+NDNguitarguy - Trump should be attacked as a person and his policies. Actually, the "main stream media" is really kind to both Trump and Cruz! I have seen them on the news and they both seem like reasonable people, not at all like the buffoons that they really are. So, since you are criticizing "the main stream media" you should be glad that they are not really out to expose their stupidity, ignorance and down right anti-Americanism! if main stream media really showed Trump and Cruz As they really are, the American people would run Cruz back to Canada where he came from, and when Canada refused to let the nut in, he would have to go to Mexico! trump would be in a straight jacket, where he should be! if ",main stream media" was as far to the left as right wing propagandist portray it to be, like the right wing propagandist attack Hillery Clinton, the people would run both Trump and Cruz out of the country, and that would be a good thing!
Questions and comments about your questions and comments! I really appreciate all your thoughtful comments, and feel free to reply to this message or post others and I'll try to add to this as needed. 1. "There's no VAT in the United States?" Well, many states and cities have sales taxes, which tax a variety of consumer goods (the exact variety depends on the municipality). While in Europe prices usually include VAT, in the U.S. sales tax is usually calculated after price at the point of purchase. There are several reasons we don't have a European-style national VAT--one is that many consider consumption VATs like the ones in Europe to be regressive--the poor spend a larger percentage of their money on consumer products than the rich do. 2. "Why do you spend more on military than education?" Well, we don't, at least so far as I know. The spending discussed in the video is only about federal taxes and the federal budget; most funding for schools come from states and localities, which can raise their own taxes to pay for schools. (This system has its own downsides, of course--poor states are less likely to have good schools, for instance), but our federal budget is not a good reflection of the U.S. total government budget. We have a much weaker federal government than many countries in Europe.) 3. "Why does Trump's plan lead to a larger revenue gap than Cruz's?" I should've taken time to explain this. Basically, the higher increase to the standard deduction in the Trump plan means that many more people won't be paying taxes at all, and even for affluent families, the first $50,000 of their income won't be taxed at all. This leads to more lost revenue because it is a tax break to so many more people. The other thing is that Trump's lower corporate tax rates would not bring in as much revenue--at least from what I've read--as Cruz's VAT. (Both would bring in much less revenue than is the case with the current system.) 4. "But Medicare and social security are funded differently because they are mandatory spending programs." This is true, but both Trump's plans and Cruz's plan would change the way those taxes are collected and the amount collected--Cruz by repealing all payroll taxes, and Trump by cutting business taxes, thereby making it impossible to meet social security and medicare obligations as they are currently funded. (Let me know if I'm wrong about this, but that's my understanding.) Cruz's business flat tax also would not raise enough money, at least according to the Tax Policy Center, to fund our mandatory spending. Thanks again! -John
+vlogbrothers OMG I was also in academic decathlon here in Chicago. My high school was like the underdog we ended up placing 3rd in state. OMG I also won 3rd in economics, but heck I ended up pursuing a career in the sciences. BIOCHEMIST all the way!!!!
+vlogbrothers Is it just me or is does it seem very easy for businesses to cheat with VAT? I see a lot of things that are good in theory but bad in practice in it.
+vlogbrothers Ted Cruz's plan for the deficit seems to focus on reducing government spending by having less people do the same amount of work. For example, he wants only one person hired by the federal government for every three that quit. Imagine your local postal worker doing 3 routes for the same paycheck, or an already-backlogged-and-extremely-slow Bureau of Motor Vehicles waiting until they lose 3 workers so they can finally replace the third. It's baffling how he believes this could possibly work. The job of the executive branch is to execute the laws passed by congress, and the bureaucracy is the president's tool for doing that. He wants to cut out five bureaucracies created by law, essentially over-ruling those laws by not doing his part, similar to when congress tried to make the Affordable Care Act worthless by removing its funding. He's campaigning on promises to make the presidency a tyranny.
Hank and John, always providing good quality unbiased information. Even when the political process has become a giant mess of name calling, and anti-thought campaigns. Thanks for the thought provoking videos. Look forward for many more
+Simalacrum I'm not a Trump supporter, but he has actually taken a very enlightened strategy towards developing policy. Since he know's he knows nothing about policy, and he knows everyone else knows he knows nothing about policy, so he hasn't built up a facade that he knows what he's doing and has instead relied heavily on paying teams of professionals and advisers to develop his policies for him. I don't like his policies, but I do think his methods of developing them are a step int he right direction.
As a foreigner working in the US, these videos are helping me fill so many gaps in knowledge at once! Amazing concept in general, your educational videos. Thank you!
"You simply cannot reduce government receipts by 20% while preserving programs that together make up 80% of the budget." That's the point. Underhanded and unpopular, but that's the point.
+Tourist youtube is popular media. You think the next generation of voters will more likely be informed by TV broadcast or internet platforms? The future is bright.
Let me get this straight: The Tea Party discovered the deficit in 2008 and declared it a major issue which needs immediate attention. And now the presidential candidate of the Tea Party (Cruz) wants to massively increase the deficit.
+Joachim Schoder It's called "Starve the beast" feels good for the populous to think the lazy aren't getting help meanwhile what's actually happening is the middle class is disappearing and the hyper-rich are getting more money than could be spent in many lifetimes.
Kirbymonic Except giving rich people even more money when they can't spend what they have now has shown time and time again to not be a significant (or at a minimum sufficient) source of growth. Reagan was supposed to rely on that... and Bush Jr and both times they blew up the debt and the second time set up for giant bubbles in our economy. That we'll probably feel the pain from for another few decades. By the nature of our economy, money floats up. Sticking it proportionally at the top is the least efficient way of spending it when the bottom is already suffering.
Kirbymonic Comparing the 82 recession to the Great Recession... cute, but vapid. Reagan was also the one who started our modern terrible state of taxes/debt and cycles of booms and busts to begin with.
+Johanna Sarkar In Sweden you pay in average about 30% of your income to the kingdom, and I think about 20-something % to your län. You also pay about 7% to contribute to your share of social programs. Everything you buy except for food has a 25% "moms" as you call it.
+Estel - Ofsgivin - It's a way for the corporations in these countries to fire their entry level labor. And replace it with cheaper immigrants. I promise you right now in sweden there's a place teaching refugees how to do janitorial work. Or say in swedish "would you like fries with that." Next it will be construction companies hiring them. Just a few at first then they will train them slowly to replace every native they can and pay them half the wage. Northern europe was a beacon of successful socialism, multi national corporations and world banks could not allow that to continue. Besides that they can now squeezze more profits. Its all very progressive dont you see? Profits=progress. If only the right wingers weren't so racist and stupid to see this.
+Dillon Flatt lol honestly I'd rather be honest and say taxes are a bit over my head right now when I haven't done any research than latch on to the plan of my favorite candidate and argue for him like I would a sports team!
Thank you for being the ONLY channel that can talk about policies and events in an unbias manner. Good, reliable information is unfortunately hard to come by now-a-days.
Thank you, John & Hank, for providing more detailed information than any other source I've read. Although you both talk so fast my head spins, this ultimately builds a strong case for your conclusions, which are incredibly helpful. I appreciate the facts. I appreciate all the effort you've put into creating these videos for us. I'm better informed to engage in political discourse with my friends and neighbors. You've provided an invaluable service and I'm grateful.
+greenteapoetry Agreed. I love peeps in a blender, but my favorite videos are when you two take the time to explain current events. Of course you're one voice and one opinion (two, rather) but you give an example of critical thinking that a lot of people don't see as often anymore, and you link to your sources and dialogue with your viewers. Thank you, thank you, thank you. But also John, can you explain why the Standard Deduction exists in the first place?
I appreciate John handling these candidates and their proposed policies seriously. They've become caricatures, but hearing someone explain their policies seriously drives home the reason they aren't taken seriously.
Are there any republicans here who would like to comment on this video? I would very much like to here your thought on your party's candidates. No trolls please.
+LEDN42 Do you agree with John's assessment of these policies? If so, do you still intend to vote for Cruz/Trump and what is it about their policies that makes up for the problems with their tax plans?
+OwenBruch22 No I like Cruz's policy. Not a big fan of his Tax plan but on social policies and overall Republican position on entitlements. I have a question? Do you honestly believe this level of entitlements is financially feasible?
+Philip Palim Its this weird shizophrenia though.. Its okay to say: we are the party of small goverment, therefore less taxes and less spending. But they want less taxes for more spending.
+Waterflame I think he was excited because he worked really hard on it, so he was like lets post this ish early. And then he was like 'I deserve all the gold stars'. =)
+Herman Falck How Well, not really, because most of our education funding comes from state and local taxes. The taxation system in the U.S. is very, very complicated--in this video I'm just discussing federal taxes, because that's what the President has some say in. (Although only SOME say, it must be noted.) -John
And people are doubting how Sanders could afford doing all he says he wants to do with education? Just take a quarter of your millitary budget, and would still have the largest millitary in the world, and you could fix the entire broken college system. How is waging war on countries half the globe away from you more important than educating your own citizens? This is not rocket science people!
