% of us—around 315 million people—get to keep all of our hard-earned income.  Imagine that.

And who, exactly, are these poor buggers who are about to personally fund the federal government?  We know the big names:  Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers.  But they are just the tip of the iceberg.  When we run down the list of leading names, we find a striking fact:  around half of them are Jews.  Among the top ten, we find five Jews:  Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg.  Of the top 50, at least 27 are Jews, including Sheldon Adelson, Steve Ballmer, Michael Dell, Carl Icahn, David Newhouse, Micki Arison, and Stephen Ross.[22]  More broadly, we can cite once again Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote, “Today, though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews”.[23]

Based on such data, we can infer that up to half of the top 3-percenters are Jews.[24]  As a whole, they therefore own or control up to $28 trillion in assets.  On my proposal, they will correspondingly pay half of the annual $2.1 trillion to keep our government afloat, and to fight foreign wars on their behalf.  As the prime beneficiaries of American economic policy, this is only fair.

At a minimum, some such proposal deserves wider discussion, given that it offers massive financial benefit to fully 97% of the nation.  By rights, something like this should be discussed in every political debate and on every nighttime news program.  The closest thing we have to this is Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal: 2% on assets between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3% on assets over $1 billion.  By my estimates, this would apply only to the top 0.1% of households (versus my 3%), and would only bring in, she says, around $275 billion annually (versus my $560 billion).  It’s weak, but at least a step in the right direction.  And yet her proposal got almost no discussion, and virtually no endorsement.  This is unsurprising, given that our media bosses include multi-millionaire Jews like Bob Iger and Ben Sherwood at Disney/ABC, David Levy and Jeff Zucker at Warner/CNN, Noah Oppenheim and Andrew Lack at NBC, and Sumner and Shari Redstone at Viacom/CBS.  They certainly have no interest in any wealth tax, as it would hit them directly in the pocketbook.  By definition, if it’s bad for them, it’s bad, period.

Still, such a tax system, disproportionately falling on American Jews, would have vast implications.  Think of it:  A $1 trillion annual contribution from the American Jewish community, in order to provide for the health and security of all Americans.  It would go a long way toward burnishing their long-besmirched image, and lessening anti-Jewish hostility.  By draining away some of their excessive wealth, it would reduce their ability to meddle in government and the corporate world.  It would be a boon to the US economy, lifting millions out of poverty and allowing millions more to get out from under crushing debt.  It would serve as a measure of true economic justice.  And it would allow for an honest, transparent, fair, and just system of taxation.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website

[1] Federal spending is now about $4.1 trillion, which is roughly 21% of our current GDP of $21 trillion.  More on this below.

[2] See, for example, the work of Bill Benson and his book The Law That Never Was (

[3] Also known as the ‘Underwood Tariff’ or the ‘Underwood-Simmons Act.’

[4] To say that Stolypin was no friend of the Jews is an understatement.  He once wrote:  “It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures who cannot enter into our concept of human nature” (in A. Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews, 1994, p. 6).

[5] News reports of these events, especially in the New York Times, consistently referred to “6 million” suffering Jews—but that’s a story for another time.  See my book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed. 2020, pp. 53-64).

[6] In S. Singer, “President Taft and the Jews” (The Jewish Press, 23 Dec 2015).  Sazonov served from 1910 to 1916.

[7] N. Cohen, 1963, “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of 1832,” Jewish Social Studies 25(1).

[8] Prelude to Catastrophe (2010; Ivan Dee), p. 22.

[9]  Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p. 32).

[10] For a fuller treatment of this incident and its implications, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019).

[11]  The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911/1982; Transaction), p. 44.

[12]  Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921.  The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for sake of convenience I attribute it to Ford—even though it is unlikely that he wrote the pieces himself.

[13] How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013; Rowman), p. 57.

[14] The New Deal and Antisemitism in America (1990; Taylor and Francis), p. 193.

[15] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[16] Again, as with WW1, there was a prominent Jewish role in our entry into the war; see Dalton (2019)—supra note 10.

[17] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[18] Ginsberg, p. 57.

[19] Ginsberg, p. 59.

[20] Total annual military-related spending includes several categories, far beyond simply the Dept of Defense.  In 2019, it was reported that total military-related spending exceeded $1 trillion.  This includes:  base DOD budget ($550 billion), “war” budget, aka OCO ($174 billion),  DOE and nuclear spending ($25 billion), FBI defense-related ($9 billion), Veterans Affairs ($216 billion), Homeland Security ($69 billion), international affairs and foreign military aid (mostly to Israel) ($51 billion), military intelligence, CIA, and NSA ($80 billion), and lastly, defense-related share of the national debt ($156 billion)—for a total cost of $1.25 trillion.  For details, see “America’s defense budget is bigger than you think,” (7 May 2019).

[21] Howard Gold, “Never mind the 1 percent, let’s talk about the 0.01 percent”, 2017 (

[22] Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018).

[23] The Fatal Embrace (1993; Univ of Chicago Press), p. 1.

[24] For details, see my TOO article “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (7 Feb 2019).

51 replies
  1. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    Extreme libertarians claim that “taxation is theft” and envisage their ideal society as one in which every necessary social expenditure – yes, even extreme libertarians tend to grudgingly admit that the public provision of defence, justice, diplomacy and suchlike are necessary – should be funded from voluntary contributions. Pleasing as the idea of a world without taxes is, all of history is resolutely against it and our experience of human nature tells us that altruistic behaviour has severe limits.

