@jrwel14 Not doubtful. Social security's own figures bear this out. Because a poor person starts work sooner, often works longer and because Social Security taxes are capped, it is highly regressive transfering wealth primarily from poor black men (who work longest and live shorter lives) to wealthy white women (who work least and live the longest).
it is chicanery for those of the elite svengrili/mesmerists to try, for sthe weak minded to take away thie basic servies pf SOCIAL SECURITY and MEICAID, and MEDICARE, no doubt the regressive greedmongering gold Calfworshippers have their way. Molech worshippers suck swine sphinchters
@BigKahunaz888 Milton Friedman was in support of a minimum income to replace the entire universe of the subsidies you mention, and other you do not, because he argued it was the least worst form of subsidies, since the cash goes through less "admins."
Obviously those from lower income backgrounds pay much less, and often nothing at all, in income taxes, so his "point" is absurd. Obviously the poor are the ones most eligible for education grants, so his "point" is absurd. Obviously higher education is NOT restricted to the middle or upper classes, so his "point" is absurd.
This weasel and his sycophants only approve of welfare when it subsidizes sloth, crime, and irresponsibility.
@PumpingSmashkins Social security is not paid for by income taxes, its paid for through a social security tax. Even the poorest still have to pay the social security tax regardless of whether they pay federal income tax.
@PumpingSmashkins I guess you didn't realize that this was taped some time ago, but since they're not teaching you debating skills at school, I'll have to surmise they left out temporal logistics as well.
@mstrhck I guess your comment makes sense to you, but given your obvious cataclysmic retardation, that really doesn't count for much. Perhaps you'd like to actually attempt something that at least remotely resembles a coherent response. I'll be waiting with admittedly not-bated breath.
@jrwel14 No. Class Warfare today is being done by politicians who blame the upper classes, saying that they are the one's responsible for the economic crisis when in fact it was the politician's own ineptitude that led to such a fallout.
@ndalum75 Most people in this country. Conservatives included, the polls show it. Want the Wealthy to pay their fare share. Including many of the wealthy. even Trump said several years ago. he would put a one time tax rate. Of 14-25% on those making over 10 million. The ones who don't want to? the GOP politicians. Tax rates are at a 50 year low compared to GDP.
@ndalum75 Most people in this country. Conservatives included, the polls show it. Want the Wealthy to pay their fare share. Including many of the wealthy. even Trump said several years ago. he would put a one time tax rate. Of 14-25% on those making over 10 million. The ones who don't want to? the GOP politicians. Tax rates are at a 50 year low compared to GDP.
@ndalum75 Just saying that others feel the same way. taxes now, are at one of the lowest in history. Only the last half of the 1920s at 25% and 1988-1990 at 28% were lower.
@jrwel14 Whatever the taxes were in the past, is irrelevant. We did not have to compete in a global economy in 1925. Today, we have by far the highest tax rates in the world, and that is a crucial factor in our economic malaise. Hell just look at Canada, it's practically a socialist country but they have a simple and LOW national tax rate, and they're about to cut it again down to 15%. Cut taxes and govt spending and this country will explode with economic activity.
@Success0527 In the past? As, during Bush's time< when he cut taxes twice, had 2 wars and started this huge debt? That past? We don't have the highest tax rates. Germany is one that does. And, is in better shape than we are. We are in the one of the lowest.
@jrwel14 Actually, the country with the highest tax burden on labor is Belgium. And yes, the US has lower taxes on labor income than almost ALL the OECD european countries for the AVERAGE worker. Your connection of taxes and how well Germany is doing is based on NO evidence at all.
@jrwel14 You can google "Taxing Wages - Information by Country" for tax on labor income. Now, there is NO evidence to make the connections you made for Germany though!
@jrwel14 Maybe they hate paying taxes because the government admins are so corrupt and inefficient! Also, Greece has very rigid labor markets, and in turn, high youth unemployment. Either way, they can't escape property or VAT taxes, which comprise a larger share for the middle and lower class there.
@FletchforFreedom Doubt that! Greece hates any taxes! There problem is taxes way too low. Look at the states. Under Clinton 39%. Bush 35%. 1924-1929 25%
@jrwel14 You're suffering from a correlation causation fallacy. It is absurd to argue that taxes are too low. The Great Depression was not caused by tax rates. It, like the current crisis was caused by Fed manipulation of the money supply. When Clinton raised taxes, it slowed the strong growth he inherited to the slowest post recession level in history and Bush's tax cuts helped escape that recession. The problem remains out-of-control unjustified spending.
@jrwel14 Taxes are too low? Remember that when taxes are high people simply cheat on taxes more. Take the 50's for example taxes were 50% but when you look at government spending as a percentage of GDP it was only 15% of the economy.
@kubaniski In the 1950s, taxes were at 91-92% throughout the decade. Last time the GOP had a balanced budget was in 1956 with 92% rates and the Federal Highway act. 2 things they hate now. better to let the roads go to pot. people always cheat at taxes.
@jrwel14 Actually they had a balanced budget during Clinton's second term, however that was mostly doe threw the artificial inflation of the economy which we are paying for now.
The issue is that people didn't pay that 50% as you can see looking at the government spending stats from that era the government only got a small portion of peoples total earnings.
@kubaniski "Doe" is a female deer. What 50% in the 1950s? IRS shows it was 91-92% You need to get educated. The 3 times taxes were at their lowest. 1924-1929 at 25% Depression. 1988-1990 at 28%, a recession. Now, at 35% a recession. We did better with the 1950s 91% that you seem to ignore.
@jrwel14 In the 's my grandfather had about 50% taxes. The rich aren't the only one who pay taxes.
