.... private sector challenged the usps and offered that option and more. also progressively taxing the rich takes money away from their ability to hire and pay workers. think about if you wanted to start your own practice and how high taxes may hinder your ability to do that. i think we can still provide these services but in more effective manners than what there doing now. i think the democrats are going in the wrong direction of means and are creating a bigger burden overall.
Ok, im for social programs but i believe that there is a fine line that the government has overstepped and not just dem's either. people want to help one another but leaving it totally or even largly to the gov to do typically turns out bad in some way or another. compare the usps to private shipping companies. which ones better? now i admit the usps has gotten better but mainly because it based that change on fedex's success. you couldnt get overnight delivery until.....
@frictionRx5 my previous comment didnt seem to post. First, as someone who worked hard my whole life, I can tell you that I am not naive about the struggles of the poor.As someone who has worked hard for the money i will make as a rich guy I am not naive about the rich. As someone who has provided detailed evidence for my positions in the second video, I can tell you I am not uninformed, and as someone who doesnt repeat "tax and spend" I can tell my chant is not as cliche
@frictionRx5 I am not calling rich people selfish. I am going to be rich and I am obviously not including myself in that category. I am calling rich people who whine abuot an extra 3% in taxes, when soldiers are dying in iraq and the poor are dying on the street, selfish.
"its gonna come from the people who I serve", that's an interesting thing to say
anyway, my father makes quite a lot of money, he owns a nice home, several cars, an expensive boat, an expensive motorcycle and my parents like to travel several times a yr
all of that stuff is paid for too, he worked hard and smart to earn what he has, he pays taxes on all those things too
@frictionRx5 simple. Because he can afford it. And that will put an 8 year old through school and get him healthcare. He has several cars, but he will be fine with one less. A child without healthcare will die.
well lemme tell u why he doesn't own 3 houses, 2 boats, an airplane and a fleet of cars, lemme explain where the rest of the revenue goes
it went to grow 1 school into many schools operating now in 2 states serving heavily populated markets, employing many teachers and instructors, educating students to join the work force
leases, employee health insurance, training equipment, advertising, salaries, etc. all cost money
@frictionRx5 I get that man. But it shouldnt restrict what he does because i want to raise taxes for his personal income. For example, lets say he has 3 cars right now. Thats AFTER did what he does. Those three cars do not contribute to schools, training equipment salaries etc.
I am proposing that we take a car- which for him is a luxury and give its value to a kid- for whom health is a necessity not a luxury.
@frictionRx5 that kid will grow up to be a doctor. He will then contribute further to society instead of being a beggar on the street. He will make hundreds of thousands of dollars and send his kid to your dad's school giving him a profit. He might save your dad's kid's life in an operation, making your dad a profit.
At worst he will help the economy over all, giving you dad a profit.
Its an investment that will come back to help you.
@truthofevolution your argument is flimsy and socialist, it's pure wealth redistribution
u wanna take more of his personal income that he created for himself by creating and expanding his own business
he'll open more schools, create more jobs, buy more equipment, train more students, serve more areas but not if u start taking more and more of his revenue
I just told u the money to buy a 2nd boat went into his business instead and u still wanna take 1 of his cars
@frictionRx5 "youre socialist" is just cliche. "wealth redistribution" is just cliche.
Your point makes no sense. He already bought a car. That car cant open more school. That car will only drive him from one place to another. The car has no impact on his ability to create schools, etc.
He didnt buy a second boat because he felt an investment in schools etc was necessary. He bought a second car because he felt an investment in schools wasnt necessary.
you're being a dope, him buying more cars helps the economy, buying stuff to furnish that 1 room my parents barely use except around the holidays helps the economy, when he did own 2 boats that also helped the economy and made more money for the guy who charged marina fees to dock them
the stuff he owns is part of the life he wanted and made for himself
taxing him more only means slower expansion of his business
@frictionRx5 no youre being a dope. yeah the money for the boat helps the boat maker, but thats about it. Turning a kid from a beggar into a doctor will help more than just a boat maker since the investment produces a return of hundreds of thousands. Its a better investment for society. And it will help your dad because the doc's kids might go to your dad's school. Or he might save the life of a guy wholl invest in your dad's school.
@frictionRx5 taxing him more only means slower expansion of his business. NO it doesnt. You dont know what youre talking about. He will still have money to invest. He will make that decision if he thinks it will make him a profit. He will just have less money to buy luxury items thats all. A person buys luxury items with money he feels does NOT need to be invested. Taking that money in no way affects his ability to invest.
he's not gonna invest in expanding his business if you liberals make it so expensive that it's not worth it, that means less job creation, less personal spending on stuff whether you think he needs it or not
you're speaking in hypotheticals while I'm speaking in reality, the reality of creating jobs and putting more money back into the economy
@frictionRx5 Im not speaking in hypotheticals. My sis and I are proven investments. Also you dont understand what you are talking about. Lets say your dad makes $100. He wants to take $50 and invest it because he thinks it will give him a profit of $20. And he wants to spend $50 on ice cream. Lets say the govt comes in and takes $30. Hes not going to say "fuck you govt I want my ice cream im going to invest $30 less" He still wants that $20 profit so hell invest $50. Hell just buy less icecream
@frictionRx5 hes going to invest if he thinks it will make him a profit regardless of what the govt does. If its too expensive then hes going to cut down on his yacht, not his investment.
you're not stimulating the economy by buying less "icecream" or in his case buying less company cars, leasing fewer buildings, buying less training equipment, hiring people, etc.
he's not gonna cut back on using his yacht cuz that's 1 of the things he worked hard to get to enjoy but he's certainly not gonna invest in another school that loses money cuz he can't afford to operate it
you have no clue who the $250,000 people really are
@frictionRx5 my family earn 200,000 dollars dude. We are pretty close. And we are getting richer.