The fact that you guys don't have VAT is really weird to me. Why aren't democrats like Bernie Sanders proposing VAT as a way to get funding for their social programs? It seems weird for that to be a Republican position.
+James Royce-Dawson I assume both because it's a new kind of tax and a very visible one. On top of that it tends to be rather regressive in comparison to an income tax. Where you can change income taxes based on brackets and therefor have a somewhat flexible tool this is not really the case with VAT.
+James Royce-Dawson A VAT like the one Cruz proposes (which is different in important ways from the VATs in most European countries) is an idea with some bipartisan support in the U.S., but there's a lot of disagreement over what the rate should be. European-style VATs are viewed by some economists as regressive (because they tax consumption and the poor spend a much higher percentage of their earnings on consumption than the rich do), which is part of the reason it hasn't gotten widespread support in the U.S. But there's also the fact that it's just hard to institute major tax reforms. -John
***** I suppose I'm so used to VAT just being on everything that I don't even notice it anymore. I guess since you guys haven't had it up to now, suddenly seeing it on products and stuff would be a bit of a shock, especially for the poor, but it's still something I think could do a lot of good. America is a big country, and even a small VAT over a broad range of products would yield a large revenue to help reduce the deficit or fund major projects.
+James Royce-Dawson The states have VAT, as far as I know. Their taxation is really different from most european countries. The states are responsible for a lot of the stuff that would be paid by the central government (or equivalent) in europe.
+James Royce-Dawson +vlogbrothers I don't actually understand the difference between VAT and the existing sales tax in some US states. The way John described VAT had me really confused and is not what I thought VAT was at all.
+valcrum321 Some turtles hide in their shells by pulling in their neck. Others hide by tucking their head off to one side under the rim. How will you hide once we get the next president?
Great analysis! The only thing I would contend with is Cruz's analysis. The tax policy center's study which says it will dramatically decrease revenue is calculated through static, not dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring takes into account economic indicators changing with a different tax system. All in all, I really like Cruz's plan because it would not penalize wealth, much less paper work, and would boost overall economic activity.
+christophjmed1 But even with the most conservative independent modeling, there's still a huge gap left. Like, even if you assume massive economic growth resulting from the increase in clarity and decrease in paperwork, the rates are just too low to balance the budget without significant cuts to entitlement programs. -John
+christophjmed1 I don't really have a problem with dynamic scoring, if it were to also take into account the growth effects of government spending of, say, Bernie Sanders' proposed infrastructure spending for example.
Dynamic scoring has been refuted and debuted many times in its current form. Supply side economics does not come close to accounting for the static loss in revenue, no matter what Bill O'Reilly and rush lindbaugh tell you.
It is such a relief to have a reliable source explain these tax proposals to me. I haven't even started paying my taxes yet so I had mostly zero clue what these politicians intended to do. My mom and her husband are very supportive of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump but when I asked them to explain why, they had no real answer. In fact I'm pretty sure their idea of the tax plans are incorrect.
+smythe12247 Please do independent research and don't take what John said as fact, he left out a good deal of very important information to keep the video brief and to cast the Republicans in a bad light.
can y'all do a comparison video over presidents proposed tax plans and what they actually did? so we can see realistically what to expect from all of these dramatic changes being proposed now
+Christian Cross None of them will happen because they won't get through Congress. Republicans in Congress aren't going to work with Sanders or Clinton, and a significant enough number hate Cruz and Trump on a personal level.
+Sami Mas To be fair, five minutes was more than the GOP debates ever spent on actual policy, so you can't blame them for having been less effective educationally. And John never got into the deeper, more serious subject of questioning just how big Donald Trump's hands are, after all.
+Sami Mas Are for fucking real? The GOP debates (especially the first 8) were way way and much better than the Democrats in terms of policy discussions. All what you got from the corrupt Hillary and the clown Bernie were give aways. Bernie even said whites don't know what poverty is!! Fucking liberal clowns.
Thank you, John and Hank for making these videos explaining the candidates' tax plans. For many, it's hard to find the time and energy to be able to research such things and be able to understand them. It's especially hard to find sources that aren't biased, and I think you have done a good job at presenting the information as facts instead of adding in your political leanings. Also, by doing this work for us, we are then able to be more educated voters in a time when I feel politics have been getting more and more complicated (then again, it's always been complicated). I know that I am now more able to make a well-educated decision when I vote this year. Thank you.
+StoneUnturner how much are you willing to pay for the elderly and sick? Just a cold blooded question that we will soon be asking when failure to short people who have been promised benefits will result in them either getting nothing at all or the assets of most people being inflated way to nothing. Sad fact is in most of the world people are not rich enough to give a flying F about poor folks... and soon if we dont cut the spending we will be that poor.
+StoneUnturner Its not just the donald. The amount of medicaid, medicare, social security expenditures is unsustainable at the current rates. Something has to change, not necessarily cutting off their access though
+StoneUnturner Aww, someone is using their emotions to justify theft. Because if the government didn't cover these people, they would simply die on the streets, right?
truepurpl e Very few people have literally zero options. And no one _has_ to pay, but should someone pay for people who are truly helpless? Sure. And we do. Voluntary charitable donations (~$400 billion in the US/year) currently go far and beyond what is sufficient to help those truly unfortunate, the only problem is that many people define "helpless" in such a way as to apply it to people who aren't truly helpless, and thus justify their role for government. Food is wildly available in the US and European nations. You aren't going to find someone who is actively seeking food and shelter who isn't going to get it, at least here.
Hey Vlog Brothers, Can this be a more consistent thing? Maybe a separate series that talks about all these current events? I would love to see a lot of videos like this!
You wouldn't think that a short video with a presenter that is nice to listen to that pertains to important issues would be so rare on a site as massive as TH-cam.
My first comment to any You Tube video. Awesome video. In 8 minutes you explained a very important and subtle issue in a manner that made it very understandable to most voters (maybe all voters) in this country. You simply cannot make a cut to the federal budget on the scale these two candidates are espousing without cutting the two most cherished (politically speaking) programs in the budget. If someone wanted to have an adult conversation about those two programs, and whether they are just too expensive, fine. I would listen. I would even participate. But the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too was proven too good to be true millennia ago. Thank you so much for this concise, brilliant explanation.
+ihath tax plan is more like pandering for votes i doubt they realistically want what they say... but they are going for the republican nomination... and we republicans prefer smaller government and simplicity.
+Joseph Hutchison It sure as heck as a lot more merit than the republicans. And Bernies Tax plan is unrealistic on its own, but the idea is to implement the Tax plan with other large changes. Like an overhaul of the US healthcare system and such, in that light it becomes a whole lot more possible, and in my eyes the best of the canidates.
+Joseph Hutchison it's not unrealistic in the kind of "would destroy the economy and government budget" way, however it is extremely ambitious considering how powerful the richest americans are.
It's sad that this is the best breakdown of the tax policy I've seen this whole campaign season. When youtube has to pick up the slack for the mainstream media, mainstream media is doing something very, very wrong. That being said, many thanks to the vlogbrothers for putting these policy videos together - I really appreciate it. Keep up the good work!
The number of times I've heard politicians (usually Republicans) say they'll cut taxes while also increasing spending is unbelievable. The number of times I've seen them do that only to be met with cheers and applause is just sad. That's not how money works, guys.
Stupid things, however, come from both sides of the aisle. The left insists we raise the minimum wage because of inflation. I'm sitting there thinking do you even know WHY inflation happens?
I say we lower taxes with Trumps plan, keep military spending where it is (possibly lowering a little), reform obamacare and the entire welfare system to where it can't be taken advantage of, and raise the retirement age so social security doesn't cost us so much.
I think a lot of politicians bank on people electing them before they get caught in those sorts of contradictions. "We need smaller federal government, but increased federal oversight and higher wages for government workers!" "We need to build strong trade ties with the world, but we need to put 400% tariffs on all imported goods to increase domestic purchases!" "Diplomacy is the only way, but let's build an aircraft that costs a trillion dollars and when you press a button, every person not within thirty feet of an American flag dies."
iYelawolf "...to where it can't be taken advantage of..." As a programmer, I can say with complete confidence that there is literally *nothing* in the world that can't be taken advantage of. As for being *less* able to be taken advantage of, the percentage of people who actually take advantage of the current systems is extremely small, despite much political rhetoric claiming the contrary.
That's why I'm a libertarian. The tax plans work like the conservatives. But socially were democrat, the views on all subjects line up well and make sense. Most other parties are very hypocritical of what they pick and choose to support.