Anyways you're ignoring historical context you also should note that the Federal Reserve at those times encouraged the markets to over-invest and thus caused misallocations of resources which caused the bubbles and subsequent busts.
I'll send you a vid explaining my point ok. It's titled: "Anti"bullshitman Likes Charts
@jrwel14 How has history shown that taxes can be to low. because from what you're putting forward it really doesn't say much past a correlation. You offer no real explaination on how low taxes cause recessions. Also under your reasoning eating more ice cream causes murder rates to go up.
@kubaniski You nuts try to twist the subject in a feeble attempt to win the discussion. but, you just show how clueless you really are! people have worked hard to make more money no matter how high the taxes are. Buffet said that a few months ago. Your attempt at reasoning proved how little you know.
Buffet doesn't pay income taxes. He mostly pay a capital gains taxes also most of the ntop income earners aren't billionaires.
What attempt at reasoning? I only pointed out the causal connection between the Feds creating bubbles and I questioned what causal forces from low income taxes lead to recessions.
@kubaniski Your icecream and murders reasoning. Fact is, the 3 times taxes were at their lowest. We has a Depression. A Recession in the early 1990s and a Recession now.While when taxes were far higher. the economy did better!
@jrwel14 every summer people eat more Ice cream. Every season people eat more ice cream they also kill more people!! Don't you see we need to make ice cream illegal so people won't kill each other!!
As for the GI bill that did likely have a direct positive affect, but what is not often mentioned is the reduction in federal regulation and involvement in the economy (that the Keynesians predicted would cause another recession) the spurred economic development because of released resources.
@kubaniski Will add this, pre-depression the top 1% made 23% of the income. From the 1950s to 1980, because of the GI bill and other such programs that helped more people better themselves,. The top 1% made 8-10%. Now, they make 24% . In the 1980s, the GOP lowered taxes. which helped create the 1% going back to pre-depression 23-24%.
@jrwel14 When including state taxes, the marginal rates can reach 50% depending on the state. Also, as a % of GDP (The number that matters), tax revenues are the roughly the same and fluctuate with the business cycle. In fact, revenues are HIGHER than when the top bracket was 91%. The high marginal rates were "window dressing" as Friedman put it.
When I first went to college, I did it with a loan from a private bank that was not subsidized by the federal government. I paid that loan back. My current federally subsidized student loans are not fully paid back. In a few more years, because of federal law, whatever amount I haven't paid back will be forgiven and the tax payers of America will be stuck with the bill.
Milton says that the people who start to work earlier (the poor) may contribute in taxes for longer periods of times while the richer contribute for less years. He forgot to mention though that the (rich)people that are college graduates make much more money in their jobs therefore paying more taxes and all added up they cover for their non working years tax-wisely.
all stupid persons who like milton friedmans ideology .... you know that his ideology is in an economy in a country already? nooo not a rich country... its in "chile" the country has a GDP per capita like the socialist country cuba but the gap between rich and poor is enormes, so if you are at the bottom of society in chile you are forever there... go read some books
not your stupid 400 years old ideology makes countries rich... it is the TECHNOLOGY.
@TheDenknach Friedman's ideology is economic freedom, voluntary exchange. Yes, technology does create wealth. But what provides the incentive to seek out new technology? Capitalism, more specifically, the profit motive. Free people given economic incentive to serve their fellow man. That environment of liberty, the opportunity for each man to pursue his individual self-interest, is what made America rich.
@fzqlcs nooo technology is blocked by the capitalism.... all the copyrights and patents are blocking the technologic growth.. thats why the medicine in africa cant be made cheap for everyone in africa... big capitalistic companies have the copy right on it so they let people die, instead of letting them get helped by their own hands.
you can compare technology to software... you can copy good technology like 10000000 times but in the capitalistic system they dont want you to do that.
@TheDenknach that's not capitalism, that's corrupt corporatism where copyright is nothing but government intervention that allows those who made the ideas keep the rights on how it's used.
A TRUE free market capitalistic run would have someone who can produce the same item BUT cheaper at the same time [at the same time won't get arrested since IP Laws would be banished]. If someone can create the same item and successfully sell, let 'em. The other person can just start creating another item.
My guess is that the top 25% pay at least 10 times as much tax dollars as the bottom 25% (pay no income tax). So, who cares if 10 times as many college kids come from the top 25%?
@cobrien1977 : you are right, the top does infact pay most all of taxes. Friedman is saying here that the lower income class goes to work and pays for social security while the middle and upper class kids go to tax subsidized school's which lower class is paying something into His point is lower class pays for s.s. while uppers class is being schooled.
he has a huge role in this mess mate. also im not the one who thinks classical thinking is what caused the mess so im not the idiot
also assuming that i dislike obama is purely because of his skin colour when i did not once mention any colour or race makes me think your the one who has a racist mind.
also, how do you know my skin colour to begin with? or do your racist mind constantly think that people who opposes obama are disliking him due to his skin colour
Your name says it all. Only a racist could have a dumb ass name like that on the internet. And if you're not racist with a political agenda, then your life sucks because your YOUTUBE name happens to be an Obama insult... who does that???
Obama is not the problem, he might be a weak cunt who does what others tell him to do but he's certainly not the center-figure of the problem(s).
so in your books, insult = racist! or is it when it only to come to obama. your just exposing yourself as a racist mate. also, do you know the colour of my skin?
another thing, i said obama is a major player in this mess. i did not say he is the centre of this mess whats so ever.
and please explain how the classica thinkers ruined the middle class? please explain or are you just going to call me racist for it
If you really cared you would look it up yourself MATE; it's called NEOLIBERALISM.
