There is no debate over income inequality--just look out your window. Interestingly, I just watched a video about how the Founders crafted the Constitution in such a way as to benefit the mega wealthy. It's called The Founders' Dark Side and is on youtube; you should all watch it. It's short and well-documented. Turns out the country has been "rigged" against the poor for a very long time.
Well-intentioned intellectuals have made this issue so much simpler than it really is. Funny anecdotes and smartalec comments from the likes of Gladwell and Krugman have had such a damaging effect on the debate over inequality. They have made it into a circus. The reality is so complex. How do we MEASURE inequality? How do we define TOO MUCH inequality (this requires walking the dry deserts of moral and ethical theory)? How do we quantify the EFFECTS of inequality? Its so so so hard.
not very bright are you???...the infrastructure which allows commerce to succeed was paid for by taxes.A person can only become wealthy if the infastructure is in place,or if they build it themselves(and most people cannot afford to build it themselves)...i.e ,so person A succeeds with the infrastructure in place,they then turn around and say''fuck you,why should i pay higher taxes than everyone else''(even when they pay less per capita)..ignorance is bliss:P
Govt spending today has nothing to do with creating a society where people can achieve and therefore you must pay back for that privilege. 70% of spending today is welfare going directly to people and 30% is military. Neither of those contribute much to this fantasy of a govt provided infrastructure that you should pay to be included therein. Maybe in the past but not now. It is all about welfare to buy elections.
what country do you live in????...if you are not a canadian/american citizen,then i appologize(i am so used to right wing nuts manipulating stats,that i failed to consider you might live in another country)....however if you are talking about America/Canada,then your really full of shit!
@WANTStoFEELupPALIN Get reading some my friend. 58.4% of this country gets a check from the govt every month. Wake up...Even higher if you count all the "guarantees"
Outrageously fallacious argument and he's smart enough to know better.
The 91% tax rate affected very few people in 1950 (I don't have figures but based upon the huge leap in top 1% incomes over recent years I'd guess at less than 0.1%) compare to the approximate 1% that would be affected today.
In short, high rate taxes that don't effect anybody will have very little effect on an economy! Well d'uh!!
*I'm taking into account the inflation adjustment.
@DillonDee1 What's insane is that they don't include the corporation taxes in those figures. Warren Buffet et al need to either admit corporation tax incidence or stop claiming that they only pay low amounts of tax.
Taxes on banks are either taxes on financial comsumers (i.e. everyone) or Buffett pays more tax than he's claiming. Which is it? It can't be both.
@mangoswiss -- ok, I will pay more than 100% in taxes this year.
Im semi-retired but will still pay around 30% in my personal income taxes & i have 4 employees that I will write checks to cover their social security taxes & inc withholding & I add that to my taxes paid.
I give one her weekly pay of $400 & she goes & buys gas , but the Fed & St gas tax is really coming from money I paid, as is the sales tax on puchases by gas station owner, etc
I'm not sure that you understand my point. I'm talking about the very real world of tax incidence not some magical accounting trick.
Warren Buffet claims he pays less tax than his secretary. If it is true then corporation tax hurts the man on the street more than Warren.
It's simple. Either Warren Buffet only pays 17% tax and we need to stop corporation tax hurting the little man or he pays much closer to 35 - 50% tax. The only argument is which one.
Income is a zero sum game. Extreme wealth WILL be balanced by a lot of poor people....that's how it works. No more middle class. We are choosing to become the proverbial Mexico, dividing the nation between rich & poor.
What he is talking about here entirely respects the power of the market too. You still have success stories, millionaires, just not (many) billionaires. Moving back to this tax structure would both balance the national budget, and create massive amounts of demand.
Income is a zero sum game. Extreme wealth WILL be balanced by a lot of poor people....that's how it works. No more middle class. We are choosing to become the proverbial Mexico, dividing the nation between rich & poor.
What Gladwell is talking about here entirely respects the power of the market too. You still have success stories, millionaires, just not (many) billionaires. Moving back to this tax structure would both balance the national budget, and create massive amounts of demand.
Here's the problem. Is everyone on youtube listening? Good. I'm happy to let people accumulate to their hearts desire. What I object to is them doing it on my back. They got rich because we all have to pay for things we need using loans. Rent and loans means we go to work and transfer money from the boss to the loan lender. Not having a lot isn't the problem. The problem is we're made to feel poor b/c we OWE. Owing makes us poor.
The reason growth was there was because companies had no reason to pay execs above that amount so wealth was capped and were did it go....well to the middle class thats were.
Also that money generated above that amount was taxed and then spent on gov. services; schools, military, NASA, science (mainly scientific R&D to defeat the commies...high paying jobs).
Actually the majority of that money was spent building the interstate system. you ever see that one section of highway that takes them 2 years to widen? well that entire highway system, every inch of the interstate, built in 5 years. ALOT of jobs created by that.
I say we tax the rich again, and do a full on repair of the interstate system repaves, widenings, re-routes, etc.
@enossir1 -- The best way to have rich lower/middle class is to have lots of businesses. Redistribution of wealth currently planned is GLOBAL not just the US. Global income is $2 per day -- global government = global poverty. This video about World poor/immigration demonstrates the point with gumballs. Easy to understand. I'm voting Ron Paul as his financial plan doesn't cut government assistance checks, as he balances the budget.
He states that back in the 50s we had a 91% tax rate on people making over 2 million and says that caused one of the greatest growths in our economy. Yet he gives no reasons why. I watched the whole video for his reasoning and he gave NONE.
Every sensible person knows correlation does not imply causation.
@nfgpunk Yeah well it was probably due to the fact that we had a national debt of over 120% of the GDP as a result of World War II. Things like that can cause some pretty big tax hikes. Also, we are currently sitting at a national debt of about 100% of our GDP so we aren't too far away from where we were back then. Obviously, though, this wasn't the complete solution to fixing the debt problem back then but it was a contributing factor.
@nfgpunk He may not state it in this video but the reason is simple relative income equality. Having all of the money being hoarded in the bank accounts of the few hurts the economy (because there is only so much a smaller group of people can purchase), while the middle and lower class spend their money so having more circulation of the cash among these groups leads to more purchases being made.
@nfgpunk This is more a rebuttal to the ludicrous notion that if we raise taxes at all, the economy will collapse again. There was a time when the government took much more drastic measures than, say repealing the Bush tax cuts, and all hell did not break loose. On the contrary, we did just fine, if not because of the tax hikes, than at least despite them.
This is a short clip of a longer lecture. I'm sure he explains the 'Why?' as Gladwell usually does quite eloquently. Or look it up yourself.
@nfgpunk It is more accurate to say, "correlation is necessary, yet insufficient proof of causation."
The economic theories espoused by prominent conservatives these days don't even have correlation on their side. In fact, historically, there is a negative correlation between tax cuts and job growth.
"Correlation does not imply causation" is often used by un-sensible people to justify their ignorance and hold on to beliefs that data clearly refutes.
@Arachnivore Your reply is idiotic. You say "correlation does not imply causation is often used by un-sensible people to justify their ignorance and hold on to beliefs that data clearly refutes." If data PROVES correlation does imply causation like you just said, then we wouldn't have this conversation. When there is no data, that is when sensible people state correlation isn't proof. As I stated, I waited for the speakers reasoning behind this. I waited for his data. He gave nothing.
@Arachnivore By the way, I agree with your first sentence, and then your second portion proves this video to be lacking proof, as I stated. There was no data.
@nfgpunk I did not mean to imply that you yourself are not sensible. Of course it's sensible to acknowledge that correlation != causation. It's just not sensible to use that as an excuse to ignore supporting evidence. Your statement that no theoretical explanation is given, is valid. It's not 'supporting evidence' if there's no theory to support. In this case, however, the theory that raising taxes can have a positive effect on the economy has been around for some time. just not explained here.
