well it's TRUE. inequality and poverty are 2 different things. I'm middle class and very unequal to someone like Bill Gates but I'm not poor. I'm still pretty well off owning a smartphone and a car. poverty is the other thing. inequality of outcomes (income and wealth) is necessary. people put different efforts and make different choices in their lives. Its inequality of opportunities that should be worked on. so people from poor communities should be given equal opportunities to go to school and have at least the income that could provide them with enough food so they could focus on education not hunger. But what they do in school and the choices or efforts they make...that's up to them
@@sabyisme There will always be wealth inequality but a healthy society needs to manage that inequality so that all members of the society are able to live a dignified life and contribute to the society. In the UK and the US there is an economic system that is designed to increase the inequality resulting in a growing proportion of the population living in poverty and unable to play an active role in society because they are focussed on survival.
@@sabyisme too much inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity. The rich can invest in property, shares etc and get richer (driving up house prices etc), the poor can't so get poorer. Plus money buys political power to game the system even more - how many of our PMs have gone to Eton again? Again inequality of opportunity. The equality of outcome/opportunity argument only makes sense if there's counterbalances to limit the advantage inherited/existing wealth lends.
I’m not rich but he’s obviously correct. Quality of living is much more important than inequality otherwise we’d chose to all be equal in a 3rd world country
The neoliberal economist makes no sense at all. First, talking about 70s economy to make a point about high taxes being bad, when in fact the 70s recession was caused by increasing oil prices. Then his stupid statement about inequality, saying that poverty,and not inequality, leads to poor living standards . Say again? Poverty leads to poverty. Great. There's a quote for you neoliberals. And then goes on to criticise Piketty's book second part, where Thomas actually states the obvious: that the rich 1% has it vastly easier to increase their capital just by collecting interests on that capital than the 99% by working our asses off all our lives, and that is bad, not good for economy overall, because it will increase the gap between rich and poor to revolutionary proportions. What's questionable about that? That is a fact. And no, we all know that the super-rich don't re-invest all that money in job creating enterprises. The contrary is actually true, and ultimately the cause for the "great recession". They either stuck it in tax havens, or create vast speculative bubbles, and drain all the money from the middle class. So an 80% or higher tax on the super-rich is not only logical, but essential. And guess what? the super-rich would still be super-rich. The only consequence would be that the rest of us wouldn't have to get screwed up so that they become super-duper-rich.
Taxing capital gains is usually going to hit your 401K or your family's pension. The loaded Walton family or Rothschild's will stash their cash in the Cayman Islands or Singapore. Everyone else will get hit... If you think $1 million is super rich as Piketty thinks. I think you should Google "Middle Class Millionaires." Most millionaires are not babies handed money. They are middle class that are very frugal on estimates earning $70-$85K a year
@@joelucas65 he said one million but he also said 100 million which is already quite rich but I have to agree it's still not the super rich. So the office for national statistics is even more wrong than Pikatty claims. The higher you come to the top of the rich the more the statistics deviate from the reality.
Taxing the mega-rich more and labour less, is actually just common sense, nothing complicated about it. No data required if you have even moderate intelligence and morals. People who disagree with this usually start reciting the same old rubbish about socialism doesn't work, etc and usually from Tories. Wealth needs to be distributed more evenly, I'm not talking about anything particularly extreme. Real wealth can't be measured in terms of money and balancing books. Sound, long-term investment needs to be made in infrastructure and in society generally.. people's happiness, etc. Environment is of course very important too. It's a shame the Conservative government in UK are overly concerned with trying to impress, by reducing the deficit, and making the lowest earners pay for it. Their rich chums and city backers profit from such measures even during more testing times. Thomas Piketty is no fool.
I mean Dr. Piketty is wrong on some of his points. He wants to tax capital gains as income is taxed. A very big mistake.... Because you would be hitting a small mom & pop investor. You will not hit Bill Gates.
I like it when people argue that Piketty is a noob. We're talking here about one of the most gifted man of his generation, PhD at age 23, teaching at MIT at age 25 and certainly a future Nobel Prize laureate (probably for this book). A 15 years of empirical work across the world with world class reseachers leading to discoveries they had no intentions and no expectations to find, and some youtuber or paid commentators saying 'he sucks'. He's won the debate.
All his qualification means nothing when he is suggesting 80% taxation. You take a person who has worked a 80 hour week to build up their bussiness and then the government comes in and takes away 80% of that. How could you support that. Especially when it is the individual who takes the risks not the people or the government. 20% is enough for anybody to pay in taxation. If a person worked 60 ours per week that means they would be giving up 12 hours to the government does not seem like a limit to you. Or do you really want everything.
bighands69 you're not living in reality; listen to the arguments. Read capital in the 21st century. This is a criticism of extreme wealth concentrated in few hands, not your local baker. No one is saying people who build business don't deserve to benefit from their endeavours but when their personal wealth exceeds the income of the average worker tenfold then it's a problem. Big money in few pockets is not good for the economy neither is it good for the social fabric of countries. This all began with Thatcher, the hard left made explicit why what she was doing was wrong and people didn't listen.