I call this, "The Sim City Tax Policy." It consists of setting the tax rate to zero percent. This allows your city to swell in population and economic activity. Once the treasury is empty, you hike up taxes to 20 percent for only a year. This leads to rampant unemployment and an abrupt 50 percent drop in population. However, those unhappy few that managed to stay pay enough taxes to drop the rate back down to zero for several years and regain any lost economic activity.
I feel like it is a good analogy for the left right pendulum economic policy in America. We elect right wingers who cut taxes to spur economic activity. After a couple of years the public realizes that you need a tax base for a functioning civil society so we elect a left winger to do the hard work of raising taxes and fixing all the damage. After things are solvent again and going well, we elect a right winger to cut taxes again for another binge.
+Matt Hellmers I agree that's what it feels like. History is a little more counterintuitive. There where Recessions that started under Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. Other then FDR (who served longer then any one else) guess what party all of these guys where part of.However no recessions started under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter (yes no recession look it up), Clinton or Obama. See a pattern. So if you want another Recession vote Republican.
If only conservatives realized that taxes are fantastic. I would argue they are the second greatest invention of all time. Without taxes, modern society wouldn't exist. They are simply good. All taxes really just are a payment you make for the services you need. If we didn't have taxes, you would still have to pay for roads, schools, military, etc. in fact, you would probably pay more for private school than you pay in tax.
According to Democracy 3, the best way to make tax revenue is to positively advertize recreational drugs, get everyone addicted to them, then tax it through the roof! 10/10 no moral shortfallings.
+Inivican Absurdus I think there was a report a while back that showed a lot of people (both on the poorer and richer side) believed they were middle class when they actually weren't.
zerosysko Well somebody making 30000 in Louisiana is able to live at about the standards of the average lower middle class. Somebody making half a million a year in California is really only living in upper middle class standards.
I have been reading TFIOS, yes I haven't read it yet; I didn't think I should, and a few days ago I was crying in English, and science, and a little bit in study hall. I still am a little (a lot) broken... Yet I don't regret reading it. I am now a huge fan of your books!
As a non-American I don't know how useful my input is however what I think would be a really interesting format for these videos is if you guys just spoke about candidates like a,b, c and d. People may find that they agree or disagree with the plans of a candidate despite their image in the media
Based on what you're saying here, what Ted Cruz is proposing sounds like someone who enjoys having a tree in his back yard, but got tired of sweeping the leaves. And his solution is to cut the tree down: that simplifies the problem, but it's not a very productive kind of simplification.
Ignoring several facets of the plans to focus on the parts that when taken alone seem to make them unfeasable. Not unexpected just annoying. What really bothers me is saying that the rich will get the most benefit from Trump's plan. The median household will have a 0% income tax rate, so yes, the rich will have the largest % decrease from the current policy to his policy, but only because you can't go below 0%.
+mynameismatt2010 The rich will have the largest savings both in percentage and in absolute dollars. (by a lot.) I fail to see how the middle class will benefit more. I point out that many more families will pay no federal income taxes in the Trump plan. However, as I also point out, that's one of the main reasons the revenue shortfall will be so huge, around 25% of the federal budget. There would be some economic growth from the decreased taxation, but even the most conservative independent analysts say it will be a disaster: taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan. -John
+Len Flakisinski Honestly, absolutely none of the plans (as described by vlogbrothers - I haven't done much of my own research because, tbh; I don't understand a lot of what I have tried to read) seem entirely free of issues.
Awesomeness9842 I was actually surprised by just how far outside reality the plans were. Being off by a few billion here and there is sadly assumed for a large government, but to be off by trillions over just ten years is staggering.
+Adam Thornton That was kind of how things worked for much of the post-WWII era. But the connection between taxes, spending, and economic growth was broken near the end of the 20th century and has never been restored.
+James Winfrey As far as foreign policy goes, other than Bernie Sanders it's really just a three-way (four-way if you include Kasich) contest between neo-cons.
You missed the point entirely of these tax reductions. What do conservatives believe in: limited government (with the exception of the military). Tax reductions across the board means goodbye social welfare programs or at least a serious reduction in funding. They're not saying it yet, but they will eventually (whoever comes out on top for the nomination). Now, with how large the state has become our taxes have been much too low to keep up with funding everything, hence the enormous debt. So, they might not get so many tax cuts, but programs will be defunded to compensate. It doesn't sound realistic yet, but just wait till they explain why these cuts would be made. The welfare-state has never worked and it never will and they're trying to stop the US from becoming more of one than we already have been. The EU is fucked and Canada is on its way. Did we all forget what happened in Greece so quickly?
+Isaac Yepez This. Regardless of one's personal beliefs it's simply intellectually dishonest to state the reduction in revenue without mentioning reduction of spending and making the plan sound much worse (in regards to the deficit) than is actually is.
+Isaac Yepez Vlogbrothers intentionally omit the reasoning of the republican party just so they can frame them of hating the poor, aiding the rich, bigotry, racism, sexism and every ism under the sun. These plans would make sense if he said republicans want to limit government (omitting national defense, since its one of the few jobs gov is supposed to have) and preventing dependence on the government by which we both know isn't just the ill, seniors and veterans.
+Haben - The Republicans dont want to cut spending, anymore then the democrats do...no one wants to be the adult who says that we cant keep soending with NO PLAN to EVER spend less money then we earn because the elderly who payed for benefits with money that was spent and replaced with government IOU's (actual, real paper ones...lol) will be pretty cross when they realize that we cant afford to pay them...young folks will be pretty upset when they are expected to pay huge tax burdens for benefits they will never get in THEIR old age.... no one would be happy if they understood the situation so the issue is kicked down the road and the FEd basicly prints cash to by government debt....
+tsp312 One of the larger points within the video stated that both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, have made promises to maintain 86% of what makes up the federal budget (social security, medicare, veteran's benefits, and expanding the military). So yes, John did mention the idea of a reduction in spending, and stated that both candidates have very much promised NOT to reduce the majority of what the federal government spends its tax dollars on.
Actually wrote about this for class. I kinda thought about how the plan would play out and wrote it without looking too much into it. Turns out what John said is pretty much what I had wrote about off the top of my head.
They most likely will do them later, but since a large amount of their viewers are about to vote I think they would like to inform their viewers about the candidates.
sargeantsimon1 Literally everyone in the country will have more money due to less taxes with his plan. The rich is included in that because they are also Americans and work hard and deserve it just like the rest of us.
Except that these tax plans don't exist in a vacuum. They affect the things around them. These tax plans would create a huge deficit in the budget as both drastically reduce income without an equal reduction in spending. There is a small reduction, but nowhere near the tax gap. This results in either crippling debt or ending the social programs that the poor and middle class depend on. Not just welfare, medicaid, and those things, but things like social security and public education.
sargeantsimon1 The thing about conservatism is that we don't need a huge budget. Limited government is the goal. We should only be spending money on things the people decide on. I don't think the president, someone who has everything paid for him, should have a $400,000 salary if you can see what I'm saying.
+Ineta Life certainly, but things like public education, roads maintenance, and a military are not cheap, and are definitely necessary. Beyond that, there's a strong case to be made that many social projects stimulate economic growth rather than hinder it. It's a much more complicated issue than just "I don't want to pay lots of money to the government."
I really appreciate this analysis. I don't have any experience with economics, so it would have been pretty time-consuming to try and do this research myself. I'm trying to become more empathetic towards people with different political ideologies, and although I still firmly disagree with most Republican policies, it's very useful to have this information so that I can argue and debate more intelligently with people, and just in general have a more comprehensive understanding. I just wanted to show that making videos like this doesn't always result in the hatred and vitriol that's currently occupying most of the comments.
I know you guys can't afford to take sides on the candidates so I think it would be really interesting to watch you guys debate the better of the 2 on each side having to defend one and explain why you like them better. Picking each at random, playing devils advocate if you had. That may be pretty hard considering some of the people running though, but none the less I think it would be a great way to hear some insightful thoughts without having to officially choose a side. Kind of like debating for a topic you actually disagree with.
I was not talking about cash here. It would cost them little to nothing too talk about the candidates, but in the wrong light, it could cost them viewers. However many that may be. Done correctly though, they could possibly take on the very heated topic without angering a large fraction of their base. I think it would be very hard to argue some of the candidates here though so I could still see this being to difficult. Just an idea.
David Ensminger Yes, I am well aware. That's true and not true. He's the only one still campaigning, but he is not the only candidate that will be on the ballot at the Convention. No candidate dropped out. They SUSPENDED their campaigns, meaning they keep their delegates, but no more real effort till the convention. If Trump comes up short of 1237, which is 50% of the Delegates +1, then he will have to fight to convince delegates to join him Problem is, many delegates that are obligated by party rules to vote for him in the first round will flatly refuse to do so thenceforth. Trump has a strong chance of losing the nomination if he doesn't clinch the 1237. But his chances of doing that are fairly high. It is Trump's game to lose
***** But there are no more Winner-Take-All states left. Trump only has proportional states left. That is his problem. and he has 187 left to grab. probably 60%+ chance he will get the delegates, but he can lose it.
