this guy is such a fucking hypocrite.... its ridiculous... he voted for obama... we all know that what the fuck is he talking about... "Oh i do have liberal friends out there" lmao ALL YOUR FRIENDS ARE PREDOMINATELY LIB'S JACKASS...instead of raising tax's why dont you just give all your money away...its more effective.. if they tax us then they take that money and shuffle it around and give it to other countries....FUCK YOU FAGGETS! I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON OBAMAS DICK, CUM CUZZLING PONY TAIL BITCH
The self-employed person pays a flat 27% tax in the U.S. Then social security and medicare on top, adding a further 13.3% ( reduced from 15.2%, IIRC, in 2011 ).
So ~40% for the person making their own way.
In European countries you may pay 55-60%, however you actually get something for your money. Health care is the biggest winner. And education + living expenses.
Add together your costs in the U.S. we pay MUCH MUCH more for what we get here in the end. And have-nots ... simply have-not.
you know it's a shame that you can't make it through your otherwise brilliant commentaries without being obscene. would pass them on to more people were that not the case.
@1archer1 Obscenity is a strange subjective social construct. It's a shame people are offended by a sound that merely represents an idea they've unquestioningly been told was "bad". Is "freaking" less offensive than "fucking", or "crap" less offensive than "shit"? Why? They represent the same idea. The whole concept is merely an illusion.
@DevonWhorton@DevonWhorton it is simply a stupid way of speaking. injecting meaningless references to sex acts, and things scatological into speech and writing is a lazy, immature way of communicating, and evidences emotional development stuck in adolescence
most people--albeit fewer lately, largely i think due to these internets--in the process of maturing, at some point listen to themselves and realize how ridiculous their speech, formed in adolescence, is
@1archer1 That sounds rather arrogant. Perhaps it is a sign of immaturity to not recognize these things as something which has been pounded into your brain by a PC society as being immature. Perhaps it is lazy to act like sheep and not think outside your insulated box.
You should check out the episode of Penn & Tellers Bullshit about swearing.
Do you ever point your finger back at yourself, or do you always continue on the path someone else sent you on?
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
the thing is over there when they are taxed? the money gets put into use ... when we're taxed over here the money is put into stupid pet projects like war ....
But Penn, the logical conclusion of your libertarian philosophy is precisely a gang rape state. Law enforcement is a function of some form of govt, as they say, by definition.
There are many other examples where maximizing freedom can have other, perhaps unintended, negative consequences for many people. (Medical bankruptcy is a trendy example.)
I agree that for those at the top, more freedom is always better. I heard someone call this the hooray for me, the hell with you philosophy.
@lds8714 it sounds more like anarchy that you are describing.is penn an anarchist?if there was no gov't you wouldn't have a gang rape state because people would then have no choice but to protect themselves to prevent being raped.you try to rape me,I blow your brains out.which is the way it should be.I am no anarchist however.just believe in freedom and personal responsibility.
@lds8714 To hypothesize about a country with no centralized government is quite different than assuming a completely nihilistic "Mad Max" sort of scenario. A society can still maintain a culture that respects a general "do-no-harm" common law without requiring an unaccountable legislature (like we currently have, despite the illusion of democracy). Police forces, judicial mediation, and penal systems could still exist privately, rather than publicly.
why do ppl get so fired up about federal taxation when they raise it less than 1% yet state contributions and property tax remains incredibly high and these taxes disadvantage young ppl and first time home buyers.
I think if you look deep into the taxes that are imposed on you, you'll find that the forces behind them are morally appalling. Did you know that income tax was created around 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. And SS was as well. Both the SS and the Income tax go directly to pay off interest accrued by the Government for borrowing our own money from a private bank. So the income tax and SS basically go to pay the interest off to a bank. Its a great big ponzi scheme.
because when events like oh I don't know bush jr declares war on Iraq for no other real reason then my daddy did it. waste trillions upon trillions of dollars on haliburten or however the hell you spell it. and reports of all sorts of fuck ups that we continuously and endlessly poor money into and then the same people turn around and say well lets have the people pay for by raising their taxes.... is completely dif then the city saying look we need x amount of money to run we can't borrow money
@karn33333 I'll elaborate. You said we have "NO CHOICE" (emphasis added). However, if there are states that can operate with NO INCOME TAX at all, just slightly higher sales tax, that proves there are indeed alternatives, ie CHOICES. I'm no economist, but I'll bet a few extra percent of sales tax doesn't make up the difference from zero income tax. Yet they still operate. Some places have local surtaxes, but that's not the STATE. Better to keep the money local, when possible.
@rmcdaniel423 no it doesn't you still raised taxes all you are arguing well some are raising DIFFERENT taxes, your argument has failed. the bottom line is they raised taxes. it doesn't matter one bit if they raise state tax or sales tax they still raised taxes. also raising fees is just an other kind of tax. so to address your question head on and absolutely directly no, it doesn't mean there are alternatives. you are splitting the same cunt hair and calling one strand a different strand.
@karn33333 Your point is true. I accept that, but only so far as it maintains the false assumption that the role of the state and it's consequent spending has to remain the same. It doesn't. There is ALWAYS the choice of smaller government, less taxes, etc. A choice that American politicians and voters seem loathe to consider in any meaningful way. That is the point I was apparently failing to make.
@rmcdaniel423 you are still putting words in my mouth. I never made nor implied any kind of assumption especially not that. given the situation and given circumstances there was only one option. that was to raise taxes. there isn't a choice of smaller government not on the national level the party who advocates a smaller government (the republicans) made the largest national government of American history and wrote it into law those laws can not be changed for the time being.
@karn33333 "there isn't a choice of smaller government" you said. Thanks for supporting the assumption I mentioned, about maintaining status quo.
Republicans as "the party of smaller gov't" is a straw man. Easy to knock down, as you are well aware. I am a Libertarian minarchist, bordering on anarchocapitalism, so my views are very much outside the mainstream.
BTW, I'm not here to win arguments or prove someone else's "fail", so let's relax. I just like making points and discussing things.
@rmcdaniel423 that is only mart of my quote and there for is a straw mans argument for misrepresenting my point. IT IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION. it is LAW. YOU HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE LAW PERMITS IT TO BE CHANGED. also if you are talking about fiscal responsibility, to make a smaller government would waste a lot MORE MONEY trying to do away with a larger government.
as for your claims of my "strawmans argument" if you knew what you were talking about then you would know it isn't a straw man its the
@rmcdaniel423 political platform of the republican party since Andrew Jackson. it isn't a knock down at all. its a simple fact that the republican party preaches about smaller government. they believe a smaller government is more beneficial then a larger overbearing one. whether its better or not is up to debate but in no way is that a "knock". it doesn't matter if your views are inside or outside of mainstream or not, it doesn't change that the things you are typing are completely incorrect.
@rmcdaniel423 yes you are here to win an argument. other wise you wouldn't be so desperate to try and find flaws in my arguments that don't exist, and why you constantly provide misinformation to win and make a point. the only one here who needs to relax is you. my thief metaphor? no I already covered the other legal realistic and non realistic options available. if there is another option you have failed to provide it. "IT" hasnt provided anything. YOU have made assertions you haven't backed up
@rmcdaniel423 I don't have cunt hairs and it was you who was splitting them. no you made your point quite clear its just plain wrong. I don't mean this in an arrogant way or an insulting way but it is flat out wrong. or rather it is more accurate to say that they are choices but not real choices. you have to consider what happens at the end of the day not the here and now.
@rmcdaniel423 lets say you can make a choice to rob a gas station or not. if the only weapon you have is a knife and they are behind a bullet proof glass with no entry doors. you may have the "choice" to rob it but you lack the capability to actually rob the place.... so really it isn't really a choice or an option to rob that gas station. and before you tell me that my example is just silly I am going to point out now that that actually happened in real life and was on the real news.
@karn33333 Your thief metaphor makes a utilitarian point, but it's sadly defeatist and ignores other options. It presents us with 2 scenarios. Either democracy works, and therefore 3rd party small gov't options are in fact a "choice" that still remains (though sadly neglected and ineffectual). Or democracy doesn't work, which means our most ethical choice is to scrap the whole system and start over with something new (a choice in itself).
@rm now you are trying to confuse the issue of democracy which is a system of government with capitalism which system of economics and has nothing to do with democracy. you haven't made a point you have only made an assertion and you haven't provided any real options or "choices" which can realistically be implemented. oh I take that back you did say we could raise sales tax instead of oh wait again THAT'S STILL RAISING TAXES! lmao really are you this bad at logic or are you just messin with me?
@karn33333 And by the way, back to my much earlier comment about states that have slightly higher sales tax, but no income tax. . . do a little math you arrogant prick. (deliberate ad hom) To raise taxes by 2-3% on purely voluntary purchases, while simultaneously eliminating mandatory tax on ALL INCOME yields a net DECREASE in taxes. Despite my facetious concession speech, I still hold that options always remain, whether we pursue them or not. To disagree is to be a willing slave.
@rmcdaniel423 no to disagree with you is to not be a fucking moron. just saying there are options doesnt mean there are option. just saying something doesn't make it so. and sorry but raising sales tax doesn't mean its completely voluntary. people need resources in order to survive. putting on higher sales tax doesn't mean its completely voluntary. like I said before there is a huge difference between options and real options. you haven't offered any real options different from what I said.
@karn33333 So to revisit the beginning of this discussion: "we HAVE NO CHOICE but to raise taxes" you wrote. I contend that is only true if we, as a nation, decide to maintain the same unsustainable status quo. We DO have the choice of reigning things in, but sadly, Americans and the politicians they put in power are not making that choice.
Am I wrong? Are increased taxes absolutely inevitable under all circumstances? I don't think so.