    No society beyond the tribal has ever survived without some form of overt forced contribution and even tribal societies place onerous social obligations on people, such as sharing food and the provision of hospitality to strangers, which are scarcely voluntary because of the fear of social ostracism. We also know for a fact that where people are left to make voluntary contributions, for example to charity, the vast majority either contribute nothing or very little.

    Most societies which have ever existed, and that includes most which currently exist, have had no state sponsored welfare provision and in such societies voluntary aid has always proven to be completely inadequate to meet the needs of the poor and unfortunate. The first country anywhere to avoid serious and regular famines was England, which was also the first country to have national welfare provision as a legal obligation as a consequence of the 1597 and 1601 Poor Laws. No coincidence.

    It would take an optimist of Herculean faith in the malleability of human beings to imagine that a society of any sophistication would work if it was solely based on voluntary contributions to provide those things necessary for the general good.

    • Rohman
      Rohman says:

      One needs to recognize not only what may need to be provided publicly, but the level of government appropriate to the task.

      Most societies that have ever existed were relatively small and homogeneous. A consensual polity makes collective action easier and less contentious.

      The trend over the previous century has been to give federal authorities as much power as possible. The usual suspects are taking advantage of the current health crisis to push their “government is good” narrative. I’m not surprised they’re not wasting an opportunity. They never do.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” taxation is theft ”

      whenever you pay for government by any tax other than the one and only [ FAIR Tax ] which is a FLATRATE Income Tax , the same rate for everyone .

      The FlatRate Income Tax ( the same rate for everyone ) is the ONLY tax that is GUARANTEED to give you the same rate-of-return ( pertaining to what you have remaining of your income after you pay the tax ) on your investment in government as every other taxpayer . Your tax payment is your investment in government . Your rate-of-return on your investment is the ratio of your remaining income after paying the tax divided by your income amount before paying the tax . No other kind of tax GUARANTEES that you will have the same rate-of-return , on your tax investment in government , as every other same tax payer .

      If you or anyone you know has a better definition of ” FAIR Tax ” then please tell us about it here on the worldwide internet or else we can assume the definition is known as stated herein and thus we can be done with anymore incessant perennial quibbling over whether or not
      [ FAIR Tax ] can be defined .

      Any tax that is not the one and only ” FAIR Tax ” is ipso facto an [ UNFAIR tax ] which is also ipso facto an [ UNJUSTIFIABLE Tax ] which is also known as an [ unjustifiable appropriation of money ] which also is ipso facto called [ THEFT ] .

      Governments as well as taxpayers will continue to have intractable financial difficulties if for no other reason than everyone continues to ignore the simplified material fact of taxes , as given herein , and instead resort to those long winded 20-page evasions , as given by that link above on the principles of taxation , of a simple fact . That treatise on tax principles is a good example of one in a multitude of sophisticated arguments in support of governmental theft .

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Correction :

        ROR ( rate of return ) is calculated by subtracting the tax paid from the remainder of income after the tax and dividing that difference by the tax payment ; and ROR is normally expressed as a percentage value where it is more commonly known and better expressed as ROI ( return on investment ) ; thus ROR = ROI .

        For example , suppose income = 100$ , tax = 40$ , remainder = 60$ .

        Then ROI = ( 60$ – 40$ ) / 40$ = .5 = 50% =

        [ the return on your investment in the government ( 50% ) or ,
        if you prefer , in the tax jurisdiction ] = ROR = ROI .

        Make no mistake , any ROI ( return on your investment in government ) greater than zero ( 0% ) is evidence of the government providing a positive financial benefit to you .

        Suppose a FLATrate tax on your income of 100$ is 50% .

        Then ROI = 0% = ( 50$ – 50$ ) / 50$ .

        A 0% ROI is evidence of a superfluous government that provides no positive financial benefit to you .

        Many taxpayers in the westernworld are now actually dealing with negative ROI percentages .

        A ROI of about +50% would be considered good or OK for the vast majority of taxpayers in the westernworld .

        To be sure , the multi-billionaire oligarch controllers of governments normally have huge multiples of 100% ROIs ( returns on their investments in government ) where any of their investment PROFITS are actually INCOMES available to them for their discretionary use .

        For more info see .

      • Exile
        Exile says:

        All-caps notwithstanding, the FAIR tax is only “fair” under the rubric of egalitarianism, and a myopic version of egalitarianism at that.

        The rich require a greater share of legal and infrastructure resources to protect and enable their greater holdings and enterprises. The average citizen will utilize the legal, political and social influence apparatus of the State much less than the rich.

        Under the tactical libertarianism so commonly deployed to justify the present inordinate privileges and influence of the elites, when a citizen is unhappy with plutocratic decisions, he is told to “make his own internet/country/society.”

        The rich are better able to “create their own country” if they aren’t happy with the popular consensus on progressive tax rates. Why not ask them to “make their own country” if they aren’t happy with how we wish to run it?

        Why is democracy always a one-way-ratchet empowering the 1% while measures that would empower the middle and working-classes “populism” or “socialism?”

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          Your comment appears to be garbled with different issues involved with taxation .

