They don't give their money to the government because taxation doesn't work unless everyone does it. A few rich philanthropists aren't going to fix the tax inequalities and budget problems we have. That's why.
It doesn't matter who the rich people are, whether they are politicians, business people, or celebrities, they are the most capable of paying taxes, have the greatest access to tax avoidance, and reap the greatest benefits of the advantages of government.
Well, I don't know about private schools in the US, but here they get government funding, but I wasn't talking about taxes. Private schools and expensive lawyers are means through which money can be used to game the system. A poor man with a poor education has virtually no power within the court system. A rich man with a well educated team of lawyers can almost get away with murder, and CAN get away with helping to destroy the lives of millions of people around the globe.
By that definition, a stone has consistent philosophical principles, because it takes no action either. There are three types of people: those that are part of the solution, those that are part of the problem, and those that are part of the scenery.
I think the reason Buffett wants to pay higher taxes is with the intent of helping to close the budget deficit, not to redistribute the wealth- that was my take on his article, at any rate.
Speaking as a Canadian, those who are "super rich" seem to get there, not by being charitable but rather by being greedy, the system fortunes the rich and the greedy. In Canada, taxes are setup in such a way that it's easy for anyone to become wealthy (middle class) but very difficult to become rich. This promotes a healthy and BALANCED economy. If the economy were perfectly balanced, there wouldn't be a need for charity. This is the ultimate goal that many advocate.
I do not watch Penn Point because i agree with all of penn's points. I watch because he does make many good points and cuts through the bull. Great vid!
Right on. The overall theory of Libertarianism is that no one can possibly ever care more about you than you do. That is why the founders of the U.S. wanted us to have complete control over our own freedoms and pursuits of happiness, because no one person - and especially not the government (which isn't even a person; it's an entity!) - can ever possibly know what is best for you, your life, and your own money. I am not saying we should end taxation, but I think you can see the idea here...
The issue with taxes is that the rich are paying all time lowes, while the middle class and the poor are being forced to shoulder the burden. While Warren Buffet and Springer could donate their money to the government, the point is they are in the minority. The majority of the rich would rather buy polticians to lower their taxes, or cut corporate taxes. America needs to get big money out of politics.
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
No they don't. They may have POTENTIALLY the same benefits, but money allows the rich to utilize and manipulate those services better. Expensive lawyers and private schools exist for this very reason.
Why can't we just cut spending? If I can't pay my bills I don't demand a raise at work, and when I don't get it, I don't just get a bunch of new credit cards, I cut from what I don't need.
@SeriouslyPissedOff My point was to demonstrate that the 50% that paid no taxes includes predominately the middle class, not exclusively the poor. In other words, the people receiving government services are not actually contributing to them, which is precisely the problem with our entitlement system.
The reason they think that is because the top earners in the country have a grossly disproportionate level of wealth, and can afford to pay a lot more in taxes before it begins to affect their standard of living, while the bottom 50% of the income earners of the country are strongly affected by tax increases, thus it makes sense that those who make their money off the rest of us, and can afford to pay, should do so.
I don't think most people hate paying taxes because they hate helping other people. It's that they all know that the gov. wastes a lot of money and do things they don't want to support. If taxes were 100% voluntary, and government was run more like a private organization, they would have to do a good job to keep their jobs and keep getting paid. Yes, they get more money if they use laws to take it by force, but more money does not equal better, or more effective service.
@loveofphysics (cont.) The question you should be answering is, “Can the government accomplish more with Warren Buffet’s money than he can with his own?” If your answer to the question is “yes,” then in fact we should expect Buffet to donate his money to the government.
Totally disagree with this video. The fact is, the more money and power you have, the easier it is to avoid tax responsibilities. The people with the greatest capacity to pay tax, who have reaped the most rewards from the society that taxes pay for, can end up paying a smaller percentage of their earnings as tax than the lower and middle classes.
I had read that in Sweden prostitution is legal, however being a john or a pimp is illegal. As a result, prostitutes are better protected against violence, because they're the only person involved in the situation who isn't committing a crime, and so they can feel unafraid to call the police for help at any time.
I think the point, Penn, is that Buffet and the others you mentioned would rather the government tax them more than aim those tax increases at the poor and middle class. I know you know that already, but it still needs to be clarified here.
always interesting to see the U.S references from someone who enjoys listening to Mr teller's views. This upper tax limit is an issue here in the UK too.
