Man, I'm soo fortunate. I'm among the 14,000 or so people in the world- there are 7 billion of us, who have seen and heard this! What a great time to be alive!
I currently pay over 27% of my income in taxes, and that is before property tax and sales tax paid on items. I do not even make the median income in my area. The government steals tens of thousands from me every year, and it hurts very badly. There are so many things I could do with that money: find a house for my family, buy a newer, safer vehicle, buy health insurance, buy medicine and food supplements to keep us healthy, buy organic food for the same cause, etc. Instead, my taxes are sent to Ukraine to fight wars the US provoked, to fund abortions and sodomy promotion, to fund a dependent class who refuses use their skills and work, to fund education systems that wish me and my values annihilated, and so endlessly on and on. It is a true crime, and Americans need to finally rise up and say enough.
More like Fair slavery. In order to take part of a person's earnings, you have to own the person. That is why land should be the only thing that is taxed, because that is the only thing that the people of a Nation can own in a democracy, and they simply can sell exclusive usage rights at what they considered to be a fair price that outweighs their value on keeping it public.
@@SovereignStatesman, Land Value Tax is stupid. It basically means you can never own land as you are paying rent to the government on property you supposedly already own.
The federal income tax was originally a tax on “federal” income, not all income. It was made to tax privileged positions working for the federal government. Before the 1940s, less than 5% of American households paid tax to the federal government. Somewhere along the way, the IRS convinced Americans that they owed tax when they did not, and the whole modern income tax scheme was born. I highly suggest Peter Hendrickson’s book “Cracking the Code” to learn the truth about the income tax.
Business has never paid a tax,humans pay that tax.Employees pay,stock holders pay consumers pay so taxing corporations is total nonsense and we ultimately all pay
@CurtHowland Completely agree. How can there be such a thing as a fair tax? What is fair about a group of people called the "government" stealing any amount of money from innocent individuals?
Billions for homeless in California. Billions for a state water project in California. The result is the same: nothing is accomplished and the money vanishes.
@shamgar001 The IRS would be bigger, and more intrusive. Right now, if you have a "job" and report that, they pretty much leave you alone to buy and sell and barter. Under a "sales tax" such barter would have to be illegal, investigated, and prosecuted. That means having agents empowered to crawl even deeper into people's lives in order to prosecute tax evasion. So no, the IRS will not be eliminated. And, likely, we'll get BOTH taxes.
Tragically, the vast majority of people will spend hours on facebook, etc, rather than taking the time to view/listen to this talk. As a consequence, they become vulnerable to the lies of politicians.
Tax loopholes allow politicians to increase tax rates on the majority, without harming their supporters. Without loopholes, there would be less support for tax increases.
In modern terms, free trade only works if you actually exchange goods and services. If you are not producing anything and simply sending fiat money overseas that is a recipe for disaster. Once your industrial base is gone, what are you going to do if your fiat currency is no longer accepted? Honest money (gold and silver) is required for honest trade.
He's mixing terminology. The "Fair Tax" is a national sales tax. People who favor it do so because it is avoidable, it encourages saving, and because undocumented people and those who currently work "under the table" will be taxed on their consumption same as everyone else. I think government should have to ask nicely and say, "Please" and "Thank you." But no one ever asks me how to write the tax code.
@SexDrugsFinance Nope, a consumption tax is basically the same thing as an income tax because it is imputed backward to land and labor income. The confusing thing about a consumption tax is who's paying it; what you have to realize is who's paying it in reality though and that is the land and labor owners. I'd recommend reading Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State. In Chapter 12, he has a section dedicated to taxes in which he explains this.
Great video. It still seems that it would be desirable, however, to get closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates in the same bill, as long as the overall amount of taxation decreases. I understand that he's saying the tendency is for government to play bait-and-switch with these things, but taxes should be both low and fair. The same is true for the tax-avoidance industry. If you got rid of tax laywers AND lowered taxes overall, the economy would be even more productive.
No taxes please. I would rather participate in price discovery for road builders and city planners rather than feel like it's not costing me to drive on the roads. i do love my local library.
@THEGREGDREW I don't think he means it's always less productive, but I would agree it generally is. If someone avoids a tax by engaging in barter rather than engaging in money exchanges, it's less efficient. That's because if the tax wasn't there, they would have acted differently; their change in actions because of the outside coercion implies that bartering is less efficient in such cases.
The problem with tax deductions is that they bend normal market practices by incensing certain behavior. They should be eliminated, not by raising the overall rate, but by dropping the tax down to the lowest current deduction.
@klaptongroovemaster All forms of taxation are avoidable. If you want to avoid an income tax, don't earn income. If you want to avoid a sales tax, don't consume, etc. Also, the sales tax does not encourage saving because of the praxeological fact that it is imputed backward to the income of land and labor; it essentially is an income tax. What's confusing is who's paying the tax isn't actually where the tax is paid. So a consumption tax effectively discourages saving as well.
Just because everyone is getting 10% of their income stolen, doesn't mean it's fair. Make it 0% and I'm with you. What you're advocating will push a big portion of people that have escaped the IRS so far into their hands, and that's equivalent to advocating theft. If you want to establish a LOW flat tax on those already paying, I'm with you, but only as a step towards a 0% tax.
I don't agree with Rothbard that producers can't forward taxes to their consumers. They can't do it directly but it happens indirectly anyway: Having a given supply/demand equilibrium producers must keep their prices a bit higher that the marginal price of the product is. After applying a tax this balance could not be acheived anymore because they can't sell below a marginal price. So producers MUST rise their prices to stay in business.
@CurtHowland The FairTax bill specifies that the tax cannot be collected until after the 16th amendment is repealed. Politicians could pass a similar law without that stipulation, but then it wouldn't be the FairTax. Also, barter is unregulated in that system. Again, it would work the exact same way as your state sales tax. The state even collects the taxes and passes them on, so no federal agency is needed.