          Firstly , a ” FAIR Tax ” pertains to paying for the same government as your nextdoor neighbor whom is in the same residential tax jurisdiction as you and whom may be either much poorer or much richer than you . The ” FAIR Tax ” says the rich neighbor does not get to have a better return on their investment in government just because the rich neighbor pays more tax money than the poor neighbor where they both pay for the exact same government .

          Secondly , the egalitarianism that you mention can only refer to the government which is given as the same , in this attempted clarification , for both unequal taxpayers as asserted .

          You correctly alluded to the fact that it is virtually impossible for the rich to not use more governmental services in their business of acquiring wealth . Hence , they should pay more tax money for those services and the FLATrate Income Tax is the exact correct amount to pay . The [ progressive income tax ] can easily result in a worse ROI for the rich neighbor than the poor neighbor . In any case , it results in a different ROI for both neighbors which cannot be rationally justified for the circumstances as given and therefor it is ipso facto UNFAIR .

          The multi-billionaire oligarchs , such as Warren Buffet for one out of many others , typically have phenomenally greater ROIs than their poorer neighbors in the same residential tax jurisdiction . Multi-billionaire Buffet is on record admitting that he paid less income tax than his 50,000$ a year secretary .

          The sheeple majorities whom typically are not politicly astute , are not financially astute , and are not economicly astute have been conditioned to presume that wealthy elites should have better taxpayer ROIs than the non-elite taxpaying masses ; and on the other hand , progressive democrats claim that elites should have lessor ROIs , via progressive taxation , than the non-elite masses .

          It should be obvious that a ” FAIR Tax ” is not about taxpayers being equal to each other but rather it is about paying the correct amount for the governmental services they use and depend on . A FLATrate Income Tax is the only tax that guarantees the same ROI for each taxpayers investment in the government where a paid tax is functionally equivalent to an investment in government ; and investment profits called capital gains are functionally equivalent to discretionary income whenever they are taken out from investment accounts .
          Furthermore , foreign investors should be taxed exactly one-half of the invested country’s domestic income tax rate for any capital gains removed from their invested country’s domestic investment accounts .

          In other words , a ” FAIR Tax ” is the only way to put an end to the multi-billionaire oligarch’s tax charade as well as the progressive’s tax charade .

  2. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    It is a disastrous mistake to not eliminate the “income tax” entirely with a net asset tax. This, I’ve been proposing since 1992. This proposal was a result of my work to privatize space launch services, analyzing the capital market failure in high technology. If a Democrat had proposed such elimination of income tax they could have gone on to win the nomination — particularly in the present climate where it is clear the Federal Reserve is going to pull another fast one as they did after 2007 when they bailed out financial institutions that then turned around and evicted families from their homes — thereby centralizing real estate wealth even more.

    The alt-right can steal their thunder and get the support of principled leftists with this policy, as is evident in a google search of reactions to my proposal — some of it getting through to the more intelligent of the left “got it”.

    That refinement has culminated in a unified solution to monetary and tax policy that is an alt-right dream and Jewish nightmare: “Property Money“. Property Money a demurrage monetary system that is backed by the total property rights protected under law — said demurrage going out to the men who place their flesh blood and bone between chaos and civilization thereby providing the foundation for property rights.

    If you want a truly “based” monetary and tax system, that’s what you want.

    Listen to my recent interview at Myth of the 20th Century for the deep evolutionary background of European individualism as it pertains to this policy.

    I’m perfectly will

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      I would hope that James Bowery considers offering or is asked to contribute a pro-White alternative to this alt-right taxation policy. The pro-Whites should have a voice here too.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        Lots of great comments. And by great I mean penetrating and insightful. But, above all, relevant and useful.

        Not so much in what they propose, though there’s a lot to consider with what Robert Henderson, Rohman, Moneytalks, and James Bowery have said. But in the issues they raise.

        I mention all of this to highlight your brief, standout comment.

        It points to a very important direction.

        You make the distinction between Pro-White and the Alt-Right.

        My own feeling on the matter is that the term “Alt-Right” has been so thoroughly contaminated by Jewish Supremacy Inc. that it’s simply unusable.

        But then, obviously, right now, so is Pro-White.

        But it does bring us closer, much closer, to the heart of the matter.

        I answer to no one in my defense of TOO, it’s writers, readers, and commenters. All of its failings aside and for all of the legitimate criticism it’s received, it is still an important site.

        And now that it’s being shared on The Unz Review, it’s even more important than ever (whatever one might think of TUR).

        Besides, I doubt if there’s anything on the Internet that hasn’t had its more clearer waters muddied by JSI’s relentless JIDF Trolling. So be it.

        We’ll take what we need and leave the rest.

        For that reason I humbly propose that we pull our considerable intellectual and cultural resources together and direct our discssions (which is pretty much all we have at this point; though a point not to be underestimated) toward two related matters.

        1. an organizing principle, one capable of uniting us long enough to become,

        2. a group in form.

        For myself, no progress can be made in freeing ourselves from JSI unless we completely and aggressively ditch the Right/Left paradigm, forever.

        And not just because JSI has put a target on anything that has the word “Right” (as in right-wing) in it. But, far more importantly, because it’s the direction European man was headed in before the rise of JSI.

