they left out the part of the video where millions of chinese children made the pie for teller at no expense to him. And also exaggerated the part where penn was only asking for a small fraction of the pie, not the entire thing. You see, in the real world teller would still have so much pie he w have to start using it as toilet paper and giving it to his friends if he wanted to get rid of it because there would be too much to eat on his own.
I agree with that if you work your whole life and build up wealth you should be able to keep it. I think most every american believes the same. The problem is that while most americans are paying upwards of 40% of their income to taxes the elite are paing less than 20%. Also why is it since 1980 the wealthy's income went up 275% while the average joe's income in the sme time went up 8% . Seems to me that class warfare started in 1980 and finally the rest of america starting to catch on.
@swat105 Yeah, I know. That's why I'm not ENTIRELY sure about the idea of wealth distribution. If you spend a lifetime working and building up your own fortune, you've earned it. It's the aristocratic arseholes who claim that they deserve to keep their inherited wealth because they have 'traditions to keep alive' that just pisses me off. Also, I don't know if it's different in America, but here in England, a high class businessman tends to pay a lower percentage of tax than their secretary.
Penn & Teller are awesome, and I agree with them on a lot of subjects (like the death penalty, the Vatican, sex education, the war on drugs, and the introduction of Creationism in to science classes,) but this is not what is meant by distribution of wealth. Taking 10% of a billionaire's income would be a massive amount of money, but it certainly wouldn't leave them starving. I think the idea of wealth distribution needs to be looked at more carefully, but they've definitely got this wrong.
have a say in what you do with your assets. morally i believe the billionaires should give some of there money away to needier people but the government should not force them they should be allowed to make that decision on there own
@PassTheMarmalade1957@PassTheMarmalade1957 They were trying to explain this in just about a minute so of course its simplified but what there trying to say is its wrong to take what someone owns and give it to others. That's like saying the government should be allowed to take 10% of your home and let some homeless guy take it just because he doesn't have a home its your property and you should do what you want with it and the government shouldn't
@23lFrench Its not easy to see, and P&T tend to ignore the actual, complex reality in favor of simplicity and wit. It makes it so fun when they are aiming low, say, with homeopathy, but it makes it outright sad when they try to tackle stuff as large as wellbeing of a society. They occasionally get that stuff roughly right, but still, more often than not its just embarrassing if you know those areas at all.
@23lFrench its not justified to take what one owns and say that another needs it more so to bad they get it. i need a new TV but that doesn't justify me taking it from someone who has 5 tvs laying around its still would be considered theft
@swat105 Doesn't one own the worth of what one makes? You don't need a TV, you only want a TV, you need to distinguish between a want and a need. Somebody needing food to survive is a need and something for entertainment purposes is just a want. For theft to exist, there must be property and that doesn't actually exist man.
This is nonsense! The progressive tax system, especially in America, is hardly fair. And, with the bush tax cuts & the Obama tax cuts, taxes are the lowest they have been in decades. Warren Buffet pays a less percentage of his income than his secretary.
As for the pie, the rich are hardly getting "it all" taken from them. The libertarian position is nonsense in this matter. If Penn is the rich guy he has a multitude of loopholes to take advantage of, while the poor guy's slice is getting smaller
Huge wealth gaps in a society create social instability that lead to protests, riots, and revolution.
Redistribution of wealth through a graded tax code actually serves a purpose for both the people taking the money(poor), and the ones giving the money(rich). Redistribution helps the poor survive and it makes the rich less worried about revolution and anarchy.
@rightwing52000 If the rich were seriously worried about such things, they would be more than willing to give money to poor people. No one would have to take it from them.
@BubbaHoggit "If the rich were seriously worried about such things, they would be more than willing to give money to poor people. No one would have to take it from them."
- Nope. The Wall Street Journal(which is very conservative) reported that 68% of millionaires polled are in favor of raising taxes ON THEMSELVES.
The reason we can't raise taxes on the rich is that Grover Norquist and the republican party refuse to let it happen.
@rightwing52000 Basically what you're proposing is socialism, which history has shown time and time again LEADS to huge wealth/power gaps between the ruling class and the masses.
I feel I should mention that I did not flag your post as spam, (because it isn't). This stupid computer won't let me unflag it.
@BubbaHoggit "Basically what you're proposing is socialism"
-Yes, although we are already redistributing wealth through a graduated tax code, so we already are socialist to a degree. However, I do propose making our country more socialist because of the benefits listed above.
"Which ... LEADS to huge wealth/power gaps between the ruling class and the masses."
-You are so ignorant it makes my head hurt. Please research the difference between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarian Communism.
@BubbaHoggit take when from them.. honestly what have the "rich" got wich righfully belongs to someone else.. I make a very decent living, I know people who are on welfare.. please can you tell me what it is I have with righfully belongs to them???
@BubbaHoggit umm it was rich fuckers that paid my kids birth via charities when i lost my job.. when greedy people like u take with merit ..the rich tend to give less..so thank! because of people like u charities are suffering... poor? poor people in america have tv and ac..what poor? my next door neighbor is a drug addict with his rent paid and money for food what the hell are u talking about? and no one is obligated to do shit for anyone! u cant legislate morality u twit!!
Most people are incapable of contributing to the production side of a knowledge economy. No job in the future is going to be filled by individuals in the bottom 75-80-90 percent of the IQ distribution. However, with AI and nanotechnology, the twin pillars of a post-scarcity economy, productivity is going to be orders of magnitude higher, and thus a permanent welfare state with a guaranteed basic income for everyone in the world would be a possibility.
of money doesn't work, but neither does the other extreme where one person has it all and the rest have none. The balance is closer to the middle where most people control most of the money, not the fewest controlling the largest portion.
I agree with Tatchko. This analogy is fairly poor because money is never consumed as pie is. Sure, Penn can buy the pie with the wealth, but the money is then transferred to the baker, who transfers it to the farmers, and on and on. It works until people start hoarding it, as was stated, but that's why hoarding should not be allowed to exist in extreme forms. Wealth redistribution keeps the money in circulation, rather than in banks. The most extreme example where everyone has the same amount
@tmoore121 Many economic fallacies stem from sloppy thinking about money. Here your post makes two big mistakes.
1) Income = Investment + Consumption + Taxes. If someone spends less, they invest more. It's not "hoarding." Where do you think factories, research and development, computers etc... come from?!
2) Holding the value of money constant, money is perfectly exchangeable for real goods. When you take someone's money away, you're taking away the equivalent of real goods (e.g. pie).
@fortinbras47 Some of your assumptions are also fallacious. Holding the value of money constant, money is perfectly exchangeable for real goods. That being said, unlike real goods, money doesn't have the same power of depreciation that goods do. Spending money does not equate to consuming pie because the money continues to circulate. Pie is irreversibly depreciated when consumed. If I spend money, someone else gets it to spend. If I eat pie, that pie is gone forever from circulation.
@fortinbras47 In this view it sort of makes sense, but the pie analogy itself still has flaws because of the quantity of assumptions it makes. That being said, in your new scenario...that's exactly what is advocated by people that advocate redistribution. For example...I don't need $100. I don't even know what to spend it on..I already have most of the crap I need in my life with no perceivable need for upgrades. Therefore that $100 continues to sit in my bank account as it has for many years.
@tmoore121 Be aware though the bank has lent out your $100 to business to finance a factory or some investment project (you have $100 less of consumption, they have $100 more of capital goods). Your $100 can only be given to the poor for consumption by the poor if you don't do the investment projects financed by your $100!
In short, you can only redistribute consumption. Income = Consumption + Investment. Talking income redistribution misses that lowering investment lowers overall output.
If I eat less, the poor can eat more. But if you give the corn I'm planting in the ground to the poor for eating, then the corn crop next season will be smaller.
Corn for eating = consumption
Corn for planting = investment
Corn for eating + corn for planting = income = total output
@fortinbras47 Steve on the other hand needs $100 just to buy better groceries and not contribute to the health care/obesity problem in that we have. Or he uses that to work less hours and spend more time at home with his kids. Or he spends it on a new pair of shoes. Either way, lower class people get more benefit out of small denominations of money than upper-class people ever do/will. The middle class out-spends and out-consumes the upper class by leaps and bounds when measuring percentages of
@fortinbras47 income. It is middle class spending that pushes our economy forward, not upper class wealth. Sure, upper class people invest the money, but that invested money is just redistributed among those who receive most of their income from dividends and capital gains. The prime example would be GE who made $5billionUS last year and actually got a tax refund. The majority of that money goes back to stock holders and not employees, so it doesn't really help the overall economy.
@tmoore121 Over the long run, raising the rate at which money circulates or the amount of money does NOT raise output. All it does is raise prices. You can't make everyone richer by printing more money or making money circulate more quickly.
The way to think about money over the long-run is just a tool make transactions easier. If you have oranges, I have apples, and bill has bananas, we could do some barter without money, but using money and denoting all prices in $ makes things simpler.