T800System Why do you liberal/socialists keep bringing up Thatcher as if she actually caused the problems. She she took over the UK unemployment was 13% and inflation was at about 24% and when she left office unemployment was 5% and inflation was 4%. Yes the rich got richer during this period but so did the poor unemployed/underemployed. Now to address your suggestion why tenfold why not 500 fold or 500,000 fold. What happens if that baker just earns that for the year because maybe he has sold some assets like equipment or part of the building should he then face this 80% tax. And you have not addressed why a person who works a 100 hour week should be 80% while a person who works 25 does not. "Big money in few pockets is not good for the economy" Both China and Germany have produced stable economies without taxing people at 80% and saving that money because what that then does is create capital to invest in such as manufacturing. Government no matter how much money you give them seem to never have enough.
bighands69 you keep conflating small business with big business. This is not a criticism of small business where you've got people toiling 60/70/80 hours a week to keep it afloat I am talking about large corporate entities where accumulation of wealth at the top is both unjustified and unhelpful. Thatcher helped the economy only so much as to take the relatively easy and cowardly option of capitulating to global capital. She freed the obligation of big business to act responsibly and in turn they were able to grow beyond their means through dangerous risk and exploitation. You have Thatcher amongst others to thank for the recession as she was undoubtedly the catalyst for the ability of banks to make disastrous decisions with other people's money. I don't know why you keep bringing up tax percentages as if it's a bad thing. Some people should pay more than others - if they are taking 10x,20x, 500x the annual average then they should be paying more. They have a duty to pay it. No civilisation without taxation as the saying goes. I am a believer in the old marxist maxim from each according to their means to each according to their needs. Tell me what's wrong with that? Stable economy? Germany? Are you having a laugh? Germany is on the verge of a downward spiral. And China is one of the most unequal countries on the planet. Yes the economy is growing but go and ask the sweatshop worker what he thinks about chinese economic growth. I don't care a wit about what you might consider a "stable" economy - I care about a stable society and I know that only such a thing can come from an equitable distribution of wealth which we are currently sorely lacking.
T800System Germany and China have strong economies because they make things and they have not allowed service industries to dominate their industrial output. They produce cars, Pharmaceuticals, electronics, solar panels, clothing and I could keep going on and on. Again you are not addressing the point I put before you. A person could work a 100 week take massive financial risk with less family time and earn 2m per year and you are suggesting that they should pay more than people that work 25 hours a week. How would you like it if I suggested that people who work less hours should pay more taxes because they are less productive. Or because a person who say has a job that only involves repetitive operations such as an assembly line should pay a greater percentage of taxation as they are doing a more simplistic job. What you are suggesting is the same as communism and National socialism. Hitler proposed a system where profits would be shared among the workers and not the entrepreneurs who started the investment and it was know as national socialism.
The other guy was ignorant - he said there is no bad effect of having lower income. Studies continue to find strong gradients in health and life expectancy - lower income -> worse health and life expectancy. see marmot review and many others
Education is the key even a person who is in low income who is educated will understand to stay healthy by eating well and exercising and not smoking or drinking excessively. Really has nothing to do with income has it.
bighands69 Income -> educational opportunities for yourself and your kids; income -> capacity to buy healthy foods/gyms etc. If you believe income is not important, please pass on some to me and I will educate. this one is free: ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/5/1333.short
He did say there are bad effects of poverty. That's not under debate. But that's not inequality per se. If everyone was poor, there would be less inequality, but everyone would be worse off in the ways you described above. As it pretty much was before the Industrial Age in the 1800s.
As a member of a civilised society, I see it as both a duty and a privilege to pay tax. I do not begrudge the tax that I pay when I see it being used to benefit the society that I am a part of.
So you are able to see that Thomas Piketty is right but still feel you are right wing? I hope you have become less confused since when you wrote this comment.
Sadly I believe you are right - remember the recent consensus about tax evasion in the EU and how Cameron stress the importance about doing something about it - where is the action? - dissappeared in the blue air??????
Must be very comfortable to believe you are more intelligent than Thomas Piketty but your statements/expressions are certainly not convincing - have you tried to read his book or is that against your conviction to be confronted with facts?
There is nothing wrong with people putting in hard work and a lot of time to become rich. The problem is that for the people starting off at the bottom of the pile, especially with the way basic wages are not increasing yet average bills and costs of living are going up, this leaves the poorest people in the hardest position.
The problem is that the goal posts keep moving, so that no matter what you do it becomes harder and harder to obtain even a roof over your head, and the reason those goal posts keep moving is so the people who have more can more easily take what the labour of others produce. They'll be coming after the assets of the middle classes next, then a few people might wake up to what is happening...
A fundamental thing here is that capitalism is NOT 'the only show in town'. To extend the analogy - there are several other shows in town, but people like the gentleman on the left don't know they are on. Or rather, the elites of capitalism DO know those other shows are on, and that they may be rather good ones, but they don't want 99% of the population to go and see the show and decide for themselves... There ARE alternatives to capitalism and the fact that most people have no idea what they are, or even that they exist, is a great fault in the present system.
God bless, you will never get your point across on taxation when you word your arguement as "Poverty feels pretty rough, I wouldn't say inequality feels pretty rough per se".
Why would you live in france if you're taxed that highly. Plenty of other countries have lower rates of tax. I would move out of france and move there.
@@vander9678most resources cant move borders, a lot of capital will likely just change hands or mega wealthy will stay in the nations with higher rates of tax.
They should retitle this as: "Thomas Piketty sits and says nothing whilst some bloke lectures him about his own book/study." - I've seen this interviewer countless times now and I can say with confidence that she is poor; she constantly interupts the main guest whilst allowing the other to speak freely.
Tax them 80% for what reason? It all gets wasted anyway Why cant people enjoy their money? Why do rich people need to be penalised for having money? Stop all taxes
Its hardly surprising that the FT supposed that Piketty made up some of his figures, after all the FT is largely a foundation paper for corporations and those involved in the super rich, who lets be honest must be terrified there is even publicity about taxing the super rich. I don't buy that statement at all... I also still believe we must take Piketty's Capital book with a pinch of salt, as you should any other scholarly and empirical study!
And "now", ten years after this interview we know for sure who was right? Inequality to the roof, ordinary people not able to buy a small house and so on... Incredible how important and crucial is this subject and governments don't go further
Thomas Piketty writes a tome on the topic of inequality. The guy on the left calls a few stooges from the City of London. The host has absolutely no idea what she’s supposed to think about any of it.