As compared to progressive tax system we have now? When these people talk about "fair tax" they are not talking about it, in comparison to nothing. Having a flat tax on all, is exactly what would prevent high taxes. If everyone is paying it, a poor person would be advocating for 10% tax right along side with everyone else.
@klaptongroovemaster I'm responding to your comment about how other taxes are unavoidable but the fair tax (which you say is a national sales tax) isn't. You can't have a "normal" life in either case of tax avoidance.
If you were in jail, and certain prisoners were beaten by the guards less because they were old, would you scream preferential treatment, or be glad for them that they don't have to suffer like you do? Yes the government makes monopolies and any businessman with an IQ over 100 and the resourced to do so gets special privilages at the cost of the consumer (and everyone else). That's only a symptom, fighting symptoms is a fools game.
That leads to decrease in number of consumers who buy their products due to higher prices. So part of the producers should go out of business which leads to decrease of production. A new supply/demand equilibrium will be acheived shortly after that with higher prices and lower production.
Thanks for telling us all the issues about the tax systems and how we’re getting screwed over. Now, does anyone have a solution for all of this? Or are we just destined to live our lives out as slaves?
I've personally chosen to work very hard to avoid paying them, including earning far less money than I otherwise could. Not sure if that approach is worth it but it just kills me to feel like im contributing to the war machine. If you're a business owner you pay taxes after you pay expenses. So I try and spend as much as I can through my businesses and keep my living expenses low so the money left over to "live on" is below the taxable level. And yeah that includes lots of barter and doing stuff for free. Rather do something free than have to give a cut to war criminal pedophiles.
I'm currently a younger single male so that choice is kind of a "luxury" really. But that's my advice, start businesses and pay expensess first as often as possible. I think if a huge portion of the population did this in short order they would have one heck of a time. Private Member Associations/Non profits are something else I've been looking into as well, those expenses can be tax free as well. No one wants to be the first person to stop paying, if everyone else pays you're left out to dry.
I imagine if you organized around it they'd label your group as terrorists. But if 10s of millions of people started using their own rules and "loop holes" against them, started their own businesses and informed themselves on the code, millions of seperate nodes causing perfectly legal headaches for the govt. Might force some change.
@sarahmay your comment is exactly my thinking. All these theories, speeches, illuminations, nice to hear and fully agreeable, and yet not 1 real solution to stop being robbed by governments. I keep educating myself with libertarian economics and all the learning serves to frustrate me more and more, as there is no way we will ever stop being robbed by taxes.
I agree with your end conclusion, but I don't think business would raise their prices (they would already if they could). Instead, b/c the cost of inputs has gone up and price remains the same they earn less profit. This loss n profit may make the most recent marginal product unprofitable and therefore lead to lower prdctn n perhaps a new supply/demand equilibrium n therefore a price change. Fewer overall goods = less competition = higher prices for consumers (they pay the tax indirectly)
A sales tax is a less brazen form of theft than lets say an income, land, or wealth tax. All taxation is evil, and the less government takes, the better! And tax breaks are always good! But the brazenness of a tax is also important to consider!
We should lower income tax substantially but keep indirect tax. At least till the government has paid our deficit. I believe its about 600 billion in indirect taxes collected, after accounting for government salaries. That money can go to infrastructure and healthcare for the poorest people, and the rest go to our debts. Plus, when income tax is lower purchasing power increases, so more indirect taxes are collected as a result. At least its a tax we choose versus one thats imposed on us. If we can develop to thepoint where homelessness and sickness become rare, we can talk about a more barebones government.
The deficit cannot be repaid by any future generations. Its 34 trillion. What about states donating " taxes" and goods or services so the feds can do fundamental duties.
Money does solve the problem of the "double coincidence of wants," but wouldn't barter be more productive and lucrative for the parties involved, given that the two parties would prefer the goods or services in question? As in - barter isn't always less productive as described here. Or am I misunderstanding DiLorenzo?
Sales-tax the same thing as an income-tax; i.e. people should paying commissions to the government as a tribute of their own achievements, as if the government owns the person and therefore is entitled to a portion of their work-product. That's like renting an office, and your rent is 30% of your income--even though it's the same office no matter HOW much you make, and none of the landlord's BUSINESS. The state only owns the LAND, nothing more or less; and therefore it should only sell USAGE-RIGHTS, to the HIGHEST BIDDER: and tax it according to the bid-price, reflecting the economic value. This would OPTIMIZE the land-value everywhere, and maximize economic USE of it according to the laws of supply and demand. However most land now is just public property, or taxed by arbitrary methods-- i.e. WASTED. Meanwhile land-trades are hampered by archaic property-laws, which could be replaced by simple CONTRACT law and online trades.
How taxes are levied is very important. Some forms of taxation undermine property rights (income tax, property tax). Some disincentivize productivity (income tax) and others disincentivize investment (capital gains). Some are direct taxes that give gov't detailed information about oneself and encourages cheating (income tax). Some require a huge, costly bureaucracy (IRS) while others that are indirect, encourage savings, reveal no info to govt, and require no costly agency (consumption tax).
Trade-taxes are the same thing as income-taxes. Only LAND should be taxed, since it's the only thing that the people of the nation OWN. Just charge according to the bid-price, selling every square INCH of land to private purchasers. This will reflect the economic reality of what the land is worth to the economy. Then there would be no loopholes or collection: you just pay what it's worth; and if you don't pay, they FORECLOSE and sell to someone else who WILL.
You went off on a run away metaphor while I had a succinct and relevant analogy to test a principle. I'm an anarcho-capitalist so you don't have to explain anything to me about the system. You need to consider the prison example because the 'beating' in that example is taxing.
I sympathize with your frustration, but less tax for anyone is good. You might think that it comes at a cost to you, you both benefit equally from the police for example, why should they pay less? But they aren't paying less, they are still paying more (factors of thousands). However, even if they were paying less, or even NOTHING, do two wrongs make a right? We're in this situation because someone is stealing from us, stealing from another to even it out isn't a fix.