@OpenYourMindQuaid I lost? how? you didn't provide any proof that Taxation was apart of economics pie when it come to any society. All you did was lie about your education. Penn State my ass!
The goal was not to prove "taxation was apart of economics pie," whatever that means, but to cast doubt on your presumption that more taxation is necessarily good. That is all.
I did, in fact, get the degree I specified from Penn State. Your disbelief is rooted in your stubbornness and fear of swallowing your pride to admit that you're a mean-spirited, half-wit prick who's just wrong.
This is really disappointing coming from such an intelligent man. He doesn't directly say it, but his insinuation is that taxing the rich ever more leads to economic growth, but he doesn't mention an out of control government borrowing and spending historic amounts at any point as being contributory to our current problems.
People need to wake up and realize you can't tax your way out of a recession, nor can you spend your way out, nor can you borrow your way out. It's very simple.
@OpenYourMindQuaid I agree with you that none of those things make a significant contribution to our economy, but that's not what Gladwell is saying at all. He's just explaining that equality makes a nation prosper. These class wars that the rich start (and win) don't.
What Gladwell is saying is that taxing the rich more will lead to more equal income distribution, and that's probably true, given that the rich will become poorer and thus closer in income to the poor. This money will surely we wasted by our government as it makes the whole of society poorer with its destructive wars and social programs. In that sense, we should NOT tax the rich any more. Despite Gladwell's suggestion, it is not the solution to income disparity.
@OpenYourMindQuaid it seems your the one that out of touch with how economics really works. Taxation is just one part of how our economics works. Oh by the way, the rich make major part of their income from the government. Military, food, internet, weapons, law, education, health care and I could keep going but there not enough space. No country have every survivable without taxes.
The rich making the "major" part of their income from the government (whether that is true or not) does not justify or prove efficacy of more government action. The old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right" seems to apply here.
"No country have every survivable without taxes": Unverifiable point + terrible grammar.
"No country has ever survived without murder": Unverifiable. But true? Probably not.
@OpenYourMindQuaid your not a economics major. Can you name one country that has survived without taxation in any modern society that you would live in? Please mention one? Stupid fuck! BTW. going to U of Phoenix doesn't count as a education.
"your not a economics major" - you're not an economics major, I think is what you mean. Your spelling is atrocious.
I am an economics major from Penn State University with honors in Energy, Mineral, and Environmental economics.
You apparently missed my point. Though there are no countries w/o taxation, the presence of taxes does not prove taxation's economic benefit, thus raising them does not necessarily fix economic problems. This can be demonstrated econometrically.
It would be the same as asserting, no person has ever survived without cancer cells being in their body (every person has some cancer cells in them--the body destroys them effectively in a healthy person), thus cancer is good for people.
Is that not an absurd claim? It is no different than your tax example. You cannot prove taxation's efficacy by pointing out that it exists; you must demonstrate how it directly leads to the result you suggest. You haven't. You lose.
@OpenYourMindQuaid I'm not supporting the other person with the academia arguments, but I do think you're putting words in the horse's mouth. If you instead take what he's saying not between the lines, Gladwell's making the point that wealth inequality does not have to be the status quo, it was not the status quo, and the economy did fine.
The point here is that the mega-rich who are taking the resources produced by America as a whole should partake in a fair share of the obligations.
i would have liked to sit with him prior to 1913 and file for taxes... wait, there were no income taxes until 1913, when preogressive woodrow wilson got elected. he's also the one who segregated this country. it also has been proven that high tax rates will only encourage tax fraud. we do need to cut spending on areas where the government should not be interfering with the free market. the department of education itself is unconstitutional.
@ReformKyCannabis there wasn't any income tax until 1913, and people were fine back then too. i'm not entirely against taxes but i think that is we wanna be fair and treat everyont equally, then everyone should pay the same tax rate, that's equality, and no more tax breaks for no one. Experts say that a flat rate of 11% would eliminate the need for the IRS and save tons of money. do we want a big government the regulates everything, or do we want freedom and consistency with the constitution?
this isn't about glenn beck, this is about being able to kepp your money. taxing the rich 100% would not even come close to paying off our debt. besides, the government has proven that it cannot use the money wisely and effectively as the market would. what is the incentive of getting wealthy if you can't keep your money? none. Socialist don't understand that money is the incentive that drives our economy. i'd like an example of an alternative system that has succeeded in the past.
@hotdonutdog2 Im sick of hearing that we need to cut spending and lower taxes, its a scam, we spend very badly, yes we should change that, but the fact remains that Taxes are the Government's income and when you keep cutting that income you cant pay for any services you have been for generations but cutting those isnt the way to increase profits, thats the way to throw our nation into poverty, worse than we are now! We need to stop giving tax breaks to everyone, Oil, Pharma, even the Rich, yes!
You say you would like an example, but I can only wonder if you would listen to it when presented. Reason was not developed as a tool to find truth, but one to defend our position.
I couldn't agree more. He is 100% correct. When you have a society that rewards exploitation and extravagance of course there will be more crime on wall street, more recessions, etc.
As we have moved to the fascist right on economic issues our middle class has been devastated. Now you have the teabaggers trying to drive our economy off a cliff with their idiotic ideas.
The Poor are getting richer faster than the rich are getting richer. Immigrants and young adults are the new poor while the old poor are getting richer. This form of Class warfare is just an empty misdirection to demagogue the poor and promote coercion.
I like Gladwell and read all his books. He usually has good sense and good analysis but he is completely wrong on this one. The rest of my response is on this link
Wow, when someone starts quoting Glenn Beck it makes you realize how far from the path we've wandered. Here is the truth. Economically we were better off in the 50s. There were rich and poor but there were also a lot of middle class. The people that actually built this country. The super rich have actually worked to secede from the union. They want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities.
In the 50s they were also paying for World War II and a huge chunk of infrastructure we see today. These are costs we don't have right now. Our costs right now are social security, medicare, medicade, government programs, etc... Still important but not as tangible so people don't accept giving up their money for it.
Lots of people who don't finish college understand economics perfectly well. I have my degree in economics, but I still recognize that the majority of what I learned was nonsense, and it certainly doesn't take a college educated person to recognize this. All it takes is a level head.
The 1950 and 60"s is when stock options for compensation laws really took off. He never mentions any numbers as what a CEO in the 1950's make. Never said anything about percentage tax per gdp that the gov took in. People have a threshold of taxes they will pay. Individual income taxes have been 7.1 to 9.2 from 1944 to current.
@Mtl4us2 you really think the rich are the source of everything bad that has ever happened to this country?
nobody thinks that the rich are the source of everything bad. people think that nothing good will come from someone going around saying "you don't deserve that!!!"
The idiot that writes this kind of insipid argument has no idea what this is saying, and instead is avoiding the real material and you points to "everybody's opinion" which has no basis on facts, nor does any of it make sense.
Instead of nobody, replace it with "I don't", people with "I"
P.S. if you don't think that people aren't always entitled to something, then go start an anarchist riot instead of wasting our time with this horrendous comment war.
I like how he assumes that every retired millionaire in the room came from a rich family. This is an interesting insight into why progressives think the way they do.
@elsquibbs I like how you just made that shit up, literally just pulled it out of your idiot fucking ass, because its nowhere in the video. But why not be a lying douchebag; you're already a shit for brains?
"Their parents paid that kind of tax rate. And maybe they were upset about it, but they didn't form a tea party... They also understood that their country had incurred certain obligations that had to be paid for and that as the wealthiest people in the country, they were the ones best positioned to help pay for that." speaking about the old tax rate on the rich. Context.
While you're looking up the definition of "context," take a minute and look up "literally" as well, genius.
@elsquibbs While I'm literally looking up the definition of literally, why don't you literally look up the definition of metaphor. Here, I'll help. elsquibbs has shit between his ears, so he literally can't understand when someone is using the word parent to refer to a previous generation of Americans. And while you're straining that pile of sewage to understand metaphor, you might want to look up statistics on social mobility in the USA, "genius".