It's the corporations and the way the wealthy hide or disguise the wealth that needs to stop, they need to have to expose it the same as the wage earner so they can share it on the same level. Stop treating the rich as though their money is worth more.
very efficient. super-riches will still have more than plenty. their 1% will be a million times as much as your 30%. can't you see guys where the world is going?
amazing how people understand so little of economics. Study byzantine empire economics first. second, someone making dividends from their company is taxed much less than a person working a wage yet nobody mentions that. Third, if you think people working for a wage are keeping up with inflation you're terribly misguided and ignorant. Fourth, BE BETTER
That Ryan Borne fellow mentions there's much 'counter evidence' to Picketty's assertion that UK should tax super rich, using the period up to the 1970's which wasn't a 'productive egalitarian paradise' as evidence. But what a simplification! Factors leading to any unproductive-unequal society include much more pressing concerns than whether or not the >>super rich
Who's that controversial gold mine owner who's spoken on economics repeatedly? famous guy. He said that even though it was 80% on paper, in reality, no-one paid that.
90% tax for the super rich without loop holes. Introduce wealth caps for the obscenely rich, billionaires should not exist it is fundamentally morally wrong. Not a communist personal wealth is an admirable goal but lets be honest most billionaires go too far.
"we had high tax rates in the 70's!" ehm, we had high, really high, tax rates from WW2 - 70's. the larger period of growth the poor of this coutry ever had. in that period we went from horrible cottage level infastructure in every house in the country to a fully electric, indoor plumbing, much more thermal efficient housing. extreme increase in the standard of living, a leap which halted in the 80s. even with the technological advance of computers, we have had marginal increases in the standard of living.
I do not think over taxation to be healthy. The super rich should be encouraged to develop opportunities for growth. Taxation is negative, development is positive.
Trouble with left wing tax is the rich used to be people with 1 billion, then 10 million, now anyone who has 1 million is rich. Yet you are not rich at 1 million or 10 million or even 50 million compared to the cost of things.
When the US had 90% marginal tax rates they had vacation deductions and the effective rate has stayed the same. The French economist is lying about the US.
I know this is a very old comment, but wealth is objectivally not a finite resource, or atleast we are nowhere near reaching that finiteness. Piketty and all economists would agree with this. The growth of wealth over the last 200 years has been more than incredibly extreame. Even only 20 years ago, South Korea and China were extreamly poor, yet now they are places with huge wealth, yet the rest of the world has also increased in wealth. I know you are likely not an economist, but in all economic theory since atleast the 1600's and especially 1700 with Smith etc, it is a fact that wealth can be created, and we are not reaching that limit. The idea that wealth cannot be created was what pushed countries to imperialism, and is very incorrect.
@@freddiepatterson1045 Human activity can generate new wealth but at any point in time, the total wealth has to be finite. For a country like the UK where the economy is not growing, the only way for the rich to get richer is for the majority of the population to get poorer.
@@dave161256 I mean I agree there is a point in which wealth is finite, but the UK for example is nowhere near this. We are still below what we were in 2008, there is no reason at all we cannot surpass that. The US has much more wealth per person so does Australia, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway. There is no reason that UK human activity and commerce cannot increase wealth significantly more in the UK. Its only been a few years of stagnation. Many people said what you are saying in the 70s, yet here we are with significantly more wealth for the UK and the rest of the world. I agree sure we can improve stuff, but just saying "Oh no more wealth, we are mercantalist again" is just plain wrong and scare mongering
I admire Piketty, but am I the only one that believes that he is wrong? He stated that in the 50s, we had a tax rate of 90%, and had a booming economy. This is true. However, he forgets that there were even more tax loopholes in the 50s than there are today, plus Europe was still rebuilding from WWII, so there was little economic competition. Today, China is a major economic competitor, along several other countries. I can maybe see a tax rate somewhere in the 40s, maybe even in the 50s, but in the 80s sounds absurd.
The historical examples how high tax rates apparently had little effect - well in times past international travel and freight would have been slower and/or more expensive, as well as more protectionist government trade policies, so the rich were more likely to stay put where their businesses were for residential and taxation purposes. Now with a more global economy, if you tax the super rich excessively, they still have the resources to get expert advice to minimise tax paid and if their country of taxation residence is too unfavourable, they simply move elsewhere for tax purposes and the government loses all the personal income tax that person paid. If a business owner sees benefit, they could move their business to another country too. I agree with progressive taxation, but once the marginal personal income tax rate starts going above 50%, these people will find a way to minimise their income or simply move their residency, because when you're paying more than half of the dollar you earn just in income tax, that's an incentive to make these big changes. How many schmucks like the majority of us earning around $50k a year would it take to replace the revenue earned from 1 person on $1million/ $2million a year? Don't turn the screws too hard because the end result is an overall loss
if you tax "super rich" 80%@ 10million say then 99.9% OF ppl stop working when they make 9.999million..every tax bracket does this already..if I work 80 hours in 2weeks my tax (on my pay) is 30% if I work100 hours in 2weeks my tax is 50-55%(above 84 hours) so I litterly refuse to work over 84 hours cause I make half my wage!
The Kid arguing against the Professor ??? He should rather go to British pub and drink more , forget about economics which would take more than half of his life to figure out , let alone arguing with such a prominent Author !
Regrettably IQ can not be improved, but common sense can acquired by listening to someone with a higher IQ - Thomas Piketty's research is impressive and disregarding his conclusions is unforgivable narrow- mindness.
