The Rich Are Taxed Enough
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Robert Reich and Mark Zandi debate Glenn Hubbard and Arthur Laffer on the topic: The Rich Are Taxed Enough. Moderated by John Donvan.
How do we fix the economy? The U.S. government's budget deficit is nearing a trillion dollars for the fourth straight year and unemployment remains high. With the Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of 2012, what is the best move for continued economic recovery? President Obama says we should raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit. Others say that the richest 1% already pay more than a quarter of all federal taxes and higher taxes for job creators would slow economic growth. Are the nation's wealthiest not paying their "fair share," or should tax breaks be extended for everyone in the name of job creation?
For: Glenn Hubbard
For: Arthur Laffer
Against: Robert Reich
Against: Mark Zandi
Like on us Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFac...
Tweet at us: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
Subscribe to us: bit.ly/IQ2onYou...
"trickle down" supply side economics is a story that people have been believing for 25+years. if it worked, we'd all be doing better then ever by now.
100% - the amount of money in the economy has been booming. The rhetoric conservatives/libertarians give us that it's never stopped growing is technically true. It's just they've been pocketing the money, evading taxes, creating/using loopholes, turning the government into a fascist corporation, deregulating the mild liberalism we had, and instituting slave labor to live in a paradise unknown to any elite in human history while wages slump to the mid 1800s for everyone else. Just like Rome's fall - paradise, literally utopia for the rich, and hell on earth for everyone else. Our "founding "fathers"" copied Rome, a failed model, and we are paying the price.
If this world wasn't decaying so fast for it to matter, then the rich would eventually lose their money and assets, be killed if they don't go into hiding, and their children/grandchildren and their vastly inferior genes would be bred out. If there is a hell, any rich person paying anything less than $35-100/hr && without benefits, life/work balance and representation will guaranteed burn in hell. Either way, they are going to meet The Maker. Nature, God. Pick your label. They will meet their demise either way. Anarchist = I want Hell on Earth. Libertarian = I want to burn in hell. Conservative = I'm not sure/ballsy enough to admit who I really am. Moderate/Liberal = I'm sure who I am, but I don't know I have the balls to admit it.
200+ years actually, it was first outlined by Adam Smith in 1776, and yes society has improved quite a lot from then, we are definitely and consistently doing better by now.
@@joeshmoe6752 poetically put, nice work
Trickle DOWN IS A SEXUAL fetish you stupid MOTHER FU#KERS!!!
We are.
And the wealthy in fact pay most if not ALL the taxes.
Robert utterly dominates this discussion: none of the other debaters can even begin to phrase this issue so well (sorry guys!). This is the mark of real intelligence, by the way: the ability to educate others in ways that best illustrate things for the listener. An example is Reich's mention of the commonalities between 1928 and 2007 (the years that led up to a major crash/recession).
It's an odd situation, because what Reich's says is true: everyone benefits from a faster growing economy, and the fact that reducing the top 1%'s share of our country's wealth would, in fact, aid in that goal should make this an even more obvious situation: find a tax rate for the top income brackets that remains "fair" enough that people won't go to extreme lengths to avoid taxes (that would involve closing many loopholes in our current system, as well) and have that as our tax ceiling. It's about paying for the things we need, and not pretending like we don't. You can only pretend for so many days that the broken light-bulb on your desk is fine...eventually you need to check back in with reality. Issues like our health care system (and area where the wealthy have certainly siphoned off much wealth from the low/middle class) come to mind in particular as casualties of our current economic system.
I could listen to Robert Reich speak all day. I would listen to him read War and Peace by my bedside.
this is what happens when you make three economists and a politician debate an ambiguous proposition... everyone agrees, and the politician declares his side the winner
I have real respect and admiration for the excellent job that Jon Donvan does in these debates. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be a rough expert in every subject he moderates as he needs to, in order to tailor questions and responses back to the original premise. As we all see it's very easy to go off on tangents, and I think he does an excellent job of balancing the freedom to respond creatively while also keeping the debate on topic.
The rich claim that letting poor people have money makes them lazy. But giving money to them doesnt. And enough of 'us' buy that line for them to get away with it.
Just made a quick calculation with information found here and there :
1% of the population is 3 million people
Average income of the top 1% in 2012 was 740k (not 350k which is an old data from 2010)
Top 1% takes 2.2 Trillion $ per year. I'm pretty sure they can pay more without be too troubled (actualy the top 2% could pay more thanks to the absurd inequal distribution)
Do they take or make?
Throwing rocks at the elevator? No, it's not "throwing rocks" at the elevator, it's increasing the price of rent on the penthouse to pay for repairs on the elevator.
This was an informative debate. Nice to see a good amount of agreement between both sides on certain issues. I feel like the phrasing of the question was too broad because I agreed with Glenn and Arthur that flat out raising taxes on the rich isn't the right answer but I also agreed with what both sides were saying that the best way to go about it would be to broaden the base, cut spending, and eliminate tax loopholes so the rich can't weasel out of so much of it. I think both sides did broadly agree that in our current system the rich aren't paying enough, the differences came from how they wanted to fix that.
Roaring 20's had illegal money from prohibition and manufacturing was strong, 80's had a boom in the drug trade (perpetuated by the government of the time), and there were still manufacturing jobs...currently it's a totally different situation. Manufacturing is non-existing, and we bailed out banks, that still charge ridiculous rates on the people who bailed them out.