        Our greatest men, those operating at the cutting edge of advancing culture, especially in the 19th century (that shamefully neglected century) were not interested in cultural commitment to an ideology. They were interested in the cultural transcendence of ideolgies!

        Ideological thinking wants to make the world more predictable and less free.

        The problem with our great culture leaders was that they flew much further than the rest of us could keep up with, leaving a space, a big open space, for JSI to crawl through. And crawl through it did.

        Time to pick up the mantle that our greatest cultural figures left us. Time to reconnect and begin moving forward, for what arguably could be the first time.

        We’ll know what to do from there. I have no doubt about that.

        We need to make each other want what we have. And we still have a lot to give to each other.

        Even JSI knows that much. That’s why they’re still afraid of us (yes, afraid). Which explains why they’re currently pulling all the stops.

        But we’ll be able to do a lot more a lot faster as soon as we transcend the depressing and counter-productive cultural limits of the Right/Left paradigm.

        • Robert Keith
          Robert Keith says:

          Right on! It’s always been about the “haves” and “have-nots”. The R/L dichotomy is a relatively “recent”creation, a just-in-time distraction for JSI that has served is purpose.

        • Nick Dean
          Nick Dean says:

          Left vs Right has divided Whites and only Whites roughly 50/50 for about a century in its current deployment, and so much that supposedly defines the Left vs Right paradigm is turned on its head for Whites and only Whites that it becomes indisputable the whole scheme as operated is anti-White by design.

          The altright and it’s direct predecessor, the paleoconservative movement clearly serve the same purpose tho, dividing Whites – who maybe tend a little more free-thinking – against ourself (‘ourself’ is not an error). Same designing Jew originator, Paul Gottfried, defender of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state who yet opposes similar but White nationalisms; same hapless goy frontmen, Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer; same effort to shift the focus from race and nation issues as such to mere ideas as such: right vs left, monarchism, hierarchy vs democracy, modernity, liberalism, the enlightenment and on and drearily on. Anything and everything but the urgent matter of getting the Jewish boot off our throat and living free as Whites.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Nick Dean: Well said.

            I would add that a sign that you are victimized by the Left-Right paradigm is if your own views emphatically favor one side over the other.

            Young white men in particular are being seduced by Bernie Sanders on the one hand, and Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk and Jordan Peterson on the other.

            The latter are obvious gatekeepers.

  3. silviosilver
    silviosilver says:

    But that was about to change, thanks to Hebraic influence in the US Treasury.

    Oh please.

    I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating here: it’s not just that WN is done so poorly that amazes me, it’s that it’s done so poorly despite opportunities abounding to do it well.

    Restricting ourselves to the issue of Jewish influence, of all the things he could focus on, what does Dalton choose? Tax increases!

    I can only lol.

  4. SimplyFred
    SimplyFred says:

    Tax the rich? Why are prisoners in prison entitled to free health care? Wouldn’t it be better if prisoners in prison were obligated to petition their friends and relatives for health care insurance? What about the obese? Wouldn’t it be better if the obese paid more taxes than slender healthy people? NOTE: The obesity epidemic costs taxpayers nearly 100 billion a year. What about AIDS ‘victims’ (sic)? Wouldn’t it be better for AIDS ‘victims’ (sic) to finance their own epidemic? Why are healthy heterosexual Christians forced to pay taxes for a ‘lifestyle’ (sic) they consider disgusting and forbidden? NOTE: The AIDS epidemics costs taxpayers over 100 billion a year. Last, if we returned all of our immigrants to their homelands our environment would transform from dirty and filthy to pristine. We could then market millions of gallons of delicious fresh water out of the great lakes to overpopulated countries. Especially the middle east.

    • JRM
      JRM says:

      You make sense, but the categorization and enforcement of taxable categories would be very labor intensive. In addition, a system like this would probably tend to multiply in classes subject to taxation, ending in a Byzantine and complex Federal bureaucracy, worse than what we have.

      As for prisoners paying for their own healthcare, as wards of the State, legal precedence has sided with the State being responsible for their medical needs. If we had a “pay as you go” prison system, we could also charge them for their food. The only way to make this work would be to forcibly employ them (probably inefficiently) and use their “pay” to defray their expenses. Legal challenges would keep this from ever working properly.

      I agree about returning the immigrants, though. Would be wonderful, but isn’t going to happen.

      • Sbaker
        Sbaker says:

        Go with a national sales tax; easy to do and infrastructure for collection is already in place.

        Prisoners at one time were forced to work. Legal precedence can be changed. It happens all the time when an honest judge can be found. The judiciary is the most corrupt branch of government; there isn’t even a close second place. Lawyers and judges run every branch of government for their own political and monetary advantage.

    • Jud Jackson
      Jud Jackson says:

      I agree with all your proposals and could add a few more of my own. Tax cigarette smokers when they get lung cancer for example. The problem is that they would be impossible to implement them.. Dr. Dalton’s proposal seems to me quite possible however. It is simple and it would get a lot of leftist democrat votes.