@fortinbras47 This is definitely correct. To truly make everyone richer,requires better education. The best case scenario as I see is is not direct wealth redistribution but rather funneling that money into improve social programs. Right now education is <5% of discretionary spending. It is not unreasonable that we could use higher tax rates on the upper classes to fund primary and secondary education for the lower class. The parents now will still be poor but the next generation will not be.
@tmoore121 I agree that education is hugely important! It's all about higher productivity, producing more and better stuff with the same amount of labor. Overall, US K-12 education is a tragedy.
I'd differ somewhat in how to fix it. The link between more money and better results is very weak. I think the key to improve K-12 schools is to get more competition between schools and for good teachers. Whether it's biology, sports, or economics, things tend to suck when there's no competition.
@tmoore121 Imagine you and I are on an island. You have an orange tree that makes 10 oranges. I have an apple tree that makes 10 apples.
If money circulated more quickly or the quantity of money went up, we'd want to buy more oranges and apples but the island only has 10 oranges and 10 apples! So what happens? The quantity of apples and oranges doesn't go up, prices go up.
@tmoore121 To be fair, you can have models where money matters. If prices are sticky, adding money can *temporarily* boost output. If prices are fixed, then a boost of money leads people to buy more stuff and to supply the stuff, firms have to hire more workers.
But over the long-run, everything I said just has to be true. When Germany printed tons of money in the 1930s, they didn't raise their standard of living; they created hyperinflation (i.e. they raised prices).
@tmoore121 It's easy to get endlessly mixed up by looking at dollars instead of looking at the real goods and services people produce and consume.
When the government collects taxes, it is taking real goods and services from taxpayers. The total value of real goods and services the government takes from the public is actually equal to taxes plus borrowing! Every good and service the government delivers comes from somewhere. There's no free lunch.
@Tatchko The pie analogy is used in undergraduate & A level politics & economics classrooms across the land. Typically within the dicotomy of ether growing the pie or dividing it.
@Malthus0 The difference is the context. The pie analogy can be used to talk about the division of wealth sure. But money, unlike pie, is not consumed and destroyed like Penn and Teller imply. It's recycled through out the economy, flowing from person to person.
@Tatchko ''But money, unlike pie, is not consumed and destroyed like Penn and Teller imply'' I do not want to read to much into this sketch but have you considered that resources not money is the point(after all money is only a representation of value), & that the sketch represents the perverse incentives around real wealth creation & consumption when the proceeds of creative effort are confiscated, & lack of said effort subsidised?
@Malthus0 But the sketch does not talk about the "proceeds of creative effort are confiscated, & lack of said effort subsidized?" It talks about how taxing the rich is bad because the poor/government squanders the money and then there's no more money for anyone, but the Poor end up full and the poor, poor, uber wealthy are left hungry without having had ANY pie.
Which is not analogous to anything at all and actually a bit insulting to us non-millionaires, frankly.
@Tatchko It's recycled till people start hoarding it. For that to work people would need to spend based on their wealth, which they don't. That's the same way of thinking as a "trickle down" economy, and that just doesn't work.
@Tatchko Sure is, but I am not sure that you understand what supply side economics is.
Supply represents real wealth while money is just a means of exchange to get that real wealth. When you are spreading money, you are spreading wealth. You don't spread money so you could eat it. You spread money from teller to penn so penn can buy the pie. Which is just the same as taking the pie away.
This is representation of what happens when you spread money as far as real products go, not money.
ok? if food security is defined as "A household is considered food-secure when its occupants do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. " and food insecure then is that they do live in hunger or fear of starvation it does not follow that anyone starves to death in the us. Present me with evidence that anyone has starved to death in the US from 1900 to now and I will eat my hat (:
Ofc it's very unfortunate though that food insecurity is that high.
@TheDoomArt Or if you want to base it off of historical accounts of "wealth redistribution" give penn a couple guns and have him take all the pie by force to redistribute to teller (who of course will only get about 1/8 a slice so penn can "make sure: it goes to all the starving) bc it worked so well in Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Even the U.S who taxes us to make everyones lives" better", none of it gets pissed away or finds itself in politicians and their friends pockets
The hell you can't climb the social ladder. I was born poor, my parents were born poor. I am now more wealthy than 90% of Americans because I created new profitable ventures for myself and worked hard to earn the capital to create those ventures. I'm sorry there isn't a yellow brick road to wealth and I had to sacrifice and lose out for a while to come out on top.
@TreasureSender Forbes did a study a few years back that showed fewer than 1% of Americans are actually able to move up more than marginally in social status when compared to their parents. Great for you and all, but the reality is that alongside your hard work you had a lot of good luck.
There are plenty of hard-working Americans who work even harder than you ever did who will never get a chance to not have to worry about if they'll be able to feed their kids or make their house payments.
This video is simply explaining the mentality behind wealth redistribution. When you ask "why is it right to steal from the rich?", you get "it's not theft because the money goes to people who need it." When you argue about taxation being theft, people will often deny what it really is, and explain that it's okay because there's a good cause (which doesn't really disprove the fact that it's theft).
This is so true of class warfare and entitlement people. Instead of them to go fishing they feel they're entitled to the fish others have caught. They refuse to work hard enough, innovate to produce goods and services people want or sacrifice what they have and do what it takes to succeed, but they feel if you're successful, then you owe them. If we do what they want in American we'll very quickly be like Greece.
This is so true of class warfare and entitlement people. Inastead of them to go fishing they feel they're entitled to the fish others have caught. They refuse to do work hard, sacrifice what they have and do what it takes to succeed, but they feel if you're successful, then you owe them. If we do what they want in American we'll very quickly be like Greece.
@TheBunbury42 That's so noble of you, however you should't force others do share their pie with anyone if they've honestly acquired it. If they made or bought their own pie with their sweat then they should have the right to do as they please with it. A sense of entitlement is like a malignant cancer that feels it has the right to keep feeding on it's host. Very soon the cancer will run out of host to feed on and both the cancer and the host will be dead
@bbabus100 I completely understand. Pie doesn't just fall from the heavens. People at some point had to work to bake their pie. But I am saddened that some people have very little or no pie. I certainly would not want to take all of Teller's pie away, nor would I want to give all my pie away. But if someone has no pie and no oven with which to bake pie, I would be happy to share my pie until they get an oven. But I do completely understand why people may disagree.
@TheBunbury42 I don't disagree with helping the needy and I voluntarily do that, sacrificially and to my detriment at times, however what I'm saying is that it should be on a voluntary basis. If I choose to give all my pie out and starve that's my own prerogative but I should also have the right to hoard what I have.
@TheBunbury42 By the way, have you realized people who believe they have a right to what others have earned never do well? They perpetually remain in a dependent position in life from generation to generation. People need to be encouraged to learn to make their own pies rather than mooch off of others. If you're born and grow up in America and have no "pie" then it's by choice (IN MOST CASES). No body is superior to another. If one person can build an empire out of nothing so can you.
@TheBunbury42 Whats nice about this, is that you are CHOOSING to share your pie. Not having it stolen from you by force through the government and then being redistributed.
@QueenetBowie I totally understand why you wouldn't like it. Just a personal opinion, of course. Economics are like religion, in that I rarely debate them since it's quite difficult to change someone's mind. I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right. Just saying that I understand I have a somewhat unpopular opinion and probably not going to change anyone's mind
Except the pizza isn't free and there is no free wealth distribution center. The more you take from the people who had sense enough to earn it the less likely they will be able to spend it on workers, businesses, and charity.
@htiberian oh yeah cause we all know that charity and aid is what brings people meaning in life, that's typical imperialism. What about I put you on charity cause I already feel pity for your sorry ass.
this isn't really accurate, wealth redistribution is more like you have a pizza with a hundred slices and a hundred people to feed. now the first guy who come and gets pizza takes lets say 50 slices. wealth redistribution is taking some of those slices from that guy and giving them to the other 99 people
If both Penn and Teller bought the pie, it is not distributed equally. If only Teller bought the pie, then it is not distributed equally. If Penn bought the pie, then it is distributed equally.
...
Perhaps most folks have a different definition of what equally really means.
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag the show is called Bullshit! If you are trying to expose bullshit in the universe why not use some of your own bullshit to do it? Only seems fair.
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag the show is called Bullshit! If you are trying to expose bullshit in the universe why not use some of your own bullshit to do it? Only seems fair.
Perhaps Penn is disabled, or being effected by the economy and unable to find a job. He used to work as magician, but his Casino went bankrupt when its investments in mortgages went belly up, and then he lost his job, and since he was unable to find work, lost his home to a foreclosure.
True, the pie is still Tellers, and Penn has no right at all to steal it, but is it not also wrong for Teller to watch Penn starve to death when he can easily help him?
@TheGameMouse Its not the governments job to take it from teller. If Teller wants to do the right thing he can give some of his pie to help those who really need it. Most people dont need it they just want it.
@TheGameMouse No, frankly its not...Just as it is bad that Penn is disabled and could use a hand...it is also fact that Teller is not responsible (shouldn't be anyways) for Penn's financial situation. The fact is re-distribution does not work as an economic policy. We are seeing the effects of it now (umpteenth dip recession). If you believe in freedom then you must believe that wealth re-distribution is wrong. Is it teller's fault that penn is hurt? NO, so why should the govt act as if he is?