@rm "reigning in things" isn't an option. it isn't an argument it is an ambiguous statement that could mean anything. "reigning in things" doesn't change the fact that right now we are in debt, and right now we don't have money to pay for things. on top of that reign in what things? under all circumstances? no I never said it was under all circumstances I said under the given circumstances. you can play fantasy all day long if you want. but at the end of the day you need to get back to reality.
@karn33333 So be it. I will resign in utter defeat. Our system of governance sucks. Our economy sucks. We have been put into a position that is hopeless and unchangeable. We are powerless to have any effect, and it appears we don't want to change anyway, so it's a moot point. Options do not exist. Laws cannot be changed. Constitutions cannot be amended. Sensibility cannot return. Congress has done nothing that needs to be "reigned in". To even think so is pure fantasy.
@rmcdaniel423 yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah more and more bullshit. things are always changing. for instance universal health care. laws can be changed but they have to be reviewed, ratified and passed. most people want things to change but we have to make sure things are changing for the better not just changing things for the sake of changing them. im sorry but if by this point you still can't grasp the concept of at this time under these circumstances then you are just plain fucking stupid.
@rmcdaniel423 I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE ONLY THING WE CAN EVER DO IS RAISE TAXES. the simple fact that its been god only knows how many replies to you I have made to get this concept into your empty fucking head goes to show how retarded you are. you still haven't answered reigned in what? saying things like reigning things in and then actually expecting simply saying something as ambiguous as that would actually be an alternative or an answer to anything is pure fantasy.
@rmcdaniel423 saying things like well we will just pray for money and god will give it to us, is also pure fantasy, and not a real option. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE COMPLETELY FAIL IN GIVING ANY REAL "OPTION" TO RAISING TAXES. ALL YOU HAVE SUGGESTED IS RAISING ..... TAXES!!! all you did was assume I meant one kind of tax and suggested raising a DIFFERENT TAX! I DON'T HAVE TO DO MATH YOU DUMB FUCK RETARD. IT DOESN'T MATTER ITS STILL RAISING TAXES. WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO GET???
@rmcdaniel423 That's why I live in Texas. 6.25% state sales tax, and nothing else. And a very limited government. Has consequences, mind you, but I can deal. I love small government, especially when it comes with a small price tag.
The reason I say 1913 is because that was in installation date of the Federal Reserve. We never had an income tax until that privately owned bank was put in control of our currency. Income tax goes directly to pay off interest incurred by our Government borrowing our own money from the Federal Reserve. Social Security goes to them as well. Its a great big ponzi scheme. And you can look up ponzi scheme on google, its really a length explanation.
I don't agree with "bailouts" either. Except that I think the real problem with bailouts is not that corporations should be allowed to fail, but rather that corporations should not be allowed to become "too big to fail" in the first place. This seems to go along with the point someone else made, that capitalism tends to lead to concentration, corporations merging together to become so big that literally if they fail the whole economy is destroyed. That seems like a problem.
Why allow corporations to exist in the first place? We must remember that a corporation is essentially a private entity that has additional legal protection from the government. Meaning that it is very difficult to go after the people who run it because of special government protections.
Corporations are a 19th century creation that were created for the purpose of benefiting the public good. But then John D Rockefeller came by and wanted corporations that were allowed to make profits.
And I think its important to add that we have largely privatized water, except for the fact that Government gives them tax breaks to put sodium fluoride, a common ingredient in rat poison into our water. Yes, it helps your teeth at times, but causes bone cancer, brain damage, and cancer I believe. Not to mention all the other chemicals that they have them put into water. So yeah, privatized water would be fine, if government didn't poison us with it.
So, in conclusion, the less government involvement we have in free market matters the better off we are. Cuz I'll tell ya, we aren't in a free market economy atm. The Government has injected itself into just about every facet possible and it just gets worse the more they do so. Pure capitalism promotes competition, which leads to lower prices and higher efficiency. Socialism promotes no competition, higher prices, and no need for efficiency. Its just facts.
Actually pure capitalism promotes concentration. Companies, given unrelenting freedom, acquire each other, effectively reducing competition. I agree that competition is a good thing. But pure, unregulated capitalism leads to absolute concentration and, ironically, an anti-capitalist environment. The next evolution of capitalist theory is needed. The old theory has proven faults. Like privatized water in Bolivia. Nothing like "capitalism" to make life very difficult.
Funny that you mention consolidation of power, because under this current half socialiized economy, about 3 or 4 corporations own just about every business in the world. We call them elitist bankers promoting globalism. In pure capitalism there is no consolidation of power, but powers competing with one another, large or small. Thats what capitalism is, what you're describing is a brand of communism/fascism/socialism. So, thats what we are today.
So, to say that all government intervention is wrong is to not understand the issue. There has to be some government intervention, the question is how much. Government having too much power is a problem, but corporations in a different sort of way can have just as much power if there is no government regulation. It's not government itself that is bad, it's *power.*
A lot of the things you're saying about the pros of capitalism and the cons of socialism are all true. However, you're ignoring all the cons of capitalism and the pros of socialism. The truth is that these systems, in thier pure form, are both equally flawed. The reason our society is able to function today is *precisely* because we have some government intervention.
Socialism being a good thing is a matter of personal opinion. I don't believe I should be taxed so highly for Government to dictate to me what I can do. I like freedom. And consolidation of power is never a good thing, and the only way in which government should intervene in capitalism is to make sure large monopolies aren't formed through unfair business trades, and to insure companies don't lie on how well they're doing. Government has failed at that miserably more than once.
That's your philosophy of government. There's a logic to it that I agree with, but at the same time I just don't feel that your arguments are 100% honest if you don't also recognize potential flaws. If you're a biased sort of person, it's very easy to blame all the problems on the government, just the same as many liberals blame all the problems on corporations. In my view, there's merits to both those viewpoints.
When you mix governments together you create red tape that slows every single process down and increases prices universally. An example, since my arguement can permit good ones, is health care. Government involvement in any program makes the program more responsive to inflation. Inflation has sky rocketed in the past few years, and thus, health care prices sky rocket. Socialism, I'm afraid, is ten times worse than what we have, and capialism is the only logical answer.
The reason why anarcho capitalism doesn't work is because the premise is wrong. Reputation is not the largest factor for success, force always beats it. That's why most rational forms of libertarianism today don't take capitalism to it's logical extreme, they admit there has to be some government intervention to prevent things like force and fraud.
/agree i hate obama because hes a socialist, hes even part of the new party, which is the united states socialist party. he steals money from me and gives it to poor people. we earned it we create jobs with it, poor people do less than rich people
He's kinda turned the logic of politics upside-down. Typically it's the rich minority putting the squeeze on the majority. Take World War 1 as an example. The best a soldier could hope for was to escape with his life, while industry was raking in cash from government contracts. Check "War is Racket" by Smedley D. Butler
So to say it's the majority ganging up on the minority, when it's clearly not the minority ruling (eg. every war of the last 100 years), is extremely deceptive.
K, sounds like the majority, while gang banging the minority, need to find a way to make it pleasurable so that everyone has a good time. Fame and higher status just isn't what it used to be. I have no real opinion at the moment, I just wanted to use gang bang in a sentence.
Socialism is not stealing from rich and giving to needy. Its stealing from middle class and giving to poor. The very rich still stay very rich, except now its just the very rich and the very poor. Cept now youre all reliant on Government to coddle your silly ass. Creating a single payer system is an infringement on the individual right to choice, and is therefore illegal. And you can count on these tea party like people to make that clear if that sort of thing passes.
Capitalism has it's flaws as well. Some things are better handled privately, some are better handled by the government. Healthcare is an example of something that it just makes more sense for the government to handle. There is no more infringement choice than in free market healthcare. In the US we are ranked 36th in the world in quality of healthcare, but 1st in cost. That's because free market healthcare is just plain less effecient.
Um, no maytag, the reason our health care system sucks is BECAUSE government got involved. They started getting involved just over 40 years ago. Soon after we got ridiculous forms and regulations like HMO's, health care lobbyists, the Government heavily subsidizing for the things we hate, like long waits. The Government has no authority to tax you into submission onto a shoddy system that inherently involves rationing of care.
Yes, and the things they are involved with like medicare are the best liked programs we have. The government has little to do with our problems in this area; it's insurance companies. They exist as a middleman because a private healthcare system basically requires it, but this drives up costs for everyone in order to pay their salaries. And in return, you don't really get any choice, your money is still essentially taken by gunpoint, but you aren't even gauranteed coverage.
Pure capitalism and pure socialism are both heavily flawed ideas, just about equally. The best kind of government is one that blends ideas of both, and so mitigates the flaws of both ideas. Healthcare is an excellent example of something the free market is terrible at. Since in a civilized society everyone needs to have healthcare, it just makes more sense for the govt' to do it. It should not be a for profit industry, and making it so in fact decreased the quality of coverage for everyone.
Capitalism is a fantastic idea, but when Government gets involved you get this clunky shoddy system that over regulates itself into oblivion. HEY, that sounds a lot like health care and our economy. Medicare is a multi million dollar debt system per year, and the only reason ppl need it is because the government taxes them into submission onto the program. They tax your 401k's for shits sake, money thats already been taxed. That is your money, and yet they tax is twice.
Socialism is also a fantastic idea, but in it's pure form equally flawed as capitalism. Capitalism, if taken to it's extreme form anarcho capitalism, is just as flawed, because the idea that the free market would self regulate doesn't work. What happens is that in a power vacuum, someone else will move in to sieze power. This can be seen although history whenever there is a power vacuum in any place in the world, examples of this are fuedalism, the mafia, etc.
