I also can tell you that you'll never understand the tax code. No one does. I look at it one line at a time. The code starts as: Income X Rate = Tax. Ever other line on every single form (federal, state, local and every international entity) is a result of a special interest affecting the code through some form of lobbying.
I usually wear t-shirts around the house. I have a couple of shirts with collars on them that I toss on when I feel the need for more than a t. If you watch the winter videos, I am almost always wearing a flannel shirt that I wear like a sweater or light jacket when it is cold out. Some of my videos do not have the backdrop up and you can see my very messy bedroom in the background. I am just a guy making videos at home in my bedroom. If I had Schiff's money I would dress better.
@zthustra I was just goofing. BTW, you might try purchasing either TurboTax or TaxCut to test your tax calculations. You can probably get a 2010 version for about $10 on Ebay or Amazon at this point. The numbers won't be exact, but probably close enough for discussion.
Also, you are right that many Hedge Funds are organized so the Managing Partners can get Long Term Capital Gains on what you would rationally classify as earned income.
While there may not be consensus, I challenge you to find a SINGLE first year econ textbook with your definition. The origin of ur defn is in Marxist works. You have the same problem in pigeon-holing the teaparty movement. While I agree that there is a despicable wing of that movement, you are disregarding its Libertarian wing or origin. youtube.com/watch?v=nzJU7AX6aXo . So your argument is not clearly correct of ommitting baggage vs. alt definitions. Kudos for apologizing to Schiff!
I have admired Ron Paul since I voted for him to be president in 1988. He is principled and his principles and ideals have not changed ... mine have.
I feel much the same way about Peter Schiff. I wanted to make some more videos on what he said, but OMG people are like Schiffites and view any criticism of him or his views like an attack on their favorite deity.
You are free to define capitalism as centralization of wealth. You are nowhere in the majority with that definition. Most economists (including Keynes) would define a pure capitalism as a Laissez-faire free trade system (protection of prop rights). Likewise Keynes and Socialism are not synonymous. Keynes advocates government as a way of "smoothing out the business cycle" and propping up aggreg demand, not social spending for it's own sake or redistribution. Go to econstories.tv and see Keynes P1
I think you might understand how I use the word capitalism better if you watched the video I made about the word:
watch?v=OQgWjeGXMAI
My problem with the modern use of the word is that it leaves us with no word to describe a person (-ist) who is, or condition of being (-ism), at the top (caput-head) with regard to money and property (capital wealth), or the political and economic system that promotes the same by concentrating wealth at the top.
Just watched it! I like the way he explained it in the video. I'mnot sure he gets to claim any of those corporate tax expenses, but he was fair enough to point out that he might have used the money save for something other than personal earnings.
I NEED to get my next video done today! I don't think that I have been very clear how I feel about taxes. I don't think taxation is the way out. But I think Peter Schiff would be better off paying more taxes than with my solution.
@MinervalnTheBrain If you go to "the Tax Foundation", stats, income tax they list every tax bracket of every year. If you look at 1920 and 1948-1960. I think you will have to come to conclusion, the only way to stimulate the economy is to revert to a massive progressive tax. In 1948 the lowest bracket was 20%. You were at 50% very quickly.
Peter Schiff wrote a chapter in his book on how great the economy was in the 1950s, during the entire decade someone earning over 200K a year, paid 89% in taxes. 89% in taxes. 89% in taxes. If Peter Schiff wants to go back to the 1950s, maybe we should raise his taxes to 89%.
Very interesting. I don't usually go there in the argument because I don't advocate taxation as a remedy for the problem that has been caused by debt-money. My beef is more with the mega rich people who say tax them middle and upper middle class people and even the upper class peope, but not us mega rich people. And don't you dare destroy our money cow, the debt money system that keeps wealth flowing our way. Oh, throw the poor people a bone, charge it to those guys.
@pirucreek I'm sure he wouldn't starve if his last $'s earned over $200K in 50's money was taxed at 89%. And the national debt might go down too, oh noes.