If you assume that out of any income some of it will be exchanged for things with a sales tax applied, then the sales tax is extracted from income consistently similar to how the income tax is extracted consistently. Edit: It sounds like DiLorenzo is saying sales tax puts a burden on the production side, which depresses incomes.
The difference between putting a gun to your head and demanding $3,000 cash versus imposing it as a tax on car sales is that one's an existential threat while the other is a voluntary transaction. Really, the income tax is somewhere between the two, since it is a burden to one's livelihood, but it still isn't quite as sinister as a per capita tax (which would more closely resemble the example).
Try re-reading our conversation. Asking me if I'm aware of things I myself mentioned two comments ago is just wasting time. You are blaming the certain prisoners instead of blaming the system. It's a simple fallacy, try to see that. Read about the psychological experiments around authority (milgram, stanford prison, etc) if you have trouble seeing your error.
No, two wrongs dont make it right, but the more people are wronged, the more realize that they are wronged, thus adding to the movement that fights those who wronged in the first place. Also what is neglected here, is such preferential treatments, are not beneficial to society in the slightest. Such treatments are exactly how government make monopolies, monopolies that were created with cronyism and not better services or products in free markets
Not sure what beating has to do with anything. Ill just go with the real life examples instead of metaphors. The so called poor in this country dont pay any taxes at all, some get more back than they payed in, some dont work at all. And what do these people vote for? Thats right, they vote for higher taxes on the working people, and this never stops. If we all had to pay the same, regardless of poor or not, this voting other peoples money would stop immediately. (Continues)
Im not saying that it makes it fair, Im saying that its intellectually doshonest to bash others without knowing what it is they are advocating for, and what what reason. You also need to consider Laffer curve. Also what Im advocating, is a simple fact, that that large portion of people who didnt escape, but rather were allowed by gvt. not to pay, are precisely the very people who endlessly advocate for higher taxes on the rest, this would immediately stop, if flat tax was implemented
I have a fantasy tax where only a sales tax exists, but no taxes exists for anything (at any price level) for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, or energy. This means no poor person would spend a dime in taxes. Only those purchasing voluntary goods like a TV or a bar of soap or a frisbee would be paying taxes. I would also insist on the exact same tax rate for all goods and services which are taxed. Congress would be limited to raising or lowering one number, and spending only what they get.
@SexDrugsFinance The problem with such a tax is compliance and enforcement. The paperwork involved is staggering, and very invasive. There can be no privacy. None. The IRS under such a system will be far, far more powerful than it is even now.
The "income" you are taxed on is from the act of doing business. If i just decide to give my neighbor $500 dollars just to be nice, that is not income and the neighbor does not need to report it as such. You think sugar babies are paying income taxes? No way. Once you've been taxed on the income it's your money to give away for non business purposes. How would the IRS prove barter A) even took place and B) that it was for the purpose of business C) what is the cash value? D) only if you make money do you owe - so who wins or loses in the barter? What if you both trade for an item worth less than you paid? That could be a double loss? - Just spit balling here! But to outlaw barter it would seem they would literally need to outlaw giving anything to anyone. Which im sure they'd love to do!
What about offshored manufacturing? Multinational corporations manufacture at third world costs (sans the taxes that support first world infrastructure), sell at low end first world prices -- and pocket the difference. Goodbye first world jobs, wages, tax base, and consumer base. We need tariffs barriers to protect first world economies -- from third world systems where public infrastructure money is lost to corruption before it can foster first world level productivity.
We could choose to buy mostly/only america made goods. Yes you will pay more. Quality is usually higher. Does have it's limits, but at least it's a free will choice
@@garrettpatten6312 That's exactly how the world was run before the so called 'free-trade' scam (designed to destroy the west and bring in a global NWO police state.) We had tariffs so only raw materials could be imported from backward and corrupt third world countries but not manufactured goods. This kept manufacturing revenue in the West where the price was set high to cover first world expenses (high wages and extensive govt infrastructure.) This was a virtuous cycle. We traded on parity only with other countries that maintained this same virtuous cycle system.
QQ, I am interested in hearing other's responses. At 33:33 ua-cam.com/video/7-uit2sV_3w/v-deo.htmlm33s Thomas states that the government cannot "invest" as they are not producing a revenue stream that will payback the loan, etc... While everyone should agree that the money govt uses originally comes from the taxpayer, why can government not "invest" in let's say the expansion of a port to bring in additional tourism and/or cargo shipping. And that with the additional tax revenue from this "investment" this will prove to have 100% ROI by let's say year 10. I am looking for clarification on why that would not be deemed as an investment, when if this was done by a private business it would be deemed so.
+James Clark Of course the government can use money, as in your example, and get more in return. However, I think the point is, the government cannot know if this is the most efficient use of that money, or even care for that matter - they can just extract more from the taxpayers. In the market place, where one must respond to profit and losses, capital tend to gravitate to its most efficient use. Taxation however, interfere with this flow, and divert money from where it's most profitable. Which means, government do not invest, they spend.
+Bjørn Hagen Thanks. That was a good and reasonable answer. I understand that govt cannot know that this is the best use of funds, but technically neither can private businesses. I think the one point that is the best reasoning is that the government can always steal more money via taxes if unsuccessful, where as private business cannot. (*without govt force) Also, whatever the govt spends, was first taken from the taxpayers. They could have invested the money in alternate ways, creating additional economic growth or increased tax revenue.
The system doesnt come out of thin air. The system is not unstoppable nor unchangeable. The fallacy is rather in your thinking. Your metaphor was about someone in the end paying less, not paying nothing, yet still voting for others to pay more. If they were paying the same, they wouldnt vote more on themselves. Do love how you are speaking down to me though, as if you are a beacon of truth, and I am some simpleton, very nice..... Think, and you will see YOUR error
You used a poor analogy a very very poor one. To use a correct analogy would be. If you were in jail and certain prisoners were beaten while others were not beaten at all, and those prisoners who were not beaten would vote to beat up those beaten prisoners even more. Or are you completely unaware of the fact that most who vote for higher taxes, themselves get even more in return then they paid, meaning they get a subsidy, while voting more taxes on others.