    • Sbaker
      Sbaker says:

      Good to have a comment hidden by the rainbow queers brought to light. If the money spent on keeping them alive and allowing them to spread their diseases was used to support those that are normally responsible for their own health–estimates of a trillion in funding would not have been wasted. I can’t count the times I have discussed these facts with public health workers for decades. An easily preventable myriad of infectious diseases from a group of perverts who worship their disgusting behavior.
      Prisoners were once forced to work–why did all that change? Answer, the lawyers and judges declared from their high bench, it was inhumane. So, let the lawyers and judges donate their time–there is enough of them to replace the chain gangs. And then, when prisoners serve their time, they can’t find a job, because they haven’t any work experience. Haha.
      Good comments Fred.
      Since we need a tax base of some sort I prefer a national sales tax and if a supplement of income tax is necessary, make it a set rate for all at a more reasonable 10%. No more free rides and no deductions for taxes paid in your home states. Close to 50% of the population pay no federal income tax–everybody needs to pay something. (This is the unedited version)

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Great video. Everyone should watch it.

      I love the part where the Jewish investors say that they don’t want any whites in the top positions at major corporations — except for Jews of course.

  5. JRM
    JRM says:

    Brilliant plan. Me likey.

    But…how would you keep the targeted rich from moving to a more congenial tax environment- taking their money and assets with them? Would assets be appropriated from emigrating Jews (and other wealthy people)?

    Of course, having the rich Jews leave the country would also be a good outcome, as their outsized and pernicious influence would be curtailed.

    The rich have the resources and free time to game most, if not all systems. But I’d be willing to risk an exodus of Jews for sure.

  6. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    A vitally important, must read historical lesson, well-reasoned and well-written, with a somewhat interesting, but ultimately unrealistic proposal tacked on, is, with both the essay’s title and last line, tied to a ball and chain and thrown overboard.

    And you wonder why people find it difficult to take these things seriously?

    In any event, the essay ended up being a real howler.

    High comedy of the first order.

    Though it’s unlikely this was Dr. Dalton’s intention.

  7. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    “Based on such data, we can infer that up to half of the top 3-percenters are Jews.”

    If Jews are only 3% of the population it is very unlikely they would be anywhere near half of the 3-percenters. We could assume their representation would be very disproportionate, perhaps as high as 20%, but not 50%. The figures cited where Jews are represented at about 50% are the top 0.1% or less (e.g., the top 50), not the top 3%.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      When I studied the Forbes list of billionaires, my Jew-dar (which I think is pretty accurate) estimated that a quarter of them were Jews.

      Jews probably make up a quarter of millionaires as well.

      Because Jews only make up about 2% of the American population, a Jew is twelve-and-a-half times as likely to be millionaire as a non-Jew.

      That’s the power of working as a team. We goyim should try it.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        How would we do it? Do you have any idea(s)? It strikes me that Jews might have some kind of trait or quality that we don’t … or maybe it’s the other way around.

        I guess if there were an easy answer to that, someone would have come up with it by now.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          How do we do it? By loving each other. By favoring each other when we can.

          When I was growing up, the attitude of most white parents towards their kids was, “You’re 18 now. Time to move out. You’re on your own.”

          Compare that to a Latino family, where parents want the kids to stay around — sometimes even after they’re married with kids.

          Think of the economic waste when 3 kids move out at age 18. They throw money at landlords (often Jewish) and don’t save money by avoiding unnecessary duplication.

          Why does the Smith family of five people need a house, plus three apartments, all of which contain four kitchens, at least six bedrooms, and five or six bathrooms?

          Why do the Smith kids have to wait until they’re established in their careers or they’ve inherited money to buy their own homes — at a much higher price than they would have paid if they had bought them much earlier (this assumes that the Smith family has money to spare)?

          Couldn’t there be a family homestead — acreage large enough for two or three homes?

          And why should Aunt Millie live alone? Why should grandma and grandpa get shoved into an expensive old folks home when they could help take care of the grandkids and love doing it?

          Why should a white kid apply for a job from a white employer and be treated like crap — even discriminated against in favor of non-whites?

          That white employer might even be a neighbor, friend or relative of the white kid’s family. And he’ll still treat the kid as though he’s illegitimately asking for a special favor that he doesn’t deserve.

          Why should whites be so ready to scatter all over the country just to go to some crappy college or get a crappy job somewhere?

          Why waste money and go into debt to attend “Prestigious U.” when you can save money by going to the local community college or state university, or acquire a marketable skill in the trades, or start your own business?

          We whites have been trained by the Jews to become atomized, and therefore weak.

          But do the Jews do the same thing? Some of them do. But in general, they are much more likely to help each other than whites are. They are much more likely to make sure their kids have good opportunities and educations.

          The Asians also do better than whites in this regard. The family and its overall well-being is much more important to them. So is education.

          I think whites believe that they’re privileged when, actually, they are discriminated against — including by each other.

          And their egos are inflated by sentiments of Noblesse Oblige. “Ah, we Lords and Ladies can afford to be generous to our lessers. Only a cad or a loser would be in the least bit concerned about white well-being.”

          Deluded. That’s what most whites are.

          And they’re not especially pleasant to deal with in many cases. It’s almost always a rivalry and a competition.

          It’s hard, sometimes, to even want to defend them.