If he wont, most rich people will. My evidence for that is Clinton. He raised taxes. We had an economic boom. People did not stop investing. This is indisputable.
Maybe your dad wont invest, but the majority of rich people will. THey dont mind losing one of 3 cars or yachts if they think they can get a profit. They still have 2 yachts to enjoy.
@frictionRx5 as far as that ice cream is concerned. Yes you buy $30 less icecream today. But you invest that 30 dollars in a kid who grows up to be a doc. Now he has $100. He invests 50, buys 20 worth of ice cream and cries about the 30 he lost to the govt.
So the initial 50 dollars your dad invested became 100 because of this kid, and the ice cream guy didnt lose much money.
In other words the investment comes back to help the economy. The doc buys cars, yachts etc.
your head has been filled with nonsense by that moron young turk
that dumb shit thinks growing a business means starting another youtube channel
people like you don't seem to distinguish between the small business owner who produces goods and creates jobs vs. investment banker, movie star or professional athlete
@frictionRx5 Dude I have facts behind me. I have evidence: Clinton. You lost. Your point is baseless.
My way has been PROVEN to be correct in the past. Secondly, I know the difference. Obama gave lots of tax cuts for small businesses look them up. Hes only going after luxury items not small business investment.
Clinton raised taxes and jobs were created blah blah
Bush cut taxes and jobs were lost blah blah
you're just parroting this superficial leftwing nonsense observation that doesn't address any of the substance of what went happened in the 90's or the last decade
@frictionRx5 dude, Im not saying that raising taxes creates jobs, what I said is raising taxes does not stop investment. This is a key difference. This is also a plain and indisputable fact. Consider: 1) clinton raised taxes 2) investment did not decrease. Therefore we can conclude that raising taxes does not necessarily decrease investment.
So if we tax rich people its safe to conclude that most will sacrifice luxuries not investment.
@frictionRx5 dude dont think I dont understand. I took an mcat exam that is 7 hours long. The actual exam is that long. I worked SO hard. I applied to a program that as a 5% acceptance rate. It was SO hard. Before that I lived on 20 grand a year while working 50-60 hrs a day in a research lab. I went to an undergrad where I studied for so much of my life.
Ive worked so hard for money I havent earned yet. Im STILL willing to pay taxes. Its a sacrifice to my country. Like a soldier's blood.
@frictionRx5 right now Im cramming for a really tough exam. I spend many nights pulling all nighters. And people have told me to "enjoy this time because it doesnt get any easier".
I know what its like to work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor. But if a soldier can die for his country, cant i just give up one yacht or one car? Ill still have others. Its the easiest sacrifice in the world in my opinion.
@frictionRx5 If your dad is willing to give up that yacht and keep investing, I would have as much respect for him as a soldier who served our country. If I see a soldier I shake his hand, I will do the same for your dad if I see him. Im asking for a sacrifice. I know that. Its not easy. I know that.
I dont want your dad's money because I enjoy making people suffer just like you dont want to see children die. Lets stop the nonsense cliches "socialism" etc. Im trying to make this country better
@frictionRx5 also clinton raised taxes for the rich by 3%. Thats the same level that I want the taxes now. You know what happened under clinton when we had 3% HIGHER taxes? An economic boom. Thats because rich people dont stop investing. They just cut down on luxuries.
That extra money goes to investment in important thigns like edcuation and healthcare. Those kids grow up and buy products from the rich bc they have money.
It helps everyone. And its not hypothetical. Clinton did it.
@frictionRx5 a public school education costs several tens of thousands of dollars, sorry for your loss of an extra boat. But when that beggar kid becomes a doctor he will produce hundreds of thousands of dollars PER YEAR. Thats a HUGE return on investment. Now we are talking multiple boats, and a profit back to your dad, since more people are willing to buy your product, since they have more money.
@frictionRx5 I made this video from the point of view of how thankful I am for tax payer money. But dont forget that Im actually an investment for this country. My only sibling is a doctor already. Between us, my parents produced 2 kids with three doctorate degrees.
Now instead of begging, I can buy a car, so thats a huge effect on the economy. Ill also practice my trade of saving people's lives. That makes THEM productive members of society.
@frictionRx5 in other words the money I want to take from your dad would not have been going to helping build schools. It would have gone to a luxury item of his.
I wanted to have a legitimate convesration with you, but if you call me a socialist, Ill call you a heartless monster that would rather see a child die. You want your 3 sports cars, but if a kid dies you dont give a damn.
@frictionRx5 tax payer money- your dad's money- has made me your equal in intellect. I can talk to you, debate with you and beat you. Without your money, I would be a homeless guy.
Now I am a contributing member to society. Maybe the doctor who saves your kid's life 10 years from now also grew up in poverty.
Its an investment that helps society. Anyway the sacrifice you dad needs to make isnt that big. Think of it as a patriotic duty and youll feel better.