If you google "top rates 5%" on google a link will come up by tax foundation what federal average people pay after deductions. The top 1% pay 23.27% in taxes. The top 1-5% pay 17.21% in taxes. I find it hilarious the top 5% pay less tax than the lowest tax bracket in 1948. This site lists all the history of all the tax breaks. It is amazing the government can function with the lowest tax rates. If you go to income tax rates history, someone earning $50K in 1948 paid 75% income tax.
On the subject of the perception of words when did socialism become a dirty word in the USA?
Socialist policies to me are simply policies where the society does things as one for the benefit of all. It is categorically not akin to bolshevik communism.
I find it funny that the people that cry socialist and point fingers are the exact same people that are foursquare behind socialist defense, socialist policing and so on.
The Cold War, Red Scare, and McCarthyism have never truly left the United States. The buzzwords associated with them are thus so very ingrained within Americans, especially those who lived during that era. One could say that socialism has always been a dirty word since that era, but it has been so dormant in its ability to raise a reaction normally. It has been pulled up from being dormant likely starting with the bailouts.
I am not in favor of nationalizing the banks. I support separating the power to create money from banking. Currently all money is created as principle on debt with the inevitable math consequence of first transfer of wealth from the common people to the wealthiest few percent and second collapse due to logarithamic growth of compounded interest.
We have is capitalism, the economic and political system that concentrates wealth from the many to a few.
Big Z, concentration of wealth to the few is not part of the definition of capitalism. It is an effect of capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production and distribution is capitalism, no more and no less. Any other associated phenomena are part of capitalism's effect, not its definition. I say this because that aforementioned concentration of wealth is not present only in capitalism.
Really, hmmm, what part of the Latin compound word means "private" in English and what part means "ownership" in English? I could have sworn that "caput" was "head or top" in Latin and "capitale" was "money and property" in Old French and "-ism" was some kind of system.
You got to be pulling my string? You know better!
I understand the etymology of the term, but if that's your measuring stick for what does or does not entail capitalism then I propose that you're draining all of the meaning and value from the concept itself. It does not seem realistic that resources will be evenly spread for any significant period of time; there will be concentrations that arise. No matter what economic or political system is present, you're going to have some people at the "top" and some at the "bottom"
It is true that some people will be more productive or their goods and services more valued and they will earn more. That does not mean a system must exist that is designed to facilitate the concentration of wealth from the many to the few.
Without systems in place it is very difficult for one or a few people to own and manage so many of the resources that they would be called capitalists. The tendency is for competition to eat away at the edges when wealth is not protected.
As such, if that's your guideline for determining if an economic system is capitalistic or not, then all systems are capitalism and thus the very label "capitalism" is simply redundant and pointless to have. Even with its etymology, which you cite accurately, the definition I offered for it allows capitalism to have some measure of significance and standing as a concept on its own instead of being a pointless label that can apply to any economic system.
Now you are arguing just to argue. Redefining the word capitalism to mean something that it does not mean is one way of distracting people from the negative consequences. It is like putting perfume on a skunk!
It is like when Hitler's core of supporters wrapped themselves in the flag and called themselves national socialists, protectors of the nation and defenders of labor rights and all that. It didn't really change what they really were but it changed their image.
Now if only we could get Peter Shift to respond to 1939 Monetary Act. Gold is fine for him. He own lots of it. I own none. I want money that will be good for me as well.
The ability to admit a mistake, learn from it, and attempt to move on as a better person is one of the most endearing attributes that a person can have, in my not-so-humble opinion.
I also can tell you that you'll never understand the tax code. No one does. I look at it one line at a time. The code starts as: Income X Rate = Tax. Ever other line on every single form (federal, state, local and every international entity) is a result of a special interest affecting the code through some form of lobbying.
mainteg2004 2 months ago
Hey, why is he wearing the same shirt as in the video he made yesterday?
mainteg2004 2 months ago
@mainteg2004
I usually wear t-shirts around the house. I have a couple of shirts with collars on them that I toss on when I feel the need for more than a t. If you watch the winter videos, I am almost always wearing a flannel shirt that I wear like a sweater or light jacket when it is cold out. Some of my videos do not have the backdrop up and you can see my very messy bedroom in the background. I am just a guy making videos at home in my bedroom. If I had Schiff's money I would dress better.
zthustra 2 months ago
@zthustra I was just goofing. BTW, you might try purchasing either TurboTax or TaxCut to test your tax calculations. You can probably get a 2010 version for about $10 on Ebay or Amazon at this point. The numbers won't be exact, but probably close enough for discussion.
