@aarondavid826 sure, his first premise is false when he says the rich arent defined and implies that taxes will be raised for all, its a strawman and he continues in that manner thouout his sermon, its a shame that people like you cant see thru his false logic
@sukiho69 So what is the definition of being "rich"? According to the IRS, it has nothing to do with how wealthy you are, and has everything to do with how much income you earn in a year - and doesn't include capital gains either. "The rich" by this definition are a group that is constantly shifting as new innovations come and go. Same for the poor, as a matter of fact. It's not a defined group, it's a set of criteria.
@aarondavid826 ...barely changed in real dollars or HAVE DROPPED overall since 1980 while “the rich” has exploded. No. 3- His “REAL WORLD” data… Let’s compare 70% of 200k to 30% of 1Million. OF COURSE the lower 30% will bring you more!!! Why? Because that “rich” person’s overall income has EXPLODED and that 70% is small potatoes compared to that 30%. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! I feel you @sukiho69
@aarondavid826 What a false equivalence @sukiho69!!! I agree. No. 1 - Higher “sin taxes” discourages drinking & smoking the same as higher income taxes would discourage INCOME??? That’s TOO stupid to even expound on. No. 2 – How is it “punishing the rich” to have them paying a fair share? Key word being “fair”. They benefit from a skewed tax code that generates more of this nation’s income to the very top now. It wasn’t that way before Reagan. Income for the bottom 95% has barely changed...
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
Also, there are other reasons to raise captial taxes, which Mr. Obama refers to. For example, is it fair that people pay lower taxes for unearned income than for earned (labour) income? Also, if you do have a lower unearned income rate, people will find ways to describe their labour income as a capital gain, etc. and so pay lower tax rates than someone reporting it as earned income (often lower-income people). So fairness is important, even before you start talking about 'class warfare'.
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also quite flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
” Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. You don’t have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected.” — Ron Paul
The top 400 rich people in America have more wealth then the bottom 50% so may be we should go back to the tax rate that Ronald Regan had on the ultra wealth..... or I guess we could continue to destroy the US economy.....
@danjoe77 "The top 400 rich people in America have more wealth then the bottom 50% so may be we should go back to the tax rate that Ronald Regan had on the ultra wealth..... "
Those high marginal tax rates were PRE-Reagan. Also, if you took all the of the income from those top 400 in America, every penny, you still wouldn't pay for half of ONE YEAR'S deficit, let alone the entire debt.
I believe it could be a good thing to discourage income among the super rich. Sounds like it could discourage greed quite well. Maybe the institute has stumbled upon the cure for one of the seven deadly sins!
RUBBISH! If you love feudalism you'll love this form of economics. The fact is that you have to go back to 1928 to find a higher concentration of income. The accumulation of wealth does not create jobs, just look around. Real earning for the middle class were actually higher in the mid 1970s have stagnated over the past 15 years. Over the past decade the economy grew on credit government and personal, now the bill has come due. And guess who will be stuck paying it, Not the rich.
Hmmm i wondered why his voice was so weird. Well now i know. Its because the uber rich have their thick hands up his arse. An appologist for greed. Why do Americans fall for it!
Oh and dont use Churchill as meter stick.. He was only a figure head.. Not an economist.
@whiskasalpha And why do morons like you keep spouting "Greed, greed greed!" I'm sick of it. I've spoken to tens of people like you. You haven't even a basic grasp of economics or cause and effect. In fact, I've been having a winning debate with one of you that keeps calling for a New World Order like the Nazis, Communists, and Fascists did before him. I'd rather have a million corrupt people at each others throats than one that has free reign. It's only when government fails, shit like this go.
@whiskasalpha And you completely missed the point. This was paraphrase of Madison, a founder. A million corrupt people would be too busy trying to climb over each other than the one that has no opposition.
Oh, I'm agnostic btw. I do not kneel to anything.
It's not alchemy either, which is a pseudo-science. Economics is a social science.
@ShadowofaRoar " It's not alchemy either, which is a pseudo-science. Economics is a social science."
LOL... Im from a pure science base. this makes me laugh... Really laugh.. Create greed and then "cherry pick observations so that they til they fit yours system.
No theories backed up by educated by peer based by OBJECTIVE experimentation, just subjective greedy clones who see an "in" for themselves.. No one questions becuase the whole of society has been fooled..
@whiskasalpha Create greed? Let's talk about greed. Greed is not just in the private sector, it's public sector. Are you questioning the greed of government officials? You certainly do not appear to be.
You claim to be from a pure science base, don't make me laugh. Pure science is applied for the sole purpose of discovery.
Hmm i think that what i said.. Anyway as you are from over there, I am guessing your knowledge of English is not too strong. That aside,
greed in the corporate sector is far, far worse than it is in the public sector. However i can see where you get your idea about public greed because your political system is virtually run by Big business.
With the little guy thinking that he has democracy.. Hmm how very, very sad..
@whiskasalpha I beg to differ on both of your points. I had difficulty interpreting your previous comment because it was so poorly constructed. Government corruption is far worse. At least the private sector is kept check because they have to compete. Public, however, all they have to do is make false promises, or turn people against each other by appealing to "victims" and attacking any one that disagrees as prejudice. Then any failure in their term could just be blamed on the opposition.
"At least the private sector is kept check because they have to compete"
Do you actually believe this?
How credulous and how naive you are. To think that Huge big corporations can be ONLY be regulated by the competition. The competition that they have driven into the ground but maintain it wasnt them it was only so called "market forces" Rather a governemt than Apple or Amazon running my life..
@whiskasalpha I never said "only", and it is a factor. And to think Amazon or Apple could run your life is the epitome of naivety. They can only affect a small aspect of you life. The system isn't perfect, but it's better than government run systems where productivity and quality drops.
I mentioned but two companies.. Naivety? not really because unlike you i see the bigger picture, probably read a broad range of literature and see whats going on in the world outside of whats in my backyard.
I suggest you do a little of research into Amazon.. its quite frightening, Oh and why not look at fox media too.. tell me that Murdoch does not need controlling.. Naive? Not me..
@whiskasalpha And I'd suggest you do the same about government; how their failure cause crap like that. And let's bring up something you said earlier, "I am guessing your knowledge of English is not too strong." why don't you learn some grammar before criticizing my English, which far outstrips yours. And again with the assumptions. You assumed I was religious, which was false; then you make an assumption about where I live, which you don't know; then you assumed I watch Fox News, which I don't.
"Class warfare" name-dropped accusatory-like by corporate flacks at Cato Institute, against corporate flacks in the Democratic Party. Ha !
Class warfare proper is waged by the rich against the poor and middle-class. Always has been.
It's the same propaganda that transformed racism from a term describing structural prejudices and inequalities, into a catch-all descriptor of "attitude".
American ruling elites (and their courtiers) have thoroughly estranged people from their own language.
I'm not too crazy on the graphs presented. How do you measure standard of living? The specifics of this video are only 50% reliable (most unreliable stuff is subjective). I get the point though, there is little merit in tax warfare class policy. Yes, it may not be "fair" to some, but fairness is a very arbitrary idea. It is better for some rich people to drag some people to middle class and leave some poor than for everyone to be poor.
Lets tax the rich, until we don't have any more rich people.
Then we can tax the middle class, until we don't have anymore middle class.
Then we can all be equally poor, except of course for the politicians who are collecting the taxes.
Hey it worked for the USSR didn't it? Oh wait, they went bankrupt and needed the USA to bail them out. Hum, well if it doesn't work out who will bail out America?
When times are good they say "dont raise the tax rate, we will kill the economy" when times are bad they say "dont raise rates, you will hurt the recovery".
I love the part were he says we are all getting rich, just at different rates. Thats priceless.
It's obvious from the last 30 years and especially the Bush admin that republicans should be completely ignored when they talk about financial matters.
Google the phrase "IMF Says Advanced Economies Already in Depression" and you will find the Bloomberg article that shows we ended up in a depression 2 weeks after Bush left office.
