Our Founding Fathers believed in limited government and low taxes. Sure they believed in limited government, but why did the believe in the low taxes? Because… limited government is impossible without low taxes.
In the comments section of my blog “The Pachyderm and the Scorpion(s)” I had stated that “As a conservative; I think the Republican Party should adhere to the conservative principles of our Founding Fathers like limited government, personal liberty, individualism, low taxes, etc… “
To which an alert reader asked “Who among the “founding fathers” was for low taxes?”
A valid question…
First of all; our Founding Fathers did not trust government. They knew that it was at best “a necessary evil and in its worst state an intolerable one” as stated by Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776). If government was a necessary evil to be constantly checked by the alert governed; it was also to be as limited as possible and still provide the security for which it was chosen over the evil of anarchy. So, if government is the lesser of evils, and is to be limited, then for what purpose would we need high taxes? To the contrary, excess money in the treasury would encourage the exact opposite of limited, checked government.
Having read much of Paine’s work and remembering much of his sentiment on the subjects of government and taxes, I’ve included some of his writings on the subject to further prove my point. Most of my examples are from Mr. Paine’s, The Rights of Man; a book concerning the French Revolution and the English policies against that particular struggle. In this writing, Mr. Paine often refers to the evils done by unfettered government made possible by high taxes.
I’ve always assumed that those on the left knew (at least subconsciously) that their beliefs were in direct conflict with those of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps they can indulge me with references where the Founding Fathers expressed a desire for big government solutions through money confiscated from the people.
(Please see conclusion at the bottom)
=-= QUOTES =-=
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
– Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776)
LJ – This beautifully captures the nature and purpose of government, evil but necessary.
LJ – Notice the Judeo-Christian reference to the Garden of Eden and God.
LJ – Notice the importance of private property, a man “finds it necessary to surrender up part of his property (taxes) to furnish means for the protection of the rest. No other purpose of government is even mentioned here.
LJ – Finally notice, that the form of government that we must tolerate is whatever form appears most likely to ensure security, with the least expense and greatest benefit.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute.
– Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)(Dedicated to George Washington)
LJ – Back to the nature of government and its greed for power and revenue. Mr. Paine is not thinking about all the good the government can do with that money. He knows better.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I do not believe that the people of England have ever been fairly and candidly dealt by. They have been imposed upon by parties, and by men assuming the character of leaders. It is time that the nation should rise above those trifles. It is time to dismiss that inattention which has so long been the encouraging cause of stretching taxation to excess. It is time to dismiss all those songs and toasts which are calculated to enslave, and operate to suffocate reflection. On all such subjects men have but to think, and they will neither act wrong nor be misled. To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not. If such a case could be proved, it would equally prove that those who govern are not fit to govern them, for they are a part of the same national mass.
– Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)
LJ – Mr. Paine here states that part of the problem is the English citizenry’s inattention to the excesses of their government; a dilemma we now face today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effects. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government that injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.
But as a fact is superior to reasoning, the instance of America presents itself to confirm these observations. If there is a country in the world where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison. There the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not privileged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid extravagance of a court rioting at its expense. Their taxes are few, because their government is just: and as there is nothing to render them wretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults.
– Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)
LJ – Comparing (1790s) England to the United States, Paine states that the U.S. is made up of people from different nations, speaking different languages, worshiping differently, etc. He says the union of such people seems impracticable; but good government based on the rights of man diffuses these differences. He then proceeds to discuss some of the characteristics of such a society; one of which is “Their taxes are few, because their government is just.” Now (2010) where does the U.S. fall in this description.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It is now very probable that the English Government (I do not mean the nation) is unfriendly to the French Revolution. Whatever serves to expose the intrigue and lessen the influence of courts, by lessening taxation, will be unwelcome to those who feed upon the spoil. Whilst the clamour of French intrigue, arbitrary power, popery, and wooden shoes could be kept up, the nation was easily allured and alarmed into taxes. Those days are now past: deception, it is to be hoped, has reaped its last harvest, and better times are in prospect for both countries, and for the world.
– Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)
LJ – Paine tells how the governments of Old Europe kept is citizenry easily allured and alarmed (through mistrust of other nations) into accepting high taxes. He hopes those days of deception are in the past; and he notes that who feed upon the spoils of high taxes will not be happy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CONCLUSION
1. Government is a necessary evil.
2. Government should be limited and constantly checked by the governed.
3. Government should extract the least expense necessary to perform its limited function.
4. Government that extracts more than necessary is closer to being un-limited, un-checked, and now has the means to impose its true nature.
These universal truths observed by Thomas Paine are as relevant today as they were over 200 years ago. Maybe more so. These truths are not malleable living documents that change over time. They are as unchanging as the laws of physics; AND they are just plain common sense.


Good stuff.
More fuel for the fire:
My effective federal tax rate for 2009 was 3%, after refunds/head of household deductions, and I made somewhere in the lower/middle tax range.
So, how do you figure we the people are being overtaxed?
Not trying to be a jackass. Serious. As I understand it, we have one of the lowest personal income tax rates in the modern world — but, we also have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the modern world, so maybe that’s just a Three Card Monty-ism.
>> More fuel for the fire.
You got that right you $#%#$^.
>> My effective federal tax rate for 2009 was 3%
Sorry, this blog posting was meant for those who pull their share of the load in this country.
Not that I’m talking just about income taxes. You have to look at total taxes and then deduce how they affect everything.
Looking at your Rick’s tax burden (low tier):
– Because of circumstances largely beyond Rick’s control; he fell right on the cusp of the 50% mark. Below the mark you pay no income tax; above you start paying in a progressive manner. The upper end of the bottom 50% still pay some into the system via FICA (Social Security & Medicare taxes); but the lower you go, the less they pay. Unfortunately, you don’t have to go too far down to find people who drain more than you put in.
– Rick also pays 7.65% in FICA taxes. 7.65% paid into a ponzi scheme he is on the wrong end of. But maybe he’s like most people and don’t consider that his money. It never reached his hand. It was never deposited in his account. How was it ever his?
– So Rick, on the low end (of tax payers) is paying 10-12%
– Take into account state sales taxes and spending habits and he’s paying another 3-4%. It all adds up.
Looking at Lynn’s tax burden (middle tier):
– Lynn’s income tax rate was 20% after deductions. (He’s in the 20-25% range)
This is after taking a pay cut to move to Center. (He was in 25-30% range in 2008)
Remember, He gets hit harder than most because He’s single and never gets any (no kids).
– Lynn’s ponzi/FICA taxes are the same as Ricks, 7.65%
– Lynn’s state sales taxes are also about 3-4%.
– Lynn’s property taxes were 4% of his income for 2009
– So Lynn’s federal tax rate is close to 28% with his overall tax rate around 35%
Looking at Nathan Rymers tax burden (Upper Tier):
– You know… now that I think about it… What has he done for this country?
– Risked huge amounts of capitol for profit, that greedy $#%#$^!
– Employed (more like indentured) people to help him make that profit!
– Screw ‘im, I say…
>> We also have one of the highest corporate tax rates.
So here is Rick paying a paltry 12%, and Lynn paying 35%, and Nathan paying who cares what…
Meanwhile in the boardrooms across America those executives are complaining about how those taxes are eating into their profits. Yeah right… their passing on the costs to us; call it a hidden tax. So, in essence; we’re not really paying 12 or 35%; it’s even more, a lot more.
And talking about insidious “hidden taxes” the VAT (Value Added Tax) is designed to hide itself in the price of goods so the serfs blame the evil corporations instead of Uncle Obama.
I’ll be honest with you. I think the highest federal tax rate should be 10% max; with the state and local (combined) not exceeding 5%. I really think the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a consumption (sometimes called a fair) tax. Corporate taxes should be very low (or non-existent); because Corporations don’t pay taxes… people do.
And more, I think taxes should be up-front in all cases and not hidden inside the price of products, services, etc… That means, I see the tax amount on every receipt. There is no automatic withholding; you receive every penny of your paycheck and write Uncle Sam a check or wire him the money (every month, year, whatever). That way, you are reminded that the money is yours and are better able to judge if you’re getting a fair shake for service rendered by Uncle Sam.
