Why can't we just cut spending? If I can't pay my bills I don't demand a raise at work, and when I don't get it, I don't just get a bunch of new credit cards, I cut from what I don't need.
Penn, love ya man, but this side of libertarianism (socially they have the right idea) is on the same lines of objectivism. The whole idea that poor should just "pick themselves up from the bootstraps" or be left to starve and the rich are entitled to all they can swindel is just wrong. These tax rates are from the very rich BUYING OUT POLITICIANS we the people didn't decide they can dodge giving their fair share.
When you support 300 million people, 300 million people are supporting you.
I think those guys recognise that thier money wouldn't make a dent. But more tax on ALL the mega rich people WOULD make a difference. It's not about them personally giving more money but the too low taxes on all rich people, which is a problem that is only getting worse.
I don't understand how they are not able to help the poor. They got TONS OF MONEY and they wouldn't even give it to people or at least pay more taxes than the "average" joe. I probably won't understand because I'm not filthy stinkin rich bastard but I mean c'mon. Like... c'mon.. urghh! RICH people makes me sick! Not all of them of course.
There is nothing contradictory about accepting a rule that, when applied to everyone, is for the greater good, but refusing to be the only person who follows that rule. He is seeing a contradiction where there isn't one.
Penn, despite our disagreements on theological issues, I've always had the world of respect for you... until you said you love Jerry Springer. I still love you, but come on man!!! lol
I think you're missing the point. I agree that ending the wars is important for balancing the budget, but how we get the money and how we spend it are two different issues. When Warren Buffet made the comment that he doesn't get taxed enough, he was applying that to anyone in his social position. He thinks that the rich people don't pay enough. It doesn't matter how the money is spent, because we're always going to have to give the government money and he wnats to make sure it's fair
The argument that millionaires that are for a higher tax rate should just give their money to the government and stop complaining is just nonsense.
First of all they are not saying that they WANT to be taxed more, they are saying that they see that it's unfair for themselves and other millionaires and billionaires to be taxed so little.
Secondly the fact that a portion of the rich are willing to give more of their money doesn't help if the rest don't pitch in as well.
The main reason they want the government to tax them more is that they want all rich people including dicks, not just themselves and other nice people to give a bit more so poor people in worse circumstances and often not there fault pay less tax's, sometimes I guess there's this attitude I'm not going to pay if he's not going to pay, and the fact poor people shouldn't have to try and survive on good people hand outs and niceness as they should have a right to survive, along with other rights.
i think it has less to do with the money actually helping the economy or the government and just more to do with everyone paying their fair share. why should the poor need to give up a larger amount of their income than the rich? the poor actually need that money they are losing a lot more than the rich do.
The government is owned by the Military Industrial Complex, which is in the BIG BUSINESS of killing people, using tax dollars to do it...they aren't about to stop, until we stop paying taxes and they don't have the money to kill people...but on the same hand if we don't pay taxes, they will kill us...it's a vicious cycle.
To add to the comment about Warren Buffet's secretary paying more in income tax than him... Probably because Warren Buffet's company has back taxes dating back to 2002. Considering a large portion of his wealth is taxed at 15% since it's in investments, it has very little to do with his taxable income from a salary. If you make over $400,000 you're already going to be paying 40% which is higher, so they're already paying more.
I agree with a lot of what Pen says.. However, the obvious counter argument is that it would be pointless for a rich person to give more taxes by themselves. But if all rich people were taxed at THE SAME rate as everyone else, it would make a significant difference. But I agree, I would be much more happy to just end all of the wars, including the war on drugs.
Penn i have a request and question one do u n teller still do bullshit and two if u do can u do an episode on hate groups like kk and neo nazis and stuff, i have a lot where i am and there is alot on this website i go on. Id like to know how they started and stuff and how to gwt them to leave me alone they try to hurt me and stuff cos im half russian and irish. This also makes me wanna ask if u can do a bullshit on street gangs and bullies too if you can
I think the point that most people are missing is before we even start talking about whether to raise taxes or lower taxes, the first thing that needs to be done is to address the issue of spending. There needs to be a total audit on the U.S. government to determine what tax dollars are going where. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because even the government doesn't know where half the money it takes in is going. Penn's right. Kill the foreign policy spending first. Then take it from there.
You do raise a very good point that I had not considered before. Might be because in my country we don't spend nearly as much money on killing people.
Still, I think the reason people want to raise the taxes for those with higher income is because most of these rich people don't want to give their fucking money away. Why would they? It's their fucking money.
Even if there are a lot of generous, rich people out there it's nowhere near enough.
My question is this. Regarding the comment at 4:20 (coincidence I assume) regarding we don't want to do that....
Penn, if you're ready this (prob not, but oh well)
*I* don't want to do that
*YOU* don't want to do that
But after the crowd reaction that Blitzer's question to Ron Paul about "letting them die" (Not RP, the crowd response) or the crowd reaction to Texas' execution numbers (not Perry, the crowd applause), do you honestly think that *WE* (the American people) don't want to do that?
I had read that in Sweden prostitution is legal, however being a john or a pimp is illegal. As a result, prostitutes are better protected against violence, because they're the only person involved in the situation who isn't committing a crime, and so they can feel unafraid to call the police for help at any time.
Perfect. One of your best. Just stop spending the fucking money. If and of the shit people worry about happens then spend money to fix that. Can't wait unitil you no one is entitiled to entiltlements!
Thanks for telling me about the ability to give it to government! I was busy a few minutes trying to find out if this was possible (of course it should be). Otherwise quite important to get government to stop wasting money on stupid things but also important that everyone pitches in for the good of the many. Why can't we do both simoultaneously?
2 rich people giving their money won't make a difference, the tax rate has to be raised to a more reasonable rate (back to pre-bush tax cuts) so everyone pays that extra bit. Otherwise, it won't make a difference.
I think they more so are looking for rich people to be taxed more...not just for them to give money...they want THE rich to be taxed, not THEIR riches only
Excellent rant and commentary! I might not mind paying U.S. taxes as much if it wasn't managed and spent by the intrusive, hypocrtical, and corrupt Theopublicans and Demosocialists.
clinton and bush lovers how about fannie mae In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families."For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" nad clinton did the same too, "WORKED PRETTY WELL"
@TheSaltyAdmiral... You cannot know the total money that one has and in what form... buffett pays less than his secretary because of his accountants... and he's happy with it... he'll keep doing that no matter what change in law you pass... Penn does magic trick, buffett does accounting tricks... "charity" is also a way to evade taxes... a Flat tax should solve many problems and also i'm with the "Privatization of the military". Dounds crazy but i bet my life it will wolr better than now.
Warren Buffett needs to learn that he can spend his money better on good things than someone else can spend it. Why is that an alien concept to well off liberal people? Less taxation of these peeps means more money being spent on liberal causes, doesn't it? Seriously, become the change you wanna see in the world, don't defer that responsibility to someone else.
People need to adjust their perspective on relative wealth. The guy with the new car, who owns his own house and has a membership of a chic golf-club is not a member of the 'rich'. The guy owns a block of flats, has a second-home in the Toscana and maybe 30ft motor-boat on the Keys is not 'rich'. Wealth functions exponentially and the top few percent of 'rich' people posess nearly all of the liquid and asset wealth on this planet, but they pay no more tax than massed peons below them.
Just one more thing. According to Penn's philosophy, the government should not ban bogus medical treatments because the free market will just take care of it on its own. But as Penn full well knows, the lack of efficacy for a alleged medical treatment does not stop people from convincing themselves that bogus treatment do work. So the inevitable result is millions being destroyed by evil while society does nothing sufficient to stop it. Is that what libertarian heaven looks like?
It's sad to see such an otherwise great skeptic like Penn make such obvious logical fallacies like a red herring & false dichotomy. It isn't a choice btw providing for the less fortunate & war spending. If such a vote existed, I'd surely vote for the former, but that's not an option. These are 2 entirely different issues being disingenuously thrown together in a misguided attempt to garner some kind of sympathy for the super-rich, who regularly buy our public officials. Poor you!
It must be a real burden being asked to pay more than a smaller percentage of your income than people making a fraction of a fraction of what you make. But I'm forced to wonder what Penn would think if faced w/ Rawls' veil of ignorance. Would he still be content to just assume the invisible hand of the libertarian god will make everything right or would he prefer we didn't just leave it up to faith. Libertarians continue to make the mistake of assuming people will make rational choices.
