The rich may be in the highest tax brackets, but with all the deductions exclusions and credits they get, they walk out better than if there was a flat tax (ie 15% on capital gains). This is still true if you consider AMT.
@hardeez1 A theft that's given back to you through school, medicare, roads, bridge, cleaning the streets, keeping police, firemen, water, post office.
@MenwithHill Nice try, you already admitted it's theft. So it's okay if I go rob someone at gunpoint as long as I give them something in return that I think they might find useful? You fail.
@MenwithHill Nice try, you already admitted it's theft. So it's okay if I go rob someone at gunpoint as long as I give them something in return that I think they might find useful? You fail.
@hardeez1 Who would pay for the police without taxes? Or roads, schools, dams, bridges, the military, firefighters? Please directly answer the question.
@squamish4244 Whoever want them. That's like asking "who will pay for UPS or FedEx to ship stuff? If we don't force people to pay for them, they won't exist." That's flawed logic. If there is a demand for it, it will be. That's the beauty of the free market, which you should read up on instead of just spouting off and shooting from the hip. Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. How is it moral for people to steal other people's money by force no matter the effect?
@hardeez1 Well...the United States is a democracy. Nobody has ever been 'forced' to pay taxes if they elected a government that then raised taxes. Which means that over the course of the 230 year history of this country, more people have agreed on taxation than have not. If you don't like democracy, go live in North Korea. Or maybe a state without a government, like Somalia. I'm sure the conditions are much better there.
@squamish4244 I never voted to pay taxes and I am forced to. You're an idiot if you think I can vote for no taxes. So if some guy's neighbor was robbing him once a week, you would just tell him to move?
@hardeez1 Well, too bad for you. You live in a country where people pay taxes and if you don't like it, then yes, go to a place where there is no government and see how you like it there. But you won't do that, because a country without a government and the rule of law is an awful place to live, so you'll just keep trolling comments sections on YouTube.
@squamish4244 Have you ever heard of the "Attack The Person" fallacy? If not, look it up. Either way, it's not very effective for you. Argue with logic; don't attack the person or simply tell the "way things are today" to back up your ideas... Just makes you look bad. If this country were full of people like you, we would make zero progress. Just keep settling for the status quo and don't use your brain.
@MenwithHill Nice try, you already admitted it's theft. So it's okay if I go rob someone at gunpoint as long as I give them something in return that I think they might find useful? You fail.
@MenwithHill No one has ever been able to answer the question of exactly who would pay for all that if not for taxes. The inevitable reply is to talk around the issue and then tell you "epic fail!" or something like that.
Taxes should stay low no matter if taxes are low people will be able to pay them and funding flow wil be steady, if taxes are higher then the budget will increase which leads to a flow that cannot fit the budget. If the budget fits income then debut will be less serious.
Very misinformed Lewis look in a legal dictionary of the definition of a person. A person is a corporation or a government don't believe me look it up for yourself. Don't talk about things if your not going to research it first.
History shows that when you have vacuums of power, SOMEONE will fill that vacuum! DUH. Gee, who woulda thought. When NO ONE is in power, EVERY PERSON who is interested will try to take the opportunity to claim power for himself. This is exactly why anarchy will never work for any long period of time in a substantive fashion. An anarchist society would have to be INCREDIBLY small and very decentralized.
It's Logic 101. All the anarchists do is theorize about "how it would work".
@whoo689 While you're coming up with goofy-ass theories about "what may work" or "what could be", the rest of us are trying to FIX this country. We don't GIVE A FUCK about your academic or nice-sounding theories about "no government! yippee!"
And besides, is it REALLY only the gov't that exercises force and fraud against people? NO OF COURSE NOT. Only an idiot would say something so dumb. Plenty of non-gov't entities do that shit, too
@whoo689 Unfortunately, you can't escape this "monopoly." Whether you like it or not, gov't is here to stay. And no amount of bitching about how "unjustified" its existence is or how "society could work just fine without government" is gonna change things. So either TRY hard to change things into anarchy or just STFU and work within the system to make things better if you really care about the issues.
If not, go fuck yourselves. We don't have time for that anti-gov't bs.
@whoo689 Anarcho-capitalists have gotta be the biggest idiots on the planet. They ACTUALLY believe that a society basically dominated by Wall Street would be just as functional as today's. You REALLY think Wall Street, if unencumbered by government regulations and meddling, wouldn't jump at the chance to dominate our lives if it meant more profits and whathaveyou? That they'll all just operate totally virtuously?
Get real... Markets are great, but unfettered markets not so much.