@uponthewake He's not responsible. The ideaof redistribution is to even out the rich/poor divide. It isnot a situation of the "Rich having their freedom robbed,and their money being stolen from their control to be given to someone who cannotbe bothered to work." It is more a caseof settling the USA's economy
If the richpoor divide is smaller then itwill be easier forpoorer people to offer their kids better education and further theirpotential career
@TheGameMouse what is teller, microsoft or a butcher? Penn has plenty of business' to choose from, and has no business feeling sorry for himself and blaming anyone besides himself for his situation. Maybe, if Teller could keep his pie, then penn could vaccum his rug or something and earn his piece, not demand it as a right
@Pennoid because everyone knows rich people are only rich because someone handed them a bank full of gold at age 18.. none of them went to school or started a business or even worked their ass off to earn all the money they got only to see it taken away by people who spend more time talking about working then actually doing it. Classy
@tempestx8 You're correct, sort of. While the worst of the worst, the old money, DO get handed most of what they have from early on, there are those that "work" there way into the exploitative positions in society. The firm exists and can continue to exist based solely on it's successful exploitation of customer and labor. The prime imperative is growth in profit, affording the firm more concentrated power and the means to create barriers to entry ( Licensing, sheer size, etc.).
@tempestx8 These tools, licensing for instance and other regulation, though crafted by the state, are by no means the result of arbitrary state interference, but come at the behest of firms sizable enough to influence policy; firms that may indeed have been once quite like the often idealized form in capitalism, but this can never last, as the core competitive imperative in the capitalist system is profit. This simply leads to a quest of consolidated power, and further exploitation...
@tempestx8 These tools, licensing for instance and other regulation, though crafted by the state, are by no means the result of arbitrary state interference, but come at the behest of firms sizable enough to influence policy; firms that may indeed have been once quite like the often idealized form in capitalism, but this can never last, as the core competitive imperative in the capitalist system is profit. This simply leads to a quest of consolidated power, and further exploitation...
@tempestx8 The nature of the working man's exploitation should be quite clear to anyone who stops to think about it. It's not often referred to as such, but it is the core to machinery of even the idealized capitalist system. This type of power consolidation, occurring both in government, allowing it to be exploited so easily by powerful economic interests that dominate policy, like Smith described, and in private corporate power can be remedied most effectively with direct action and democracy.
@TheGameMouse maybe Penn needs to fix himself up, take his dumb earings out and stop shaving his head and find some skills that are useful to society and get another job, tellers not the only employer
@TheGameMouse In your situation you're suggesting that because teller has a ridiculous amount of pie and Penn has none that it's ok for it to be made law to re-distribute teller's pie so that Penn has some. You see the problem is the end doesn't justify the means...yes it would be great if everyone could be provided for, but i refuse to have it be done on my behalf against my will. You see if Teller WANTS to share he can, if not that's his RIGHT. Freedom has been made unethical in our country.
@uponthewake Point of note, what youre thinking of is charity, and weve already seen plenty of what the US does when its asked to help those in more need. Hell, even your comment is a contradiction in terms. For more information, please read my comment to the guy above you.
@TheGameMouse Actually, the real situation is more like Teller baked 40,000,000 of his own pies and Penn hates him for it. And instead of making his own pie, he lobbies that the pie get redistributed to him, even though he didn't make it.
@ebeatworld Actually the REAL situation is that Teller made a few pies, but was given 40,000,000 more out of the pies everyone else made for themselves. When those who's pies were taken asked for some of them back, Teller screams "redistribution of wealth!" and gets the government to give him even MORE pies, while the 40,000,000 people who' s pies were taken get to split one between themselves.
@Mozart1220 Ha ha ha. You are flipping delusional. So you think taking a huge risk by starting a business and building a company from the ground up and providing goods and services that people want and employing thousands and thousands of people is "baking a few pies?" How in the world are wealthy people stealing from the poor? This is nonsense. I'm going to laugh if you say "TARP."
@ebeatworld So you start off with an insult. Typical Republican. We are not talking about someone who starts up a small biusiness. We are talkng about HUGE multi billion dollar corporations that literally buy lawmakers. And how are they stealing from the poor? BY NOT PAYING TAXES BUT RECIEVING TAX SUBSIDIES. Look at Exxon/Mobile. Look at GE. And yes, the "bailouts" that were designed so that these "poor banks" could loan money were used for bonuses for already rich people. THAT'S STEALING.
@Mozart1220 Funny how all you name as examples are oil companies and banks. The VAST majority of wealthy people have nothing to do with banks or oil companies. I don't agree with corporate welfare either. But don't assume that anybody who is wealthy must be buying off lawmakers.
Second of all, without banks, your entire financial system collapses. BAD news!
I'm not a big supporter of TARP, but the banks have already almost completely paid back the TARP $ with INTEREST to the taxpayers.
@ebeatworld It's the banks and oil companies that are killing the economy. That's why I mentioen them. And we don't NEED huge corporate banls that are "too big to fail". As for the banks paying back TARP, thay haven't, but the Auto makers HAVE. The banks just gave their "bailout" to the same people who caused them to fail as bonuses. Nice try, but you lose again. But do keep defending billionares over the woking people OK?
@Mozart1220 Of course the auto companies have. Their bailout was smaller. But the fact of the matter is, the taxpayers will probably make money off TARP. And I was just setting the record straight, not necessarily saying TARP was a good thing. Because in the long run, TARP is probably a bad thing.
And again, you are making the same mistake as before, assuming all wealthy people are oil company CEOs. Most wealthy people in this country have earned their wealth fairly and created jobs.
@ebeatworld And you are making the same mistake as before ASSUMING I am saying ALL "wealthy" people ARE Oil company execs. I'm saying those are the two groups most responsible for the bad economy, because they OWN the polititians who are supposed to be representing ALL of us. PLus, the "smaller" bailout to the auto industry SAVED thousands of jobs, but how many "created" by your rich heroes? NONE. They got their tax breaks, now lets see some jobs.
@Mozart1220 The bank bailout saved millions of jobs... so what? Do you have any idea what happens to a nation when the entire financial system collapses? You can't get loans and you can't invest. Car companies couldn't even survive without a financial system.
They aren't my heroes, I just don't demonize them simply because they have a lot of money. Are you aware how many people oil companies and banks employ? Our economy couldn't function without oil or banks.
@ebeatworld The bank bailout saved the BANKERS. No real worker kept his job over it. And our economy does not need NATIONAL banks OR national oil companies. hen these huge corporations become so big that they can literally BUY the government, they ere is a problem and you well know it. They certainly don't need tax breaks and millions in subsidies every year. Stop defending these theives. You sound like Limbaugh (who is PAID to defend them. Are YOU paid to defend them? I'll bet you are.
@Mozart1220 Drop the tainted cool aide, dude. If you have a problem with the bail out by the Obama administration then vote out this incredibly corrupt administration that you claim has been bought over by these big companies. That should solve your problem there.
@bbabus100 The bail out was fine, but it was supposed to be used to LOAN OUT the money and get the economy moving (Bush signed the first one BTW) Instead, these theives gvae it to themselves as multi million dollar bonuses. It's not the Dems t5har are corrupt, it's the GOP that supports corporations over people. No "KOOL aid" dude. Just FACTS. Stop letting Fox noiose do your thiking for you. These bankers ripped you off too.
@ebeatworld You nailed it buddy. If these class warfare folks would get their heads out of their asses and shed the the garment of entitlement, and actually create something, that would solve their problems. But they wold rather be lazy and irresponsible, blame others for their problems and demand that those who have worked hard be forced to forfeit their earnings to them. What nonesence.
If you're poor then know that weath is created when you provide goods and services that people want.
@bradleyrimbleus In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1,2 (Coleman-Jensen 2011).
@TheGameMouse Penn is starving because he was born poor, dropped out of highschool, and then didn't try to or wasn't smart enough to stop being poor. The largest factor holding him back is himself. Don't worry he'll make lots of poor babies who will mostly do the same.
So it's teller's fault that he worked hard developing his tallent, spending hour after day after year practicing his craft, working his way up from being a street performer to being in vegas and on TV, and he should be punished for such acts of courage and bravery and talent and be forced to give his pie that he worked so hard for up to someone else who has 10 kids and gets food stamps and has no job? That's not right.
So the implication is that the wealthy don't end up with any "pie?" Hmm... well, the fact that the bottom 40% of America controls just 0.3% of the wealth, while the top 1% of America's _average_ wealth is over $18 million. I think the analogy is a bit off.
@dan46and2 no its saying the wealthy take the pie give some pie out and keep some of the taken pie for them self. they are talking about the average small business owner. that where you got it twisted.
@dan46and2 Get your head out of your ass. Almost 50% pay no federal income taxes, the top 1% pays about 40% of taxes and the top 10% pays over 70% of taxes. It's time for the parasitic 50% living off of the rest of us to start paying their fare share.