          • Susan
            Susan says:

            “It’s hard, sometimes, to even want to defend them.”
            Yes. Last Sunday afternoon, I was getting out of my car when a gust of wind blew my door so that it tapped the car parked next to mine. A young white man had been sitting in the car. He got out, walked over and took a photo of his car door in case there was damage. (There wasn’t. You couldn’t even see where my car door hit his.) He said I should be more careful. I said, I didn’t know it was so windy. He said I should be more careful anyway. I just looked at him and couldn’t think of anything more to say to him. I’m a 65 year old white lady for whom he didn’t show the least bit of respect.
            I spend a lot of time worrying about young white men in our world today, but for once, I thought that maybe some of them aren’t worth surviving.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            We’re going to have to write off a lot of our own people in order to save a remnant.

            But that’s all we need.

            From a little acorn comes the mighty oak.

        • Sbaker
          Sbaker says:

          We wouldn’t do it, because it takes a level of dishonesty and indecency that Christians do not possess. I’m not saying all Jews share those characteristics, but many of them do and most of them are obsessed with money and an attitude of supremacy.

        • Oracle
          Oracle says:

          The members of what was our society have been so atomized and so carefully divided from what was our sense of collective existence, that we can no longer even have a neighborhood barbecue just for ourselves. How did that happen?

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      “Up to” includes zero. Therefore his statement is valid. Misleading, perhaps, but valid.

  8. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    01 Unquestionably, Otto von Bismarck, as Founder and Chancellor of the Second Reich, had the most numerous and biggest ears of anyone in Europe, as to what was truly going on below the public’s line of sight.

    02 Necessarily paraphrasing him currently, since I can not recall the location of his salient comment on the United States, he opined, that ” the reigning, central money powers of Europe deemed the United States as becoming too independently strong; militarily, economically, financially in trade and in foreign policy. That they had to be cut down to size, by introducing a [ Civil ] War. ”

    03 My three volumes of ” Bismarck Founds the Reich “, are silent on his above remarks: perhaps an inadvertent, probably a deliberate omission by their publisher, cognizant of, and dutifully guilt-ridden, by what he was saying.

    04 Not a fan of incomplete or uncorroborated deductions, I telephoned the central office of the Faculty of History at Berlin’s original Humboldt University.

    05 I asked for and received the e-mail addresses of three of their Bismarck specialists.

    06 I briefly identified myself to these three: bringing up a sort of collegiality due to my previous enrolment at West Berlin’s Free University, in Russian and East European Studies.

    07 Their campus is in the center of the area where Hitler stroked the faces of uniformed, underaged boys, ready to give their all.

    08 Though carefully worded, keeping their employment in mind, with Merkel literally down the street, they may have smelled a rat. NONE REPLIED !

    09 Perhaps Carolyn Yeager could source this for our greater edification. Especially for Tito, who recently blamed Lincoln here for the unfortunate ca. 500,000.

    Nonetheless: Happy Easter !

  9. Tom
    Tom says:

    Sounds good, but….I’m reminded of an old episode from Get Smart where the Chief warns Max that should he get into trouble with his enemies on a mission, that he could resort to the poison in his shoe to provide for painless, instant death. Max replies….that’s great Chief, but how do I get them to take the poison?
    And that’s the problem here. How do you get the mega-rich to take the poison they advocate for the vast majority of citizens – especially when the Democrats and the media propaganda outlets are controlled by the same mega-rich who are entirely happy with big government and leftist social policies?
    The answer is to chip away at the size of the federal government by dismantling needless bureaucracies and departments e.g. the Department of Education. There’s no way we’re going from big leftist government in a heartbeat without first paying dues in the cause to renew freedom in America. In this day and age of academic and corporate media mind-control, you need to have a slow march through the institutions, to quote Gramsci, before there is a rightist resurgence, of any sort, in America.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      He was a board member until 1918.

      He was part of the secret meeting at Jeckyll Island to create the Federal Reserve.

      I believe he played a key role in designing the system.

  10. gerry
    gerry says:

    The one name that doesn’t get mentioned is Col. Edward House, an important figure in the world of Wilson. On taxes here is an interesting/important quote from his novel PHILIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR: A STORY OF TOMORROW 1920-1935 {how
    prophetic a title}

    “[Very] soon, every American will be required to
    register their biological property in a National system
    designed to keep track of the people and that will
    operate under the ancient system of pledging.

    By such methodology, we can compel people to submit
    to our agenda, which will affect our security as a
    chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American
    will be forced to register or suffer not being able to
    work and earn a living.

    They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security
    interest over them forever, by operation of the law
    merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.

    Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering
    the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and
    insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through
    taxation, secured by their pledges.

    They will be stripped of their rights and given a
    commercial value designed to make us a profit and they
    will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million
    could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or
    two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal
    plausible deniability.

    After all, this is the only logical way to fund
    government, by floating liens and debt to the
    registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This
    will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our
    wildest expectations and leave every American a
    contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social

    Without realizing it, every American will insure us for
    any loss we may incur and in this manner; every
    American will unknowingly be our servant, however
    begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and
    without any hope for their redemption and, we will
    employ the high office of the President of our dummy
    corporation to foment this plot against America.”

    I would say that about sums it all up.

    What we should find especially troubling about such a quote however, is the almost verbatim way in which a certain portion of it resembles that scripture from the bible:

    “He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and
    poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand
    or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell…


    unless he had the mark, which is the number of his
    name.” {Rev. 13:16}

    I could well imagine if Wilson and this Col House and all the others mentioned in the essay had access to today’s computer tech we would all be tattooed with our “social insurance number” which as House rightly says is a fraud!