Yes. I’m pissed because I think I (and even Rick W.) (and maybe Nathan R.) pay WAY TOO MUCH to Uncle Sam; for crappy service!
But it’s more than that. It’s about the principle of limited government. Government is inefficient, wasteful, and evil by nature. I mean that in the same way as the sun is hot. It’s a fact.
And giving too much money to a government is like giving a chainsaw to an evil monkey. He’s going to use it and not for anything good.
>So here is Rick paying a paltry 12%, and Lynn paying 35%, and Nathan paying who cares what…
Oh sh*t, I laughed through a Coke that time.
>I’ll be honest with you. I think the highest federal tax rate should be 10% max; with the state and local (combined) not exceeding 5%.
I agree.
>And talking about insidious “hidden taxes” the VAT (Value Added Tax) is designed to hide itself in the price of goods so the serfs blame the evil corporations instead of Uncle Obama.
LMAO! Third laugh in one lunch. Good times. (I’d never heard “Uncle Obama” before. That’s funny on many levels.)
>Yes. I’m pissed because I think I (and even Rick W.) (and maybe Nathan R.) pay WAY TOO MUCH to Uncle Sam; for crappy service!
*THAT* I fully agree with. Their best service seems to be leaving you the hell alone. Ugh. Send me some cookies or a Christmas card or something.
And yeah, normally I pay in the 20-25% range. Last year/part of this year, I was a po’ fool, so that was unusual. My 2010 taxes will get me cussing, too, no doubt.
Sh*t, if this keeps up, and I keep finding myself agreeing with you, I may turn into a Conservative.
(Checking pupils in the mirror, looking for an evil red glow….)
Join the dark side, it is your destiny… and… we have cookies.
HAHAHAHAHA!
>> I’ve always assumed that those on the left knew (at least subconsciously) that their beliefs were in direct conflict with those of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps they can indulge me with references where the Founding Fathers expressed a desire for big government solutions through money confiscated from the people.
(Crickets Chirping)…
[...] yourself a favor, and read the rest at Our Founding Fathers Believed in Limited Government & Low Taxes « The Texas Piney Woods. Mark Steyn: ‘I think Lindsey Graham is unfit for [...]
I know this is an old post, but ran across it by accident. Very nicely done. Consider it snagged…hehe Link is here: http://theoldgeek.com/2011/04/11/our-founding-fathers-believed-in-limited-government-and-low-taxes/
Thanks, I’m glad you liked it.
I do like to try backup my points, and put a bit of research in this post.
Please stop by and browse when you get a chance.
– Lynn J.
You don’t throw something out just because it is old. I often get lots of inspiration from occasional forays into my old posts.
this did not help me at all
>> Kayla: this did not help me at all
Sorry to hear that… but thank you for the critical critique of my work.
Next time I would appreciate a little more… uhhh… detail…
Did it “not help” you bake muffins? I mean if that was your goal, I could definitely see that and agree…
What exactly were you hoping to get out of “this”? Did you not understand the points of the article? Were the words to big? Do you disagree with the premise? Can you offer any argument or evidense to support your opinion as I did?
Please… if you’re going to critique my work, at least have the &^%#* to back it up with something tangible.
Stop feeding the trolls…lol
Sorry… Kayla displayed as much depth and intellectual honesty as a drive by shooting.
Just as an aside my previous post was from our home of 14+ years north of Chicago. We are now in a lovely little spot known as Katy. These Texas summers will take some getting used to, but considering the time of year I don’t miss blowing snow at all. Just what SE Texas needs… another old computer geek.
>Did it “not help” you bake muffins?
HAHAHAHA!
I lived in Houston (Meyerland area) for twenty years (college graduate through about 3 years ago) before I finally threw up my hands and said these city people are nuts!
Not that I regret it or anything. Living in Houston was the right thing for me at the time. I made a lot of great friends that I still visit quite often.
Now, not living in Houston is the right thing for me. Being back home (rural East Texas) has been great and I hope to stay here from now on. Of course you never know where the good Lord will take you.