@whoo689 Anarcho-capitalists are basically defenders of the Robber Baron Age on steroids. If government can fuck up your life with a 'coercive monopoly' and do whatever it wants without checks on its power, why would Wall Street not eventually operate in the same manner in that situation? These companies are run by the SAME human beings that run bureaucracies. Sure their mindsets may be a little diff., but they're still self-interested and oftentimes selfish human beings who like power.
A class full of mush-4-brains students who are buying his crap hook, line, and sinker. Fuel taxes pay for roads and bridges....property taxes pay for schools....so what does the Federal Income Tax pay for?
I would be will to pay tax, if I were getting the government service I require. I hear it all the time from public servant, about their pay "outside I would be earning more in the private sector. Crap because you would have to work. Not take three to four weeks to process paper work. Also pay your taxes and then pay a fee to use those services you paid for.
@heavenshaffer LOL! The rich create jobs for the job consumers. Anyone who wants to can start their own business and create jobs rather than consume them.
@heavenshaffer The rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. The way our system is set up...the more you make, the more they take. When I say the rich I mean mostly small business owners who have high incomes.
@madaboutpolitics A small business, as defined by our tax code, is Bechtel - one of the largest, if not the largest, engineering firms in the world.
They pay more because they make more. A flat tax is a regressive tax. If a person is making $250,000 a year (the start of the top bracket) and we have a 15% flat tax, they pay $37,500. Now a person making 10% of that a year (like a teacher) would pay $3,750. The teacher gets hit harder. That's not the only reason for a progressive income tax...
@DisturbedHavok ...We pay a progressive income tax because the rich benefit more by living in our society. A person making $25,000 a year is hardly flying much and taking advantage of the FAA or airport security. They aren't using the US Highways or railways to transport goods for profit all that much. They don't have the money to invest in the stock market and have the protection of the SEC for a fair exchange.
The rich have the power to depress wages to make more, so they should pay more.
@DisturbedHavok OH....I get it....so we should discourage achievement through higher taxes for people who create jobs for others. That way they will become discouraged and stop creating jobs so that more of the people near the bottom of the totem pole can become government dependents. The highways and railways are available for anyone to use.
@madaboutpolitics They still achieved in the 1950s, and 60s, and 70s, and 80s, and 90s. In the 1990s, which is the tax rate Obama is saying we should let it go back to, they achieved and made more money while EVERYONE ELSE ACHIEVED AND MADE MORE MONEY TOO! See, my idea works for everyone, your idea works for a select few.
I'd say you had a point if people who have a lot of money were creating jobs, but they aren't. They're only working on increasing their own net worth.
@madaboutpolitics Well considering a lot of profitable companies are taking their extra money and just buying up their own stock, thus driving up the price of the stock to increase the value of the stock options owned mostly by executives instead of hiring new workers, clearly not them.
@DisturbedHavok Oh....so who is creating all the jobs then? There are people who have jobs in the United States aren't there? Who created all those jobs?
@madaboutpolitics They have to have some people working for them, but don't tell me that the government letting taxes go back to the levels they were at before the Bush tax cuts will hinder job creation when the facts tell us that even though they have been making a profit, corporations aren't really creating new jobs on the levels they should be here in the US. If taxes didn't hurt job creation in the 90s, they can't hurt them now.
@madaboutpolitics Government, businesses, individuals - many entities create jobs. Your argument was that raising taxes hinders job creation when the 90s proved it does not.
@DisturbedHavok Government does not create jobs, because all government jobs are supported by tax dollars which were raised from individuals who work for Capitalists or which were raised from Capitalists themselves. Look at it like this....if you work for the government...you don't really pay taxes, because you are drawing your salary out of the same pool you are putting your tax money into.
@madaboutpolitics Government doesn't create jobs? I guess the cops I saw pulling people over the other night were figments of my imagination and that fire truck must have been driving itself. My mistake. And where do all those kids on my street go to each morning? Is that a pedophile picking them up with that bus?
@DisturbedHavok You’re talking about jobs that are funded by the government you were completely missing the point. The cause of the recssion started at the end of the Bush administration because of the mortgage failure people was not able to pay their mortgage. But the problem with the point that Lewis was making was that with an equal pay cap the rich would still be making more. But even then the rich should not really be bitching about how they have to pay taxes.
Respond to this video...Raising taxes DOES hinder job creation. It's common sense...something which you do not seem to have much of. Duhh...how can I make it any simpler. If I have less money due to higher taxes as a business owner, then I have fewer funds to use for the expansion of my business which means that I don't hire as many people. DUH! 1 + 1 = 2. I know they taught you that funny math in the public indoctrination center, but please try to pay attention.