@TheSaltyAdmiral The other point Penn is missing is that Warren Buffet is advocating that taxes be increased for ALL wealthy people. As rich as he and Springer and Gates are, their combined incomes don't make much of a dent in the revenue that is needed. We need to get more tax revenue from the top 10% because their ability to dodge those taxes just means that revenue is unfairly taken from the bottom 90%.
@TheSaltyAdmiral But it turned out he actually does pay more taxes than his secretary, so the entire point is based on a fictitious, bullshit statement. Which makes it just a rich guy saying something stupid, and you repeating it as gospel.
@TheSaltyAdmiral Absolutely, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxas than the middle class and poor do. Whats crazy is that the "right" actually has the middle class and poor believing that to tax the rich more than they currently do would somehow be criminal and would be the beginning of this country's descent into some socialist communist state. I don't get why people buy that BS. The rich pay far less in taxes than they have at any point in this country's history.
I do not watch Penn Point because i agree with all of penn's points. I watch because he does make many good points and cuts through the bull. Great vid!
Warren Buffet's comments aren't about him wanting to "give more". His comments are about how our progressive tax system is ridiculously unfair and favors the rich in every conceivable sense. That's why he continues to point out that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does despite him having several FACTORS OF MAGNITUDE greater wealth than them. Its assbackwards. Ignoring this very important point by Warren Buffet seems like a Libertarian talking point.
Sorry, do not agree! It's not about doing spending the money. The more rich people pay the less poor have to.
I think most rich people deserve their wealth. They really work hard for their money. But so do most poor. If you raise taxes for the rich, you can lower it for the poor and make it easier for them.
And to get to the war argument: The more poor (and uneducated) your people have, the more you can control them by war acts, fear mongering and Tea-Party-Fascist-Idiology.
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
@chaosqueued Stopping taxation isn't the goal. You can't run a country on no taxes, period. Stopping wars will allow that massive % of our taxes to go back into our economy in the form of public services, including health care and education.
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
A breath of sanity! *First* stop the wars and the oppression at home (on this nearly everyone agrees, except the corporate shills in Washington) *then* we can have our debate about the proper size of the welfare state. (And don't get me wrong, I'll vehemently oppose you on that second thing.)
However, I think Penn is overoptimistic about balancing the budget purely from stopping the war on drugs and the wars on brown people.
You don't depend on me, neither I do on you, there are options... like starving, if we cooperate it's simple for "interest", wichever that will be is interest. Voluntary association... we value the human being. I don't take from society, I trade with it.
@SMDoktorPepper The reason you could get a job so easy in the past it's because there was "liquidity" in the system... why? beacause the employer was able to choose their needs, you were in your job because of merit or something that your employer valued... it sounds crazy and greedy but it worked much better than today with all the faults that were was way better... for most people... the middle men... now there's no liquidity even for a job scrubbing toilets.
The problem is that charity is not a reliable system. It's a good backup, but it can never be the entire spine. So let's be real about this, military spending will never go away entirely. Cutting all the strings to Iraq and Afghanistan will not be enough. You'll have to deminish the military spending AND tax the rich more in order to get our of this.
Oh and by the way, regarding Penn's point here, these gov't beaurocrats are not the sharpest toils in the shed. Think of it this way, your local DMV worker - that's a beaurocrat. Do you think they are smart enough to efficiently handle the needs of such a large population? Perhaps more importantly, do you think they give two s**ts. Don't buy the liberal malarkey that go'vt employees are saints. They're just avg people working to put food on the table and they don't give a d-m about you like dmv.
@7Highlander What makes you think the employee of a private company with the power of giving you permission to drive on the road would be any less of a moron? How are your experiences with people at your private insurance you have to convince to pay for a medical procedure...?
The difference between a public department, funded by democratically elected representatives, and one that's beholden to shareholder interest only is, at least you have a right to a redress of grievances in the former.
@OolTube02 The difference between the 'moron' (your word not mine- I was calling public workers disinterested not morons) at the private company and the beaurocrat is twofold. First, the private employee can be easily fired if they do an unsatisfactory job. If they do a great job and are extra industrious then they may be promoted; thus they are self interested in doing a good job as quickly and efficiently as possible. The beaurocrat has no self interest other than to not screw....continued...
@7Highlander ...up so badly that they be fired (which even than would be very difficult - which brings me to the next difference). You seem to think that you can throw out public employees if they screw up; you cannot. We vote for candidates not for beaurocrats. Beaurocrats are appointed; they last through multiple administrations and are harder to fire than tenured teachers. They have no self interest in doing a good job or trying to be more efficient with other peoples (our) money...continued-
@7Highlander One quick example. Here's an observational experiment that anyone can do that will prove my point. Walk through your neighborhood/town/city.. and notice when the gov't is starting to build or renovate a building (maybe a library or a school etc.) then look for a private building project going on at the same time. I've done this little experiment multiple times here in brooklyn. The gov't employees have been building the same library for over 5 years, at the same time...continued...
@7Highlander ...at the same time many private apartment or office buildings have gone up by private workers (for a building about the same size as the still unfinished library - it takes about 4 to 6 months, as opposed to five yrs). Now why is this? I'm sure that the gov't workers are just as capable as those building the office buildings; the difference is that the private company would not stand for such a waste of money instead of 6 months -the gov't will cause it's not their money its yours
@7Highlander Aren't those private office buildings that went up so fast the same ones in which garbage mortgages were bundled, sold off, and shorted and naked credit default swaps were gambled? I'm just saying, those private companies seem to be efficient at both booming and fucking you over.
Maybe if conservatives hadn't given away tax revenues to billionaire cronies those libraries would be built faster. It is private contractors who build buildings, after all -- even for the government...
@OolTube02 I'm not an apologist of corporations or one of those rara republicans that defends business no matter what. Corporations are just people some are a**holes and most care more about money than helping people. that being said, the gov't encouraged those garbage mortgages (because socialists believe everyone must own a home) and also backed them up with FANNIE and FREDDIE; they also bailed the banks out with your money. They should have been allowed to fail and go bankrupt...continued...
@7Highlander It wasn't "socialists" who thought home ownership was essential to the American Dream. The "Ownership Society" was a conservative idea. You notice how the conservative bubbles are all about oil drilling and suburban housing while the progressive bubbles are about alternative energies and the Internet? Given a choice between conservative and progressive skewing of the market I'll take the progressives. Even after losing money, at least I live in a world with Google and Amazon...
@OolTube02 Ownership society means that people work for it and pay for it with their own money, not that they get a house with no money down when they clearly can't afford that house over time. The housing bubble was created by progressives - look up 'Community Re-investment Act'. The private industry only took advantage of the gov'ts position. Google and Amazon are private companies; their success and efficiency reflects the fact that private entities work better than gov't ones.
@OolTube02 If we drilled for oil, coal, coal fracking, natural gas, we would be enrgy independant and you would be paying a fraction of what you pay for gas, electricity and everything we buy (since gas and energy prices are factored into and effect the price of everything). It's the progresssives who want to control the crucial aspects of your life. the fact that a republican doesn't believe in evolution will not effect your life at all. A democrats beliefs about global warming will impoverish.
@7Highlander No, not facing up to the fact that you're burning in two hundred years through what it took nature a few million years to deposit is what's going to impoverish you eventually. And not realizing that the Sun shines two billion times more energy into deep space than on Earth. The real mother-lode isn't in the ground.
You see, conservatism is all about hanging on to the old ways even in the face of changing conditions. Progressivism is about figuring out new ways of doing things.
@OolTube02 ...Both republican and Democrat Presidents bailed them out instead of letting them lose all their money as a result of their gambles (which is the true free market way it should go) because it was not their money that they were using for the bailouts; which brings us back to the real point, which is that government aren't as efficient and are wasteful of money compared to the private sector. BTW all of the last and current adminisatrations' advisors are from the big banks...continued-
@OolTube02 so don't go assuming that anyone in the gov't is looking out for you. The Democrat politicians are just as rich as the republicans (there is nothing wrong with this, I'm just pointing out that when it comes to certain things - like caring about you - they're the same), they are advised by the same industry money people as the republicans...btw the construction is not a funding issue; it just takes longer for gov't agencies to do anything than the private sector and they use more money
@OolTube02 look, god bless you; I have nothing against you. I don't care that we have different opinions. Just some useful advice - Don't ever believe that some politician(s) has'have your back or care about you anymore than anyone in the private sector does. You and your family's welfare is your responsibility and if you are counting on the gov't for anything then just look at where that got the people of New Orleans btw there are still homeless and there are still empty FEMA trailers.