We should have a flat tax system whereby everyone pays the same % of their income & all tax loopholes & deductions should be eliminated.
@bbabus100 The bottom 40% of the country controls only 2% of the wealth. Think about that. A flat tax would be regressive and favor the top 1%, who have seen their income double since 1979. cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf ... the wealthy, especially those that make money with money, have never had it easier in terms of taxes.
@dan46and2 Actually a flat tax is exactly what we need then people like Warren Buffet's who makes money off of money & pays a low capital gains tax will now pay the same as everyone else. Also it actually sends a message to people that the American dream is attainable, the harder and smarter you work to create goods and services that people want the more wealth you create for yourself and posterity and you will not be forced to pay a higher % than some "special class of people" have to pay
@bbabus100 Sends a message that the American dream is attainable? What a bunch of nonsense. No one says "oh, gee, I was going to aspire to be wealthy, but the government takes 40% of the wealth, so I guess it's not worth it." All a flat tax would do is drop the amount of money the government takes in, reward the super wealthy, and punish the bottom rung of the economy who already have almost no real wealth. What a joke.
@dan46and2 The truth is that the bottom 40% of the country contributes mainly negatively to the economy. If they want to control more of the economy they can take advantage of capitalism, and create more wealth instead of being dependent on hard working and creative people. How can you control wealth if you're not creating any.
What we should be telling the poor is that they don't have to stay poor. They should take charge of their lives, be responsible and stop blaming others for their problems
Very good. Explains the greedy parasitical socialist theft brilliantly. I see the bottom suckers on here are having a big cry about their scam being uncovered...aww diddims.
Holy shit this is the most fucking immature, ridiculous explanation of wealth redistribution I have ever seen. Libertarians live in a god damn fantasy world, where they pretend that every man is completely independent and we all earn our way purely by work and will. Maybe if they weren't a pair of spoilt little rich boys they'd know a thing or two about systemic inequalities in modern capitalist economies, or how artificial structures of regulations and laws actually enable them to get rich.
@sneakykobold There's nothing unequal about a modern capitalist economy. Quite to the contrary, its harshness and reality makes it seem that way. But it's not. There's nothing stopping you from starting your own business, creating something, investing etc... like many of the 'rich' folk have. You see, the vast majority of multimillionaires in this country are self made men. Plenty of them come from an uneducated, salt-of-the-earth background. Id like to see your dumbass in India's caste system.
BIggest bunch of horseshit I've ever heard. Most of the people you speak of are Ivy League elite. Most of them with legacy admissions. You've taken an anecdote and extrapolated it out to the norm. Take some Demographic classes. You're making shit up.
@DDBOOGER Nope. You are just coming off as desperate and bitter. Has it ever occurred to you that people who can survive an Ivy League education (and the expectations placed upon them with that sort of title) are some of the brightest, hardest-working people we have in the country? Harvard and Standford consistently are ranked in the top of schools who give the most financial aid. Telling yourself the typical ivy is a snotty rich kid won't get you anywhere. I go to a crappy public btw.
@mmx25 Not bitter at all. I'm a demographer. You are simply making a statement in absence of proof. The truth is the financial aid you speak of does reward those who have to accomplish top of their class status, and then their are those who give $XX amount to keep Jr in the lineage. Most of the top 400 wealthy people are not created by them, but expanded from wealth that has been passed down. Even Adam Smith talked about the freezing of wealth at the top destroying capitalism.
I totally agree with them we need to stop wealth redistribution to the rich. The middle and lower class gets income tax which ranges from 15 - 35% while the upper class gets capital gains tax which is 15-17% along with loopholes to the point where companies like GE pay no taxes. We should all pay our fair share to the services we receive. Not this distribution of percentage that empowers the rich.
I understand that there are plenty of people who really do need welfare in this country, My problem is that none of them are actually the ones who are recieving it lol
How about the several hundred people who helped put you on the air or the generations of people who built the infrastructure that broadcasts out your whine about having to share with moochers?
Dammit Teller you have to speak up for yourself!
ydms14 1 day ago
Christ, Id like to see Tree Trunks clatter their heads together.
kff 1 week ago
I think everyone is missing the point here.
Penn is clearly having a go at rich people. Right?
kff 1 week ago
they left out the part of the video where millions of chinese children made the pie for teller at no expense to him. And also exaggerated the part where penn was only asking for a small fraction of the pie, not the entire thing. You see, in the real world teller would still have so much pie he w have to start using it as toilet paper and giving it to his friends if he wanted to get rid of it because there would be too much to eat on his own.
yogzula 1 week ago
Cutting taxes for the rich is an invisible tax on the poor...
SensoryOssuary 1 week ago
I agree with that if you work your whole life and build up wealth you should be able to keep it. I think most every american believes the same. The problem is that while most americans are paying upwards of 40% of their income to taxes the elite are paing less than 20%. Also why is it since 1980 the wealthy's income went up 275% while the average joe's income in the sme time went up 8% . Seems to me that class warfare started in 1980 and finally the rest of america starting to catch on.
The1bassfreak 1 week ago
@swat105 Yeah, I know. That's why I'm not ENTIRELY sure about the idea of wealth distribution. If you spend a lifetime working and building up your own fortune, you've earned it. It's the aristocratic arseholes who claim that they deserve to keep their inherited wealth because they have 'traditions to keep alive' that just pisses me off. Also, I don't know if it's different in America, but here in England, a high class businessman tends to pay a lower percentage of tax than their secretary.
PassTheMarmalade1957 2 weeks ago
Penn & Teller are awesome, and I agree with them on a lot of subjects (like the death penalty, the Vatican, sex education, the war on drugs, and the introduction of Creationism in to science classes,) but this is not what is meant by distribution of wealth. Taking 10% of a billionaire's income would be a massive amount of money, but it certainly wouldn't leave them starving. I think the idea of wealth distribution needs to be looked at more carefully, but they've definitely got this wrong.
PassTheMarmalade1957 3 weeks ago
have a say in what you do with your assets. morally i believe the billionaires should give some of there money away to needier people but the government should not force them they should be allowed to make that decision on there own
swat105 2 weeks ago
@PassTheMarmalade1957 @PassTheMarmalade1957 They were trying to explain this in just about a minute so of course its simplified but what there trying to say is its wrong to take what someone owns and give it to others. That's like saying the government should be allowed to take 10% of your home and let some homeless guy take it just because he doesn't have a home its your property and you should do what you want with it and the government shouldn't
swat105 2 weeks ago
wow penn eats pie quick lol
phenomenalclassic93 3 weeks ago
Stop complaining you bunch of left-wing money grabbers.
ryanisme1989 3 weeks ago
Yes Penn. The rich get all their money taken away and the poor are doing sooo well in America. That must be why they're....poor...
jfswprogressive 4 weeks ago
This is just retarded, this video shows no understanding of why wealth redistribution is extremely necessary and fully justified.
23lFrench 4 weeks ago
@23lFrench Its not easy to see, and P&T tend to ignore the actual, complex reality in favor of simplicity and wit. It makes it so fun when they are aiming low, say, with homeopathy, but it makes it outright sad when they try to tackle stuff as large as wellbeing of a society. They occasionally get that stuff roughly right, but still, more often than not its just embarrassing if you know those areas at all.
gJonii 3 weeks ago
@23lFrench its not justified to take what one owns and say that another needs it more so to bad they get it. i need a new TV but that doesn't justify me taking it from someone who has 5 tvs laying around its still would be considered theft
swat105 2 weeks ago
@swat105 Doesn't one own the worth of what one makes? You don't need a TV, you only want a TV, you need to distinguish between a want and a need. Somebody needing food to survive is a need and something for entertainment purposes is just a want. For theft to exist, there must be property and that doesn't actually exist man.
23lFrench 2 weeks ago
The only thing I see wrong here is the proportions. In order to be correct, Teller would have to have a pie the size of New Hampshire.
ElectraAlan 1 month ago
This is nonsense! The progressive tax system, especially in America, is hardly fair. And, with the bush tax cuts & the Obama tax cuts, taxes are the lowest they have been in decades. Warren Buffet pays a less percentage of his income than his secretary.
As for the pie, the rich are hardly getting "it all" taken from them. The libertarian position is nonsense in this matter. If Penn is the rich guy he has a multitude of loopholes to take advantage of, while the poor guy's slice is getting smaller
tomatodamashi 1 month ago
@tomatodamashi no the prob wit u liberals is u have changed the definition of poor....and taxes are relative to the value of the dollar ...
illuminatiperspectiv 1 month ago
Penn Gillette really doesn't need that extra slice of pie....Fatty. nice libertarian nonsense....
HerrProff1 1 month ago
@HerrProff1 You understand he was saying that's bad right? He's not approving it.
rpm2004 1 month ago
Huge wealth gaps in a society create social instability that lead to protests, riots, and revolution.
Redistribution of wealth through a graded tax code actually serves a purpose for both the people taking the money(poor), and the ones giving the money(rich). Redistribution helps the poor survive and it makes the rich less worried about revolution and anarchy.
rightwing52000 1 month ago 2
@rightwing52000 If the rich were seriously worried about such things, they would be more than willing to give money to poor people. No one would have to take it from them.