    My God have we arrived? Are we about to see the fulfillment of biblical prophecy? Is a totalitarian technocracy about to be rolled out upon the world?

    What Slavoj Zizek calls the “erotic dream” of every totalitarian government.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Edward Mandell House

      See the CORPORATE IDENTITY- Your name in capital letters [birth certificate, driver license, credit cards, passport, and so on]. The UNITED STATES is actually a corporation, and is different from the united States, which is the Founders’ government.

      We needed this information a few decades back. . .

      • gerry
        gerry says:


        I’m 60 years old and still have my original birth certificate and printed in very small capital letters on the bottom of card are the words CANADIAN BANK NOTE!!!!! LOL

        My question though is when did this go from a US institution to a Canadian one?

        Alas I guess the answer to that is the British Banking System under guess who? Rothschild of which House was his gopher. Correct or not?

  11. Eric
    Eric says:

    The first thing to do when it comes to taxes is to cut wasteful government spending.

    Now that we’ve eliminated at least 30% of the federal, state, county and local budgets, how will we pay for the remaining 70%? Part could be paid by tariffs (which would vary, based on reciprocal tariff increases or reductions by other nations), and the rest by taxes .

    No one wants to pay taxes, and the services governments perform (post office, roads, national defense) should benefit people equally. So the best way to tax is to have no visible tax at all, but rather an invisible “value-added” tax built into the price of whatever you buy. The rich would pay more because they buy more. But there won’t be any progressivity beyond that in the tax system. Punishing the rich too much disincentivizes investment. That’s what Communist countries do, and that’s why they are poor.

    As for the Jews, they should be expelled from the country. No amount of money is worth having them around.

    What about unemployed people, sick people, old people? Employers would have to pay people enough for them to save money so that they could take care of their own needs.

    Since people can’t always be relied upon to save on their own initiative, part of their paychecks would automatically go to special savings accounts that could only be tapped in time of need.

    One would only pay medical bills. One would only pay money while you’re unemployed. One would only pay retirement income. Self employed people would be required to make contributions as well.

    The last step is banning usury (interest rates greater than 5%) and establishing a stable currency. That problem can be solved by closing down the Federal Reserve and putting the government back in charge of the currency.

    In addition, balanced budgets would be required except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., war). Then and only then could taxes be temporarily increased.

  12. mark green
    mark green says:

    Thank you, Mr Dalton, for your very thoughtful, readable, and provocative article. Your ideas deserve serious consideration. Needless to say, America’s mega-rich do deserve to pay more. But many will do everything in their considerable powers to frustrate and sabotage your sensible plan. But it’s a start!

  13. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    “Make the rich pay” was the slogan used by the Communist Party of Canada for decades. In the late 70s early 80s the locals of the Party examined the loopholes in tax laws and corporate handouts/grants, including tax deferral which was eventually became tax forgiveness where companies went “bankrupt” only to reappear under a different name. The local communists started using the slogan “Stop paying the rich”. They pointed out that most paying income tax did not have access to most of the write-offs of the rich, and that a sizeable chunk of the tax that ought to have been paid by corporations, never actually was paid.
    In the US context, “communist” AOC is blamed for Amazon leaving Jew York. Why did Amazon leave? The world’s richest man got a better freebee paid for courtesy of the tax payers of another jurisdiction, and paid virtually no corporate tax to boot. The same can be said for sports franchises. Stadiums and arenas are primarily built by the taxpayer, but the benefit goes to the millionaire corporate team owners (with few exceptions). Stop paying the rich.

    • Charles Frey01
      Charles Frey01 says:

      01 As an Ontarian you are no doubt familiar with the Toll Road 407 paralleling the main corridor of Highway 401; from Detroit/Windsor to Toronto, Kingston and Montreal.

      02 Try to wrap your head around merely the necessary preparations for such a toll-road through densely populated areas. “Eminent domain ” cases in and of themselves would enrich an entire, province-wide Law school graduating class.

      03 Quantity surveyors scouting for meaningful gravel deposits would have made a fortune; along with hundreds of civil engineers and drilling teams assessing the value of possible pit sites: opposed by the general public – requiring local, ” well-greased ” re-zoning efforts.

      04 All nepotistically inflated costs and de rigueur over-runs covered by you and me.

      05 Who has been the real owner of 407 since almost its completion ??? Some Spanish Fund !!! Who sold it to them ??? The Treasurer [CEO Malcolm Heinz ] of the Law Society of Upper Canada [ now of Ontario ]. [ Ontario’s Provincial Barr Association ]. He now vacations in his hard-earned, spacious sea-side villa in Mallorca.

      06 Four involuntary contributors to this theft were good acquaintances. Father, mother and two strapping sons had come to the area north of Belleville, from Croatia, right after the War. Through hard work as construction workers, they had accumulated ca. 50 properties over the decades.

      07 One such property was a ca. 340 + acre potential gravel pit, professionally drilled on a grid to a depth of two hundred feet [ $ 23,000 ] and estimated to be worth just under 4 BILLION upon depletion: at $ 10 per ton at the gate.

      08 All of their banking went through the Croatian Credit Union’s sole branch in Toronto: MANAGED BY A LAWYER, [ itself contrary to Law Society regulations ].