@7Highlander Dude, I live in Germany. I have no complaints about government regulated universal health insurance and social safety nets. I work out. I eat right. I watch my blood pressure. But I'm also glad that I don't have to jump through hoops for medical procedures -- particularly the preventative kind, before they have to defibrillate me in an ambulance. I used to hate this continent because of the lingual confusion, but right now I'm truly glad I don't have Americans' problems...
@OolTube02 You're definitely right about Preventive Medicine. The FDA (U.S gov't) isn't much of a help their either, but that's a long topic. BTW you German should stop throwing your money away down the toilet. Greece, Italy...they'll go down and they'll hurt you too if you don't abandon them. If Germany returned to the mark it would be e very strong currency. The Euro is gonna fail anyhow, your gov't is just making it so that you'll go down with the ship when you don't have to....continued...
@7Highlander And you should have let the South secede and you'd be better off today. Or maybe not. Keeping Europe together is an economy of scale strategy, necessary in order to compete with the US and China. It's going to require horizontal financial equalization. The same way that some US states receive more revenue than they generate this will have to be accepted for some EU countries as well. If we don't do that we'll be as screwed as you guys are, facing the Great Depression 2.0...
@7Highlander And you should have let the South secede and you'd be better off today. Or maybe not. Keeping Europe together is an economy of scale strategy, necessary in order to compete with the US and China. It's going to require horizontal financial equalization. The same way that some US states receive more revenue than they generate this will have to be accepted for some EU countries as well. If we don't do that we'll be as screwed as you guys are, facing the Great Depression 2.0...
germany's only problem is low birth rate. If you abandon the sinking Euro and just have more children you will be stronger than the EU could ever be. Anyways, I wish you guys in Germany luck; i feel that you shouldn't be paying for someone elses mess, but wahtever, I think I'll retire from this computer; all the best; and if I were you I'd ditch my Euros and buy Gold, Silver, or Dollars (which will skyrocket when the Euro fails and other economies like china are impacted).
@7Highlander The whole point of demand-side economy is about paying for other people's messes so you don't lose them as customers. If you're the country with the trade surplus the dumbest thing you could do is impoverish your neighbors. What you're suggesting would be the worst strategy of self-sabotage we could commit to. We'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
Some Germans are actually crazy enough to think the way you do. I hope they don't get their way...
@7Highlander Listen, if the DMV were privatized the first thing that would happen is that the private company, realizing it has people at their mercy to allow them and their vehicles on the roads, would start charging clients frontal and hind appendages for it. Then, as they complain and need further bureaucratic services, "doing a good job" for the DMV employee would be to make them as inaccessible or as costly as possible.
Haven't private health insurances taught you anything...?
..They use all the loopholes and tricks so that they pay virtually nothing while at the same time talking smack about rich people with the media not saying a word. In reality, almost all of the really rich do not get their money from income, but rather from wealth creation. They can always move their money and make sure it isn't taxed. At the end of the day, if taxes are raised it will be the middle class and upper mc that foots the bill while rich like Pelosi have the money safe in Trusts....
The following are Net Worths of just a handful or so Democrat Senators - Kerry = 193 million, Blumenthal = 53 million, Warner = 76m, Rockefeller = 81m, Many congressspeople such as pelosi (35m), Feinstein (45m), and Boxer are also married to people with close to 200m. Now, ask yourselves the following question: Do you really think all the rich people in congress are going to tax all their money away? Of course not. In fact, if you look at how much taxes they pay it's very little...continued...
@bleunt hey bleunt; I was probably not being clear enough. I guess I sound angry in those comments, which I'm not at all un-calm. My point was simply that the people you think are going to tax the rich (democratic congress-people) are in fact themselves super - rich. So what you have to ask your self is do you really think the politician cares more about you than their-self or their family? In other words, do you thunk they'll tax themselves and other super - rich, without putting in loopholes.
@7Highlander My other point (again, comments were probably not clear) was that since the super rich can always get out of taxes, therefore the only thing that ends up happening in reality when taxes are raised is that the ones who pay are the middle class and upper middle class. But, the ones who are most hurt are the poor. Because when taxes are raised on the little grocery store down the block, guess what - the poor pay more for groceries. High taxes = Poor suffering and middle class paying.
@7Highlander Many of them, yeah. Not all. It worked OK under Clinton. Well enough. But this is why politicians should have their income capped at a certain amount. And they should not be able to take any donations from companies. Too bad the citizens united fucked that over.
Military spending = 4.7% of GDP, social programs spending 8.8%. Even if you dismantled our armed forced completely, it wouldn't touch what's needed. I do agree that the time for the wars is over, they served their function years ago.
I am stunned to hear Penn saying what he said about Jerry Springer! I assumed he was evil and stupid like his show. It is true: money makes good smart people do unimaginably evil and stupid things. How does he sleep at night?
I'd reason that Buffet hasn't handed his money to the government because it's not about a wedge of cash, it's about a system of sustainability.
If taxes are raised on people like him, then it's won't be about the charity of Buffet, it'll be about billionaires paying into the system that has given them so much.
I agree with you about the wars and the potheads in prison though: it's asinine.
Its a rare time that I kind of disagree. The fact that now 15% of us are now living under the poverty line while the super rich are raking in even more of the wealth, something like 95% of it currently, is more than a little obscene. In this country you used to be able to make something of yourself. Now we are scrabbling for crumbs cause the uber rich have taken just about everything and are checking out whatever is left. They are smart about it and turn everyone against each other but still
Taxes, in the USA, are a socialist construct. They are part of the USA's social contract. Taxes are never the problem, they are always a solution. The problem is funding entitlements from that social contract. We necessarily delegate how tax dollars are spent by voting. If you do not like how those dollars are being spent you have choices. Terminate your social contract and leave the USA, voice your opinion, petition for a new delegate. Raising taxes for the sake of such is not in the contract.
This is a better point than asking why someone like me doesn't give more. It's truly surprising that Penn admits he cares much less about something than healthcare than "defense." I know he's a peace nick and all, but the fact that he admits he cares less about tax money being used for socialism is refreshing. I agree completely.
Prostitution is an innocent crime? What about...well how about....try telling that to...THINK OF THE CHILDREN OH WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN??? xDD
lol, Penn sounded a little like Hayek in this one...
by the way Buffett sells treasuries, betting the fall of the Us dollar, that's in part of why, i don't think is much more that self-interest like all of us, the difference is he values the end not the means. We value the human being and his effort to conquer and own.
@MrCactopuss Do you really think Buffett is between the top 10 or 20 richest man in the wolrd? seriously? they are more celebrity billionares, like justin beaver musician...
@anteracmacash All the money in the world isn't enough to solve the problem. The problem is debt, but politicians want to spend their way out of this debt. We shouldn't increase the taxes of the rich just so that the government can waste even more money. If the government didn't have so many bullshit programs, then we would be more confident that the tax dollars were being used to get us out of debt.
In short, tax for getting out of debt, fair. Tax to pay for entitlements, inefficient.
@NoNameC68 Yes, let's all return to the times before Social Security and Medicare, when some retirees without personal savings were found to be living in chicken coops. If Truman, Eisenhower, et al.. had followed that insane economics book of yours they would have been back in those conditions by the Fifties, I'm sure.
@NoNameC68 Ya just ignore him. He's a socialist tool who has no clue about morality or ethics. He would rather violently impose his own will on others, rather than letting people be free.
@SquashDog01 Yeah, you're right. I suggested he read Economics in One Lesson and he claimed he read the first few pages (he obviously didn't). He replied:
"The idea that under some circumstances if government doesn't create demand no one will doesn't even seem to occur to him."
There's just no debating someone who doesn't even understand what demand is.
@NoNameC68 Demand is need and ability to pay. If one doesn't exist demand dries up. Government social spending can increase demand by shifting the ability to pay from those who do not need to those who need. That happens by taxing or inflation.
I think Hazlitt misunderstood Keynes's famous "in the long run we're all dead." It isn't meant to mean, "après moi le déluge," but, "it doesn't matter how much the abundance of next summer makes up for this harsh winter if we don't survive the winter."
@NoNameC68 Of course I did. The problem is, the guy thinks he has the key to finding long-term economic stability and prosperity at the expense of short term pain. But it turns out that it was actually the short term fixes that led to long-term stability after WWII, whereas the austerity and the reparations after WWI led to a Great Depression and another war. So in hindsight that guy was dead wrong.