Penn, I respect you a lot, you are a brilliant, well spoken man. I agree that taxing the rich more heavily based on majority rule politics is wrong. However, there are reasons I feel that the rich in this country due owe more back in taxes. For one thing, none of the rich could have earned their fortunes if not for the opportunities given to them by the infrastructure of this nation built with taxes. On top of that, overtaxing the poor is what causes their dependence on government programs.
Well said and to the point. Majority rule is the wrong reason. Debt to society (or what you have at stake should society crumble) is the right reason. The fact that socially minded, progressively taxed nations tend to have a happy, healthy, well educated citizenry with a lower crime rate is a cherry on top.
The rape analogy was a very good one. Just because you're getting laid doesn't change the fact that someone is getting raped; taking the choice away from that victim. I think this disease called "progressivism", which is sort of a take on the European ideas of the "social justice" through force (i.e. socialism, communism, marxism, facism, dictatorships, etc.), is a nice theory but put into play its a proverbial rape or gang bang. It might be good for some, but its still bad for the victim(s).
I like to think I have an eclectic point of view ranging from liberal to libertarian. In terms of people, living and freedom, i'm no doubt a libertarian or anarchist in some respect. Economically wise though, The free market has bothered me consistently. It dosen't seem moral with regards to the wealthy and unhealthy. Not to mention in the video where Penn said Rush Limbaugh was o.k by him. Sorry I could never be on his side, just impossible My question, is there a way to combine the systems?
The free market is a strange thing. While many people like to paint it as a bad negative, really it's for the betterment of the whole community. Politicians (typically liberals) like to paint a very narrow-minded view of "unjust, put down" workers in a society - like farmers. When really if you try and prop up that sole farmer or group of farmers up, you're only hurting the mass community with higher prices.
Bottom line - everything has a cost. There is no free lunch.
I think that if people at the top of large companies let the profits trickle down to the people at the bottom of the company itstead of hoarding it all for themselves, this would not even be an issue. Also these same companies would have to restrain themselves from hiking up the prices of their products just because the common man has more money.
In order for that to happen, though, you would need to have high levels of competition - which we do not have (again, because of large government intervention).
That's because all political views are illogical and simply different ways of doing that which is immoral (Slavery). We've abolished it on the micro level but simply haven't rejected on the macro. Check out the wikipedia pages on voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism. The voluntary (stateless) society awaits us!
You'll have to excuse me, glopur0, but I have no idea what my original comment even said. I can't find it here, but I don't have time to look for it - work is in 20 minutes. Help me out please?
Penn, have you ever heard of anarchist/atheist philosopher Stefan Molyneux and his website freedomainradio? It's all about the logic of personal and political freedom and I think you would find it very intellectually stimulating, =).
BS, by the way, was my first introduction to reason and empiricism, thank you so much Penn!
Well, we are paying about all of the taxes we'd care to pay around this house, and Congress and the President are welcome to keep all of the rest they're planning on shipping over here. Why do I owe the rest of the country a living?
Actually this whole "taxing is bullying" analogy isn't a really good one, because in bullying it is usually the unfortunate underdog that is being picked on, while the strong ones have nothing to fear.
Taxation, on the other hand, affects the wealthy more than the poor. If anything a system in which the rich can buy everything, including politicians through campaign contributions, rigging the system in their favor, is a bullying system.
The plutocracy of libertarianism is like the latter.
Penn brings up teabaggers. Teabaggers are easy to understand:
Bush # 2 gave so many taxbreaks to the rich that if a person earning over 1 million dollars an year uses enough deductions, that person can pay a lower percentage of gross income than someone earning 20 thousand a year. Obama wants to fix this, so the rich are out teabagging in protest.
I live in finland, and we pay high taxes, but we get alot of good things for it, like free health care, and the taxes go to hospitals, old people, families with kids and poors etc. but of course some of the money goes to the creedy politics who are already rich -_-
You can fire a corporation by choosing not to deal with them. Try not dealing with the government and see what response you get. The point is you don't have to trust all corporations, we choose those we trust and peacefully drive the others out of business by using their competition. To get rid of government takes a revolution.
I also live in finland and i think one the best things we have, including to to the list you already gave here, is free education. It's absolutely horrifying how in Britain for example they have to pay like 3000 pounds for a year in University. Plus Finland is one of the if not the leading country of education. We've got quality for free. I'm lucky as hell to have born in Finland.
Because they can, poor people cant obviously contribute as much so the rich pay more taxes for the benefit of everyone. If you're rich and not willing to pay more taxes because you want another car you're fuckin selfish.
All I can think of when I hear that tired old saw would be Curly Howard proclaiming, "I'm a victim of coi-cum-stanz!" It's a complete non-argument and just about as slapstick.
If someone's born with a profound disability, then they are truly a victim of circumstance and most likely deserve some type of public assistance & our concern. In contrast, one's being born poor should merely be incentive to work even harder.
Just because they CAN pay more taxes, doesn't mean they should. Some people, like myself, have dug our way out of the lower/middle class with hard work, and would rather NOT continue having our money taken away to pay for the low class of society.
Everyone should pay a flat yearly tax. X dollars PER PERSON. Not depending on how much they make. It shouldn't be increased just because people are making more money.
Translation: "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me. See, I didn't have any pie, so I'm giving pie to me" "Rich people should stop being selfish and think about me for a change!"
You know what's really funny about all this? The rich in Finland can move from the country if they don't like the taxes, they don't have to stay, ever thought they don't mind giving back to society thro taxes? Do you see any rich Finns here complaining about taxes? The rich can easily move into 3rd world style countries and live like kings, it doesn't take much, if we suddenly saw all the rich moving from Finland into a tiny "no government" country your argument might be more valid.
It's sort of like Warren Buffet when he came out and supported Obama. There are people that are so rich that they can loose hundreds of millions of dollars and not care. This isn't the case for most people though and nor is it economically stimulating. Wealth creates wealth. The "wealthy" are the ones who create jobs through investing in themselves and if they had less money to invest in themselves, they don't hire as many people.
Um, paying for old people, families with kids and the poor out of my pocket is not acceptable.
If you can't afford to support children? Don't have them. If you didn't plan for retirement and now you're old and can't afford to support yourself? That sounds like your problem. If you're poor? Work hard and drag yourself out of the lower class.
Why the hell should those of us who have worked hard and dragged ourselves up to a higher class have to pay for others who can't? Fuck that.
Property rights have always fascinated me. The way people are so hung up on their stuff, as if their stuff will make them happy.
Another question is the origin of wealth. Is anyone really naive enough to believe that the majority of wealthy people became wealthy because they are inherently worthy of that wealth? That they earned it? How can you earn the right to sip champagne while children starve on the street? doesn't make any sense to me.
In an almost comical level of contrast to your viewpoint, the reality is that the zany idea of property rights in the US were originally a response to the "ascribed status" aristocracy prevalent in Europe. In other words, if you were born a shit shoveler's son, you had better get used to the smell because that's the only job you'd ever be qualified for.
Instead, members of the liberal movement wanted property rights and free trade so they could become merchants and actually improve their lives. See back then, they actually did believe that you were either deserving of wealth or you weren't...and it was determined at birth. And since you think only a minority of "wealthy people" actually earn it, does that mean that none of them should have property rights? I fail to see the logic in that.
there was not a medieval "liberal movement". men who became merchants clearly wanted to be able to own lots of property, as their feudal lords already did, and to become rich. There is no moral superiority in either position. Both exploited the serf, who never became either a merchant or a lord.
Is it exploitation to be able to choose where you wish to work? To be able to reach an agreement on what terms you wish to work on?
Is it exploitation to have you, as yourself and as your own property, be able to choose which type of service you wish to go into? To be honest, I think you know very little (at least only speculations) about what the Free Market is and does.
Oh yeah, you are so unattached to your stuff right?
You probably don't even shut the front door of your home, let alone, lock it right? If you have an electronic gizmo that cost you some money you probably just leave it outside in the front yard right??
There's a difference between not being particularly attached to things and not appreciating safety, and being a good steward with what one has been given.
I'm merely commenting on how the mindless drive to have more and more things does not make for happiness and can, in fact, promote depression. Modern society has tied self-worth to the possession of things, and that is both sad and evil.
That's because you're looking at the situation in terms of cosmic justice (i.e. it's unfair that the universe made some rich and some poor), and not in terms of human justice. People sip champagne because someone agreed to give it to them, usually by trading for money. Starving children had nothing to do with it. Rich people aren't the cause of poverty, and they only morally right way to help a poor person is by voluntarily giving them stuff.
People in northern Europe are happy, because they feel secure. They feel they get proper medical treatment, if they get sick, the crime is relatively low, they trust they wont be kicked out of their homes, if they loose their jobs.
In genral happiest nations are also considred most democratic nations there is.
Scandinavians are happy for a number of reasons. The much saner parlimentary system, generally secular politics, no death penalty, friendly police, actual freedom of speech, relaxed drug policies (prisons not full of victimless criminals, etc.). Not to mention lots and lots of blondes. But to say they're happier because they pay higher taxes? No, uh uh, bullcrap. E.g. the current govt in DK was elected primarily on a promise to stop raising taxes.
Moreover, high taxes don't always benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. Try buying a car in Denmark on an low income. See what a 250% car tax actually means when you've already given half of your salary to the government. See if you can afford the artificially inflated insurance premium. Danes tend to evade taxes whenever they can, and they moan and bitch about the quality of the services provided by the government.