I agree with you 100% on my personal view of paying taxes. But I think you are also a bit naive about other peoples attitudes towards working and helping their children ect.
@Uhlbelk I mean its mixed. Im not saying all parents want to work for their kids. But I was an after school teacher and a personal tutor in harlem for 4 years, and Ive seen many parents working mulitple jobs, etc for their kids. Its my own experience, so I dont know if thats naivety
Keep the teachers in school? What good is that doing? The quality of a child's eduacation does not seem to be improving with the presence of teachers. Public schools are about as necessary as triangles shaped wheels for driving a car. Why attend public schools when there are vast educational resources online that are accessible to almost anybody , some resources that are not even available in public schools.
@Pentazoid111 um, if we get internet in public schools then all those resources are availabe to public schools. Infact we DO have internet in public school so yeah. Also your statement that "child's education does not seem to be improving with the presence of teachers" is pertty much demonstrably wrong. Find me a school without any teachers which does better than a school with teachers
Most people have the internet in their own homes. Why is their a need to forced kids to go to school if they have access to the same educational resources if not more resources from their own home? Demonstrably wrong? There are plenty of kids who taught themselves subjects that they did not teach themselves in school. I pretty much learned about austrian economics. and the subject of logic all on my own without any teachers help . Learning is an individualistic activity. No teachers is necessary
@Pentazoid111 they DONT have more resources in their homes. Schools have libraries where books are free. If you want to get something online you have to pay for it. Schools have a teacher, while parents are usually out because they need to work.
I think reforming the school system is a good idea, but so is keeping it.
There are digital library projects underway where they are going to offer ebooks to the public for free. Gutenberg dotorg is offering more books to the public online for free. Austrian economics mises Institute offers tons of books for free to the public. They had a wonderful book on introduction to logic that I did not find at my library Even when books are offered for a payment, often times they are offered at a very cheap price. Wealth of nations cost me 99 cents
@Pentazoid111 learning austrian economics on your own is one thing, learning to read is something else. In my experience learning is not an individualistic activity. The kids Ive taught required guidance, and encouragement. On their own they woudl have easily failed.
Learning to read is not that difficult of a task and many cases, parents have taught their children how to read in a shorter period of time than the public schools did. Amercians are alr.eady a literate population before compulsory schooling existed in the united states . In 1820, Books like Thomas PAine's Common sense, Walter Schots novels, and Charles Dickinsons thick novels were best sellers in america during a time when your average american did not attend school
@Pentazoid111 no man, you are wrong, before school was compulsory, child labor was rampant, most average and poor children were not literate. Rich people read Thomas Paine and Charles Dickens not poor people. They were definitely illiterate, not to mention too poor to buy books. Public school education has put america's literacy rate at 99% which is pretty good.
You can choose to teach your child at home. But most parents are too busy to teach their children bc they have 2 jobs.
Child labor was rampant because american society at the time US was an agricultural society and most adults have kids because they needed lots of children to work on the farms because it made farming more efficient. Those Books were BEST sellers and the RICH constituted a tiny minority of americans. Please read Seperate schooling and State By sheldon richard. He shows that between 1800-1840 before schooling was instituted, 90 percent of the adult population in the northern states could read.
@Pentazoid111 well we went from 90% to 99% now. So public schools have shown a 9% imporvement right?
Saying a book is a best seller doesnt show data that everyone read that book. It could be a best seller in comparison to other books of the same era which were all read by the minority rich.
I dont quite understand what youre tyring to argue by comparing the 1640 poulation
A 90 percent literate population in certain US northern states shows that literacy would have probably increased among the adult population before compulsory schooling became widespread throughout the united states as the US begian its transformation to a manufacturing society since a literate population wasn't as important in an agricultural society as it was post-industrial revolution. I mentioned the 1640population to show that americans had no problem becoming literate withoutpublic schools
@Pentazoid111 yeah but we are at 99%. We cant really go higher than that. If your standard is literacy rate, you are simply showing that your method MAY be able to equal public schooling's performance. It cant better it since we are as good now as it can possibly get. At best your method MAY be equal. But since the maximum was 90% we have no direct evidence that you are right.
Oh , and correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because literacy rates went from 90 percent to 99 percent doesn't mean that was due to installing compulsory schooling in all states of america. I can infer that the literacy rates went up for americans as a whole because it was no longer illegal for the black slave population in the US to read and as a result, their was a desire for the black population to read and so that 9 percent represents most of the former black slaves.
@Pentazoid111 it doesnt matter if it was due to compulsory schooling or not. All that matters is that literacy rate cannot go higher than it is now. That is WITH mandatory schooling.
If we replace mandatory schooling iwth nonmandatory schooling, than you will AT BEST equal the success of mand. schooling and keep literacy at 99% and at worst reduce it to 90%
Sheldon richards also presents data that shows that the male population in the region what would now be later called the united states had a literacy rate that was at 60 percent and the first official state education compulsory law was passed in the year 1852. Similar trends were occuring in England. The first education compulsory law in england was passed in 1870. In 1640 the male population for London had over a 50 percent literacy rate. Private school attendance increased significantly too
@Pentazoid111 as a tutor who worked with a child who had a single mom working two jobs, I can tell you that sometimes parents cant teach children how to read faster than public schools can.
Those children deserve an education and if the parent cant provide it someone else has to.