The Dark Ages were all about short term sacrifice for long term happiness in Heaven...
@Kronnikx With Paul's ideasthough the federal government looses its minimum wage and support for the poor but the state governments are there to pick up any tab. Plus lower wages are kosher if the cost of goods and services decrease through less to no taxes. I agree a corporate run America is an awful scenerio but it seems we're already living in that. As far as religion goes I'd doubt Bachman, Romney, or Perry are gonna be any less extreme as Paul.
@yuppysoul It has everything to do with how the rich is be taxed, no, scratch that, how everyone is taxed. People who pay taxes are giving their money to the government so the government can spend it on things that the people may not support. I work so many hours for x amount of money, then the government takes a portion and uses MY EARNINGS to pay for things I would never support such as the war on drugs.
This is why people don't want to pay more in taxes, because the gov. abuses them.
Not really a good argument. Maybe I don't want to pay for x, y or z. so what? your argument is against tax full stop, not against taxing the rich.
If you don't want a War on Drugs, don't vote for idiots who support it, do what you can to get rid of it, but don't tell me that has anything to do with how much tax the super rich should be paying.
Bottom line: Penn has a huge blind spot for anything that involves the government.
Penn, you are too smart to think that advocating a tax raise on the super rich and giving more of your personal wealth are even similar. Stop it.
The last 30 years has seen the top 400 people in this country go from being super rich to being gods of money. This while the mass of American's have lost net worth.
A pragmatic(no idealogy or political dogma) conversation about how to stop this needs to take place.
I've had an idea to improve the tax/welfare system. Create an online social network featuring all recipients of entitlements, individuals and organizations. Give tax credits to individuals who fund these recipients directly. It will encourage tax payers to give more by creating a personal connection with the recipient. There would need to be a third party to confirm the identities of the recipients, but it should eliminate waste by cutting down on overhead.
Penn, I love you and agree with you but I think you should just drop your belief in the virtue of government altogether (including small government) and go all the way into anarcho-capitalism.
The fiscal cost of 'killing people', i.e., [fighting tyrannical regimes & terrorist movements that threaten our country and murder their own women and children], pales in comparison to the overblown domestic spending [approx one tenth], entitlement spending and government largesse. The waste and self-serving political corruption is more destructive and immoral than any overseas campaign, the reasons for which may not be understood by Teller, but they are not arbitrary.
@l1f3l3555 Penn mentioned in this video [@3:30] that Teller stated: "We're using money we don't have to kill people we don't know for reasons we don't understand." I wasn't slamming Teller, just giving a counterpoint to that statement. Obviously, Teller's sentiment is understandable frustration, but my point is that we don't don't go to war for no reason or because we're gung-ho to kill people, and the money spent is a drop in the bucket compared to out of control entitlement spending.
@bighugejake But the great thing about greed is, it is useful. Do you think farmers grow crops out of compassion for people? That farming is THE sole reason they are in that profession? ? Or do you think its because they want to do those things to make them and their families better off? They want to accumulate "things". And by doing so, helps everyone else around them.
How can capitalism not make you weep with joy. To take destructive greed and turn it into good. That is beautiful.
Are you kidding? You really dont know why they say "tax me more" instead of just giving the government their money? It is very simple: They want everyone else who is rich to be taxed more as well. They just think they are being clever by saying that instead of saying "raise taxes on the rich".
they might be holding on to their money for now because they want to make a change. government will always want our money but not all rich people want to pay more for taxes. it feels like they're trying to train the dogs in washington by dangling a few billion treats in front of their faces. it might bring some balance back between the classes.
This has been flagged as spam show
Promotion! Cost 0, but powerful function iphone4.-iphone4 S9SUcn 27go.info
dzinskieoxlmu52R 6 days ago
THANK YOU! Smart words from a smart man!
DevilsProphecy 1 week ago
Why can't we just cut spending? If I can't pay my bills I don't demand a raise at work, and when I don't get it, I don't just get a bunch of new credit cards, I cut from what I don't need.
lemmyh2 2 weeks ago
Penn, stick to magic.
mogem 2 weeks ago
Penn, love ya man, but this side of libertarianism (socially they have the right idea) is on the same lines of objectivism. The whole idea that poor should just "pick themselves up from the bootstraps" or be left to starve and the rich are entitled to all they can swindel is just wrong. These tax rates are from the very rich BUYING OUT POLITICIANS we the people didn't decide they can dodge giving their fair share.
When you support 300 million people, 300 million people are supporting you.
Shwah7 4 weeks ago
I think those guys recognise that thier money wouldn't make a dent. But more tax on ALL the mega rich people WOULD make a difference. It's not about them personally giving more money but the too low taxes on all rich people, which is a problem that is only getting worse.
Demonfridge1 1 month ago in playlist Season 2 3
I don't understand how they are not able to help the poor. They got TONS OF MONEY and they wouldn't even give it to people or at least pay more taxes than the "average" joe. I probably won't understand because I'm not filthy stinkin rich bastard but I mean c'mon. Like... c'mon.. urghh! RICH people makes me sick! Not all of them of course.
WHOnokonohara 1 month ago
You Sir, should be knighted for services to humanity and truth :) Sir * Penn :P lol
* I don't know your first name :P
money = debt. more and more people are realizing this and things have got to change!
And they better change kinda soon it seems, let me put it this way, whats your 5 year plan? lol =)
Pete81no 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is nothing contradictory about accepting a rule that, when applied to everyone, is for the greater good, but refusing to be the only person who follows that rule. He is seeing a contradiction where there isn't one.
mathforphysics 2 months ago
Comment removed
mathforphysics 2 months ago
Penn, despite our disagreements on theological issues, I've always had the world of respect for you... until you said you love Jerry Springer. I still love you, but come on man!!! lol
nmbr1cub 2 months ago
HEY! You leave those rich people alone Penn!
seng576 3 months ago
I think you're missing the point. I agree that ending the wars is important for balancing the budget, but how we get the money and how we spend it are two different issues. When Warren Buffet made the comment that he doesn't get taxed enough, he was applying that to anyone in his social position. He thinks that the rich people don't pay enough. It doesn't matter how the money is spent, because we're always going to have to give the government money and he wnats to make sure it's fair
004forever 4 months ago
The argument that millionaires that are for a higher tax rate should just give their money to the government and stop complaining is just nonsense.
First of all they are not saying that they WANT to be taxed more, they are saying that they see that it's unfair for themselves and other millionaires and billionaires to be taxed so little.
Secondly the fact that a portion of the rich are willing to give more of their money doesn't help if the rest don't pitch in as well.
OiaHandoma 4 months ago
The main reason they want the government to tax them more is that they want all rich people including dicks, not just themselves and other nice people to give a bit more so poor people in worse circumstances and often not there fault pay less tax's, sometimes I guess there's this attitude I'm not going to pay if he's not going to pay, and the fact poor people shouldn't have to try and survive on good people hand outs and niceness as they should have a right to survive, along with other rights.
NorfolkCatKickers 4 months ago
i think it has less to do with the money actually helping the economy or the government and just more to do with everyone paying their fair share. why should the poor need to give up a larger amount of their income than the rich? the poor actually need that money they are losing a lot more than the rich do.
Keldrath 4 months ago
well fucken said bro
starwave1967 4 months ago
rich people gotta eat
shinigami908 4 months ago
pwease somewone send me 0.49 usd by paypal email is dhashannaidoo@ymail.com
qwackable 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can take ALL the money from the top 300 billionaires in America and you still won't have the deficit for this year.
Besides, the government's isn't something you want to trust your money with.
daboodeef179 5 months ago
Comment removed
daboodeef179 5 months ago
When are you running for office. You make more sense than anyone else running on either side.
ssmit80 5 months ago
Comment removed
grasd2 5 months ago
The government is owned by the Military Industrial Complex, which is in the BIG BUSINESS of killing people, using tax dollars to do it...they aren't about to stop, until we stop paying taxes and they don't have the money to kill people...but on the same hand if we don't pay taxes, they will kill us...it's a vicious cycle.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago in playlist More videos from pennpoint
To add to the comment about Warren Buffet's secretary paying more in income tax than him... Probably because Warren Buffet's company has back taxes dating back to 2002. Considering a large portion of his wealth is taxed at 15% since it's in investments, it has very little to do with his taxable income from a salary. If you make over $400,000 you're already going to be paying 40% which is higher, so they're already paying more.
merkabaradio 5 months ago
I agree with a lot of what Pen says.. However, the obvious counter argument is that it would be pointless for a rich person to give more taxes by themselves. But if all rich people were taxed at THE SAME rate as everyone else, it would make a significant difference. But I agree, I would be much more happy to just end all of the wars, including the war on drugs.