+Abbastanza4444 That's how tax brackets work, yes. I'm not sure why people think when you tick over to a higher bracket your entire income is suddenly taxed at a higher rate. That would be a very stupid system.
+seigeengine a probable reason is, when working overtime, you enter a new tax bracket for wages calculations, and so that money is taken away. it is given back at the end of the year as a refund. Along with deductibles. but at the time, if you work over time, after taxes are taken out, you basically make the same amount of money on your check.
Daniel Simonson I have no idea what the details are where you live, especially since it often varies by employer in the short term. But no, that doesn't make sense. That would mean you can make more money, yet end up with less money. Nobody would support that system, and it would be easily exploitable as well. It's one of those cases where the idea is so stupid and against everyone's interests it should be apparent it's not the case, and that you've misunderstood.
Are you including Social Security and Medicare in your federal budget? Because I was under the impression that those were self funding non-discresionary budget items that, in theory, all Americans pay into and then receive later. I was under the impression that those were seperate from income tax.
+Joshua Radick John, please reply to this! You included mandatory spending in your total spending analysis, but not in your "taxes as they are" analysis. Mandatory spending is covered by other taxes.
+Aaron Kravitz Mandatory spending is covered by other taxes discussed in this video. Cruz would repeal all mandatory spending taxes and replace them with the VAT; Trump would cut corporate and payroll taxes, making it imposible to meet our mandatory spending obligations without huge cuts. -John
+Theje It started out in the black because the average life span was only a few years beyond the age when people could take out social security. Now people are living decades beyond, and therefore are withdrawing more. There is also the problem that other sectors of the government "borrowed" money from the social security fund, and don't have the capital to pay it back.
As others have noted, people live longer. When social security started out, there were something like 160 workers to every 1 beneficiary, and those beneficiaries generally only lived a few years past the start date of their beneficiaries. Today there are less than 3 workers per beneficiary, and those beneficiaries collect 15 or 20 or more years of benefits each. It'd also be worth noting that historically not so many people went to college, so people started working, and paying into the system, much earlier. And since the retirement age hasn't gone up by very much, in addition to fewer workers per retiree, there's also the problem of each worker today working fewer years overall than they did at the programs start. Medicare is even worse off because in addition to all the above problems, you also have out of control increases in the cost of medical services in recent years.
Really great video, John. You did an amazing job explaining everything. I learned more about taxes during this video than I did in my tax classes in college.
Thank you John for explaining why we cannot allow either of these men into the white house
Yup
+William Pryor Oh yeah, the tax plan is the reason. Not because they're, at best, bigots... And, at worst, fascists.
+Nintendodo64 ya trump is such a bigot. Demanding all races be allowed into his country club. Having a Jewish daughter and a Slavic wife. Disgusting
+Nintendodo64
we don't even have to get into that to see that they shouldn't be president.
+JediShark come on man.
Literally learned more about their policies in 8 minutes than I have watching months of news coverage. Says something, doesn't it?
+TheNotAdam 1000% agree
+Teleology Master ...and nowhere in the news, is his point.
All the news does is cover the election like a sports game(who wins and who loses)
+TheNotAdam Yeah they are too busy trying to destroy trump by attacking him as a person.
+NDNguitarguy - Trump should be attacked as a person and his policies. Actually, the "main stream media" is really kind to both Trump and Cruz! I have seen them on the news and they both seem like reasonable people, not at all like the buffoons that they really are. So, since you are criticizing "the main stream media" you should be glad that they are not really out to expose their stupidity, ignorance and down right anti-Americanism! if main stream media really showed Trump and Cruz As they really are, the American people would run Cruz back to Canada where he came from, and when Canada refused to let the nut in, he would have to go to Mexico! trump would be in a straight jacket, where he should be! if ",main stream media" was as far to the left as right wing propagandist portray it to be, like the right wing propagandist attack Hillery Clinton, the people would run both Trump and Cruz out of the country, and that would be a good thing!
no. don't read the comments. there are better uses of your time
+remraft Okay then. Thanks!
+remraft Thanks for the warning!
+remraft I appreciate the warning. It also gave me a good laugh.
omg thanks for stopping me!
Holy shit. I read your comment like someone was talking in my head.
Questions and comments about your questions and comments!
I really appreciate all your thoughtful comments, and feel free to reply to this message or post others and I'll try to add to this as needed.
1. "There's no VAT in the United States?" Well, many states and cities have sales taxes, which tax a variety of consumer goods (the exact variety depends on the municipality). While in Europe prices usually include VAT, in the U.S. sales tax is usually calculated after price at the point of purchase. There are several reasons we don't have a European-style national VAT--one is that many consider consumption VATs like the ones in Europe to be regressive--the poor spend a larger percentage of their money on consumer products than the rich do.
2. "Why do you spend more on military than education?" Well, we don't, at least so far as I know. The spending discussed in the video is only about federal taxes and the federal budget; most funding for schools come from states and localities, which can raise their own taxes to pay for schools. (This system has its own downsides, of course--poor states are less likely to have good schools, for instance), but our federal budget is not a good reflection of the U.S. total government budget. We have a much weaker federal government than many countries in Europe.)
3. "Why does Trump's plan lead to a larger revenue gap than Cruz's?" I should've taken time to explain this. Basically, the higher increase to the standard deduction in the Trump plan means that many more people won't be paying taxes at all, and even for affluent families, the first $50,000 of their income won't be taxed at all. This leads to more lost revenue because it is a tax break to so many more people. The other thing is that Trump's lower corporate tax rates would not bring in as much revenue--at least from what I've read--as Cruz's VAT. (Both would bring in much less revenue than is the case with the current system.)
4. "But Medicare and social security are funded differently because they are mandatory spending programs." This is true, but both Trump's plans and Cruz's plan would change the way those taxes are collected and the amount collected--Cruz by repealing all payroll taxes, and Trump by cutting business taxes, thereby making it impossible to meet social security and medicare obligations as they are currently funded. (Let me know if I'm wrong about this, but that's my understanding.) Cruz's business flat tax also would not raise enough money, at least according to the Tax Policy Center, to fund our mandatory spending.
Thanks again! -John
+vlogbrothers OMG I was also in academic decathlon here in Chicago. My high school was like the underdog we ended up placing 3rd in state. OMG I also won 3rd in economics, but heck I ended up pursuing a career in the sciences. BIOCHEMIST all the way!!!!
+vlogbrothers Is it just me or is does it seem very easy for businesses to cheat with VAT? I see a lot of things that are good in theory but bad in practice in it.
You just made me realize how even more idiotic the republicans are. I like this
I'm sure lots of people have already pointed this out, but you spelled 'earning' as 'earing' at 2:30
+vlogbrothers Ted Cruz's plan for the deficit seems to focus on reducing government spending by having less people do the same amount of work. For example, he wants only one person hired by the federal government for every three that quit. Imagine your local postal worker doing 3 routes for the same paycheck, or an already-backlogged-and-extremely-slow Bureau of Motor Vehicles waiting until they lose 3 workers so they can finally replace the third. It's baffling how he believes this could possibly work.
The job of the executive branch is to execute the laws passed by congress, and the bureaucracy is the president's tool for doing that. He wants to cut out five bureaucracies created by law, essentially over-ruling those laws by not doing his part, similar to when congress tried to make the Affordable Care Act worthless by removing its funding. He's campaigning on promises to make the presidency a tyranny.
Cool to see someone do a close to admirable job of explaining platform issues from a party you clearly despise.
Hank and John, always providing good quality unbiased information. Even when the political process has become a giant mess of name calling, and anti-thought campaigns.
Thanks for the thought provoking videos. Look forward for many more
I'm more shocked that Trump has a tax plan at all.
+Simalacrum I thouth that he was going to get rid of all taxes and make mexicans pay for it
+Simalacrum I'm not a Trump supporter, but he has actually taken a very enlightened strategy towards developing policy. Since he know's he knows nothing about policy, and he knows everyone else knows he knows nothing about policy, so he hasn't built up a facade that he knows what he's doing and has instead relied heavily on paying teams of professionals and advisers to develop his policies for him. I don't like his policies, but I do think his methods of developing them are a step int he right direction.
As a foreigner working in the US, these videos are helping me fill so many gaps in knowledge at once! Amazing concept in general, your educational videos. Thank you!
Where/how did John give the critiques?
Thank God that the president can only propose tax plans. Knowing congress, nothing will change.