Agreed sort-of: The problems that fell apart with/directly after Bush have been brewing for a long time before him (not that he did anything to prevent them); That was a failure of economic mechanisms, no amount of tax cuts would've helped.
People like the narrator only side w. Republicans because they're the traditional pro-business party. But Republicans are in it for power just as much as the next guy - to build up their feifdom in office and then retire into big pillows of cash.
@s117godd wrote --- "Agreed sort-of: The problems that fell apart with/directly after Bush have been brewing for a long time before him (not that he did anything to prevent them)"
Yeah the problems began in 1980 when Raygun started this insane Raygunomics / Friedmanomics/supply-side BS. It was also tried down in South America and failed down there too. It has a long history of failure.
@s117godd (part 2) -- Raygunomics specifically failed because it brutalized labor which is another way of saying it savaged domestic consumer markets and demand which is what makes it possible for business to remain viable. It was very simple to see this coming. The cons have been telegraphing their intentions ever since 1980. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
@tom6612 Brutalized labor? Savaged domestic markets? What does that even mean? Do you even know how the current crisis came about? Collapse of credit bubble & housing market quickly followed by collapse of major institutions that held investments based an those markets - lack of lending and economic slowdown follows. Why the hell are you invoking 'Reganomics'. It was Clinton who removed the regulation for separation of mortgage-backed securities and savings that started this crisis!
@s117godd --- You can't figure out what a simply phrase like "raygunomics brutalized labor" means ? Are you serious ? HAAAAAAA. Wow you are impressive. Clinton was simply following the same market fundamentalist ethos that was started by raygun. All presidents since raygun have and now we are in a depression. Are you even aware that it is demand generated by good paying jobs that is the foundation of any economy. Why do you have to be told the obvious ?
@tom6612 no you little turd - You're using the same examples that other people rattle off and invoking emotion with words like 'savaged' and 'brutalized'. I'm saying GIVE ME EXAMPLES - without any backup you argument is bullshit. So give me some examples 1) Of how Ronald Regan 'savaged' labor (and tell me who or what 'labor' is exactly and 2) How that caused the current recession. If you can't give any decent examples, STFU and don't post here again.
@s117godd --(Part 1)Man you are retard. --- Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with
@s117godd --(part 2) --- temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB
@s117godd --- (part 3) --- Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had
@s117godd ---(part 4) --- the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints
@tom6612 --- (part 4) --- Theres much more. You realize how easy it was to come up with this ? Just a simple google and a retard like you was not even aware of this. What the hell is wrong with your brain ? How did you get so stupid? Get a friggin clue and stop wasting time with dumb questions.
@tom6612 No problem - This is cool, you don't puss out like the rest. Now we can actually have a discussion. Lemmie google some shit as you say and research this a little so I'm not talking out my ass when I reply..
I have a sweet, sweet idea to shut all of the welfare-state types up. How about for all public programs beside the barebones (courts, police, military), there is an opt-in system. If you want to use public schools, medicare etc., you can choose to have the gov't take your monies and you can use those programs. The rest of us can choose not to pay the taxes, but we don't get to use public shools, USPS, 'free' medicare etc. We all get to choose. Any problem with that?
@s117godd Not so sweet, go no military, no police, & no courts & you got a deal, because truth be told the lower you are on the economic spectrum the less important these things are to you. If you want to use them, you pay for them. Good luck paying when I rob you & burn your house down to pay for my kid's education.
I don't get what you mean. Listen again - I'm saying courts, military, and police are the only things that the consitution specifically said our government shoud be handling because they're the first things you need to build a nation (security, law and order). I'm saying, if you want this other crap, allow the gov't to take JUST YOUR money, build the staduim or park or whatever, but dont force the rest of us to pay for public projects that we don't want/won't ever use.
@s117godd So you don't use or want highways, schools, healthcare, unemplyment insurance,social security etc..? So how about since I don't want police, military or courts, you pay for them. Sound like a fair deal? Afterall it's not fair to expect me to pay for them when I don't want them or use them is it?
@Fuctmentality Are you trying to sound clever? Do you even understand what I'm saying? NO I DONT USE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, UNEMPLOYMENT "INSURANCE" OR SOCIAL SECURITY! I'M NOT A FUCKING PARASITE LIKE YOU!! IM SAYING IF ***YOU*** WANT TO USE THEM, ***YOU*** PAY FOR THEM. I don't want to, so why tax me for shit that doesn't work and I'm not gonna use? And if you're not willing to pay taxes to uphold courts, police and military, then you should move out of the country!
@s117godd You don't use public schools? So you've never relied on someone trained in a public school? Because that's using one. & Have no intention of collecting SS or unemployment ""insurance""& Yes you are a fucking parasite, that's the problem with parasites, because you don't want to pay their fair share, you call anyone who asks you to parasites. No you are the one unwilling to pay taxes for anything that doesn't serve you, so you go to a country without the social contract.
Reality shows that while GDP has gone up in the 30 years, wages are the same(at best) & poverty has risen, doesn't that stand in the way of the "the best way to help the poor" argument?
Doesn't the fact the swiss have a higher corporate tax, stand in the way of the argument that taxation outsources jobs?
Don't we already have a class warfare tax policy as the top 1% pays lower taxes than the next 9%?
"High income taxes encourage income". I never knew that income taxes rose to over 100%. So if you make an additional $20,000 you're taxed at a marginal rate of 200% so you'll have to pay $40,000 in taxes on top of that. That means you'll forgo the $20,000 because you know that if you get that money you'll actually be losing $20,000! If marginal tax rates are under 100%, you will always be guaranteed of more income when you make more income.
If you take the percentage of income paid in taxes, you'll find that it's about 30 percent across the board for most people and in fact the percentage drops for the top 1 per cent. Taxes are effectively flat already. So stop your complaining.
Excellent Video!! more people should see it, i will spread it. problem is young people are mostly socialist because they are niave and easily led by left wing losers. Here in Australia, high taxes has always retarded growth and rewarded leeches / criminals. The 1 Person, 1 Vote system gives too much power to the leeches in society. We need a multiple votes per person voting system, based on what they "give" to or "take" from society, the more u give the more votes, the more u take, the less vote
@anarksee ooohh i don't like people who go out and find a job and work. oohhh i don't like people who go out and want to make more to provide for their family. "would you kill this fucker..". i know i would see that as a physical threat. maybe you are lashing out because he has a very logical argument which you can't argue against effectively.
I like wearing nice clothes. Are you going to try to kill me now? maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist or something.
@fabes0011 I won't play semantical legerdemain,fabes0011.I don't give a fuck if you see my prior comment as "physcial" threat.Psychiatry is a scam (Thomas Szasz).You and the egotist on this video need to study ontology.Ever heard of the Gini Co-efficient?No man is an island.Each person both affects and is affected by every other person - equally - at all times,even if they are a selfish bassturd! (A)
How does higher taxes on income, & investments decrease ones desire to have more income? How would being taxed less make one less likely to try & hide income or otherwise circumvent taxes, when the amount saved could be thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars? Globalization & American grain subsidization are causing america to lose jobs,while simultaneously making the wealthy wealthier, which brings me to my final question,Why is it class warfare only when the working class fights back?
More taxes on the rich means that those who control the companies will have less incentive to milk their enterprises, as they do now, and more incentive to reinvest it in the business. The problem with the class warriors like this person is that they assume that the rich are born totally virtuous and will always do the right thing and are in no need of any regulation, whilst those below need coercion and the threat of starvation and prison to keep them in line.
Abject nonsense. Over the past 30 years, the wealth created by all has been divvied up more and more unfairly, a zero-sum game in which those in middle and lower class lose, and this has been compounded by tax policies that deepen this tendency. This is putting many western countries on the road to feudalism. The only way out is to reverse the policies, including tax policies, including ending policies for mass unemployment to depress wages, including increasing trade union power.