RainCityBlues 5 months ago
for once, on a financial subject, i agree with penn
MrZeroTerrorRide 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO MORE WAR
lefty6584 5 months ago
Penn i have a request and question one do u n teller still do bullshit and two if u do can u do an episode on hate groups like kk and neo nazis and stuff, i have a lot where i am and there is alot on this website i go on. Id like to know how they started and stuff and how to gwt them to leave me alone they try to hurt me and stuff cos im half russian and irish. This also makes me wanna ask if u can do a bullshit on street gangs and bullies too if you can
ChuWanggAmes 5 months ago
I think the point that most people are missing is before we even start talking about whether to raise taxes or lower taxes, the first thing that needs to be done is to address the issue of spending. There needs to be a total audit on the U.S. government to determine what tax dollars are going where. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because even the government doesn't know where half the money it takes in is going. Penn's right. Kill the foreign policy spending first. Then take it from there.
jboyko3 5 months ago
Words of wisdom.
Juel92 5 months ago
I like Penn, but some of his arguments are pure shit.
mathforphysics 5 months ago
You do raise a very good point that I had not considered before. Might be because in my country we don't spend nearly as much money on killing people.
Still, I think the reason people want to raise the taxes for those with higher income is because most of these rich people don't want to give their fucking money away. Why would they? It's their fucking money.
Even if there are a lot of generous, rich people out there it's nowhere near enough.
Loliciousfuga 5 months ago
i dont agree with everything you say but you hit this one dead on the nose.....
shair00 5 months ago
Go Penn. You're exacccccttttttlllllllyyyyyyy right.
216trixie 5 months ago
"Cool cool cool shit." Circumcising Africans sure is cool.
OldSchopenhauer 5 months ago
My question is this. Regarding the comment at 4:20 (coincidence I assume) regarding we don't want to do that....
Penn, if you're ready this (prob not, but oh well)
*I* don't want to do that
*YOU* don't want to do that
But after the crowd reaction that Blitzer's question to Ron Paul about "letting them die" (Not RP, the crowd response) or the crowd reaction to Texas' execution numbers (not Perry, the crowd applause), do you honestly think that *WE* (the American people) don't want to do that?
Crickett2814 5 months ago
penns an asshole when it comes to taxes
MrCactopuss 5 months ago
I had read that in Sweden prostitution is legal, however being a john or a pimp is illegal. As a result, prostitutes are better protected against violence, because they're the only person involved in the situation who isn't committing a crime, and so they can feel unafraid to call the police for help at any time.
puellanivis 5 months ago
Perfect. One of your best. Just stop spending the fucking money. If and of the shit people worry about happens then spend money to fix that. Can't wait unitil you no one is entitiled to entiltlements!
falconerx 5 months ago
Thanks for telling me about the ability to give it to government! I was busy a few minutes trying to find out if this was possible (of course it should be). Otherwise quite important to get government to stop wasting money on stupid things but also important that everyone pitches in for the good of the many. Why can't we do both simoultaneously?
Solensherre 5 months ago
hahahahaha WELL SAID MAN, WELL SAID!!!
gougoush 5 months ago
2 rich people giving their money won't make a difference, the tax rate has to be raised to a more reasonable rate (back to pre-bush tax cuts) so everyone pays that extra bit. Otherwise, it won't make a difference.
mangaas 5 months ago
I think they more so are looking for rich people to be taxed more...not just for them to give money...they want THE rich to be taxed, not THEIR riches only
RhetoricalBullshit 5 months ago
Penn
have you done a video on Ron Paul? I would be interested to know if you think he goes too far, just far enough or, should go further.
finerbiner 5 months ago
Excellent rant and commentary! I might not mind paying U.S. taxes as much if it wasn't managed and spent by the intrusive, hypocrtical, and corrupt Theopublicans and Demosocialists.
snarlygroonyoan 5 months ago
i wouldnt trust the US Government with my money.
they keep screwing people over and over.
colony665 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012... you can mark this as spam....xddd
germanofrivia 5 months ago
clinton and bush lovers how about fannie mae In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families."For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" nad clinton did the same too, "WORKED PRETTY WELL"
germanofrivia 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral... You cannot know the total money that one has and in what form... buffett pays less than his secretary because of his accountants... and he's happy with it... he'll keep doing that no matter what change in law you pass... Penn does magic trick, buffett does accounting tricks... "charity" is also a way to evade taxes... a Flat tax should solve many problems and also i'm with the "Privatization of the military". Dounds crazy but i bet my life it will wolr better than now.
germanofrivia 5 months ago
Warren Buffett needs to learn that he can spend his money better on good things than someone else can spend it. Why is that an alien concept to well off liberal people? Less taxation of these peeps means more money being spent on liberal causes, doesn't it? Seriously, become the change you wanna see in the world, don't defer that responsibility to someone else.
Chrisrayholly 5 months ago
People need to adjust their perspective on relative wealth. The guy with the new car, who owns his own house and has a membership of a chic golf-club is not a member of the 'rich'. The guy owns a block of flats, has a second-home in the Toscana and maybe 30ft motor-boat on the Keys is not 'rich'. Wealth functions exponentially and the top few percent of 'rich' people posess nearly all of the liquid and asset wealth on this planet, but they pay no more tax than massed peons below them.
Original50 5 months ago
great video, great points, thanks!.
HuxleyWasRight 5 months ago
Just one more thing. According to Penn's philosophy, the government should not ban bogus medical treatments because the free market will just take care of it on its own. But as Penn full well knows, the lack of efficacy for a alleged medical treatment does not stop people from convincing themselves that bogus treatment do work. So the inevitable result is millions being destroyed by evil while society does nothing sufficient to stop it. Is that what libertarian heaven looks like?
mjr256 5 months ago
It's sad to see such an otherwise great skeptic like Penn make such obvious logical fallacies like a red herring & false dichotomy. It isn't a choice btw providing for the less fortunate & war spending. If such a vote existed, I'd surely vote for the former, but that's not an option. These are 2 entirely different issues being disingenuously thrown together in a misguided attempt to garner some kind of sympathy for the super-rich, who regularly buy our public officials. Poor you!
cont'd
mjr256 5 months ago
cont'd
It must be a real burden being asked to pay more than a smaller percentage of your income than people making a fraction of a fraction of what you make. But I'm forced to wonder what Penn would think if faced w/ Rawls' veil of ignorance. Would he still be content to just assume the invisible hand of the libertarian god will make everything right or would he prefer we didn't just leave it up to faith. Libertarians continue to make the mistake of assuming people will make rational choices.
mjr256 5 months ago
Penn: I think you're missing the point. We all agree that alot of money is used on evil and bla bla bla.
But the point here is that rich people get away more easily than "normal" people. Heck its not even flat tax rates, its even worse than that.
As Buffet fameously said, his secretary pays more of her income in tax than he does! Is that right?
What the money is used for is irrelevant to the point he makes.
TheSaltyAdmiral 5 months ago 29
@TheSaltyAdmiral
Flat tax rates????
What planet do you live on
Assaultpredator 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral
youtube dot com/watch?v=FLmD9TeUC54
peter schiff is a boss
Assaultpredator 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral The other point Penn is missing is that Warren Buffet is advocating that taxes be increased for ALL wealthy people. As rich as he and Springer and Gates are, their combined incomes don't make much of a dent in the revenue that is needed. We need to get more tax revenue from the top 10% because their ability to dodge those taxes just means that revenue is unfairly taken from the bottom 90%.
GodlessAndHappy1 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral Buffet gets a salary
TheKillaComa 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral Read the AP fact check on those claims.
thereverend999 5 months ago in playlist Videos from pennpoint
@TheSaltyAdmiral Read the AP fact check on those claims.
thereverend999 5 months ago in playlist Videos from pennpoint
@TheSaltyAdmiral But it turned out he actually does pay more taxes than his secretary, so the entire point is based on a fictitious, bullshit statement. Which makes it just a rich guy saying something stupid, and you repeating it as gospel.