@madaboutpolitics Then during the 6 years after Bush cut taxes, the economy and job creation should've boomed and look, they didn't. Bill Clinton raised taxes and look, they did. See, common sense also includes looking at things you can actually observe and that's something that you can observe. I'd say that's pretty simple there.
@DisturbedHavok They did boom but alas polute-sie and Harry Red won the House and Senate in 2006. Do you remember when the press was complaining about 4.5 percent unemployment. Do you remember the homeless. There is only stories about the homeless when there is a Republican President. How many people are homeless right now I wonder. You know with the apparently acceptable 10 percent actually real 20 percent unemployment. The left is hypocrites. And this guy is a Marxist.
@ThePackers123 Keep telling yourself all that, but verifiable data shows that the economy only got better for the wealthy. Wages stayed flat and the "boom" in the housing market that was constantly pointed to during all those years as a sign to a growing economy we now know was an artificial bubble created by greedy bankers and corporate CEOs once the Bush admin and Republicans removed the banking regulations and Clinton (I'll blame him a bit too) helped get rid of Glass-Steagal.
Not the Fundamentalist Jews, but their adversaries, the Zionists, were the “ZI” in “NAZI.” They ran Hitler’s concentration camps, corrupted our politicians, created the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, the Federal Reserve Bank (makes money from thin air for its owners), IRS, started and funded both sides of our wars, and illegally own everything of value on Earth, including Us. This planet could be a paradise, were it not for these conscienceless monsters.
Someone needs to create a website called HumanitysTraitors. Display the Zionists’ and their goons’ names, a paragraph describing their crimes against humanity, current pictures, addresses and contact information, known hangouts, associates, schedules, etc. It would be like “1984” in reverse! Offer a reward for recent photos and have cell phone cameras all over the world stalking them. We’d have them shaking in their boots, afraid to go to sleep at night.
We have to pay taxes because we have to pay for roads, bridges & airport security? So if our crappy government doesn't provide these things, nobody else will? That's idiotic.
Also, trusting the government which is by definition a coercive monopoly is also idiotic. These things should be provided by competing businesses. That's how you keep quality up & cost down & make sure consumer desires are met. Economics 101. These students should ask for their money back.
Nobody is offering to pay for them, because everyone is forced to pay for the services & products provided by the government.
If government stopped forcing everyone to buy their products & services, higher quality, lower priced competitors would emerge, and consumers would pay directly for the things they desire most. Example: The government doesn't force you to buy government food, so there are tons of businesses competing to give consumers the food they desire most.
@truthadvocate And where can I learn this brand of "anarchist economics", dipshit? WTF are you talking about? Is that some kind of Austrian economics bullshit? What 'consumer desires'? Who's clamoring for private bridges??
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN! It has NEVER happened. We never have and will never have total privatization of roads, bridges, etc. Besides, contracting out and privatization don't necessarily improve quality. You're just replacing a public monopoly with a private one.
@truthadvocate Anarchist societies that are well-functioning and have vibrant, high-GDP economies that are as populous as the U.S. DON'T EXIST! And they never will. There are very few examples of working anarchist societies in history, and those that did work tend to be quite small, especially compared to the average state in the industrialized world.
Laissez-faire DIDN'T work in the 18 and 19th Centuries, and it sure as hell would be a DISASTER nowadays.
@truthadvocate This kind of fuzzy logic is exactly why I'm becoming less and less of a libertarian every day. I'm getting tired of the nonsensical arguments. Granted, i still believe very much in freedom, and we could afford to cut government size quite a bit. But the RIDICULOUS no-perspective anti-government-in-general position of libertarianism MAKES NO SENSE!
Sometimes gov't works, and sometimes it doesn't. It's not ONE OR THE OTHER, for fuck sake!
@whoo689 And newsflash! Sometimes markets fail and screw up on their own TOO! Now, I know some of you will say "Oh, but there's corporatism" and yadda yadda yadda. Even so, the American economy is still pretty fucking free. We're consistently ranked in the top 10 or 20 in the modern era by every measure of economic freedom. So we're not as "economically free" as Hong Kong. SO THE FUCK WHAT
I think most people would consider our market here to be close enough to "free market."
@truthadvocate Besides, what kind of country can possibly exist with a TOTAL vacuum of power? Where there are absolutely no rulers or gov't? Where everything supposedly is provided by "the free market", and we all just trust our neighbors to do the right thing? Where does that exist? SHOW ME a country that follows that model.
If it WERE at all possible, don't you think this would've ALREADY happened? But no... anarchy is a bunch of theoretical bullshit that doesn't work.