Having a personal income of over a million dollar a year corrupts any sane human being. It makes you think you have power you don't really have. It corrupts the environment, our future, your social bonds, your take on reality and it's ruining the income equality requirements of humanity on our planet in order to have it remain a nice place to live on.
Not really. Fundies say "homosexuality corrupts any sane human being. It corrupts the environment, our future, your social bonds, your take on reality." People who think they know how other people should live life irritate me, whether they're religious fundamentalists or otherwise. And yes, he DID assume they were rich, which is exactly what he meant by "their parents paid that kind of tax rate." If you need to find out what a progressive is, I'd suggest google.
I didn't say you were. I was pointing out that you are making a similar sort of argument. Zealots frame their morality in terms of a deity while progressives frame theirs in terms of the collective i.e. "It corrupts the environment, our future, your social bonds, your take on reality and it's ruining the income equality requirements of humanity on our planet in order to have it remain a nice place..." The result is the same: "I know what's best for you." Same shit, different bag.
america is going down the shitter.. Taxes must be raised, otherwise Americans should start learning Mandarin, because before we know it, we will become cheap labor for the rest of the world.
@84AMK Between 1940 - 1963 the lowest the tax rate got was 81%. The highest it got was 94%. That's historical fact. You don't need to be an economist to know that, or relay that information.
@shraka This is true. However, conveying a fact and postulating meaning are two different things. Relaying the fact that tax rates were what they were doesn't require credibility. Asserting that these tax rates were a good thing, beneficial to growth and perhaps something worth implementing today is something that only a qualified person should have the authority to say.
@Lazzzyeye Only a qualified person should have the authority to say?! So I take it you're not pro freedom of speech?
Certainly qualifications should be listened to, but having qualifications can often mean stuff all, and people without official qualifications can know quite a lot.
I didn't say right, I said authority. But I should still qualify.
"people without official qualifications can know quite a lot" - damn right. If only those with qualifications had their opinions considered then Einstein would never have revolutionized physics. The problem is Einstein didn't just assert, he constructed an irrefutable argument. But when someone like Gladwell asserts facts about economics, without full argument, people will & should ask "why should I listen to him"?
@Lazzzyeye Absolutely, you should do that with people who have qualifications too, because sometimes (often) they just lie.
What he's saying runs in line with everything I'm seeing from the data, and is even in line with what the Wall Street Journal is saying - Lowering tax isn't good for immediate economic flow, while even programs like food stamps are.
Sometimes they do lie, it's true. But they'll quickly lose credibility and authority if they're caught out.
'immediate economic flow,'
Hmmm, are you sure they're not referring to stimulus? Because it's absolutely true that food stamps will have a more immediate flowing impact on the economy than tax cuts.
But as far as longer term economic flow, I think many would argue that tax cuts are the more effective policy.
@Lazzzyeye They may argue whatever they like, it's up to them to prove it now that we (as in my position) have evidence to support our case. There is no evidence that it has a positive long term impact.
As for Liars, I think you misjudge how hard it can be to get rid of particularly insidious lies like the ones people want to hear - ie. that tax cuts are good for the economy. :P Everyone likes tax cuts, even if it slits their throats long term.
I must respectfully disagree. Also, can I just clear up I don't think I belong to any 'camp' as such. I'm a skeptic with most things economic. I will tend to fall on the dominant theories of the day because they're dominant for a reason, but I'll freely admit they have their limitations. For eg. in the case of tax cuts. dominant theory would see high taxation as not only a significant disincentive, but removing money from long-tern productive ends/investment to fatten govnt. I'd agree.
@Lazzzyeye I didn't say you belong to it, rather than you're just in it at the moment. Quite often things are dominant because they're pushed by those with power. If you look at the people pushing the notion of trickle down economics does appear to be people with lots of money who have a great deal to gain from the agenda.
You also assume you have a corrupt Government, which I guess is fair enough in your case. The money can go back to the poor and middle class though - that's where I'd send it.
And I'm personally not a big fan of redistributive economics. Engineering certain social outcomes has a poor track record from my vantage point.
You're also right to point out that ideas survive for their functionality rather than their inherent truth. In a roundabout way that's sort of what I was trying to say about authority and credibility. Who they are and why we should think they know best is important when anyone makes a claim.
@Lazzzyeye I dunno where this idea that governments CAN'T be efficient comes from. I'm sure there's no evidence to back that up.
Their functionality to the powerful, and especially their short term functionality.
From my point of view, redistributive economics works great if done properly, though specifically I think investment in infrastructure if the appropriate way to help support the middle class - which by the way makes the rich richer too in the long run.
@Lazzzyeye Okay, fine, except he's talking about well-established facts. Its not like anything he is saying is even remotely controversial. The tax rate for the wealthiest WAS about 90%. The economy DID grow at some of the highest rates seen this century. The purchasing power of the middle class WAS higher. There isn't anything, I mean, literally, any single thing he says in this bit, that you can point to and say, prove it, Mr. Gladwell.
He says taxes were high (true), and he says it was a period of unmatched growth (true).
But he also says that growth was _the result_ of these taxes. This is not, as far as I know, established fact. So to what he says at 0:34, I would indeed point to and say "prove it, Mr. Gladwell"
@Lazzzyeye He doesn't imply that in any way shape or form. "What happened as a result of that" is a rhetorical question, you can figure that out, c'mon. He says "you can't point to a single thing that went wrong as result of that tax rate". Thats all.
@Lazzzyeye I think that it's fairly logical to say that high tax rates did not do bad things to the economy, and that they contributed to the positive growth - even though he didn't say that. It's up to you (or your camp rather) to prove that observation wrong at this point - considering your opponents have proof (even if it is shaky, should make it easy for you to knock over though).
Well I don't think he has proof, that is my point. I feel like the burden of proof still lies in his hands. Saying that two things were happening at the same time does not mean they were causally related.
@Lazzzyeye It does indicate that higher taxes in combination with other efforts do not cripple your economy. Your own argument can be turned against you too, do you have proof that low taxes (specifically on the rich) create better living conditions for the poor and middle class? When you consider 'real' wages stopped going up in the 70s (look it up) and since then household debt has sky-rocketed despite productivity per employee going up it seems the rich are just ripping everyone off.
'do not cripple your economy' - that part of the argument I am comfortable with. Its the causal relation he implied that had me raise my eyebrows.
And no, I dont have proof. Only theory, maybe a touch of anecdotal evidence. As I said, I am not rooted in my views. Just what I have roughly espoused appears to me to be the most coherent, and thus persuasive, body of thought Ive come across. What you mention is worthy of research, and if points the other way maybe I'll change convictions :)
@Lazzzyeye Glad to hear you're open to an alternative hypothesis.
Do a search in google images for:
"wages productivity graph" (1st image).
"real gross non residential investment graph nyt" (2nd image, New York Times)
"average U.S. wage adjusted for inflation" (1st image)
And:
watch?v=kxdfMs5lw3E
That should give you a good starting point - I'd give you better links and stuff but this is youtube and they don't allow links (or more than 500 chars).
I'll be honest, I'm not going to read and digest everyhting you send to me straight away so I can continue this debate in a timely manner. But I would very much like to have some resources I could graze on over the next few months.
It's up to you though; only if you can be bothered.
I told you that I wasn't going to explain a complicated model in 500 character text comments, and that if you weren't going to offer me an alternate hypothesis that I was no longer interested in speaking to you.
Offer me something, or go and find someone else to annoy with your inane questions.
@shraka Ok. But that wasn't really my concern. I only asked that because I was curious, that's all. Any author can gather up facts and write a book about it. I understand that we probably have opposing viewpoints about this but I would rather see research done by economists and experts within that field, not an author...