TheRealAkaRai 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral Absolutely, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxas than the middle class and poor do. Whats crazy is that the "right" actually has the middle class and poor believing that to tax the rich more than they currently do would somehow be criminal and would be the beginning of this country's descent into some socialist communist state. I don't get why people buy that BS. The rich pay far less in taxes than they have at any point in this country's history.
GoongalaGoongala 5 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral What the money is spent for is TOTALLY relevant to what he's saying.
If we have multiple problems of bad spending, wealth inequality, you don't try to solve one problem by inflating the other. Thats idiotic!
What the heck is wrong with dropping everyone elses taxes lower to be "more in line with the rich". And demand Washington to stop spending crazy.
sirellyn 4 months ago
I do not watch Penn Point because i agree with all of penn's points. I watch because he does make many good points and cuts through the bull. Great vid!
fakebrake 5 months ago
Am I the only one who watches penn point with massive ass headphones just so i can listen to the badass background music?
Philhouse88 5 months ago
Comment removed
mct685 5 months ago
I've always wondered whether the "tax me more" people take tax deductions/refunds...
Also, I just don't see why someone should have to pay a larger portion of their income just because they make more money. It just doesn't seem right.
tybo09 5 months ago
Warren Buffet's comments aren't about him wanting to "give more". His comments are about how our progressive tax system is ridiculously unfair and favors the rich in every conceivable sense. That's why he continues to point out that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does despite him having several FACTORS OF MAGNITUDE greater wealth than them. Its assbackwards. Ignoring this very important point by Warren Buffet seems like a Libertarian talking point.
Russlem 5 months ago
Sorry, do not agree! It's not about doing spending the money. The more rich people pay the less poor have to.
I think most rich people deserve their wealth. They really work hard for their money. But so do most poor. If you raise taxes for the rich, you can lower it for the poor and make it easier for them.
And to get to the war argument: The more poor (and uneducated) your people have, the more you can control them by war acts, fear mongering and Tea-Party-Fascist-Idiology.
hondo190 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
chaosqueued 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
chaosqueued 5 months ago
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
chaosqueued 5 months ago
@chaosqueued Stopping taxation isn't the goal. You can't run a country on no taxes, period. Stopping wars will allow that massive % of our taxes to go back into our economy in the form of public services, including health care and education.
Gafaton 5 months ago
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
chaosqueued 5 months ago
A breath of sanity! *First* stop the wars and the oppression at home (on this nearly everyone agrees, except the corporate shills in Washington) *then* we can have our debate about the proper size of the welfare state. (And don't get me wrong, I'll vehemently oppose you on that second thing.)
However, I think Penn is overoptimistic about balancing the budget purely from stopping the war on drugs and the wars on brown people.
AlephNeil 5 months ago
You don't depend on me, neither I do on you, there are options... like starving, if we cooperate it's simple for "interest", wichever that will be is interest. Voluntary association... we value the human being. I don't take from society, I trade with it.
Buffett can suck my ridges...
germanofrivia 5 months ago
@SMDoktorPepper The reason you could get a job so easy in the past it's because there was "liquidity" in the system... why? beacause the employer was able to choose their needs, you were in your job because of merit or something that your employer valued... it sounds crazy and greedy but it worked much better than today with all the faults that were was way better... for most people... the middle men... now there's no liquidity even for a job scrubbing toilets.
germanofrivia 5 months ago
I just wanted to say that I love that Teller quote...
TombLara 5 months ago 14
The problem is that charity is not a reliable system. It's a good backup, but it can never be the entire spine. So let's be real about this, military spending will never go away entirely. Cutting all the strings to Iraq and Afghanistan will not be enough. You'll have to deminish the military spending AND tax the rich more in order to get our of this.
bleunt 5 months ago
Oh and by the way, regarding Penn's point here, these gov't beaurocrats are not the sharpest toils in the shed. Think of it this way, your local DMV worker - that's a beaurocrat. Do you think they are smart enough to efficiently handle the needs of such a large population? Perhaps more importantly, do you think they give two s**ts. Don't buy the liberal malarkey that go'vt employees are saints. They're just avg people working to put food on the table and they don't give a d-m about you like dmv.
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander What makes you think the employee of a private company with the power of giving you permission to drive on the road would be any less of a moron? How are your experiences with people at your private insurance you have to convince to pay for a medical procedure...?
The difference between a public department, funded by democratically elected representatives, and one that's beholden to shareholder interest only is, at least you have a right to a redress of grievances in the former.
OolTube02 5 months ago
@OolTube02 The difference between the 'moron' (your word not mine- I was calling public workers disinterested not morons) at the private company and the beaurocrat is twofold. First, the private employee can be easily fired if they do an unsatisfactory job. If they do a great job and are extra industrious then they may be promoted; thus they are self interested in doing a good job as quickly and efficiently as possible. The beaurocrat has no self interest other than to not screw....continued...
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander ...up so badly that they be fired (which even than would be very difficult - which brings me to the next difference). You seem to think that you can throw out public employees if they screw up; you cannot. We vote for candidates not for beaurocrats. Beaurocrats are appointed; they last through multiple administrations and are harder to fire than tenured teachers. They have no self interest in doing a good job or trying to be more efficient with other peoples (our) money...continued-
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander One quick example. Here's an observational experiment that anyone can do that will prove my point. Walk through your neighborhood/town/city.. and notice when the gov't is starting to build or renovate a building (maybe a library or a school etc.) then look for a private building project going on at the same time. I've done this little experiment multiple times here in brooklyn. The gov't employees have been building the same library for over 5 years, at the same time...continued...
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander ...at the same time many private apartment or office buildings have gone up by private workers (for a building about the same size as the still unfinished library - it takes about 4 to 6 months, as opposed to five yrs). Now why is this? I'm sure that the gov't workers are just as capable as those building the office buildings; the difference is that the private company would not stand for such a waste of money instead of 6 months -the gov't will cause it's not their money its yours
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander Aren't those private office buildings that went up so fast the same ones in which garbage mortgages were bundled, sold off, and shorted and naked credit default swaps were gambled? I'm just saying, those private companies seem to be efficient at both booming and fucking you over.
Maybe if conservatives hadn't given away tax revenues to billionaire cronies those libraries would be built faster. It is private contractors who build buildings, after all -- even for the government...
OolTube02 5 months ago
@OolTube02 I'm not an apologist of corporations or one of those rara republicans that defends business no matter what. Corporations are just people some are a**holes and most care more about money than helping people. that being said, the gov't encouraged those garbage mortgages (because socialists believe everyone must own a home) and also backed them up with FANNIE and FREDDIE; they also bailed the banks out with your money. They should have been allowed to fail and go bankrupt...continued...
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander It wasn't "socialists" who thought home ownership was essential to the American Dream. The "Ownership Society" was a conservative idea. You notice how the conservative bubbles are all about oil drilling and suburban housing while the progressive bubbles are about alternative energies and the Internet? Given a choice between conservative and progressive skewing of the market I'll take the progressives. Even after losing money, at least I live in a world with Google and Amazon...
OolTube02 5 months ago
@OolTube02 Ownership society means that people work for it and pay for it with their own money, not that they get a house with no money down when they clearly can't afford that house over time. The housing bubble was created by progressives - look up 'Community Re-investment Act'. The private industry only took advantage of the gov'ts position. Google and Amazon are private companies; their success and efficiency reflects the fact that private entities work better than gov't ones.
7Highlander 5 months ago
@OolTube02 If we drilled for oil, coal, coal fracking, natural gas, we would be enrgy independant and you would be paying a fraction of what you pay for gas, electricity and everything we buy (since gas and energy prices are factored into and effect the price of everything). It's the progresssives who want to control the crucial aspects of your life. the fact that a republican doesn't believe in evolution will not effect your life at all. A democrats beliefs about global warming will impoverish.
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander No, not facing up to the fact that you're burning in two hundred years through what it took nature a few million years to deposit is what's going to impoverish you eventually. And not realizing that the Sun shines two billion times more energy into deep space than on Earth. The real mother-lode isn't in the ground.
You see, conservatism is all about hanging on to the old ways even in the face of changing conditions. Progressivism is about figuring out new ways of doing things.
