DON'T RAISE MY GRANDSON TO ENVY

 

 DON'T RAISE MY GRANDSON TO ENVY

Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy? --Proverbs 27:4

Whatever the course, do not teach my grandson to envy. No woman is worth the capture. No family is worth becoming a part. No party is worth proclaiming. No cause is worth is worth pursing. No dream worth envisioning. No person or fad worth following. Not a dollar worth spending. No one can stand, friend or foe, before envy. What is envy? Why does it destroy more peoples and nations than atomic weapons? Why does it replace neighbors with community?

Envy is an emotion of discontent, resentment, or longing triggered by someone else's superior quality, skill, achievement, or possession, often leading to a desire to have it or wish the other person lacked it. It differs from jealousy (fear of losing something) and can be destructive, causing unhappiness, but also potentially motivational, signaling areas for personal growth. Key types include emulative (motivated to achieve), inert (passive), aggressive (hostile), and spiteful envy. Noah Webster in the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defined it so:

"EN'VY, verb transitive [Latin invideo, in and video, to see against, that is, to look with enmity.]

1. To feel uneasiness, mortification or discontent, at the sight of superior excellence, reputation or happiness enjoyed by another; to repine at another's prosperity; to fret or grieve one's self at the real or supposed superiority of another, and to hate him on that account.

Envy not thou the oppressor. Proverbs 3:31.

Whoever envies another, confesses his superiority.

1. To grudge; to withhold maliciously.
2. To envy at, used by authors formerly, is now obsolete.

Who would envy at the prosperity of the wicked?"

Something about viewing the rich and famous through the eyes of a lens-video. Latin. The last time I saw enmity:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)"

Enmity in the Blue Letter Bible's Lexicon Strong's H342, the Hebrew word, 'êḇâ, meaning "hostility or hatred".

Envy produces hatred of self and others and hostility towards self and others. Instead of surgery to become rich and famous, we seek to penalize the ones afar, not realizing we turn the keys of dominion over to the oppressor. What an easy capture of our heart, hands, health and vitality. All because we believe God was wrong and we must become something we're not or they will perish in my pursuit.

We are hostile and have hatred we must unleash, so we must weponize! How shall we? Use taxes as a weapon! "Using taxes as a weapon" typically refers to the strategic application of fiscal policy to discourage specific behaviors, restrict access to certain products, or achieve social and political objectives. In the context of 2026, this is most prominently seen in the following areas: 

• Gun Control and Public Safety
• Political and Institutional Conflict
• Social Engineering and Economic Policy

We destroy ourselves by chopping down our own "tree of life", the Constitution, in the unGodly pursuit of envy. Thomas Jefferson did not write in the Declaration of Indepedence, "life, liberty and the pursuit of envy". He wrote,  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which is the famous phrase from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776), stating that all people have unalienable rights to live freely, make their own choices, and strive for personal fulfillment, with governments formed to protect these rights. Influenced by the Word of God, Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations (1776)" and Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, it reflects core American ideals, representing the opportunity for individuals to achieve their own versions of a good, flourishing life, incorporating success, safety, and personal growth, not just fleeting pleasure, according to the National Archives and State Court Report. Nowhere is there envy! 

The Founding Fathers, deeply influenced by Enlightenment thought and classical/Christian morality, viewed envy (malice/jealousy) as a destructive vice that undermines societal harmony and republican virtue, leading to discord, corruption, and a focus on worldly gain over public good, contrasting sharply with ideals of equality of opportunity and virtuous citizenry, as seen in writings by thinkers they admired (like St. Basil/Cyprian) and concerns about factions and self-interest. Steven F. Hayward and  Linda L. Denno in National Affairs' "Envy and Social Justice" write, "Culturally, we must strive to recover an understanding of envy that shows it for what it is: a deadly wickedness. Politically, we must reaffirm, with our founding fathers, that human equality is truly found in human nature, rather than in human paychecks." Hayward and Denno tip hat to Alexis Henri C M Clerel Tocqueville, who wroie, "This immortal hatred [envy], more and more afire, which animates democratic peoples against the slightest privileges, particularly favors the gradual concentration of all political rights in the hands of the sole representative of the state. The sovereign, being necessarily above all citizens and uncontested, does not excite the envy of any of them, and each believes he deprives his equals of all the prerogatives he concedes to it."