@evilsceptic well thats not true, I never say that. What I do say is that government is not always the problem the way conservatives make it out to be. Government can offer a solution.
However in a recession, govt can keep spending when charities cannot. Its a better safety net.
@truthofevolution well the recession was caused by the government and it's going to get worse still. and I disagree that government is a "better" safety net. if there were no government schools and healthcare would most likely be cheaper to the point were chairties could easily help the few people who didn't have enough money at a higher level of efficiancy than the government.
Rich people do pay a lot of taxes now, raising it even more is just ridiculous. If anything would be more "equitable" it would be raising a national sales tax on sin items or everything. That way the people that consume the most pay the most taxes not people who produce the most. Its not charity or geneorosity if the govt is taking 70% anyway. Another good video!
@aemull3 "Rich people do pay a lot of taxes now, raising it even more is just ridiculous" Thats simply an opinion. I disagree. Mine is that the rich have an employment rate of 96% and are living much more happily than anyone else and raising taxes on them is not ridiculous, especially if they are at the same rate as Clinton's presidency during which time we actually had an economic boom.
@aemull3 the sales tax is a bad idea for multiple reason- first that it would affect poor people much more than the rich. The rich can afford to pay a sales tax but the poor cannot, which means they will be hurt by it. Thats decidedly unfair considering that the rich have a 96% employment rate and are happy right now.
Secondly the best way to stimulate the economy is to increase consumer spending. You would be stopping that with a sales tax.
@truthofevolution the rich unemployment rate really doesnt matter and they would still pay far more in sales taxes unless they were saving their money which does give others jobs. How would it affect poor people more? Poor people buy far less and it would benefit poor people when the rich do consume more. It would hurt consumer spending but so do income taxes. When people say they want to increase the sales tax intuitively they want to lower income taxes. Its all just a way for the govt
@aemull3 you asked "how would it affect poor people more". Im not sure because Im not an economist, but I do know that many people consider a sales tax to be a regressive tax and say that it hurts poor people more. On the other hand you can just artificially set a tax bracket for the rich to be higher in percentage than the poor.
I think the rich unemployment rate matters a lot. It means the recession is not impacting them, while it is impacting ave americans.
@truthofevolution to gain revenue its just the incentives behind it. An income tax incentivizes people to not work while a sales tax or like i said sin tax (higher rate on non need items) like luxury cars, gas, cigs, etc. discourage spending on items that are not necessary until the budget is in line (not even but at least 50% or GDP). I think it should at least be looked at and maybe half and half would work.
@aemull3 "An income tax incentivizes people to not work " I dont know how true that is, clinton raised the income tax for the highest bracket and we had an economic boom.
I definitely tihnk a mixture would be good like you said, and a tax on luxury items would be great. However, tax on necessary commodities must be subsidized or the poor will suffer. Do you agree?
@aemull3 finally I think its absolutely charity to take from teh rich and give to the poor so that they can have a better education. Thats the whole point of my video. Its a sacrfice that the rich should make but arent willing to make because they are so selfish. Soldiers are dying in iraq and these guys cant give 40%.
@truthofevolution its not charity if someone is forced to give it. Charity means it out of the kindness of your heart not the govt reposessing your house if you don't. I'm not saying it doesnt go to good causes or I'm against anything specifics at where the govt spending just that it is not "charity" if its forced. Sometimes companies dont give to charity because they are providing jobs and expanding, why should they be forced when they need to grow to remain competitive?
@aemull3 well yeah its definitely not charity. But Im fine with that. Im not talking about a tax on companies (especially small businesses) Im talking about an income tax. That helps everyone. It helps people like my parents and it produces doctors which helps the society as a whole.
I think forcing rich people to pay is a great idea. But its only forcing them because they are so unpatriotic and selfish. Soldiers die in iraq and they cant even spend an extra 3% of their income tax.
In any other country, all immigrants are begging on the streets? I know this video is about opinion, but dude? What's up with that "WE'RE #1 AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES SUCK ASS" American attitute? America does have people begging on the streets, you know. Both immigrants and people born there.
@bleunt well I didnt say all immigrants, what I said is WE (my family) would have been. But I guess even thats not true, and some european countries would have been pretty good too.
Yeah I got that we're number one attitude going dont i? Its definitely a much better country for poor people than india though. Thats my only point of comparison unfortunately.
Is there anything more patronizing than an argument from age? "Oh you poor dumb kid, one day you'll understand"? I mean, that's pretty much the *definition* of 'patronizing'.
I really like your sentiments here. On to the factual reasons!
Go Democrates!!!
CMichelle15 11 months ago
.... private sector challenged the usps and offered that option and more. also progressively taxing the rich takes money away from their ability to hire and pay workers. think about if you wanted to start your own practice and how high taxes may hinder your ability to do that. i think we can still provide these services but in more effective manners than what there doing now. i think the democrats are going in the wrong direction of means and are creating a bigger burden overall.
Atriticuss 1 year ago
Ok, im for social programs but i believe that there is a fine line that the government has overstepped and not just dem's either. people want to help one another but leaving it totally or even largly to the gov to do typically turns out bad in some way or another. compare the usps to private shipping companies. which ones better? now i admit the usps has gotten better but mainly because it based that change on fedex's success. you couldnt get overnight delivery until.....