Can´t help but wonder... COULD it be that they´re happy because they have -something- left afterwards? When you have little of something, you´re glad if it goes a long way. You also have to consider: who did they ask? There´s alot about high taxes and stupid behaviour amongst government and industries I could write about, but I don´t have room :P
I am not trying to be argumentative. We obviously need to pay some taxes and we do need a certain amount of government services. But Biden's statement to me just sounds exploitative, although I do not believe that is his intent. It is easy for those who live high off the government to make that duty claim, while others struggle to pay their bills and fund the lavish spending. Given the terrible waste of money in Washington, I believe we the people have a duty to push back on taxes. Thanks, RJ
I read the article that Penn is describing in the video. The article states there is a "correlation" between taxation and "happiness". It then jumps to the conclusion that the higher taxes and their corresponding services are the cause of the "happiness". However, "correlation" does necessarily mean "causation", it can be the cause, but not necessarily. There could be another variable(s) shared by these high taxed countries that is actually causing the "happiness". No stat details are provided.
This is the third or fourth time in the last few years that something Penn says has really challenged my point of view ... and probably changed my mind. This is why I tune in. Thanks, Penn!
Between federal, state, and sales taxes, license fees, tobacco and alcohol taxes, and gas tax, I paid 63% of my income to the government last year. That doesn't include the taxes and fees that are built into the price of the products I buy (payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, property taxes, etc.).
I wouldn't mind the taxes so much if they actually got used for important things. As it is, the US spends as much as every other country in the world put together on defense. That is pretty ridiculous.
Maybe if we had as many fighter jets as the rest of the world combined it would be different, but what happens is we spend that money on R&D and then in 5 years the rest of the world has access to the new technologies we come up with.
In the US, it is Constitutionally illegal for the federal gervernment to impose a direct unapportioned tax on it's citizens. That is in the perview of the state governments
I have family in Copenhagen Denmark. They work for IBM. They hate their system and love the freedom here. They own a home here and come for all holidays!
With two wars and an economic crisis the rich are going to be taxed more. Our society provides the conditions for their ability to gain wealth, so I could care less if Alex Rodriguez and Paris Hilton have to pay a little more. Our nation was founded on the concept of "no taxation without representation." The rich have representation, which by the way is why naming those rallies "tea parties" is fallacious and oblivious.
I agree with Penn on most issues, but this is not one of them.
They're happy because they are liberals and they have a liberal country. They're happy in spite of the taxes not because of them. They think it's great that the government taxes business and doles out huge maternity leave and medical care and other social services they want.
??? It's like a gangrape? Seriously, how high do you think our taxes are? The super-rich are still ultra-rich after payday, make no mistakes. And still we will be can rely on the government.
Plus, what is immoral about making rich people pay more taxes? They have more money! And don't think most of that money gets into the pockets of the prime-minister or anything, that money is to be used for the good of the collective society. It's not stealing.
Ahh, you talk about the government is such idealized terms. Government institutions, by their very nature, don't shovel your money into programs "for the good of the collective society". Government organizations are horribly inefficient, so the vast majority of my taxes are thrown down the toilet simply because there is no reason for the government to use them more efficiently. I can't choose to not give them my taxes, they get their money no matter what, so why make any improvements?
First of all: He was talking about the government being immoral (comparing it to rape etc.), or at least the inning of taxes. What I'm saying is that they don't take for the taking (like a rapist), they take (more from the rich) for the good of the entire society. So calling it immoral isn't fair at all.
Secondly: Don't you know why the chosen party/coalition isn't alone in decisionmaking? To make sure they DO work efficiently. They like ripping on the coalition.
I think the actual reason for why people in these countries (I'm one of them) are willing to pay high taxes is because the government services actually work and produce mostly positive results.
Oh and at least in Finland it's not the rich that are taxed the most, but the ones in the middle-class. That way you have some chance to keep the rich people as citizens of the country. ;)
Umm...the rich use taxes to make themselves richer and the rich use the most services of the country. So the government isn't exactly being Robin Hood.
Penn is excactly right. I'm from Denmark and we hear about this "happysurvey" all the time. Penns last coment, that maybe it should just be colder and darker in the US to make americans happier, shows the point, that connecting happiness with high taxes doesn't show anything. Denmark scores high in the survey, because people feel secure that they won't starve in the near future, but that hasn't really that much to do with taxes.
LOl, We Americans are dangerously skiny,and running out of food? I laugh only because if you ask other ppl we are dangerously over wight,and have to much food.
Democracy just seems to work pretty well. Pretty all systems that does not apply or are applied by democracy, including capitalism, have time and time again been shown not to work very well. And it's kinda weird talking about taking lots and lots of money from rich people and comparing it to rape since they still have a lot more left than poor people and they have the same rights as everybody else.
Democracy - It works, bitches (even when applied to economy)
You seem to have gained quite the following of haters. I for one love ya and Im going to be using that 1 in 10 example quite often from now on to show what the greeks new, democracy is nothing more than tyrany of the majority.
I would like to suggest that if taxes were higher people would pay more attention to where the money was going. The money would be spent more effeciently. Now taxes are low and there is bitching but nobody cares how the money is spent. There is a lazyness about how their tax money is spent. Taxes are a neusence a mosqueto that sucks your blood so we put up with it. So high taxes would make a more vigilent citizen.
Taxes are not the problem, spending now what people will make 50 years from now is.
bryonlape 2 weeks ago
this guy is such a fucking hypocrite.... its ridiculous... he voted for obama... we all know that what the fuck is he talking about... "Oh i do have liberal friends out there" lmao ALL YOUR FRIENDS ARE PREDOMINATELY LIB'S JACKASS...instead of raising tax's why dont you just give all your money away...its more effective.. if they tax us then they take that money and shuffle it around and give it to other countries....FUCK YOU FAGGETS! I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON OBAMAS DICK, CUM CUZZLING PONY TAIL BITCH
trojo90 4 months ago
The self-employed person pays a flat 27% tax in the U.S. Then social security and medicare on top, adding a further 13.3% ( reduced from 15.2%, IIRC, in 2011 ).
So ~40% for the person making their own way.
In European countries you may pay 55-60%, however you actually get something for your money. Health care is the biggest winner. And education + living expenses.
Add together your costs in the U.S. we pay MUCH MUCH more for what we get here in the end. And have-nots ... simply have-not.
looncraz 10 months ago
...WHOA. That's kind of an extreme analogy... isn't it? Kind of horrible.
IoEstasCedonta 1 year ago
penn 4 president
ducksrule1234 1 year ago
you know it's a shame that you can't make it through your otherwise brilliant commentaries without being obscene. would pass them on to more people were that not the case.
1archer1 1 year ago
@1archer1 Obscenity is a strange subjective social construct. It's a shame people are offended by a sound that merely represents an idea they've unquestioningly been told was "bad". Is "freaking" less offensive than "fucking", or "crap" less offensive than "shit"? Why? They represent the same idea. The whole concept is merely an illusion.
DevonWhorton 1 year ago
@DevonWhorton @DevonWhorton it is simply a stupid way of speaking. injecting meaningless references to sex acts, and things scatological into speech and writing is a lazy, immature way of communicating, and evidences emotional development stuck in adolescence
most people--albeit fewer lately, largely i think due to these internets--in the process of maturing, at some point listen to themselves and realize how ridiculous their speech, formed in adolescence, is
1archer1 1 year ago
@1archer1 That sounds rather arrogant. Perhaps it is a sign of immaturity to not recognize these things as something which has been pounded into your brain by a PC society as being immature. Perhaps it is lazy to act like sheep and not think outside your insulated box.
You should check out the episode of Penn & Tellers Bullshit about swearing.
Do you ever point your finger back at yourself, or do you always continue on the path someone else sent you on?
DevonWhorton 1 year ago
he is right.slaves were very happy here in america.ever hear of the "jolly nigger"?but obviously it was wrong even though the majority was happy.
cassidy99ful 1 year ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
the thing is over there when they are taxed? the money gets put into use ... when we're taxed over here the money is put into stupid pet projects like war ....
joeytrimble 1 year ago
its not taxes how seen danish and finnish women
TheWarriorchamp 1 year ago
But Penn, the logical conclusion of your libertarian philosophy is precisely a gang rape state. Law enforcement is a function of some form of govt, as they say, by definition.
There are many other examples where maximizing freedom can have other, perhaps unintended, negative consequences for many people. (Medical bankruptcy is a trendy example.)
I agree that for those at the top, more freedom is always better. I heard someone call this the hooray for me, the hell with you philosophy.
lds8714 1 year ago
@lds8714 it sounds more like anarchy that you are describing.is penn an anarchist?if there was no gov't you wouldn't have a gang rape state because people would then have no choice but to protect themselves to prevent being raped.you try to rape me,I blow your brains out.which is the way it should be.I am no anarchist however.just believe in freedom and personal responsibility.
cassidy99ful 1 year ago
@lds8714 To hypothesize about a country with no centralized government is quite different than assuming a completely nihilistic "Mad Max" sort of scenario. A society can still maintain a culture that respects a general "do-no-harm" common law without requiring an unaccountable legislature (like we currently have, despite the illusion of democracy). Police forces, judicial mediation, and penal systems could still exist privately, rather than publicly.
There are lots of alternatives to govt.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
why do ppl get so fired up about federal taxation when they raise it less than 1% yet state contributions and property tax remains incredibly high and these taxes disadvantage young ppl and first time home buyers.
chefextra 2 years ago
I think if you look deep into the taxes that are imposed on you, you'll find that the forces behind them are morally appalling. Did you know that income tax was created around 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. And SS was as well. Both the SS and the Income tax go directly to pay off interest accrued by the Government for borrowing our own money from a private bank. So the income tax and SS basically go to pay the interest off to a bank. Its a great big ponzi scheme.