Envy is why we have "participation trophies". Why? To encourage people, build self-esteem, and recognize effort, teamwork, and commitment in activities, fostering a positive environment, but critics argue they can create entitlement and hinder learning. Some believe they prevent people from learning resilience through loss. Politicians market envy as a just means of equality when it truly robs mankind of liberty and freedom. Part of the problem, former US Senator Mitt Romney opined in the New York Times' "Tax the Rich Like Me". Slaves were whipped primarily to maintain social control through terror and humiliation, to enforce the absolute authority of slaveholders, and to maximize productivity for economic profit. Whipping was a central component of the brutal system designed to break the spirit of enslaved people and deter resistance. The political class want you to be happy with your envy and not resist your eventual oppression. It's just that we tear down the wall of the Sixteenth Amendment. FightIneuality.org wants you to know that there are "Tax the rich: 9 Reasons for a wealth tax" to include fighting inequality. They write:

"Rising inequality has been an inescapable phenomenon of global economic development over the past 200 years. Per the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, growing inequality affects 70% of the global population and threatens “long-term social and economic development, [harming] poverty reduction and [destroying] people’s sense of fulfillment and self-worth,” all of which “can breed crime, disease and environmental degradation.”

As a core response, civil society organizations, social movements, the media, and academics have proposed a wealth tax on a country’s richest citizens. A wealth tax is a levy imposed on an individual’s net worth, i.e., all the forms of wealth that are acquired.

Resistance from both the government and the corporate sector, however, has been intense. In response, proponents have outlined the rationale for a wealth tax in light of the existing political, social and economic situation."

Social Justice. Affordability. Inequality. It's the same thing. In the context of socialist democratic discussions, affordability and inequality are indeed often used interchangeably.

• Economic Justice: Advocates often argue that improving affordability in basic services (like healthcare and education) is a direct way to combat inequality. If essential services are affordable, it reduces the financial burden on lower-income groups, potentially leveling the playing field.
• Welfare Policies: Policies aimed at increasing affordability, such as universal healthcare or subsidized education, can reduce economic inequality by redistributing resources and providing everyone with equal access to necessary services.

Using these terms interchangeably may resonate with the public’s desire for equitable solutions paid for the envious and not through the oppression of the taxed.

1913. The last time there was equality in the Nation. The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1913, grants Congress the power to levy a federal income tax on individuals and corporations without apportioning it among states based on population, establishing the foundation for the modern progressive income tax system that funds the federal government. It effectively reversed a Supreme Court ruling that had blocked such a tax, allowing for taxes on income "from whatever source derived". Prior to the permanent establishment of the federal income tax via the 16th Amendment in 1913, the United States only levied federal income taxes during specific periods of crisis, primarily to fund the Civil War. In 1909, Congress levied a 1% tax on net corporate incomes exceeding $5,000. For the majority of American history before 1913, the federal government was instead funded by tariffs (taxes on imported goods) and excise taxes on specific products like liquor, tobacco, and whiskey. Noone paid federal taxes. Black or white. Rich or poor. Jew or Gentile. EQUALITY.

U.S. Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska. The Omaha Daily Bee reported on February 5, 1913: “When Senator Brown late this afternoon rose to inform the Senate that thirty-six states, through their legislatures had ratified the income tax amendment, . . . the senior senator reflected the pride he felt in being the author of the resolution that made the amendment possible.” The Bee noted: “It is no small honor to have one’s name attached to an amendment to the constitution, but such honor belongs to Senator Brown, and he very naturally showed his gratification that the requisite number of states had finally ratified the amendment, which now becomes number sixteen of the constitution, the first to be adopted since civil war times.”  Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska introduced the resolution for the Sixteenth Amendment.  The Act gave Congress the authority to tax incomes, bypassing previous constitutional challenges, particularly after the Supreme Court decision.