+L.R. Hernandez Tesla manufactures. Though they're tiny.
The question someone should have asked, because they alluded to it is, "Is the system just too corrupt to work for anyone but the rich?"
+Adam Schwartz the top 1% of income earners pay 36 % of all income tax in the US. The top 10 % pay 70% of all income tax and the top 50 % pay 96 % of all income tax. So.......is the tax system corrupt to the rich?
+adstanra You're leaving out sales tax, payroll taxes, local taxes, property taxes.... not very intellectually honest. As for "taxes," I suggest instead of calling them taxes, we CALL THEM *USER FEES* -- Here's what I tell them: Compelling the wealthy, especially those who amassed wealth through the legal fiction of incorporation through which WE grant enormous favorable treatment and
protection from personal liability, to pay their fair share of taxes--which in the truest sense are user fees for the privilege of using our commonly built, commonly held, many, many trillion dollar infrastructure--is not "collectivism," It's simple fairness.
No matter how wealthy you are, you could not have made a dime without OUR enormous co-operation and generosity. Without the enormous infrastructure WE built, that preceded you, and that we have allowed you to use and to which you contribute only a very miniscule percentage of its overall cost, you would be impoverished.
If you don't like an EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate of 30%, that's fine. Stop using OUR roads, OUR ports, OUR courts, OUR currency, OUR police, OUR patent laws, and on and on and on. And on. You get the idea, I'm sure.
It's time you paid your fair share.
Jack Carter The collective WE and OUR is a nice way of dishonestly arguing that we all equally contributed to the infrastructure. We didn't. It was mostly capitalists who built the buildings, who created the products that drive the need for roads, telecommunications, bridges etc. It has been capitalism that has generated the enormous wealth of the western world that affords the enormous governments that have arisen.
If you want to charge user fees, fine, but why should I pay more for the same service as anyone else? The fact is that rich people pay more into the system than poor people.Do rich people benefit more than poor people from the system?---I don't think so, because the government confiscates some of my earned income to give to others. I am not that rich btw,. I make about 200,000 per year ( puts me in the 10 % bracket). I pay tens of thousands of dollars more per year than the poor do, but use the services similarly. We both benefit from roads and railways bringing products to us, from garbage pickup, the police, utilities etc. I drive my car on the roads and poor people use the buses and subways( whereas I don't).
You talk about sales tax, municipal taxes ect, but rich people pay more of that as well, in addition to the proportions of income tax I outlined in my above post. If you want user fees, why do the rich pay social security taxes when they do not need them. They are not going to need old age security, medicaid, unemployment insurence, welfare. They generally don't need public education either.
You talk about "fair share"? would it be fair for me to pay more for a gallon of milk than another person because I worked harder to get more money?
Robert Reich's team is straightforward, analytic and explicitly academic when it comes to defend his argument to the main question of the debate just by using logical deduction, economic pricinples and counterexamples to subdue the opponent's point of view. And whenver one disproves a statement, one does not need to find a proven theorem to show that it is false, just a counterexample would do. On the other hand, Glenn and Arthur keeps talking about the general idea or statment about ''broadening the base'', but what the heck does that even mean !(rhetorical question) and where do you find any proven academic model or theorem for the justifiability of that practice besides a bunch of examples from presidential eras that possess completely different economic and political landscapes involving American purchasing power, innovations, war beneficiaries, globaliazations, SPE policies etc. ?
Arthur Laffer just makes my head hurt when he talks. The idea that there is no correlation between the richest people in the country being taxed less during the 20's and it's effect on the overall status of the economy in the following years when that unsustainable growth got too far out of hand was a good thing is just absolutely positively unequivocally laughable. Please, do tell me what happened in the 30's? Oh that's right, the depression......what a foolish man.
Ben Schreier The tax system is not what caused the great depression lol
***** Lower taxes doesn't mean greater risk? Are you going to try and jump over the grand canyon because your taxes have been lowered? Nonsense.
You understand that the regulation of the financial markets has been increasing exponentially over the past 30 years? If fact government presence in the market is what allowed the bubble to inflate in the first place -combined with the FED that is.
F&F (a gov agency) is responsible for the sub-prime ARM's. And those were only possible because of the cheap money rolling out of the Fed at 0% interest.
So why did the government do that?
1) It's politically convenient to do so.
"Housing for everyone! Housing is a RIGHT blah blah"
2) It was also a response to the .com crash in the early 2000's that was going to put the economy into recession.
The goal was to inflate assets (real estate to be exact). And then we had our nice little bubble and everyone was getting rich flipping homes then, POP everyone tried to sell, nobody bought and we had a huge crash.
It's plain as day to see that this was only possible because of government presence in the market.
Those banks would have never made those loans had the government not banked them up. And if they did, then they would be held responsible for all the mal-investments and failed.
fervent fox "news" supporter i would imagine.....
*****
You insinuation that just because my taxes have been lowered that now I am going to be even more risky is nonsense.
Perhaps what you mean to say is now I will be more likely to invest it in a business? In which case that is not a bad thing. But that does not make my investments more risky in nature.
And as far as financial regulation goes, the government spent 725 million in 1980 to 2.09 billion in 2007 on financial regulations. As you can see, an upward trend.