I've had an idea to improve the tax/welfare system. Create an online social network featuring all recipients of entitlements, individuals and organizations. Give tax credits to individuals who fund these recipients directly. It will encourage tax payers to give more by creating a personal connection with the recipient. There would need to be a third party to confirm the identities of the recipients, but it should eliminate waste by cutting down on overhead.
@CosmicThinking I think a central government is necessary to establish certain laws, like not teaching religion in school, giving everybody certain civil rights (wouldn't want slavery again, would we), preventing the legalization of things like polygamy, and many other "bad" things that certain individual states could very well pass.
Everyone should be taxed equally so that the middle to upper classes have more money to invest? Seriously? If you want to genuinely affect long term growth, governments need to tax the rich and use the proceeds to fund communications, healthcare and education infrastructure so that all classes have a level baseline. Instead the poor pay more than they can, the rich pay not enough, and the government buys more fighter jets.
Penn, surely you understand that if all rich people are taxed at a higher rate, not only would it be more *fair* than just Warren Buffet giving more money, but would generate much more revenue. That's why it makes no sense for one rich person to give more of his own money without having all rich people do it in a fair manner.
True, but how much money does one need to be considered "rich" , and i wonder what part does location play in being "rich". minimum wage here is $7.25 but in a more famous city it could be $10.45+. it gives me a headache
@BeardedBill86 (cont.) What also bugs me is that wealth redistribution isn't wealth redistribution but rather entitlement management with the money taken from the people of all different classes. The government may take money from the rich, but they also take from the middle class as well. Then the government buys YOUR entitlements with YOUR money. The problem is that you may not need those entitlements, meaning you just lost your money in the name of "wealth redistribution".
@17Spartacus76 No, on the false dichotomy, he was clearly stating that just because you pay your taxes doesn't mean you support all that it goes to pay. It wouldn't matter if one thought taxation was extortion or not, either "just because you get mugged by someone doesn't mean you support whatever they might spend it on" or "just because you gave your money to what you think is a good cause doesn't mean you support every action of the body you gave it to". I'm not positive on the other part.
@7Highlander One quick example. Here's an observational experiment that anyone can do that will prove my point. Walk through your neighborhood/town/city.. and notice when the gov't is starting to build or renovate a building (maybe a library or a school etc.) then look for a private building project going on at the same time. I've done this little experiment multiple times here in brooklyn. The gov't employees have been building the same library for over 5 years, at the same time...continued...
Its a rare time that I kind of disagree. The fact that now 15% of us are now living under the poverty line while the super rich are raking in even more of the wealth, something like 95% of it currently, is more than a little obscene. In this country you used to be able to make something of yourself. Now we are scrabbling for crumbs cause the uber rich have taken just about everything and are checking out whatever is left. They are smart about it and turn everyone against each other but still
To add to the comment about Warren Buffet's secretary paying more in income tax than him... Probably because Warren Buffet's company has back taxes dating back to 2002. Considering a large portion of his wealth is taxed at 15% since it's in investments, it has very little to do with his taxable income from a salary. If you make over $400,000 you're already going to be paying 40% which is higher, so they're already paying more.
I've always wondered whether the "tax me more" people take tax deductions/refunds... Also, I just don't see why someone should have to pay a larger portion of their income just because they make more money. It just doesn't seem right.
@SeriouslyPissedOff The point is, does it matter if they take 2 trillion dollars from big companies if they waste it? More money doesn't automatically allow them to make better decisions.
@MrJustice01 This is a slight exaggeration. Hayek understand really well the circular flow of money, which mean if you increase the tax on firm, household finish to pay more, but so does the product market. He also understand really really well the psychology of the market, but, he miss the spot on social benefit of having a stronger middle class and the marginal propensity to save. Does not mean Hayek is a bad economist, but he was born in 1899 - we know better, partly thanks to his research.
I'm a libertarian because of you! Keep it up Penn, your doing humanity a service. If someone has a choice, it's better to use money to save lives than it is to aide in international conflict. Thats a bit of a no brainier I think ;)
@17Spartacus76 I'm pretty sure that was the point. 25% of a middle class income, while definitely less (quantitatively) than 25% of an upper-class income, is more significant than 25% of the higher income. I'm not arguing the idea of taxing the rich more than the poor.
