>>>LOL. He was speaking about France.
>
>He was expressing an opinion about resolving inequality- in France, 4 years before their revolution. Do you recognize anything else in the circumstances he describes? ;-)

The quote you cited pertains to Jefferson's view of France alone as in Jefferson's own words: But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

>But if you are less impressed because he wasn't referring to the US that didn't yet face these issues, here's another Jefferson quotation about the US:
>
>“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. – Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canal, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”
>
>Clearly the "fact" that selective taxation is unconstitutional and frowned on by the Founding Fathers, had not been discovered yet.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Income taxes were unconstitutional until the 16th amendment was ratified (why do you think we needed a 16th?), not "selective" taxes.
See Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0157_0429_ZS.html

Did you actually understand the first sentence of what you quoted? Hint : Imported articles. Not income. Consumption tax (which I'm in favor of, btw, as long as we get rid of all income/payroll taxes at the same time thus, I agree with our founders.

>Interestingly, claims of constitutional support and summoning the memory of the Founding Fathers usually come from people who insist that the rich should pay less- and perhaps that the poor should eat cake?

I suggest that all should pay less and none should be taxed on the fruits of their labor just like the Founders which worked rather well for 126 years.

>>>SS and Medicare are underfunded because they are Ponzi schemes masquarading as a kind of insurance. The only difference between them and Madoff is that Madoff couldn't force participation.
>
>SS and Medicare failed not because of fraudulent intent but because the electorate systematically drummed out responsible politician behavior until the remnant agreed not to see the elephant in the room. Certainly I agree that turned it into a Ponzi scheme.

From the very beginning the money being paid out was taken from those who were presently working.
See Ernest Ackerman's 340% return on his contribution or Ida May Fuller's 925% return. - 1st lump and monthly recipients.

>>>Damn that pesky electorate. How dare they want to keep what they earn. If only they'd succomb to the wisdom of an enlightneed elite. ;)
>
>Yes, that's exactly how it was handled: labels applied as a fig-leaf for selfishness, followed by promotion for politicians who agreed not to see the elephant in the room.

"labels applied as a fig-leaf for selfishness"

You do see the obvious hilarity of this hypocritical statement? ;)

>>>From their inception, the inevitable result was underfunding, the only question was when.
>
>You keep saying that, which is why I quoted the Australian scheme.

We agree that the US is not Australia. SS, Medicare, Medicaid were doomed to fail from their inception. I am not speaking of the Super.

>By 2025 their scheme will have $10T in real assets in today's dollars- yes, $10Trillion surplus after paying boomer pensions, built from contributions from earners.

It should be noted that past performance is not indicitive of future earnings.

>Had the US instituted a similar scheme, the "financial crisis" could have been settled out of chump change.

Now hold on a sec. Which is it? The politicians are ringfenced or not?

>Instead there are a few unnaturally rich people who insist that Thomas Jefferson wanted them to pay less tax.

Compared to today, Jefferson absolutely would've wanted everyone to pay less tax.
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

>>>Thrift? You must be joking. Try spendthrift.
>
>You insist that individuals can do far better than government at providing for their own future, then you quote this. Which is it?

I would posit that the existence of the overly generous safety net has empowered people to be reckless. After all if the nanny-state is going to take care of me from 65-the grave, why should I save? The net actively discourages savings.

Besides, I don't recall saying everyone could, government is made up of individuals after all. ;)

>Perhaps the key is a mandated scheme ringfenced away from political fingers, which is how the Aussie scheme runs. Theirs also is run by competing professional managers who are rewarded just as they would be in a private managed fund. The reason it works is that surpluses are not hoovered away as dividends or to fund pet projects by a politician-of-the-day.

"not hoovered away as dividends" - Here's another interesting turn of phrase. It seems to me that all Australians, as mandatory participants in the Super, are beneficiaries of dividends which you deride. Again, I ask, which is it? Dividends are hoovered ill gotten gains or an important part of a compounding retirement to all Australians?

>>>No need to look to Africa.
>>>http://www.kspr.com/news/local/kspr-copper-thieves-blamed-for-knocking-out-power-to-thousands-20111116,0,5956228.story
>
>LOL.Maybe the things we used to feel superior about from pre-revolution France or the deepest third world, are closer than we think.