ALL taxes are a form of enslavement. Only LAND-use fees are acceptable, since the land belongs to the people, and they can sell exclusive usage-rights to the highest bidder. If all land was sold in that way, we'd see the most efficient economy ever.
Dilorenzo completely misunderstands the Federal Income Tax. The 16th amendment did not give the Congress any new create any new class of taxes. They must be either an excise tax or an apportioned direct tax. The Federal Income Tax is just that - an excise tax on federally connected income. Income was given a specific and custom definition when Congress created the first income tax in 1862 (it was an income duty) and it was only paid by specific class of people - those who were exercising the benefits of a federal privilege. Nothing has changed after 150 years. USC 26 is an excise tax based upon the exercise of a federal privilege. The Supreme Court has rules on this several times. It has to be an excise tax. The 16th Amendment only overturned the Pollack Decision and it did not remove the requirement for apportionment for direct taxes.
Firat, capitalism being the 'private ownership of public resources' is exactly why you can be taxed, as all monetary systems are there for the Public's benefit, not yours individually. The tax is there by the debt that is made by the government loaning out each individuals collective value. Second, socialism is dependent on capitalism as it does not produce its own price, or not one set arbitrarily. This guy is conflating Economic terms with the Political terms. Things that are socialistic, community water mill to grind wheat, repurposed auto plant after closing by the community, and any Co-operation type business model.
how bout we pay zero taxes and we allow the fed, congress, or the treasury print the money they need to fund the federal, state, and local govt? wont that work?
EDTHEWATERGUY Money is actually not extremely important in economy. Resources are what matters. And if you allow fed print money, even without taxation they claim part of resources from economy, and squander them.
Printing money causes inflation, which reduces the purchasing power of money that is already in the economy. Also, allowing them to print the budget would incentivise overspending since it can all just be printed.
john jr. - Lt. Col. Al F. Simmons that’s actually the way it’s suppose to be. Taxes are for federal officers and employees not regular free people. It’s always been that way, you have to dig through the regulations and constitution.
That's because the state is supposed to represent the people; but that ended with Lincoln, since then the federal government became the principal sovereign authority over the ELECTORATE of each state.
***** There is not a way to prove that the earth is round to a flat earth'er nor is there a way to prove that taxes are not theft to an anarchist that doesn't believe in the natural law.
Is this guy an economist or a politician? He speaks for loopholes while complaining how complicated the system is. Loopholes help rich people pay less taxes than the average working stiff. This guy sucks.
Wrong. There are way more tax “loopholes” benefiting the working folk than the rich. It’s just that nobody ever refers to the tax benefits for the working folk as loopholes.
Net worth or income really doesn’t matter. That’s a lie told by the media to get your vote and get y’all riled up. The TYPE of income is what matters. There’s earned income, passive income, and portfolio income. The majority of the country gets a W2 and has ‘earned income.’ This is why they’re taxed the most, the govt will get the most money. I barely make like 50K a year, but it’s all passive income (rentals,) so I pay 0 in FEDERAL income tax. That’s another thing they leave out. State, local, sales, and property tax I pay out the 🍑, but my income is offset by tax incentives in the tax code that everyone has access to, so I pay nothing to the federal govt. which I’m fine with. I’d rather my money be kept locally and in my state to help out where I live instead of paying to bomb people that are a different shade of brown than I am.
@@tboogie44they don’t want the average person to know how to save on taxes, that means less money for the govt. to spend on paying for bombs to hit brown people and increase their stock portfolios that have shares in these defense companies. I’m not against taxes completely, but I am against the way a lot of that money is used.
Man, I'm soo fortunate. I'm among the 14,000 or so people in the world- there are 7 billion of us, who have seen and heard this! What a great time to be alive!
+Anogoya Dagaati Haha that is a best comment.
Anogoya Dagaati we the elites! Lol
Oh hell, look at my video on the Constitution being an international compact, and you'll be one in 1000!
Make that 39,979 as of 26-12-2020
I currently pay over 27% of my income in taxes, and that is before property tax and sales tax paid on items. I do not even make the median income in my area. The government steals tens of thousands from me every year, and it hurts very badly. There are so many things I could do with that money: find a house for my family, buy a newer, safer vehicle, buy health insurance, buy medicine and food supplements to keep us healthy, buy organic food for the same cause, etc. Instead, my taxes are sent to Ukraine to fight wars the US provoked, to fund abortions and sodomy promotion, to fund a dependent class who refuses use their skills and work, to fund education systems that wish me and my values annihilated, and so endlessly on and on. It is a true crime, and Americans need to finally rise up and say enough.
100% on the spot... Cid!
Gonna have to give dc an enema
True, but youre crazy wrong about ukraine
This Mises channel is how i send my brain to the gym.
"Fair Tax" makes as much sense as "Fair Theft".
It can be a transitional piece of legislation
More like Fair slavery. In order to take part of a person's earnings, you have to own the person. That is why land should be the only thing that is taxed, because that is the only thing that the people of a Nation can own in a democracy, and they simply can sell exclusive usage rights at what they considered to be a fair price that outweighs their value on keeping it public.
@@SovereignStatesman, Land Value Tax is stupid. It basically means you can never own land as you are paying rent to the government on property you supposedly already own.
@@taxslave5906 WTF? OWN part of a country? Like forever?
Land belongs to the PEOPLE, and you just RENT it; the title-price is simply the down-payment.
@@SovereignStatesman, so you don’t believe in private property?
DiLorenzo is always a great speaker and worth the time. Thanks for putting these up!
Yep, nobody Bells the Cat like T-Dil.
Excellent round up of Rothbard's tax analysis .
With big shouts to Adam's and Chodorov's books, essential reading.
Thanks Mr.Tom. Brilliant lecture.
9:30 tax accountants are the real heroes defunding the state! Heck yea!