I think the point that most people are missing is before we even start talking about whether to raise taxes or lower taxes, the first thing that needs to be done is to address the issue of spending. There needs to be a total audit on the U.S. government to determine what tax dollars are going where. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because even the government doesn't know where half the money it takes in is going. Penn's right. Kill the foreign policy spending first. Then take it from there.
The problem is that charity is not a reliable system. It's a good backup, but it can never be the entire spine. So let's be real about this, military spending will never go away entirely. Cutting all the strings to Iraq and Afghanistan will not be enough. You'll have to deminish the military spending AND tax the rich more in order to get our of this.
People need to adjust their perspective on relative wealth. The guy with the new car, who owns his own house and has a membership of a chic golf-club is not a member of the 'rich'. The guy owns a block of flats, has a second-home in the Toscana and maybe 30ft motor-boat on the Keys is not 'rich'. Wealth functions exponentially and the top few percent of 'rich' people posess nearly all of the liquid and asset wealth on this planet, but they pay no more tax than massed peons below them.
@SquashDog01 Yeah, you're right. I suggested he read Economics in One Lesson and he claimed he read the first few pages (he obviously didn't). He replied: "The idea that under some circumstances if government doesn't create demand no one will doesn't even seem to occur to him." There's just no debating someone who doesn't even understand what demand is.
@Disthron Normally these rich folks who want to be taxed more already have money saved up in the bank. When taxes are increased, what you already have is not touched. If Buffet and Springer were taxed more, they wouldn't notice so much since they are already rich. Those who reinvest their money in businesses, or are trying to save money, will find it harder because they aren't sitting on a pile of cash. It's easy to say "tax me more" when you're already rich. Those who own businesses suffer.
Thank you Penn. You've just given me the first libertarian argument I can agree with. On the other hand libertarianism still has a very medieval thinking to it. At least to me. How can a non / or relaxed stance on government control safeguard people from being abused, exploited & companies from becoming new age empowered feudal lords? Using todays mindset, this will only shift power to non elected people instead of elected ones... Nevermind, I just remembered they are already in corporate hands.
Not really. His point is that obviously Buffet KNOWS he can give more money, and says he WANTS to.... but doesn't. He gives it to private charities instead.
This is why I like you Penn. I disagree with many of your ideas about economic and political policy, but we both share that "stop-the-bullshit-first" attitude. Get rid of dumb wars, get rid of hurtful drug policies, get rid of state funded bullshit like BSA, THEN we can discuss whether we need universal healthcare (I think we do). Our leaders have misplaced their priorities, apparently.
Actually we'd only have to cut military spending by about 25% over the next decade to completely balance the budget. Yes, we spend that much on the military.
The problem isn't who is rich, the problem is who is poor. Is it right to ask people who struggle to find work and pay for their families to pay taxes that are 'beneath' the rich? To then spend their taxes on the prisons they get sent to for smoking weed to forget their shitty lives?
If you want the question at 1:46 answered, see your comments at 3:38, I think you answer your question beautifully By the way, If you end the wars, and end the drug war, and you will merely half the deficit. The bush tax cuts have to end.
@loveofphysics You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that this “systematic change” makes an imposition upon others. In fact, it changes their behavior by forcing them to donate to the government, which is the same as taxation. If he is going to make this imposition upon others, then he should make this imposition upon himself.
@SquashDog01 I don't know what your talking about. But from what is described in the video, it seems like Buffet and Springer think that all ritch people should pay more tax. And they realize that most of them won't do that willingly.
@WalkerDestroyer I agree, it might be necessary to raise the taxes of the rich to recover from our debt after spending is cut. However, politicians never cut spending appropriately. Now, it's realistic to say we should tax the rich to pay off the debt, but most of the people I know want to tax the rich more because they believe that the poor will benefit from government programs payed for through that tax money, which is simply untrue.
There are 2 very different arguments here that are getting mixed. One about the government's ability to use money for good. The other is about the proper distribution of tax burden on the people. Penn is missing the point. Taxes on the rich are very low. The burden on the middle and working class is ENORMOUS compared to the rich. It's almost absurd.