+LoneWanderer36 Good old Congress, never changing anything. -John
"You simply cannot reduce government receipts by 20% while preserving programs that together make up 80% of the budget."
That's the point. Underhanded and unpopular, but that's the point.
imagine a world where popular media covered this. ppl might actually choose candidates for reasons.
+Tourist I could not agree more. No sensationalism, just reasoned arguments and respectful discourse. This is why I appreciate nerdfighteria so much.
+Tourist youtube is popular media. You think the next generation of voters will more likely be informed by TV broadcast or internet platforms? The future is bright.
*****
or who loves america more, or who's scummy, or who's a "winner" ... all that shit is just meaningless
I loved these 2 video comparisons. it would be amazing if you continued to compare the candidates in their other aspects and plans.
+ElizaAnne yes please
Let me get this straight: The Tea Party discovered the deficit in 2008 and declared it a major issue which needs immediate attention. And now the presidential candidate of the Tea Party (Cruz) wants to massively increase the deficit.
+Joachim Schoder It's called "Starve the beast" feels good for the populous to think the lazy aren't getting help meanwhile what's actually happening is the middle class is disappearing and the hyper-rich are getting more money than could be spent in many lifetimes.
+Joachim Schoder with growth, it actually wouldn't be bad. The problem is though, that his plan relies completely on growth.
Kirbymonic Except giving rich people even more money when they can't spend what they have now has shown time and time again to not be a significant (or at a minimum sufficient) source of growth.
Reagan was supposed to rely on that... and Bush Jr and both times they blew up the debt and the second time set up for giant bubbles in our economy. That we'll probably feel the pain from for another few decades.
By the nature of our economy, money floats up. Sticking it proportionally at the top is the least efficient way of spending it when the bottom is already suffering.
Munashiimaru www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/09/11/sorry-obama-fans-reagan-did-better-on-jobs-and-growth/#4c69a37d3c92
Kirbymonic Comparing the 82 recession to the Great Recession... cute, but vapid. Reagan was also the one who started our modern terrible state of taxes/debt and cycles of booms and busts to begin with.
I have no idea why I watch this as I live in Sweden and don't even fully know how our tax system works.
+The Incredible Sulk there is always that one asshole...
+The Incredible Sulk not cool
+Johanna Sarkar In Sweden you pay in average about 30% of your income to the kingdom, and I think about 20-something % to your län. You also pay about 7% to contribute to your share of social programs. Everything you buy except for food has a 25% "moms" as you call it.
+The Incredible Sulk fuck off
+Estel - Ofsgivin - It's a way for the corporations in these countries to fire their entry level labor. And replace it with cheaper immigrants.
I promise you right now in sweden there's a place teaching refugees how to do janitorial work. Or say in swedish "would you like fries with that." Next it will be construction companies hiring them. Just a few at first then they will train them slowly to replace every native they can and pay them half the wage.
Northern europe was a beacon of successful socialism, multi national corporations and world banks could not allow that to continue. Besides that they can now squeezze more profits. Its all very progressive dont you see? Profits=progress. If only the right wingers weren't so racist and stupid to see this.
These videos are so important, I wouldn't even know where to start on my own to be honest.
Oh yes doing research is difficult. Don't vote please.
+Dillon Flatt Her vote will be an informed one thanks to these videos
+Shayna Lloyd ikr. The campaigns are so busy attacking one another i never did look into tax policies
+Dillon Flatt lol honestly I'd rather be honest and say taxes are a bit over my head right now when I haven't done any research than latch on to the plan of my favorite candidate and argue for him like I would a sports team!
+Dillon Flatt I'm sure you're absolutely perfect and research the reasoning and possible effects of every single policy from every single candidate.
Thank you for being the ONLY channel that can talk about policies and events in an unbias manner. Good, reliable information is unfortunately hard to come by now-a-days.
+Advocatus Diaboli Go on BBC. They'll keep you right.
+Advocatus Diaboli Well.... It's definitely biased. More informative than most sources, but biased for sure.
The problem with videos like this is that the people who should watch them, don't.
+Lego Insomniac Preachin' to the choir B^)
Thank you, John & Hank, for providing more detailed information than any other source I've read. Although you both talk so fast my head spins, this ultimately builds a strong case for your conclusions, which are incredibly helpful. I appreciate the facts. I appreciate all the effort you've put into creating these videos for us. I'm better informed to engage in political discourse with my friends and neighbors. You've provided an invaluable service and I'm grateful.
+greenteapoetry Agreed. I love peeps in a blender, but my favorite videos are when you two take the time to explain current events. Of course you're one voice and one opinion (two, rather) but you give an example of critical thinking that a lot of people don't see as often anymore, and you link to your sources and dialogue with your viewers. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
But also John, can you explain why the Standard Deduction exists in the first place?
I appreciate John handling these candidates and their proposed policies seriously. They've become caricatures, but hearing someone explain their policies seriously drives home the reason they aren't taken seriously.
I learn more from you than anything I find online or from teachers
Oh god I actually did think "thank goodness, a word I finally recognise" at the VAT mention. I am so predictable.
+Rosianna Halse Rojas lol same
Are there any republicans here who would like to comment on this video? I would very much like to here your thought on your party's candidates. No trolls please.
Same
+Brian Shneydman Sure. What would you like to discuss?
+Brian Shneydman I think very few Republicans vote on policy. If they do I don't think they support either of these candidates.
+LEDN42 Do you agree with John's assessment of these policies? If so, do you still intend to vote for Cruz/Trump and what is it about their policies that makes up for the problems with their tax plans?
+OwenBruch22 No I like Cruz's policy. Not a big fan of his Tax plan but on social policies and overall Republican position on entitlements.
I have a question? Do you honestly believe this level of entitlements is financially feasible?
How many times has John referenced his bronze medal in economics among C-level students? It's gotta be around 15-20 at this point.
+Joel Ripke Well, it is one of my greatest accomplishments. :) -John
+vlogbrothers yeah and I wish you could host crash course economy,but oh well
+vlogbrothers Isn't it bit of a in-joke at this point?
+András Bónitz and?
That's what John does. He always touches the same talking points. I think it's related to his OCD.
I like how he teleports every time he takes a breath after talking.
to be fair that's exactly what they want. a complete revamp of how and what the federal government does.
+Philip Palim Its this weird shizophrenia though.. Its okay to say: we are the party of small goverment, therefore less taxes and less spending. But they want less taxes for more spending.
I think this is the earliest I have ever gotten to see a video!!!
+Waterflame I think he was excited because he worked really hard on it, so he was like lets post this ish early. And then he was like 'I deserve all the gold stars'. =)
+Waterflame Same!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME! Do you guys spend 5 times as much on your millitary as you do education!?
+Herman Falck How A lot of education is funded at the state and local level and therefore is not in the federal budget
.
+Herman Falck How Well, not really, because most of our education funding comes from state and local taxes. The taxation system in the U.S. is very, very complicated--in this video I'm just discussing federal taxes, because that's what the President has some say in. (Although only SOME say, it must be noted.) -John
And people are doubting how Sanders could afford doing all he says he wants to do with education? Just take a quarter of your millitary budget, and would still have the largest millitary in the world, and you could fix the entire broken college system. How is waging war on countries half the globe away from you more important than educating your own citizens? This is not rocket science people!
+Herman Falck How No we don't, that's just federal spending. The majority of education spending is at the state and local level.
These are remarkably succinct and coherent summaries of very complicated topics. Thanks for slogging through it all, Hank and John!
The fact that you guys don't have VAT is really weird to me. Why aren't democrats like Bernie Sanders proposing VAT as a way to get funding for their social programs? It seems weird for that to be a Republican position.
+James Royce-Dawson I assume both because it's a new kind of tax and a very visible one. On top of that it tends to be rather regressive in comparison to an income tax. Where you can change income taxes based on brackets and therefor have a somewhat flexible tool this is not really the case with VAT.
+James Royce-Dawson A VAT like the one Cruz proposes (which is different in important ways from the VATs in most European countries) is an idea with some bipartisan support in the U.S., but there's a lot of disagreement over what the rate should be. European-style VATs are viewed by some economists as regressive (because they tax consumption and the poor spend a much higher percentage of their earnings on consumption than the rich do), which is part of the reason it hasn't gotten widespread support in the U.S. But there's also the fact that it's just hard to institute major tax reforms. -John
***** I suppose I'm so used to VAT just being on everything that I don't even notice it anymore. I guess since you guys haven't had it up to now, suddenly seeing it on products and stuff would be a bit of a shock, especially for the poor, but it's still something I think could do a lot of good. America is a big country, and even a small VAT over a broad range of products would yield a large revenue to help reduce the deficit or fund major projects.
+James Royce-Dawson The states have VAT, as far as I know. Their taxation is really different from most european countries. The states are responsible for a lot of the stuff that would be paid by the central government (or equivalent) in europe.