BubbaHoggit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BubbaHoggit "If the rich were seriously worried about such things, they would be more than willing to give money to poor people. No one would have to take it from them."
- Nope. The Wall Street Journal(which is very conservative) reported that 68% of millionaires polled are in favor of raising taxes ON THEMSELVES.
The reason we can't raise taxes on the rich is that Grover Norquist and the republican party refuse to let it happen.
rightwing52000 1 month ago
@rightwing52000 Basically what you're proposing is socialism, which history has shown time and time again LEADS to huge wealth/power gaps between the ruling class and the masses.
I feel I should mention that I did not flag your post as spam, (because it isn't). This stupid computer won't let me unflag it.
BubbaHoggit 1 month ago
@BubbaHoggit "Basically what you're proposing is socialism"
-Yes, although we are already redistributing wealth through a graduated tax code, so we already are socialist to a degree. However, I do propose making our country more socialist because of the benefits listed above.
"Which ... LEADS to huge wealth/power gaps between the ruling class and the masses."
-You are so ignorant it makes my head hurt. Please research the difference between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarian Communism.
rightwing52000 1 month ago
@BubbaHoggit take when from them.. honestly what have the "rich" got wich righfully belongs to someone else.. I make a very decent living, I know people who are on welfare.. please can you tell me what it is I have with righfully belongs to them???
Elcristoph 1 month ago
@Elcristoph Not the point I was trying to make AT ALL. I meant that anything you have DOES NOT rightfully belong to them, unless you give it to them.
BubbaHoggit 1 month ago
@BubbaHoggit umm it was rich fuckers that paid my kids birth via charities when i lost my job.. when greedy people like u take with merit ..the rich tend to give less..so thank! because of people like u charities are suffering... poor? poor people in america have tv and ac..what poor? my next door neighbor is a drug addict with his rent paid and money for food what the hell are u talking about? and no one is obligated to do shit for anyone! u cant legislate morality u twit!!
illuminatiperspectiv 1 month ago
@illuminatiperspectiv Oh dear god... that was not my point at all. I was arguing AGAINST government redistribution of wealth.
BubbaHoggit 1 month ago
Most people are incapable of contributing to the production side of a knowledge economy. No job in the future is going to be filled by individuals in the bottom 75-80-90 percent of the IQ distribution. However, with AI and nanotechnology, the twin pillars of a post-scarcity economy, productivity is going to be orders of magnitude higher, and thus a permanent welfare state with a guaranteed basic income for everyone in the world would be a possibility.
iCommentatez 1 month ago
i was looking for these guys because of an old video i found of them on Just For Laughs, involving levitation.
How did suddenly end up on a video of them discussing politics? So they're not comedians or magicians?
Jalanko13 1 month ago
of money doesn't work, but neither does the other extreme where one person has it all and the rest have none. The balance is closer to the middle where most people control most of the money, not the fewest controlling the largest portion.
tmoore121 1 month ago
I agree with Tatchko. This analogy is fairly poor because money is never consumed as pie is. Sure, Penn can buy the pie with the wealth, but the money is then transferred to the baker, who transfers it to the farmers, and on and on. It works until people start hoarding it, as was stated, but that's why hoarding should not be allowed to exist in extreme forms. Wealth redistribution keeps the money in circulation, rather than in banks. The most extreme example where everyone has the same amount
tmoore121 1 month ago
@tmoore121 Many economic fallacies stem from sloppy thinking about money. Here your post makes two big mistakes.
1) Income = Investment + Consumption + Taxes. If someone spends less, they invest more. It's not "hoarding." Where do you think factories, research and development, computers etc... come from?!
2) Holding the value of money constant, money is perfectly exchangeable for real goods. When you take someone's money away, you're taking away the equivalent of real goods (e.g. pie).
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@fortinbras47 Some of your assumptions are also fallacious. Holding the value of money constant, money is perfectly exchangeable for real goods. That being said, unlike real goods, money doesn't have the same power of depreciation that goods do. Spending money does not equate to consuming pie because the money continues to circulate. Pie is irreversibly depreciated when consumed. If I spend money, someone else gets it to spend. If I eat pie, that pie is gone forever from circulation.
tmoore121 1 month ago
@tmoore121 Consider an economy with no investment to keep things simple.
1) Government collects $100 in taxes from you. Consequently, you can afford $100 less stuff.
2) Government gives the $100 to Steve. Steve buys $100 more of stuff.
The government has effectively transferred $100 worth of stuff from you to Steve.
-----------------------------------
When thinking about macroeconomics, you FIRST want to consider a model of the world without money and zero transaction costs.
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@fortinbras47 In this view it sort of makes sense, but the pie analogy itself still has flaws because of the quantity of assumptions it makes. That being said, in your new scenario...that's exactly what is advocated by people that advocate redistribution. For example...I don't need $100. I don't even know what to spend it on..I already have most of the crap I need in my life with no perceivable need for upgrades. Therefore that $100 continues to sit in my bank account as it has for many years.
tmoore121 1 month ago
@tmoore121 Be aware though the bank has lent out your $100 to business to finance a factory or some investment project (you have $100 less of consumption, they have $100 more of capital goods). Your $100 can only be given to the poor for consumption by the poor if you don't do the investment projects financed by your $100!
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@tmoore121
In short, you can only redistribute consumption. Income = Consumption + Investment. Talking income redistribution misses that lowering investment lowers overall output.
If I eat less, the poor can eat more. But if you give the corn I'm planting in the ground to the poor for eating, then the corn crop next season will be smaller.
Corn for eating = consumption
Corn for planting = investment
Corn for eating + corn for planting = income = total output
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@fortinbras47 Steve on the other hand needs $100 just to buy better groceries and not contribute to the health care/obesity problem in that we have. Or he uses that to work less hours and spend more time at home with his kids. Or he spends it on a new pair of shoes. Either way, lower class people get more benefit out of small denominations of money than upper-class people ever do/will. The middle class out-spends and out-consumes the upper class by leaps and bounds when measuring percentages of
tmoore121 1 month ago
@fortinbras47 income. It is middle class spending that pushes our economy forward, not upper class wealth. Sure, upper class people invest the money, but that invested money is just redistributed among those who receive most of their income from dividends and capital gains. The prime example would be GE who made $5billionUS last year and actually got a tax refund. The majority of that money goes back to stock holders and not employees, so it doesn't really help the overall economy.
tmoore121 1 month ago
@tmoore121 Over the long run, raising the rate at which money circulates or the amount of money does NOT raise output. All it does is raise prices. You can't make everyone richer by printing more money or making money circulate more quickly.
The way to think about money over the long-run is just a tool make transactions easier. If you have oranges, I have apples, and bill has bananas, we could do some barter without money, but using money and denoting all prices in $ makes things simpler.
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@fortinbras47 This is definitely correct. To truly make everyone richer,requires better education. The best case scenario as I see is is not direct wealth redistribution but rather funneling that money into improve social programs. Right now education is <5% of discretionary spending. It is not unreasonable that we could use higher tax rates on the upper classes to fund primary and secondary education for the lower class. The parents now will still be poor but the next generation will not be.
tmoore121 1 month ago
@tmoore121 I agree that education is hugely important! It's all about higher productivity, producing more and better stuff with the same amount of labor. Overall, US K-12 education is a tragedy.
I'd differ somewhat in how to fix it. The link between more money and better results is very weak. I think the key to improve K-12 schools is to get more competition between schools and for good teachers. Whether it's biology, sports, or economics, things tend to suck when there's no competition.
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@tmoore121 Imagine you and I are on an island. You have an orange tree that makes 10 oranges. I have an apple tree that makes 10 apples.
If money circulated more quickly or the quantity of money went up, we'd want to buy more oranges and apples but the island only has 10 oranges and 10 apples! So what happens? The quantity of apples and oranges doesn't go up, prices go up.
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@tmoore121 To be fair, you can have models where money matters. If prices are sticky, adding money can *temporarily* boost output. If prices are fixed, then a boost of money leads people to buy more stuff and to supply the stuff, firms have to hire more workers.
But over the long-run, everything I said just has to be true. When Germany printed tons of money in the 1930s, they didn't raise their standard of living; they created hyperinflation (i.e. they raised prices).
fortinbras47 1 month ago
@tmoore121 It's easy to get endlessly mixed up by looking at dollars instead of looking at the real goods and services people produce and consume.
When the government collects taxes, it is taking real goods and services from taxpayers. The total value of real goods and services the government takes from the public is actually equal to taxes plus borrowing! Every good and service the government delivers comes from somewhere. There's no free lunch.
fortinbras47 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all of the people in these comments act like they know everyfuckingthing when they clearly know nothing at all and are just thinking off of their ass
bonzai348 1 month ago
Comment removed
bonzai348 1 month ago
anyone else just want some damn pie after watching that?
thinman25 2 months ago
How can such intelligent people make such a ridiculously bad analogy?
Tatchko 2 months ago
@Tatchko Libertarians, man...what can I say?