Professor dilorenzo - as always - every word - a gem!
The federal income tax was originally a tax on “federal” income, not all income. It was made to tax privileged positions working for the federal government. Before the 1940s, less than 5% of American households paid tax to the federal government. Somewhere along the way, the IRS convinced Americans that they owed tax when they did not, and the whole modern income tax scheme was born. I highly suggest Peter Hendrickson’s book “Cracking the Code” to learn the truth about the income tax.
I love book recommendations!! Thanks!
Business has never paid a tax,humans pay that tax.Employees pay,stock holders pay consumers pay so taxing corporations is total nonsense and we ultimately all pay
@CurtHowland Completely agree. How can there be such a thing as a fair tax? What is fair about a group of people called the "government" stealing any amount of money from innocent individuals?
All meat. DiLorenzo's lectures are packed with decades of research, so we receive so much education in under an hour.
It all comes down to the same thing: A dollar spend is a dollar taxed.
Educators are my favourite types of heroes. Long live Rothbard!!!!!!
Billions for CALIF rail.. little is done........... Billions for rural internet........zero is done.
Billions for homeless in California. Billions for a state water project in California. The result is the same: nothing is accomplished and the money vanishes.
@shamgar001 The IRS would be bigger, and more intrusive.
Right now, if you have a "job" and report that, they pretty much leave you alone to buy and sell and barter.
Under a "sales tax" such barter would have to be illegal, investigated, and prosecuted. That means having agents empowered to crawl even deeper into people's lives in order to prosecute tax evasion.
So no, the IRS will not be eliminated.
And, likely, we'll get BOTH taxes.
Tragically, the vast majority of people will spend hours on facebook, etc, rather than taking the time to view/listen to this talk. As a consequence, they become vulnerable to the lies of politicians.
Tax loopholes allow politicians to increase tax rates on the majority, without harming their supporters. Without loopholes, there would be less support for tax increases.
I think the average person should just start learning how to take advantage of the loop holes themselves. Go 1099 instead of w2.
In modern terms, free trade only works if you actually exchange goods and services. If you are not producing anything and simply sending fiat money overseas that is a recipe for disaster. Once your industrial base is gone, what are you going to do if your fiat currency is no longer accepted? Honest money (gold and silver) is required for honest trade.
He's mixing terminology. The "Fair Tax" is a national sales tax. People who favor it do so because it is avoidable, it encourages saving, and because undocumented people and those who currently work "under the table" will be taxed on their consumption same as everyone else.
I think government should have to ask nicely and say, "Please" and "Thank you." But no one ever asks me how to write the tax code.
@SexDrugsFinance Nope, a consumption tax is basically the same thing as an income tax because it is imputed backward to land and labor income. The confusing thing about a consumption tax is who's paying it; what you have to realize is who's paying it in reality though and that is the land and labor owners. I'd recommend reading Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State. In Chapter 12, he has a section dedicated to taxes in which he explains this.
I LOVE smartphones - I can take DiLorenzo everywhere :D Learning through the red lights!
Great video. It still seems that it would be desirable, however, to get closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates in the same bill, as long as the overall amount of taxation decreases. I understand that he's saying the tendency is for government to play bait-and-switch with these things, but taxes should be both low and fair.
The same is true for the tax-avoidance industry. If you got rid of tax laywers AND lowered taxes overall, the economy would be even more productive.
No taxes please. I would rather participate in price discovery for road builders and city planners rather than feel like it's not costing me to drive on the roads. i do love my local library.
@THEGREGDREW I don't think he means it's always less productive, but I would agree it generally is. If someone avoids a tax by engaging in barter rather than engaging in money exchanges, it's less efficient. That's because if the tax wasn't there, they would have acted differently; their change in actions because of the outside coercion implies that bartering is less efficient in such cases.
Oh i've adopted all kinds of inefficient habits to avoid owing taxes. I say it's worth it haha
The problem with tax deductions is that they bend normal market practices by incensing certain behavior. They should be eliminated, not by raising the overall rate, but by dropping the tax down to the lowest current deduction.
down to zero!
@klaptongroovemaster All forms of taxation are avoidable. If you want to avoid an income tax, don't earn income. If you want to avoid a sales tax, don't consume, etc. Also, the sales tax does not encourage saving because of the praxeological fact that it is imputed backward to the income of land and labor; it essentially is an income tax. What's confusing is who's paying the tax isn't actually where the tax is paid. So a consumption tax effectively discourages saving as well.
Start a business, no taxes paid on expenses, live under the taxable income level - be happy and poor like me! lol
6:06!MIND BLOWN
Just because everyone is getting 10% of their income stolen, doesn't mean it's fair. Make it 0% and I'm with you.
What you're advocating will push a big portion of people that have escaped the IRS so far into their hands, and that's equivalent to advocating theft. If you want to establish a LOW flat tax on those already paying, I'm with you, but only as a step towards a 0% tax.
I don't agree with Rothbard that producers can't forward taxes to their consumers. They can't do it directly but it happens indirectly anyway: Having a given supply/demand equilibrium producers must keep their prices a bit higher that the marginal price of the product is. After applying a tax this balance could not be acheived anymore because they can't sell below a marginal price. So producers MUST rise their prices to stay in business.
Who chose to sit right next to the recording device and scratch a piece of rubber?
@CurtHowland The FairTax bill specifies that the tax cannot be collected until after the 16th amendment is repealed. Politicians could pass a similar law without that stipulation, but then it wouldn't be the FairTax.
Also, barter is unregulated in that system.
Again, it would work the exact same way as your state sales tax. The state even collects the taxes and passes them on, so no federal agency is needed.
As compared to progressive tax system we have now? When these people talk about "fair tax" they are not talking about it, in comparison to nothing. Having a flat tax on all, is exactly what would prevent high taxes. If everyone is paying it, a poor person would be advocating for 10% tax right along side with everyone else.