I think those guys recognise that thier money wouldn't make a dent. But more tax on ALL the mega rich people WOULD make a difference. It's not about them personally giving more money but the too low taxes on all rich people, which is a problem that is only getting worse.
@sambricky That is what people used to do. Not all by any means but family, friends, the church (no, I am not religious) etc. When someone had problems or whatever people pitched in to help and kind of forced that person to get back on their feet or lose the help. Problem now is with all the programs people assume the gov will help and gov does help but it is not able to keep track of people & get them going in the right direction resulting in people riding the system for yrs, even generations.
Of course, I totally agree with the stopping wasting money on war bullshit and the "war on drugs." Like him, I've never drunk alcohol nor done any drugs... but I don't give a damn if other people do, and I sure as hell don't want to ruin their lives at the cost of the country's money, or at any cost!
When you argue about rich vs. poor, you are arguing numbers; not principles. You are arguing about degrees of money, and that's just based in opinion and some people's concept of "a lot" vs. "a little". No one will ever agree here. When you argue about taking someone's rights and giving it to others, you are arguing principles, namely the principles of freedom. And by definition, the government redistribution of wealth is taking rights from some and giving them to others.
Correct, I don't support political action. If you and many others think that political action is effective, then go for it. I have a lot of respect for people like Ron Paul. Though I, Myself chose to live a life by what I see as consistent philosophical principals. And no, an opposition to political action is not equal to political action. The absence of participation in politics is NOT an initiation of force.
@7Highlander My other point (again, comments were probably not clear) was that since the super rich can always get out of taxes, therefore the only thing that ends up happening in reality when taxes are raised is that the ones who pay are the middle class and upper middle class. But, the ones who are most hurt are the poor. Because when taxes are raised on the little grocery store down the block, guess what - the poor pay more for groceries. High taxes = Poor suffering and middle class paying.
Thanks for telling me about the ability to give it to government! I was busy a few minutes trying to find out if this was possible (of course it should be). Otherwise quite important to get government to stop wasting money on stupid things but also important that everyone pitches in for the good of the many. Why can't we do both simoultaneously?
I think you're missing the point. I agree that ending the wars is important for balancing the budget, but how we get the money and how we spend it are two different issues. When Warren Buffet made the comment that he doesn't get taxed enough, he was applying that to anyone in his social position. He thinks that the rich people don't pay enough. It doesn't matter how the money is spent, because we're always going to have to give the government money and he wnats to make sure it's fair
@TheSaltyAdmiral What the money is spent for is TOTALLY relevant to what he's saying. If we have multiple problems of bad spending, wealth inequality, you don't try to solve one problem by inflating the other. Thats idiotic! What the heck is wrong with dropping everyone elses taxes lower to be "more in line with the rich". And demand Washington to stop spending crazy.
@7Highlander ...at the same time many private apartment or office buildings have gone up by private workers (for a building about the same size as the still unfinished library - it takes about 4 to 6 months, as opposed to five yrs). Now why is this? I'm sure that the gov't workers are just as capable as those building the office buildings; the difference is that the private company would not stand for such a waste of money instead of 6 months -the gov't will cause it's not their money its yours
one of my favorite pennpoint videos. period. keep doing what you do, homey, i appreciate it.
When are you going to make the monitor on the left line up with the rest of the monitors?
This was the best Penn Point in a long time.
They don't give their money to the government because taxation doesn't work unless everyone does it. A few rich philanthropists aren't going to fix the tax inequalities and budget problems we have. That's why.
It doesn't matter who the rich people are, whether they are politicians, business people, or celebrities, they are the most capable of paying taxes, have the greatest access to tax avoidance, and reap the greatest benefits of the advantages of government.
another great one from Penn!
Well, I don't know about private schools in the US, but here they get government funding, but I wasn't talking about taxes. Private schools and expensive lawyers are means through which money can be used to game the system.
A poor man with a poor education has virtually no power within the court system.
A rich man with a well educated team of lawyers can almost get away with murder, and CAN get away with helping to destroy the lives of millions of people around the globe.
I agree with Penn a lot, he's actually a reasonable libertarian.. Hard to find these days.
I love the way you express yourself.
More people need to watch this!
By that definition, a stone has consistent philosophical principles, because it takes no action either. There are three types of people: those that are part of the solution, those that are part of the problem, and those that are part of the scenery.
penn jillette is awesome!!