The Sixteenth Amendment ser rhe course for the Nation's Administrative State. which would be weaponized against "We the People". Administrative bureaucracy often seems to outweigh the individual through complex rules, hierarchy, and impersonality, creating "red tape," but it aims for fairness and efficiency by treating similar cases similarly, though it risks stifling creativity, becoming inflexible, and dehumanizing people into cogs in a machine, trapping them in an "iron cage" of rules. While designed for order, its focus on procedures can lead to inefficiency and frustration, where individual needs get lost in the system's impersonal, rule-bound nature. Administrative bureaucracy over the individual describes a system where formal rules, hierarchy, and impersonal procedures govern interactions, often leading to efficiency and consistency but also creating frustration, "red tape," and a feeling of powerlessness for individuals who feel trapped in an inflexible system, highlighting a tension between organizational order and personal freedom. While designed for rational management, it can dehumanize people by prioritizing rules over individual needs, as seen in complex processes for services like housing or financial aid. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) workforce has grown from roughly 4,000 employees at the inception of the modern income tax in 1913 to a peak of over 100,000 in early 2025, before undergoing a significant reduction later that year. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) had a total staff of approximately 4,860 full-time employees, with only 100 initially assigned to the new income tax. Federal employment numbers have fluctuated significantly since 1913, 388,000, reflecting major historical events and varying administrative policies. As of early 2026, the federal workforce has entered a period of sharp contraction following administrative efforts to reduce government size, 2.72 million. 

Critics like Philip Hamburger calling it a threat to liberty, while supporters see it as efficient governance by experts, a vision Woodrow Wilson championed for its effectiveness. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (1942) wrote, "My symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern." Eugene McCarthy, quoted in Time magazine, 12 February 1979, said, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty." Chief Justice John Roberts (in dissent), Commentary Magazine, 2024. wrote. "The administrative state 'wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life,'... 'the administrative state with its reams of regulations would leave [the Framers] rubbing their eyes.'" Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1792), wrote. "When despotism has established itself for ages in a country, as in France, it is not in the person of the king only that it resides. It has the appearance of being so in show, and in nominal authority; but it is not so in practice and in fact. It has its standard everywhere. Every office and department has its despotism, founded upon custom and usage. Every place has its Bastille, and every Bastille its despot. The original hereditary despotism resident in the person of the king, divides and sub-divides itself into a thousand shapes and forms, till at last the whole of it is acted by deputation. This was the case in France; and against this species of despotism, proceeding on through an endless labyrinth of office till the source of it is scarcely perceptible, there is no mode of redress. It strengthens itself by assuming the appearance of duty, and tyrannises under the pretence of obeying."

The history of the federal income tax goes back to the Civil War when Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 that included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. In 1894 Congress enacted a flat-rate federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state. The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each state. Whatever its intellectual justification, the Civil War tax expired because by the early 1870s tariffs were bringing in enough to keep the country going. 

Progressive motivations for the 16th Amendment, championed by figures like Nebraska's Senator Norris Brown, centered on "fairness, ability to pay, and curbing wealth inequality", aiming to ensure the wealthy paid their share by overcoming Supreme Court rulings that blocked unapportioned income taxes, thus funding a more active federal government for social improvements. The core idea was to tax "great fortunes" amassed through industrialization, as existing systems (like tariffs) didn't effectively touch the super-rich. Brown of Nebraska (a Progressive Republican) was the primary author and sponsor of the resolution that became the 16th Amendment. His motivations were rooted in the Progressive Era's desire for tax justice, federal empowerment, and a direct challenge to what he viewed as judicial overreach. In a famous 1920 dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote that "[t]he known purpose of this Amendment was to get rid of nice questions as to what might be direct taxes". Democratic Representatives Benton McMillin of Tennessee, chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Internal Revenue and a longtime proponent of income taxation, and the already legendary William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska recommended a 2 percent tax on incomes of $4,000 or more. 

Erik M. Jensen in "The Taxing Power, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Meaning of 'Incomes'" reports:

"The difference between an income tax and a consumption tax -- one's consistent with ability to pay, one's not -- was stressed throughout the debates. McMillin explained the legislation in this way:

 I ask of any reasonable person whether it is unjust to expect that a small per cent of this enormous revenue shall be placed upon the accumulated wealth of the country instead of placing all upon the consumption of the people. . . . And yet when it is proposed to shift this burden from those who can not bear it to those who can; to divide it between consumption and wealth; to shift it from the laborer who has nothing but his power to toil and sweat, to the man who has a fortune made or inherited, we hear a hue and cry raised by some individuals that it is unjust and inquisitorial in its nature. 