Also, you are right that many Hedge Funds are organized so the Managing Partners can get Long Term Capital Gains on what you would rationally classify as earned income.
mainteg2004 2 months ago
While there may not be consensus, I challenge you to find a SINGLE first year econ textbook with your definition. The origin of ur defn is in Marxist works. You have the same problem in pigeon-holing the teaparty movement. While I agree that there is a despicable wing of that movement, you are disregarding its Libertarian wing or origin. youtube.com/watch?v=nzJU7AX6aXo . So your argument is not clearly correct of ommitting baggage vs. alt definitions. Kudos for apologizing to Schiff!
dmg46664 1 year ago
@dmg46664
I have admired Ron Paul since I voted for him to be president in 1988. He is principled and his principles and ideals have not changed ... mine have.
I feel much the same way about Peter Schiff. I wanted to make some more videos on what he said, but OMG people are like Schiffites and view any criticism of him or his views like an attack on their favorite deity.
zthustra 1 year ago
You are free to define capitalism as centralization of wealth. You are nowhere in the majority with that definition. Most economists (including Keynes) would define a pure capitalism as a Laissez-faire free trade system (protection of prop rights). Likewise Keynes and Socialism are not synonymous. Keynes advocates government as a way of "smoothing out the business cycle" and propping up aggreg demand, not social spending for it's own sake or redistribution. Go to econstories.tv and see Keynes P1
dmg46664 1 year ago
@dmg46664
I think you might understand how I use the word capitalism better if you watched the video I made about the word:
watch?v=OQgWjeGXMAI
My problem with the modern use of the word is that it leaves us with no word to describe a person (-ist) who is, or condition of being (-ism), at the top (caput-head) with regard to money and property (capital wealth), or the political and economic system that promotes the same by concentrating wealth at the top.
zthustra 1 year ago
At least you made an impact! :) Go check the last video of peter schiff "G20, tax the rich". I'm pretty sure he talks about your video.
cnxtrans 1 year ago
@cnxtrans
Just watched it! I like the way he explained it in the video. I'mnot sure he gets to claim any of those corporate tax expenses, but he was fair enough to point out that he might have used the money save for something other than personal earnings.
I NEED to get my next video done today! I don't think that I have been very clear how I feel about taxes. I don't think taxation is the way out. But I think Peter Schiff would be better off paying more taxes than with my solution.
zthustra 1 year ago
@MinervalnTheBrain If you go to "the Tax Foundation", stats, income tax they list every tax bracket of every year. If you look at 1920 and 1948-1960. I think you will have to come to conclusion, the only way to stimulate the economy is to revert to a massive progressive tax. In 1948 the lowest bracket was 20%. You were at 50% very quickly.
pirucreek 1 year ago
Peter Schiff wrote a chapter in his book on how great the economy was in the 1950s, during the entire decade someone earning over 200K a year, paid 89% in taxes. 89% in taxes. 89% in taxes. If Peter Schiff wants to go back to the 1950s, maybe we should raise his taxes to 89%.
pirucreek 1 year ago 2
@pirucreek
Very interesting. I don't usually go there in the argument because I don't advocate taxation as a remedy for the problem that has been caused by debt-money. My beef is more with the mega rich people who say tax them middle and upper middle class people and even the upper class peope, but not us mega rich people. And don't you dare destroy our money cow, the debt money system that keeps wealth flowing our way. Oh, throw the poor people a bone, charge it to those guys.
zthustra 1 year ago
@pirucreek I'm sure he wouldn't starve if his last $'s earned over $200K in 50's money was taxed at 89%. And the national debt might go down too, oh noes.
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
@pirucreek he would pay less in taxes if we had the same tax regulation.
their was no AMT tax back then so he would essentialy be able to dodge a lot more taxes.