And you realize GLB had absolutely nothing to do with the crash? Even president Obama himself stated, "there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic."
Why is that?
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions.
And also the other banks who were insured by FDIC.
Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities-investments they had always been free to engage in.
Ben Schreier As long as you ignore the Smoot Hawley Tariff and the Fed's shrinking of the money supply.
Correlation is not causation.
Amazing the argument with the least statistics and economics was the clearest and easiest to understand. From what I understood, if you think the system should try and help as much people as possible, then you voted one way. If you think, the system has no such obligation, and in fact works better this way, then you voted the other way,
This debate was such a big mountain out of a semantic molehill. The pro side needed to be much clearer on what they were saying and the con side needed to be more aggressive in nailing down their opponents' position.
Art Laffer annoyed me till now. Here, he made a lot of sense.
Why can't the base be broadened without lowering tax rates?
When those who make the most can completely avoid taxation by manipulating what they choose to make reportable, that is they are not taxed at all, it is impossible to claim they are taxed enough.
They pay more tax than , go to hell with your liex
www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/
No. They did not pay more tax. They might have paid more money in some ways, but since they don't pay the money they are supposed to pay at all, they did not pay more of anything than the average working American whom they pay nothing as often as they can get away with it. And when you pay the nation at poverty line wages, it is easy to say you pay more taxes than the average person who barely makes enough income to qualify to be taxed. So for those that aren't among the 27 listed here, they are just as guilty since they choose to consider keeping their employees starving, without healthcare, and on the edge of homelessness to be good leadership.
"Job creators"
I find the use of this term by Mr. Hubbard highly distasteful.
It implies that we must pander to the rich such that they will be so kind as to let the rest of the population work for them.
Does this not reek of a form of Class System? Would it not be equally as effective to redistribute the (horrendously) skewed wealth, such that more people have the means to become one of these revered 'job creators'.
I don't know who first argued the merits of not merely handing a man a fish but rather teaching him to catch his own, but it certainly wasn't either of those gentlemen arguing for the motion! It would seem that their ideal is to have one fish monger providing to (and getting rich off) a bunch of hapless peasants.
It also insults our intelligence. People who hold the means of production don't hire more people when they make more money. If that's the case, they just pocket the excess. They hire more people to meet demand.
Have u ever gotten a job from a poor person? .. question answerd thanks
I have to pay 39.6% federal tax plus 8.82% new york state tax plus 8.875% in new york sales & use tax. That is a total of about 57%. So for every $1 that I make I only get to keep about $0.43 and thats before paying any property tax. You'll always find people who are for taking money from other people but if you ask them if their money should be taken and given to the government they'd of course vote no. As someone who is taxed at the top rate after a while me and my family will be packing up our things and leaving this country that we love so much just as the founders fought to leave the control of Great Britain largely in part of being over taxed! If I'm forced to leave then so are my businesses which leads to people loosing jobs. How is taking 57% of someones income justified by any serious person?
GohModley I have deductions and I have to use all of them that are available in order to get out of paying over half of my income in taxes. Thats the point. People who say that the loop holes should be removed and the rich should be taxed more are ridiculous to me.
GohModley No, I didn't say what I paid I said what I had to pay, as in what I'm obligated to pay.
***** I am in the top 1% and I'm not sure what my "fair share" supposedly is. Its just ridiculous to me. If you divide the national debt by each working citizen that should be our so called fair share. I'd gladly pay that, hell I'd pay my in tire families "fair share" if it was that. I just don't like the people who argue that we should have to pay more in taxes, the arrogance it takes to say who should pay more and how much more they should pay is disgusting.
***** point taken but only a small percentage of the one percent use the government set low interest rates and cheap money and speculate in the markets so I would agree, those hedge funds and big banks should pay it back but raising taxes doesn't just affect them it effects even those of us who had nothing to do with that. The government should stop letting those guys from the top firms into government because naturally they will do exactly what they did in the last crash and figure out a way to help their former colleagues.
***** I'm sorry but actually they are not the vast majority they are in the small minority. The propaganda campaigns I suppose would have you believe that they are what make up the so called 1% but in fact its entrepreneurs like myself that make up the majority. If they closed the loop holes about 57% of my income would go directly to the government. Can you honestly say thats fair? Not in North Korea but is it fair here in the United States of America? And I think you have it backwards about those who pay absolutely no taxes but thats not important.
If you to know who wins ahead of time...
Robert Reich and Mark Zandi; against the motion
Sorry, but if you'd been a slave, or been in a situation remotely like slavery, say working for very low wages and trying to cope with high cost of living, you would not ask things like why is slavery bad. You would know the answer. And eating well is not "selfish," it's self interest, a different thing.
Answer: no. Moving on to the next debate?
How about when the team for the motion denied that money influences politics towards its own interest!! How dare they sit there and deny it. Is Arthur aware of what "Moving the goal post" means? He seems to be saying that when the other side mention that there are two ways to increase tax revenues, as they state over and over. Presenting two ways to accomplish a goal is not "Moving the goal posts".
Seriously, the rich shouldn't complain that proportionately they lose more money to tax, because THEY HAVE WAY MORE IN TOTAL! What argument could possibly make that statement wrong"?
Also the moderator needs to give the questioners a fucking moment to speak.
"Balancing fairness and prosperity" 1:39:00 what does that even mean?