 

The wealthy weren't paying their share because of the form American taxation had taken -- taxes on consumption. High- and low- income people who, McMillin posited, spend about the same on necessities "pay the same taxes to the Government, because taxes are to be paid upon what they consume!""

The weaponization of tax law caused inequality and the wealthy never paid their "fair share", whatever the Progressives believed it was including taxing the super rich until they were poor. The phrase "taxing the rich is taxing the poor" refers to economic theories and observations suggesting that policies targeting the wealthy can have unintended negative consequences for lower-income groups.  The cost of envy. 

Andrea Scoseria Katz in "The Lost Promise of Progressive Formalism" writes, "Today, any number of troubling government pathologies—a lawless presidency, a bloated and unaccountable administrative state, the growth of an activist bench—are associated with the emergence of a judicial philosophy that disregards the “plain meaning” of the Constitution for a loose, unprincipled “living constitutionalism.” Many trace its origins to the Progressive Era (1890–1920), a time when Americans turned en masse to government as the solution to emerging problems of economic modernity—financial panics, industrial concentration, worsening workplace conditions, and skyrocketing unemployment and inequality—and, the argument goes, concocted a flexible, new constitutional philosophy to allow the federal government to take on vast, new regulatory powers."

Taxes on the rich in the U.S. have fluctuated dramatically, peaking around World War II (94% top rate) and remaining high (70%) until the 1980s cuts under President Ronald Reagan reduced them significantly, down to 37% top bracket; however, while marginal rates fell, effective rates for the ultra-rich have declined even more due to loopholes and wealth sheltering, meaning the wealthiest now sometimes pay a lower overall percentage of their total wealth than average Americans, a reversal from the mid-20th century. President Donald Trump signed the "Big Beautiful Bill", on July 4, containing about $4.5 trillion of federal tax cuts over 10 years. It creates temporary tax deductions for tips, overtime and loan interest on new vehicles assembled in the U.S. It boosts a tax deduction for older adults. The Concord Coalition in "Historical Tax Rates: The Rhetoric and Reality of Taxing the Rich-Policy Briefs" write, "The top rate is only one feature of our tax system. By itself, the top rate tells us nothing about the amount of taxes paid by the rich. The high rates that existed in the past did not apply to every type of income, and they only applied to a fraction of total income, thereby providing opportunities for the rich to avoid paying such high rates and mitigating their negative economic impact. Thus, the belief that we “soaked the rich” before without any adverse effects, so we can do it again, is largely a myth. Ironically, this myth is at odds with another widely held belief that the rich currently pay little or no taxes, which is also largely untrue."  Concord concludes, "Addressing our nation’s long-term fiscal challenge will require additional revenue, including higher taxes on the rich. However, before policymakers succumb to the popular desire to impose higher marginal tax rates on the rich, they should consider whether taxes are as unfair as many people believe. They should also consider the potential unintended consequences of higher marginal tax rates. When rates are higher, the rich report less income and shift more income into the corporate sector – assuming the corporate rate is lower. This shift simply makes the income distribution more opaque, rather than more fair.

Higher marginal tax rates also reduce the incentive to work, save, and invest which will reduce economic growth. As a result, the government will collect less revenue than might otherwise be expected, potentially reducing the size of the economy by more than a dollar for each additional dollar of revenue collected. In that case, everyone loses, not just the rich." Put frankly, the pursuit of envy rings hollow in weaponizing taxation to harm the wealthy.

Taxation is the process by which a governmental authority imposes compulsory financial charges or levies on individuals and business entities. These funds are used primarily to finance public expenditures and support the operation of the government. Democratic socialists view progressive taxation as a primary tool for redistributing wealth and funding universal public services rather than as a means to "harm" individuals. While critics argue these policies unfairly burden successful entrepreneurs and stifle innovation, democratic socialist ideology emphasizes that concentrated wealth creates undemocratic political power that must be regulated. Taxation is a mandatory financial charge imposed by a government on individuals and businesses. It serves as the primary mechanism for funding society's collective needs that individuals cannot effectively provide for themselves. Inflation and taxation interact significantly: inflation can push people into higher tax brackets (bracket creep), eroding the value of deductions and credits, but many tax provisions are indexed to adjust automatically for inflation; meanwhile, tax policy itself can be used to fight inflation, with higher personal taxes potentially reducing demand, while the government also faces revenue changes from inflation and uses taxes as a tool for fiscal policy to manage price levels, say Tax Foundation. 