OolTube02 5 months ago
@OolTube02 ...Both republican and Democrat Presidents bailed them out instead of letting them lose all their money as a result of their gambles (which is the true free market way it should go) because it was not their money that they were using for the bailouts; which brings us back to the real point, which is that government aren't as efficient and are wasteful of money compared to the private sector. BTW all of the last and current adminisatrations' advisors are from the big banks...continued-
7Highlander 5 months ago
@OolTube02 so don't go assuming that anyone in the gov't is looking out for you. The Democrat politicians are just as rich as the republicans (there is nothing wrong with this, I'm just pointing out that when it comes to certain things - like caring about you - they're the same), they are advised by the same industry money people as the republicans...btw the construction is not a funding issue; it just takes longer for gov't agencies to do anything than the private sector and they use more money
7Highlander 5 months ago
@OolTube02 look, god bless you; I have nothing against you. I don't care that we have different opinions. Just some useful advice - Don't ever believe that some politician(s) has'have your back or care about you anymore than anyone in the private sector does. You and your family's welfare is your responsibility and if you are counting on the gov't for anything then just look at where that got the people of New Orleans btw there are still homeless and there are still empty FEMA trailers.
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander Dude, I live in Germany. I have no complaints about government regulated universal health insurance and social safety nets. I work out. I eat right. I watch my blood pressure. But I'm also glad that I don't have to jump through hoops for medical procedures -- particularly the preventative kind, before they have to defibrillate me in an ambulance. I used to hate this continent because of the lingual confusion, but right now I'm truly glad I don't have Americans' problems...
OolTube02 5 months ago
@OolTube02 You're definitely right about Preventive Medicine. The FDA (U.S gov't) isn't much of a help their either, but that's a long topic. BTW you German should stop throwing your money away down the toilet. Greece, Italy...they'll go down and they'll hurt you too if you don't abandon them. If Germany returned to the mark it would be e very strong currency. The Euro is gonna fail anyhow, your gov't is just making it so that you'll go down with the ship when you don't have to....continued...
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander And you should have let the South secede and you'd be better off today. Or maybe not. Keeping Europe together is an economy of scale strategy, necessary in order to compete with the US and China. It's going to require horizontal financial equalization. The same way that some US states receive more revenue than they generate this will have to be accepted for some EU countries as well. If we don't do that we'll be as screwed as you guys are, facing the Great Depression 2.0...
OolTube02 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7Highlander And you should have let the South secede and you'd be better off today. Or maybe not. Keeping Europe together is an economy of scale strategy, necessary in order to compete with the US and China. It's going to require horizontal financial equalization. The same way that some US states receive more revenue than they generate this will have to be accepted for some EU countries as well. If we don't do that we'll be as screwed as you guys are, facing the Great Depression 2.0...
OolTube02 5 months ago
germany's only problem is low birth rate. If you abandon the sinking Euro and just have more children you will be stronger than the EU could ever be. Anyways, I wish you guys in Germany luck; i feel that you shouldn't be paying for someone elses mess, but wahtever, I think I'll retire from this computer; all the best; and if I were you I'd ditch my Euros and buy Gold, Silver, or Dollars (which will skyrocket when the Euro fails and other economies like china are impacted).
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander The whole point of demand-side economy is about paying for other people's messes so you don't lose them as customers. If you're the country with the trade surplus the dumbest thing you could do is impoverish your neighbors. What you're suggesting would be the worst strategy of self-sabotage we could commit to. We'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
Some Germans are actually crazy enough to think the way you do. I hope they don't get their way...
OolTube02 5 months ago
@7Highlander Listen, if the DMV were privatized the first thing that would happen is that the private company, realizing it has people at their mercy to allow them and their vehicles on the roads, would start charging clients frontal and hind appendages for it. Then, as they complain and need further bureaucratic services, "doing a good job" for the DMV employee would be to make them as inaccessible or as costly as possible.
Haven't private health insurances taught you anything...?
OolTube02 5 months ago
..They use all the loopholes and tricks so that they pay virtually nothing while at the same time talking smack about rich people with the media not saying a word. In reality, almost all of the really rich do not get their money from income, but rather from wealth creation. They can always move their money and make sure it isn't taxed. At the end of the day, if taxes are raised it will be the middle class and upper mc that foots the bill while rich like Pelosi have the money safe in Trusts....
7Highlander 5 months ago
The following are Net Worths of just a handful or so Democrat Senators - Kerry = 193 million, Blumenthal = 53 million, Warner = 76m, Rockefeller = 81m, Many congressspeople such as pelosi (35m), Feinstein (45m), and Boxer are also married to people with close to 200m. Now, ask yourselves the following question: Do you really think all the rich people in congress are going to tax all their money away? Of course not. In fact, if you look at how much taxes they pay it's very little...continued...
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander No one's talking about taxing all their money away. Calm down.
bleunt 5 months ago
@bleunt hey bleunt; I was probably not being clear enough. I guess I sound angry in those comments, which I'm not at all un-calm. My point was simply that the people you think are going to tax the rich (democratic congress-people) are in fact themselves super - rich. So what you have to ask your self is do you really think the politician cares more about you than their-self or their family? In other words, do you thunk they'll tax themselves and other super - rich, without putting in loopholes.
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander My other point (again, comments were probably not clear) was that since the super rich can always get out of taxes, therefore the only thing that ends up happening in reality when taxes are raised is that the ones who pay are the middle class and upper middle class. But, the ones who are most hurt are the poor. Because when taxes are raised on the little grocery store down the block, guess what - the poor pay more for groceries. High taxes = Poor suffering and middle class paying.
7Highlander 5 months ago
@7Highlander Many of them, yeah. Not all. It worked OK under Clinton. Well enough. But this is why politicians should have their income capped at a certain amount. And they should not be able to take any donations from companies. Too bad the citizens united fucked that over.
bleunt 5 months ago
Military spending = 4.7% of GDP, social programs spending 8.8%. Even if you dismantled our armed forced completely, it wouldn't touch what's needed. I do agree that the time for the wars is over, they served their function years ago.
justincase80634 5 months ago
I am stunned to hear Penn saying what he said about Jerry Springer! I assumed he was evil and stupid like his show. It is true: money makes good smart people do unimaginably evil and stupid things. How does he sleep at night?
papalosopher 5 months ago
I'd reason that Buffet hasn't handed his money to the government because it's not about a wedge of cash, it's about a system of sustainability.
If taxes are raised on people like him, then it's won't be about the charity of Buffet, it'll be about billionaires paying into the system that has given them so much.
I agree with you about the wars and the potheads in prison though: it's asinine.
fakeadam19 5 months ago
Its a rare time that I kind of disagree. The fact that now 15% of us are now living under the poverty line while the super rich are raking in even more of the wealth, something like 95% of it currently, is more than a little obscene. In this country you used to be able to make something of yourself. Now we are scrabbling for crumbs cause the uber rich have taken just about everything and are checking out whatever is left. They are smart about it and turn everyone against each other but still
SMDoktorPepper 5 months ago
Bochmann and Palin are like the Moron twins
stompySharpNpointy 5 months ago
Comment removed
stompySharpNpointy 5 months ago
I have no idea what you're trying to say besides dont spend money on killing people. It's so shallow I don't even know what to say.
fishblades 5 months ago
Is the episode of Joy Behar with Penn and Jerry Springer online anywhere? I missed it and would like to watch it.
mrplow8 5 months ago
Taxes, in the USA, are a socialist construct. They are part of the USA's social contract. Taxes are never the problem, they are always a solution. The problem is funding entitlements from that social contract. We necessarily delegate how tax dollars are spent by voting. If you do not like how those dollars are being spent you have choices. Terminate your social contract and leave the USA, voice your opinion, petition for a new delegate. Raising taxes for the sake of such is not in the contract.
Dejoblue 5 months ago
another great one from Penn!
pstreiner 5 months ago
I hate Michelle Bachmann with a burning passion.
AtheistBuckeye 5 months ago
or you could save money by sending prisoners overseas and have them do the killing for free. two civilian-casualties with one stone.
MrPanzermaus 5 months ago
This is a better point than asking why someone like me doesn't give more. It's truly surprising that Penn admits he cares much less about something than healthcare than "defense." I know he's a peace nick and all, but the fact that he admits he cares less about tax money being used for socialism is refreshing. I agree completely.
quaternio 5 months ago
I don't think the government has a donate box. If you overpay your taxes, they will give it back.
Elmoogle 5 months ago
@Elmoogle Nope, the US Treasury takes donations.
ladyattis 5 months ago
This was the best Penn Point in a long time.