Atriticuss 1 year ago
your "tax the rich" chant is cliche, naive and uninformed
calling the rich "selfish" is ignorant and the $250,000 threshold defining the wealthy set by you liberals is ludicrous
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 my previous comment didnt seem to post. First, as someone who worked hard my whole life, I can tell you that I am not naive about the struggles of the poor.As someone who has worked hard for the money i will make as a rich guy I am not naive about the rich. As someone who has provided detailed evidence for my positions in the second video, I can tell you I am not uninformed, and as someone who doesnt repeat "tax and spend" I can tell my chant is not as cliche
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I am not calling rich people selfish. I am going to be rich and I am obviously not including myself in that category. I am calling rich people who whine abuot an extra 3% in taxes, when soldiers are dying in iraq and the poor are dying on the street, selfish.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
I just got a friend invite from someone named "slutsoncrack"
anyway, B4 I school u plz tell me how u r gonna become rich
where is your wealth going to come from?
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 its gonna come from the people who I serve.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
"its gonna come from the people who I serve", that's an interesting thing to say
anyway, my father makes quite a lot of money, he owns a nice home, several cars, an expensive boat, an expensive motorcycle and my parents like to travel several times a yr
all of that stuff is paid for too, he worked hard and smart to earn what he has, he pays taxes on all those things too
now why would u wanna raise his taxes?
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 simple. Because he can afford it. And that will put an 8 year old through school and get him healthcare. He has several cars, but he will be fine with one less. A child without healthcare will die.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
dude, you're arguing that my dad should be forced to give up more of his earned personal income to pay for some kid's healthcare and education
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 yeah
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 youre arguing that its ok to let a kid go without healthcare and education than give up one out of multiple cars.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 and not much more, just 3-5% more.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
well lemme tell u why he doesn't own 3 houses, 2 boats, an airplane and a fleet of cars, lemme explain where the rest of the revenue goes
it went to grow 1 school into many schools operating now in 2 states serving heavily populated markets, employing many teachers and instructors, educating students to join the work force
leases, employee health insurance, training equipment, advertising, salaries, etc. all cost money
taking more of his money restricts what he does
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I get that man. But it shouldnt restrict what he does because i want to raise taxes for his personal income. For example, lets say he has 3 cars right now. Thats AFTER did what he does. Those three cars do not contribute to schools, training equipment salaries etc.
I am proposing that we take a car- which for him is a luxury and give its value to a kid- for whom health is a necessity not a luxury.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 that kid will grow up to be a doctor. He will then contribute further to society instead of being a beggar on the street. He will make hundreds of thousands of dollars and send his kid to your dad's school giving him a profit. He might save your dad's kid's life in an operation, making your dad a profit.
At worst he will help the economy over all, giving you dad a profit.
Its an investment that will come back to help you.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution your argument is flimsy and socialist, it's pure wealth redistribution
u wanna take more of his personal income that he created for himself by creating and expanding his own business
he'll open more schools, create more jobs, buy more equipment, train more students, serve more areas but not if u start taking more and more of his revenue
I just told u the money to buy a 2nd boat went into his business instead and u still wanna take 1 of his cars
you are a socialist
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 "youre socialist" is just cliche. "wealth redistribution" is just cliche.
Your point makes no sense. He already bought a car. That car cant open more school. That car will only drive him from one place to another. The car has no impact on his ability to create schools, etc.
He didnt buy a second boat because he felt an investment in schools etc was necessary. He bought a second car because he felt an investment in schools wasnt necessary.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
you're being a dope, him buying more cars helps the economy, buying stuff to furnish that 1 room my parents barely use except around the holidays helps the economy, when he did own 2 boats that also helped the economy and made more money for the guy who charged marina fees to dock them
the stuff he owns is part of the life he wanted and made for himself
taxing him more only means slower expansion of his business
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 no youre being a dope. yeah the money for the boat helps the boat maker, but thats about it. Turning a kid from a beggar into a doctor will help more than just a boat maker since the investment produces a return of hundreds of thousands. Its a better investment for society. And it will help your dad because the doc's kids might go to your dad's school. Or he might save the life of a guy wholl invest in your dad's school.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 taxing him more only means slower expansion of his business. NO it doesnt. You dont know what youre talking about. He will still have money to invest. He will make that decision if he thinks it will make him a profit. He will just have less money to buy luxury items thats all. A person buys luxury items with money he feels does NOT need to be invested. Taking that money in no way affects his ability to invest.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
he's not gonna invest in expanding his business if you liberals make it so expensive that it's not worth it, that means less job creation, less personal spending on stuff whether you think he needs it or not
you're speaking in hypotheticals while I'm speaking in reality, the reality of creating jobs and putting more money back into the economy
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Im not speaking in hypotheticals. My sis and I are proven investments. Also you dont understand what you are talking about. Lets say your dad makes $100. He wants to take $50 and invest it because he thinks it will give him a profit of $20. And he wants to spend $50 on ice cream. Lets say the govt comes in and takes $30. Hes not going to say "fuck you govt I want my ice cream im going to invest $30 less" He still wants that $20 profit so hell invest $50. Hell just buy less icecream
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 hes going to invest if he thinks it will make him a profit regardless of what the govt does. If its too expensive then hes going to cut down on his yacht, not his investment.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
you're not stimulating the economy by buying less "icecream" or in his case buying less company cars, leasing fewer buildings, buying less training equipment, hiring people, etc.
he's not gonna cut back on using his yacht cuz that's 1 of the things he worked hard to get to enjoy but he's certainly not gonna invest in another school that loses money cuz he can't afford to operate it
you have no clue who the $250,000 people really are
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 my family earn 200,000 dollars dude. We are pretty close. And we are getting richer.