@klaptongroovemaster I'm responding to your comment about how other taxes are unavoidable but the fair tax (which you say is a national sales tax) isn't. You can't have a "normal" life in either case of tax avoidance.
If you were in jail, and certain prisoners were beaten by the guards less because they were old, would you scream preferential treatment, or be glad for them that they don't have to suffer like you do?
Yes the government makes monopolies and any businessman with an IQ over 100 and the resourced to do so gets special privilages at the cost of the consumer (and everyone else). That's only a symptom, fighting symptoms is a fools game.
That leads to decrease in number of consumers who buy their products due to higher prices. So part of the producers should go out of business which leads to decrease of production. A new supply/demand equilibrium will be acheived shortly after that with higher prices and lower production.
Rothbard is a different level
Super analysis
Thanks for telling us all the issues about the tax systems and how we’re getting screwed over. Now, does anyone have a solution for all of this? Or are we just destined to live our lives out as slaves?
Solution is no taxes
I've personally chosen to work very hard to avoid paying them, including earning far less money than I otherwise could. Not sure if that approach is worth it but it just kills me to feel like im contributing to the war machine. If you're a business owner you pay taxes after you pay expenses. So I try and spend as much as I can through my businesses and keep my living expenses low so the money left over to "live on" is below the taxable level. And yeah that includes lots of barter and doing stuff for free. Rather do something free than have to give a cut to war criminal pedophiles.
I'm currently a younger single male so that choice is kind of a "luxury" really. But that's my advice, start businesses and pay expensess first as often as possible. I think if a huge portion of the population did this in short order they would have one heck of a time. Private Member Associations/Non profits are something else I've been looking into as well, those expenses can be tax free as well. No one wants to be the first person to stop paying, if everyone else pays you're left out to dry.
I imagine if you organized around it they'd label your group as terrorists. But if 10s of millions of people started using their own rules and "loop holes" against them, started their own businesses and informed themselves on the code, millions of seperate nodes causing perfectly legal headaches for the govt. Might force some change.
@sarahmay your comment is exactly my thinking. All these theories, speeches, illuminations, nice to hear and fully agreeable, and yet not 1 real solution to stop being robbed by governments. I keep educating myself with libertarian economics and all the learning serves to frustrate me more and more, as there is no way we will ever stop being robbed by taxes.
It would be great if it had subtitles.
I agree with your end conclusion, but I don't think business would raise their prices (they would already if they could). Instead, b/c the cost of inputs has gone up and price remains the same they earn less profit. This loss n profit may make the most recent marginal product unprofitable and therefore lead to lower prdctn n perhaps a new supply/demand equilibrium n therefore a price change. Fewer overall goods = less competition = higher prices for consumers (they pay the tax indirectly)
@CurtHowland The IRS would be eliminated under such a system. Taxes would be gathered the same way sales taxed are now.
A sales tax is a less brazen form of theft than lets say an income, land, or wealth tax. All taxation is evil, and the less government takes, the better! And tax breaks are always good! But the brazenness of a tax is also important to consider!
All taxes are evil. But there is a difference between Grand Theft and Robbery; that is important to note.
George Rogers I think the argument here is that sales tax IS income tax.
We should lower income tax substantially but keep indirect tax. At least till the government has paid our deficit. I believe its about 600 billion in indirect taxes collected, after accounting for government salaries. That money can go to infrastructure and healthcare for the poorest people, and the rest go to our debts. Plus, when income tax is lower purchasing power increases, so more indirect taxes are collected as a result. At least its a tax we choose versus one thats imposed on us. If we can develop to thepoint where homelessness and sickness become rare, we can talk about a more barebones government.
The deficit cannot be repaid by any future generations. Its 34 trillion. What about states donating " taxes" and goods or services so the feds can do fundamental duties.
@rasetoi perhaps the Land value tax?
Money does solve the problem of the "double coincidence of wants," but wouldn't barter be more productive and lucrative for the parties involved, given that the two parties would prefer the goods or services in question? As in - barter isn't always less productive as described here. Or am I misunderstanding DiLorenzo?
But wouldn't a consumption tax at least encourage saving?
Sales-tax the same thing as an income-tax; i.e. people should paying commissions to the government as a tribute of their own achievements, as if the government owns the person and therefore is entitled to a portion of their work-product.
That's like renting an office, and your rent is 30% of your income--even though it's the same office no matter HOW much you make, and none of the landlord's BUSINESS.
The state only owns the LAND, nothing more or less; and therefore it should only sell USAGE-RIGHTS, to the HIGHEST BIDDER: and tax it according to the bid-price, reflecting the economic value.
This would OPTIMIZE the land-value everywhere, and maximize economic USE of it according to the laws of supply and demand.
However most land now is just public property, or taxed by arbitrary methods-- i.e. WASTED.
Meanwhile land-trades are hampered by archaic property-laws, which could be replaced by simple CONTRACT law and online trades.
How taxes are levied is very important. Some forms of taxation undermine property rights (income tax, property tax). Some disincentivize productivity (income tax) and others disincentivize investment (capital gains). Some are direct taxes that give gov't detailed information about oneself and encourages cheating (income tax). Some require a huge, costly bureaucracy (IRS) while others that are indirect, encourage savings, reveal no info to govt, and require no costly agency (consumption tax).
Trade-taxes are the same thing as income-taxes.
Only LAND should be taxed, since it's the only thing that the people of the nation OWN.
Just charge according to the bid-price, selling every square INCH of land to private purchasers.
This will reflect the economic reality of what the land is worth to the economy.
Then there would be no loopholes or collection: you just pay what it's worth; and if you don't pay, they FORECLOSE and sell to someone else who WILL.
No. Property tax is evil... and illiberal.
You went off on a run away metaphor while I had a succinct and relevant analogy to test a principle. I'm an anarcho-capitalist so you don't have to explain anything to me about the system. You need to consider the prison example because the 'beating' in that example is taxing.