@84AMK He isn't talking about his research. He's talking about the reception he received from a discussion. He's talking about how a sensible conversation on taxation can't even happen, because Republicans refuse to have a rational conversation about it.
10% of 2 million is still 200,000. You wouldn't have to worry about paying your mortgage. You could buy a house without a loan if you saved up for a couple years. Even better, you could live knowing that you helped the rest of your country. Hell, if I made 2 million back then I would be fine with 90% tax.
@LudicrousTachyon As I've said to others, that's not how income tax works. You're taxed 90% only on income over $2mill. Assume the lower tax brackets work out to about 50%, you actually get $1million a year + 10% of anything earned over $2mill.
So using my theoretical model, if you earned $4 mill a year, you'd get $1.2 mill in your pocket.
how can you give one econ study more credence than all the others? Check the results of the austerity programs in Europe first. Even if your argument about the New Deal was true, it would only prove one thing- that only the even more massive government investment into the economy required by WWII ended it. As far as going back into the past with a "what would have been" theory, that is bad history and questionable economics at best.
You fund the government enough to support basic social services that is fine. You fund them too much and then they will make decision on what it can do with it.
personally I don't see why anyone would need more than 1 million a year salary. You can leave so nice for 1 mil a year. As for the very rich life style - it always seems dysfunctional to me. Dunno why, just seems somehow perverted. But then, I wasn't born into it, so maybe it's just a matter of perspective.
There is no debate over income inequality--just look out your window. Interestingly, I just watched a video about how the Founders crafted the Constitution in such a way as to benefit the mega wealthy. It's called The Founders' Dark Side and is on youtube; you should all watch it. It's short and well-documented. Turns out the country has been "rigged" against the poor for a very long time.
reader642 1 month ago
Well-intentioned intellectuals have made this issue so much simpler than it really is. Funny anecdotes and smartalec comments from the likes of Gladwell and Krugman have had such a damaging effect on the debate over inequality. They have made it into a circus. The reality is so complex. How do we MEASURE inequality? How do we define TOO MUCH inequality (this requires walking the dry deserts of moral and ethical theory)? How do we quantify the EFFECTS of inequality? Its so so so hard.
idontcarewtfwhat 1 month ago
The US dummy. Read, it is all there..
pismo10 1 month ago
@WANTStoFEELupPALIN
I like the part where you use ad-hominem then follow that up with the spelling, grammar, and punctuation of a fourth-grader. Eat a dick, fagot.
contractedwow 1 month ago
@contractedwow
go get ASS FUCKED BY YOUR FATHER!!!.....again:)
WANTStoFEELupPALIN 1 month ago
what kind of idiot could dislike this video? Honestly....(Fox News viewers is the answer).
bigfoot799 2 months ago
So wait, if I am rich from family or becoming that way on my own, I owe a large portion of the money I have to those of whom do not have money?
Sounds fucking retarded.
First guy:
"Hey guys I climbed that tree and got myself three coconuts!".
Second guy:
"Well I didn't climb that tree but you owe me a coconut because I am a human like you and need a coconut to survive."
contractedwow 2 months ago
@contractedwow
not very bright are you???...the infrastructure which allows commerce to succeed was paid for by taxes.A person can only become wealthy if the infastructure is in place,or if they build it themselves(and most people cannot afford to build it themselves)...i.e ,so person A succeeds with the infrastructure in place,they then turn around and say''fuck you,why should i pay higher taxes than everyone else''(even when they pay less per capita)..ignorance is bliss:P
WANTStoFEELupPALIN 1 month ago
IRS tells us the top 10% receives most of their income from Capital Gains, Dividends, Interest & Tax Free Bonds.
Bush lowered the taxes on the 1st 3 to 15%
Thus many in the top 10% now have an income tax rate between 1-15% & thus the top 10% now has 90% of the FINANCIAL WEALTH of the country.
DillonDee1 2 months ago
Govt spending today has nothing to do with creating a society where people can achieve and therefore you must pay back for that privilege. 70% of spending today is welfare going directly to people and 30% is military. Neither of those contribute much to this fantasy of a govt provided infrastructure that you should pay to be included therein. Maybe in the past but not now. It is all about welfare to buy elections.
pismo10 3 months ago
@pismo10
WTF?????....70% ON WELFARE????.....STOP PULLING STATISTICS OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!
next your going to tell me that NPR spending is 10% of the GDP, lmfao:P
WANTStoFEELupPALIN 1 month ago
@WANTStoFEELupPALIN 60% of this country is on welfare dipshit...
pismo10 1 month ago
@pismo10
what country do you live in????...if you are not a canadian/american citizen,then i appologize(i am so used to right wing nuts manipulating stats,that i failed to consider you might live in another country)....however if you are talking about America/Canada,then your really full of shit!
WANTStoFEELupPALIN 1 month ago
@WANTStoFEELupPALIN Get reading some my friend. 58.4% of this country gets a check from the govt every month. Wake up...Even higher if you count all the "guarantees"
pismo10 1 month ago
@pismo10
please clarify what country you are talking about????
WANTStoFEELupPALIN 1 month ago
The 60s was not the dream economy that he is talking about, the 80s and 90s were.
The only thing worse than wealth inequality is a govt that tries to correct it by imposing itself on your freedoms.
pismo10 3 months ago
Shame on you, Malcolm!
Outrageously fallacious argument and he's smart enough to know better.
The 91% tax rate affected very few people in 1950 (I don't have figures but based upon the huge leap in top 1% incomes over recent years I'd guess at less than 0.1%) compare to the approximate 1% that would be affected today.
In short, high rate taxes that don't effect anybody will have very little effect on an economy! Well d'uh!!
*I'm taking into account the inflation adjustment.
mangoswiss 3 months ago
One man on Wall Street made $5 BILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR & and yet paid a tax rate of only 15%
THAT'S INSANE
DillonDee1 4 months ago
@DillonDee1 What's insane is that they don't include the corporation taxes in those figures. Warren Buffet et al need to either admit corporation tax incidence or stop claiming that they only pay low amounts of tax.
Taxes on banks are either taxes on financial comsumers (i.e. everyone) or Buffett pays more tax than he's claiming. Which is it? It can't be both.
mangoswiss 3 months ago
@mangoswiss
I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you
DillonDee1 3 months ago
@DillonDee1 Go ahead. Explain the cognitive dissonance and then I'll see if I'm capable of understanding it.
mangoswiss 3 months ago
@mangoswiss -- ok, I will pay more than 100% in taxes this year.
Im semi-retired but will still pay around 30% in my personal income taxes & i have 4 employees that I will write checks to cover their social security taxes & inc withholding & I add that to my taxes paid.
I give one her weekly pay of $400 & she goes & buys gas , but the Fed & St gas tax is really coming from money I paid, as is the sales tax on puchases by gas station owner, etc
See, it wont take long to show 100%
DillonDee1 3 months ago
@DillonDee1
You pay 100% tax?
I'm not sure that you understand my point. I'm talking about the very real world of tax incidence not some magical accounting trick.
Warren Buffet claims he pays less tax than his secretary. If it is true then corporation tax hurts the man on the street more than Warren.
It's simple. Either Warren Buffet only pays 17% tax and we need to stop corporation tax hurting the little man or he pays much closer to 35 - 50% tax. The only argument is which one.
mangoswiss 3 months ago
@mangoswiss --
I told you that you werent capable of understanding it
DillonDee1 3 months ago
@DillonDee1
Understanding what? You haven't made an argument. You've implied that the tax burden of your employees is yours.
Let's start here with a video on tax incidence...
/watch?v=Rqgb0G0bEpA
Watch that then let me know when you understand it and we'll go from there.