AMT is the true killer of the upper middle class when it comes to taxes since it not only hits the rich it also hits upper middle class.
doc2850 2 months ago
If you google "top rates 5%" on google a link will come up by tax foundation what federal average people pay after deductions. The top 1% pay 23.27% in taxes. The top 1-5% pay 17.21% in taxes. I find it hilarious the top 5% pay less tax than the lowest tax bracket in 1948. This site lists all the history of all the tax breaks. It is amazing the government can function with the lowest tax rates. If you go to income tax rates history, someone earning $50K in 1948 paid 75% income tax.
pirucreek 1 year ago
50% taxes for the top 2% doesn't sound very high to me.
VolcanicPenguin 1 year ago
On the subject of the perception of words when did socialism become a dirty word in the USA?
Socialist policies to me are simply policies where the society does things as one for the benefit of all. It is categorically not akin to bolshevik communism.
I find it funny that the people that cry socialist and point fingers are the exact same people that are foursquare behind socialist defense, socialist policing and so on.
LiamE69 1 year ago
@LiamE69
The Cold War, Red Scare, and McCarthyism have never truly left the United States. The buzzwords associated with them are thus so very ingrained within Americans, especially those who lived during that era. One could say that socialism has always been a dirty word since that era, but it has been so dormant in its ability to raise a reaction normally. It has been pulled up from being dormant likely starting with the bailouts.
SeruQuik 1 year ago
Thumbs up Z.
LiamE69 1 year ago
@farhadekoohkan
I am not in favor of nationalizing the banks. I support separating the power to create money from banking. Currently all money is created as principle on debt with the inevitable math consequence of first transfer of wealth from the common people to the wealthiest few percent and second collapse due to logarithamic growth of compounded interest.
We have is capitalism, the economic and political system that concentrates wealth from the many to a few.
zthustra 1 year ago
@zthustra
Big Z, concentration of wealth to the few is not part of the definition of capitalism. It is an effect of capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production and distribution is capitalism, no more and no less. Any other associated phenomena are part of capitalism's effect, not its definition. I say this because that aforementioned concentration of wealth is not present only in capitalism.
SeruQuik 1 year ago
@SeruQuik
Really, hmmm, what part of the Latin compound word means "private" in English and what part means "ownership" in English? I could have sworn that "caput" was "head or top" in Latin and "capitale" was "money and property" in Old French and "-ism" was some kind of system.
You got to be pulling my string? You know better!
zthustra 1 year ago
@zthustra
I understand the etymology of the term, but if that's your measuring stick for what does or does not entail capitalism then I propose that you're draining all of the meaning and value from the concept itself. It does not seem realistic that resources will be evenly spread for any significant period of time; there will be concentrations that arise. No matter what economic or political system is present, you're going to have some people at the "top" and some at the "bottom"
SeruQuik 1 year ago
@SeruQuik
It is true that some people will be more productive or their goods and services more valued and they will earn more. That does not mean a system must exist that is designed to facilitate the concentration of wealth from the many to the few.
Without systems in place it is very difficult for one or a few people to own and manage so many of the resources that they would be called capitalists. The tendency is for competition to eat away at the edges when wealth is not protected.
zthustra 1 year ago
@zthustra
As such, if that's your guideline for determining if an economic system is capitalistic or not, then all systems are capitalism and thus the very label "capitalism" is simply redundant and pointless to have. Even with its etymology, which you cite accurately, the definition I offered for it allows capitalism to have some measure of significance and standing as a concept on its own instead of being a pointless label that can apply to any economic system.
SeruQuik 1 year ago
@SeruQuik
Now you are arguing just to argue. Redefining the word capitalism to mean something that it does not mean is one way of distracting people from the negative consequences. It is like putting perfume on a skunk!
It is like when Hitler's core of supporters wrapped themselves in the flag and called themselves national socialists, protectors of the nation and defenders of labor rights and all that. It didn't really change what they really were but it changed their image.
zthustra 1 year ago
Now if only we could get Peter Shift to respond to 1939 Monetary Act. Gold is fine for him. He own lots of it. I own none. I want money that will be good for me as well.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
The ability to admit a mistake, learn from it, and attempt to move on as a better person is one of the most endearing attributes that a person can have, in my not-so-humble opinion.
renegade4dio 1 year ago