I think the reason Buffett wants to pay higher taxes is with the intent of helping to close the budget deficit, not to redistribute the wealth- that was my take on his article, at any rate.
Speaking as a Canadian, those who are "super rich" seem to get there, not by being charitable but rather by being greedy, the system fortunes the rich and the greedy. In Canada, taxes are setup in such a way that it's easy for anyone to become wealthy (middle class) but very difficult to become rich. This promotes a healthy and BALANCED economy. If the economy were perfectly balanced, there wouldn't be a need for charity. This is the ultimate goal that many advocate.
So much agree. So, so much.
I do not watch Penn Point because i agree with all of penn's points. I watch because he does make many good points and cuts through the bull. Great vid!
Right on. The overall theory of Libertarianism is that no one can possibly ever care more about you than you do. That is why the founders of the U.S. wanted us to have complete control over our own freedoms and pursuits of happiness, because no one person - and especially not the government (which isn't even a person; it's an entity!) - can ever possibly know what is best for you, your life, and your own money. I am not saying we should end taxation, but I think you can see the idea here...
The issue with taxes is that the rich are paying all time lowes, while the middle class and the poor are being forced to shoulder the burden. While Warren Buffet and Springer could donate their money to the government, the point is they are in the minority. The majority of the rich would rather buy polticians to lower their taxes, or cut corporate taxes. America needs to get big money out of politics.
I have to disagree with Penn on this point. Stopping wars will not stop taxation. What Buffet and others have been saying is "since you are going to tax someone, tax me." Having a government surplus of money in the coffers doesn't mean we solved the inequalities that have plagued the various tax schemes between our classes.
Beautifully said.
Is the episode of Joy Behar with Penn and Jerry Springer online anywhere? I missed it and would like to watch it.
I think what Jimmy Buffet is trying to say is, "Blew out my flip-flop.."
penn is an absolute pro. there could not be a better mind to put all this together.
No they don't. They may have POTENTIALLY the same benefits, but money allows the rich to utilize and manipulate those services better. Expensive lawyers and private schools exist for this very reason.
Why can't we just cut spending? If I can't pay my bills I don't demand a raise at work, and when I don't get it, I don't just get a bunch of new credit cards, I cut from what I don't need.
Kinda sad how nothing has changed in a decade and this video is still as relevant now as it was then.
@SeriouslyPissedOff My point was to demonstrate that the 50% that paid no taxes includes predominately the middle class, not exclusively the poor. In other words, the people receiving government services are not actually contributing to them, which is precisely the problem with our entitlement system.
The reason they think that is because the top earners in the country have a grossly disproportionate level of wealth, and can afford to pay a lot more in taxes before it begins to affect their standard of living, while the bottom 50% of the income earners of the country are strongly affected by tax increases, thus it makes sense that those who make their money off the rest of us, and can afford to pay, should do so.
Been reading your book man. Just a few chapters in, pretty fantastic read so far. I look forward to finish it.
I don't think most people hate paying taxes because they hate helping other people. It's that they all know that the gov. wastes a lot of money and do things they don't want to support. If taxes were 100% voluntary, and government was run more like a private organization, they would have to do a good job to keep their jobs and keep getting paid. Yes, they get more money if they use laws to take it by force, but more money does not equal better, or more effective service.
Thank you...
@loveofphysics (cont.) The question you should be answering is, “Can the government accomplish more with Warren Buffet’s money than he can with his own?” If your answer to the question is “yes,” then in fact we should expect Buffet to donate his money to the government.
Totally disagree with this video. The fact is, the more money and power you have, the easier it is to avoid tax responsibilities. The people with the greatest capacity to pay tax, who have reaped the most rewards from the society that taxes pay for, can end up paying a smaller percentage of their earnings as tax than the lower and middle classes.
I just wanted to say that I love that Teller quote...
I had read that in Sweden prostitution is legal, however being a john or a pimp is illegal. As a result, prostitutes are better protected against violence, because they're the only person involved in the situation who isn't committing a crime, and so they can feel unafraid to call the police for help at any time.
I think the point, Penn, is that Buffet and the others you mentioned would rather the government tax them more than aim those tax increases at the poor and middle class. I know you know that already, but it still needs to be clarified here.
always interesting to see the U.S references from someone who enjoys listening to Mr teller's views. This upper tax limit is an issue here in the UK too.