Inequality is not a problem, poverty is! This fucker doesn't seem to think that inequality's causing poverty. There's wealth transfer that's happening from the bottom to a tiny top. The old classical understanding of earned and unearned income, parasitic and non parasitic finance/economic activities has been forgotten.
one thing people tend to forget too easily is that "unearned income" is interest or stock value appreciation as a result of lending out one's money that then goes to increasing the size of the economy, creating jobs, creating new better stuff with greater efficiency. So the "unearned income" comes from allowing others to earn, and charging on average about 7% interest. In this process, jobs are created, more people can earn, and no national debt is accrued. And the risk is laid on the investor, not the government or "the people". Many investments fail, and no one pays the piper except the investor. In these discussions it is also pertinent to consider whether or not a government, which claims to need more tax revenue, is perhaps too large. The bureaucratic class just grows and grows...but is it doing more, or getting in the way? And one last point. Modern economic growth is not merely more of the same old stuff....we have not just produced, since 1900, more of the same stuff that was being sold back then. Every increase in tech that makes stuff better, increasing bang per buck, is very expensive, meaning capital intensive, and becomes more capital intensive over time. The total amount of capital in use has increased immensely. That capital can't be wrung out of the system as it supports the system at a cost of only, roughly, 7%, maybe a bit less. GaTrillions of dollars are tied up in investments, must be tied up in investments to keep the ball rolling. Increasing taxes on the rich will only reduce the amount tied up in investments and will therefore slow the rolling of the ball. And if anyone thinks more taxes on the rich will end up in the average Joe's pocket they are fooling themselves, as all that money will just go to enlarging the political and bureaucratic class.
Not all investment goes to productivity increasing stuff. Some people buy well placed land and buildings in large, well developed cities in order to generate rent income from this property. In an underdeveloped market, that helps incentivize land development, but in a very mature market, it turns into a form of rent paid to people who have the money to buy/sell/trade the control of that land. For instance, the real estate market in Vancouver has turned into an investment playground for rich Chinese people, property values are through the roof (and it's not like there has been tons and tons of building to support that value increase), companies are complaining that it's starting to become hard to hire because rents are high, and the crazy exponentially increasing values are looking a lot like a bubble ready to pop at any moment. Some people buy consumer debt. That's fine but it doesn't really add any more real production capacity to the economy. It's just 'investing' into the compound interest generated by this debt, and generally a movement of money from those who have some income but not cash on hand (generally poorer people) to those who have cash on hand (generally richer people on average). Some rent-producing equity is ownership of strategic distribution channels and advantageous market position, generally in industries with strong network effects (Telecoms for instance). Generally, the result of this is that one or a few well placed companies that generally developed first and will capture most of the profit margins in a given field. For instance, if you look at movies, generally the companies that make all the profits are the distributors. Companies that actually produce the movies (VFX shops, sound studios, etc) often have razor-sharp profit margins. Or if you look at the iphone appstore, it has become ridiculously competitive, so much so that the expected profit for app makers (over the 'salary' value) is essentially 0. But Apple makes 30% no matter what. Sure, some of this goes into running the store, but they have essentially all the profit in that market, and when you buy a share of Apple, the expected money that will be made in the future from that 30% is priced into it. The question you've glossed over here is about how much investment goes into innovative growth, and how much goes into rent extraction. In the Medieval and Renaissance days, rent extraction totally dominated the equation (that's why the aristocracy had so much power and money), but thankfully in the 20th century a lot of the investment has gone towards growth... My personal impression (which might well be wrong, but I think it's founded) is that unfortunately, the recent trend has been somewhat back towards rent-extracting investments.
boptillyouflop Yes, there is the problem of rising prices of everything as productivity increases in many places leading to more and more people having more money. Speculators do push up rents, but they can only push so far, after which new building creates more square footage for rent and rents go down. The Japanese speculators is US properties lost big time in the 1980s. Generally speaking, when foreign speculators begin driving rents up you can expect the bubble to burst. That's because those who sold them the properties were already calculating that a real-estate bubble was going to pop, so they unloaded their real estate. Any app that can't turn a profit has little value. Sometimes, a lot of the time actually, value price is depressed by competition. I remember a YT lecture by an economist on the Pikkety side, who argued that software companies were moving to could based apps so they could charge monthly or yearly rent instead of selling software that a customer could buy just once and use for years. That's an argument for preserving the horse and buggy against the automobile. I was skeptical of the move to the cloud. But as a small biz owner who does my own IT stuff, I am now convinced that the relatively small rent for cloud apps and storage is less than expensive than the old way cuz I don't have to maintain and upgrade hardware much anymore. My IT costs and headaches have gone down and I get a boost of efficiency that leads to extra business and so profit. It is my opinion that most of the economic hardship felt by many in N. America and Europe is due to globalization. So globalization is bad for N. America but good for Latin America and Asia. I don't know what to do about that in favor of N. America, but maybe if Donald Trump is the next pres he will figure out some solutions.
Don't forget that taxation is paying for our infrastructure and welfare and the Nordic system of making the "broadest shoulders" carry most has in no way hindered people with initiative from creating huge fortunes like Mærsk McKinley Møller and his dad. Mærsk and f.inst. Bill Gates in the USA, deserve our admiration, but I believe in our democratic system with all it's shortcommings. It is the best system there is and no individual has ever proven democracy inferior. Many "strong men" has tried and failed utterly. To try to put a "communist label" on all, who like Thomas Piketty advocate the need for less inequality in our societies, is cheap demagogic nonsense and hopefully based on pure ignorance and not evil intent. Neither Thomas Piketty nor I are socialists, but consider us educated social liberalists. Free markets but regulated free markets work and create welfare for all. Taxing the rich is part of this regulation that hopefully will prevent social unrest and revolutions as seen thru history. If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it!
Piketty's view on taxation and theory on capitalism are i'll conceived. Inequality is due to intellectual rights and property rights. Obviously these are iviolable and if people own the intellectual capital they will be much better off than most other people around the globe who do not. There is not an objective capital measurement system in his theories, which makes his views I'll conceived and his conclusions wrong. Viktor
WHILST EVERYONE IN THE VIDEO AND IN THE COMMENTS ARE WASTING THEIR LIVES AWAY BY ARGUING WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE RICH OR NOT..........I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BUILD MY BUSINESS INTO A GLOBAL CONGLOMERATE - LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!