I am a small business owner. Who is responsible for my well-being? My fellow citizens. When I'm doing well, I have the responsibility for giving back. Tax should be a tool to remove excessive greedy share of all the money taken by the richest through firing of people, and make the rest of the workforce taking the responsibility of those fired. When they talk about flat rate it meens that a person making $1 billion pays 20% or take home pay is 1 billion and 800 million. Who the hell needs that
Zandi's point about "buying a senator" is so horribly important. Political campaigns should be publicly financed
+Tom K But then, the government will work for everybody, not just the uberrich!
public financing would also stop billionaires like trump and Bloomberg to drown out opposition
Laffer is right, lower the tax rates and close the loopholes. We all want the rich to pay more but this is the only way.
Robert Reich owned this debate!
I think Mark Zandi made the most telling point at the end that these four, ideologically opposed as they were, had some very similar ideas on how things should be done and the best directions we should be taking (it seemed all four were on board for broadening the tax base to create more revenue). This is how all political discussions should be conducted. Civil and with the goal of coming up with the best option for the situation. Not with name-calling and straw-man arguments.
Do you think the middle class don't know very wealthy people? I do! And I pay more in taxes. They have so many tax escapes that I paid a lot more. And I am lower middle class.
They are not taxed enuf. THEY let me work for a meager salary, saved them 4 million n three years and lost my job and my bennies and those jobs went to Mexco. OBAMA is a bold faced liar and a fascist, just watch him, he is another Bush but speaks better. He's a dumbutthole.
David Null But you are wrong! We use to be the Air Capital of the world. Kochs and Mike Pompeo our Congressman have taken that. Pompeo talks about how he loves businesses. He moved his to Mexico and China. President Obama is not the liar.
Amy Goodman You are right ! This doctor I know paid under $500.00. HE'S not extremely wealthy because he's a doctor. His father passed away and was a billion Aire. He apparently felt guilty. He told his accountant he didn't feel right taking so many loop holes. He felt bad after seeing what I paid. But the accountant called it something else (I can't remember what it was ) but he was able to rid of all his guilt. Haha.
We could make America the economic and manufacturing engine of the planet, along with saving the environment, increasing national security, and many other benefits with one policy change:
"The Corporate tax rate is 0%"
Every nation on the planet would want to move here, compete for labor raising wages and increasing actual living standards.
Instead, we have the worst business environment on the planet when you combine taxes and regulations.
Why will we never implement this?
We have a major political party whose power is based on keeping people poor and claiming every election cycle that they are going to help the poor people if they are elected.
GIVE MONEY TO THE POOR ? THEY SPEND IT ! GIVE MONEY TO THE RICH ? THEY HOARD IT !
GOP TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS HAS BEEN A THIRTY YEAR GOP HOAX !!!
The only reason why half of the 1% is small business owner is that a huge portion of small businesses were destroyed in 2008 following the crash. They call people 10 million a year and employing 100 people small business owners.
Laffer is such a revisionist honestly he sickens me, I completely disagree with his entire narrative.
+IronBrown So does everyone else who's not hiding behind his bullshit.
+IronBrown I'm surprised that his position came across as the most "idealistic" ("pipe dream" to put it less nicely). Robert's partner actually came across as the most level-headed (although Robert's force of personality was tops). I don't know who thought having a advisor to Romney was a great idea: they have an agenda to sell.
This is a really good debate. Good humor and nearly no personal attacks. Only the questions got really weird. But that happens all the time.
Also, no side really won here. We never got an agreement on the question itself. So one side won because more people understood the question that way than the other way. I think the debate was unfair that way.
Even before the results this was an obvious win for the con side.
I agree with Reich, an effective 50 percent tax on the wealthy would be good, that's how it was in the 1950s and 60s.
The rich are doing great ! Most of the gains have gone to the top 2 % . Workers are getting screwed .
small business owners aren't wealthy idiot
Piketty says hello!
This turned into a debate about semantics, but proved that a conversation about tax rates is a waste of time so long as we still have loopholes in place. Simplify the tax code, close the loopholes, keep tax rates where they are (or even possibly lower them) and the end result would be the rich paying more in taxes. Both sides seemed to support that. Whether or not affirms the motion is irrelevant.
I think the debate should actually be on the constitutionality of income tax...
Glenn Hubbard and Arthur Laffer lost easily.
ElPocho DelMundo
I can't tell you how grateful I am for your very thoughtful and information packed response.
Robert Reich slammed them with his "1928 and 2007" comment.
Excellent debate. Thank you IntelligenceSquared for making these available on UA-cam!
Just so people know, when they keep saying "broadening the base" what they're saying is higher taxes on the poor and middle class instead of taxing the wealthy.
Leggo My Ego no
Leggo My Ego and in the same breath they don’t want to increase Real wages in line with productivity growth, wich would „boardening the base“
Robert Reich make his fair share of pie argument. Even though wealth is limitless.
53:00 well said!
In sofar as the rates of taxation being circumvented by loopholes , exclusions , and havens the question falls to whether or not the amount of revenue captured is enough , not whether or not rates are adequate . I am inclined to agree that the rich aren't being effectively taxed enough . Though I would note that $350k should be taxed less than billions , so an across the board static percentage on the 1% as a whole is not a good idea either .
Robert Reich killed it.
He didn't.
The wealthy pay most, if not all the taxes.