"Mate" is not a North American expression.
' classical thinkers' is a misleading term for 'obsolete' economic paradigms that are incompatible with our lifestyle right now.; unless you're well off and you're interested in squeezing more life out of the middle class.
Obama is not a major player 'bro'; He is just a paid actor who was hired to read off a teleprompter and deceive the public.
the only thing you have said in your last post is the terms i used nothing more. as for obama, do you support the policies he has implemented regardless whether he is a paid puppet or not?
also it is also called, classical economics, austrian economics, conservativism, libertarianism, classical liberalism ...... you can name it whatever you like, thats not the point.
Re Friedman's question "Who benefits?" at 0:23 :Primarily the people on the Academic Payroll;
Secondarily, money-lending/banks who sell students on debt, and the 35%(?) of students who choose their majors wisely;
Thirdly, the nation and communities of the 25%(?) of students who apply their education in a way that pronouncedly improves society more than if they'd pursued non-college-degree-required work;
Fourth, those in society that benefit by the indoctrination/conditioning of young people.
Milton Friedman is a right wing liar. Subsidized university education, does disproportionately help the upper class, but subsidized higher education also means better mobility for the underclass as money is not a barrier to it. If anything we should make higher education free for the poor and working class, and only make the middle and upper class pay the full price through loans or direct payment.
@Moionfire "He's a right wing liar" followed by stating that what he said was true. He said that education provides mobility for the poor, but that the poor that go to college now already have a certain personal quality which makes them more likely to succeed.
@poop2poop2 Middle class people are over represented in higher education, however free and subsidized higher education is beneficial to the lower class. Free/subsidized higher education increase mobility . The fact that the middle class gains stuff from it too doesn't contradict this. The gains the lower class receive offsets the "middle class subsidy."
@Moionfire Try telling that to someone in the bottom 10% tax bracket who will never go to college and yet still gets money taken out of their check to pay for a middle class kid to drink,party, and waste 4 (usually more) years so they can end up at the exact same or marginally better income level as their parents. It has been proven that poor people with drive and intelligence (i.e. the poor people you say are currently using the system) will be successful no matter what. They find ways to earn
I actually payed more for my calculus book ($30.00) than I payed for my entire enrollment fee ($28.00) for 14 units of instruction at a California junior college (resident tuition rates) back in the Fall of 1980. I never realized or appreciated at the time that lots of my fellow Californians were actually paying for me to go to school with their taxes. Otherwise I would surely have had to pay much, much more for my classes back then.
His comment about taxes payed by "the poor" subsidizing rich kid's education puzzled me too, as I've heard that "the poor" do not pay very much, if anything, in taxes. But then I remembered somebody saying that our California state lottery is effectively a tax on the poor, since so many of them play it, and a significant amount of taxes payed by lottery-winners are earmarked to pay for state school education programs.
i dont know about in his day, but the reson why is argument if flawed today is becuase 50% of people pay no federal income taxes. The people that dont pay are the lower classes.They are not being taxed, so therefore there money is not supporting other(richer) peoples education.
As for the social security aruement, he is not taking in account that social security is taxed based on how much you earn not your years of working.Richer people would put more money in not poorer people
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp He didn't use the words 'federal income tax'. Today, for 2010, a single person must pay taxes if their GROSS income is $9,350 or more. And while social security is 6.20% taken from your check, there is a wage base cap of $106,800 where no more is owed.
social security is meant to pay for your own retirement. If I put 500,000 dollars in, i should be getting 500,000 dollars out. That is its purpose. To force poor people to save for their own retirement. But what happens is the government spends the money on other shit and what will happen soon is that the government will tell people their to rich to receive their own money back.
the 9,350 thing does not change the fact that 50% of people dont pay a federal incomr tax.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I am guessing in his day the poor payed more tax than today. I would not have emphasized the poor to rich transfer so much as the non college educated to the college educated transfer. Many people who never went to college have modest but decent incomes. Why should a factory worker fresh out of high school have to pay for his classmates to go to college just so they can end up making more money than him. Thats not fair.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Forgive me if my facts are not totally spot on, but even in light of the poor skating on income tax, they could still be paying for education by other methods, such as having to pay a toll to go to work, or a sales tax.
Also, the poor play the lottery alot, which is essentially a tax on the poor and stupid. My old state had a lottery, and was used to fund state scholarship program.
I am not sure where to find the data on how much they are paying though.
(Continued) and so when college applications drop because someone cannot afford to go to that college (and don't kid yourself, colleges want as many people applying as possible to say that they accept so many out of all the applications), the colleges will adjust their prices & quality to meet customer demands.
When I say doable, I mean if an 18 - 19 year old of any socio-economic group can live at home, work full-time during the summer, part-time the rest of the year, find a college that they can afford, get a degree (like a degree in IT - Administration) in something to earn more money to earn their way to a more expensive college. All the while, the student knows the value of the dollar and then cares about the quality of education. The consumer always sets the price in a free market (Cont.)
I used to believe in Pell Grants because #1. I believe that the poor and not asking for dependency but a way of becoming independent (and I still believe this) and #2. I used them in my last semester of college. I no longer believe we should have Pell Grants because it is one of many reasons why colleges are not truly a free market system. With much thought, I have come to the conclusion that college will be a free market when students earn their tuition & book money ahead of time. Its doable
The biggest transfers of wealth are from the middle class to the upper classes. When we bailed out the banks who benefited? The banksters and people who owned stock in banks. Don't forget the $300 billion farm bill which steers billions towards agri-corporations, benefiting their shareholders. Obama defends Wall St, not the dollar. And don't forget inflation, the hidden tax.