GirevikDangerfield 2 months ago
@Tatchko Intelligent people can be stupid
darththeo 2 months ago
@Tatchko The pie analogy is used in undergraduate & A level politics & economics classrooms across the land. Typically within the dicotomy of ether growing the pie or dividing it.
Malthus0 2 months ago
@Malthus0 The difference is the context. The pie analogy can be used to talk about the division of wealth sure. But money, unlike pie, is not consumed and destroyed like Penn and Teller imply. It's recycled through out the economy, flowing from person to person.
Tatchko 2 months ago
@Tatchko ''But money, unlike pie, is not consumed and destroyed like Penn and Teller imply'' I do not want to read to much into this sketch but have you considered that resources not money is the point(after all money is only a representation of value), & that the sketch represents the perverse incentives around real wealth creation & consumption when the proceeds of creative effort are confiscated, & lack of said effort subsidised?
Malthus0 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Malthus0 But the sketch does not talk about the "proceeds of creative effort are confiscated, & lack of said effort subsidized?" It talks about how taxing the rich is bad because the poor/government squanders the money and then there's no more money for anyone, but the Poor end up full and the poor, poor, uber wealthy are left hungry without having had ANY pie.
Which is not analogous to anything at all and actually a bit insulting to us non-millionaires, frankly.
Tatchko 2 months ago
@Tatchko It's recycled till people start hoarding it. For that to work people would need to spend based on their wealth, which they don't. That's the same way of thinking as a "trickle down" economy, and that just doesn't work.
lkjhgfddfd 2 months ago
@lkjhgfddfd Yep, supply-side economics is a load of horsewank.
Tatchko 2 months ago
@Tatchko Sure is, but I am not sure that you understand what supply side economics is.
Supply represents real wealth while money is just a means of exchange to get that real wealth. When you are spreading money, you are spreading wealth. You don't spread money so you could eat it. You spread money from teller to penn so penn can buy the pie. Which is just the same as taking the pie away.
This is representation of what happens when you spread money as far as real products go, not money.
Keyguya 2 months ago
ok? if food security is defined as "A household is considered food-secure when its occupants do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. " and food insecure then is that they do live in hunger or fear of starvation it does not follow that anyone starves to death in the us. Present me with evidence that anyone has starved to death in the US from 1900 to now and I will eat my hat (:
Ofc it's very unfortunate though that food insecurity is that high.
bradleyrimbleus 2 months ago
This video would be more accurate if Penn was staving to death and Teller had four million spare pies lying around.
TheDoomArt 2 months ago
Comment removed
QueenetBowie 2 months ago
@TheDoomArt Or if you want to base it off of historical accounts of "wealth redistribution" give penn a couple guns and have him take all the pie by force to redistribute to teller (who of course will only get about 1/8 a slice so penn can "make sure: it goes to all the starving) bc it worked so well in Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Even the U.S who taxes us to make everyones lives" better", none of it gets pissed away or finds itself in politicians and their friends pockets
QueenetBowie 2 months ago
The hell you can't climb the social ladder. I was born poor, my parents were born poor. I am now more wealthy than 90% of Americans because I created new profitable ventures for myself and worked hard to earn the capital to create those ventures. I'm sorry there isn't a yellow brick road to wealth and I had to sacrifice and lose out for a while to come out on top.
TreasureSender 2 months ago 2
@TreasureSender Forbes did a study a few years back that showed fewer than 1% of Americans are actually able to move up more than marginally in social status when compared to their parents. Great for you and all, but the reality is that alongside your hard work you had a lot of good luck.
There are plenty of hard-working Americans who work even harder than you ever did who will never get a chance to not have to worry about if they'll be able to feed their kids or make their house payments.
Reliken 2 months ago
@Reliken That's BS. All you need is will to learn and work to have success.
Of course, you could reach success by stepping on people's dead corpses but that's a sure way to make more enemies than you can handle.
StevXtreme 2 months ago
I loled at this so much
IwillloveGwenforever 2 months ago
This video is simply explaining the mentality behind wealth redistribution. When you ask "why is it right to steal from the rich?", you get "it's not theft because the money goes to people who need it." When you argue about taxation being theft, people will often deny what it really is, and explain that it's okay because there's a good cause (which doesn't really disprove the fact that it's theft).
NoNameC68 2 months ago
Liberal socialist scum bags and so called wealth inequality.
TheDukeljk 2 months ago
Won't somebody look out for the top 1%? They only own 45% of the country's wealth.
lilhwa 3 months ago
@lilhwa Bonus question, how many people (percentage) pay taxes?
NoNameC68 2 months ago
@NoNameC68
is there a point to your question?
lilhwa 2 months ago
This is so true of class warfare and entitlement people. Instead of them to go fishing they feel they're entitled to the fish others have caught. They refuse to work hard enough, innovate to produce goods and services people want or sacrifice what they have and do what it takes to succeed, but they feel if you're successful, then you owe them. If we do what they want in American we'll very quickly be like Greece.
bbabus100 3 months ago
@bbabus100
Except the american dream is a lie, you can't climb the social ladder.
lilhwa 2 months ago
This is so true of class warfare and entitlement people. Inastead of them to go fishing they feel they're entitled to the fish others have caught. They refuse to do work hard, sacrifice what they have and do what it takes to succeed, but they feel if you're successful, then you owe them. If we do what they want in American we'll very quickly be like Greece.
bbabus100 3 months ago
goddamn they're so fucking dumb hahaha
snipersas 3 months ago
whoops, i accidentally dropped your pie all over the floor! that's ok, i have pie i can still eat while you don't get any
xylotehwarrior 3 months ago
This is beyond stupid. Libertarians, you are so silly.
waaaghboss64 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheBunbury42 3 months ago 7
@TheBunbury42 That's so noble of you, however you should't force others do share their pie with anyone if they've honestly acquired it. If they made or bought their own pie with their sweat then they should have the right to do as they please with it. A sense of entitlement is like a malignant cancer that feels it has the right to keep feeding on it's host. Very soon the cancer will run out of host to feed on and both the cancer and the host will be dead
bbabus100 3 months ago
@bbabus100 I completely understand. Pie doesn't just fall from the heavens. People at some point had to work to bake their pie. But I am saddened that some people have very little or no pie. I certainly would not want to take all of Teller's pie away, nor would I want to give all my pie away. But if someone has no pie and no oven with which to bake pie, I would be happy to share my pie until they get an oven. But I do completely understand why people may disagree.
TheBunbury42 3 months ago
@TheBunbury42 I don't disagree with helping the needy and I voluntarily do that, sacrificially and to my detriment at times, however what I'm saying is that it should be on a voluntary basis. If I choose to give all my pie out and starve that's my own prerogative but I should also have the right to hoard what I have.
bbabus100 3 months ago
@TheBunbury42 By the way, have you realized people who believe they have a right to what others have earned never do well? They perpetually remain in a dependent position in life from generation to generation. People need to be encouraged to learn to make their own pies rather than mooch off of others. If you're born and grow up in America and have no "pie" then it's by choice (IN MOST CASES). No body is superior to another. If one person can build an empire out of nothing so can you.
bbabus100 3 months ago 2
@TheBunbury42
So bake and share your pies. That's great and I'd commend your decision.
But that shouldn't mean that someone else needs to share their pies. Lest, noone will really want to bake pies and suddenly, we all get a few crumbs.
daftend 3 months ago
@TheBunbury42 Whats nice about this, is that you are CHOOSING to share your pie. Not having it stolen from you by force through the government and then being redistributed.
QueenetBowie 2 months ago
@QueenetBowie I totally understand why you wouldn't like it. Just a personal opinion, of course. Economics are like religion, in that I rarely debate them since it's quite difficult to change someone's mind. I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right. Just saying that I understand I have a somewhat unpopular opinion and probably not going to change anyone's mind
TheBunbury42 2 months ago
@TheBunbury42 Tis True
QueenetBowie 2 months ago
@TheBunbury42 löl then you give your pie... no prob dont go stealing other peoples pie
BirgirZ 2 months ago
@TheBunbury42 ill take some pie
jayice92 2 months ago
I want what's on my plate, and what's on yours. wow.
MuurPortal 3 months ago
yeah what an idiot...
staxgeorge 3 months ago
hahaha liberals are brain dead
AroundSun 3 months ago
LOL---Teller looks like the typical liberal a-hole. "Gimme, gimme, gimme!!"
wombat319 3 months ago
I love that all of the liberal atheist penn fans refuse to take economics lessons.
Lukeor 3 months ago
Except the pizza isn't free and there is no free wealth distribution center. The more you take from the people who had sense enough to earn it the less likely they will be able to spend it on workers, businesses, and charity.
htiberian 3 months ago
@htiberian oh yeah cause we all know that charity and aid is what brings people meaning in life, that's typical imperialism. What about I put you on charity cause I already feel pity for your sorry ass.
burkiiish 3 months ago
this isn't really accurate, wealth redistribution is more like you have a pizza with a hundred slices and a hundred people to feed. now the first guy who come and gets pizza takes lets say 50 slices. wealth redistribution is taking some of those slices from that guy and giving them to the other 99 people
shnibly12 3 months ago
@shnibly12 No. Just no.