Why are we having this discussion?
Funny that the richest complain about taxes, yet continue to increase net worth by insane amounts
bullshit there turnover is going up , not there net worth . The government takes most of your earnings
small business owners net worth is going down
Funny how the poor envy the rich instead of asking them for advice on how to reach that level
live frugal , spend wisely
Godfrey Kazomba just stop being poor, guys!!
What drives me crazy is when I get paid, my employer gets taxed, when I get paid, I get taxed, if I pay for daycare, the daycare is taxed, money they pay to services is taxed. By the time you get done, that dollar is gone in a couple of transactions.
Robert: We're saying the rich should pay more, not that we should raise rates.
Also Robert: The only way to increase revenue is to raise rates.
That explains why Sweden and Germany, have the manufacturing intact, that was the main cause for their ability to come out of recession in 3 months, while the US manufacturing got sold to China, and it's the same kind of manufacturing business that are still profitable in Europe. They were profitable when sold of, but incentives for long term prosperity of the nation as a whole, was traded for short term excessive enrichment for the elite, who used the money to influence the government and us
Most rich people pay less in taxes than most middle class people I know
+Michael P Top 400 richest peps in the US have more money than the other 155 million people combined
Michael Guerra That has absolutely nothing to do with how much money people pay in taxes
Michael P Rich people can afford it
Michael Guerra Exactly. But they still don't pay their fair share.
+Michael P May I suggest instead of calling them taxes, we CALL THEM *USER FEES* ? -- Here's what I tell them: Compelling the wealthy, especially those who amassed wealth through the legal fiction of incorporation through which WE grant enormous favorable treatment and protection from personal
liability, to pay their fair share of taxes--which in the truest sense
are user fees for the privilege of using our commonly built, commonly
held, many, many trillion dollar infrastructure--is not "collectivism."
It's simple fairness.
No matter how wealthy you are, you could not have made a dime without OUR enormous co-operation and generosity. Without the enormous infrastructure WE built, that preceded you, and that we have allowed you to use and to which you contribute only a very miniscule percentage of its overall cost, you would be impoverished.
If you don't like an EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate of 30%, that's fine. Stop using OUR roads, OUR ports, OUR courts, OUR currency, OUR police, OUR patent laws, and on and on and on. And on. You get the idea, I'm sure.
It's time you paid your fair share.
Guys to my right: Rich people should pay a bigger share of society's costs.
Guys to my left: No, rich people should pay a bigger share in this other way.
Guys to my right: We don't care how they pay it, as long as they pay it.
Guys to my left: No, but listen, we want them to pay it this other way!
Me: Wut?
i dont see the right fight against foodstamp cuts with the same zeal as protecting taxes for the rich. enuf said
Hey, let's argue about the definition of a tax for 2 hours! And pretty much agree on every other point.
Robert Reich is the only one here who really knows what he is talking about.
+TheWolfdoctor Well, Reich and myself. It's lonely at the top. By the way, may I suggest instead of calling them taxes, we CALL THEM
*USER FEES* ? -- Here's what I tell them: Compelling the wealthy,
especially those who amassed wealth through the legal fiction of
incorporation through which WE grant enormous favorable treatment and
protection from personal liability, to pay their fair share of taxes--which in the truest sense are user fees for the privilege of using our commonly built, commonly held, many, many trillion dollar infrastructure--is not "collectivism."
It's simple fairness.
No matter how wealthy you are, you could not have made a dime without OUR enormous co-operation and generosity. Without the enormous infrastructure WE built, that preceded you, and that we have allowed you to use and to which you contribute only a very miniscule percentage of its overall cost, you would be impoverished.
If you don't like an EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate of 30%, that's fine. Stop using OUR roads, OUR ports, OUR courts, OUR currency, OUR police, OUR patent laws, and on and on and on. And on. You get the idea, I'm sure.
It's time you paid your fair share.
+TheWolfdoctor Pretty sure they all all know what they're talking about.
Jack Carter User fees? how much of my income belongs to the government? what if I don't like the size of the government and want smaller government?
Take for example the practice of slavery in the South. Plantation owners took slaves to selfishly enrich themselves. Then were unwilling to relinquish the slaves or even admit they had been wrong, so entered into a war that devastated the south. Disaster and tragedy as a consequence of economic selfishness.
Forget about whether "the rich are taxed enough", we all are!
but that's implying that all rich people are owners of business that are expanding. I mean the argument that decreasing taxes on the rich, ignores the concept of supply and demand, competition and the risk factor. It just says that businesses are growing at all times which isn't true.
Economists kill me.... The bottom line is that GDP growth and actual prosperity for ALL have totally decoupled from each other because now "rich" means hundreds of millions or billions.
In other words, too few have too much of the pie, this is the issue that needs to be addressed.
I agree, this problem goes way deeper than minor adjustments in the tax code.
I think another important factor is how valuable money is.
We're all being robbed, but your concern is for the thieves.
DarkEternal6 Do the laws created by the government affect you?
Laws concerning infrastructure, commerce and taxes.