This video is so true I don't even know where to start from... I came from a highschool with a very sharp polarity between classes - the 'elite' (teens from families that literally control my country), and the rest...And I'm pretty sure I'm 100% accurate when I say that I'm THE ONLY graduate from a low-income-family that has the grades to apply to the academy because I had the potential and motivation.The rest are of course those elitist multi-millionaires' children.But no one else from my class
The state funds higher education primarily for control. If they simply wanted to help bright poor children they'd just offer competitive scholarships.
Yes, but our political class clings to the fiction that college is for everyone. Rahm Emanuel, when he was still in the House, wanted to make education compulsory until age 19, so everyone would get some college. He must never have spent time in a pubic high school filled with 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds who don't want to be there. Our public schools spend enormous resources trying to coerce the unwilling. Education is a privilege and should be earned, at all levels.
@Lemnirot They believe that all of them are bright and that it's only the evil rich that makes them poor. If they assumed that it's only some of the poor that could be great they would have to ask themselves what they did to deserve the privileges they have. They will never do that.
@Lemnirot in my opinion the school system should become privatized and the government should give everyone some amount of money that pays for whatever school they choose to go to. that way schools have incentive to become better schools and teach better. look at how good our colleges are, and look at how bad our schools are. the only difference is government
Freidman is NOT the "know all" that Conservatives want to believe!
jrwel14 12 hours ago
So, a poor person because he starts to work sooner pays more than a middle class person? Even though the poor person makes far less? Doubtful!
jrwel14 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 Not doubtful. Social security's own figures bear this out. Because a poor person starts work sooner, often works longer and because Social Security taxes are capped, it is highly regressive transfering wealth primarily from poor black men (who work longest and live shorter lives) to wealthy white women (who work least and live the longest).
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
Leona Helmsley said 'Taxes are for the Little people."
jrwel14 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 Yea and that ridiculous canrd keeps getting repeated as it it has any connection to reality.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@PumpingSmashkins - You should know better than to split infinitives while on the high horse. You might fall and hurt yourself. :-)
MattDay2u 1 week ago
TRUTH BOMB by Milton Friedman
stebecool 1 month ago
it is chicanery for those of the elite svengrili/mesmerists to try, for sthe weak minded to take away thie basic servies pf SOCIAL SECURITY and MEICAID, and MEDICARE, no doubt the regressive greedmongering gold Calfworshippers have their way. Molech worshippers suck swine sphinchters
BigKahunaz888 1 month ago
@BigKahunaz888 Milton Friedman was in support of a minimum income to replace the entire universe of the subsidies you mention, and other you do not, because he argued it was the least worst form of subsidies, since the cash goes through less "admins."
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
Milton Friedman is my hero!
wadehickok 2 months ago
Obviously those from lower income backgrounds pay much less, and often nothing at all, in income taxes, so his "point" is absurd. Obviously the poor are the ones most eligible for education grants, so his "point" is absurd. Obviously higher education is NOT restricted to the middle or upper classes, so his "point" is absurd.
This weasel and his sycophants only approve of welfare when it subsidizes sloth, crime, and irresponsibility.
PumpingSmashkins 2 months ago
@PumpingSmashkins Social security is not paid for by income taxes, its paid for through a social security tax. Even the poorest still have to pay the social security tax regardless of whether they pay federal income tax.
aaron54880 2 months ago 14
@PumpingSmashkins I guess you didn't realize that this was taped some time ago, but since they're not teaching you debating skills at school, I'll have to surmise they left out temporal logistics as well.
mstrhck 2 months ago
@mstrhck I guess your comment makes sense to you, but given your obvious cataclysmic retardation, that really doesn't count for much. Perhaps you'd like to actually attempt something that at least remotely resembles a coherent response. I'll be waiting with admittedly not-bated breath.
PumpingSmashkins 1 month ago
forget Mozart
Armando7654 2 months ago
Class warfare is being done BY the rich against the middle class.
jrwel14 3 months ago
@jrwel14 No. Class Warfare today is being done by politicians who blame the upper classes, saying that they are the one's responsible for the economic crisis when in fact it was the politician's own ineptitude that led to such a fallout.
ndalum75 2 months ago
@ndalum75 No. Class warfare, is being done by the rich against the middle class, Several of the wealthy have said so.
jrwel14 2 months ago
@jrwel14 Than why I am I always hearing how the rich need to pay their fair share from the White House?
ndalum75 2 months ago
@ndalum75 Most people in this country. Conservatives included, the polls show it. Want the Wealthy to pay their fare share. Including many of the wealthy. even Trump said several years ago. he would put a one time tax rate. Of 14-25% on those making over 10 million. The ones who don't want to? the GOP politicians. Tax rates are at a 50 year low compared to GDP.
jrwel14 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndalum75 Most people in this country. Conservatives included, the polls show it. Want the Wealthy to pay their fare share. Including many of the wealthy. even Trump said several years ago. he would put a one time tax rate. Of 14-25% on those making over 10 million. The ones who don't want to? the GOP politicians. Tax rates are at a 50 year low compared to GDP.
jrwel14 2 months ago
@ndalum75 Just saying that others feel the same way. taxes now, are at one of the lowest in history. Only the last half of the 1920s at 25% and 1988-1990 at 28% were lower.
jrwel14 2 months ago
@jrwel14 Whatever the taxes were in the past, is irrelevant. We did not have to compete in a global economy in 1925. Today, we have by far the highest tax rates in the world, and that is a crucial factor in our economic malaise. Hell just look at Canada, it's practically a socialist country but they have a simple and LOW national tax rate, and they're about to cut it again down to 15%. Cut taxes and govt spending and this country will explode with economic activity.