The U.S. may be relatively free compared to other countries. So? That's like claiming the smartest person in a group of morons is a genius.
Competition to serve consumers benefits consumers. Government kills competition. Plus it's foolish to give anyone that kind of power whether they are in the private or public sector.
All your arguments could have been used in support of slavery a couple centuries ago. Afterall, all the most successful countries were doing it.
The guy that said he wasn't a human must have meant he was an animal because he has flesh. Animals don't pay taxes. Or he didn't know the argument except that he wasn't a person. So now he ruined it for everyone. Because you know the government will come up with a animal tax. Those C$%k suckers. Are f%&cking everything up. I want to fire and not rehire anyone to replace them which is pretty much how they would want my life to be if they knew who I was. But it would ruin their re-election.
I love you Lewis but I have to disagree, the problem is not paying taxes its the morons in Washington. I'm all for paying taxes, we need stuff like roads, cops and military. The problem is th idiot politicians who don't use the money for that, come to LA where the roads are broken, grafiti everywhere, every illegal gets paid for. Then the politician doesn't pay his taxes and gives himself a fat bonus, then he tells you oh you need to conserve water. I say give the govt an allowance.
ArcanineKing, you are .. err.. dude, you need to give us some material to work with to continue the quipping! How are we supposed to keep it going when you say so little?
pgunn01 you are an admitted socialist. Socialism is an abject failure. PROVEN. Go find another country to destroy and leave this one for people who actually have a CLUE.
dperreaultyahoo, you are an admitted libertarian. Libertarianism is an abject failure. PROVEN. Go find another country to destroy and leave this one for people who actually have a CLUE.
dperreaultyahoo, pgunn01, you two are admitted ignorant people. Both subjects are a failure. Go find another planet to ruin and leave this one forever. :D
that would be great lewis if we where spending the tax money on roads bridges and schools, but guess what we're not, thats why people are pissed, our money has been largely allocated to the m.ic. and lining the pockets of the corrupt politicians. and crooked wall street bankers, and all the welfare cheats who cant get off the tit of laziness and apathy.
WTMF! - How the hell could congress vote-in legislation giving $700 billion over to the Secretary of State, without limitations and if he fucks up again...He can just demand/threaten congress again to hand over another $700 billion+!????
What kind of legislative agreement has no cap/limits or conditions on the expenditure?
Good video, but this bailout is like the old saying...'ULTIMATE POWER, CORRUPTS ULTIMATELY'!
...And oh boy, do the politicians & financial CEOs have TOO MUCH POWER!!
damn every person lol i guess were going to have to tax some homeless people as well hahaha!
LostWorldHalfLife2 4 months ago
illegal beaners should pay all the taxes and then die!
FUwogs 4 months ago
The rich may be in the highest tax brackets, but with all the deductions exclusions and credits they get, they walk out better than if there was a flat tax (ie 15% on capital gains). This is still true if you consider AMT.
anajalal1 5 months ago
Tax is theft, plain and simple.
hardeez1 8 months ago
@hardeez1 A theft that's given back to you through school, medicare, roads, bridge, cleaning the streets, keeping police, firemen, water, post office.
MenwithHill 5 months ago
@MenwithHill Nice try, you already admitted it's theft. So it's okay if I go rob someone at gunpoint as long as I give them something in return that I think they might find useful? You fail.
hardeez1 5 months ago
@MenwithHill Nice try, you already admitted it's theft. So it's okay if I go rob someone at gunpoint as long as I give them something in return that I think they might find useful? You fail.
hardeez1 5 months ago
@hardeez1 Well the police, who are paid for with taxes, would arrest you after robbing someone at gunpoint. You would then be given jail in return.
squamish4244 4 months ago
@squamish4244 but yet they can do it to you, so explain that logic. oh that's right, you have no logic!
hardeez1 4 months ago
@hardeez1 Who would pay for the police without taxes? Or roads, schools, dams, bridges, the military, firefighters? Please directly answer the question.
squamish4244 4 months ago
@squamish4244 Whoever want them. That's like asking "who will pay for UPS or FedEx to ship stuff? If we don't force people to pay for them, they won't exist." That's flawed logic. If there is a demand for it, it will be. That's the beauty of the free market, which you should read up on instead of just spouting off and shooting from the hip. Now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. How is it moral for people to steal other people's money by force no matter the effect?