Jóhann Páll Jóhannsson in "Progressive taxation for a renewed social contract: A new social-democratic era requires a return to the steep postwar tax gradient" writes, "The revolution in living standards and economic development throughout the western world during the postwar period coincided with continual rises in taxes as a proportion of national income and the adoption of steeply progressive taxes on incomes and inheritance. In only half a century most industrial countries increased their share of taxes by a factor of three or four, enabling the construction of a ‘social state’ with wide access to education, healthcare and social protection—all indispensable to the social cohesion, industrial peace, productivity growth and prosperity which characterised western Europe and the United States during the postwar period." Johannson continues, "Fiscal strategies aiming to reduce budget deficits and curb inflation should place the revenue side of public finance at the centre, with an emphasis on expanding the tax base instead of slashing public expenditure. Where oligopolistic power and corporate profiteering are contributing heavily to inflation, corporate-tax reform can help bring prices under control.

More generally, social-democratic statecraft must embrace the long-term role of heavy taxation in making a relatively egalitarian mode of capitalism possible. Increasing progressivity, cracking down on tax avoidance and shifting the burden on to wealth, high incomes and corporate profits might be key to making this taxation politically and socially acceptable—and so securing the long-term survival of a social-democratic social contract." The revolution requires everyone. Expand the base. Now. the rich are rich and the poor are rich. Long Live the Revolution!

In 1912, American democratic socialists, led by Eugene V. Debs and the Socialist Party, saw their peak national support, advocating for public ownership of utilities/railroads, shorter workdays, minimum wage, income tax, and social insurance, garnering nearly a million votes (6% of the popular vote) and electing many local officials, challenging the capitalist system's dominance during a time of widespread progressive reform, though this success was short-lived due to World War I. 

The Founding Fathers favored tariffs over direct taxes like income tax because tariffs were easier to collect at ports, generated revenue for the new government and war debt without directly taxing citizens, protected nascent American industries from foreign competition (Hamilton's view), and avoided the internal tax resistance seen during the colonial era, like the Whiskey Rebellion. They provided a steady, "hidden" revenue stream, as businesses simply raised prices, making them politically palatable. Alexander Hamilton was closely familiar with the successful financial revolutions the Dutch and British states had undergone several decades before, which were responsible for their economic growth, but he was also aware of the risks of tax evasion and of Americans’ general dislike for taxes.  He recommended some increases and extensions of the import duties levied in the original tariff of 1789. He also persuaded Congress to enact some excise taxes, but rates of taxation were kept low. The purpose of the tariff was revenue, not protection, and Hamilton knew that Americans detested taxes of any kind.

Thomas Jefferson in an 1816 letter wrote, "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.”

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were towering Founding Fathers with fundamentally opposing visions for America, clashing fiercely in Washington's cabinet over federal power, economics, and governance, with Hamilton favoring a strong central government, commerce, and finance (Federalists), and Jefferson advocating for states' rights, agrarianism, and limited government (Democratic-Republicans). Their rivalry shaped America's first political parties, debates over the Constitution (like the National Bank), and foreign policy, ending personally with Hamilton's death in a duel but leaving lasting legacies on American political identity.

The "individual versus the government" debate centers on balancing personal liberty and state power, exploring whether the government should be limited to protecting basic rights (like in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights) or have broader paternalistic roles in welfare and regulation, with key tensions arising in areas like free speech, economic control, healthcare, and individual autonomy versus collective security. While some philosophies see limited government as essential for freedom, others view the state as necessary for individual advancement, creating ongoing tension between individual rights and governmental authority. 

In chess, the Queen is inherently the most powerful piece due to its vast movement range (like a Rook and Bishop combined), controlling many squares and delivering potent attacks, valued around 9 points; however, a humble Pawn, worth only 1 point, becomes incredibly potent in the endgame, gaining the potential to promote to a Queen if it reaches the last rank, transforming it into a game-deciding force that even a lone Queen struggles to stop. The contrast highlights the Queen's immediate, sweeping power versus the Pawn's strategic, long-term potential. O, how the Queen bows when ir is pinned by the pawn. The Queen represents the Government and its taxing powers and the Pawn, the individral and their voting power. We can change rhis!

Don't raise my grandson to envy!