MsLeOn1441 3 months ago
Teller looks like he eats lots of pie.
JesseBochekTV 3 months ago
trickle up poverty
claypool0 4 months ago in playlist Penn & Teller
If both Penn and Teller bought the pie, it is not distributed equally. If only Teller bought the pie, then it is not distributed equally. If Penn bought the pie, then it is distributed equally.
...
Perhaps most folks have a different definition of what equally really means.
Manchuwook 4 months ago
Is it just me or are the majority of episodes are bullshit?
Heck, even the ones I agree with (college) have bullshit in them
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 4 months ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag the show is called Bullshit! If you are trying to expose bullshit in the universe why not use some of your own bullshit to do it? Only seems fair.
adamcsroka 4 months ago
@adamcsroka retribution doesn't get anyone anywhere.
aSwearaDay 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag the show is called Bullshit! If you are trying to expose bullshit in the universe why not use some of your own bullshit to do it? Only seems fair.
adamcsroka 4 months ago
Perhaps Penn is disabled, or being effected by the economy and unable to find a job. He used to work as magician, but his Casino went bankrupt when its investments in mortgages went belly up, and then he lost his job, and since he was unable to find work, lost his home to a foreclosure.
True, the pie is still Tellers, and Penn has no right at all to steal it, but is it not also wrong for Teller to watch Penn starve to death when he can easily help him?
TheGameMouse 5 months ago
@TheGameMouse Its not the governments job to take it from teller. If Teller wants to do the right thing he can give some of his pie to help those who really need it. Most people dont need it they just want it.
cwood4ever 5 months ago
@TheGameMouse No, frankly its not...Just as it is bad that Penn is disabled and could use a hand...it is also fact that Teller is not responsible (shouldn't be anyways) for Penn's financial situation. The fact is re-distribution does not work as an economic policy. We are seeing the effects of it now (umpteenth dip recession). If you believe in freedom then you must believe that wealth re-distribution is wrong. Is it teller's fault that penn is hurt? NO, so why should the govt act as if he is?
uponthewake 4 months ago
@uponthewake He's not responsible. The ideaof redistribution is to even out the rich/poor divide. It isnot a situation of the "Rich having their freedom robbed,and their money being stolen from their control to be given to someone who cannotbe bothered to work." It is more a caseof settling the USA's economy
If the richpoor divide is smaller then itwill be easier forpoorer people to offer their kids better education and further theirpotential career
Stop thinkingin such blindingly narrow terms.
aSwearaDay 4 months ago
That's because Teller is only hiring pie makers from India.
TheGameMouse 5 months ago
@TheGameMouse what is teller, microsoft or a butcher? Penn has plenty of business' to choose from, and has no business feeling sorry for himself and blaming anyone besides himself for his situation. Maybe, if Teller could keep his pie, then penn could vaccum his rug or something and earn his piece, not demand it as a right
porchmonkey401k 5 months ago
He gave up that pie without doing anything about it
Maxpow33r 5 months ago
@Maxpow33r what can he do? the maitre d would kick him out of the restauraunt
porchmonkey401k 5 months ago
Self-righteous rich bastards masturbating about how much they steal from the workers of the world? Classy.....
Pennoid 5 months ago
@Pennoid because everyone knows rich people are only rich because someone handed them a bank full of gold at age 18.. none of them went to school or started a business or even worked their ass off to earn all the money they got only to see it taken away by people who spend more time talking about working then actually doing it. Classy
tempestx8 5 months ago
@tempestx8 You're correct, sort of. While the worst of the worst, the old money, DO get handed most of what they have from early on, there are those that "work" there way into the exploitative positions in society. The firm exists and can continue to exist based solely on it's successful exploitation of customer and labor. The prime imperative is growth in profit, affording the firm more concentrated power and the means to create barriers to entry ( Licensing, sheer size, etc.).
Pennoid 5 months ago
@tempestx8 These tools, licensing for instance and other regulation, though crafted by the state, are by no means the result of arbitrary state interference, but come at the behest of firms sizable enough to influence policy; firms that may indeed have been once quite like the often idealized form in capitalism, but this can never last, as the core competitive imperative in the capitalist system is profit. This simply leads to a quest of consolidated power, and further exploitation...
Pennoid 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tempestx8 These tools, licensing for instance and other regulation, though crafted by the state, are by no means the result of arbitrary state interference, but come at the behest of firms sizable enough to influence policy; firms that may indeed have been once quite like the often idealized form in capitalism, but this can never last, as the core competitive imperative in the capitalist system is profit. This simply leads to a quest of consolidated power, and further exploitation...
Pennoid 5 months ago
@tempestx8 The nature of the working man's exploitation should be quite clear to anyone who stops to think about it. It's not often referred to as such, but it is the core to machinery of even the idealized capitalist system. This type of power consolidation, occurring both in government, allowing it to be exploited so easily by powerful economic interests that dominate policy, like Smith described, and in private corporate power can be remedied most effectively with direct action and democracy.
Pennoid 5 months ago
The real situation is more like Teller has 40,000,000 pies... and Penn is starving to death.
TheGameMouse 5 months ago 65
@TheGameMouse if that were the case, penn should get his ass a job
porchmonkey401k 5 months ago
@porchmonkey401k He really wants to, but Teller wont hire him!
TheGameMouse 5 months ago
@TheGameMouse maybe Penn needs to fix himself up, take his dumb earings out and stop shaving his head and find some skills that are useful to society and get another job, tellers not the only employer
porchmonkey401k 5 months ago
@TheGameMouse uh, no, money is not pie you cant eat money, and actually its the goverment that takes all his pies
BirgirZ 5 months ago
@TheGameMouse In your situation you're suggesting that because teller has a ridiculous amount of pie and Penn has none that it's ok for it to be made law to re-distribute teller's pie so that Penn has some. You see the problem is the end doesn't justify the means...yes it would be great if everyone could be provided for, but i refuse to have it be done on my behalf against my will. You see if Teller WANTS to share he can, if not that's his RIGHT. Freedom has been made unethical in our country.
uponthewake 4 months ago
@uponthewake Point of note, what youre thinking of is charity, and weve already seen plenty of what the US does when its asked to help those in more need. Hell, even your comment is a contradiction in terms. For more information, please read my comment to the guy above you.
aSwearaDay 4 months ago
@TheGameMouse Maybe the starving people should start thinking about baking some pies...instead of relying on others to supply the pie for them...
custangro 4 months ago
@TheGameMouse Actually, the real situation is more like Teller baked 40,000,000 of his own pies and Penn hates him for it. And instead of making his own pie, he lobbies that the pie get redistributed to him, even though he didn't make it.
If you're starving to death, bake your own pie.
ebeatworld 3 months ago
@ebeatworld Actually the REAL situation is that Teller made a few pies, but was given 40,000,000 more out of the pies everyone else made for themselves. When those who's pies were taken asked for some of them back, Teller screams "redistribution of wealth!" and gets the government to give him even MORE pies, while the 40,000,000 people who' s pies were taken get to split one between themselves.
Mozart1220 3 months ago
@Mozart1220 Ha ha ha. You are flipping delusional. So you think taking a huge risk by starting a business and building a company from the ground up and providing goods and services that people want and employing thousands and thousands of people is "baking a few pies?" How in the world are wealthy people stealing from the poor? This is nonsense. I'm going to laugh if you say "TARP."
ebeatworld 3 months ago
@ebeatworld So you start off with an insult. Typical Republican. We are not talking about someone who starts up a small biusiness. We are talkng about HUGE multi billion dollar corporations that literally buy lawmakers. And how are they stealing from the poor? BY NOT PAYING TAXES BUT RECIEVING TAX SUBSIDIES. Look at Exxon/Mobile. Look at GE. And yes, the "bailouts" that were designed so that these "poor banks" could loan money were used for bonuses for already rich people. THAT'S STEALING.
Mozart1220 3 months ago
@Mozart1220 Funny how all you name as examples are oil companies and banks. The VAST majority of wealthy people have nothing to do with banks or oil companies. I don't agree with corporate welfare either. But don't assume that anybody who is wealthy must be buying off lawmakers.
Second of all, without banks, your entire financial system collapses. BAD news!
I'm not a big supporter of TARP, but the banks have already almost completely paid back the TARP $ with INTEREST to the taxpayers.
ebeatworld 3 months ago
@ebeatworld It's the banks and oil companies that are killing the economy. That's why I mentioen them. And we don't NEED huge corporate banls that are "too big to fail". As for the banks paying back TARP, thay haven't, but the Auto makers HAVE. The banks just gave their "bailout" to the same people who caused them to fail as bonuses. Nice try, but you lose again. But do keep defending billionares over the woking people OK?
Mozart1220 3 months ago
@Mozart1220 Of course the auto companies have. Their bailout was smaller. But the fact of the matter is, the taxpayers will probably make money off TARP. And I was just setting the record straight, not necessarily saying TARP was a good thing. Because in the long run, TARP is probably a bad thing.