Bigdadda20 5 months ago
Prostitution is an innocent crime? What about...well how about....try telling that to...THINK OF THE CHILDREN OH WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN??? xDD
spideyjiri 5 months ago
@spideyjiri You haven't seen some of the johns...
OolTube02 5 months ago
It's good if the government spends it on bullshit. 10 more seasons!
Clausfarre 5 months ago 13
lol, Penn sounded a little like Hayek in this one...
by the way Buffett sells treasuries, betting the fall of the Us dollar, that's in part of why, i don't think is much more that self-interest like all of us, the difference is he values the end not the means. We value the human being and his effort to conquer and own.
@MrCactopuss Do you really think Buffett is between the top 10 or 20 richest man in the wolrd? seriously? they are more celebrity billionares, like justin beaver musician...
germanofrivia 5 months ago
Warren Buffet lives among a rarefied group of people, and I think a lot of his motivation is about one-upping the members of his super rich clique.
Warren Buffet is disguising his socially magnaminous motives, which are actually driven by his ego.
ZombiedustXXX 5 months ago
@ZombiedustXXX And the outcome is...?
Md2802 5 months ago
why? well cause jerry warren and seth are not enough to solve the problem
anteracmacash 5 months ago
@anteracmacash All the money in the world isn't enough to solve the problem. The problem is debt, but politicians want to spend their way out of this debt. We shouldn't increase the taxes of the rich just so that the government can waste even more money. If the government didn't have so many bullshit programs, then we would be more confident that the tax dollars were being used to get us out of debt.
In short, tax for getting out of debt, fair. Tax to pay for entitlements, inefficient.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 hold up hold up...are you actually thinking that there is any way of giving the government a conciseness ??
anteracmacash 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 we are looking for the ideal solution not the perfect one...
anteracmacash 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 Yes, let's all return to the times before Social Security and Medicare, when some retirees without personal savings were found to be living in chicken coops. If Truman, Eisenhower, et al.. had followed that insane economics book of yours they would have been back in those conditions by the Fifties, I'm sure.
OolTube02 5 months ago
@OolTube02 Stop talking to me. You didn't read the book. You didn't read the first few pages. You have no idea what it's about, stop assuming.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 Ya just ignore him. He's a socialist tool who has no clue about morality or ethics. He would rather violently impose his own will on others, rather than letting people be free.
SquashDog01 5 months ago
@SquashDog01 Yeah, you're right. I suggested he read Economics in One Lesson and he claimed he read the first few pages (he obviously didn't). He replied:
"The idea that under some circumstances if government doesn't create demand no one will doesn't even seem to occur to him."
There's just no debating someone who doesn't even understand what demand is.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 Demand is need and ability to pay. If one doesn't exist demand dries up. Government social spending can increase demand by shifting the ability to pay from those who do not need to those who need. That happens by taxing or inflation.
I think Hazlitt misunderstood Keynes's famous "in the long run we're all dead." It isn't meant to mean, "après moi le déluge," but, "it doesn't matter how much the abundance of next summer makes up for this harsh winter if we don't survive the winter."
OolTube02 5 months ago
@NoNameC68 Of course I did. The problem is, the guy thinks he has the key to finding long-term economic stability and prosperity at the expense of short term pain. But it turns out that it was actually the short term fixes that led to long-term stability after WWII, whereas the austerity and the reparations after WWI led to a Great Depression and another war. So in hindsight that guy was dead wrong.
The Dark Ages were all about short term sacrifice for long term happiness in Heaven...
OolTube02 5 months ago
@Kronnikx With Paul's ideasthough the federal government looses its minimum wage and support for the poor but the state governments are there to pick up any tab. Plus lower wages are kosher if the cost of goods and services decrease through less to no taxes. I agree a corporate run America is an awful scenerio but it seems we're already living in that. As far as religion goes I'd doubt Bachman, Romney, or Perry are gonna be any less extreme as Paul.
Thank you for responding with reason.
TortureKiller63701 5 months ago
Tax the poor. There are more of them!
FaganRoberts 5 months ago
good point penn.
CraigRattleHead 5 months ago 3
@CraigRattleHead good Pennpoint!
Fibah 5 months ago
I love Penn but this rant makes no sense at all.
how much the government spends on weapons, arresting potheads or whatever you don't like has zero to do with how much the super rich should be taxed.
yuppysoul 5 months ago
@yuppysoul It has everything to do with how the rich is be taxed, no, scratch that, how everyone is taxed. People who pay taxes are giving their money to the government so the government can spend it on things that the people may not support. I work so many hours for x amount of money, then the government takes a portion and uses MY EARNINGS to pay for things I would never support such as the war on drugs.
This is why people don't want to pay more in taxes, because the gov. abuses them.
NoNameC68 5 months ago
@NoNameC68
Not really a good argument. Maybe I don't want to pay for x, y or z. so what? your argument is against tax full stop, not against taxing the rich.
If you don't want a War on Drugs, don't vote for idiots who support it, do what you can to get rid of it, but don't tell me that has anything to do with how much tax the super rich should be paying.
Bottom line: Penn has a huge blind spot for anything that involves the government.
yuppysoul 5 months ago
Penn, you are too smart to think that advocating a tax raise on the super rich and giving more of your personal wealth are even similar. Stop it.
The last 30 years has seen the top 400 people in this country go from being super rich to being gods of money. This while the mass of American's have lost net worth.
A pragmatic(no idealogy or political dogma) conversation about how to stop this needs to take place.
finerbiner 5 months ago
I've had an idea to improve the tax/welfare system. Create an online social network featuring all recipients of entitlements, individuals and organizations. Give tax credits to individuals who fund these recipients directly. It will encourage tax payers to give more by creating a personal connection with the recipient. There would need to be a third party to confirm the identities of the recipients, but it should eliminate waste by cutting down on overhead.
RaySquirrel 5 months ago
Penn, I love you and agree with you but I think you should just drop your belief in the virtue of government altogether (including small government) and go all the way into anarcho-capitalism.
Deathinmusic 5 months ago
Fantastic.
evilsceptic 5 months ago
The fiscal cost of 'killing people', i.e., [fighting tyrannical regimes & terrorist movements that threaten our country and murder their own women and children], pales in comparison to the overblown domestic spending [approx one tenth], entitlement spending and government largesse. The waste and self-serving political corruption is more destructive and immoral than any overseas campaign, the reasons for which may not be understood by Teller, but they are not arbitrary.
HayPennie 5 months ago
@HayPennie how did Teller get brought into this discussion?
l1f3l3555 5 months ago
@l1f3l3555 Penn mentioned in this video [@3:30] that Teller stated: "We're using money we don't have to kill people we don't know for reasons we don't understand." I wasn't slamming Teller, just giving a counterpoint to that statement. Obviously, Teller's sentiment is understandable frustration, but my point is that we don't don't go to war for no reason or because we're gung-ho to kill people, and the money spent is a drop in the bucket compared to out of control entitlement spending.
HayPennie 5 months ago
They should tax the same percent of everyone's income, sure the rich have more money but they worked to get there, nobody starts there...
They dont need to force the rich to pay more, if the rich feel like doing it, then do it.
Look at Bill Gates, he donates millions...
PinataFreaks 5 months ago
Been reading your book man. Just a few chapters in, pretty fantastic read so far. I look forward to finish it.
richycline 5 months ago
I read recently that the Afghan war has now cost the US 4x more than the entire Apollo program....we could have been on Mars by now.
Venator70 5 months ago
They don't give it to the government because they need to be induced to. Human greed is too strong a feeling.
bighugejake 5 months ago
@bighugejake But the great thing about greed is, it is useful. Do you think farmers grow crops out of compassion for people? That farming is THE sole reason they are in that profession? ? Or do you think its because they want to do those things to make them and their families better off? They want to accumulate "things". And by doing so, helps everyone else around them.
How can capitalism not make you weep with joy. To take destructive greed and turn it into good. That is beautiful.
SquashDog01 5 months ago
Are you kidding? You really dont know why they say "tax me more" instead of just giving the government their money? It is very simple: They want everyone else who is rich to be taxed more as well. They just think they are being clever by saying that instead of saying "raise taxes on the rich".
And both are stupid.
ASnakeintheGrass 5 months ago
they might be holding on to their money for now because they want to make a change. government will always want our money but not all rich people want to pay more for taxes. it feels like they're trying to train the dogs in washington by dangling a few billion treats in front of their faces. it might bring some balance back between the classes.
dboy11368 5 months ago