+James Royce-Dawson +vlogbrothers I don't actually understand the difference between VAT and the existing sales tax in some US states. The way John described VAT had me really confused and is not what I thought VAT was at all.
I really appreciate your use of independent, non-partisan sources!
I like turtles... anyone else like turtles here?
ya
+valcrum321 Turtles have life figured out, yo.
+valcrum321 Some turtles hide in their shells by pulling in their neck. Others hide by tucking their head off to one side under the rim.
How will you hide once we get the next president?
+Yamikaiba123 The same way a sea turtle hides from a tiger shark... it doesn't, and dies a painful death.
+valcrum321 Turtles are pretty dang neat.
Great analysis! The only thing I would contend with is Cruz's analysis. The tax policy center's study which says it will dramatically decrease revenue is calculated through static, not dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring takes into account economic indicators changing with a different tax system. All in all, I really like Cruz's plan because it would not penalize wealth, much less paper work, and would boost overall economic activity.
+christophjmed1 But even with the most conservative independent modeling, there's still a huge gap left. Like, even if you assume massive economic growth resulting from the increase in clarity and decrease in paperwork, the rates are just too low to balance the budget without significant cuts to entitlement programs. -John
+christophjmed1 I don't really have a problem with dynamic scoring, if it were to also take into account the growth effects of government spending of, say, Bernie Sanders' proposed infrastructure spending for example.
+vlogbrothers Good, cut them
Dynamic scoring has been refuted and debuted many times in its current form. Supply side economics does not come close to accounting for the static loss in revenue, no matter what Bill O'Reilly and rush lindbaugh tell you.
+9Boxcar well put
It is such a relief to have a reliable source explain these tax proposals to me. I haven't even started paying my taxes yet so I had mostly zero clue what these politicians intended to do. My mom and her husband are very supportive of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump but when I asked them to explain why, they had no real answer. In fact I'm pretty sure their idea of the tax plans are incorrect.
+smythe12247 Please do independent research and don't take what John said as fact, he left out a good deal of very important information to keep the video brief and to cast the Republicans in a bad light.
+smythe12247 John is not a 100% reliable source. You should really look this stuff up yourself.
can y'all do a comparison video over presidents proposed tax plans and what they actually did? so we can see realistically what to expect from all of these dramatic changes being proposed now
+Christian Cross None of them will happen because they won't get through Congress. Republicans in Congress aren't going to work with Sanders or Clinton, and a significant enough number hate Cruz and Trump on a personal level.
when you learn in a 5min vlog about actual policy more than all gop debates put together
+Sami Mas To be fair, five minutes was more than the GOP debates ever spent on actual policy, so you can't blame them for having been less effective educationally. And John never got into the deeper, more serious subject of questioning just how big Donald Trump's hands are, after all.
+Sami Mas Are for fucking real? The GOP debates (especially the first 8) were way way and much better than the Democrats in terms of policy discussions. All what you got from the corrupt Hillary and the clown Bernie were give aways. Bernie even said whites don't know what poverty is!! Fucking liberal clowns.
Thank you, John and Hank for making these videos explaining the candidates' tax plans. For many, it's hard to find the time and energy to be able to research such things and be able to understand them. It's especially hard to find sources that aren't biased, and I think you have done a good job at presenting the information as facts instead of adding in your political leanings. Also, by doing this work for us, we are then able to be more educated voters in a time when I feel politics have been getting more and more complicated (then again, it's always been complicated). I know that I am now more able to make a well-educated decision when I vote this year. Thank you.
I thought Hank was joking when he said you were gonna compare the taxes between Trump and Cruz. Well I am glad it wasnt a joke!
He hits the nail on the head at 7:30. We do need to rethink the role government plays and reduce it as much as possible.
+StoneUnturner we need to build a wall or two
+StoneUnturner how much are you willing to pay for the elderly and sick? Just a cold blooded question that we will soon be asking when failure to short people who have been promised benefits will result in them either getting nothing at all or the assets of most people being inflated way to nothing. Sad fact is in most of the world people are not rich enough to give a flying F about poor folks... and soon if we dont cut the spending we will be that poor.
+StoneUnturner Its not just the donald. The amount of medicaid, medicare, social security expenditures is unsustainable at the current rates. Something has to change, not necessarily cutting off their access though
+StoneUnturner Aww, someone is using their emotions to justify theft. Because if the government didn't cover these people, they would simply die on the streets, right?
truepurpl e Very few people have literally zero options. And no one _has_ to pay, but should someone pay for people who are truly helpless? Sure. And we do. Voluntary charitable donations (~$400 billion in the US/year) currently go far and beyond what is sufficient to help those truly unfortunate, the only problem is that many people define "helpless" in such a way as to apply it to people who aren't truly helpless, and thus justify their role for government. Food is wildly available in the US and European nations. You aren't going to find someone who is actively seeking food and shelter who isn't going to get it, at least here.
And they say Bernie's tax plan is unrealistic...
That Guy Changing nothing is a shitty plan too. Bernie actually makes changes in the right direction.
Please do more videos like this on other policy issues! They are incredibly helpful and refreshing.
I reeeeeeaaaallly like how you said "half" at 6:52.
+Lane Carter It was very Christopher walken like.
+Lane Carter John sounded like a duck quack.
Sorry, I got side-tracked
Great video, John. Very informative.
But John, can't you just make mexico pay for your budget deficit? *sarcasm*
I wish I had videos like this to explain UK taxes etc to me because I'm 22 years old and I still have no clue
+Rachael Millmoor Where is CGP Grey when you need him
+Will Clow Probably playing factorio...
Hey Vlog Brothers,
Can this be a more consistent thing? Maybe a separate series that talks about all these current events? I would love to see a lot of videos like this!
When something major happens they typically make a video! I think there's a playlist for them' :)
I personally support simplying the tax code mainly because my ex works at H&R block
You wouldn't think that a short video with a presenter that is nice to listen to that pertains to important issues would be so rare on a site as massive as TH-cam.
I think at this point, I'll just go and live in the woods.
AGREED
+Moonbeam like the Alaskan bush people on TV, who got busted for tax fraud?
OurayTheOwl Kind of. But minus the tax fraud.
Moonbeam just pointing out the irony.
Read the book Into the Wild for the true story of a Man who actually did and why it was a good idea and sometimes a bad idea.
My first comment to any You Tube video. Awesome video. In 8 minutes you explained a very important and subtle issue in a manner that made it very understandable to most voters (maybe all voters) in this country. You simply cannot make a cut to the federal budget on the scale these two candidates are espousing without cutting the two most cherished (politically speaking) programs in the budget. If someone wanted to have an adult conversation about those two programs, and whether they are just too expensive, fine. I would listen. I would even participate. But the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too was proven too good to be true millennia ago. Thank you so much for this concise, brilliant explanation.
This is terrifying. Two president wannabes with unrealistic tax plans.
+ihath Republican party is such a god damn joke, it's scary*
+ihath tax plan is more like pandering for votes i doubt they realistically want what they say... but they are going for the republican nomination... and we republicans prefer smaller government and simplicity.
+Joseph Hutchison It sure as heck as a lot more merit than the republicans. And Bernies Tax plan is unrealistic on its own, but the idea is to implement the Tax plan with other large changes. Like an overhaul of the US healthcare system and such, in that light it becomes a whole lot more possible, and in my eyes the best of the canidates.
+Joseph Hutchison it's not unrealistic in the kind of "would destroy the economy and government budget" way, however it is extremely ambitious considering how powerful the richest americans are.
+ihath I know the idea of the democrats winning us horrifying
It's sad that this is the best breakdown of the tax policy I've seen this whole campaign season. When youtube has to pick up the slack for the mainstream media, mainstream media is doing something very, very wrong. That being said, many thanks to the vlogbrothers for putting these policy videos together - I really appreciate it. Keep up the good work!
The number of times I've heard politicians (usually Republicans) say they'll cut taxes while also increasing spending is unbelievable. The number of times I've seen them do that only to be met with cheers and applause is just sad. That's not how money works, guys.
Stupid things, however, come from both sides of the aisle. The left insists we raise the minimum wage because of inflation. I'm sitting there thinking do you even know WHY inflation happens?
Cut taxes, increase spending AND reduce the deficit. Pretty sure my 4-year-old son could point out the flaws in that logic.
I say we lower taxes with Trumps plan, keep military spending where it is (possibly lowering a little), reform obamacare and the entire welfare system to where it can't be taken advantage of, and raise the retirement age so social security doesn't cost us so much.
I think a lot of politicians bank on people electing them before they get caught in those sorts of contradictions.