Welcome to Texas. The state has a lot to offer if you can put up with the summers. That’s why air conditioning was invented… Hope you like it here.
I like to keep the big city at arm’s length. It has it’s advantages, and can be wonderful to visit on occasion. I also like my creature comforts too much to be totally out in the backwoods. To me “roughing it” is when the cable goes out, or you run out of toilet paper. I can handle myself out in the boonies if necessary, but would never want to make a steady diet of that lifestyle. I was originally raised in very rural Georgia where you didn’t just take a leisurely stroll in the woods if you weren’t from around there. Moonshiners shoot first, and ask questions later.
I agree
Your article is accurate about Paine, not the founding fathers. There were more than one and they seldom all agreed.
>> Your article is accurate about Paine, not the founding fathers. There were more than one and they seldom all agreed.
Thank you for your comment. I agree that much of my article is based on the writing of Paine; but that does not support your thesis that many of the founding fathers did not agree with Paine.
Did they have disagreements on many issues great and small? Yes. On these two basic principles? No.
The founding fathers definitely agreed on the principle of limited government. The entire debate and ratification of the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the size and power of the central (federal) government. They accomplished this task for over a hundred years before the Democrats simply decided to ignore their wisdom and the rule of law. A common mistrust of government as a necessary evil is a recurring theme in the establishment of this great nation. And they (the founding fathers) have been proven right.
As far as lower taxes… My article uses quotes from Paine heavily; but I think the founding fathers would agree abusive taxes are an impediment to freedom. Abusive taxes (far below today’s rates) after all were largely responsible for the Revolutionary War in the first place. The founding fathers would consider today’s tax code an abomination and would be asking the citizens why they tolerate such an injustice.
You are correct to point out that I use Paine’s writings in this article. You are incorrect to just assume and assert that many of the founding fathers disagreed without offering proof. I look forward to you next comment quoting any founding fathers pointing out that Paine is wrong… or their statements supporting big government and/or taxes anywhere above 10%.
Had to peek in while waiting on my wife, who’s shopping. Sorry for typos, on a phone.
The founders didn’t rebel because if taxes; they rebelled because they were taxed without having representatives in Parliament.
As for the 10% figure, and our abusive tax code, taxes were much higher during our great growth period in the 1950s-1970s. To get to 10%, you’d have to go libertarian and cut defense spending to nothing but a local defense force, a la Japan. No Republican could do that.
>> The founders didn’t rebel because of taxes… taxation without representation.
While not THE main reason for rebellion; taxes were part of the equation.
>> As for the 10% figure… cut defense…
Supposedly a flat tax of 18-20% would allow us to maintain our current spending levels. So 10% would be more than adequate once you apply it across the board and gut the bureaucracy, social, foreign aid… (all the crap that the founding fathers never intended).
Defense could still be funded adequately.
Back to the main point, the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the level of taxes and the size and abuse of the Federal government. They would be very disappointed in us… as they should be.
You’re sounding libertarian. Foreign Aid is just the pc word for influence. The GOP is big on that (as are the Dems).
But to the broader point, which you and I bat around… I was thinking of this during my drive yesterday. You like to say “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” And that’s conservative mantra, of course. But, it’s wrong.
Here’s what I mean:
If the House approves a budget, and the President signs off on it (or however exactly it works… I’m not Googling this right now), and there’s more spending than money, we have a revenue problem. That’s the budget. That’s the list of things our elected representatives said are important, and must be funded.
Now, I’d agree that there’s a lot of silly crap getting funded, on both sides, at federal and state levels. But I’m not on their budget committees. So, to come up with an arbitrary number, like 10% or 20% or even 50% is just a way of saying, “This feels right to me.” Without having a budget, with items identified, it’s just using numbers as a Rorshach test.
My solution would be to have a balanced budget and a consumption tax, and eliminate the income tax system. I think if done right, that could be supported by both major parties. It would force the lower 50% to contribute, and it would tax the rich proportionally (if you buy a yacht, you pay more taxes). It would also encourage savings (you only get taxed on what you spend, not what you earn).
But I know that’s something that gets tossed around every few years, and never gets traction. Alas.