If he wont, most rich people will. My evidence for that is Clinton. He raised taxes. We had an economic boom. People did not stop investing. This is indisputable.
Maybe your dad wont invest, but the majority of rich people will. THey dont mind losing one of 3 cars or yachts if they think they can get a profit. They still have 2 yachts to enjoy.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 as far as that ice cream is concerned. Yes you buy $30 less icecream today. But you invest that 30 dollars in a kid who grows up to be a doc. Now he has $100. He invests 50, buys 20 worth of ice cream and cries about the 30 he lost to the govt.
So the initial 50 dollars your dad invested became 100 because of this kid, and the ice cream guy didnt lose much money.
In other words the investment comes back to help the economy. The doc buys cars, yachts etc.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
your head has been filled with nonsense by that moron young turk
that dumb shit thinks growing a business means starting another youtube channel
people like you don't seem to distinguish between the small business owner who produces goods and creates jobs vs. investment banker, movie star or professional athlete
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 Dude I have facts behind me. I have evidence: Clinton. You lost. Your point is baseless.
My way has been PROVEN to be correct in the past. Secondly, I know the difference. Obama gave lots of tax cuts for small businesses look them up. Hes only going after luxury items not small business investment.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
you are as bad as young turk and just as clueless
Clinton raised taxes and jobs were created blah blah
Bush cut taxes and jobs were lost blah blah
you're just parroting this superficial leftwing nonsense observation that doesn't address any of the substance of what went happened in the 90's or the last decade
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 dude, Im not saying that raising taxes creates jobs, what I said is raising taxes does not stop investment. This is a key difference. This is also a plain and indisputable fact. Consider: 1) clinton raised taxes 2) investment did not decrease. Therefore we can conclude that raising taxes does not necessarily decrease investment.
So if we tax rich people its safe to conclude that most will sacrifice luxuries not investment.
But anyway really have to go. Cya.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 i have to work now Ill talk to you in a couple days.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution
ok
frictionRx5 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 just one more thing: savingtoinvest. c o m /2009/03/tax-breaks-in-obamas-15-billion-small. h t m l
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 dude dont think I dont understand. I took an mcat exam that is 7 hours long. The actual exam is that long. I worked SO hard. I applied to a program that as a 5% acceptance rate. It was SO hard. Before that I lived on 20 grand a year while working 50-60 hrs a day in a research lab. I went to an undergrad where I studied for so much of my life.
Ive worked so hard for money I havent earned yet. Im STILL willing to pay taxes. Its a sacrifice to my country. Like a soldier's blood.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 right now Im cramming for a really tough exam. I spend many nights pulling all nighters. And people have told me to "enjoy this time because it doesnt get any easier".
I know what its like to work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor. But if a soldier can die for his country, cant i just give up one yacht or one car? Ill still have others. Its the easiest sacrifice in the world in my opinion.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 If your dad is willing to give up that yacht and keep investing, I would have as much respect for him as a soldier who served our country. If I see a soldier I shake his hand, I will do the same for your dad if I see him. Im asking for a sacrifice. I know that. Its not easy. I know that.
I dont want your dad's money because I enjoy making people suffer just like you dont want to see children die. Lets stop the nonsense cliches "socialism" etc. Im trying to make this country better
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 also clinton raised taxes for the rich by 3%. Thats the same level that I want the taxes now. You know what happened under clinton when we had 3% HIGHER taxes? An economic boom. Thats because rich people dont stop investing. They just cut down on luxuries.
That extra money goes to investment in important thigns like edcuation and healthcare. Those kids grow up and buy products from the rich bc they have money.
It helps everyone. And its not hypothetical. Clinton did it.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 a public school education costs several tens of thousands of dollars, sorry for your loss of an extra boat. But when that beggar kid becomes a doctor he will produce hundreds of thousands of dollars PER YEAR. Thats a HUGE return on investment. Now we are talking multiple boats, and a profit back to your dad, since more people are willing to buy your product, since they have more money.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 I made this video from the point of view of how thankful I am for tax payer money. But dont forget that Im actually an investment for this country. My only sibling is a doctor already. Between us, my parents produced 2 kids with three doctorate degrees.
Now instead of begging, I can buy a car, so thats a huge effect on the economy. Ill also practice my trade of saving people's lives. That makes THEM productive members of society.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 in other words the money I want to take from your dad would not have been going to helping build schools. It would have gone to a luxury item of his.
I wanted to have a legitimate convesration with you, but if you call me a socialist, Ill call you a heartless monster that would rather see a child die. You want your 3 sports cars, but if a kid dies you dont give a damn.
Thats what you are. Id rather be a socialist.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@frictionRx5 tax payer money- your dad's money- has made me your equal in intellect. I can talk to you, debate with you and beat you. Without your money, I would be a homeless guy.
Now I am a contributing member to society. Maybe the doctor who saves your kid's life 10 years from now also grew up in poverty.