Amazed at how limited this debate ended up being. Of course not enough revenue comes from the upper demographic, it's well established by now. The question to me is, rather, if the upper demographic was hypothetically paying taxes sufficiently, what do we do with all that revenue? Simply using it all to pay down the deficit is remarkably short-sighted. The one term that amazingly never came up was "aggregate demand". The very thing that characterizes other industrialized nations (barely mentioned in the debate) is that while taxes are typically much higher, these taxes are used to fund social programs which stabilize aggregate demand by helping those in the lower and middle income demographics maintain a steady income and a high standard of living, ultimately keeping the flow of spending by firms and households moving, as well as ensuring more opportunity for upward mobility. The Scandinavian economies are particularly good examples of this. In other words, "wealth redistribution" as a tool of fiscal policy used to advance an economy.
We can't become rich by making rich men poor. - Winston Churchill
lame
For anyone lost on this debate- the argument they're actually having and never getting around to articulating is this: the FOR side is arguing that "taxed enough" refers to tax rates - and that's because they interpret taxes as fractional of GDP. In their view tax rates and tax revenue are decoupled. If the GDP goes up, revenue goes up even though the tax rates stay the same. The AGAINST side is arguing that "taxed enough" refers to taxes paid and any action which raises revenue, increases the amount the rich pays.
Both sides are betraying their positions in some way. The FOR side is arguing the closure of loopholes, which would raise the proportion that the rich pay. The AGAINST side is arguing that the rich should pay what they're expected to (same argument) but that implies that if they did- they'd be taxed enough - which is the body of the motion. It's a messy debate with both sides arguing for roughly the similar positions, but with different emphasis.
Robert DESTROYED those conservative. The guy next to robert suck at this debate though. Robert needs to pick a better partner.
OK, Mr. Reich talking about the relationship of rich, the great depression, and 2008 rescission is misleading. Those were created by banking failures, not the rich being too rich.
On the another note, Mark discussing this countries deficit to GDP ratio causing us to loose investors and effecting the economy is a good annotation of how much Corporatism is going on with big government and big business.
The failure of the government should not effect the individual profits of a company or its ability to pull foreign investors. Its business that creates the need for globalization, not the government.
I think a good supplementary video is the TED Talk by Richard Wilkinson "How economic inequality harms societies" As peer reviewed research shows out of the developed countries the US is at the very bottom in almost every aspect.
The reason his book price was falling is because distributors were either:
A. Selling at a discount to attract business to get others to buy more items at a higher margin of profit.
B. They weren't able to sell it at higher prices, therefore, they were discounting the price so they can make space in their warehouses for items that will sell at a higher profit margin.
He just displayed that he doesn't understand economics.
Laugher keeps talking about Reagan tax cuts but Reagan Deficits grew 80%!
+Rocko1II He drives me nuts. The thing that drives me the most crazy is when he says "growth" and "prosperity" for the rich equal jobs. Currently, all new income & wealth that the US is making is going to the top 1%. The wealthy are making all this new money during the economic recovery so where is the explosion of jobs? Massive amounts of people are still underemployed & we haven't seen wage increases in decades. I don't understand how he thinks pumping money to the top is somehow going to magically create decent paying jobs. Didn't we already learn that lesson in the Gilded Age when the average American was working in sweat shops?
Rocko1II Because he was spending crap tons on the military. Hell the USSR bankrupted itself trying to compete with us.
Robert Reich may be only 4'11 in stature, but his presence and charisma make it seem like he's 6'5.
I am a little baffled at the idea that we all need the wealthy. The wealthy have become the liability n this country. Big business has destroyed our food, and our health and our quality of life. We need to empower everyone to be educated, to save, and to create jobs for themselves. It is not NECESSARY to have inflation, greed causes inflation, it isn't necessary to have companies so large that literally are cramming cows into buildings and not letting them move, in order to be the biggest. No one NO ONE needs to be that freaking big. Enough. Not buying it.
"empower everyone to be educated". EVERY YEAR THE TEACHERS GET MORE MONEY AND EVERY YEAR OUR SCHOOLS GET WORSE SCORES.
WHEN WILL PEOPLE LIKE YOU REALIZE A NON-COMPETITIVE MONOPOLY (THE GOVERNMENT) IS DOOMED TO FAIL?
ALSO, THE GOVERNMENT CAUSES INFLATION YOU ARE A MORON.
greed is the foundation of the economy
when people are greedy in a capitalist system, everyone is better off
Greed is another form of Hoarding: A severe mental disease, and very self destructive. Unfortunately for the rest of U.S. when the wealthiest few commit self-destructive acts in public it also damages our entire society.
what we need more than increased tax is to remove all the loopholes that big corps use to evade taxes. On the other hand, the percentage of the tax doesn't matter as much as how much money u have in the end. How much money is ENOUGH for you to spend lavishly? Don't complain that because of the higher tax, you cannot afford to fly your private jets every weekend. Don't complain that because of the higher tax, you cannot afford a vacation to hawaii or europe every month. As a wealthy person, you have GAINED MORE THAN ENOUGH ADVANTAGES from the government ever since the day you were BORN.
It's simple. If you earn a lot, you get taxed a lot. If get taxed "too much" guess what? Are you paying all the taxes? Could be because you are taking all the pay...
I once had a very successful business person tell me, "I don't mind paying a lot of taxes...it means I'm making a lot of money."
problem is its not simple. do you know how much is tooo much or how little is soo unfair? should be rasing on total effective rate, or marginal tax, or income tax as a flat rate, or closing the loopholes (which is politically almost impossible in the US) , should it be taxed on carrying credit or other concessions?
the very rich have little meetings with the tax man, they dont even need the loopholes anymore.