hardeez1 4 months ago
@hardeez1 Well...the United States is a democracy. Nobody has ever been 'forced' to pay taxes if they elected a government that then raised taxes. Which means that over the course of the 230 year history of this country, more people have agreed on taxation than have not. If you don't like democracy, go live in North Korea. Or maybe a state without a government, like Somalia. I'm sure the conditions are much better there.
squamish4244 4 months ago
@squamish4244 I never voted to pay taxes and I am forced to. You're an idiot if you think I can vote for no taxes. So if some guy's neighbor was robbing him once a week, you would just tell him to move?
hardeez1 4 months ago
@hardeez1 Well, too bad for you. You live in a country where people pay taxes and if you don't like it, then yes, go to a place where there is no government and see how you like it there. But you won't do that, because a country without a government and the rule of law is an awful place to live, so you'll just keep trolling comments sections on YouTube.
squamish4244 4 months ago
@squamish4244 Have you ever heard of the "Attack The Person" fallacy? If not, look it up. Either way, it's not very effective for you. Argue with logic; don't attack the person or simply tell the "way things are today" to back up your ideas... Just makes you look bad. If this country were full of people like you, we would make zero progress. Just keep settling for the status quo and don't use your brain.
hardeez1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MenwithHill Nice try, you already admitted it's theft. So it's okay if I go rob someone at gunpoint as long as I give them something in return that I think they might find useful? You fail.
hardeez1 5 months ago
@MenwithHill No one has ever been able to answer the question of exactly who would pay for all that if not for taxes. The inevitable reply is to talk around the issue and then tell you "epic fail!" or something like that.
squamish4244 4 months ago
@MenwithHill doesn't matter buddy, theft is theft. i could rob somebody and put it toward a good cause, and you would be okay with that?
hardeez1 4 months ago
Taxes should stay low no matter if taxes are low people will be able to pay them and funding flow wil be steady, if taxes are higher then the budget will increase which leads to a flow that cannot fit the budget. If the budget fits income then debut will be less serious.
Liddlelegrande 10 months ago
Very misinformed Lewis look in a legal dictionary of the definition of a person. A person is a corporation or a government don't believe me look it up for yourself. Don't talk about things if your not going to research it first.
hipsi337 11 months ago
I sat though this garbage and I didnt even get a free shirt!
myrdale 11 months ago
Been looking for this, can you buy this anywhere?
ZeroGx30 1 year ago
..and they said," Wrong shovel asshole!"
chefdanny64 1 year ago
well as you can clearly see your honor, "I'm not a person."
chefdanny64 1 year ago
Commie
ThePackers123 1 year ago
History shows that when you have vacuums of power, SOMEONE will fill that vacuum! DUH. Gee, who woulda thought. When NO ONE is in power, EVERY PERSON who is interested will try to take the opportunity to claim power for himself. This is exactly why anarchy will never work for any long period of time in a substantive fashion. An anarchist society would have to be INCREDIBLY small and very decentralized.
It's Logic 101. All the anarchists do is theorize about "how it would work".
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 While you're coming up with goofy-ass theories about "what may work" or "what could be", the rest of us are trying to FIX this country. We don't GIVE A FUCK about your academic or nice-sounding theories about "no government! yippee!"
And besides, is it REALLY only the gov't that exercises force and fraud against people? NO OF COURSE NOT. Only an idiot would say something so dumb. Plenty of non-gov't entities do that shit, too
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Unfortunately, you can't escape this "monopoly." Whether you like it or not, gov't is here to stay. And no amount of bitching about how "unjustified" its existence is or how "society could work just fine without government" is gonna change things. So either TRY hard to change things into anarchy or just STFU and work within the system to make things better if you really care about the issues.
If not, go fuck yourselves. We don't have time for that anti-gov't bs.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Anarcho-capitalists have gotta be the biggest idiots on the planet. They ACTUALLY believe that a society basically dominated by Wall Street would be just as functional as today's. You REALLY think Wall Street, if unencumbered by government regulations and meddling, wouldn't jump at the chance to dominate our lives if it meant more profits and whathaveyou? That they'll all just operate totally virtuously?
Get real... Markets are great, but unfettered markets not so much.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Anarcho-capitalists are basically defenders of the Robber Baron Age on steroids. If government can fuck up your life with a 'coercive monopoly' and do whatever it wants without checks on its power, why would Wall Street not eventually operate in the same manner in that situation? These companies are run by the SAME human beings that run bureaucracies. Sure their mindsets may be a little diff., but they're still self-interested and oftentimes selfish human beings who like power.
whoo689 1 year ago
Mr. Black, the taxes paid to the IRS do not go to: road, highways, hospitals, libraries etc.. That is propaganda.