Retic92 2 years ago
Not in Texas...lol
GeorgeMozosko 2 years ago
@chefextra I get fired up about ANY federal taxation.
masonkiller666 1 year ago
because when events like oh I don't know bush jr declares war on Iraq for no other real reason then my daddy did it. waste trillions upon trillions of dollars on haliburten or however the hell you spell it. and reports of all sorts of fuck ups that we continuously and endlessly poor money into and then the same people turn around and say well lets have the people pay for by raising their taxes.... is completely dif then the city saying look we need x amount of money to run we can't borrow money
karn33333 1 year ago
from anyone because this is a spiral stair case we have no choice but to raise taxes.. same goes for the state.
karn33333 1 year ago
@karn33333 wrote "we have no choice but to raise taxes...same goes for the state"
Did you know there are U.S. states that have no income tax. At all. Zero. Zip. Nada.
(they tend to have higher sales tax, though)
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
@rmcdaniel423 thanks for including my quote.
yes but that is still taxes.
karn33333 1 year ago
@karn33333 I'll elaborate. You said we have "NO CHOICE" (emphasis added). However, if there are states that can operate with NO INCOME TAX at all, just slightly higher sales tax, that proves there are indeed alternatives, ie CHOICES. I'm no economist, but I'll bet a few extra percent of sales tax doesn't make up the difference from zero income tax. Yet they still operate. Some places have local surtaxes, but that's not the STATE. Better to keep the money local, when possible.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 no it doesn't you still raised taxes all you are arguing well some are raising DIFFERENT taxes, your argument has failed. the bottom line is they raised taxes. it doesn't matter one bit if they raise state tax or sales tax they still raised taxes. also raising fees is just an other kind of tax. so to address your question head on and absolutely directly no, it doesn't mean there are alternatives. you are splitting the same cunt hair and calling one strand a different strand.
karn33333 10 months ago
@karn33333 Your point is true. I accept that, but only so far as it maintains the false assumption that the role of the state and it's consequent spending has to remain the same. It doesn't. There is ALWAYS the choice of smaller government, less taxes, etc. A choice that American politicians and voters seem loathe to consider in any meaningful way. That is the point I was apparently failing to make.
BTW, keep your cunt hairs to yourself.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 you are still putting words in my mouth. I never made nor implied any kind of assumption especially not that. given the situation and given circumstances there was only one option. that was to raise taxes. there isn't a choice of smaller government not on the national level the party who advocates a smaller government (the republicans) made the largest national government of American history and wrote it into law those laws can not be changed for the time being.
karn33333 10 months ago
@karn33333 "there isn't a choice of smaller government" you said. Thanks for supporting the assumption I mentioned, about maintaining status quo.
Republicans as "the party of smaller gov't" is a straw man. Easy to knock down, as you are well aware. I am a Libertarian minarchist, bordering on anarchocapitalism, so my views are very much outside the mainstream.
BTW, I'm not here to win arguments or prove someone else's "fail", so let's relax. I just like making points and discussing things.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 that is only mart of my quote and there for is a straw mans argument for misrepresenting my point. IT IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION. it is LAW. YOU HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE LAW PERMITS IT TO BE CHANGED. also if you are talking about fiscal responsibility, to make a smaller government would waste a lot MORE MONEY trying to do away with a larger government.
as for your claims of my "strawmans argument" if you knew what you were talking about then you would know it isn't a straw man its the
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 political platform of the republican party since Andrew Jackson. it isn't a knock down at all. its a simple fact that the republican party preaches about smaller government. they believe a smaller government is more beneficial then a larger overbearing one. whether its better or not is up to debate but in no way is that a "knock". it doesn't matter if your views are inside or outside of mainstream or not, it doesn't change that the things you are typing are completely incorrect.
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 yes you are here to win an argument. other wise you wouldn't be so desperate to try and find flaws in my arguments that don't exist, and why you constantly provide misinformation to win and make a point. the only one here who needs to relax is you. my thief metaphor? no I already covered the other legal realistic and non realistic options available. if there is another option you have failed to provide it. "IT" hasnt provided anything. YOU have made assertions you haven't backed up
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 I don't have cunt hairs and it was you who was splitting them. no you made your point quite clear its just plain wrong. I don't mean this in an arrogant way or an insulting way but it is flat out wrong. or rather it is more accurate to say that they are choices but not real choices. you have to consider what happens at the end of the day not the here and now.
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 lets say you can make a choice to rob a gas station or not. if the only weapon you have is a knife and they are behind a bullet proof glass with no entry doors. you may have the "choice" to rob it but you lack the capability to actually rob the place.... so really it isn't really a choice or an option to rob that gas station. and before you tell me that my example is just silly I am going to point out now that that actually happened in real life and was on the real news.
karn33333 10 months ago
@karn33333 Your thief metaphor makes a utilitarian point, but it's sadly defeatist and ignores other options. It presents us with 2 scenarios. Either democracy works, and therefore 3rd party small gov't options are in fact a "choice" that still remains (though sadly neglected and ineffectual). Or democracy doesn't work, which means our most ethical choice is to scrap the whole system and start over with something new (a choice in itself).
I stand by my point. Choices remain.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rm now you are trying to confuse the issue of democracy which is a system of government with capitalism which system of economics and has nothing to do with democracy. you haven't made a point you have only made an assertion and you haven't provided any real options or "choices" which can realistically be implemented. oh I take that back you did say we could raise sales tax instead of oh wait again THAT'S STILL RAISING TAXES! lmao really are you this bad at logic or are you just messin with me?
karn33333 10 months ago
@karn33333 And by the way, back to my much earlier comment about states that have slightly higher sales tax, but no income tax. . . do a little math you arrogant prick. (deliberate ad hom) To raise taxes by 2-3% on purely voluntary purchases, while simultaneously eliminating mandatory tax on ALL INCOME yields a net DECREASE in taxes. Despite my facetious concession speech, I still hold that options always remain, whether we pursue them or not. To disagree is to be a willing slave.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 no to disagree with you is to not be a fucking moron. just saying there are options doesnt mean there are option. just saying something doesn't make it so. and sorry but raising sales tax doesn't mean its completely voluntary. people need resources in order to survive. putting on higher sales tax doesn't mean its completely voluntary. like I said before there is a huge difference between options and real options. you haven't offered any real options different from what I said.
karn33333 10 months ago
@karn33333 So to revisit the beginning of this discussion: "we HAVE NO CHOICE but to raise taxes" you wrote. I contend that is only true if we, as a nation, decide to maintain the same unsustainable status quo. We DO have the choice of reigning things in, but sadly, Americans and the politicians they put in power are not making that choice.
Am I wrong? Are increased taxes absolutely inevitable under all circumstances? I don't think so.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rm "reigning in things" isn't an option. it isn't an argument it is an ambiguous statement that could mean anything. "reigning in things" doesn't change the fact that right now we are in debt, and right now we don't have money to pay for things. on top of that reign in what things? under all circumstances? no I never said it was under all circumstances I said under the given circumstances. you can play fantasy all day long if you want. but at the end of the day you need to get back to reality.
karn33333 10 months ago
@karn33333 So be it. I will resign in utter defeat. Our system of governance sucks. Our economy sucks. We have been put into a position that is hopeless and unchangeable. We are powerless to have any effect, and it appears we don't want to change anyway, so it's a moot point. Options do not exist. Laws cannot be changed. Constitutions cannot be amended. Sensibility cannot return. Congress has done nothing that needs to be "reigned in". To even think so is pure fantasy.
rmcdaniel423 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah more and more bullshit. things are always changing. for instance universal health care. laws can be changed but they have to be reviewed, ratified and passed. most people want things to change but we have to make sure things are changing for the better not just changing things for the sake of changing them. im sorry but if by this point you still can't grasp the concept of at this time under these circumstances then you are just plain fucking stupid.
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE ONLY THING WE CAN EVER DO IS RAISE TAXES. the simple fact that its been god only knows how many replies to you I have made to get this concept into your empty fucking head goes to show how retarded you are. you still haven't answered reigned in what? saying things like reigning things in and then actually expecting simply saying something as ambiguous as that would actually be an alternative or an answer to anything is pure fantasy.
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 saying things like well we will just pray for money and god will give it to us, is also pure fantasy, and not a real option. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE COMPLETELY FAIL IN GIVING ANY REAL "OPTION" TO RAISING TAXES. ALL YOU HAVE SUGGESTED IS RAISING ..... TAXES!!! all you did was assume I meant one kind of tax and suggested raising a DIFFERENT TAX! I DON'T HAVE TO DO MATH YOU DUMB FUCK RETARD. IT DOESN'T MATTER ITS STILL RAISING TAXES. WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO GET???
karn33333 10 months ago
@rmcdaniel423 That's why I live in Texas. 6.25% state sales tax, and nothing else. And a very limited government. Has consequences, mind you, but I can deal. I love small government, especially when it comes with a small price tag.
looncraz 10 months ago
so taxation is a moral issue??
chefextra 2 years ago
Any time you make a moral judgment you have a moral issue.
lightningjohnny77 2 years ago 5
The reason I say 1913 is because that was in installation date of the Federal Reserve. We never had an income tax until that privately owned bank was put in control of our currency. Income tax goes directly to pay off interest incurred by our Government borrowing our own money from the Federal Reserve. Social Security goes to them as well. Its a great big ponzi scheme. And you can look up ponzi scheme on google, its really a length explanation.
Retic92 2 years ago
I don't agree with "bailouts" either. Except that I think the real problem with bailouts is not that corporations should be allowed to fail, but rather that corporations should not be allowed to become "too big to fail" in the first place. This seems to go along with the point someone else made, that capitalism tends to lead to concentration, corporations merging together to become so big that literally if they fail the whole economy is destroyed. That seems like a problem.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Why allow corporations to exist in the first place? We must remember that a corporation is essentially a private entity that has additional legal protection from the government. Meaning that it is very difficult to go after the people who run it because of special government protections.