And again, you are making the same mistake as before, assuming all wealthy people are oil company CEOs. Most wealthy people in this country have earned their wealth fairly and created jobs.
ebeatworld 3 months ago
@ebeatworld And you are making the same mistake as before ASSUMING I am saying ALL "wealthy" people ARE Oil company execs. I'm saying those are the two groups most responsible for the bad economy, because they OWN the polititians who are supposed to be representing ALL of us. PLus, the "smaller" bailout to the auto industry SAVED thousands of jobs, but how many "created" by your rich heroes? NONE. They got their tax breaks, now lets see some jobs.
Mozart1220 3 months ago
@Mozart1220 The bank bailout saved millions of jobs... so what? Do you have any idea what happens to a nation when the entire financial system collapses? You can't get loans and you can't invest. Car companies couldn't even survive without a financial system.
They aren't my heroes, I just don't demonize them simply because they have a lot of money. Are you aware how many people oil companies and banks employ? Our economy couldn't function without oil or banks.
ebeatworld 3 months ago
@ebeatworld The bank bailout saved the BANKERS. No real worker kept his job over it. And our economy does not need NATIONAL banks OR national oil companies. hen these huge corporations become so big that they can literally BUY the government, they ere is a problem and you well know it. They certainly don't need tax breaks and millions in subsidies every year. Stop defending these theives. You sound like Limbaugh (who is PAID to defend them. Are YOU paid to defend them? I'll bet you are.
Mozart1220 3 months ago
@Mozart1220 Drop the tainted cool aide, dude. If you have a problem with the bail out by the Obama administration then vote out this incredibly corrupt administration that you claim has been bought over by these big companies. That should solve your problem there.
bbabus100 3 months ago
@bbabus100 The bail out was fine, but it was supposed to be used to LOAN OUT the money and get the economy moving (Bush signed the first one BTW) Instead, these theives gvae it to themselves as multi million dollar bonuses. It's not the Dems t5har are corrupt, it's the GOP that supports corporations over people. No "KOOL aid" dude. Just FACTS. Stop letting Fox noiose do your thiking for you. These bankers ripped you off too.
Mozart1220 3 months ago
@ebeatworld You nailed it buddy. If these class warfare folks would get their heads out of their asses and shed the the garment of entitlement, and actually create something, that would solve their problems. But they wold rather be lazy and irresponsible, blame others for their problems and demand that those who have worked hard be forced to forfeit their earnings to them. What nonesence.
If you're poor then know that weath is created when you provide goods and services that people want.
bbabus100 3 months ago
@TheGameMouse Penn's fatass isn't starving to death
fuckyousonsofbitches 3 months ago
@TheGameMouse nobody is starving to death in the us.....
bradleyrimbleus 3 months ago
@bradleyrimbleus In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1,2 (Coleman-Jensen 2011).
EmptyQue 3 months ago
@TheGameMouse Penn is starving because he was born poor, dropped out of highschool, and then didn't try to or wasn't smart enough to stop being poor. The largest factor holding him back is himself. Don't worry he'll make lots of poor babies who will mostly do the same.
KasaiRyane 3 months ago
@KasaiRyane is...is this trolling?
josem2106 3 months ago
@TheGameMouse
So it's teller's fault that he worked hard developing his tallent, spending hour after day after year practicing his craft, working his way up from being a street performer to being in vegas and on TV, and he should be punished for such acts of courage and bravery and talent and be forced to give his pie that he worked so hard for up to someone else who has 10 kids and gets food stamps and has no job? That's not right.
surgeyX 3 months ago
So the implication is that the wealthy don't end up with any "pie?" Hmm... well, the fact that the bottom 40% of America controls just 0.3% of the wealth, while the top 1% of America's _average_ wealth is over $18 million. I think the analogy is a bit off.
dan46and2 5 months ago 16
@dan46and2 no its saying the wealthy take the pie give some pie out and keep some of the taken pie for them self. they are talking about the average small business owner. that where you got it twisted.
the pie taker is the elite not the pie giver
rtljmc 5 months ago
@dan46and2 Get your head out of your ass. Almost 50% pay no federal income taxes, the top 1% pays about 40% of taxes and the top 10% pays over 70% of taxes. It's time for the parasitic 50% living off of the rest of us to start paying their fare share.
We should have a flat tax system whereby everyone pays the same % of their income & all tax loopholes & deductions should be eliminated.
bbabus100 3 months ago
@bbabus100 The bottom 40% of the country controls only 2% of the wealth. Think about that. A flat tax would be regressive and favor the top 1%, who have seen their income double since 1979. cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf ... the wealthy, especially those that make money with money, have never had it easier in terms of taxes.
dan46and2 3 months ago
@dan46and2 Actually a flat tax is exactly what we need then people like Warren Buffet's who makes money off of money & pays a low capital gains tax will now pay the same as everyone else. Also it actually sends a message to people that the American dream is attainable, the harder and smarter you work to create goods and services that people want the more wealth you create for yourself and posterity and you will not be forced to pay a higher % than some "special class of people" have to pay
bbabus100 3 months ago
@bbabus100 Sends a message that the American dream is attainable? What a bunch of nonsense. No one says "oh, gee, I was going to aspire to be wealthy, but the government takes 40% of the wealth, so I guess it's not worth it." All a flat tax would do is drop the amount of money the government takes in, reward the super wealthy, and punish the bottom rung of the economy who already have almost no real wealth. What a joke.
dan46and2 3 months ago
@dan46and2 The truth is that the bottom 40% of the country contributes mainly negatively to the economy. If they want to control more of the economy they can take advantage of capitalism, and create more wealth instead of being dependent on hard working and creative people. How can you control wealth if you're not creating any.
What we should be telling the poor is that they don't have to stay poor. They should take charge of their lives, be responsible and stop blaming others for their problems
bbabus100 3 months ago
Very good. Explains the greedy parasitical socialist theft brilliantly. I see the bottom suckers on here are having a big cry about their scam being uncovered...aww diddims.
Riellysdad 5 months ago
Penn is a social retard, a bright guy... but a FUCKING social retard.
TheFrankFactor 6 months ago
Holy shit this is the most fucking immature, ridiculous explanation of wealth redistribution I have ever seen. Libertarians live in a god damn fantasy world, where they pretend that every man is completely independent and we all earn our way purely by work and will. Maybe if they weren't a pair of spoilt little rich boys they'd know a thing or two about systemic inequalities in modern capitalist economies, or how artificial structures of regulations and laws actually enable them to get rich.
sneakykobold 6 months ago
@sneakykobold There's nothing unequal about a modern capitalist economy. Quite to the contrary, its harshness and reality makes it seem that way. But it's not. There's nothing stopping you from starting your own business, creating something, investing etc... like many of the 'rich' folk have. You see, the vast majority of multimillionaires in this country are self made men. Plenty of them come from an uneducated, salt-of-the-earth background. Id like to see your dumbass in India's caste system.
mmx25 6 months ago 2
@mmx25
BIggest bunch of horseshit I've ever heard. Most of the people you speak of are Ivy League elite. Most of them with legacy admissions. You've taken an anecdote and extrapolated it out to the norm. Take some Demographic classes. You're making shit up.
DDBOOGER 6 months ago
@DDBOOGER Nope. You are just coming off as desperate and bitter. Has it ever occurred to you that people who can survive an Ivy League education (and the expectations placed upon them with that sort of title) are some of the brightest, hardest-working people we have in the country? Harvard and Standford consistently are ranked in the top of schools who give the most financial aid. Telling yourself the typical ivy is a snotty rich kid won't get you anywhere. I go to a crappy public btw.
mmx25 6 months ago
@mmx25 Not bitter at all. I'm a demographer. You are simply making a statement in absence of proof. The truth is the financial aid you speak of does reward those who have to accomplish top of their class status, and then their are those who give $XX amount to keep Jr in the lineage. Most of the top 400 wealthy people are not created by them, but expanded from wealth that has been passed down. Even Adam Smith talked about the freezing of wealth at the top destroying capitalism.
DDBOOGER 6 months ago 2
@sneakykobold
that's right-wing libertarians; who don't realize that corporations, state capitalism, and the rights of the rich are top down and not bottom-up
There are left-wing libertarians; however
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 4 months ago
I totally agree with them we need to stop wealth redistribution to the rich. The middle and lower class gets income tax which ranges from 15 - 35% while the upper class gets capital gains tax which is 15-17% along with loopholes to the point where companies like GE pay no taxes. We should all pay our fair share to the services we receive. Not this distribution of percentage that empowers the rich.
proatheism 6 months ago
I understand that there are plenty of people who really do need welfare in this country, My problem is that none of them are actually the ones who are recieving it lol
JasonWelks 6 months ago
How about the several hundred people who helped put you on the air or the generations of people who built the infrastructure that broadcasts out your whine about having to share with moochers?
owlbear1 6 months ago
I wonder why Penn & Teller are doing this, because they're not this stupid.
founoe 6 months ago
kind word
OP04player 6 months ago