"We need smaller federal government, but increased federal oversight and higher wages for government workers!" "We need to build strong trade ties with the world, but we need to put 400% tariffs on all imported goods to increase domestic purchases!" "Diplomacy is the only way, but let's build an aircraft that costs a trillion dollars and when you press a button, every person not within thirty feet of an American flag dies."
iYelawolf
"...to where it can't be taken advantage of..." As a programmer, I can say with complete confidence that there is literally *nothing* in the world that can't be taken advantage of. As for being *less* able to be taken advantage of, the percentage of people who actually take advantage of the current systems is extremely small, despite much political rhetoric claiming the contrary.
remember Rand Paul's tax plan? you know the one where the economy grows and revenue increases?
True dat
+Jared White if rand paul was a democrat in like the 90s he would do way better than today
That's why I'm a libertarian. The tax plans work like the conservatives. But socially were democrat, the views on all subjects line up well and make sense. Most other parties are very hypocritical of what they pick and choose to support.
+Jared White Rand Paul is a insignificant like his father.
+Jared White >remember Rand Paul
who?
So funny how proud John is about his award in economics hahaha
I call this, "The Sim City Tax Policy." It consists of setting the tax rate to zero percent. This allows your city to swell in population and economic activity. Once the treasury is empty, you hike up taxes to 20 percent for only a year. This leads to rampant unemployment and an abrupt 50 percent drop in population. However, those unhappy few that managed to stay pay enough taxes to drop the rate back down to zero for several years and regain any lost economic activity.
+Matt Hellmers The cycle of economic depression.
I feel like it is a good analogy for the left right pendulum economic policy in America. We elect right wingers who cut taxes to spur economic activity. After a couple of years the public realizes that you need a tax base for a functioning civil society so we elect a left winger to do the hard work of raising taxes and fixing all the damage. After things are solvent again and going well, we elect a right winger to cut taxes again for another binge.
+Matt Hellmers I agree that's what it feels like. History is a little more counterintuitive. There where Recessions that started under Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. Other then FDR (who served longer then any one else) guess what party all of these guys where part of.However no recessions started under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter (yes no recession look it up), Clinton or Obama. See a pattern. So if you want another Recession vote Republican.
If only conservatives realized that taxes are fantastic. I would argue they are the second greatest invention of all time. Without taxes, modern society wouldn't exist. They are simply good. All taxes really just are a payment you make for the services you need. If we didn't have taxes, you would still have to pay for roads, schools, military, etc. in fact, you would probably pay more for private school than you pay in tax.
I said this on Hank's video and I'll say it again. These videos are so important.
According to Democracy 3, the best way to make tax revenue is to positively advertize recreational drugs, get everyone addicted to them, then tax it through the roof!
10/10 no moral shortfallings.
noahdouble07 Exactly! xD
Are you going to do more of these about other areas of policy?
$52,000 is the median? Damn, my family is so much poorer than I thought.
+Inivican Absurdus It really depends on the cost of living in their area though. Generally areas with lower wages also have lower cost of living.
In KS $52,000 is pretty good living.
+Inivican Absurdus Have a sense of proportion. Here in Brazil, the "poor" americans would be considered middle class.
+Inivican Absurdus I think there was a report a while back that showed a lot of people (both on the poorer and richer side) believed they were middle class when they actually weren't.
zerosysko Well somebody making 30000 in Louisiana is able to live at about the standards of the average lower middle class. Somebody making half a million a year in California is really only living in upper middle class standards.
I have been reading TFIOS, yes I haven't read it yet; I didn't think I should, and a few days ago I was crying in English, and science, and a little bit in study hall. I still am a little (a lot) broken... Yet I don't regret reading it. I am now a huge fan of your books!
As a non-American I don't know how useful my input is however what I think would be a really interesting format for these videos is if you guys just spoke about candidates like a,b, c and d. People may find that they agree or disagree with the plans of a candidate despite their image in the media
thank you for these videos
Based on what you're saying here, what Ted Cruz is proposing sounds like someone who enjoys having a tree in his back yard, but got tired of sweeping the leaves. And his solution is to cut the tree down: that simplifies the problem, but it's not a very productive kind of simplification.
Why are johns videos always better? No hating on Hank, we all love you both
I've lived in the US for 31 years and have never paid taxes. -Julio Hernandez
Ender Skies Did you hear Hillary's new email server is up Bernie's ass? No one is going to go anywhere near it.
No, illegals pay taxes too. They just can't get benefits or insurance.
Just look it up m8
Finally and i'm just about to vote (for Sanders).
Ignoring several facets of the plans to focus on the parts that when taken alone seem to make them unfeasable. Not unexpected just annoying.
What really bothers me is saying that the rich will get the most benefit from Trump's plan. The median household will have a 0% income tax rate, so yes, the rich will have the largest % decrease from the current policy to his policy, but only because you can't go below 0%.
+mynameismatt2010 The rich will have the largest savings both in percentage and in absolute dollars. (by a lot.) I fail to see how the middle class will benefit more. I point out that many more families will pay no federal income taxes in the Trump plan. However, as I also point out, that's one of the main reasons the revenue shortfall will be so huge, around 25% of the federal budget. There would be some economic growth from the decreased taxation, but even the most conservative independent analysts say it will be a disaster: taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan. -John
+vlogbrothers but would the poor benefit any more than they would under say Bernie's plan? Who wants to raise taxes drastically on the poor anyway
+vlogbrothers cut welfare and minimum wage
+vlogbrothers and Obama care and every other unnecessary Democrat law.
+Len Flakisinski Honestly, absolutely none of the plans (as described by vlogbrothers - I haven't done much of my own research because, tbh; I don't understand a lot of what I have tried to read) seem entirely free of issues.
Here from vice sports, what a story AFC Wimbledon has ! Respect to you my friend 👍👊
Nice to see John come out swinging like that. Sometimes you just need to call out the bullshit.
agreed ^_^
Awesomeness9842
I was actually surprised by just how far outside reality the plans were. Being off by a few billion here and there is sadly assumed for a large government, but to be off by trillions over just ten years is staggering.
It seems to me, the best route to lowering taxes would be to make sure government spending grows slower than the overall economy.
+Adam Thornton That was kind of how things worked for much of the post-WWII era. But the connection between taxes, spending, and economic growth was broken near the end of the 20th century and has never been restored.
Omg you did Academic Decathlon? Holy shit that's awesome! :D I won gold in economics too, but as a scholastic though
I wish I had people like them as my teachers, growing up
Well I feel dumb now.
+CodeDarkBlue You're not alone.
Would love to see a video comparing foreign policies
+James Winfrey As far as foreign policy goes, other than Bernie Sanders it's really just a three-way (four-way if you include Kasich) contest between neo-cons.
+James Winfrey I second this!
You missed the point entirely of these tax reductions. What do conservatives believe in: limited government (with the exception of the military). Tax reductions across the board means goodbye social welfare programs or at least a serious reduction in funding. They're not saying it yet, but they will eventually (whoever comes out on top for the nomination). Now, with how large the state has become our taxes have been much too low to keep up with funding everything, hence the enormous debt. So, they might not get so many tax cuts, but programs will be defunded to compensate. It doesn't sound realistic yet, but just wait till they explain why these cuts would be made. The welfare-state has never worked and it never will and they're trying to stop the US from becoming more of one than we already have been. The EU is fucked and Canada is on its way. Did we all forget what happened in Greece so quickly?
+Isaac Yepez This. Regardless of one's personal beliefs it's simply intellectually dishonest to state the reduction in revenue without mentioning reduction of spending and making the plan sound much worse (in regards to the deficit) than is actually is.
+Isaac Yepez Vlogbrothers intentionally omit the reasoning of the republican party just so they can frame them of hating the poor, aiding the rich, bigotry, racism, sexism and every ism under the sun. These plans would make sense if he said republicans want to limit government (omitting national defense, since its one of the few jobs gov is supposed to have) and preventing dependence on the government by which we both know isn't just the ill, seniors and veterans.
+Haben - The Republicans dont want to cut spending, anymore then the democrats do...no one wants to be the adult who says that we cant keep soending with NO PLAN to EVER spend less money then we earn because the elderly who payed for benefits with money that was spent and replaced with government IOU's (actual, real paper ones...lol) will be pretty cross when they realize that we cant afford to pay them...young folks will be pretty upset when they are expected to pay huge tax burdens for benefits they will never get in THEIR old age.... no one would be happy if they understood the situation so the issue is kicked down the road and the FEd basicly prints cash to by government debt....
+tsp312
One of the larger points within the video stated that both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, have made promises to maintain 86% of what makes up the federal budget (social security, medicare, veteran's benefits, and expanding the military).
So yes, John did mention the idea of a reduction in spending, and stated that both candidates have very much promised NOT to reduce the majority of what the federal government spends its tax dollars on.
+Haben - What proportion of federal government spending goes toward individuals that are dependent upon the government?