Corporations are a 19th century creation that were created for the purpose of benefiting the public good. But then John D Rockefeller came by and wanted corporations that were allowed to make profits.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
@Maytag99 Have you read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell?
pennsays 2 years ago
And I think its important to add that we have largely privatized water, except for the fact that Government gives them tax breaks to put sodium fluoride, a common ingredient in rat poison into our water. Yes, it helps your teeth at times, but causes bone cancer, brain damage, and cancer I believe. Not to mention all the other chemicals that they have them put into water. So yeah, privatized water would be fine, if government didn't poison us with it.
Retic92 2 years ago
So, in conclusion, the less government involvement we have in free market matters the better off we are. Cuz I'll tell ya, we aren't in a free market economy atm. The Government has injected itself into just about every facet possible and it just gets worse the more they do so. Pure capitalism promotes competition, which leads to lower prices and higher efficiency. Socialism promotes no competition, higher prices, and no need for efficiency. Its just facts.
Retic92 2 years ago
Actually pure capitalism promotes concentration. Companies, given unrelenting freedom, acquire each other, effectively reducing competition. I agree that competition is a good thing. But pure, unregulated capitalism leads to absolute concentration and, ironically, an anti-capitalist environment. The next evolution of capitalist theory is needed. The old theory has proven faults. Like privatized water in Bolivia. Nothing like "capitalism" to make life very difficult.
PuntedKitten 2 years ago
Funny that you mention consolidation of power, because under this current half socialiized economy, about 3 or 4 corporations own just about every business in the world. We call them elitist bankers promoting globalism. In pure capitalism there is no consolidation of power, but powers competing with one another, large or small. Thats what capitalism is, what you're describing is a brand of communism/fascism/socialism. So, thats what we are today.
Retic92 2 years ago
So, to say that all government intervention is wrong is to not understand the issue. There has to be some government intervention, the question is how much. Government having too much power is a problem, but corporations in a different sort of way can have just as much power if there is no government regulation. It's not government itself that is bad, it's *power.*
Maytag99 2 years ago
A lot of the things you're saying about the pros of capitalism and the cons of socialism are all true. However, you're ignoring all the cons of capitalism and the pros of socialism. The truth is that these systems, in thier pure form, are both equally flawed. The reason our society is able to function today is *precisely* because we have some government intervention.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Socialism being a good thing is a matter of personal opinion. I don't believe I should be taxed so highly for Government to dictate to me what I can do. I like freedom. And consolidation of power is never a good thing, and the only way in which government should intervene in capitalism is to make sure large monopolies aren't formed through unfair business trades, and to insure companies don't lie on how well they're doing. Government has failed at that miserably more than once.
Retic92 2 years ago
That's your philosophy of government. There's a logic to it that I agree with, but at the same time I just don't feel that your arguments are 100% honest if you don't also recognize potential flaws. If you're a biased sort of person, it's very easy to blame all the problems on the government, just the same as many liberals blame all the problems on corporations. In my view, there's merits to both those viewpoints.
Maytag99 2 years ago
When you mix governments together you create red tape that slows every single process down and increases prices universally. An example, since my arguement can permit good ones, is health care. Government involvement in any program makes the program more responsive to inflation. Inflation has sky rocketed in the past few years, and thus, health care prices sky rocket. Socialism, I'm afraid, is ten times worse than what we have, and capialism is the only logical answer.
Retic92 2 years ago
The reason why anarcho capitalism doesn't work is because the premise is wrong. Reputation is not the largest factor for success, force always beats it. That's why most rational forms of libertarianism today don't take capitalism to it's logical extreme, they admit there has to be some government intervention to prevent things like force and fraud.
Maytag99 2 years ago
/agree i hate obama because hes a socialist, hes even part of the new party, which is the united states socialist party. he steals money from me and gives it to poor people. we earned it we create jobs with it, poor people do less than rich people
96doodle 2 years ago
He's kinda turned the logic of politics upside-down. Typically it's the rich minority putting the squeeze on the majority. Take World War 1 as an example. The best a soldier could hope for was to escape with his life, while industry was raking in cash from government contracts. Check "War is Racket" by Smedley D. Butler
So to say it's the majority ganging up on the minority, when it's clearly not the minority ruling (eg. every war of the last 100 years), is extremely deceptive.
PuntedKitten 2 years ago
K, sounds like the majority, while gang banging the minority, need to find a way to make it pleasurable so that everyone has a good time. Fame and higher status just isn't what it used to be. I have no real opinion at the moment, I just wanted to use gang bang in a sentence.
deiloh 2 years ago
Socialism is not stealing from rich and giving to needy. Its stealing from middle class and giving to poor. The very rich still stay very rich, except now its just the very rich and the very poor. Cept now youre all reliant on Government to coddle your silly ass. Creating a single payer system is an infringement on the individual right to choice, and is therefore illegal. And you can count on these tea party like people to make that clear if that sort of thing passes.
Retic92 2 years ago
Capitalism has it's flaws as well. Some things are better handled privately, some are better handled by the government. Healthcare is an example of something that it just makes more sense for the government to handle. There is no more infringement choice than in free market healthcare. In the US we are ranked 36th in the world in quality of healthcare, but 1st in cost. That's because free market healthcare is just plain less effecient.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Um, no maytag, the reason our health care system sucks is BECAUSE government got involved. They started getting involved just over 40 years ago. Soon after we got ridiculous forms and regulations like HMO's, health care lobbyists, the Government heavily subsidizing for the things we hate, like long waits. The Government has no authority to tax you into submission onto a shoddy system that inherently involves rationing of care.
Retic92 2 years ago
Yes, and the things they are involved with like medicare are the best liked programs we have. The government has little to do with our problems in this area; it's insurance companies. They exist as a middleman because a private healthcare system basically requires it, but this drives up costs for everyone in order to pay their salaries. And in return, you don't really get any choice, your money is still essentially taken by gunpoint, but you aren't even gauranteed coverage.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Pure capitalism and pure socialism are both heavily flawed ideas, just about equally. The best kind of government is one that blends ideas of both, and so mitigates the flaws of both ideas. Healthcare is an excellent example of something the free market is terrible at. Since in a civilized society everyone needs to have healthcare, it just makes more sense for the govt' to do it. It should not be a for profit industry, and making it so in fact decreased the quality of coverage for everyone.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Capitalism is a fantastic idea, but when Government gets involved you get this clunky shoddy system that over regulates itself into oblivion. HEY, that sounds a lot like health care and our economy. Medicare is a multi million dollar debt system per year, and the only reason ppl need it is because the government taxes them into submission onto the program. They tax your 401k's for shits sake, money thats already been taxed. That is your money, and yet they tax is twice.
Retic92 2 years ago
Socialism is also a fantastic idea, but in it's pure form equally flawed as capitalism. Capitalism, if taken to it's extreme form anarcho capitalism, is just as flawed, because the idea that the free market would self regulate doesn't work. What happens is that in a power vacuum, someone else will move in to sieze power. This can be seen although history whenever there is a power vacuum in any place in the world, examples of this are fuedalism, the mafia, etc.
Maytag99 2 years ago
Penn, I respect you a lot, you are a brilliant, well spoken man. I agree that taxing the rich more heavily based on majority rule politics is wrong. However, there are reasons I feel that the rich in this country due owe more back in taxes. For one thing, none of the rich could have earned their fortunes if not for the opportunities given to them by the infrastructure of this nation built with taxes. On top of that, overtaxing the poor is what causes their dependence on government programs.
BlueEyedDevil786 2 years ago
Well said and to the point. Majority rule is the wrong reason. Debt to society (or what you have at stake should society crumble) is the right reason. The fact that socially minded, progressively taxed nations tend to have a happy, healthy, well educated citizenry with a lower crime rate is a cherry on top.
dostatochno 2 years ago
Beautiful point. (Funny joke too.) Majorities are as moral as potatos.
LibertyManiacs 2 years ago
Penn, you are a DILF
I love you!
Wow, that was corny.
mrselfrog 2 years ago
The rape analogy was a very good one. Just because you're getting laid doesn't change the fact that someone is getting raped; taking the choice away from that victim. I think this disease called "progressivism", which is sort of a take on the European ideas of the "social justice" through force (i.e. socialism, communism, marxism, facism, dictatorships, etc.), is a nice theory but put into play its a proverbial rape or gang bang. It might be good for some, but its still bad for the victim(s).
vegetorott 2 years ago
I like to think I have an eclectic point of view ranging from liberal to libertarian. In terms of people, living and freedom, i'm no doubt a libertarian or anarchist in some respect. Economically wise though, The free market has bothered me consistently. It dosen't seem moral with regards to the wealthy and unhealthy. Not to mention in the video where Penn said Rush Limbaugh was o.k by him. Sorry I could never be on his side, just impossible My question, is there a way to combine the systems?
91962 2 years ago
The free market is a strange thing. While many people like to paint it as a bad negative, really it's for the betterment of the whole community. Politicians (typically liberals) like to paint a very narrow-minded view of "unjust, put down" workers in a society - like farmers. When really if you try and prop up that sole farmer or group of farmers up, you're only hurting the mass community with higher prices.
Bottom line - everything has a cost. There is no free lunch.
Offatwork 2 years ago
I think that if people at the top of large companies let the profits trickle down to the people at the bottom of the company itstead of hoarding it all for themselves, this would not even be an issue. Also these same companies would have to restrain themselves from hiking up the prices of their products just because the common man has more money.
rhinoburger 2 years ago
In order for that to happen, though, you would need to have high levels of competition - which we do not have (again, because of large government intervention).