The same old transparent argument about economic growth. Of course highter taxes on there rich often means a negative growth rate because they are in a position of power to invest in the economy at their discretion. It is this power that has to be confronted if we are going to solve the problem of income inequality, simple, but not to someone who is invested in protecting capitalism of course.
This debate is one of those that sounds so appealing but isn't. So many people would move and then the economy would be worse off. The only thing to do is to hand out credits isn't of money to benefit users! For example. A card that allows one to spend the credit on certain items! Stop benefit users from binge drinking!
What an incredibly dumb idea. The super rich would simply move to jersey or the caymans or where ever else. One thing the french really shouldnt be lecturing on is economics.
Golden Boy Well the rich are leaving france in droves due to high tax rates on the super rich. They simply move to belgium officially yet continue to spend most their time in France
Golden Boy Taxes where not higher in the past that is a myth. Certain tax classes may have been higher but the tax liability is much higher today. In the Nordic countries they have high taxes but amazing services and rich people have more or less taken this as a trade off and are willing to accept this. Move taxes to 80% today and people will leave for countries with lower taxes and if you close those countries off guess what the rich will do they will set up their own country.
bighands69 No, the tax liability is most certainly NOT higher today. Not on the rich. You know why? Because the rich are the ones who write the tax code. They lobby members of congress who are in their pocket. That's how you know.
Who is this high-born Torrie, yapping about what???? Leveling a modest tax on super wealth to improve the very society in which they live and continue to amass wealth?
If they leave the country, they should take their businesses with them... Shopping around for somewhere to live, where the authorities let you keep the proceeds of tax evasion crime isn't really acceptable.
and of course, since he knows what he's talking about, he talks about taking such a measure at least "regionally" which he means at a size of "only almost a continent" like Europe for example, or the USA, because he knows very well about tax evasion and is against national protectionism.
It never went away. Most higher rankings in the civil service, universities and media are socialists and everything they publish is just their agenda. But they never managed to take over private businesses because they could not run them and when they tried they just run them to the ground.
+Alan Thomas socialist thinking will never go away because it's the common sense, the voice in the back of your head.. market has it's limits and they're nearing to the end..
@@dragonno6587 well said capitalists know nothing and blindly listen to their masters, while at the same time these conservatives think the mainstream media is against them... And the mainstream media at large supports capitalism as it is funded by the ultra rich at large...
"Wealth inequality is not necessarily a bad thing" says the rich man!
well it's TRUE. inequality and poverty are 2 different things. I'm middle class and very unequal to someone like Bill Gates but I'm not poor. I'm still pretty well off owning a smartphone and a car. poverty is the other thing. inequality of outcomes (income and wealth) is necessary. people put different efforts and make different choices in their lives. Its inequality of opportunities that should be worked on. so people from poor communities should be given equal opportunities to go to school and have at least the income that could provide them with enough food so they could focus on education not hunger. But what they do in school and the choices or efforts they make...that's up to them
@@sabyisme There will always be wealth inequality but a healthy society needs to manage that inequality so that all members of the society are able to live a dignified life and contribute to the society. In the UK and the US there is an economic system that is designed to increase the inequality resulting in a growing proportion of the population living in poverty and unable to play an active role in society because they are focussed on survival.
@@sabyisme too much inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity. The rich can invest in property, shares etc and get richer (driving up house prices etc), the poor can't so get poorer. Plus money buys political power to game the system even more - how many of our PMs have gone to Eton again? Again inequality of opportunity. The equality of outcome/opportunity argument only makes sense if there's counterbalances to limit the advantage inherited/existing wealth lends.
I heard that and nearly choked, The arrogance of him. He's lot will face the people soon.
I’m not rich but he’s obviously correct. Quality of living is much more important than inequality otherwise we’d chose to all be equal in a 3rd world country
Why get the book's author on to speak and then not listen to a word he says?
sadly because they have idiots interviewing him...at least the guy is...he's taking the argument like a personal affront...very odd...
@@christinetrzcinski4561 because he is defending his master's, he won't get paid if he doesn't defend😂🤣
The neoliberal economist makes no sense at all. First, talking about 70s economy to make a point about high taxes being bad, when in fact the 70s recession was caused by increasing oil prices. Then his stupid statement about inequality, saying that poverty,and not inequality, leads to poor living standards . Say again? Poverty leads to poverty. Great. There's a quote for you neoliberals. And then goes on to criticise Piketty's book second part, where Thomas actually states the obvious: that the rich 1% has it vastly easier to increase their capital just by collecting interests on that capital than the 99% by working our asses off all our lives, and that is bad, not good for economy overall, because it will increase the gap between rich and poor to revolutionary proportions. What's questionable about that? That is a fact. And no, we all know that the super-rich don't re-invest all that money in job creating enterprises. The contrary is actually true, and ultimately the cause for the "great recession". They either stuck it in tax havens, or create vast speculative bubbles, and drain all the money from the middle class. So an 80% or higher tax on the super-rich is not only logical, but essential. And guess what? the super-rich would still be super-rich. The only consequence would be that the rest of us wouldn't have to get screwed up so that they become super-duper-rich.
2024.I am not rich and I pay 50% of my tax plus VAT
Piketty is right! The guy on the left works for the Establishment. End of story.
Taxing capital gains is usually going to hit your 401K or your family's pension. The loaded Walton family or Rothschild's will stash their cash in the Cayman Islands or Singapore. Everyone else will get hit... If you think $1 million is super rich as Piketty thinks. I think you should Google "Middle Class Millionaires." Most millionaires are not babies handed money. They are middle class that are very frugal on estimates earning $70-$85K a year
@@joelucas65 he said one million but he also said 100 million which is already quite rich but I have to agree it's still not the super rich. So the office for national statistics is even more wrong than Pikatty claims. The higher you come to the top of the rich the more the statistics deviate from the reality.