The money has to come from wherever it is now. No mention of cutting the defense budget, or taxing stock holdings like property or addressing off-shore tax havens, as well as taxing companies who do business overseas and avoid taxes by keeping monies there. The rich have more tax write-offs than the other classes and can, therefore, can keep a disproportionate amount of their earnings. Not to mention their impact on the government to legislate in their favor.
1) The rich are the Job Creators is a fallacy; it's middle class spending that creates economic demand for jobs and credit liquidity that allows for investment. If we have functioning banks, why would we need individuals with with billions?
2) You can't tax an economy into prosperity is a fallacy; the truth is that you create prosperity by forcing investment via the public sector until the training wheels can come off - this is only possible with taxes. Middle class taxes should be as low as possible, but hoarding dynastic fortunes is not required and therefore can be taxed without harming economic activity.
Jack O' Reilly youre absolutely right but Arthur Laffer is the other extreme. He is not making an economic argument he is lobbying.
Precisely.
I wonder if people know enough about history. Since the 1950s the global GDP has increased by 800 % and GDP per capita has increased by 300 %. The rich have got richer ( at leats there are more rich people) , but the poor have also got richer.
I have been involved ( in Canada) with an Iranian immigrant. I mentioned the poor in Canada---he responded that "Canada has no poor people". I think he is wrong but it illustrates how far we have come. I see people who are poor ( in my profession) who are obese, who have cell phones, who have TVs.
We have a long way to go, but income disparities are not bad in themselves. We must balance the budget by encouraging economic growth. We must protect the environment. We must recognize how fortunate we are to live in this modern world.
Spending is NOT the problem. The national debt is actually shrinking right now, though conservatives won't admit this.
Yea it's really shrinking 17 trillion and climbing everyday we won't be able to pay the interest when rates rise genius.
The debt is not shrinking. The deficit is shrinking, so the debt is not increasing as fast but it is increasing.
But this debate topic is whether the rich should pay more tax. Laffer has conceded it because he has jumped on his hobby horse about tax rates. Rates are not the issue. Rates are just one way of achieving the end of increasing revenue.
Reich put it best when he said there was a need to increase revenue while accepting there needed to be reduction in expenditure. And then the question becomes who bears the burden of the additional tax. It makes common sense that it be the rich.
Too many of the comments here, and to an extent among the debaters, are valid to the broader issue of deficit reduction but are not relevant to the debate topic.
Geoffrey Kelly You are crazy 17.3 trillion now I will bet it will be 18 trillion my the end of 2014 and over 20 trillion by the end of Obama yea really going down genius.
Geoffrey Kelly Taxes have never been higher then they are now
Lol, that is a great way to start the year. the deficit is about 1trillion a year now and you say the debt is decreasing.
They are very important questions and the answers are no, they are not creating jobs rapidly enough to justify the massive wealth that they have accumulated plus they are not and cannot spend it rapidly enough to justify "trickle down". The tax breaks they receive means they have little incentive to create more jobs as they do perfectly well without the need for more employees.
Robert reich is a legend!
More like an idiot but I don’t know why I’m responding to a four year old message.
Broadening the base would work a lot better if the working class were being payed enough to be able to afford taxes. The reason why our tax system seems more progressive than the European system is because their poor can afford to pay taxes, ours cannot.
I feel they keep saying that rich are taxed enough as a way to lead you to that conclusion. Umm thats called brianwashing...
Or just being factual.
1) 75% of the total money drawn by government will always be greater than 35%..
2) The US still has the highest corporate taxes on planet Earth. Not debatable.
But nobody's stopping Britons or Americans from pursuing advanced degrees at their own universities. Why is it that people from the Far East want to study science and engineering whereas people from here don't?
Small gov low taxes. The solution
bingo
I like it. Simple. To the point. Now where do we sign.
Almost half of the wealth in the U.S. is in the hands of less than 1% of the population. The wealth "ceiling" is higher than any point in history, and people with tens, hundreds of millions, billions or tens of billions all lower their taxes the virtually zero anyway. The extremely rich are paying less tax than ever before, and deterioration of society, schools, public services etc goes hand in hand with this trend of wealth centralization towards the top 1%
the highest taxes in the European Union has Sweden. On the other hand, Bulgaria has the lowest taxes. Where do you prefer to live? in ('free - low-taxed Bulgaria) or Sweden (the highest taxes in Europe) ??????????
Without a doubt I'd move to Sweden.
Our situation isn't bad, because we have low taxes, it's bad for many reasons that don't involve taxation at all (e.g. corruption, shady privatization practices, poor public investment). You shouldn't speak when you know next to nothing about a subject, which is in this case my country.
*****
The USSR wasn't a democracy, and it was economically blockaded from the rest of the developed world. But something tells me you knew that already, and and yet you chose make this argument anyway.
***** Something tells me you didn't even watch the video.
Lewa500
He's still correct. Sweden pays high taxes because as a collective the country has decided taking care of your neighbor is important. Having enough is enough and they surrender the rest for the common good. Bulgarians clearly have different values.
In the US you can still get tax credits and certain benefits - no matter what your annual wage is - and people are complaining about the $250,000 level where you increase tax rates and prevent them from getting tax credits and benefits. In Japan $100,000 income households are not able to get childcare benefits and don't get certain tax credits.