You can apologise for the insults later. You'll notice that I haven't resulted to personal insults in my comments unlike yourself.
mangoswiss 3 months ago
Why most of you see money as the worst evil? Well sometimes money is evil, but sometimes:
High Skills = Success
Success = Money
It's just math
elCiula 4 months ago
Comment removed
NinkasiDelight 5 months ago
hmm. . ok. z z z z ZZZzz
br33klyn 5 months ago 3
Income is a zero sum game. Extreme wealth WILL be balanced by a lot of poor people....that's how it works. No more middle class. We are choosing to become the proverbial Mexico, dividing the nation between rich & poor.
What he is talking about here entirely respects the power of the market too. You still have success stories, millionaires, just not (many) billionaires. Moving back to this tax structure would both balance the national budget, and create massive amounts of demand.
Puckor 5 months ago 3
@Puckor It would create massive amounts of demand for passports.
mangoswiss 3 months ago
Income is a zero sum game. Extreme wealth WILL be balanced by a lot of poor people....that's how it works. No more middle class. We are choosing to become the proverbial Mexico, dividing the nation between rich & poor.
What Gladwell is talking about here entirely respects the power of the market too. You still have success stories, millionaires, just not (many) billionaires. Moving back to this tax structure would both balance the national budget, and create massive amounts of demand.
Puckor 5 months ago
Here's the problem. Is everyone on youtube listening? Good. I'm happy to let people accumulate to their hearts desire. What I object to is them doing it on my back. They got rich because we all have to pay for things we need using loans. Rent and loans means we go to work and transfer money from the boss to the loan lender. Not having a lot isn't the problem. The problem is we're made to feel poor b/c we OWE. Owing makes us poor.
ion010101 6 months ago 2
I love that I have sit through an ad on a luxury holiday destination to see this video
apeswithhobbies 6 months ago 2
Money = power
Power = policy
Why are we surprised?
jle717 6 months ago 6
The reason growth was there was because companies had no reason to pay execs above that amount so wealth was capped and were did it go....well to the middle class thats were.
Also that money generated above that amount was taxed and then spent on gov. services; schools, military, NASA, science (mainly scientific R&D to defeat the commies...high paying jobs).
enossir1 6 months ago 18
@enossir1
Actually the majority of that money was spent building the interstate system. you ever see that one section of highway that takes them 2 years to widen? well that entire highway system, every inch of the interstate, built in 5 years. ALOT of jobs created by that.
I say we tax the rich again, and do a full on repair of the interstate system repaves, widenings, re-routes, etc.
MrStonedOne 6 months ago
@MrStonedOne Agreed! I would love to see high speed trains across the states, and up and down the east and west coast.
theagent578 6 months ago
dont tax anyone. the government already got enough money,.
KripDrip 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enossir1 -- The best way to have rich lower/middle class is to have lots of businesses. Redistribution of wealth currently planned is GLOBAL not just the US. Global income is $2 per day -- global government = global poverty. This video about World poor/immigration demonstrates the point with gumballs. Easy to understand. I'm voting Ron Paul as his financial plan doesn't cut government assistance checks, as he balances the budget.
/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
vechorik 2 months ago
He states that back in the 50s we had a 91% tax rate on people making over 2 million and says that caused one of the greatest growths in our economy. Yet he gives no reasons why. I watched the whole video for his reasoning and he gave NONE.
Every sensible person knows correlation does not imply causation.
nfgpunk 6 months ago
Comment removed
pseven21 6 months ago
@nfgpunk Yeah well it was probably due to the fact that we had a national debt of over 120% of the GDP as a result of World War II. Things like that can cause some pretty big tax hikes. Also, we are currently sitting at a national debt of about 100% of our GDP so we aren't too far away from where we were back then. Obviously, though, this wasn't the complete solution to fixing the debt problem back then but it was a contributing factor.
AVulgarLizard 6 months ago
@AVulgarLizard
40 000 dollars a second in interest accumulate on the national debt.
trigunner87 6 months ago
@trigunner87 That's cool bro!
AVulgarLizard 6 months ago
@nfgpunk My god are you stubborn and ignorant.
specialedpal 6 months ago
@nfgpunk He may not state it in this video but the reason is simple relative income equality. Having all of the money being hoarded in the bank accounts of the few hurts the economy (because there is only so much a smaller group of people can purchase), while the middle and lower class spend their money so having more circulation of the cash among these groups leads to more purchases being made.
bushdid911forever 6 months ago
@nfgpunk This is more a rebuttal to the ludicrous notion that if we raise taxes at all, the economy will collapse again. There was a time when the government took much more drastic measures than, say repealing the Bush tax cuts, and all hell did not break loose. On the contrary, we did just fine, if not because of the tax hikes, than at least despite them.
This is a short clip of a longer lecture. I'm sure he explains the 'Why?' as Gladwell usually does quite eloquently. Or look it up yourself.
Arachnivore 6 months ago
@nfgpunk It is more accurate to say, "correlation is necessary, yet insufficient proof of causation."
The economic theories espoused by prominent conservatives these days don't even have correlation on their side. In fact, historically, there is a negative correlation between tax cuts and job growth.
"Correlation does not imply causation" is often used by un-sensible people to justify their ignorance and hold on to beliefs that data clearly refutes.
Arachnivore 6 months ago
@Arachnivore Your reply is idiotic. You say "correlation does not imply causation is often used by un-sensible people to justify their ignorance and hold on to beliefs that data clearly refutes." If data PROVES correlation does imply causation like you just said, then we wouldn't have this conversation. When there is no data, that is when sensible people state correlation isn't proof. As I stated, I waited for the speakers reasoning behind this. I waited for his data. He gave nothing.
nfgpunk 6 months ago
@nfgpunk I did not say correlation proves causation. I said that you can't ignore when correlation REFUTES false theories of causation.
Arachnivore 6 months ago
@Arachnivore By the way, I agree with your first sentence, and then your second portion proves this video to be lacking proof, as I stated. There was no data.
nfgpunk 6 months ago
@nfgpunk I did not mean to imply that you yourself are not sensible. Of course it's sensible to acknowledge that correlation != causation. It's just not sensible to use that as an excuse to ignore supporting evidence. Your statement that no theoretical explanation is given, is valid. It's not 'supporting evidence' if there's no theory to support. In this case, however, the theory that raising taxes can have a positive effect on the economy has been around for some time. just not explained here.
Arachnivore 6 months ago
taxing the rich and giving that stolen money to the poor is socialism. it doesnt work.
KripDrip 4 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid I lost? how? you didn't provide any proof that Taxation was apart of economics pie when it come to any society. All you did was lie about your education. Penn State my ass!
gicobrablack 7 months ago
@gicobrablack
The goal was not to prove "taxation was apart of economics pie," whatever that means, but to cast doubt on your presumption that more taxation is necessarily good. That is all.
I did, in fact, get the degree I specified from Penn State. Your disbelief is rooted in your stubbornness and fear of swallowing your pride to admit that you're a mean-spirited, half-wit prick who's just wrong.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid come on you didn't get a degree at Penn State. if you did, then I got a degree at UCLA.
gicobrablack 7 months ago
Go to Vanity Fair website: add this after the com.
society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Volvican 7 months ago
This is really disappointing coming from such an intelligent man. He doesn't directly say it, but his insinuation is that taxing the rich ever more leads to economic growth, but he doesn't mention an out of control government borrowing and spending historic amounts at any point as being contributory to our current problems.
People need to wake up and realize you can't tax your way out of a recession, nor can you spend your way out, nor can you borrow your way out. It's very simple.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid I agree with you that none of those things make a significant contribution to our economy, but that's not what Gladwell is saying at all. He's just explaining that equality makes a nation prosper. These class wars that the rich start (and win) don't.