Like DystopianUtopia said, "low taxes, and free markets, creates opportunity for the worlds poor". Lack of opportunity is what creates poverty. Redistribution is a modern form of slavery, where one is forced to work and the fruits of his labor goes to someone else who did absolutely nothing to earn it. Let's not even mention the politicians who get to take a slice of that pie on its way from the rich to the poor.
I'm willing to bet that you don't spend much time reading studies.
Fact is that on average the US has seen higher growth rates, lower prices, higher per capita income and better productivity than Europe over the last few decades. This may change in the future, but the fact is that more money+lower prices=higher standard of living.
If not redistributive taxation, how else are we supposed to reduce income inequality in the United States?
I take it as a given that the current income distribution is unrighteous, and that any policy that allows inequality to continue increasing is, ipso facto, wrong. The only question, IMNSHO, is what policies are best for reducing inequality with the minimum of negative side effects.
The wealth gap is irrelevant, it simply tells us how far apart the rich and the poor are. It gives us no idea of the living standards of the poor which is what I assume you want to improve. If you want to see this then the best way to do it is have low taxes, and free markets, so that opportunity can arise for the world's poor. If we try and redistribute to the poor, they may get a larger slice of the pie, but the pie will be much smaller, meaning, they'll be worse off! Freedom will always win.
I cannot understand why so many US conservative defend an interventionist "muscular" foreign policy. Think about this: America yearly spends 5 or 6% of GDP on defense. Most europeans barely spend 1%, thanks to American/NATO military umbrella in last 60 years. Most Europe has a dramatic low birth rate/aging problem, so if we were obliged to triple military spending and have a self-governing defense, our Welfare systems would collapse in few decades.
Please don't let rich people pay their fair share! If this asshole has to buy a 50,000 car this year in place of a 70,000 one, he might not be able to go on!
Yes, don't argue on principle just call him an evil bourgeois scotch drinker and be on with your day, he is only has a PHD in economics from george mason university.
You are quite bitter and clinging to your altruism. Businesses are for the "greater good" as you altruistic theifs call it. Who creates wealth? Who creates jobs? Who creates products that make our lives easier? The answer is simple business. I do not give to those who do not deserve.
Webster defines fellow as "An equal in rank, power, or character." In my mind someone who feels entitled to an act of altruism is no fellow to me. I am of a higher rank and of higher character.
They would not be workers if there was no one to create a product in which to manufacture or sell.
I do understand the concept of altruism, but government should not force me to be altruistic. It infringes my persuit of happiness. Why should the tangible representation of my labor be sacrificed to those who do not labor and those who do not deserve. I am a Catholic, but that does not serve as the cause of my selfishness.
Altruism, when forced by government like it is in the USA, is not charity, but Robbery. Altruism, when done voluntarily, is charitable. You, my friend, want it forced on people, so it is not virtuous... it is nothing but coercion.
Well, what about being able to save up for my old age instead of being dependent on the gunvernment for medicare. Medicare won't even be around in 20 years at the rate it's going so why should I be forced to pay for it? If people were more responsible for their actions, we wouldn't need welfare. For the unfortunate and irresponsible, charities would handle it. Medical research can be done better in the free market. Some people just think the gunvernment as the savior. It's the problem.
Always the false somalia argument. The fact of the matter is, is that Somalia is run by warlords, and has something similar to the feudal system. Just because the UN doesn't recognize these warlords and their system doesn't mean that they don't have gunvernment. By the way, I'm not Christian. So lets see if you can come up with a better argument than the Somalian one.
No, he should be grateful for being offered the job. No one man is entitled to a job or a paycheck. He is granted those things based on his abilities. Instead of "From each according to their ability to each according to their need," the real world say "From each according to their ability to each according to their need."
Employers need employees and vice versa, neither should be "grateful" or licking the others ass. It's just a deal between the two who need eachother and if one of the parties isn't happy, he is free to find someone else with a better deal.
This is more accurate... people don't trade unless there is mutual benefit. It's bull to say people are slaves to their jobs (or something like it), then go find a different job! If your assets/ skills are so valuable, go sell them to someone else for more money.
Well said 1978RDC21. I agree people are not slaves to their jobs. I would say they are slaves to their lifestyles. Live beyone your means and you become enslaved. Live below your means and you have a better chance of being free.
Read my other comment on unequal bargaining power to understand why "just find a different job" doesn't work out as well in reality as the laissez-faire types like to think.
The fundamental problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't take into account differentials in the power structure. If employers and employees had equal bargaining power then everything would work out fine. But when bargaining power is asymmetric, the income distribution will begin to reflect that asymmetry.
if you weren't paid less than the value of your work (profit) no company would exist. Because the ultimate value of your work is what the consumer values it at. if everyone along the supply-chain received the value of an item for the consumer's purchase price, only one entity could be paid.
if the workers skill-set is lacking, then yes. Only a fool would stay doing the same job without learning something new or improving his skills. As a matter of fact, they deserve it for being so idiotic.. Wages are set by what the market can tolerate for labor, not because something is right or wrong. Besides, it is the supposed 'worker's job', it is the employer's job, and the laborer is selling his wages to the employer to do the job for the employer. The worker doesn't own the Job.
I wish I could, I even speak the language, but I won't. America was founded on the idea that people could come and pursue liberty and happiness, not fairness.
If America ends wars, closes military bases and stops policing the world, they will not need to raise taxes on the rich nor on the poor. If i was american i would vote for the guy who will end foreign policy based on perpetual war, no matter he is right or left-wing.
if we stop policing the world, the world would fall apart. Many European countries decry the US for the imagined evils we do, but when we threaten to close down our military bases in their country, they almost dump a golden brick trying to stop us. They would never admit it, but they need us. Why do you think Japan rarely bitches? Because our military protects them. They aren't stupid! (and yes, I know why our military does, don't e-mail me)
I agree but that is our problem if we european and japanese people cannot defend by ourselves. What i mean is that american taxpayers should not be paying another countries defense
"But liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government" - Brave New World: Revisited
Typical liberal response to facts and reason, attack the person presenting them for looking, sounding, or just plain being annoying to you. Of course, when you have absolutely NO logical leg to stand on, it's to be expected.
I'm actually an irish consevative and I don't really care about the American impact of these propsals however I know that they would deepen the already big wealth gap in Irish society. The bigger the gap the bigger the social problems. Studies have proved that
So wait, Europe has higher unemployment because they have higher taxes, but are richer because they have lower taxes? Um, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Who cares if his taste isn't something you care for. Listen to what he is saying and use your brain. If you have any sense at all and have the ability critically think the truth of what he is saying should become obvious. Shed your emotional reactions to his appearance or the issues this topic impacts and use some objectivity.
Of the EU-15, thirteen out of the fifteen countries currently have lower unemployment rates than the United States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
So that means you read their definition of unemployed? They are only counting those who have reported being unemployed and who are actively seeking work. Note this is the statistic for unemployment claims, not actual unemployed persons. Noncitizens do not qualify for such benefits, and it is much much harder to obtain citizenship in those countries. A huge portion of the EU population are not EU citizens. So you see the flaw in the data you are quoting.
those figures also discount those with a 'disability' (i.e. a sick note, most of whom are fraudsters and many of whom only qualify as disabled because they are morbidly obese), those in full time education (where they get sponsored by the tax system to sit around learning, for the most part, fuck-all) and single-mothers living off child benefits who have no intention of ever doing a stroke of work in their whole pathetic little lives.
And what would be the purpose in that? I mean if you want to tax churches, why not tax little league teams or dog shelters? Why not tax car clubs and golf leagues? What about book clubs or quilting bees?
Now your talking! Thats the spirit!Not quit sure what a quilting bee is, but if they are exempt from paying taxes, they should be accountable just like everyone else. Taxing upper, middle , or lower class citizens obviously isnt working, so shift the weight where there is a surplus of "money" Keep in mind everyone deals in "imaginary money" the is no real value to our or anyone elses currency. Except what you choose to apply to it.
How did this guy interpret "standard of living" with per capita consumption? It just happens that the US's per capita consumption has been higher than the disposible income.