Success0527 2 months ago
@Success0527 In the past? As, during Bush's time< when he cut taxes twice, had 2 wars and started this huge debt? That past? We don't have the highest tax rates. Germany is one that does. And, is in better shape than we are. We are in the one of the lowest.
jrwel14 2 months ago
@jrwel14 Actually, the country with the highest tax burden on labor is Belgium. And yes, the US has lower taxes on labor income than almost ALL the OECD european countries for the AVERAGE worker. Your connection of taxes and how well Germany is doing is based on NO evidence at all.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo What? Where's your evidence?
jrwel14 1 month ago
@jrwel14 You can google "Taxing Wages - Information by Country" for tax on labor income. Now, there is NO evidence to make the connections you made for Germany though!
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo I have. Found that what conservatives say about cutting taxes creates jobs is a big lie.
jrwel14 1 month ago
@jrwel14 Which taxes? Why did the German government cut taxes over the past 10 years, because they are liars, or fooling themselves?
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo Why is greece in such big trouble? Because they hate paying taxes!
jrwel14 1 month ago
@jrwel14 Maybe they hate paying taxes because the government admins are so corrupt and inefficient! Also, Greece has very rigid labor markets, and in turn, high youth unemployment. Either way, they can't escape property or VAT taxes, which comprise a larger share for the middle and lower class there.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@NoProbaloAmigo everyone hates paying taxes. But, taxes are needed.
jrwel14 1 month ago
@jrwel14 Of course! I'm not an anarchist! But market mechanisms have a much better record.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 month ago
@jrwel14 Why? Greece is in the problem it is because of unsustainable spending (all of which is economically bad) not because taxes are too low.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom Doubt that! Greece hates any taxes! There problem is taxes way too low. Look at the states. Under Clinton 39%. Bush 35%. 1924-1929 25%
jrwel14 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 You're suffering from a correlation causation fallacy. It is absurd to argue that taxes are too low. The Great Depression was not caused by tax rates. It, like the current crisis was caused by Fed manipulation of the money supply. When Clinton raised taxes, it slowed the strong growth he inherited to the slowest post recession level in history and Bush's tax cuts helped escape that recession. The problem remains out-of-control unjustified spending.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@jrwel14 Taxes are too low? Remember that when taxes are high people simply cheat on taxes more. Take the 50's for example taxes were 50% but when you look at government spending as a percentage of GDP it was only 15% of the economy.
kubaniski 1 day ago in playlist Milton Friedman - Understanding Economics
@kubaniski In the 1950s, taxes were at 91-92% throughout the decade. Last time the GOP had a balanced budget was in 1956 with 92% rates and the Federal Highway act. 2 things they hate now. better to let the roads go to pot. people always cheat at taxes.
jrwel14 1 day ago
@jrwel14 There were also farrrrrr more deductions in those times and no one paid those rates.
TheScyy 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jrwel14 There were also farrrrrr more deductions in those times and no one paid those rates.
TheScyy 1 day ago
@jrwel14 Actually they had a balanced budget during Clinton's second term, however that was mostly doe threw the artificial inflation of the economy which we are paying for now.
The issue is that people didn't pay that 50% as you can see looking at the government spending stats from that era the government only got a small portion of peoples total earnings.
Also look up the Laffer curve.
kubaniski 1 day ago
@kubaniski "Doe" is a female deer. What 50% in the 1950s? IRS shows it was 91-92% You need to get educated. The 3 times taxes were at their lowest. 1924-1929 at 25% Depression. 1988-1990 at 28%, a recession. Now, at 35% a recession. We did better with the 1950s 91% that you seem to ignore.
jrwel14 18 hours ago
@jrwel14 In the 's my grandfather had about 50% taxes. The rich aren't the only one who pay taxes.
Anyways you're ignoring historical context you also should note that the Federal Reserve at those times encouraged the markets to over-invest and thus caused misallocations of resources which caused the bubbles and subsequent busts.
I'll send you a vid explaining my point ok. It's titled: "Anti"bullshitman Likes Charts
kubaniski 18 hours ago
@kubaniski Never said the rich are. But, the top marginal tax rates were 91-92% Google top marginal tax rates.
jrwel14 17 hours ago
@jrwel14 I know that the top tax rate was higher then it's just that I don't really care too much as I would not have been in that category.
kubaniski 17 hours ago
@kubaniski Still taxes were higher and the country did better than now at 35%. taxes can be too low.
jrwel14 17 hours ago
@jrwel14 no they can't. Taxes can never be to low. Also like I said you're ignoring the role of the Federal Reserve in this matter.
kubaniski 17 hours ago
@kubaniski Taxes can be TOO low. History has shown it to be true!
jrwel14 12 hours ago
@jrwel14 How has history shown that taxes can be to low. because from what you're putting forward it really doesn't say much past a correlation. You offer no real explaination on how low taxes cause recessions. Also under your reasoning eating more ice cream causes murder rates to go up.
kubaniski 12 hours ago
@kubaniski You nuts try to twist the subject in a feeble attempt to win the discussion. but, you just show how clueless you really are! people have worked hard to make more money no matter how high the taxes are. Buffet said that a few months ago. Your attempt at reasoning proved how little you know.
jrwel14 12 hours ago
@jrwel14 I can call you a poopybutt too..
Buffet doesn't pay income taxes. He mostly pay a capital gains taxes also most of the ntop income earners aren't billionaires.