Hauris 7 months ago
@Hauris
What Gladwell is saying is that taxing the rich more will lead to more equal income distribution, and that's probably true, given that the rich will become poorer and thus closer in income to the poor. This money will surely we wasted by our government as it makes the whole of society poorer with its destructive wars and social programs. In that sense, we should NOT tax the rich any more. Despite Gladwell's suggestion, it is not the solution to income disparity.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid it seems your the one that out of touch with how economics really works. Taxation is just one part of how our economics works. Oh by the way, the rich make major part of their income from the government. Military, food, internet, weapons, law, education, health care and I could keep going but there not enough space. No country have every survivable without taxes.
gicobrablack 7 months ago
@gicobrablack
I'm an honors economics major.
The rich making the "major" part of their income from the government (whether that is true or not) does not justify or prove efficacy of more government action. The old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right" seems to apply here.
"No country have every survivable without taxes": Unverifiable point + terrible grammar.
"No country has ever survived without murder": Unverifiable. But true? Probably not.
Stop leaving dumb comments.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid your not a economics major. Can you name one country that has survived without taxation in any modern society that you would live in? Please mention one? Stupid fuck! BTW. going to U of Phoenix doesn't count as a education.
gicobrablack 7 months ago
@gicobrablack
"your not a economics major" - you're not an economics major, I think is what you mean. Your spelling is atrocious.
I am an economics major from Penn State University with honors in Energy, Mineral, and Environmental economics.
You apparently missed my point. Though there are no countries w/o taxation, the presence of taxes does not prove taxation's economic benefit, thus raising them does not necessarily fix economic problems. This can be demonstrated econometrically.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid No I didn't miss your point. Oh btw, there is no way you go to penn state, that is for smart people.
gicobrablack 7 months ago
@gicobrablack
So you haven't addressed any of my points, and then you resort to insulting my intelligence, even after spewing your horrible spelling and grammar?
Ad hominem is the surest sign of intellectual defeat. Thank you, and be humble.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid I only insult people pretending they attended Penn State, clearly your didn't.
gicobrablack 7 months ago
@gicobrablack
It would be the same as asserting, no person has ever survived without cancer cells being in their body (every person has some cancer cells in them--the body destroys them effectively in a healthy person), thus cancer is good for people.
Is that not an absurd claim? It is no different than your tax example. You cannot prove taxation's efficacy by pointing out that it exists; you must demonstrate how it directly leads to the result you suggest. You haven't. You lose.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
@OpenYourMindQuaid I'm not supporting the other person with the academia arguments, but I do think you're putting words in the horse's mouth. If you instead take what he's saying not between the lines, Gladwell's making the point that wealth inequality does not have to be the status quo, it was not the status quo, and the economy did fine.
The point here is that the mega-rich who are taking the resources produced by America as a whole should partake in a fair share of the obligations.
ChildrenOfOrwell 6 months ago
That was Eisenhower, too.
joeybasu516 8 months ago
i would have liked to sit with him prior to 1913 and file for taxes... wait, there were no income taxes until 1913, when preogressive woodrow wilson got elected. he's also the one who segregated this country. it also has been proven that high tax rates will only encourage tax fraud. we do need to cut spending on areas where the government should not be interfering with the free market. the department of education itself is unconstitutional.
hotdonutdog2 10 months ago
@hotdonutdog2 : Have you ever heard of the long depression? google it. Do you know what a spoils system is for your civil service?
roijax801 8 months ago
@ReformKyCannabis there wasn't any income tax until 1913, and people were fine back then too. i'm not entirely against taxes but i think that is we wanna be fair and treat everyont equally, then everyone should pay the same tax rate, that's equality, and no more tax breaks for no one. Experts say that a flat rate of 11% would eliminate the need for the IRS and save tons of money. do we want a big government the regulates everything, or do we want freedom and consistency with the constitution?
hotdonutdog2 10 months ago
this isn't about glenn beck, this is about being able to kepp your money. taxing the rich 100% would not even come close to paying off our debt. besides, the government has proven that it cannot use the money wisely and effectively as the market would. what is the incentive of getting wealthy if you can't keep your money? none. Socialist don't understand that money is the incentive that drives our economy. i'd like an example of an alternative system that has succeeded in the past.
hotdonutdog2 10 months ago
@hotdonutdog2 Im sick of hearing that we need to cut spending and lower taxes, its a scam, we spend very badly, yes we should change that, but the fact remains that Taxes are the Government's income and when you keep cutting that income you cant pay for any services you have been for generations but cutting those isnt the way to increase profits, thats the way to throw our nation into poverty, worse than we are now! We need to stop giving tax breaks to everyone, Oil, Pharma, even the Rich, yes!
ReformKyCannabis 10 months ago
@hotdonutdog2
You say you would like an example, but I can only wonder if you would listen to it when presented. Reason was not developed as a tool to find truth, but one to defend our position.
Cmcwill06 8 months ago
Comment removed
hotdonutdog2 10 months ago
I couldn't agree more. He is 100% correct. When you have a society that rewards exploitation and extravagance of course there will be more crime on wall street, more recessions, etc.
As we have moved to the fascist right on economic issues our middle class has been devastated. Now you have the teabaggers trying to drive our economy off a cliff with their idiotic ideas.
MaudsPas 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Poor are getting richer faster than the rich are getting richer. Immigrants and young adults are the new poor while the old poor are getting richer. This form of Class warfare is just an empty misdirection to demagogue the poor and promote coercion.
qwertypoiu4321 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry here is the link : tinyurl(dot)com/4rcbfsr
glsbiz 11 months ago
I like Gladwell and read all his books. He usually has good sense and good analysis but he is completely wrong on this one. The rest of my response is on this link
glsbiz 11 months ago
@glsbiz: Youtube would not post links I guess. Let me try again try /4rcbfsr on tinyurl
glsbiz 11 months ago
If you speak truth to power, power will hurl things at you. Right now it's just throwing dinner buns...
TomFynn 11 months ago
2 m dollars? Most people would be perfectly satisfied with 100 000.
I mean, you don;t need to limit it ot 2 m, ok, 100 m. That would be ok.
But, owning billions of $ is just nonsense.
FleshMob 11 months ago 27
Wow, when someone starts quoting Glenn Beck it makes you realize how far from the path we've wandered. Here is the truth. Economically we were better off in the 50s. There were rich and poor but there were also a lot of middle class. The people that actually built this country. The super rich have actually worked to secede from the union. They want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities.
elmariachiterry 11 months ago
In the 50s they were also paying for World War II and a huge chunk of infrastructure we see today. These are costs we don't have right now. Our costs right now are social security, medicare, medicade, government programs, etc... Still important but not as tangible so people don't accept giving up their money for it.
donahooassets 11 months ago
Liberals are so silly about money.
If we let the jobcreators get rich, so does everyone else.
You should read Glenn becks book "An Inconvenient truth: More people have internet than ever before.
I'll even read TO you from Glenn's book, if you click on my channel!
NeoLiberalPoverty 1 year ago
@NeoLiberalPoverty good troll man
or at least I hope so.
zogworth 1 year ago
@zogworth
What's a troll?
NeoLiberalPoverty 1 year ago
@NeoLiberalPoverty ur mom. oh!
silverbluejc 1 year ago
@silverbluejc
YOUR mother.
NeoLiberalism created world poverty. Do you not know this??
Watch the movie. "End of Poverty". Liberals in their own words. I dare you.
NeoLiberalPoverty 1 year ago
@NeoLiberalPoverty Neo-liberalism is unfettered Capitalism... *sigh
MegaDoug68 11 months ago
@NeoLiberalPoverty Glenn Beck didn't even finish college and you think he is some sort of economic wizard... Get a life you retard.
MaudsPas 10 months ago
@MaudsPas
Lots of people who don't finish college understand economics perfectly well. I have my degree in economics, but I still recognize that the majority of what I learned was nonsense, and it certainly doesn't take a college educated person to recognize this. All it takes is a level head.