Its an investment that helps society. Anyway the sacrifice you dad needs to make isnt that big. Think of it as a patriotic duty and youll feel better.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
I agree with you 100% on my personal view of paying taxes. But I think you are also a bit naive about other peoples attitudes towards working and helping their children ect.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
@Uhlbelk I mean its mixed. Im not saying all parents want to work for their kids. But I was an after school teacher and a personal tutor in harlem for 4 years, and Ive seen many parents working mulitple jobs, etc for their kids. Its my own experience, so I dont know if thats naivety
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Keep the teachers in school? What good is that doing? The quality of a child's eduacation does not seem to be improving with the presence of teachers. Public schools are about as necessary as triangles shaped wheels for driving a car. Why attend public schools when there are vast educational resources online that are accessible to almost anybody , some resources that are not even available in public schools.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 um, if we get internet in public schools then all those resources are availabe to public schools. Infact we DO have internet in public school so yeah. Also your statement that "child's education does not seem to be improving with the presence of teachers" is pertty much demonstrably wrong. Find me a school without any teachers which does better than a school with teachers
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Most people have the internet in their own homes. Why is their a need to forced kids to go to school if they have access to the same educational resources if not more resources from their own home? Demonstrably wrong? There are plenty of kids who taught themselves subjects that they did not teach themselves in school. I pretty much learned about austrian economics. and the subject of logic all on my own without any teachers help . Learning is an individualistic activity. No teachers is necessary
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 they DONT have more resources in their homes. Schools have libraries where books are free. If you want to get something online you have to pay for it. Schools have a teacher, while parents are usually out because they need to work.
I think reforming the school system is a good idea, but so is keeping it.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
There are digital library projects underway where they are going to offer ebooks to the public for free. Gutenberg dotorg is offering more books to the public online for free. Austrian economics mises Institute offers tons of books for free to the public. They had a wonderful book on introduction to logic that I did not find at my library Even when books are offered for a payment, often times they are offered at a very cheap price. Wealth of nations cost me 99 cents
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Luckily, schools have internet service, so all those resources you said are available in public schools.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 learning austrian economics on your own is one thing, learning to read is something else. In my experience learning is not an individualistic activity. The kids Ive taught required guidance, and encouragement. On their own they woudl have easily failed.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Learning to read is not that difficult of a task and many cases, parents have taught their children how to read in a shorter period of time than the public schools did. Amercians are alr.eady a literate population before compulsory schooling existed in the united states . In 1820, Books like Thomas PAine's Common sense, Walter Schots novels, and Charles Dickinsons thick novels were best sellers in america during a time when your average american did not attend school
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 no man, you are wrong, before school was compulsory, child labor was rampant, most average and poor children were not literate. Rich people read Thomas Paine and Charles Dickens not poor people. They were definitely illiterate, not to mention too poor to buy books. Public school education has put america's literacy rate at 99% which is pretty good.
You can choose to teach your child at home. But most parents are too busy to teach their children bc they have 2 jobs.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Child labor was rampant because american society at the time US was an agricultural society and most adults have kids because they needed lots of children to work on the farms because it made farming more efficient. Those Books were BEST sellers and the RICH constituted a tiny minority of americans. Please read Seperate schooling and State By sheldon richard. He shows that between 1800-1840 before schooling was instituted, 90 percent of the adult population in the northern states could read.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 well we went from 90% to 99% now. So public schools have shown a 9% imporvement right?
Saying a book is a best seller doesnt show data that everyone read that book. It could be a best seller in comparison to other books of the same era which were all read by the minority rich.
I dont quite understand what youre tyring to argue by comparing the 1640 poulation
truthofevolution 1 year ago
A 90 percent literate population in certain US northern states shows that literacy would have probably increased among the adult population before compulsory schooling became widespread throughout the united states as the US begian its transformation to a manufacturing society since a literate population wasn't as important in an agricultural society as it was post-industrial revolution. I mentioned the 1640population to show that americans had no problem becoming literate withoutpublic schools
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 yeah but we are at 99%. We cant really go higher than that. If your standard is literacy rate, you are simply showing that your method MAY be able to equal public schooling's performance. It cant better it since we are as good now as it can possibly get. At best your method MAY be equal. But since the maximum was 90% we have no direct evidence that you are right.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Oh , and correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because literacy rates went from 90 percent to 99 percent doesn't mean that was due to installing compulsory schooling in all states of america. I can infer that the literacy rates went up for americans as a whole because it was no longer illegal for the black slave population in the US to read and as a result, their was a desire for the black population to read and so that 9 percent represents most of the former black slaves.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 it doesnt matter if it was due to compulsory schooling or not. All that matters is that literacy rate cannot go higher than it is now. That is WITH mandatory schooling.
If we replace mandatory schooling iwth nonmandatory schooling, than you will AT BEST equal the success of mand. schooling and keep literacy at 99% and at worst reduce it to 90%
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Sheldon richards also presents data that shows that the male population in the region what would now be later called the united states had a literacy rate that was at 60 percent and the first official state education compulsory law was passed in the year 1852. Similar trends were occuring in England. The first education compulsory law in england was passed in 1870. In 1640 the male population for London had over a 50 percent literacy rate. Private school attendance increased significantly too
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 as a tutor who worked with a child who had a single mom working two jobs, I can tell you that sometimes parents cant teach children how to read faster than public schools can.
Those children deserve an education and if the parent cant provide it someone else has to.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
you seem to think that anything the government does wouldn't happen without them.
evilsceptic 1 year ago
@evilsceptic well thats not true, I never say that. What I do say is that government is not always the problem the way conservatives make it out to be. Government can offer a solution.