Feel-good positions aside it is a fact that the more income a person makes the higher the tax rate applied against that income. The 'rich' already pay more ... a lot more ... in fact they pay the vast majority of the income tax paid.
Another fact - when those tax rates are raised government income tax revenue decreases.
One more - when those tax rates are decreased government income tax revenue increases.
It has been demonstrated by presidents from both sides of the isle.
According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."
Rather than going to Wiki I suggest pulling down the data from the IRS. Check values before and after tax cuts and increases - particularly those that impacted those with higher reported incomes. Amounts paid - in terms of real dollars, as a percentage of the total income tax revenue and as a percentage of GDP - by the wealthiest increased after tax cuts. In particular look at those numbers in 1980 and compare to 1983&84 (since that is the period the wiki quote seems to mention...)
The Laffer curve idea is NOT that tax cuts will increase revenue. Its that a tax of zero gives zero revenue, a tax of 100% gives zero revenue (true total 100% tax, meaning no after tax compensation, including no free food or shelter, in other words everyone dies, and nothing gets produced), that the maximum revenue would be somewhere in between, and that increasing tax rates from that point decreases revenue, as does cutting tax rates from that point.
Cutting tax rates (from very high rates, or high rates on investment) can increase revenue in the short run. Cutting taxes can also increase revenue in the very long run (even a tiny amount of extra growth can increase revenue in the long run even with lower rates), but there isn't any good reason to think that cuts of ordinary income taxes(rather than capital gains, or corporate tax) , will increase revenue, just that it won't cut revenue as much as the rate is cut.
Of course the point shouldn't be to maximize federal revenue. Lower taxes (and hopefully lower spending, or at least a reduced rate of spending growth to go with the lower taxes), can increase economic growth and reduce the dead weight loss of taxes. Taxing an extra billion dollars reduces the wealth in the private sector by more than a billion dollars, that additional amount is the dead weight loss which we should try to reduce with simpler and lower taxes.
Why don't we take it a step further and distribute wealth evenly around the whole world so everyone earns about $9,000 a year. That would solve everything. Then no one would be able to afford health care or a home. There would exist no incentive to work or to produce things, which would reduce wealth creation drastically. Then everyone can be poor. But it's only fair, right??? Yay, sign me up!!!
A fine strawman argument. Let's try one for you. We'll reduce taxes on the rich to zero and make everyone but the rich pay taxes. It'll be just like the old European monarchies and the lords and aristocrats which is what you are trying to conserve. You can be a serf on the rich man's manor! Perfect work for a lazy Republican on welfare!
Nice Tie!
fightingirishman726 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7:50, if some of the honest people in the left would understand, politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders are fucked up assholes.
FireGuyX 2 months ago
Comment removed
FireGuyX 2 months ago
Is the figure for 200k+ taxable income from 1980 1988 inflation adjusted?
Thatmakessense356 3 months ago
Regardless of what you think of his reasoning, his tie and voice/demeanor are somewhat comical.
Louanna007 4 months ago
Dan Mitchell should be our Treasury secretary.
bashfullashley 4 months ago
Wow... total Koch Brother Funded Propaganda...
Cyrus992 4 months ago
@Cyrus992 Wow...you're a total Soros funded troll
Ty311 4 months ago
@Ty311
So what should we do, listen to Koch Brother Funded Propaganda?
Cyrus992 4 months ago
@Cyrus992 sorry - not interested in your eeevvviiillll Koch Bros bogeyman conspiracies
Ty311 4 months ago
just look at the low tax system used for many years in Hong Kong
boucher63 4 months ago
not only does he have a carrot up his ass, its got a handle on it, who let him out in public???
sukiho69 5 months ago
@sukiho69 instead of throwing insults like a child, explain why you think he is wrong and the logic behind it, if you can...
aarondavid826 5 months ago
@aarondavid826 sure, his first premise is false when he says the rich arent defined and implies that taxes will be raised for all, its a strawman and he continues in that manner thouout his sermon, its a shame that people like you cant see thru his false logic
sukiho69 5 months ago
@sukiho69 explain this false logic to me since your so smart.
aarondavid826 5 months ago
Comment removed
sukiho69 5 months ago
its based on a false premise, namely that the rich arent defined
sukiho69 5 months ago
@sukiho69 So what is the definition of being "rich"? According to the IRS, it has nothing to do with how wealthy you are, and has everything to do with how much income you earn in a year - and doesn't include capital gains either. "The rich" by this definition are a group that is constantly shifting as new innovations come and go. Same for the poor, as a matter of fact. It's not a defined group, it's a set of criteria.
luftwaffle 5 months ago
@aarondavid826 ...barely changed in real dollars or HAVE DROPPED overall since 1980 while “the rich” has exploded. No. 3- His “REAL WORLD” data… Let’s compare 70% of 200k to 30% of 1Million. OF COURSE the lower 30% will bring you more!!! Why? Because that “rich” person’s overall income has EXPLODED and that 70% is small potatoes compared to that 30%. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! I feel you @sukiho69
cmosdriver 5 months ago
@aarondavid826 What a false equivalence @sukiho69!!! I agree. No. 1 - Higher “sin taxes” discourages drinking & smoking the same as higher income taxes would discourage INCOME??? That’s TOO stupid to even expound on. No. 2 – How is it “punishing the rich” to have them paying a fair share? Key word being “fair”. They benefit from a skewed tax code that generates more of this nation’s income to the very top now. It wasn’t that way before Reagan. Income for the bottom 95% has barely changed...
cmosdriver 5 months ago
It's only not good for the rich, for everyone EVERYONE else it's better.. He must have gotten his education the same place where he got that tie....
The rich haven't made jobs during the Bush years and they pay less taxes now then they did under Bush so they don't make jobs....
usapegasus007 7 months ago
yay biased economic arguments, you are going to help pass my A levels because examiners love criticism of genuinely decent tax policies :D
tinsabretooth 7 months ago
the tax code as its currently written benefits the people who least need the help.
tax rates need to increase dramatically on the top 1%.they have stolen and pillaged and now they can pay for it.
moebius8 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
Also, there are other reasons to raise captial taxes, which Mr. Obama refers to. For example, is it fair that people pay lower taxes for unearned income than for earned (labour) income? Also, if you do have a lower unearned income rate, people will find ways to describe their labour income as a capital gain, etc. and so pay lower tax rates than someone reporting it as earned income (often lower-income people). So fairness is important, even before you start talking about 'class warfare'.
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also potentially fairly flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, you make good points, but you seem to pepper it with things that are irrelevant but also quite flawed.
e.g. you say living standards are higher but use a graph of consumption - you could use this graph to show how America is consuming an unsustainable amount for the planet to cope.
Also, between 1980 and 1988 would there not have been an increase in the number of people earning oner $200k? Would this not, at least in part, explain higher income and higher revenue?
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
Comment removed
ChristopherHeward 9 months ago
The point is so simple. What is it that liberals can't seem to grasp?
Perhaps they will have a better understanding after the election in 2012.
AtlasObjectivist 9 months ago 13
@AtlasObjectivist Ron Paul 2012!
wtfjaftw 5 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
” Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. You don’t have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected.” — Ron Paul
vechorik 4 months ago
The top 400 rich people in America have more wealth then the bottom 50% so may be we should go back to the tax rate that Ronald Regan had on the ultra wealth..... or I guess we could continue to destroy the US economy.....
danjoe77 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@danjoe77 "The top 400 rich people in America have more wealth then the bottom 50% so may be we should go back to the tax rate that Ronald Regan had on the ultra wealth..... "
Those high marginal tax rates were PRE-Reagan. Also, if you took all the of the income from those top 400 in America, every penny, you still wouldn't pay for half of ONE YEAR'S deficit, let alone the entire debt.
rawREN 5 months ago
I believe it could be a good thing to discourage income among the super rich. Sounds like it could discourage greed quite well. Maybe the institute has stumbled upon the cure for one of the seven deadly sins!