What attempt at reasoning? I only pointed out the causal connection between the Feds creating bubbles and I questioned what causal forces from low income taxes lead to recessions.
kubaniski 11 hours ago
@kubaniski Your icecream and murders reasoning. Fact is, the 3 times taxes were at their lowest. We has a Depression. A Recession in the early 1990s and a Recession now.While when taxes were far higher. the economy did better!
jrwel14 10 hours ago
@jrwel14 every summer people eat more Ice cream. Every season people eat more ice cream they also kill more people!! Don't you see we need to make ice cream illegal so people won't kill each other!!
As for the GI bill that did likely have a direct positive affect, but what is not often mentioned is the reduction in federal regulation and involvement in the economy (that the Keynesians predicted would cause another recession) the spurred economic development because of released resources.
kubaniski 10 hours ago
@kubaniski Will add this, pre-depression the top 1% made 23% of the income. From the 1950s to 1980, because of the GI bill and other such programs that helped more people better themselves,. The top 1% made 8-10%. Now, they make 24% . In the 1980s, the GOP lowered taxes. which helped create the 1% going back to pre-depression 23-24%.
jrwel14 10 hours ago
@jrwel14 When including state taxes, the marginal rates can reach 50% depending on the state. Also, as a % of GDP (The number that matters), tax revenues are the roughly the same and fluctuate with the business cycle. In fact, revenues are HIGHER than when the top bracket was 91%. The high marginal rates were "window dressing" as Friedman put it.
NoProbaloAmigo 15 hours ago
@NoProbaloAmigo No such thing! The CBO has said that a tax cut would cause the country to suffer and borrowing MORE would be needed.
jrwel14 12 hours ago
@jrwel14 You are simply wrong about your argument on tax brackets.
NoProbaloAmigo 15 hours ago
@NoProbaloAmigo Facts show I am not wrong
jrwel14 12 hours ago
When I first went to college, I did it with a loan from a private bank that was not subsidized by the federal government. I paid that loan back. My current federally subsidized student loans are not fully paid back. In a few more years, because of federal law, whatever amount I haven't paid back will be forgiven and the tax payers of America will be stuck with the bill.
buisyman 3 months ago
i'm a first year economic student and I don't understand fully what he's always talking about
but i'm rewinding it over and over until I get it :)
ngtobzzz 3 months ago 3
Milton says that the people who start to work earlier (the poor) may contribute in taxes for longer periods of times while the richer contribute for less years. He forgot to mention though that the (rich)people that are college graduates make much more money in their jobs therefore paying more taxes and all added up they cover for their non working years tax-wisely.
anna45333 3 months ago
all stupid persons who like milton friedmans ideology .... you know that his ideology is in an economy in a country already? nooo not a rich country... its in "chile" the country has a GDP per capita like the socialist country cuba but the gap between rich and poor is enormes, so if you are at the bottom of society in chile you are forever there... go read some books
not your stupid 400 years old ideology makes countries rich... it is the TECHNOLOGY.
TheDenknach 3 months ago
@TheDenknach Friedman's ideology is economic freedom, voluntary exchange. Yes, technology does create wealth. But what provides the incentive to seek out new technology? Capitalism, more specifically, the profit motive. Free people given economic incentive to serve their fellow man. That environment of liberty, the opportunity for each man to pursue his individual self-interest, is what made America rich.
fzqlcs 3 months ago
@fzqlcs nooo technology is blocked by the capitalism.... all the copyrights and patents are blocking the technologic growth.. thats why the medicine in africa cant be made cheap for everyone in africa... big capitalistic companies have the copy right on it so they let people die, instead of letting them get helped by their own hands.
you can compare technology to software... you can copy good technology like 10000000 times but in the capitalistic system they dont want you to do that.
TheDenknach 3 months ago
@TheDenknach that's not capitalism, that's corrupt corporatism where copyright is nothing but government intervention that allows those who made the ideas keep the rights on how it's used.
A TRUE free market capitalistic run would have someone who can produce the same item BUT cheaper at the same time [at the same time won't get arrested since IP Laws would be banished]. If someone can create the same item and successfully sell, let 'em. The other person can just start creating another item.
kmelfina 3 months ago
My guess is that the top 25% pay at least 10 times as much tax dollars as the bottom 25% (pay no income tax). So, who cares if 10 times as many college kids come from the top 25%?
I'm not following Friedman here.
cobrien1977 3 months ago
@cobrien1977 : you are right, the top does infact pay most all of taxes. Friedman is saying here that the lower income class goes to work and pays for social security while the middle and upper class kids go to tax subsidized school's which lower class is paying something into His point is lower class pays for s.s. while uppers class is being schooled.
pmango1000 3 months ago
that is all incorrect !!
AN ENGINEER PAYS OF HIS EDUCATION THREE TIMES BY PAYING TAXES !
an IT specialist pays off 4 times.
the poor are not subsidize the rich, professionals pay off !themselves to the state !!
zloben9000 3 months ago
THE CHICAGO SCHOOL.... you've ruined America !
xudnoxaj 4 months ago
@xudnoxaj
yiu mean the Chicago gangsters like obama
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
If you think Obama is responsible for this then you're either
1) An idiot
2) A racist with an agenda
or possibly
3) Both
Chicago School = Chicago school of economics
xudnoxaj 4 months ago
@xudnoxaj
he has a huge role in this mess mate. also im not the one who thinks classical thinking is what caused the mess so im not the idiot
also assuming that i dislike obama is purely because of his skin colour when i did not once mention any colour or race makes me think your the one who has a racist mind.
also, how do you know my skin colour to begin with? or do your racist mind constantly think that people who opposes obama are disliking him due to his skin colour
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
lol my grammar sucked
sorry bout that ..... kinda rushed it a bit @xudnoxaj
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
Your name says it all. Only a racist could have a dumb ass name like that on the internet. And if you're not racist with a political agenda, then your life sucks because your YOUTUBE name happens to be an Obama insult... who does that???