I've had an idea to improve the tax/welfare system. Create an online social network featuring all recipients of entitlements, individuals and organizations. Give tax credits to individuals who fund these recipients directly. It will encourage tax payers to give more by creating a personal connection with the recipient. There would need to be a third party to confirm the identities of the recipients, but it should eliminate waste by cutting down on overhead.
@CosmicThinking I think a central government is necessary to establish certain laws, like not teaching religion in school, giving everybody certain civil rights (wouldn't want slavery again, would we), preventing the legalization of things like polygamy, and many other "bad" things that certain individual states could very well pass.
I can agree with everything Penn says, not just as a libertarian, but even as a (gnostic) christian, and as a us army soldier.
THANK YOU! Smart words from a smart man!
Everyone should be taxed equally so that the middle to upper classes have more money to invest? Seriously?
If you want to genuinely affect long term growth, governments need to tax the rich and use the proceeds to fund communications, healthcare and education infrastructure so that all classes have a level baseline.
Instead the poor pay more than they can, the rich pay not enough, and the government buys more fighter jets.
I liked the shot of him reading his script off that iPad.
Penn, surely you understand that if all rich people are taxed at a higher rate, not only would it be more *fair* than just Warren Buffet giving more money, but would generate much more revenue. That's why it makes no sense for one rich person to give more of his own money without having all rich people do it in a fair manner.
True, but how much money does one need to be considered "rich" , and i wonder what part does location play in being "rich". minimum wage here is $7.25 but in a more famous city it could be $10.45+. it gives me a headache
@BeardedBill86 (cont.) What also bugs me is that wealth redistribution isn't wealth redistribution but rather entitlement management with the money taken from the people of all different classes. The government may take money from the rich, but they also take from the middle class as well. Then the government buys YOUR entitlements with YOUR money. The problem is that you may not need those entitlements, meaning you just lost your money in the name of "wealth redistribution".
@17Spartacus76 No, on the false dichotomy, he was clearly stating that just because you pay your taxes doesn't mean you support all that it goes to pay. It wouldn't matter if one thought taxation was extortion or not, either "just because you get mugged by someone doesn't mean you support whatever they might spend it on" or "just because you gave your money to what you think is a good cause doesn't mean you support every action of the body you gave it to".
I'm not positive on the other part.
I am so glad I watched this, I hope it gets shared around a lot i agree with everything you say. (I am not american)
Fantastic.
I actually agree with you on this Penn.
@7Highlander One quick example. Here's an observational experiment that anyone can do that will prove my point. Walk through your neighborhood/town/city.. and notice when the gov't is starting to build or renovate a building (maybe a library or a school etc.) then look for a private building project going on at the same time. I've done this little experiment multiple times here in brooklyn. The gov't employees have been building the same library for over 5 years, at the same time...continued...
Its a rare time that I kind of disagree. The fact that now 15% of us are now living under the poverty line while the super rich are raking in even more of the wealth, something like 95% of it currently, is more than a little obscene. In this country you used to be able to make something of yourself. Now we are scrabbling for crumbs cause the uber rich have taken just about everything and are checking out whatever is left. They are smart about it and turn everyone against each other but still
good point penn.
at least penn is honest and not delusional about why we spend so much money and that more money isnt going to change that
To add to the comment about Warren Buffet's secretary paying more in income tax than him... Probably because Warren Buffet's company has back taxes dating back to 2002. Considering a large portion of his wealth is taxed at 15% since it's in investments, it has very little to do with his taxable income from a salary. If you make over $400,000 you're already going to be paying 40% which is higher, so they're already paying more.
why would anyone downvote this? It's simple logic.
I've always wondered whether the "tax me more" people take tax deductions/refunds...
Also, I just don't see why someone should have to pay a larger portion of their income just because they make more money. It just doesn't seem right.
@SeriouslyPissedOff The point is, does it matter if they take 2 trillion dollars from big companies if they waste it? More money doesn't automatically allow them to make better decisions.
Penn
have you done a video on Ron Paul? I would be interested to know if you think he goes too far, just far enough or, should go further.