Mortonc3 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we do translation and you can select Latino women rockmycity.info
sasiyonidanto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Trusted name on Latino women marriage service rockmycity.info
dhfhfchcfh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE TAXES! THE FINGER THING MEANS THE TAXES
CoolerKing37 1 year ago
RUBBISH! If you love feudalism you'll love this form of economics. The fact is that you have to go back to 1928 to find a higher concentration of income. The accumulation of wealth does not create jobs, just look around. Real earning for the middle class were actually higher in the mid 1970s have stagnated over the past 15 years. Over the past decade the economy grew on credit government and personal, now the bill has come due. And guess who will be stuck paying it, Not the rich.
DavyCrocketUSA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep worming Russian girls gettop5.info
MrBuddikabuddika 1 year ago
Mickey mouse economics!!
Hmmm i wondered why his voice was so weird. Well now i know. Its because the uber rich have their thick hands up his arse. An appologist for greed. Why do Americans fall for it!
Oh and dont use Churchill as meter stick.. He was only a figure head.. Not an economist.
..
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
@whiskasalpha And why do morons like you keep spouting "Greed, greed greed!" I'm sick of it. I've spoken to tens of people like you. You haven't even a basic grasp of economics or cause and effect. In fact, I've been having a winning debate with one of you that keeps calling for a New World Order like the Nazis, Communists, and Fascists did before him. I'd rather have a million corrupt people at each others throats than one that has free reign. It's only when government fails, shit like this go.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
@ShadowofaRoar
"I'd rather have a million corrupt people at each others throats".
This says it all!
"morons!" ? Just because we dont fall to our knees at the altar of your deity you call us morons..
economics is NOT a real science its alchemy!
Sad little person you are.!
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
@whiskasalpha And you completely missed the point. This was paraphrase of Madison, a founder. A million corrupt people would be too busy trying to climb over each other than the one that has no opposition.
Oh, I'm agnostic btw. I do not kneel to anything.
It's not alchemy either, which is a pseudo-science. Economics is a social science.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
@ShadowofaRoar " It's not alchemy either, which is a pseudo-science. Economics is a social science."
LOL... Im from a pure science base. this makes me laugh... Really laugh.. Create greed and then "cherry pick observations so that they til they fit yours system.
No theories backed up by educated by peer based by OBJECTIVE experimentation, just subjective greedy clones who see an "in" for themselves.. No one questions becuase the whole of society has been fooled..
Smart...
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
@whiskasalpha Create greed? Let's talk about greed. Greed is not just in the private sector, it's public sector. Are you questioning the greed of government officials? You certainly do not appear to be.
You claim to be from a pure science base, don't make me laugh. Pure science is applied for the sole purpose of discovery.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
@ShadowofaRoar
Hmm i think that what i said.. Anyway as you are from over there, I am guessing your knowledge of English is not too strong. That aside,
greed in the corporate sector is far, far worse than it is in the public sector. However i can see where you get your idea about public greed because your political system is virtually run by Big business.
With the little guy thinking that he has democracy.. Hmm how very, very sad..
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
@whiskasalpha I beg to differ on both of your points. I had difficulty interpreting your previous comment because it was so poorly constructed. Government corruption is far worse. At least the private sector is kept check because they have to compete. Public, however, all they have to do is make false promises, or turn people against each other by appealing to "victims" and attacking any one that disagrees as prejudice. Then any failure in their term could just be blamed on the opposition.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
@ShadowofaRoar
"At least the private sector is kept check because they have to compete"
Do you actually believe this?
How credulous and how naive you are. To think that Huge big corporations can be ONLY be regulated by the competition. The competition that they have driven into the ground but maintain it wasnt them it was only so called "market forces" Rather a governemt than Apple or Amazon running my life..
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
@whiskasalpha I never said "only", and it is a factor. And to think Amazon or Apple could run your life is the epitome of naivety. They can only affect a small aspect of you life. The system isn't perfect, but it's better than government run systems where productivity and quality drops.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
@ShadowofaRoar
I mentioned but two companies.. Naivety? not really because unlike you i see the bigger picture, probably read a broad range of literature and see whats going on in the world outside of whats in my backyard.
I suggest you do a little of research into Amazon.. its quite frightening, Oh and why not look at fox media too.. tell me that Murdoch does not need controlling.. Naive? Not me..
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
@whiskasalpha And I'd suggest you do the same about government; how their failure cause crap like that. And let's bring up something you said earlier, "I am guessing your knowledge of English is not too strong." why don't you learn some grammar before criticizing my English, which far outstrips yours. And again with the assumptions. You assumed I was religious, which was false; then you make an assumption about where I live, which you don't know; then you assumed I watch Fox News, which I don't.
ShadowofaRoar 1 year ago
Who is this moron.. An appologist for greed. Why do Americans fall for it?
whiskasalpha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online marriage service from Asia rockmycity.info
cghdtyufghsdrty 1 year ago
I agree with almost everything he said, but that necktie is awful.
DJCamYank 1 year ago
Convenient that he leaves out the unemployment stats of 2009 and 2010.
funisverygood 1 year ago
"Class warfare" name-dropped accusatory-like by corporate flacks at Cato Institute, against corporate flacks in the Democratic Party. Ha !
Class warfare proper is waged by the rich against the poor and middle-class. Always has been.
It's the same propaganda that transformed racism from a term describing structural prejudices and inequalities, into a catch-all descriptor of "attitude".
American ruling elites (and their courtiers) have thoroughly estranged people from their own language.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
I'm not too crazy on the graphs presented. How do you measure standard of living? The specifics of this video are only 50% reliable (most unreliable stuff is subjective). I get the point though, there is little merit in tax warfare class policy. Yes, it may not be "fair" to some, but fairness is a very arbitrary idea. It is better for some rich people to drag some people to middle class and leave some poor than for everyone to be poor.
sgtbuckwheat 1 year ago
it´s actueally better to have taxes is they go for GOOD THINGS like health care, education etc.
if a country has many educated people, these people will do a very good work and pay a lot of taxes.
so the state should pay for the education. that is the case in my country(sweden)
what i don´t like in my country is that only a part of the taxes go for good things.
adolf512 1 year ago
Obama is a Marxisr who wants to be a dictator.
dlsofsetx 1 year ago
can anybody say that magic number known as 9.2%? 20 people agree.
viperxraptor2001 1 year ago
Looks like 20 people believe in Keynesian economics and the rest have common sense.
TheOtherJarhead 1 year ago
Great video, but the tie is distracting.
Lets tax the rich, until we don't have any more rich people.
Then we can tax the middle class, until we don't have anymore middle class.
Then we can all be equally poor, except of course for the politicians who are collecting the taxes.
Hey it worked for the USSR didn't it? Oh wait, they went bankrupt and needed the USA to bail them out. Hum, well if it doesn't work out who will bail out America?
XCritonX 1 year ago
These guys are smoking crack.
When times are good they say "dont raise the tax rate, we will kill the economy" when times are bad they say "dont raise rates, you will hurt the recovery".
I love the part were he says we are all getting rich, just at different rates. Thats priceless.
USNDeepsea1991 1 year ago
@USNDeepsea1991 both statements mean the exact same thing....
and yes, everybody, on average, makes more money over time, some people get rich quicker than others
nickdeb2 1 year ago
It's obvious from the last 30 years and especially the Bush admin that republicans should be completely ignored when they talk about financial matters.
Google the phrase "IMF Says Advanced Economies Already in Depression" and you will find the Bloomberg article that shows we ended up in a depression 2 weeks after Bush left office.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612
Agreed sort-of: The problems that fell apart with/directly after Bush have been brewing for a long time before him (not that he did anything to prevent them); That was a failure of economic mechanisms, no amount of tax cuts would've helped.