@@perobusmaximus "Bureaucrat" "Intellectual"
WHO IS THIS LITTLE BOY ARGUING WITH THOMAS
He speaks in platitudes without data,
So you know he is full of it.
Whoever he is.
little boy is a wipper snapper who is referencing data from his masters
Taxing the mega-rich more and labour less, is actually just common sense, nothing complicated about it. No data required if you have even moderate intelligence and morals.
People who disagree with this usually start reciting the same old rubbish about socialism doesn't work, etc and usually from Tories.
Wealth needs to be distributed more evenly, I'm not talking about anything particularly extreme.
Real wealth can't be measured in terms of money and balancing books.
Sound, long-term investment needs to be made in infrastructure and in society generally.. people's happiness, etc.
Environment is of course very important too.
It's a shame the Conservative government in UK are overly concerned with trying to impress, by reducing the deficit, and making the lowest earners pay for it.
Their rich chums and city backers profit from such measures even during more testing times.
Thomas Piketty is no fool.
I mean Dr. Piketty is wrong on some of his points. He wants to tax capital gains as income is taxed. A very big mistake.... Because you would be hitting a small mom & pop investor. You will not hit Bill Gates.
" you would be hitting a small mom & pop investor." - lol, wut?
jesus the british guy doesn't even make sense and the interviewer did a terrible job moderating.
Piketty is French.
#vesogry akkakakaka that was funny
I like it when people argue that Piketty is a noob. We're talking here about one of the most gifted man of his generation, PhD at age 23, teaching at MIT at age 25 and certainly a future Nobel Prize laureate (probably for this book). A 15 years of empirical work across the world with world class reseachers leading to discoveries they had no intentions and no expectations to find, and some youtuber or paid commentators saying 'he sucks'.
He's won the debate.
All his qualification means nothing when he is suggesting 80% taxation.
You take a person who has worked a 80 hour week to build up their bussiness and then the government comes in and takes away 80% of that.
How could you support that. Especially when it is the individual who takes the risks not the people or the government. 20% is enough for anybody to pay in taxation.
If a person worked 60 ours per week that means they would be giving up 12 hours to the government does not seem like a limit to you.
Or do you really want everything.
bighands69 you're not living in reality; listen to the arguments. Read capital in the 21st century. This is a criticism of extreme wealth concentrated in few hands, not your local baker. No one is saying people who build business don't deserve to benefit from their endeavours but when their personal wealth exceeds the income of the average worker tenfold then it's a problem. Big money in few pockets is not good for the economy neither is it good for the social fabric of countries. This all began with Thatcher, the hard left made explicit why what she was doing was wrong and people didn't listen.
T800System
Why do you liberal/socialists keep bringing up Thatcher as if she actually caused the problems. She she took over the UK unemployment was 13% and inflation was at about 24% and when she left office unemployment was 5% and inflation was 4%.
Yes the rich got richer during this period but so did the poor unemployed/underemployed.
Now to address your suggestion why tenfold why not 500 fold or 500,000 fold. What happens if that baker just earns that for the year because maybe he has sold some assets like equipment or part of the building should he then face this 80% tax.
And you have not addressed why a person who works a 100 hour week should be 80% while a person who works 25 does not.
"Big money in few pockets is not good for the economy"
Both China and Germany have produced stable economies without taxing people at 80% and saving that money because what that then does is create capital to invest in such as manufacturing.
Government no matter how much money you give them seem to never have enough.
bighands69 you keep conflating small business with big business. This is not a criticism of small business where you've got people toiling 60/70/80 hours a week to keep it afloat I am talking about large corporate entities where accumulation of wealth at the top is both unjustified and unhelpful.
Thatcher helped the economy only so much as to take the relatively easy and cowardly option of capitulating to global capital. She freed the obligation of big business to act responsibly and in turn they were able to grow beyond their means through dangerous risk and exploitation. You have Thatcher amongst others to thank for the recession as she was undoubtedly the catalyst for the ability of banks to make disastrous decisions with other people's money.
I don't know why you keep bringing up tax percentages as if it's a bad thing. Some people should pay more than others - if they are taking 10x,20x, 500x the annual average then they should be paying more. They have a duty to pay it. No civilisation without taxation as the saying goes. I am a believer in the old marxist maxim from each according to their means to each according to their needs. Tell me what's wrong with that?
Stable economy? Germany? Are you having a laugh? Germany is on the verge of a downward spiral. And China is one of the most unequal countries on the planet. Yes the economy is growing but go and ask the sweatshop worker what he thinks about chinese economic growth. I don't care a wit about what you might consider a "stable" economy - I care about a stable society and I know that only such a thing can come from an equitable distribution of wealth which we are currently sorely lacking.
T800System
Germany and China have strong economies because they make things and they have not allowed service industries to dominate their industrial output. They produce cars, Pharmaceuticals, electronics, solar panels, clothing and I could keep going on and on.
Again you are not addressing the point I put before you. A person could work a 100 week take massive financial risk with less family time and earn 2m per year and you are suggesting that they should pay more than people that work 25 hours a week.
How would you like it if I suggested that people who work less hours should pay more taxes because they are less productive.
Or because a person who say has a job that only involves repetitive operations such as an assembly line should pay a greater percentage of taxation as they are doing a more simplistic job.
What you are suggesting is the same as communism and National socialism. Hitler proposed a system where profits would be shared among the workers and not the entrepreneurs who started the investment and it was know as national socialism.
Spot on. Instead of ending extreme poverty, we should focus on ending extreme wealth. A bottomless pit.
Extreme wealth lives on extreme poverty. It needs extreme poverty to thrive, so why not share wealth better?
The other guy was ignorant - he said there is no bad effect of having lower income. Studies continue to find strong gradients in health and life expectancy - lower income -> worse health and life expectancy. see marmot review and many others
Education is the key even a person who is in low income who is educated will understand to stay healthy by eating well and exercising and not smoking or drinking excessively.