Offatwork 2 years ago
Hey Penn, I just noticed that your new videos aren't letting people outside of US watch.
spiderweb20 2 years ago 2
That's because all political views are illogical and simply different ways of doing that which is immoral (Slavery). We've abolished it on the micro level but simply haven't rejected on the macro. Check out the wikipedia pages on voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism. The voluntary (stateless) society awaits us!
glopur0 2 years ago
You'll have to excuse me, glopur0, but I have no idea what my original comment even said. I can't find it here, but I don't have time to look for it - work is in 20 minutes. Help me out please?
Thanks :)
tylerjamesstephens 2 years ago
Penn, have you ever heard of anarchist/atheist philosopher Stefan Molyneux and his website freedomainradio? It's all about the logic of personal and political freedom and I think you would find it very intellectually stimulating, =).
BS, by the way, was my first introduction to reason and empiricism, thank you so much Penn!
glopur0 2 years ago
Sentiment seems to be tipping anti-tax on here-- am I reading that correctly? Have you been heard here?
pennsays 2 years ago
Well, we are paying about all of the taxes we'd care to pay around this house, and Congress and the President are welcome to keep all of the rest they're planning on shipping over here. Why do I owe the rest of the country a living?
felixjazzage 2 years ago
Actually this whole "taxing is bullying" analogy isn't a really good one, because in bullying it is usually the unfortunate underdog that is being picked on, while the strong ones have nothing to fear.
Taxation, on the other hand, affects the wealthy more than the poor. If anything a system in which the rich can buy everything, including politicians through campaign contributions, rigging the system in their favor, is a bullying system.
The plutocracy of libertarianism is like the latter.
OolTube02 2 years ago
Penn brings up teabaggers. Teabaggers are easy to understand:
Bush # 2 gave so many taxbreaks to the rich that if a person earning over 1 million dollars an year uses enough deductions, that person can pay a lower percentage of gross income than someone earning 20 thousand a year. Obama wants to fix this, so the rich are out teabagging in protest.
Walabio 2 years ago
lol, "I talk for a living".
Nice vid, your bringing up a nice point.
Forkroute 2 years ago
Isn´t most people being happy what democracy is all about?
douglasaglen 2 years ago
If paying taxes makes people happy then they should voluntarily donate more of their money to the government.
GypsyHustle 2 years ago
I live in finland, and we pay high taxes, but we get alot of good things for it, like free health care, and the taxes go to hospitals, old people, families with kids and poors etc. but of course some of the money goes to the creedy politics who are already rich -_-
Jokuvaanjee 2 years ago 2
Think of the freedom lost with all of that government control. The private sector could take care of all of those things better.
nacholuver1 2 years ago
I would trust the government more than private corporations.
douglasaglen 2 years ago
You can fire a corporation by choosing not to deal with them. Try not dealing with the government and see what response you get. The point is you don't have to trust all corporations, we choose those we trust and peacefully drive the others out of business by using their competition. To get rid of government takes a revolution.
stratvic 2 years ago
I can stop a corporation from taking my money by not buying their goods or services. The government takes my money at the end of a gun.
nacholuver1 2 years ago
I also live in finland and i think one the best things we have, including to to the list you already gave here, is free education. It's absolutely horrifying how in Britain for example they have to pay like 3000 pounds for a year in University. Plus Finland is one of the if not the leading country of education. We've got quality for free. I'm lucky as hell to have born in Finland.
jenniyearsafter 2 years ago
That's the point.
It's not FREE, it has to come on someone's expense,
and if the rich pay more, they work more, have higher education, why the fuck should they pay more?
they earned it.
Forkroute 2 years ago
Because they can, poor people cant obviously contribute as much so the rich pay more taxes for the benefit of everyone. If you're rich and not willing to pay more taxes because you want another car you're fuckin selfish.
PattyCsU 2 years ago
poor/lazy depends who you ask.
selfish is the way people view the world from.
Forkroute 2 years ago
Thats a sad view of the world. A lot of poor people aren't lazy but victims of circumstance, try telling those ethiopians to get off their asses.
PattyCsU 2 years ago 4
Yes I know, its sad, and if people want to donate they will.
You do not have to pay high taxes for that.
You have associations that are collecting contributions, you do not need to pay high taxes for THAT>
Forkroute 2 years ago 2
All I can think of when I hear that tired old saw would be Curly Howard proclaiming, "I'm a victim of coi-cum-stanz!" It's a complete non-argument and just about as slapstick.
If someone's born with a profound disability, then they are truly a victim of circumstance and most likely deserve some type of public assistance & our concern. In contrast, one's being born poor should merely be incentive to work even harder.
felixjazzage 2 years ago
I seem to think, that you think, that non-profit organizations don't exist in a free market. You would be incredibly wrong.
Offatwork 2 years ago
@PattyCsU yes you are right,but things are just a bit different here in america.last time i checked there was no famine or genocide happening here.
cassidy99ful 1 year ago
Just because they CAN pay more taxes, doesn't mean they should. Some people, like myself, have dug our way out of the lower/middle class with hard work, and would rather NOT continue having our money taken away to pay for the low class of society.
Everyone should pay a flat yearly tax. X dollars PER PERSON. Not depending on how much they make. It shouldn't be increased just because people are making more money.
tigerwolf69 2 years ago
Translation: "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me. See, I didn't have any pie, so I'm giving pie to me" "Rich people should stop being selfish and think about me for a change!"
happymyster 2 years ago 2
You know what's really funny about all this? The rich in Finland can move from the country if they don't like the taxes, they don't have to stay, ever thought they don't mind giving back to society thro taxes? Do you see any rich Finns here complaining about taxes? The rich can easily move into 3rd world style countries and live like kings, it doesn't take much, if we suddenly saw all the rich moving from Finland into a tiny "no government" country your argument might be more valid.
domo600 2 years ago
It's sort of like Warren Buffet when he came out and supported Obama. There are people that are so rich that they can loose hundreds of millions of dollars and not care. This isn't the case for most people though and nor is it economically stimulating. Wealth creates wealth. The "wealthy" are the ones who create jobs through investing in themselves and if they had less money to invest in themselves, they don't hire as many people.
Ipetratz 2 years ago
Um, paying for old people, families with kids and the poor out of my pocket is not acceptable.
If you can't afford to support children? Don't have them. If you didn't plan for retirement and now you're old and can't afford to support yourself? That sounds like your problem. If you're poor? Work hard and drag yourself out of the lower class.
Why the hell should those of us who have worked hard and dragged ourselves up to a higher class have to pay for others who can't? Fuck that.
tigerwolf69 2 years ago
YEAH!
porkypine8974 2 years ago
Property rights have always fascinated me. The way people are so hung up on their stuff, as if their stuff will make them happy.
Another question is the origin of wealth. Is anyone really naive enough to believe that the majority of wealthy people became wealthy because they are inherently worthy of that wealth? That they earned it? How can you earn the right to sip champagne while children starve on the street? doesn't make any sense to me.
TacticusPrime 2 years ago
@TacticusPrime:
In an almost comical level of contrast to your viewpoint, the reality is that the zany idea of property rights in the US were originally a response to the "ascribed status" aristocracy prevalent in Europe. In other words, if you were born a shit shoveler's son, you had better get used to the smell because that's the only job you'd ever be qualified for.
PowerOfNight88 2 years ago
cont'd:
Instead, members of the liberal movement wanted property rights and free trade so they could become merchants and actually improve their lives. See back then, they actually did believe that you were either deserving of wealth or you weren't...and it was determined at birth. And since you think only a minority of "wealthy people" actually earn it, does that mean that none of them should have property rights? I fail to see the logic in that.
PowerOfNight88 2 years ago
there was not a medieval "liberal movement". men who became merchants clearly wanted to be able to own lots of property, as their feudal lords already did, and to become rich. There is no moral superiority in either position. Both exploited the serf, who never became either a merchant or a lord.
TacticusPrime 2 years ago
Is it exploitation to be able to choose where you wish to work? To be able to reach an agreement on what terms you wish to work on?
Is it exploitation to have you, as yourself and as your own property, be able to choose which type of service you wish to go into? To be honest, I think you know very little (at least only speculations) about what the Free Market is and does.
Offatwork 2 years ago
Oh yeah, you are so unattached to your stuff right?
You probably don't even shut the front door of your home, let alone, lock it right? If you have an electronic gizmo that cost you some money you probably just leave it outside in the front yard right??
glopur0 2 years ago
There's a difference between not being particularly attached to things and not appreciating safety, and being a good steward with what one has been given.
I'm merely commenting on how the mindless drive to have more and more things does not make for happiness and can, in fact, promote depression. Modern society has tied self-worth to the possession of things, and that is both sad and evil.
TacticusPrime 2 years ago 2
That's because you're looking at the situation in terms of cosmic justice (i.e. it's unfair that the universe made some rich and some poor), and not in terms of human justice. People sip champagne because someone agreed to give it to them, usually by trading for money. Starving children had nothing to do with it. Rich people aren't the cause of poverty, and they only morally right way to help a poor person is by voluntarily giving them stuff.
happymyster 2 years ago
Comment removed
Siradon 2 years ago
+50% income tax in denmark
uroprop 2 years ago
If paying higher taxes makes people happier, why don't they just give all their money to the government and they will be as happy as possible?
98nafets 2 years ago
Great comments here folks-- love how you all carry the discussion forward.
you pay taxes-- how happy are you?- and does it have any effect on your happiness?
pennsays 2 years ago
Could it be that their taxes are higher because they are happier? Happy people are less likely to object to their government taking more from them.*
It could also be that they aren't related at all. Correlation does not always equal causation.
*Actually, I think that you could probably say the same thing about people in fear.
tybo09 2 years ago
People in northern Europe are happy, because they feel secure. They feel they get proper medical treatment, if they get sick, the crime is relatively low, they trust they wont be kicked out of their homes, if they loose their jobs.
In genral happiest nations are also considred most democratic nations there is.