People like the narrator only side w. Republicans because they're the traditional pro-business party. But Republicans are in it for power just as much as the next guy - to build up their feifdom in office and then retire into big pillows of cash.
s117godd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@s117godd wrote --- "Agreed sort-of: The problems that fell apart with/directly after Bush have been brewing for a long time before him (not that he did anything to prevent them)"
Yeah the problems began in 1980 when Raygun started this insane Raygunomics / Friedmanomics/supply-side BS. It was also tried down in South America and failed down there too. It has a long history of failure.
tom6612 1 year ago
@s117godd (part 2) -- Raygunomics specifically failed because it brutalized labor which is another way of saying it savaged domestic consumer markets and demand which is what makes it possible for business to remain viable. It was very simple to see this coming. The cons have been telegraphing their intentions ever since 1980. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 Brutalized labor? Savaged domestic markets? What does that even mean? Do you even know how the current crisis came about? Collapse of credit bubble & housing market quickly followed by collapse of major institutions that held investments based an those markets - lack of lending and economic slowdown follows. Why the hell are you invoking 'Reganomics'. It was Clinton who removed the regulation for separation of mortgage-backed securities and savings that started this crisis!
s117godd 1 year ago
@s117godd --- You can't figure out what a simply phrase like "raygunomics brutalized labor" means ? Are you serious ? HAAAAAAA. Wow you are impressive. Clinton was simply following the same market fundamentalist ethos that was started by raygun. All presidents since raygun have and now we are in a depression. Are you even aware that it is demand generated by good paying jobs that is the foundation of any economy. Why do you have to be told the obvious ?
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 no you little turd - You're using the same examples that other people rattle off and invoking emotion with words like 'savaged' and 'brutalized'. I'm saying GIVE ME EXAMPLES - without any backup you argument is bullshit. So give me some examples 1) Of how Ronald Regan 'savaged' labor (and tell me who or what 'labor' is exactly and 2) How that caused the current recession. If you can't give any decent examples, STFU and don't post here again.
s117godd 1 year ago
@s117godd --(Part 1)Man you are retard. --- Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with
tom6612 1 year ago
@s117godd --(part 2) --- temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."
Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.
Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB
tom6612 1 year ago
@s117godd --- (part 3) --- Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."
Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."
The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had
tom6612 1 year ago
@s117godd ---(part 4) --- the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.
Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 --- (part 4) --- Theres much more. You realize how easy it was to come up with this ? Just a simple google and a retard like you was not even aware of this. What the hell is wrong with your brain ? How did you get so stupid? Get a friggin clue and stop wasting time with dumb questions.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 No problem - This is cool, you don't puss out like the rest. Now we can actually have a discussion. Lemmie google some shit as you say and research this a little so I'm not talking out my ass when I reply..
s117godd 1 year ago
I have a sweet, sweet idea to shut all of the welfare-state types up. How about for all public programs beside the barebones (courts, police, military), there is an opt-in system. If you want to use public schools, medicare etc., you can choose to have the gov't take your monies and you can use those programs. The rest of us can choose not to pay the taxes, but we don't get to use public shools, USPS, 'free' medicare etc. We all get to choose. Any problem with that?
s117godd 1 year ago
@s117godd Not so sweet, go no military, no police, & no courts & you got a deal, because truth be told the lower you are on the economic spectrum the less important these things are to you. If you want to use them, you pay for them. Good luck paying when I rob you & burn your house down to pay for my kid's education.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Fuctmentality
I don't get what you mean. Listen again - I'm saying courts, military, and police are the only things that the consitution specifically said our government shoud be handling because they're the first things you need to build a nation (security, law and order). I'm saying, if you want this other crap, allow the gov't to take JUST YOUR money, build the staduim or park or whatever, but dont force the rest of us to pay for public projects that we don't want/won't ever use.
s117godd 1 year ago
@s117godd So you don't use or want highways, schools, healthcare, unemplyment insurance,social security etc..? So how about since I don't want police, military or courts, you pay for them. Sound like a fair deal? Afterall it's not fair to expect me to pay for them when I don't want them or use them is it?
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Fuctmentality Are you trying to sound clever? Do you even understand what I'm saying? NO I DONT USE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, UNEMPLOYMENT "INSURANCE" OR SOCIAL SECURITY! I'M NOT A FUCKING PARASITE LIKE YOU!! IM SAYING IF ***YOU*** WANT TO USE THEM, ***YOU*** PAY FOR THEM. I don't want to, so why tax me for shit that doesn't work and I'm not gonna use? And if you're not willing to pay taxes to uphold courts, police and military, then you should move out of the country!
Jeez you're a fucking moron!
s117godd 1 year ago
@s117godd You don't use public schools? So you've never relied on someone trained in a public school? Because that's using one. & Have no intention of collecting SS or unemployment ""insurance""& Yes you are a fucking parasite, that's the problem with parasites, because you don't want to pay their fair share, you call anyone who asks you to parasites. No you are the one unwilling to pay taxes for anything that doesn't serve you, so you go to a country without the social contract.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
$3.5< million is a nest egg?
Why would someone not want to make more money?
Reality shows that while GDP has gone up in the 30 years, wages are the same(at best) & poverty has risen, doesn't that stand in the way of the "the best way to help the poor" argument?
Doesn't the fact the swiss have a higher corporate tax, stand in the way of the argument that taxation outsources jobs?
Don't we already have a class warfare tax policy as the top 1% pays lower taxes than the next 9%?
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
"High income taxes encourage income". I never knew that income taxes rose to over 100%. So if you make an additional $20,000 you're taxed at a marginal rate of 200% so you'll have to pay $40,000 in taxes on top of that. That means you'll forgo the $20,000 because you know that if you get that money you'll actually be losing $20,000! If marginal tax rates are under 100%, you will always be guaranteed of more income when you make more income.
lordhighexecutioner 1 year ago
If you take the percentage of income paid in taxes, you'll find that it's about 30 percent across the board for most people and in fact the percentage drops for the top 1 per cent. Taxes are effectively flat already. So stop your complaining.
lordhighexecutioner 1 year ago
Excellent Video!! more people should see it, i will spread it. problem is young people are mostly socialist because they are niave and easily led by left wing losers. Here in Australia, high taxes has always retarded growth and rewarded leeches / criminals. The 1 Person, 1 Vote system gives too much power to the leeches in society. We need a multiple votes per person voting system, based on what they "give" to or "take" from society, the more u give the more votes, the more u take, the less vote
backreefoil 1 year ago
Suck a dick,Dan,you pampered bitch!....Would you kill this fucker if you had the chance?I would!
anarksee 1 year ago
@anarksee ooohh i don't like people who go out and find a job and work. oohhh i don't like people who go out and want to make more to provide for their family. "would you kill this fucker..". i know i would see that as a physical threat. maybe you are lashing out because he has a very logical argument which you can't argue against effectively.
I like wearing nice clothes. Are you going to try to kill me now? maybe you should talk to a psychiatrist or something.
fabes0011 1 year ago
@fabes0011 I won't play semantical legerdemain,fabes0011.I don't give a fuck if you see my prior comment as "physcial" threat.Psychiatry is a scam (Thomas Szasz).You and the egotist on this video need to study ontology.Ever heard of the Gini Co-efficient?No man is an island.Each person both affects and is affected by every other person - equally - at all times,even if they are a selfish bassturd! (A)
anarksee 1 year ago
Yes I agree with viehe69, the rich don't work as hard as the working class. Who has the health problems, who lives over taxed, and just survive.
Since 2009 billionaries increased from 700+ to over 1100, doubling wealth and destroying the poor. This is a lot of lies.
v44forme1 1 year ago
How does higher taxes on income, & investments decrease ones desire to have more income? How would being taxed less make one less likely to try & hide income or otherwise circumvent taxes, when the amount saved could be thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars? Globalization & American grain subsidization are causing america to lose jobs,while simultaneously making the wealthy wealthier, which brings me to my final question,Why is it class warfare only when the working class fights back?
yellowkrux 1 year ago
More taxes on the rich means that those who control the companies will have less incentive to milk their enterprises, as they do now, and more incentive to reinvest it in the business. The problem with the class warriors like this person is that they assume that the rich are born totally virtuous and will always do the right thing and are in no need of any regulation, whilst those below need coercion and the threat of starvation and prison to keep them in line.
lordhighexecutioner 1 year ago
Abject nonsense. Over the past 30 years, the wealth created by all has been divvied up more and more unfairly, a zero-sum game in which those in middle and lower class lose, and this has been compounded by tax policies that deepen this tendency. This is putting many western countries on the road to feudalism. The only way out is to reverse the policies, including tax policies, including ending policies for mass unemployment to depress wages, including increasing trade union power.
lordhighexecutioner 1 year ago
I wonder if Dan Mitchell was aware at the time he made this video that Atlas Shrugged was becoming popular again.