OpenYourMindQuaid 7 months ago
I didn't know how slight of frame Mr. Gladwell wasa
1844Freddy 1 year ago
Those people used to spend a huge amount of time on tax breaks to hider their income.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
The 1950 and 60"s is when stock options for compensation laws really took off. He never mentions any numbers as what a CEO in the 1950's make. Never said anything about percentage tax per gdp that the gov took in. People have a threshold of taxes they will pay. Individual income taxes have been 7.1 to 9.2 from 1944 to current.
Historical Source of Revenue, tax policy center.
Historical Trends in Executive Compensation
1936-2003
Carola Frydman* and Raven E. Saks**
VARITHMS 1 year ago
To the 46 people who voted "Dislike" I gotta ask: What is your problem with Reality 101?
You really believe the rich are the source of everything good that has ever happened to this country?
BTW, why do you "believe", instead of OBSERVING and THINKING? It usually works better at problem solving.
Mtl4us2 1 year ago
@Mtl4us2 you really think the rich are the source of everything bad that has ever happened to this country?
nobody thinks that the rich are the source of everything bad. people think that nothing good will come from someone going around saying "you don't deserve that!!!"
JAROSLAVAGINA 1 year ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA
The idiot that writes this kind of insipid argument has no idea what this is saying, and instead is avoiding the real material and you points to "everybody's opinion" which has no basis on facts, nor does any of it make sense.
Instead of nobody, replace it with "I don't", people with "I"
P.S. if you don't think that people aren't always entitled to something, then go start an anarchist riot instead of wasting our time with this horrendous comment war.
dragunov3r 1 year ago
@dragunov3r
it should have read "nobody thinks that the rich are the source of everything good"
and people are entitled to only what they earn through honest labor. nothing more. nothing less.
JAROSLAVAGINA 1 year ago
@JAROSLAVAGINA They might not be the source of everything bad, but they try their best to take away the good.
hojima 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hojima you must be talking about politicians.
JAROSLAVAGINA 1 year ago
I like how he assumes that every retired millionaire in the room came from a rich family. This is an interesting insight into why progressives think the way they do.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elsquibbs You're just jealous you can and will never be like him. By the way, what the hell is a "progressive" ?
Meowbay 1 year ago 4
@elsquibbs And by the way, he doesn't assume that.
Meowbay 1 year ago 5
@elsquibbs I like how you just made that shit up, literally just pulled it out of your idiot fucking ass, because its nowhere in the video. But why not be a lying douchebag; you're already a shit for brains?
eirefrance 1 year ago
@eirefrance
"Their parents paid that kind of tax rate. And maybe they were upset about it, but they didn't form a tea party... They also understood that their country had incurred certain obligations that had to be paid for and that as the wealthiest people in the country, they were the ones best positioned to help pay for that." speaking about the old tax rate on the rich. Context.
While you're looking up the definition of "context," take a minute and look up "literally" as well, genius.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@elsquibbs While I'm literally looking up the definition of literally, why don't you literally look up the definition of metaphor. Here, I'll help. elsquibbs has shit between his ears, so he literally can't understand when someone is using the word parent to refer to a previous generation of Americans. And while you're straining that pile of sewage to understand metaphor, you might want to look up statistics on social mobility in the USA, "genius".
eirefrance 1 year ago
@eirefrance
Ahh, the old metaphor excuse. That's quite a backtrack from "its nowhere in the video." Good one.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@elsquibbs True, but if I didn't backtrack, I'd have no defense against your overwhelming logic.
eirefrance 1 year ago
Having a personal income of over a million dollar a year corrupts any sane human being. It makes you think you have power you don't really have. It corrupts the environment, our future, your social bonds, your take on reality and it's ruining the income equality requirements of humanity on our planet in order to have it remain a nice place to live on.
Meowbay 1 year ago 2
@Meowbay
Christian fundamentalists say the same sort of shit about homosexuality. That's not real good company.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@elsquibbs Completely unrelated. And most of all, pretty stupid remark showing a lack of good arguments against what I wrote.
Meowbay 1 year ago 4
@Meowbay
Not really. Fundies say "homosexuality corrupts any sane human being. It corrupts the environment, our future, your social bonds, your take on reality." People who think they know how other people should live life irritate me, whether they're religious fundamentalists or otherwise. And yes, he DID assume they were rich, which is exactly what he meant by "their parents paid that kind of tax rate." If you need to find out what a progressive is, I'd suggest google.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@elsquibbs Except I'm not a "fundie", and you know it.
Meowbay 1 year ago
@Meowbay
I didn't say you were. I was pointing out that you are making a similar sort of argument. Zealots frame their morality in terms of a deity while progressives frame theirs in terms of the collective i.e. "It corrupts the environment, our future, your social bonds, your take on reality and it's ruining the income equality requirements of humanity on our planet in order to have it remain a nice place..." The result is the same: "I know what's best for you." Same shit, different bag.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe on wikipedia.. YouTube is not allowing me to post links, dont know why
Leobons 1 year ago
Gee, there was a high marginal tax rate and some good stuff happened at the same time. High taxes must be good. Yay! I'm an intellectual!
spamdude1 1 year ago 2
@spamdude1 Do you have evidence of the contrary?
JJFZ3000 1 year ago
america is going down the shitter.. Taxes must be raised, otherwise Americans should start learning Mandarin, because before we know it, we will become cheap labor for the rest of the world.
ubi1313 1 year ago
It's funny that people who are concerned that higher taxes = communism are the same people who actually want to go back to the 50's.
We're not even talking about going back to 91%. We're talking somewhere in the 40-ish% range.
phydodo 1 year ago
discredit the person, but don't listen to the facts. zombies indeed.
randomrob1968 1 year ago
He is not an economist? But an author? Just curious here, but where is his credibility?
84AMK 1 year ago
@84AMK Between 1940 - 1963 the lowest the tax rate got was 81%. The highest it got was 94%. That's historical fact. You don't need to be an economist to know that, or relay that information.
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka This is true. However, conveying a fact and postulating meaning are two different things. Relaying the fact that tax rates were what they were doesn't require credibility. Asserting that these tax rates were a good thing, beneficial to growth and perhaps something worth implementing today is something that only a qualified person should have the authority to say.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye Only a qualified person should have the authority to say?! So I take it you're not pro freedom of speech?
Certainly qualifications should be listened to, but having qualifications can often mean stuff all, and people without official qualifications can know quite a lot.
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
I didn't say right, I said authority. But I should still qualify.
"people without official qualifications can know quite a lot" - damn right. If only those with qualifications had their opinions considered then Einstein would never have revolutionized physics. The problem is Einstein didn't just assert, he constructed an irrefutable argument. But when someone like Gladwell asserts facts about economics, without full argument, people will & should ask "why should I listen to him"?
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye Absolutely, you should do that with people who have qualifications too, because sometimes (often) they just lie.
What he's saying runs in line with everything I'm seeing from the data, and is even in line with what the Wall Street Journal is saying - Lowering tax isn't good for immediate economic flow, while even programs like food stamps are.
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
Sometimes they do lie, it's true. But they'll quickly lose credibility and authority if they're caught out.
'immediate economic flow,'
Hmmm, are you sure they're not referring to stimulus? Because it's absolutely true that food stamps will have a more immediate flowing impact on the economy than tax cuts.
But as far as longer term economic flow, I think many would argue that tax cuts are the more effective policy.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye They may argue whatever they like, it's up to them to prove it now that we (as in my position) have evidence to support our case. There is no evidence that it has a positive long term impact.
As for Liars, I think you misjudge how hard it can be to get rid of particularly insidious lies like the ones people want to hear - ie. that tax cuts are good for the economy. :P Everyone likes tax cuts, even if it slits their throats long term.
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
I must respectfully disagree. Also, can I just clear up I don't think I belong to any 'camp' as such. I'm a skeptic with most things economic. I will tend to fall on the dominant theories of the day because they're dominant for a reason, but I'll freely admit they have their limitations. For eg. in the case of tax cuts. dominant theory would see high taxation as not only a significant disincentive, but removing money from long-tern productive ends/investment to fatten govnt. I'd agree.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye I didn't say you belong to it, rather than you're just in it at the moment. Quite often things are dominant because they're pushed by those with power. If you look at the people pushing the notion of trickle down economics does appear to be people with lots of money who have a great deal to gain from the agenda.