I sympathize with your frustration, but less tax for anyone is good. You might think that it comes at a cost to you, you both benefit equally from the police for example, why should they pay less? But they aren't paying less, they are still paying more (factors of thousands). However, even if they were paying less, or even NOTHING, do two wrongs make a right? We're in this situation because someone is stealing from us, stealing from another to even it out isn't a fix.
He needs to elaborate a lot further on his claim that a sales tax might as wellBe an income tax. One sentence is not a thorough explanation...
If you assume that out of any income some of it will be exchanged for things with a sales tax applied, then the sales tax is extracted from income consistently similar to how the income tax is extracted consistently.
Edit: It sounds like DiLorenzo is saying sales tax puts a burden on the production side, which depresses incomes.
The difference between putting a gun to your head and demanding $3,000 cash versus imposing it as a tax on car sales is that one's an existential threat while the other is a voluntary transaction. Really, the income tax is somewhere between the two, since it is a burden to one's livelihood, but it still isn't quite as sinister as a per capita tax (which would more closely resemble the example).
Your income is belong to us
Have you listened to the lecture at all? There is no such thing as consumption tax. Read Rothbard's critique of it: mises.org/daily/1768
Brilliant
Try re-reading our conversation. Asking me if I'm aware of things I myself mentioned two comments ago is just wasting time. You are blaming the certain prisoners instead of blaming the system. It's a simple fallacy, try to see that. Read about the psychological experiments around authority (milgram, stanford prison, etc) if you have trouble seeing your error.
No, two wrongs dont make it right, but the more people are wronged, the more realize that they are wronged, thus adding to the movement that fights those who wronged in the first place. Also what is neglected here, is such preferential treatments, are not beneficial to society in the slightest. Such treatments are exactly how government make monopolies, monopolies that were created with cronyism and not better services or products in free markets
Not sure what beating has to do with anything. Ill just go with the real life examples instead of metaphors. The so called poor in this country dont pay any taxes at all, some get more back than they payed in, some dont work at all. And what do these people vote for? Thats right, they vote for higher taxes on the working people, and this never stops. If we all had to pay the same, regardless of poor or not, this voting other peoples money would stop immediately. (Continues)
Im not saying that it makes it fair, Im saying that its intellectually doshonest to bash others without knowing what it is they are advocating for, and what what reason. You also need to consider Laffer curve. Also what Im advocating, is a simple fact, that that large portion of people who didnt escape, but rather were allowed by gvt. not to pay, are precisely the very people who endlessly advocate for higher taxes on the rest, this would immediately stop, if flat tax was implemented
I have a fantasy tax where only a sales tax exists, but no taxes exists for anything (at any price level) for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, or energy. This means no poor person would spend a dime in taxes. Only those purchasing voluntary goods like a TV or a bar of soap or a frisbee would be paying taxes. I would also insist on the exact same tax rate for all goods and services which are taxed. Congress would be limited to raising or lowering one number, and spending only what they get.
@SexDrugsFinance The problem with such a tax is compliance and enforcement.
The paperwork involved is staggering, and very invasive. There can be no privacy. None.
The IRS under such a system will be far, far more powerful than it is even now.
The "income" you are taxed on is from the act of doing business. If i just decide to give my neighbor $500 dollars just to be nice, that is not income and the neighbor does not need to report it as such. You think sugar babies are paying income taxes? No way. Once you've been taxed on the income it's your money to give away for non business purposes. How would the IRS prove barter A) even took place and B) that it was for the purpose of business C) what is the cash value? D) only if you make money do you owe - so who wins or loses in the barter? What if you both trade for an item worth less than you paid? That could be a double loss? - Just spit balling here!
But to outlaw barter it would seem they would literally need to outlaw giving anything to anyone. Which im sure they'd love to do!
@klaptongroovemaster I agree with you, my comment had nothing to do with that.
great!!
I wish he’d known the difference between a flat tax and the Fair Tax, at least to steel man the argument.
What about offshored manufacturing? Multinational corporations manufacture at third world costs (sans the taxes that support first world infrastructure), sell at low end first world prices -- and pocket the difference. Goodbye first world jobs, wages, tax base, and consumer base. We need tariffs barriers to protect first world economies -- from third world systems where public infrastructure money is lost to corruption before it can foster first world level productivity.
We could choose to buy mostly/only america made goods. Yes you will pay more. Quality is usually higher. Does have it's limits, but at least it's a free will choice
@@garrettpatten6312 That's exactly how the world was run before the so called 'free-trade' scam (designed to destroy the west and bring in a global NWO police state.) We had tariffs so only raw materials could be imported from backward and corrupt third world countries but not manufactured goods.
This kept manufacturing revenue in the West where the price was set high to cover first world expenses (high wages and extensive govt infrastructure.) This was a virtuous cycle.
We traded on parity only with other countries that maintained this same virtuous cycle system.
Tom DiLorenzo: THA BAUS!!
@SexDrugsFinance A consumption tax would encourage a black market and therefore more crime.
"Get around" within, or "get around" without~!~?~!
#OptOutOfSocialSecurity
QQ, I am interested in hearing other's responses. At 33:33 ua-cam.com/video/7-uit2sV_3w/v-deo.htmlm33s
Thomas states that the government cannot "invest" as they are not producing a revenue stream that will payback the loan, etc... While everyone should agree that the money govt uses originally comes from the taxpayer, why can government not "invest" in let's say the expansion of a port to bring in additional tourism and/or cargo shipping. And that with the additional tax revenue from this "investment" this will prove to have 100% ROI by let's say year 10.
I am looking for clarification on why that would not be deemed as an investment, when if this was done by a private business it would be deemed so.
+James Clark Of course the government can use money, as in your example, and get more in return. However, I think the point is, the government cannot know if this is the most efficient use of that money, or even care for that matter - they can just extract more from the taxpayers.
In the market place, where one must respond to profit and losses, capital tend to gravitate to its most efficient use. Taxation however, interfere with this flow, and divert money from where it's most profitable. Which means, government do not invest, they spend.