MrTrilliondollarman 2 years ago
America was founded on equal oportunity. Which means, John Doe had just as much oportunity as any other rich person to make 6 figures a year.
It goes against the very thing this country was founded upon to try and equalize the population based on money and not oportunity.
Its very sad to see where we are headed with these crazy policies.
HaleFire7 2 years ago
great video
a4finger 2 years ago
This man is insane.
Ask the people in the Netherlands if they are happy or not, then look at their tax rates.
When one percent of the population controls 95 percent of the money. This is slavery!!
billvestal 2 years ago
Visit the Campaign for Liberty for political and economic education.
Kremlin1813 2 years ago
Like DystopianUtopia said, "low taxes, and free markets, creates opportunity for the worlds poor". Lack of opportunity is what creates poverty. Redistribution is a modern form of slavery, where one is forced to work and the fruits of his labor goes to someone else who did absolutely nothing to earn it. Let's not even mention the politicians who get to take a slice of that pie on its way from the rich to the poor.
Kremlin1813 2 years ago
LOL has anyone noticed this guy's tie?
DystopianUtopia 2 years ago
I'm willing to bet that you don't spend much time reading studies.
Fact is that on average the US has seen higher growth rates, lower prices, higher per capita income and better productivity than Europe over the last few decades. This may change in the future, but the fact is that more money+lower prices=higher standard of living.
Durandal211 2 years ago 2
If not redistributive taxation, how else are we supposed to reduce income inequality in the United States?
I take it as a given that the current income distribution is unrighteous, and that any policy that allows inequality to continue increasing is, ipso facto, wrong. The only question, IMNSHO, is what policies are best for reducing inequality with the minimum of negative side effects.
ComradeSephiroth 2 years ago
The wealth gap is irrelevant, it simply tells us how far apart the rich and the poor are. It gives us no idea of the living standards of the poor which is what I assume you want to improve. If you want to see this then the best way to do it is have low taxes, and free markets, so that opportunity can arise for the world's poor. If we try and redistribute to the poor, they may get a larger slice of the pie, but the pie will be much smaller, meaning, they'll be worse off! Freedom will always win.
DystopianUtopia 2 years ago
I cannot understand why so many US conservative defend an interventionist "muscular" foreign policy. Think about this: America yearly spends 5 or 6% of GDP on defense. Most europeans barely spend 1%, thanks to American/NATO military umbrella in last 60 years. Most Europe has a dramatic low birth rate/aging problem, so if we were obliged to triple military spending and have a self-governing defense, our Welfare systems would collapse in few decades.
xaviqaz 2 years ago
Please don't let rich people pay their fair share! If this asshole has to buy a 50,000 car this year in place of a 70,000 one, he might not be able to go on!
AAL 2 years ago
Yes, don't argue on principle just call him an evil bourgeois scotch drinker and be on with your day, he is only has a PHD in economics from george mason university.
richardsimones 2 years ago
Yeah and he only totally opens his video without an agenda! We have to give the rich tax cuts or they won't give us jobs!
AAL 2 years ago
It's not like he doesn't have a point. Why would companies stay in America if their success is punished less elswhere.
richardsimones 2 years ago 3
Then get the fuck out. REAL Americans give a damn about their fellowman. You want to make more money by taking your company to Mexico? Fucking go.
AAL 2 years ago
You are quite bitter and clinging to your altruism. Businesses are for the "greater good" as you altruistic theifs call it. Who creates wealth? Who creates jobs? Who creates products that make our lives easier? The answer is simple business. I do not give to those who do not deserve.
Webster defines fellow as "An equal in rank, power, or character." In my mind someone who feels entitled to an act of altruism is no fellow to me. I am of a higher rank and of higher character.
richardsimones 2 years ago 2
Yeah the actual workers do nothing.
The reason you don't get "altruism" is because you're a greedy christian.
AAL 2 years ago
They would not be workers if there was no one to create a product in which to manufacture or sell.
I do understand the concept of altruism, but government should not force me to be altruistic. It infringes my persuit of happiness. Why should the tangible representation of my labor be sacrificed to those who do not labor and those who do not deserve. I am a Catholic, but that does not serve as the cause of my selfishness.
richardsimones 2 years ago 2
Altruism, when forced by government like it is in the USA, is not charity, but Robbery. Altruism, when done voluntarily, is charitable. You, my friend, want it forced on people, so it is not virtuous... it is nothing but coercion.
anthonybjr 2 years ago
So you're against medicare? Welfare? Child health programs? medical research for aliments you don't have?
Caring for other American's isn't about charity it's about making our nation stronger.
AAL 2 years ago
Well, what about being able to save up for my old age instead of being dependent on the gunvernment for medicare. Medicare won't even be around in 20 years at the rate it's going so why should I be forced to pay for it? If people were more responsible for their actions, we wouldn't need welfare. For the unfortunate and irresponsible, charities would handle it. Medical research can be done better in the free market. Some people just think the gunvernment as the savior. It's the problem.
anthonybjr 2 years ago 2
Try Somalia no welfare, no governments and 98% christian! you'll love it!
AAL 2 years ago
Always the false somalia argument. The fact of the matter is, is that Somalia is run by warlords, and has something similar to the feudal system. Just because the UN doesn't recognize these warlords and their system doesn't mean that they don't have gunvernment. By the way, I'm not Christian. So lets see if you can come up with a better argument than the Somalian one.
anthonybjr 2 years ago
@AAL 98% christian ??? You might want to check your faxts ..just a suggestion, of course.
DAB3055 1 year ago
So the worker should be grateful for being paid less than the real value of his work (profit)..
CrackerXZ 2 years ago
No, he should be grateful for being offered the job. No one man is entitled to a job or a paycheck. He is granted those things based on his abilities. Instead of "From each according to their ability to each according to their need," the real world say "From each according to their ability to each according to their need."
richardsimones 2 years ago 2
Employers need employees and vice versa, neither should be "grateful" or licking the others ass. It's just a deal between the two who need eachother and if one of the parties isn't happy, he is free to find someone else with a better deal.
CrackerXZ 2 years ago 2
Yes, but there would be no job if not for the creator.
richardsimones 2 years ago
This is more accurate... people don't trade unless there is mutual benefit. It's bull to say people are slaves to their jobs (or something like it), then go find a different job! If your assets/ skills are so valuable, go sell them to someone else for more money.
1978RDC21 2 years ago
Well said 1978RDC21. I agree people are not slaves to their jobs. I would say they are slaves to their lifestyles. Live beyone your means and you become enslaved. Live below your means and you have a better chance of being free.
jgposner 2 years ago
Read my other comment on unequal bargaining power to understand why "just find a different job" doesn't work out as well in reality as the laissez-faire types like to think.
ComradeSephiroth 2 years ago
The fundamental problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't take into account differentials in the power structure. If employers and employees had equal bargaining power then everything would work out fine. But when bargaining power is asymmetric, the income distribution will begin to reflect that asymmetry.
ComradeSephiroth 2 years ago
if you weren't paid less than the value of your work (profit) no company would exist. Because the ultimate value of your work is what the consumer values it at. if everyone along the supply-chain received the value of an item for the consumer's purchase price, only one entity could be paid.