@MrJustice01 This is a slight exaggeration. Hayek understand really well the circular flow of money, which mean if you increase the tax on firm, household finish to pay more, but so does the product market. He also understand really really well the psychology of the market, but, he miss the spot on social benefit of having a stronger middle class and the marginal propensity to save. Does not mean Hayek is a bad economist, but he was born in 1899 - we know better, partly thanks to his research.
I'm a libertarian because of you! Keep it up Penn, your doing humanity a service.
If someone has a choice, it's better to use money to save lives than it is to aide in international conflict. Thats a bit of a no brainier I think ;)
@17Spartacus76 I'm pretty sure that was the point. 25% of a middle class income, while definitely less (quantitatively) than 25% of an upper-class income, is more significant than 25% of the higher income.
I'm not arguing the idea of taxing the rich more than the poor.
I think the point that most people are missing is before we even start talking about whether to raise taxes or lower taxes, the first thing that needs to be done is to address the issue of spending. There needs to be a total audit on the U.S. government to determine what tax dollars are going where. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because even the government doesn't know where half the money it takes in is going. Penn's right. Kill the foreign policy spending first. Then take it from there.
The problem is that charity is not a reliable system. It's a good backup, but it can never be the entire spine. So let's be real about this, military spending will never go away entirely. Cutting all the strings to Iraq and Afghanistan will not be enough. You'll have to deminish the military spending AND tax the rich more in order to get our of this.
People need to adjust their perspective on relative wealth. The guy with the new car, who owns his own house and has a membership of a chic golf-club is not a member of the 'rich'. The guy owns a block of flats, has a second-home in the Toscana and maybe 30ft motor-boat on the Keys is not 'rich'. Wealth functions exponentially and the top few percent of 'rich' people posess nearly all of the liquid and asset wealth on this planet, but they pay no more tax than massed peons below them.
@SquashDog01 Yeah, you're right. I suggested he read Economics in One Lesson and he claimed he read the first few pages (he obviously didn't). He replied:
"The idea that under some circumstances if government doesn't create demand no one will doesn't even seem to occur to him."
There's just no debating someone who doesn't even understand what demand is.
@Disthron Normally these rich folks who want to be taxed more already have money saved up in the bank. When taxes are increased, what you already have is not touched. If Buffet and Springer were taxed more, they wouldn't notice so much since they are already rich.
Those who reinvest their money in businesses, or are trying to save money, will find it harder because they aren't sitting on a pile of cash. It's easy to say "tax me more" when you're already rich. Those who own businesses suffer.
Thank you Penn. You've just given me the first libertarian argument I can agree with. On the other hand libertarianism still has a very medieval thinking to it. At least to me. How can a non / or relaxed stance on government control safeguard people from being abused, exploited & companies from becoming new age empowered feudal lords? Using todays mindset, this will only shift power to non elected people instead of elected ones... Nevermind, I just remembered they are already in corporate hands.
Not really. His point is that obviously Buffet KNOWS he can give more money, and says he WANTS to.... but doesn't. He gives it to private charities instead.
This is why I like you Penn. I disagree with many of your ideas about economic and political policy, but we both share that "stop-the-bullshit-first" attitude. Get rid of dumb wars, get rid of hurtful drug policies, get rid of state funded bullshit like BSA, THEN we can discuss whether we need universal healthcare (I think we do). Our leaders have misplaced their priorities, apparently.
Actually we'd only have to cut military spending by about 25% over the next decade to completely balance the budget. Yes, we spend that much on the military.
The problem isn't who is rich, the problem is who is poor. Is it right to ask people who struggle to find work and pay for their families to pay taxes that are 'beneath' the rich? To then spend their taxes on the prisons they get sent to for smoking weed to forget their shitty lives?
I love this guy.
If you want the question at 1:46 answered, see your comments at 3:38, I think you answer your question beautifully
By the way, If you end the wars, and end the drug war, and you will merely half the deficit. The bush tax cuts have to end.
i agree with you penn!
Penn makes a good point.
@loveofphysics You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that this “systematic change” makes an imposition upon others. In fact, it changes their behavior by forcing them to donate to the government, which is the same as taxation. If he is going to make this imposition upon others, then he should make this imposition upon himself.
@SquashDog01 I don't know what your talking about. But from what is described in the video, it seems like Buffet and Springer think that all ritch people should pay more tax. And they realize that most of them won't do that willingly.