The state,city taxes, car, home, etc. pay for roads, hospitals, etc....
johnnyboypdq 1 year ago
A class full of mush-4-brains students who are buying his crap hook, line, and sinker. Fuel taxes pay for roads and bridges....property taxes pay for schools....so what does the Federal Income Tax pay for?
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
I would be will to pay tax, if I were getting the government service I require. I hear it all the time from public servant, about their pay "outside I would be earning more in the private sector. Crap because you would have to work. Not take three to four weeks to process paper work. Also pay your taxes and then pay a fee to use those services you paid for.
Bristow42 1 year ago
I would think that rich people would want to give back to the community that they enslave.
heavenshaffer 1 year ago
@heavenshaffer LOL! The rich create jobs for the job consumers. Anyone who wants to can start their own business and create jobs rather than consume them.
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@heavenshaffer The rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. The way our system is set up...the more you make, the more they take. When I say the rich I mean mostly small business owners who have high incomes.
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics A small business, as defined by our tax code, is Bechtel - one of the largest, if not the largest, engineering firms in the world.
They pay more because they make more. A flat tax is a regressive tax. If a person is making $250,000 a year (the start of the top bracket) and we have a 15% flat tax, they pay $37,500. Now a person making 10% of that a year (like a teacher) would pay $3,750. The teacher gets hit harder. That's not the only reason for a progressive income tax...
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok ...We pay a progressive income tax because the rich benefit more by living in our society. A person making $25,000 a year is hardly flying much and taking advantage of the FAA or airport security. They aren't using the US Highways or railways to transport goods for profit all that much. They don't have the money to invest in the stock market and have the protection of the SEC for a fair exchange.
The rich have the power to depress wages to make more, so they should pay more.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok OH....I get it....so we should discourage achievement through higher taxes for people who create jobs for others. That way they will become discouraged and stop creating jobs so that more of the people near the bottom of the totem pole can become government dependents. The highways and railways are available for anyone to use.
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics They still achieved in the 1950s, and 60s, and 70s, and 80s, and 90s. In the 1990s, which is the tax rate Obama is saying we should let it go back to, they achieved and made more money while EVERYONE ELSE ACHIEVED AND MADE MORE MONEY TOO! See, my idea works for everyone, your idea works for a select few.
I'd say you had a point if people who have a lot of money were creating jobs, but they aren't. They're only working on increasing their own net worth.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok Really? Who creates jobs in this country?
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics Well considering a lot of profitable companies are taking their extra money and just buying up their own stock, thus driving up the price of the stock to increase the value of the stock options owned mostly by executives instead of hiring new workers, clearly not them.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok Oh....so who is creating all the jobs then? There are people who have jobs in the United States aren't there? Who created all those jobs?
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics They have to have some people working for them, but don't tell me that the government letting taxes go back to the levels they were at before the Bush tax cuts will hinder job creation when the facts tell us that even though they have been making a profit, corporations aren't really creating new jobs on the levels they should be here in the US. If taxes didn't hurt job creation in the 90s, they can't hurt them now.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok Can you give me a straight answer? Who creates jobs?
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics Government, businesses, individuals - many entities create jobs. Your argument was that raising taxes hinders job creation when the 90s proved it does not.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok Government does not create jobs, because all government jobs are supported by tax dollars which were raised from individuals who work for Capitalists or which were raised from Capitalists themselves. Look at it like this....if you work for the government...you don't really pay taxes, because you are drawing your salary out of the same pool you are putting your tax money into.
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics Government doesn't create jobs? I guess the cops I saw pulling people over the other night were figments of my imagination and that fire truck must have been driving itself. My mistake. And where do all those kids on my street go to each morning? Is that a pedophile picking them up with that bus?
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok You’re talking about jobs that are funded by the government you were completely missing the point. The cause of the recssion started at the end of the Bush administration because of the mortgage failure people was not able to pay their mortgage. But the problem with the point that Lewis was making was that with an equal pay cap the rich would still be making more. But even then the rich should not really be bitching about how they have to pay taxes.
Liddlelegrande 10 months ago
Respond to this video...Raising taxes DOES hinder job creation. It's common sense...something which you do not seem to have much of. Duhh...how can I make it any simpler. If I have less money due to higher taxes as a business owner, then I have fewer funds to use for the expansion of my business which means that I don't hire as many people. DUH! 1 + 1 = 2. I know they taught you that funny math in the public indoctrination center, but please try to pay attention.
madaboutpolitics 1 year ago
@madaboutpolitics Then during the 6 years after Bush cut taxes, the economy and job creation should've boomed and look, they didn't. Bill Clinton raised taxes and look, they did. See, common sense also includes looking at things you can actually observe and that's something that you can observe. I'd say that's pretty simple there.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok They did boom but alas polute-sie and Harry Red won the House and Senate in 2006. Do you remember when the press was complaining about 4.5 percent unemployment. Do you remember the homeless. There is only stories about the homeless when there is a Republican President. How many people are homeless right now I wonder. You know with the apparently acceptable 10 percent actually real 20 percent unemployment. The left is hypocrites. And this guy is a Marxist.