Obama is not the problem, he might be a weak cunt who does what others tell him to do but he's certainly not the center-figure of the problem(s).
The Chicago School Ruined America's middle class.
xudnoxaj 4 months ago
@xudnoxaj
u mad bro?
why so racist?
so in your books, insult = racist! or is it when it only to come to obama. your just exposing yourself as a racist mate. also, do you know the colour of my skin?
another thing, i said obama is a major player in this mess. i did not say he is the centre of this mess whats so ever.
and please explain how the classica thinkers ruined the middle class? please explain or are you just going to call me racist for it
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
If you really cared you would look it up yourself MATE; it's called NEOLIBERALISM.
"Mate" is not a North American expression.
' classical thinkers' is a misleading term for 'obsolete' economic paradigms that are incompatible with our lifestyle right now.; unless you're well off and you're interested in squeezing more life out of the middle class.
Obama is not a major player 'bro'; He is just a paid actor who was hired to read off a teleprompter and deceive the public.
xudnoxaj 4 months ago
@xudnoxaj
how so ....... you never explained how
the only thing you have said in your last post is the terms i used nothing more. as for obama, do you support the policies he has implemented regardless whether he is a paid puppet or not?
also it is also called, classical economics, austrian economics, conservativism, libertarianism, classical liberalism ...... you can name it whatever you like, thats not the point.
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
NEOLIBERALISM and AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS are not the same thing.
I thought you actually knew something about economics.
xudnoxaj 4 months ago
@xudnoxaj
word police ...... is that all you have?
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
@YESobamaCANfuckupUSA
well, you're mixing apples and oranges.
Neoliberalism and Neoclassical economics are not the same thing.
My original statement was aimed at THE CHICAGO SCHOOL and their NEOLIBERAL policies.
do us all a favor and look up neoliberalism.
xudnoxaj 4 months ago
Pay for it later! Bingo...
Sres1 4 months ago
Re Friedman's question "Who benefits?" at 0:23 :Primarily the people on the Academic Payroll;
Secondarily, money-lending/banks who sell students on debt, and the 35%(?) of students who choose their majors wisely;
Thirdly, the nation and communities of the 25%(?) of students who apply their education in a way that pronouncedly improves society more than if they'd pursued non-college-degree-required work;
Fourth, those in society that benefit by the indoctrination/conditioning of young people.
NewEnglandCivitas 5 months ago
Milton Friedman is a right wing liar. Subsidized university education, does disproportionately help the upper class, but subsidized higher education also means better mobility for the underclass as money is not a barrier to it. If anything we should make higher education free for the poor and working class, and only make the middle and upper class pay the full price through loans or direct payment.
Moionfire 6 months ago
@Moionfire "He's a right wing liar" followed by stating that what he said was true. He said that education provides mobility for the poor, but that the poor that go to college now already have a certain personal quality which makes them more likely to succeed.
poop2poop2 6 months ago
@poop2poop2 Middle class people are over represented in higher education, however free and subsidized higher education is beneficial to the lower class. Free/subsidized higher education increase mobility . The fact that the middle class gains stuff from it too doesn't contradict this. The gains the lower class receive offsets the "middle class subsidy."
Moionfire 6 months ago
@Moionfire Try telling that to someone in the bottom 10% tax bracket who will never go to college and yet still gets money taken out of their check to pay for a middle class kid to drink,party, and waste 4 (usually more) years so they can end up at the exact same or marginally better income level as their parents. It has been proven that poor people with drive and intelligence (i.e. the poor people you say are currently using the system) will be successful no matter what. They find ways to earn
poop2poop2 6 months ago
@poop2poop2
lol your too good bro
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 4 months ago
Remarkable insights that still hold true, Friedman was a true scholar
jrikus 7 months ago 12
I wish so much that this kind of reason was discussed among our government.
jtizz711 7 months ago
I actually payed more for my calculus book ($30.00) than I payed for my entire enrollment fee ($28.00) for 14 units of instruction at a California junior college (resident tuition rates) back in the Fall of 1980. I never realized or appreciated at the time that lots of my fellow Californians were actually paying for me to go to school with their taxes. Otherwise I would surely have had to pay much, much more for my classes back then.
rredhawk2 7 months ago
His comment about taxes payed by "the poor" subsidizing rich kid's education puzzled me too, as I've heard that "the poor" do not pay very much, if anything, in taxes. But then I remembered somebody saying that our California state lottery is effectively a tax on the poor, since so many of them play it, and a significant amount of taxes payed by lottery-winners are earmarked to pay for state school education programs.
rredhawk2 7 months ago
@rredhawk2 Although I think it's fair to say that the lottery is a voluntary tax.
shamgar001 7 months ago
@shamgar001 Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
rredhawk2 7 months ago
@rredhawk2
the lottery is not a tax at all. Its a game they choose to play. Its optional, not a tax on the poor
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 7 months ago
THE INSTITUTION OF DISCRIMINATION IN ANY FORM/KIND SHOULDN'T BE ORDAINED. EQUALITY TO ALL.
KEVLANEW80 7 months ago
The arguments stand up
TheMissouriRecord 7 months ago
Hey maybe the first time i didn't disagree with Milton's premise after his initial argument. Keep it up.
bungerman1000 7 months ago
@bungerman1000
i dont know about in his day, but the reson why is argument if flawed today is becuase 50% of people pay no federal income taxes. The people that dont pay are the lower classes.They are not being taxed, so therefore there money is not supporting other(richer) peoples education.