However in a recession, govt can keep spending when charities cannot. Its a better safety net.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution well the recession was caused by the government and it's going to get worse still. and I disagree that government is a "better" safety net. if there were no government schools and healthcare would most likely be cheaper to the point were chairties could easily help the few people who didn't have enough money at a higher level of efficiancy than the government.
evilsceptic 1 year ago
Rich people do pay a lot of taxes now, raising it even more is just ridiculous. If anything would be more "equitable" it would be raising a national sales tax on sin items or everything. That way the people that consume the most pay the most taxes not people who produce the most. Its not charity or geneorosity if the govt is taking 70% anyway. Another good video!
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 "Rich people do pay a lot of taxes now, raising it even more is just ridiculous" Thats simply an opinion. I disagree. Mine is that the rich have an employment rate of 96% and are living much more happily than anyone else and raising taxes on them is not ridiculous, especially if they are at the same rate as Clinton's presidency during which time we actually had an economic boom.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@aemull3 the sales tax is a bad idea for multiple reason- first that it would affect poor people much more than the rich. The rich can afford to pay a sales tax but the poor cannot, which means they will be hurt by it. Thats decidedly unfair considering that the rich have a 96% employment rate and are happy right now.
Secondly the best way to stimulate the economy is to increase consumer spending. You would be stopping that with a sales tax.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution the rich unemployment rate really doesnt matter and they would still pay far more in sales taxes unless they were saving their money which does give others jobs. How would it affect poor people more? Poor people buy far less and it would benefit poor people when the rich do consume more. It would hurt consumer spending but so do income taxes. When people say they want to increase the sales tax intuitively they want to lower income taxes. Its all just a way for the govt
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 you asked "how would it affect poor people more". Im not sure because Im not an economist, but I do know that many people consider a sales tax to be a regressive tax and say that it hurts poor people more. On the other hand you can just artificially set a tax bracket for the rich to be higher in percentage than the poor.
I think the rich unemployment rate matters a lot. It means the recession is not impacting them, while it is impacting ave americans.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution to gain revenue its just the incentives behind it. An income tax incentivizes people to not work while a sales tax or like i said sin tax (higher rate on non need items) like luxury cars, gas, cigs, etc. discourage spending on items that are not necessary until the budget is in line (not even but at least 50% or GDP). I think it should at least be looked at and maybe half and half would work.
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 "An income tax incentivizes people to not work " I dont know how true that is, clinton raised the income tax for the highest bracket and we had an economic boom.
I definitely tihnk a mixture would be good like you said, and a tax on luxury items would be great. However, tax on necessary commodities must be subsidized or the poor will suffer. Do you agree?
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@aemull3 finally I think its absolutely charity to take from teh rich and give to the poor so that they can have a better education. Thats the whole point of my video. Its a sacrfice that the rich should make but arent willing to make because they are so selfish. Soldiers are dying in iraq and these guys cant give 40%.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@truthofevolution its not charity if someone is forced to give it. Charity means it out of the kindness of your heart not the govt reposessing your house if you don't. I'm not saying it doesnt go to good causes or I'm against anything specifics at where the govt spending just that it is not "charity" if its forced. Sometimes companies dont give to charity because they are providing jobs and expanding, why should they be forced when they need to grow to remain competitive?
aemull3 1 year ago
@aemull3 well yeah its definitely not charity. But Im fine with that. Im not talking about a tax on companies (especially small businesses) Im talking about an income tax. That helps everyone. It helps people like my parents and it produces doctors which helps the society as a whole.
I think forcing rich people to pay is a great idea. But its only forcing them because they are so unpatriotic and selfish. Soldiers die in iraq and they cant even spend an extra 3% of their income tax.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
In any other country, all immigrants are begging on the streets? I know this video is about opinion, but dude? What's up with that "WE'RE #1 AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES SUCK ASS" American attitute? America does have people begging on the streets, you know. Both immigrants and people born there.
Other than that, excellent video. :)
bleunt 1 year ago 5
@bleunt well I didnt say all immigrants, what I said is WE (my family) would have been. But I guess even thats not true, and some european countries would have been pretty good too.
Yeah I got that we're number one attitude going dont i? Its definitely a much better country for poor people than india though. Thats my only point of comparison unfortunately.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@bleunt thanks though for the compliment!
truthofevolution 1 year ago
@bleunt this is the problem with bending the most important rule. I state an opinion as fact by mistake. Thanks for checking me on it.
truthofevolution 1 year ago
really loved this video. that's all.
pinochet222 1 year ago
@pinochet222 thanks!
truthofevolution 1 year ago
Is there anything more patronizing than an argument from age? "Oh you poor dumb kid, one day you'll understand"? I mean, that's pretty much the *definition* of 'patronizing'.
I really like your sentiments here. On to the factual reasons!
defcore108 1 year ago
@defcore108 "Is there anything more patronizing than an argument from age"
Actually it's a fallacy...
To equate age to experience, is flawed for the following reason.
If I put a man in solitary confinement, with no stimuli, for 60 years, will they be wiser than a 20 year old?
Age doesn't equal experience, it's merely correlated with a higher chance of being experienced.
Also, some people use their "experience" to justify prejudice.
TheReasonWhyGuy 1 year ago