Actually wrote about this for class. I kinda thought about how the plan would play out and wrote it without looking too much into it. Turns out what John said is pretty much what I had wrote about off the top of my head.
OK SO I JUST FINISHED PAPER TOWNS AND THEN I SAW THE BEER SWORD IN YOUR BACKROUND AND I STARTED CRYING JOHN WHY U DO DIS
ZODIAC KILLERS DON'T HAVE TAX PLANS
I gotta say, you can tell which one of the vlogbrothers is a writer by the differences in the presentation of the tax videos. XD
+Jazzy Crescendo totally. hank likes charts more too
+Jazzy Crescendo They are both writers.
I first saw John green in crash course for high school and then started watching vlogbros on my own time so happy I did
What happened to the other refugee videos you guys were gonna post??? I remember John saying there were two more coming up (this was a few weeks ago).
I don't know :(
+OnceUponAPiano There will still be two more coming! -John
They most likely will do them later, but since a large amount of their viewers are about to vote I think they would like to inform their viewers about the candidates.
Looks like the good old "less taxes for corporations so that they can create growth" i learned about in high school.
It's always the elderly, disabled and veterans who get screwed over :(
+Cat Parrish How do they get screwed over? Their existence alone is practically blocking the goal of one of your parties.
Thank you John for being frank and honest about this
Good luck selling me a Pizza John shirt. I'm currently wearing one.
+Alanna R. Nothing wrong with having two! ;) -John
***** Joke's on you. I already have two.
Trump's plan is by far the best of all the candidates
+Ineta Life If the goal is to enrich the rich at the expense of everyone else, then yes.
sargeantsimon1 Literally everyone in the country will have more money due to less taxes with his plan. The rich is included in that because they are also Americans and work hard and deserve it just like the rest of us.
Except that these tax plans don't exist in a vacuum. They affect the things around them. These tax plans would create a huge deficit in the budget as both drastically reduce income without an equal reduction in spending. There is a small reduction, but nowhere near the tax gap. This results in either crippling debt or ending the social programs that the poor and middle class depend on. Not just welfare, medicaid, and those things, but things like social security and public education.
sargeantsimon1 The thing about conservatism is that we don't need a huge budget. Limited government is the goal. We should only be spending money on things the people decide on. I don't think the president, someone who has everything paid for him, should have a $400,000 salary if you can see what I'm saying.
+Ineta Life certainly, but things like public education, roads maintenance, and a military are not cheap, and are definitely necessary. Beyond that, there's a strong case to be made that many social projects stimulate economic growth rather than hinder it. It's a much more complicated issue than just "I don't want to pay lots of money to the government."
we should reimagine the role the government plays in our lives though.
What would you like to see the government do?
+Logan Waltz You want to cut grandma and grandpa's SS check? You know they paid into that right?
+Jack Blade Have a standing army. That's it.
+BuFFoTheArtClown haha I hope that's a joke
+Logan Waltz hahaha you've clearly never been destitute and homeless. Welfare saved my life when I was 8.
I really appreciate this analysis. I don't have any experience with economics, so it would have been pretty time-consuming to try and do this research myself. I'm trying to become more empathetic towards people with different political ideologies, and although I still firmly disagree with most Republican policies, it's very useful to have this information so that I can argue and debate more intelligently with people, and just in general have a more comprehensive understanding. I just wanted to show that making videos like this doesn't always result in the hatred and vitriol that's currently occupying most of the comments.
Making the tax code simpler doesn't allow you to eliminate the IRS.
I know you guys can't afford to take sides on the candidates so I think it would be really interesting to watch you guys debate the better of the 2 on each side having to defend one and explain why you like them better. Picking each at random, playing devils advocate if you had.
That may be pretty hard considering some of the people running though, but none the less I think it would be a great way to hear some insightful thoughts without having to officially choose a side. Kind of like debating for a topic you actually disagree with.
+Mike Orr they can definitely "afford" it, writing best selling books that become movies is very lucrative
I was not talking about cash here. It would cost them little to nothing too talk about the candidates, but in the wrong light, it could cost them viewers. However many that may be.
Done correctly though, they could possibly take on the very heated topic without angering a large fraction of their base.
I think it would be very hard to argue some of the candidates here though so I could still see this being to difficult. Just an idea.
+Mike Orr Please. They've taken "controversial" political stances dozens of times in the past.
Thank you for existing.
These videos have been extremely helpful in increasing my understanding of a very dense and complicated political race.
and now Cruz's doesn't matter....
LOL
+Grizzly_Conservative he's the only one running now....
David Ensminger Yes, I am well aware. That's true and not true. He's the only one still campaigning, but he is not the only candidate that will be on the ballot at the Convention. No candidate dropped out. They SUSPENDED their campaigns, meaning they keep their delegates, but no more real effort till the convention. If Trump comes up short of 1237, which is 50% of the Delegates +1, then he will have to fight to convince delegates to join him
Problem is, many delegates that are obligated by party rules to vote for him in the first round will flatly refuse to do so thenceforth. Trump has a strong chance of losing the nomination if he doesn't clinch the 1237. But his chances of doing that are fairly high. It is Trump's game to lose
+Grizzly_Conservative Trump only needs 223 more delegates to win which he can easily get from a couple of winner-take-all states
***** But there are no more Winner-Take-All states left. Trump only has proportional states left. That is his problem. and he has 187 left to grab. probably 60%+ chance he will get the delegates, but he can lose it.
So let me understand this (@ 1:35-1:38). If I make $151,000, only 1,000 of that will be taxed at 28%. The rest at 25% etc
+Abbastanza4444 That's how tax brackets work, yes.
I'm not sure why people think when you tick over to a higher bracket your entire income is suddenly taxed at a higher rate. That would be a very stupid system.
precisely
+seigeengine People have reason to believe our system is stupid - so much of that stupidity is unfortunately true.
+seigeengine a probable reason is, when working overtime, you enter a new tax bracket for wages calculations, and so that money is taken away. it is given back at the end of the year as a refund. Along with deductibles. but at the time, if you work over time, after taxes are taken out, you basically make the same amount of money on your check.
Daniel Simonson I have no idea what the details are where you live, especially since it often varies by employer in the short term.
But no, that doesn't make sense. That would mean you can make more money, yet end up with less money. Nobody would support that system, and it would be easily exploitable as well. It's one of those cases where the idea is so stupid and against everyone's interests it should be apparent it's not the case, and that you've misunderstood.
Are you including Social Security and Medicare in your federal budget? Because I was under the impression that those were self funding non-discresionary budget items that, in theory, all Americans pay into and then receive later. I was under the impression that those were seperate from income tax.
+Joshua Radick John, please reply to this! You included mandatory spending in your total spending analysis, but not in your "taxes as they are" analysis. Mandatory spending is covered by other taxes.
+Joshua Radick You can check crashcourse politics episode on social security and medicare.
+Aaron Kravitz Mandatory spending is covered by other taxes discussed in this video. Cruz would repeal all mandatory spending taxes and replace them with the VAT; Trump would cut corporate and payroll taxes, making it imposible to meet our mandatory spending obligations without huge cuts. -John
+vlogbrothers Thanks John. This doesn't come through clearly in the video, it seems like their tax plans address only the regular income tax.
+vlogbrothers Thanks. I love your videos. I wish that I could say the same for my students.
What a fantastically educational video. Thank you so much John!
Didn't social security start out in the black? How did it get to be such a big part of our budget?
Baby Boomers
+Theje It started out in the black because the average life span was only a few years beyond the age when people could take out social security. Now people are living decades beyond, and therefore are withdrawing more. There is also the problem that other sectors of the government "borrowed" money from the social security fund, and don't have the capital to pay it back.
+Theje Essentially, because the U.S. population is getting older and living longer. -John
As others have noted, people live longer. When social security started out, there were something like 160 workers to every 1 beneficiary, and those beneficiaries generally only lived a few years past the start date of their beneficiaries. Today there are less than 3 workers per beneficiary, and those beneficiaries collect 15 or 20 or more years of benefits each.
It'd also be worth noting that historically not so many people went to college, so people started working, and paying into the system, much earlier. And since the retirement age hasn't gone up by very much, in addition to fewer workers per retiree, there's also the problem of each worker today working fewer years overall than they did at the programs start.
Medicare is even worse off because in addition to all the above problems, you also have out of control increases in the cost of medical services in recent years.
+Andrew P More people need to know about the "borrowing."
The fact that they're even on the ballot makes me feel ashamed to be an American...
This isn't America anymore, you liberals took it away, please come up with a new name.
Do Gary Johnson's tax code. It's the best one.
+michael barton or just any policy by a libertarian is the best
+Lucas Byker That's kinda the point.
+Lucas Byker how
Really great video, John. You did an amazing job explaining everything. I learned more about taxes during this video than I did in my tax classes in college.