@WalkerDestroyer I agree, it might be necessary to raise the taxes of the rich to recover from our debt after spending is cut. However, politicians never cut spending appropriately.
Now, it's realistic to say we should tax the rich to pay off the debt, but most of the people I know want to tax the rich more because they believe that the poor will benefit from government programs payed for through that tax money, which is simply untrue.
Penn
It's a democracy, you control what the gov't does. Make them stop wasting the money
so true
There are 2 very different arguments here that are getting mixed. One about the government's ability to use money for good. The other is about the proper distribution of tax burden on the people. Penn is missing the point. Taxes on the rich are very low. The burden on the middle and working class is ENORMOUS compared to the rich. It's almost absurd.
If you're going to call someone's politics stupid, at least have the common courtesy to give an argument.
I think those guys recognise that thier money wouldn't make a dent. But more tax on ALL the mega rich people WOULD make a difference. It's not about them personally giving more money but the too low taxes on all rich people, which is a problem that is only getting worse.
@sambricky That is what people used to do. Not all by any means but family, friends, the church (no, I am not religious) etc. When someone had problems or whatever people pitched in to help and kind of forced that person to get back on their feet or lose the help. Problem now is with all the programs people assume the gov will help and gov does help but it is not able to keep track of people & get them going in the right direction resulting in people riding the system for yrs, even generations.
Please just run for president Penn, seriously please.
Of course, I totally agree with the stopping wasting money on war bullshit and the "war on drugs." Like him, I've never drunk alcohol nor done any drugs... but I don't give a damn if other people do, and I sure as hell don't want to ruin their lives at the cost of the country's money, or at any cost!
Hey Penn, what are your thoughts on Ron Paul? You sound just like him!
When you argue about rich vs. poor, you are arguing numbers; not principles. You are arguing about degrees of money, and that's just based in opinion and some people's concept of "a lot" vs. "a little". No one will ever agree here. When you argue about taking someone's rights and giving it to others, you are arguing principles, namely the principles of freedom. And by definition, the government redistribution of wealth is taking rights from some and giving them to others.
Correct, I don't support political action. If you and many others think that political action is effective, then go for it. I have a lot of respect for people like Ron Paul. Though I, Myself chose to live a life by what I see as consistent philosophical principals.
And no, an opposition to political action is not equal to political action. The absence of participation in politics is NOT an initiation of force.
@7Highlander My other point (again, comments were probably not clear) was that since the super rich can always get out of taxes, therefore the only thing that ends up happening in reality when taxes are raised is that the ones who pay are the middle class and upper middle class. But, the ones who are most hurt are the poor. Because when taxes are raised on the little grocery store down the block, guess what - the poor pay more for groceries. High taxes = Poor suffering and middle class paying.
Thanks for telling me about the ability to give it to government! I was busy a few minutes trying to find out if this was possible (of course it should be). Otherwise quite important to get government to stop wasting money on stupid things but also important that everyone pitches in for the good of the many. Why can't we do both simoultaneously?
@evobeing I would! I just have to adjust them to the rate of inflation 24 month later, add a margin of error and be pessimistic.
the problem with this point is that the people that dont want to raise taxes are also the people that want to go to war
I think you're missing the point. I agree that ending the wars is important for balancing the budget, but how we get the money and how we spend it are two different issues. When Warren Buffet made the comment that he doesn't get taxed enough, he was applying that to anyone in his social position. He thinks that the rich people don't pay enough. It doesn't matter how the money is spent, because we're always going to have to give the government money and he wnats to make sure it's fair
@TheSaltyAdmiral What the money is spent for is TOTALLY relevant to what he's saying.
If we have multiple problems of bad spending, wealth inequality, you don't try to solve one problem by inflating the other. Thats idiotic!
What the heck is wrong with dropping everyone elses taxes lower to be "more in line with the rich". And demand Washington to stop spending crazy.
yeah but wouldn't you say that most but definitely not all of those people already work for the government?
Taxes need to be raised to cut the deficit.
@7Highlander ...at the same time many private apartment or office buildings have gone up by private workers (for a building about the same size as the still unfinished library - it takes about 4 to 6 months, as opposed to five yrs). Now why is this? I'm sure that the gov't workers are just as capable as those building the office buildings; the difference is that the private company would not stand for such a waste of money instead of 6 months -the gov't will cause it's not their money its yours