I just read a great entry on taxes in the Roman empire. Among the points that Tim West Tony Torres makes is that taxes never got to nearly the extreme levels we have today. Even in wartime, taxes in Rome were around 3% and this was considered oppressive.
The tax rate under normal circumstances was 1% and sometimes would climb as high as 3% in situations such as war. These modest taxes were levied against land, homes and other real estate, slaves, animals, personal items and monetary wealth.
I think it’s clear that government doesn’t need all that much money. When are We the People going to start doing our jobs and force Congress to stop this out-of-control spending and racking up debt? When are We the People going to realize that the Republicans spend just as much as the Democrats, if not more, and there’s little difference between the two? When are We the People going to start voting for lower taxes, less government pork, and less interference in their personal lives?
(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Wade
Dec 04, 2004
Good luck with that. “The People” always talk about how much they hate the oppressive tax burden, but then they turn right around and vote for a government that will only increase the size and scope of government and increase the tax burden, all just so “the other side” can’t win.
Tony Torres
Dec 04, 2004
Actually, Tim West didn’t write this one, I did. I agree with your points though. As for Wade’s comments, let’s change that.
Michael Hampton
Dec 04, 2004
Sorry about that. I’ve fixed the article.
As for Wade’s comments, I get a lot of traffic here from people who aren’t particularly libertarian, or even political, and I hope to be able to present libertarian ideas in a way that a non-libertarian audience will find engaging, thought-provoking, and compelling.
Øystein
Dec 05, 2004
The problem with that idea is of course that the Roman Empire spent fully as much on public works and social policies of modern states, but supplied much of the manpower and wealth for such policies off the backs of slaves, foreign conquests, pillaging, and provincial plunder.
One the new conquests were integrated into the Roman system, the Republic and later the Empire HAD to expand by conquest to afford to keep up the apparatus of state.
Once their potential conquests were marginal areas like Scotland and germanic tribes… Well, the Romans went bankrupt.
Hmm.
That’s actually pretty pertinent, come to think of it.
Military might can substitute for economic power and actual wealth creating through work and trade only for so long.
Then the system crashes and burns.
Is that relevant to what’s going on now at all? Not sure, but it’s food for thought at least.
Tony Torres
Dec 06, 2004
Well the Romans did later spend nearly as much on public works and they did use looted money and treasure to do it and slave labor to build it. Early on, however, as the article states, they had barely started expanding and at the time it was mostly defensive expansion. That’s when the taxes were initially 1% or 3% during war. Your point about imperialism and bankruptcy is right on though, and I plan on addressing that by comparing us to the Athenians, the Romans, the Brits, and perhaps the Spartans in the near future.
Tony Torres
Dec 06, 2004
Correction to my last post, the article did not state that they had barely started expanding or that it was defensive expansion. That I know from my careful study of Roman history. The article stated the 1%-3% tax rates in relation to the early Republic.
History Major
Dec 10, 2009
Actually, the Roman’s 1%-3% tax rate was on all of an individual’s assets each year, not just the income from one year. So the effective tax rate in terms of income would generally be much higher, particularly for wealthy people and large land owners.