That has something to do with taxes too.
rvaara 2 years ago
Scandinavians are happy for a number of reasons. The much saner parlimentary system, generally secular politics, no death penalty, friendly police, actual freedom of speech, relaxed drug policies (prisons not full of victimless criminals, etc.). Not to mention lots and lots of blondes. But to say they're happier because they pay higher taxes? No, uh uh, bullcrap. E.g. the current govt in DK was elected primarily on a promise to stop raising taxes.
drdirs 2 years ago 3
Moreover, high taxes don't always benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. Try buying a car in Denmark on an low income. See what a 250% car tax actually means when you've already given half of your salary to the government. See if you can afford the artificially inflated insurance premium. Danes tend to evade taxes whenever they can, and they moan and bitch about the quality of the services provided by the government.
drdirs 2 years ago 2
did i really just have to watch a commercial to watch this video, what a bunch of bullshit thats like a tax on my time and im not happy about it :(
josiewhales 2 years ago
Can´t help but wonder... COULD it be that they´re happy because they have -something- left afterwards? When you have little of something, you´re glad if it goes a long way. You also have to consider: who did they ask? There´s alot about high taxes and stupid behaviour amongst government and industries I could write about, but I don´t have room :P
Jentzi1 2 years ago
Comment removed
GrantZ90 2 years ago
We should all remember that according to Joe Biden "Its time to be Patriotic" when it comes to paying higher taxes.
megamaniac76 2 years ago 2
I am not trying to be argumentative. We obviously need to pay some taxes and we do need a certain amount of government services. But Biden's statement to me just sounds exploitative, although I do not believe that is his intent. It is easy for those who live high off the government to make that duty claim, while others struggle to pay their bills and fund the lavish spending. Given the terrible waste of money in Washington, I believe we the people have a duty to push back on taxes. Thanks, RJ
TripperLV 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I read the article that Penn is describing in the video. The article states there is a "correlation" between taxation and "happiness". It then jumps to the conclusion that the higher taxes and their corresponding services are the cause of the "happiness". However, "correlation" does necessarily mean "causation", it can be the cause, but not necessarily. There could be another variable(s) shared by these high taxed countries that is actually causing the "happiness". No stat details are provided.
TripperLV 2 years ago
Comment removed
TripperLV 2 years ago
This is the third or fourth time in the last few years that something Penn says has really challenged my point of view ... and probably changed my mind. This is why I tune in. Thanks, Penn!
JoMadge 2 years ago 3
For Denamrk, Finland and the Netherlands, I don't think paying higher taxes makes then happy, it's the fact their porn industry is doing really good.
mnmkidd 2 years ago 2
This is the first time I really don't agree with you.
smygdamp 2 years ago
I made $38k last year:
Between federal, state, and sales taxes, license fees, tobacco and alcohol taxes, and gas tax, I paid 63% of my income to the government last year. That doesn't include the taxes and fees that are built into the price of the products I buy (payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, property taxes, etc.).
When is enough enough?
ShingleCreek 2 years ago
I wouldn't mind the taxes so much if they actually got used for important things. As it is, the US spends as much as every other country in the world put together on defense. That is pretty ridiculous.
Maybe if we had as many fighter jets as the rest of the world combined it would be different, but what happens is we spend that money on R&D and then in 5 years the rest of the world has access to the new technologies we come up with.
Phoboskomboa 2 years ago
In the US, it is Constitutionally illegal for the federal gervernment to impose a direct unapportioned tax on it's citizens. That is in the perview of the state governments
mgrafius 2 years ago
I have family in Copenhagen Denmark. They work for IBM. They hate their system and love the freedom here. They own a home here and come for all holidays!
falconerx 2 years ago
Penn, you're a lot smarter than you give yourself credit for.
Juhsayngul 2 years ago
maybe cuz those places are homogeneous?
mmsayre 2 years ago
I favored this the moment Penn compared it to rapists
gwagblade 2 years ago
With two wars and an economic crisis the rich are going to be taxed more. Our society provides the conditions for their ability to gain wealth, so I could care less if Alex Rodriguez and Paris Hilton have to pay a little more. Our nation was founded on the concept of "no taxation without representation." The rich have representation, which by the way is why naming those rallies "tea parties" is fallacious and oblivious.
I agree with Penn on most issues, but this is not one of them.
lombard34 2 years ago
Also, that rape joke is pure gold. Making fun of statistics is good for a laugh. In fact, I posted that joke on your "Japanese Rape Game" video.
PRWelke 2 years ago
Happiness isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Do you know who seem to be the happiest people that I see on any given day? Retards.
Seriously, some mentally handicapped folks seem way happier than most of us could ever be, but I still wouldn't want to trade places with them.
PRWelke 2 years ago
Taxes make people happy? What. The. Fuck.
Repeat after me: "Correlation does NOT equal causation."
PRWelke 2 years ago
They're happy because they are liberals and they have a liberal country. They're happy in spite of the taxes not because of them. They think it's great that the government taxes business and doles out huge maternity leave and medical care and other social services they want.
cinndave 2 years ago
??? It's like a gangrape? Seriously, how high do you think our taxes are? The super-rich are still ultra-rich after payday, make no mistakes. And still we will be can rely on the government.
Plus, what is immoral about making rich people pay more taxes? They have more money! And don't think most of that money gets into the pockets of the prime-minister or anything, that money is to be used for the good of the collective society. It's not stealing.
I'm Dutch, by the way, and very happy :)
Nocturnuz 2 years ago
Ahh, you talk about the government is such idealized terms. Government institutions, by their very nature, don't shovel your money into programs "for the good of the collective society". Government organizations are horribly inefficient, so the vast majority of my taxes are thrown down the toilet simply because there is no reason for the government to use them more efficiently. I can't choose to not give them my taxes, they get their money no matter what, so why make any improvements?
kbonez2 2 years ago
First of all: He was talking about the government being immoral (comparing it to rape etc.), or at least the inning of taxes. What I'm saying is that they don't take for the taking (like a rapist), they take (more from the rich) for the good of the entire society. So calling it immoral isn't fair at all.
Secondly: Don't you know why the chosen party/coalition isn't alone in decisionmaking? To make sure they DO work efficiently. They like ripping on the coalition.
Nocturnuz 2 years ago
I think the actual reason for why people in these countries (I'm one of them) are willing to pay high taxes is because the government services actually work and produce mostly positive results.
Oh and at least in Finland it's not the rich that are taxed the most, but the ones in the middle-class. That way you have some chance to keep the rich people as citizens of the country. ;)
GrantZ90 2 years ago
Umm...the rich use taxes to make themselves richer and the rich use the most services of the country. So the government isn't exactly being Robin Hood.
lordcheetah 2 years ago
It's not just taxes. That's another co-relation without causation.
They also have legal pot and prostitutes, and hot bodies etc. We could make all sorts of co-relations between them and happiness.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
Finland has not, Denmark has not (although it seems to be somewhat in the pipeline). All europeans have hot bodies tho, thats just fact.
tanekki 2 years ago
Penn is excactly right. I'm from Denmark and we hear about this "happysurvey" all the time. Penns last coment, that maybe it should just be colder and darker in the US to make americans happier, shows the point, that connecting happiness with high taxes doesn't show anything. Denmark scores high in the survey, because people feel secure that they won't starve in the near future, but that hasn't really that much to do with taxes.
anmad04 2 years ago
"Denmark scores high in the survey, because people feel secure that they won't starve in the near future"
While Americans are dangerously skinny and running out of food? People here have less things to worry about, because our system is well thought out.
bleunt 2 years ago
LOl, We Americans are dangerously skiny,and running out of food? I laugh only because if you ask other ppl we are dangerously over wight,and have to much food.
nero8289 2 years ago
Yeah, that was my point. Danes aren't more happy because they have food, like someone here stated.
bleunt 2 years ago
It's probably also the life-style and the way the government treats people.
Your high-taxed government probably behaves differently than ours, if incomes were relative.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
Democracy just seems to work pretty well. Pretty all systems that does not apply or are applied by democracy, including capitalism, have time and time again been shown not to work very well. And it's kinda weird talking about taking lots and lots of money from rich people and comparing it to rape since they still have a lot more left than poor people and they have the same rights as everybody else.
Democracy - It works, bitches (even when applied to economy)
Laseranders 2 years ago
Being a libertarian is a lot easier when you're rich.
XionXi 2 years ago
So is just about everything else.
So what?
I'd say the world is better for the poor with more employment and higher wages.
That's what free markets (and libertarianism) leads to.
I'd say the world is better for artists and peaceful people who want to live in off-beat ways.
That's what comes from the freedom and tolerance implied by individual rights to liberty. i.e. libertarianism.
freesk8 2 years ago 3
Best comment on this clip.
bleunt 2 years ago
You seem to have gained quite the following of haters. I for one love ya and Im going to be using that 1 in 10 example quite often from now on to show what the greeks new, democracy is nothing more than tyrany of the majority.
Imputis 2 years ago
I am from DENMARk
And we are happy for the high texas, Because we always do talk about DEMOCRACY
Penn, What do you do when you vote,
for a president ?
You take the majority of the people who most likely wanna have that president.
So in that phrase we talk about majority, Because Majority its equal to Democracy.
zacky89 2 years ago
I would like to suggest that if taxes were higher people would pay more attention to where the money was going. The money would be spent more effeciently. Now taxes are low and there is bitching but nobody cares how the money is spent. There is a lazyness about how their tax money is spent. Taxes are a neusence a mosqueto that sucks your blood so we put up with it. So high taxes would make a more vigilent citizen.
touristinexile 2 years ago
I am from Finlan and i am not happy. What a hell is wrong whit me
SCAREDBANANA 2 years ago
You are one in ten.
1stCainite 2 years ago