Really has nothing to do with income has it.
bighands69 Income -> educational opportunities for yourself and your kids; income -> capacity to buy healthy foods/gyms etc. If you believe income is not important, please pass on some to me and I will educate. this one is free: ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/5/1333.short
He did say there are bad effects of poverty. That's not under debate. But that's not inequality per se. If everyone was poor, there would be less inequality, but everyone would be worse off in the ways you described above. As it pretty much was before the Industrial Age in the 1800s.
Hey lets get an author on to talk about his book but interview the other guest the whole time. What a joke...
As a member of a civilised society, I see it as both a duty and a privilege to pay tax. I do not begrudge the tax that I pay when I see it being used to benefit the society that I am a part of.
I'm right wing and Piketty ran circles around this pretentious prat.
You are not right wing, stop lying.
So you are able to see that Thomas Piketty is right but still feel you are right wing? I hope you have become less confused since when you wrote this comment.
@@numbo655 You can be right wing on different things .
4 years later we have a low growth world and the super rich are doing just fine.
The myth of infinite growth is the biggest piece of garbage ever produced by liberal democracies .
You can easily tax the income over 3,4 or 5 million per year at 80%.
taxing labour less and fortunes a bit more - can any intelligent persons disagree on that ?
+Kjell Nilsson They will find a loop whole to evade it.
Sadly I believe you are right - remember the recent consensus about tax evasion in the EU and how Cameron stress the importance about doing something about it - where is the action? - dissappeared in the blue air??????
Hannibal Lector Why do I have a feeling that your statement is a contradiction?
+Hannibal Lector Yes, you're basically saying you have a low iq and no common sense. Maybe reread your comments before posting...
Must be very comfortable to believe you are more intelligent than Thomas Piketty but your statements/expressions are certainly not convincing - have you tried to read his book or is that against your conviction to be confronted with facts?
I have noticed that those claiming "inequality is OK" tend to be those holding the big slice....
I cant wait for the time when we'll all realise we ve had enough !
There is nothing wrong with people putting in hard work and a lot of time to become rich. The problem is that for the people starting off at the bottom of the pile, especially with the way basic wages are not increasing yet average bills and costs of living are going up, this leaves the poorest people in the hardest position.
Minimum wage just means that some body else where is losing out on a job some where.
+UKFreedomFighters what's why we need progressive taxing
The problem is that the goal posts keep moving, so that no matter what you do it becomes harder and harder to obtain even a roof over your head, and the reason those goal posts keep moving is so the people who have more can more easily take what the labour of others produce. They'll be coming after the assets of the middle classes next, then a few people might wake up to what is happening...
A fundamental thing here is that capitalism is NOT 'the only show in town'. To extend the analogy - there are several other shows in town, but people like the gentleman on the left don't know they are on. Or rather, the elites of capitalism DO know those other shows are on, and that they may be rather good ones, but they don't want 99% of the population to go and see the show and decide for themselves... There ARE alternatives to capitalism and the fact that most people have no idea what they are, or even that they exist, is a great fault in the present system.
Nah
The shows simply aren't any good
LET PIKETTY TALK
The interviewers seem petty when they call him out for not taking a side. It's pathetic.
That Ryan Born has a certain Grima Wormtongue quality about him, defending the indefensible.
Comon, somebody has to say it! Thomas is way too polite!
Massive inequality. Americans in 2016: Let's vote for an orange billionaire.
America is not a capitalistic society. It is oligarchy.
The guy on the left mentions the 1970's.He wasn't even alive then.Back then,UK uniouns defended their members' wage levels.
God bless, you will never get your point across on taxation when you word your arguement as "Poverty feels pretty rough, I wouldn't say inequality feels pretty rough per se".
if you're making 500,000 a month and get taxed at 80% you'd have 100k left. 100k for one month is more than enough to have a good life
Why would you live in france if you're taxed that highly. Plenty of other countries have lower rates of tax. I would move out of france and move there.
and here comes capital flight. Money has no borders, no allegiance.
@@vander9678most resources cant move borders, a lot of capital will likely just change hands or mega wealthy will stay in the nations with higher rates of tax.
Forget taxing the ultra wealthy. Eat the rich!
This guy is lying about the US. There used to be vacation deduction and federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has stayed the same.
They should retitle this as: "Thomas Piketty sits and says nothing whilst some bloke lectures him about his own book/study." - I've seen this interviewer countless times now and I can say with confidence that she is poor; she constantly interupts the main guest whilst allowing the other to speak freely.
Tax them 80% for what reason? It all gets wasted anyway
Why cant people enjoy their money?
Why do rich people need to be penalised for having money?
Stop all taxes
Its hardly surprising that the FT supposed that Piketty made up some of his figures, after all the FT is largely a foundation paper for corporations and those involved in the super rich, who lets be honest must be terrified there is even publicity about taxing the super rich. I don't buy that statement at all... I also still believe we must take Piketty's Capital book with a pinch of salt, as you should any other scholarly and empirical study!
6:18 Question; Can it survive? (Capitalism) Yes, because it's the only show in town!! He jumps away from it, he noticed how bad that sounds
France has a 75 % tax rate and all the millionaires are leaving as fast as they can. No one will ever be stupid enough to stick around.
And "now", ten years after this interview we know for sure who was right? Inequality to the roof, ordinary people not able to buy a small house and so on... Incredible how important and crucial is this subject and governments don't go further
Thomas Piketty writes a tome on the topic of inequality.
The guy on the left calls a few stooges from the City of London.
The host has absolutely no idea what she’s supposed to think about any of it.
It's the corporations and the way the wealthy hide or disguise the wealth that needs to stop, they need to have to expose it the same as the wage earner so they can share it on the same level. Stop treating the rich as though their money is worth more.
people living in cardboard boxes in the USA and UK would say that the stats are not working for them.