1978RDC21 2 years ago
if the workers skill-set is lacking, then yes. Only a fool would stay doing the same job without learning something new or improving his skills. As a matter of fact, they deserve it for being so idiotic.. Wages are set by what the market can tolerate for labor, not because something is right or wrong. Besides, it is the supposed 'worker's job', it is the employer's job, and the laborer is selling his wages to the employer to do the job for the employer. The worker doesn't own the Job.
anthonybjr 2 years ago
That's the wrong attitude. If you cared about your fellow man you would allow him to be productive,for himself and his family.
1978RDC21 2 years ago 2
I wish I could, I even speak the language, but I won't. America was founded on the idea that people could come and pursue liberty and happiness, not fairness.
anthonybjr 2 years ago
It looked like he "Totally opens the video" with facts/ policy proposals.
It sounds like you might have an agenda.
1978RDC21 2 years ago
If America ends wars, closes military bases and stops policing the world, they will not need to raise taxes on the rich nor on the poor. If i was american i would vote for the guy who will end foreign policy based on perpetual war, no matter he is right or left-wing.
xaviqaz 2 years ago
if we stop policing the world, the world would fall apart. Many European countries decry the US for the imagined evils we do, but when we threaten to close down our military bases in their country, they almost dump a golden brick trying to stop us. They would never admit it, but they need us. Why do you think Japan rarely bitches? Because our military protects them. They aren't stupid! (and yes, I know why our military does, don't e-mail me)
Quatre0083 2 years ago
I agree but that is our problem if we european and japanese people cannot defend by ourselves. What i mean is that american taxpayers should not be paying another countries defense
xaviqaz 2 years ago
Well, we should get out of all 177 countries.
anthonybjr 2 years ago
Agreed. But consider this truth...
"But liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government" - Brave New World: Revisited
jackiedontdie 2 years ago
Really great video. Required viewing for everyone who has any interest in fiscal policy.
johnisfun 2 years ago
You have the most annoying, ignorant and patronizing voice I have ever heard in my life!!!
DavidHiggz 2 years ago
DavidHiggz,
Typical liberal response to facts and reason, attack the person presenting them for looking, sounding, or just plain being annoying to you. Of course, when you have absolutely NO logical leg to stand on, it's to be expected.
Quatre0083 2 years ago
I'm actually an irish consevative and I don't really care about the American impact of these propsals however I know that they would deepen the already big wealth gap in Irish society. The bigger the gap the bigger the social problems. Studies have proved that
DavidHiggz 2 years ago
So wait, Europe has higher unemployment because they have higher taxes, but are richer because they have lower taxes? Um, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
popecuttyeye 2 years ago
I can't believe anything said by a man wearing that tie. Seriously.
jimmifli 2 years ago
Who cares if his taste isn't something you care for. Listen to what he is saying and use your brain. If you have any sense at all and have the ability critically think the truth of what he is saying should become obvious. Shed your emotional reactions to his appearance or the issues this topic impacts and use some objectivity.
obmax1212 2 years ago
Of the EU-15, thirteen out of the fifteen countries currently have lower unemployment rates than the United States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
whistleo 2 years ago
What? What sources have you been reading?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Eurostat. Official figures.
whistleo 2 years ago
So that means you read their definition of unemployed? They are only counting those who have reported being unemployed and who are actively seeking work. Note this is the statistic for unemployment claims, not actual unemployed persons. Noncitizens do not qualify for such benefits, and it is much much harder to obtain citizenship in those countries. A huge portion of the EU population are not EU citizens. So you see the flaw in the data you are quoting.
TracyII77 2 years ago
those figures also discount those with a 'disability' (i.e. a sick note, most of whom are fraudsters and many of whom only qualify as disabled because they are morbidly obese), those in full time education (where they get sponsored by the tax system to sit around learning, for the most part, fuck-all) and single-mothers living off child benefits who have no intention of ever doing a stroke of work in their whole pathetic little lives.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
Americans must sacrifice.
Obama must borrow and spend.
Lovely.
chancedagardner 2 years ago
How about taxing the churches? these crooks dont pay taxes on anything.
shamansays 2 years ago
And what would be the purpose in that? I mean if you want to tax churches, why not tax little league teams or dog shelters? Why not tax car clubs and golf leagues? What about book clubs or quilting bees?
TracyII77 2 years ago
Now your talking! Thats the spirit!Not quit sure what a quilting bee is, but if they are exempt from paying taxes, they should be accountable just like everyone else. Taxing upper, middle , or lower class citizens obviously isnt working, so shift the weight where there is a surplus of "money" Keep in mind everyone deals in "imaginary money" the is no real value to our or anyone elses currency. Except what you choose to apply to it.
shamansays 2 years ago
How did this guy interpret "standard of living" with per capita consumption? It just happens that the US's per capita consumption has been higher than the disposible income.
nacisa 2 years ago
Obama should leave America! It's for our own good.
utubefavorsdems 2 years ago
Feel-good positions aside it is a fact that the more income a person makes the higher the tax rate applied against that income. The 'rich' already pay more ... a lot more ... in fact they pay the vast majority of the income tax paid.
Another fact - when those tax rates are raised government income tax revenue decreases.
One more - when those tax rates are decreased government income tax revenue increases.
It has been demonstrated by presidents from both sides of the isle.
AranMull 2 years ago
According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."
whistleo 2 years ago
copied straight out of wiki hey? don't suppose you read the rest of the article?
lotsbg 2 years ago
Skimmed it. Are you reading something into my comment? I was simply looking for a rebuttal.
whistleo 2 years ago
Rather than going to Wiki I suggest pulling down the data from the IRS. Check values before and after tax cuts and increases - particularly those that impacted those with higher reported incomes. Amounts paid - in terms of real dollars, as a percentage of the total income tax revenue and as a percentage of GDP - by the wealthiest increased after tax cuts. In particular look at those numbers in 1980 and compare to 1983&84 (since that is the period the wiki quote seems to mention...)
AranMull 2 years ago
The Laffer curve idea is NOT that tax cuts will increase revenue. Its that a tax of zero gives zero revenue, a tax of 100% gives zero revenue (true total 100% tax, meaning no after tax compensation, including no free food or shelter, in other words everyone dies, and nothing gets produced), that the maximum revenue would be somewhere in between, and that increasing tax rates from that point decreases revenue, as does cutting tax rates from that point.
wyxufjqqqrvfy 2 years ago
Cutting tax rates (from very high rates, or high rates on investment) can increase revenue in the short run. Cutting taxes can also increase revenue in the very long run (even a tiny amount of extra growth can increase revenue in the long run even with lower rates), but there isn't any good reason to think that cuts of ordinary income taxes(rather than capital gains, or corporate tax) , will increase revenue, just that it won't cut revenue as much as the rate is cut.
wyxufjqqqrvfy 2 years ago
Of course the point shouldn't be to maximize federal revenue. Lower taxes (and hopefully lower spending, or at least a reduced rate of spending growth to go with the lower taxes), can increase economic growth and reduce the dead weight loss of taxes. Taxing an extra billion dollars reduces the wealth in the private sector by more than a billion dollars, that additional amount is the dead weight loss which we should try to reduce with simpler and lower taxes.
wyxufjqqqrvfy 2 years ago
Why don't we take it a step further and distribute wealth evenly around the whole world so everyone earns about $9,000 a year. That would solve everything. Then no one would be able to afford health care or a home. There would exist no incentive to work or to produce things, which would reduce wealth creation drastically. Then everyone can be poor. But it's only fair, right??? Yay, sign me up!!!
dvlrck 2 years ago
A fine strawman argument. Let's try one for you. We'll reduce taxes on the rich to zero and make everyone but the rich pay taxes. It'll be just like the old European monarchies and the lords and aristocrats which is what you are trying to conserve. You can be a serf on the rich man's manor! Perfect work for a lazy Republican on welfare!
tubular87 2 years ago
Oops! I withdraw that. I didn't realize Airborne Identity actually advocated the even spread of wealth. My bad. :p
tubular87 2 years ago
I think wealth should be distributed evenly and that the rich should be paying a higher tax rate than they are now.
This is hardly class warfare.
AirborneIdentity 2 years ago
Why should the wealth be equal when the work is not?
viehe69 2 years ago 2