Nobody in Japan are complaining...
Laffer is a joke
Why would 50% be better than 51% or 60% if they own more than their fair share?
"an effective 50 percent tax on the wealthy"
How much money is "wealthy" in your view? What amount of money should put one in the 50% tax bracket?
Reich's argument seems to be "Obviously," without presenting any facts to make it obvious.
ummm, yes he did....
Jordan Vanderkuyl
Class warfare isn't a fact, it's a strategy. You, if you are informed, know there isn't enough wealth in the 100% of America's wealth to pay down the deficit. Confiscating ALL of the 1%'s money wouldn't even put a dent in entitlements. So "obviously" taxing them more wouldn't work, but it will make you feel better so you vote for them--but you see what happened when you did? They are taxing you too (remember Obamacare is a tax).
No they're not. I'm Canadian. So, I have free health-care via taxes that I find quite affordable on my days. But, you are right, there isn't enough wealth to pay down the deficit. Taxes need to be more broad-based and inescapable from shipping off your wealth to the Caymans. However, I think it wouldn't hurt to tax the rich more. No one needs a billion dollars.
Jordan Vanderkuyl
If no one needs a billion dollars, neither does your government -- and be careful - you do not have FREE health care. You have tax payer supported health care. Fewer billionaires means YOU pay more of a tax burden. You find it affordable? Thank a billionaire.
Noelle Campbell
I should thank the billionaire that pays almost zero taxes? How is he contributing to tax supported healthcare if he pays no taxes?
"Estate tax is money that has already been taxed"? . . ALL money is money that has already been taxed... . It's the earning and TRANSFER of money from one person to another that needs to be taxed
Well the problem is how would you measure "quality of life". Some would argue that America with its huge suburban homes, big cars,less taxes, advanced technological products et al provides a better quality of life.
And i am not just saying this apply tosuper rich but comparing like for like. For example how a middle class company employees lives in America as compared to their counterparts in Europe.
blocked any effort to put restraints on the Banking sector. So small government, low taxation of the rich, caused removal of restraints for the effects of money. Money means power, and those who hold it have made a mockery of the office of the President, where none of the Presidents plans could be passed. They managed to implement and idea of self-devotion to people insuring people don't espouse ideas like We're all in this together, and feeling of compassion others, such as the veterans.
The problem really has been the failure of "trickle down economics" to allow the pie to become bigger and wealth to trickle down to the middle class. As Robert said, what that leads to is the people on the bottom borrowing more and the people on top gambling the wealth. It leads to boom-and-bust cycles which can devastate the economy. Yes, capitalism works, but government has a big role to play in looking after the middle class.
I believe the bigger issue outside the tax rate is out of control spending on borrowed money. The model Work Made, Growth Earned is now replaced by Money Borrowed, Growth Incentivised. Whether you want bigger government or stronger business, the crux to both sides is out of control spending based on easy lending. Fix the lending issue and you'll have a better tax plan to propose.
This is a flawed debate as both sides accept the premise that the government is due more revenue from the population. What about the viewpoint that the government should be due a lower total revenue, spend only what they have, and allow the people the free choice in how they should spend their own money.
Not to be pedantic but opposition to the motion didn't go up 14%; it went up 14 percentage points. There's an important difference. If it went up by 14%, opposition to the motion would have gone from 49% to 56%
"Europe doing great" are you sure? what was the GDP growth of European countries last year?
I’m surprised Robert didn’t talk about the benefits of consumer spending. One of his main points in his lectures and docos is a tax on the rich will mean more money for movement to spend, say on education. Those people have better high paying jobs can spend more money on consumer items those business (because of higher consumer spending) can employ more people. I’ve always thought of it as one of his staples.
james coppola government not movement
in fact towards hubbards closing questions, the interstates were created during the highest tax rate in American history under president Eisenhower, and yes raising the tax rate will allow for the demand to be met for public college tuition free, universal health care, maintain and elevate infrastructure to meet population growth, infrastructure in education, bridges, technology advancement which is abridged to education, hands down i would kill in this debate
the infrastructure is how you allow the base to grow, otherwise why are u doing all of it, it enfranchizes all, allows for the competition that also creates growth, trickle down doesnt work, a dollar in a middle income household pocket will circulate alot faster than in a rich person's offshore holdings
How about raising the marginal rates AND closing the loopholes?
Laffer would have done much better if he hadn't used "poll tested" terms like "job creators". They're businessmen and women...buddy, they're not in the business to "create jobs", they're in the business to "create profit" and get as fabulously wealthy as possible. Just keep it real...that's how a free market, private enterprise system works. The profit motive is what keeps consumers happy, because business don't want to make consumers unhappy, and lose their business.
People don't shop at places just because they're the best "job creators" (although Walmart has done a pretty great job at that...and people seem to hate them anyhow!), they shop at places based on personal preferences that rarely have anything to do with how many people are employed at a corporation (unless that means they have to wait in long lines, or can never find someone to help with customer service!)...it's a "non term" that just makes low-tax advocates like Laffer look silly. He's right, in principle, but his execution here is just...less than ideal. There are better advocates (sadly) of his own policies...
Fourth speaker basically predicted Trump when he said if we don't un-skew the income distribution, people will revolt against globalization and free trade.