As for the social security aruement, he is not taking in account that social security is taxed based on how much you earn not your years of working.Richer people would put more money in not poorer people
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 7 months ago 2
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp He didn't use the words 'federal income tax'. Today, for 2010, a single person must pay taxes if their GROSS income is $9,350 or more. And while social security is 6.20% taken from your check, there is a wage base cap of $106,800 where no more is owed.
magus4u29 7 months ago
@magus4u29
social security is meant to pay for your own retirement. If I put 500,000 dollars in, i should be getting 500,000 dollars out. That is its purpose. To force poor people to save for their own retirement. But what happens is the government spends the money on other shit and what will happen soon is that the government will tell people their to rich to receive their own money back.
the 9,350 thing does not change the fact that 50% of people dont pay a federal incomr tax.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 7 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I am guessing in his day the poor payed more tax than today. I would not have emphasized the poor to rich transfer so much as the non college educated to the college educated transfer. Many people who never went to college have modest but decent incomes. Why should a factory worker fresh out of high school have to pay for his classmates to go to college just so they can end up making more money than him. Thats not fair.
rrp1973 7 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Forgive me if my facts are not totally spot on, but even in light of the poor skating on income tax, they could still be paying for education by other methods, such as having to pay a toll to go to work, or a sales tax.
Also, the poor play the lottery alot, which is essentially a tax on the poor and stupid. My old state had a lottery, and was used to fund state scholarship program.
I am not sure where to find the data on how much they are paying though.
aldoreshgaramok 3 months ago
divided we fall
TEX10261 7 months ago
(Continued) and so when college applications drop because someone cannot afford to go to that college (and don't kid yourself, colleges want as many people applying as possible to say that they accept so many out of all the applications), the colleges will adjust their prices & quality to meet customer demands.
MrConservative608 7 months ago 2
"The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." - Bastiat
residentzombie 7 months ago 12
When I say doable, I mean if an 18 - 19 year old of any socio-economic group can live at home, work full-time during the summer, part-time the rest of the year, find a college that they can afford, get a degree (like a degree in IT - Administration) in something to earn more money to earn their way to a more expensive college. All the while, the student knows the value of the dollar and then cares about the quality of education. The consumer always sets the price in a free market (Cont.)
MrConservative608 7 months ago 2
I used to believe in Pell Grants because #1. I believe that the poor and not asking for dependency but a way of becoming independent (and I still believe this) and #2. I used them in my last semester of college. I no longer believe we should have Pell Grants because it is one of many reasons why colleges are not truly a free market system. With much thought, I have come to the conclusion that college will be a free market when students earn their tuition & book money ahead of time. Its doable
MrConservative608 7 months ago
Hah! I beat this system by starting poor, getting fairly well off and then losing everything to be poor again!
Lets see your formula for that, Milt! Thanks for this, LibertyPen.
barrywilliamsmb 7 months ago
The biggest transfers of wealth are from the middle class to the upper classes. When we bailed out the banks who benefited? The banksters and people who owned stock in banks. Don't forget the $300 billion farm bill which steers billions towards agri-corporations, benefiting their shareholders. Obama defends Wall St, not the dollar. And don't forget inflation, the hidden tax.
megagagnon1 7 months ago 4
This video is so true I don't even know where to start from... I came from a highschool with a very sharp polarity between classes - the 'elite' (teens from families that literally control my country), and the rest...And I'm pretty sure I'm 100% accurate when I say that I'm THE ONLY graduate from a low-income-family that has the grades to apply to the academy because I had the potential and motivation.The rest are of course those elitist multi-millionaires' children.But no one else from my class
AlexNOSAM 7 months ago 2
Id like to see a Deadliest Warrior episode with Milton vs Krugmann. Even though i know the results, Milton wins.
shaqdaddy11 7 months ago 14
@shaqdaddy11
Not a fair comparison. Milton gets 99 in logic, Krugman only has 12.
flynn2008 7 months ago 3
People in Watts, probably don't pay income tax, for the most part.
oilhammer04 7 months ago
@oilhammer04 income tax? maybe not. but everyone who purchases products pay taxes in the form of corporate taxes, just a hidden cost
boristhepython 7 months ago
HA HA it is not social, and it is not security
darkwhitedirewolf 7 months ago 80
The state funds higher education primarily for control. If they simply wanted to help bright poor children they'd just offer competitive scholarships.
Lemnirot 7 months ago 62
@Lemnirot
Don't you care about "THE CHILDREN." Progressive liberals would go ape for that comment. But you hit the nail on the head.
flynn2008 7 months ago
@Lemnirot
Don't you care about the children? Oh, the poor children!
SeppLainer 7 months ago
@Lemnirot
Yes, but our political class clings to the fiction that college is for everyone. Rahm Emanuel, when he was still in the House, wanted to make education compulsory until age 19, so everyone would get some college. He must never have spent time in a pubic high school filled with 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds who don't want to be there. Our public schools spend enormous resources trying to coerce the unwilling. Education is a privilege and should be earned, at all levels.
EconomicLiteracyNow 7 months ago 5
@Lemnirot They believe that all of them are bright and that it's only the evil rich that makes them poor. If they assumed that it's only some of the poor that could be great they would have to ask themselves what they did to deserve the privileges they have. They will never do that.
john42t 7 months ago
@Lemnirot in my opinion the school system should become privatized and the government should give everyone some amount of money that pays for whatever school they choose to go to. that way schools have incentive to become better schools and teach better. look at how good our colleges are, and look at how bad our schools are. the only difference is government
KamikazeProd 3 months ago
@Lemnirot maybe they want to educate the masses... maybe
MrRazzeldazzel88 2 months ago