ThePackers123 1 year ago
@ThePackers123 Keep telling yourself all that, but verifiable data shows that the economy only got better for the wealthy. Wages stayed flat and the "boom" in the housing market that was constantly pointed to during all those years as a sign to a growing economy we now know was an artificial bubble created by greedy bankers and corporate CEOs once the Bush admin and Republicans removed the banking regulations and Clinton (I'll blame him a bit too) helped get rid of Glass-Steagal.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@DisturbedHavok You have been brainwashed or you are a brain washer. One or the other but what you say is untrue.
ThePackers123 1 year ago
@ThePackers123 Yep, showing facts is brainwashing. Oh wait, no, that's actually not what brainwashing is.
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
Not the Fundamentalist Jews, but their adversaries, the Zionists, were the “ZI” in “NAZI.” They ran Hitler’s concentration camps, corrupted our politicians, created the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, the Federal Reserve Bank (makes money from thin air for its owners), IRS, started and funded both sides of our wars, and illegally own everything of value on Earth, including Us. This planet could be a paradise, were it not for these conscienceless monsters.
stopdemockery 1 year ago
Someone needs to create a website called HumanitysTraitors. Display the Zionists’ and their goons’ names, a paragraph describing their crimes against humanity, current pictures, addresses and contact information, known hangouts, associates, schedules, etc. It would be like “1984” in reverse! Offer a reward for recent photos and have cell phone cameras all over the world stalking them. We’d have them shaking in their boots, afraid to go to sleep at night.
stopdemockery 1 year ago
All you people who are over analyzing this...you realize lewis black is a stand up comedian, right? x.x
Fucking failures.
Theantihick 2 years ago
Lewis Black is an idiot.
We have to pay taxes because we have to pay for roads, bridges & airport security? So if our crappy government doesn't provide these things, nobody else will? That's idiotic.
Also, trusting the government which is by definition a coercive monopoly is also idiotic. These things should be provided by competing businesses. That's how you keep quality up & cost down & make sure consumer desires are met. Economics 101. These students should ask for their money back.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
@truthadvocate Well, who else will pay for them? I don't see anyone offering?
heavenshaffer 1 year ago
@heavenshaffer,
Nobody is offering to pay for them, because everyone is forced to pay for the services & products provided by the government.
If government stopped forcing everyone to buy their products & services, higher quality, lower priced competitors would emerge, and consumers would pay directly for the things they desire most. Example: The government doesn't force you to buy government food, so there are tons of businesses competing to give consumers the food they desire most.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate And where can I learn this brand of "anarchist economics", dipshit? WTF are you talking about? Is that some kind of Austrian economics bullshit? What 'consumer desires'? Who's clamoring for private bridges??
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN! It has NEVER happened. We never have and will never have total privatization of roads, bridges, etc. Besides, contracting out and privatization don't necessarily improve quality. You're just replacing a public monopoly with a private one.
whoo689 1 year ago
@truthadvocate Anarchist societies that are well-functioning and have vibrant, high-GDP economies that are as populous as the U.S. DON'T EXIST! And they never will. There are very few examples of working anarchist societies in history, and those that did work tend to be quite small, especially compared to the average state in the industrialized world.
Laissez-faire DIDN'T work in the 18 and 19th Centuries, and it sure as hell would be a DISASTER nowadays.
whoo689 1 year ago
@truthadvocate This kind of fuzzy logic is exactly why I'm becoming less and less of a libertarian every day. I'm getting tired of the nonsensical arguments. Granted, i still believe very much in freedom, and we could afford to cut government size quite a bit. But the RIDICULOUS no-perspective anti-government-in-general position of libertarianism MAKES NO SENSE!
Sometimes gov't works, and sometimes it doesn't. It's not ONE OR THE OTHER, for fuck sake!