You also assume you have a corrupt Government, which I guess is fair enough in your case. The money can go back to the poor and middle class though - that's where I'd send it.
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
Not even necessarily corrupt. Merely inefficient.
And I'm personally not a big fan of redistributive economics. Engineering certain social outcomes has a poor track record from my vantage point.
You're also right to point out that ideas survive for their functionality rather than their inherent truth. In a roundabout way that's sort of what I was trying to say about authority and credibility. Who they are and why we should think they know best is important when anyone makes a claim.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye I dunno where this idea that governments CAN'T be efficient comes from. I'm sure there's no evidence to back that up.
Their functionality to the powerful, and especially their short term functionality.
From my point of view, redistributive economics works great if done properly, though specifically I think investment in infrastructure if the appropriate way to help support the middle class - which by the way makes the rich richer too in the long run.
shraka 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye Okay, fine, except he's talking about well-established facts. Its not like anything he is saying is even remotely controversial. The tax rate for the wealthiest WAS about 90%. The economy DID grow at some of the highest rates seen this century. The purchasing power of the middle class WAS higher. There isn't anything, I mean, literally, any single thing he says in this bit, that you can point to and say, prove it, Mr. Gladwell.
eirefrance 1 year ago
@eirefrance
0:34 - 1:00
He says taxes were high (true), and he says it was a period of unmatched growth (true).
But he also says that growth was _the result_ of these taxes. This is not, as far as I know, established fact. So to what he says at 0:34, I would indeed point to and say "prove it, Mr. Gladwell"
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye He doesn't imply that in any way shape or form. "What happened as a result of that" is a rhetorical question, you can figure that out, c'mon. He says "you can't point to a single thing that went wrong as result of that tax rate". Thats all.
eirefrance 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye I think that it's fairly logical to say that high tax rates did not do bad things to the economy, and that they contributed to the positive growth - even though he didn't say that. It's up to you (or your camp rather) to prove that observation wrong at this point - considering your opponents have proof (even if it is shaky, should make it easy for you to knock over though).
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
Well I don't think he has proof, that is my point. I feel like the burden of proof still lies in his hands. Saying that two things were happening at the same time does not mean they were causally related.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye It does indicate that higher taxes in combination with other efforts do not cripple your economy. Your own argument can be turned against you too, do you have proof that low taxes (specifically on the rich) create better living conditions for the poor and middle class? When you consider 'real' wages stopped going up in the 70s (look it up) and since then household debt has sky-rocketed despite productivity per employee going up it seems the rich are just ripping everyone off.
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
'do not cripple your economy' - that part of the argument I am comfortable with. Its the causal relation he implied that had me raise my eyebrows.
And no, I dont have proof. Only theory, maybe a touch of anecdotal evidence. As I said, I am not rooted in my views. Just what I have roughly espoused appears to me to be the most coherent, and thus persuasive, body of thought Ive come across. What you mention is worthy of research, and if points the other way maybe I'll change convictions :)
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye Glad to hear you're open to an alternative hypothesis.
Do a search in google images for:
"wages productivity graph" (1st image).
"real gross non residential investment graph nyt" (2nd image, New York Times)
"average U.S. wage adjusted for inflation" (1st image)
And:
watch?v=kxdfMs5lw3E
That should give you a good starting point - I'd give you better links and stuff but this is youtube and they don't allow links (or more than 500 chars).
shraka 1 year ago
@shraka
Will they let you send via PM?
I'll be honest, I'm not going to read and digest everyhting you send to me straight away so I can continue this debate in a timely manner. But I would very much like to have some resources I could graze on over the next few months.
It's up to you though; only if you can be bothered.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye
Why you walk away in the middle of discussion then go on to another?
Repeating the same thing to different people not going to make your point. Make your point by explain it.
If you can't explain it, it's time for you to change your opinion.
Unless, your job is to spread the misinformation and get paid for it.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@allgoo19
I told you that I wasn't going to explain a complicated model in 500 character text comments, and that if you weren't going to offer me an alternate hypothesis that I was no longer interested in speaking to you.
Offer me something, or go and find someone else to annoy with your inane questions.
Lazzzyeye 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lazzzyeye
"I told you that I wasn't going to explain .."
I'd have let you go if yo have been playing noice, that is.
After hearing, "Thick", "Stupid" etc. you are not going to walk away so easily from me.
Explain this.
*"1940-1970 economic boom was driven by innovation, says so in Solow model."--It was published in 1956
allgoo19 1 year ago
@Lazzzyeye
"I dont have proof. Only theory,.."
Funny, this is different from What I've been hearing from you. I thought you told me all your theory have facts to back it up?
In your conversation with shraka, you didn't bring up the Solow model the whole time and explain to him it caused the 1940-1970 economic boom.
Why?
allgoo19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lazzzyeye
*You are taking economics class--highly doubtful. anybody can claim without a proof in youtube
*"1940-1970 economic boom was driven by innovation, says so in Solow model."--It was published in 1956
*"Technological innovations were slowed down since 1970."-- Ridiculous claim.
allgoo19 1 year ago
@shraka Ok. But that wasn't really my concern. I only asked that because I was curious, that's all. Any author can gather up facts and write a book about it. I understand that we probably have opposing viewpoints about this but I would rather see research done by economists and experts within that field, not an author...
84AMK 1 year ago
@84AMK He isn't talking about his research. He's talking about the reception he received from a discussion. He's talking about how a sensible conversation on taxation can't even happen, because Republicans refuse to have a rational conversation about it.
eirefrance 1 year ago
10% of 2 million is still 200,000. You wouldn't have to worry about paying your mortgage. You could buy a house without a loan if you saved up for a couple years. Even better, you could live knowing that you helped the rest of your country. Hell, if I made 2 million back then I would be fine with 90% tax.
LudicrousTachyon 1 year ago
@LudicrousTachyon As I've said to others, that's not how income tax works. You're taxed 90% only on income over $2mill. Assume the lower tax brackets work out to about 50%, you actually get $1million a year + 10% of anything earned over $2mill.
So using my theoretical model, if you earned $4 mill a year, you'd get $1.2 mill in your pocket.
shraka 1 year ago
@LudicrousTachyon
Actually it's in brackets. It's only 90% for income above 2M. So it's a lot more than 200K.
JJFZ3000 1 year ago
@JJFZ3000 How unfortunate...
LudicrousTachyon 1 year ago
glad someone else finally talked about it
isawanangel2 1 year ago
how can you give one econ study more credence than all the others? Check the results of the austerity programs in Europe first. Even if your argument about the New Deal was true, it would only prove one thing- that only the even more massive government investment into the economy required by WWII ended it. As far as going back into the past with a "what would have been" theory, that is bad history and questionable economics at best.
roijax801 1 year ago
cool
a ForaTv video without some old crazy conservative
greenhell666 1 year ago
Social Fabric of US in 1950's? McCarthyism
You fund the government enough to support basic social services that is fine. You fund them too much and then they will make decision on what it can do with it.
AndrzejWLipski 1 year ago
I love his books, his writing, his way of thought. But god damn he is hard to look at and listen to.
ProtagonistNonTheist 1 year ago
personally I don't see why anyone would need more than 1 million a year salary. You can leave so nice for 1 mil a year. As for the very rich life style - it always seems dysfunctional to me. Dunno why, just seems somehow perverted. But then, I wasn't born into it, so maybe it's just a matter of perspective.
Fig1024 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is exactly why people should stick to only TALKING about what they KNOW about.
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago
Interesting video. should help me out with my campaign for anaheim city council
MrMickyMouth 1 year ago