+Bjørn Hagen
Thanks. That was a good and reasonable answer. I understand that govt cannot know that this is the best use of funds, but technically neither can private businesses.
I think the one point that is the best reasoning is that the government can always steal more money via taxes if unsuccessful, where as private business cannot. (*without govt force)
Also, whatever the govt spends, was first taken from the taxpayers. They could have invested the money in alternate ways, creating additional economic growth or increased tax revenue.
lorenzo rocks
The system doesnt come out of thin air. The system is not unstoppable nor unchangeable. The fallacy is rather in your thinking. Your metaphor was about someone in the end paying less, not paying nothing, yet still voting for others to pay more. If they were paying the same, they wouldnt vote more on themselves. Do love how you are speaking down to me though, as if you are a beacon of truth, and I am some simpleton, very nice..... Think, and you will see YOUR error
love the video! does not understand the Fair Tax. :(
You used a poor analogy a very very poor one. To use a correct analogy would be. If you were in jail and certain prisoners were beaten while others were not beaten at all, and those prisoners who were not beaten would vote to beat up those beaten prisoners even more. Or are you completely unaware of the fact that most who vote for higher taxes, themselves get even more in return then they paid, meaning they get a subsidy, while voting more taxes on others.
Taxation should always be on consumption, not production. It's just common sense.
I stopped the video in several places and it looked like John Goodman was speaking.
Oh yes, I understand, the God could not be questioned.
29:29 😂
I love DiLorenzo, but he should learn what the FairTax is before commenting on it. It's nothing even remotely similar to a flat tax.
ALL taxes are a form of enslavement.
Only LAND-use fees are acceptable, since the land belongs to the people, and they can sell exclusive usage-rights to the highest bidder.
If all land was sold in that way, we'd see the most efficient economy ever.
Dilorenzo completely misunderstands the Federal Income Tax. The 16th amendment did not give the Congress any new create any new class of taxes. They must be either an excise tax or an apportioned direct tax. The Federal Income Tax is just that - an excise tax on federally connected income. Income was given a specific and custom definition when Congress created the first income tax in 1862 (it was an income duty) and it was only paid by specific class of people - those who were exercising the benefits of a federal privilege. Nothing has changed after 150 years. USC 26 is an excise tax based upon the exercise of a federal privilege. The Supreme Court has rules on this several times. It has to be an excise tax. The 16th Amendment only overturned the Pollack Decision and it did not remove the requirement for apportionment for direct taxes.
02:40. Guy in the front row left looks an awful lot like Jordan Peterson.
Join the military so u don’t have to pay into labor-tax
Firat, capitalism being the 'private ownership of public resources' is exactly why you can be taxed, as all monetary systems are there for the Public's benefit, not yours individually. The tax is there by the debt that is made by the government loaning out each individuals collective value. Second, socialism is dependent on capitalism as it does not produce its own price, or not one set arbitrarily.
This guy is conflating Economic terms with the Political terms.
Things that are socialistic, community water mill to grind wheat, repurposed auto plant after closing by the community, and any Co-operation type business model.
how bout we pay zero taxes and we allow the fed, congress, or the treasury print the money they need to fund the federal, state, and local govt? wont that work?
EDTHEWATERGUY Money is actually not extremely important in economy. Resources are what matters. And if you allow fed print money, even without taxation they claim part of resources from economy, and squander them.
EDTHEWATERGUY i know it was a joke. im just trying to point out instead of taxing us, let the fed print the state, federal, and local budget
EDTHEWATERGUY it was a joke, so relax
Printing money causes inflation, which reduces the purchasing power of money that is already in the economy. Also, allowing them to print the budget would incentivise overspending since it can all just be printed.
john jr. - Lt. Col. Al F. Simmons that’s actually the way it’s suppose to be. Taxes are for federal officers and employees not regular free people. It’s always been that way, you have to dig through the regulations and constitution.
You should think more about a head tax. It would have to be so low that even poor people could pay it.
Tom looks hot! 🎉
He speaks as if state is a person, or has needs.
That's because the state is supposed to represent the people; but that ended with Lincoln, since then the federal government became the principal sovereign authority over the ELECTORATE of each state.
@@SovereignStatesman US is not the only state in the world, still if the electorate have some power, the state is not a single entity.
Great lecture - NERD!
Hamilton. Evil
Mr. Dilorenzo, The flat tax is an income tax, the fair tax is a consumption tax.
***** That is such childish non-sense. Not all taxes are robbery.
***** There is not a way to prove that the earth is round to a flat earth'er nor is there a way to prove that taxes are not theft to an anarchist that doesn't believe in the natural law.
***** You might want to study the natural law a bit.
***** You are just like a flat earth'er. I won't waste my time. In fact I'll be happy to give you the last word.
***** Me either.
Is this guy an economist or a politician? He speaks for loopholes while complaining how complicated the system is. Loopholes help rich people pay less taxes than the average working stiff. This guy sucks.
Wrong. There are way more tax “loopholes” benefiting the working folk than the rich. It’s just that nobody ever refers to the tax benefits for the working folk as loopholes.
Net worth or income really doesn’t matter. That’s a lie told by the media to get your vote and get y’all riled up.
The TYPE of income is what matters. There’s earned income, passive income, and portfolio income. The majority of the country gets a W2 and has ‘earned income.’ This is why they’re taxed the most, the govt will get the most money.
I barely make like 50K a year, but it’s all passive income (rentals,) so I pay 0 in FEDERAL income tax.
That’s another thing they leave out. State, local, sales, and property tax I pay out the 🍑, but my income is offset by tax incentives in the tax code that everyone has access to, so I pay nothing to the federal govt. which I’m fine with. I’d rather my money be kept locally and in my state to help out where I live instead of paying to bomb people that are a different shade of brown than I am.
@@tboogie44they don’t want the average person to know how to save on taxes, that means less money for the govt. to spend on paying for bombs to hit brown people and increase their stock portfolios that have shares in these defense companies.
I’m not against taxes completely, but I am against the way a lot of that money is used.