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 And newsflash! Sometimes markets fail and screw up on their own TOO! Now, I know some of you will say "Oh, but there's corporatism" and yadda yadda yadda. Even so, the American economy is still pretty fucking free. We're consistently ranked in the top 10 or 20 in the modern era by every measure of economic freedom. So we're not as "economically free" as Hong Kong. SO THE FUCK WHAT
I think most people would consider our market here to be close enough to "free market."
whoo689 1 year ago
@truthadvocate Besides, what kind of country can possibly exist with a TOTAL vacuum of power? Where there are absolutely no rulers or gov't? Where everything supposedly is provided by "the free market", and we all just trust our neighbors to do the right thing? Where does that exist? SHOW ME a country that follows that model.
If it WERE at all possible, don't you think this would've ALREADY happened? But no... anarchy is a bunch of theoretical bullshit that doesn't work.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689,
The U.S. may be relatively free compared to other countries. So? That's like claiming the smartest person in a group of morons is a genius.
Competition to serve consumers benefits consumers. Government kills competition. Plus it's foolish to give anyone that kind of power whether they are in the private or public sector.
All your arguments could have been used in support of slavery a couple centuries ago. Afterall, all the most successful countries were doing it.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
This teacher dude or wat eva, is a joke...
When he said "did not declare he was a person"
Teacher Idiot there are two meanings for the word "person" in our fuked up world...
In day to day life: We use the word to mean another human being BUT in LAW it means a legal entity...
If you admit your a "person" in court thats saying you will follow their rules...
If you want a better understanding youtube "strawman"....
EasyEbookMan 2 years ago
The guy that said he wasn't a human must have meant he was an animal because he has flesh. Animals don't pay taxes. Or he didn't know the argument except that he wasn't a person. So now he ruined it for everyone. Because you know the government will come up with a animal tax. Those C$%k suckers. Are f%&cking everything up. I want to fire and not rehire anyone to replace them which is pretty much how they would want my life to be if they knew who I was. But it would ruin their re-election.
krrrruptidsoless 2 years ago
I love you Lewis but I have to disagree, the problem is not paying taxes its the morons in Washington. I'm all for paying taxes, we need stuff like roads, cops and military. The problem is th idiot politicians who don't use the money for that, come to LA where the roads are broken, grafiti everywhere, every illegal gets paid for. Then the politician doesn't pay his taxes and gives himself a fat bonus, then he tells you oh you need to conserve water. I say give the govt an allowance.
Shadyac21 2 years ago
The biggest domestic threat are our own military & police
EasyEbookMan 2 years ago
no no. Taxes are not slavery. Money is slavery. Material objects are slavery. Taxes can be very unfair, but do equal slavery.
PrsFenderJackson1980 2 years ago
ArcanineKing, you are .. err.. dude, you need to give us some material to work with to continue the quipping! How are we supposed to keep it going when you say so little?
pgunn01 2 years ago
Get a few legal dictionarys and look up the definition of person ....Lewis Clarke I used to be a fan of yours now you can go FUCK YOURSELF !
TAXES ARE SLAVERY END OF STORY !!!
spoonogsback 2 years ago
Your radical position would make civilisation impossible. Since the dawn of societies, taxes were used to support the public good in many ways.
pgunn01 2 years ago
pgunn01 you are an admitted socialist. Socialism is an abject failure. PROVEN. Go find another country to destroy and leave this one for people who actually have a CLUE.
Your economics are just untenable.
dperreaultyahoo 2 years ago
dperreaultyahoo, you are an admitted libertarian. Libertarianism is an abject failure. PROVEN. Go find another country to destroy and leave this one for people who actually have a CLUE.
pgunn01 2 years ago
dperreaultyahoo, pgunn01, you two are admitted ignorant people. Both subjects are a failure. Go find another planet to ruin and leave this one forever. :D
ArcanineKing 2 years ago
that would be great lewis if we where spending the tax money on roads bridges and schools, but guess what we're not, thats why people are pissed, our money has been largely allocated to the m.ic. and lining the pockets of the corrupt politicians. and crooked wall street bankers, and all the welfare cheats who cant get off the tit of laziness and apathy.
bighorse1010 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is full of shit.
rarelibra 3 years ago
Awesome shit that makes your shit look like shit.
Setsu102 3 years ago 2
Do your homework, loser.
rarelibra 3 years ago
WTMF! - How the hell could congress vote-in legislation giving $700 billion over to the Secretary of State, without limitations and if he fucks up again...He can just demand/threaten congress again to hand over another $700 billion+!????
What kind of legislative agreement has no cap/limits or conditions on the expenditure?
Good video, but this bailout is like the old saying...'ULTIMATE POWER, CORRUPTS ULTIMATELY'!
...And oh boy, do the politicians & financial CEOs have TOO MUCH POWER!!
12235117657598502586 3 years ago