      09 Their ultimately defeated Claim started in a comparative puddle: their Credit Union claiming 25,000 in arrears of their account. At an official court accounting before Justice Sunderland, of the then Supreme Court of Ontario, he found the members to have been indeed in a surplus position of roughly the same amount. Hence, his reasons for judgment are extraordinary.

      10 Their mother had succumbed in hospital three days after their forced eviction by the Sheriff and the police-corroborated account of torching their neighboring house to where they had fled.

      11 Having survived the reciprocal atrocities in their homeland, the three men were disinclined to surrender. They contacted their Provincial MP O’Toole, who wrote the Attorney General Young, who notified his Deputy Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Court Services, Mrs. Paulseth, who, in turn, wrote the three men some unmitigated, typical Civil Servant BULLSHIT regarding her new and improved EXPEDITED TRIAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE, which finally afforded them a transcript some 14 months too late to adhere to the 30 day appeal limitation.

      12 Two days of a ten day trial transcript were missing, which the Dumbo Judge attributed to one of his ” computer glitches “.

      13 They had spent ca. 1 million on 25 lawyers only to lose 50 properties in all.. The Law Society sent them an emissary with an offer of 1 million dollars; while the usual compensation, after LS preliminary investigations of members’ wrongdoing was limited to 100,000 at that time. They refused, continuing to rely on the good name of the English judiciary.

      14 Enter the Jews.

      15 Larry Tannenbaum is/was the owner of Toronto’s Maple Leaf Stadium, as well as of the hockey team of same name. He also owned, among innumerable other investments, a goodly proportion of Lafarge Cement, always hungry for gravel pits by the dozen: especially for gigantic high-speed 407 embankments.

      16 My local senior interjurisdictional Police friend, Bill Link, of Orono, Ontario, had me bunk with his highly intelligent son, who told me, that he was present when they bulldozed my acquaintances’ home, and that he witnessed Tannenbaum [ Christmas tree ] in the rear seat of his stretch limo, taking it all in with glee.

      17 The three had appealed to crack, fearlessly outspoken journalist Christie Blatchford, with five decades of experience, for the Toronto Sun, owned and published by Paul Godfrey. She came to Orono for several days to characteristically fact-check every comma claimed by my friends, including all court papers. She returned to Toronto with a scathing reportage, having found not a scintilla of an error.

      17 She submitted it to Godfrey personally. In a Jewish twist, he did not FORBID her to publish it, [ thereby keeping his shirt clean pursuant to his own ethnic reasoning ] – instead he told her that ” if she were to print it, she could take tomorrow off – since she wouldn’t be working there any more “.

      18 The four billion dollar pit ended up under Tannenbaum’s control for a mere 500,000 through some subsequent machinations with the Sheriff.

      19 No religiously forbidden behavior there between Jew and Gentile: consecrated in the front-row pew of the Synagogue.

  14. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    (Mod. Note: As I mentioned before, this comment was still in the moderation queue. For the record, I only get around to comment moderation 2-3 times a day. I don’t watch the queue every minute, holding my breath waiting to approve every gem offered to TOO comments. Patience please!)


    This essay adds great impetus to the general thrust: the rich should be paying more for the general welfare than they are.

    Just look at our income tax rates. They start at 10% and go to 37%,the latter rate being for everyone who pays roughly more than $500,000 (depending on your social status: married, single, head of household, w/children, etc), comprise 1 and 1/2% of the earners, and whose earnings make up 20% of the total. Keep in mind, though, that this top bracket is different than the others, because it includes not just a narrow tranche or bracket but, on the top side, the sky-is-the-limit, meaning, in some cases, up to $billions.
    That’s where the consternation factor comes into play, as in, say, only 37% of $1billion (before deductions). Yes, $370,000,000 is a lot of money, but $700,000,000 (at the 70% rate my parents were paying in the 40s, 50s, 60s, had 70s) is a lot more. And, of course, we must remember here that there guys are a lot better finding substantial deductions to reduce the gross income. If the concept of “graduation” was applicable up to $500,000, believe me it’s applicable on steroids on up. Why does it suddenly become inapplicable at $501,000?

    If we make a graph of this upward progress, we will see that, up to this point ($500,000), the line has been bending upwards as the graduated rate goes into action. Starting at $501,000 and 37%,
    we will see the line straighten out and extend to “infinity” (quite off the page) at a constant angle, the point here being that from $0 to $500,000 there was a graduated increase, while beyond that, yes, the earner is paying “more” tax, but only in proportion to his earnings. To repeat, why does the concept of “graduation” suddenly become inapplicable at $500,000?

    But the $64,000,000 question is, “How did the tax rate go from 70% to 37%?” My question is only rhetorical. Yes, I know, Reagan and Volker did it in the 1980s. No further explanations needed.

    Now, about getting it back up there. Since roughly 98.5% of our earners (and voters) earn less than the
    $500,000, how about everyone waking up and exercising the power of our vote. Being that we are a “democracy”, that shouldn’t be such a stretch.

  15. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    I sent a comment today at 3:29P that came up but then disappeared about 5 minutes later. It’s not Span and there was nothing offensive about it (so I thought). This happened once before. What’s up? This is the comment that you want to erase after hopefully letting me know what’s the problem.
    (Mod. Note: This moderator has neither seen nor deleted any of your comments. Maybe it’s still in the queue.)

Comments are closed.