Why don't we just buy the v rich a one way plane ticket and make sure we trash our tax revenue
very efficient. super-riches will still have more than plenty. their 1% will be a million times as much as your 30%. can't you see guys where the world is going?
amazing how people understand so little of economics. Study byzantine empire economics first. second, someone making dividends from their company is taxed much less than a person working a wage yet nobody mentions that. Third, if you think people working for a wage are keeping up with inflation you're terribly misguided and ignorant. Fourth, BE BETTER
Huhh
Like, don't these guys know better than to come at Piketty with their weak sauce srguments?
That Ryan Borne fellow mentions there's much 'counter evidence' to Picketty's assertion that UK should tax super rich, using the period up to the 1970's which wasn't a 'productive egalitarian paradise' as evidence.
But what a simplification!
Factors leading to any unproductive-unequal society include much more pressing concerns than whether or not the >>super rich
Who's that controversial gold mine owner who's spoken on economics repeatedly? famous guy. He said that even though it was 80% on paper, in reality, no-one paid that.
Piketty did not destroy this guy...he was just more passionate.
90% tax for the super rich without loop holes. Introduce wealth caps for the obscenely rich, billionaires should not exist it is fundamentally morally wrong. Not a communist personal wealth is an admirable goal but lets be honest most billionaires go too far.
"we had high tax rates in the 70's!"
ehm, we had high, really high, tax rates from WW2 - 70's. the larger period of growth the poor of this coutry ever had. in that period we went from horrible cottage level infastructure in every house in the country to a fully electric, indoor plumbing, much more thermal efficient housing. extreme increase in the standard of living, a leap which halted in the 80s. even with the technological advance of computers, we have had marginal increases in the standard of living.
tax the super rich retroactively .
Who knows? Maybe this interview was a trigger that resulted all the demonstrations before Covid.
Not it has been more quiet.
I do not think over taxation to be healthy. The super rich should be encouraged to develop opportunities for growth. Taxation is negative, development is positive.
This guy is a joke. If you want to listen to a reasonable Keynesian economist, check out Mark Blyth.
Trouble with left wing tax is the rich used to be people with 1 billion, then 10 million, now anyone who has 1 million is rich. Yet you are not rich at 1 million or 10 million or even 50 million compared to the cost of things.
I guess any theoretical government doing this could just hike taxes on those with genuinely high wealth, and not consider millionaires wealthy.
Can we have the uncut version? Like with the Jordan Peterson interview
When the US had 90% marginal tax rates they had vacation deductions and the effective rate has stayed the same. The French economist is lying about the US.
What does this kid know about inequality...???
It is about time we started treating wealth as a finite resource which would explain why we have increasing inequality and rising levels of poverty.
I know this is a very old comment, but wealth is objectivally not a finite resource, or atleast we are nowhere near reaching that finiteness. Piketty and all economists would agree with this. The growth of wealth over the last 200 years has been more than incredibly extreame. Even only 20 years ago, South Korea and China were extreamly poor, yet now they are places with huge wealth, yet the rest of the world has also increased in wealth. I know you are likely not an economist, but in all economic theory since atleast the 1600's and especially 1700 with Smith etc, it is a fact that wealth can be created, and we are not reaching that limit. The idea that wealth cannot be created was what pushed countries to imperialism, and is very incorrect.
@@freddiepatterson1045 Human activity can generate new wealth but at any point in time, the total wealth has to be finite. For a country like the UK where the economy is not growing, the only way for the rich to get richer is for the majority of the population to get poorer.
@@dave161256 I mean I agree there is a point in which wealth is finite, but the UK for example is nowhere near this. We are still below what we were in 2008, there is no reason at all we cannot surpass that. The US has much more wealth per person so does Australia, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Norway. There is no reason that UK human activity and commerce cannot increase wealth significantly more in the UK. Its only been a few years of stagnation. Many people said what you are saying in the 70s, yet here we are with significantly more wealth for the UK and the rest of the world. I agree sure we can improve stuff, but just saying "Oh no more wealth, we are mercantalist again" is just plain wrong and scare mongering
Sure, if you desire to punish successful people for working their asses off (inheritance is rare, by the way).
Whose growth? It is an aggregate, but says nothing about who gets what.
the charade of philantrophy
Nobody paid those high rates
There is NO counter economic evidence.
I admire Piketty, but am I the only one that believes that he is wrong? He stated that in the 50s, we had a tax rate of 90%, and had a booming economy. This is true. However, he forgets that there were even more tax loopholes in the 50s than there are today, plus Europe was still rebuilding from WWII, so there was little economic competition. Today, China is a major economic competitor, along several other countries. I can maybe see a tax rate somewhere in the 40s, maybe even in the 50s, but in the 80s sounds absurd.
The historical examples how high tax rates apparently had little effect - well in times past international travel and freight would have been slower and/or more expensive, as well as more protectionist government trade policies, so the rich were more likely to stay put where their businesses were for residential and taxation purposes.
Now with a more global economy, if you tax the super rich excessively, they still have the resources to get expert advice to minimise tax paid and if their country of taxation residence is too unfavourable, they simply move elsewhere for tax purposes and the government loses all the personal income tax that person paid. If a business owner sees benefit, they could move their business to another country too.
I agree with progressive taxation, but once the marginal personal income tax rate starts going above 50%, these people will find a way to minimise their income or simply move their residency, because when you're paying more than half of the dollar you earn just in income tax, that's an incentive to make these big changes. How many schmucks like the majority of us earning around $50k a year would it take to replace the revenue earned from 1 person on $1million/ $2million a year?
Don't turn the screws too hard because the end result is an overall loss
There should be a more progressive definition of "living standards".
Thomas P is awesome
if you tax "super rich" 80%@ 10million say then 99.9% OF ppl stop working when they make 9.999million..every tax bracket does this already..if I work 80 hours in 2weeks my tax (on my pay) is 30% if I work100 hours in 2weeks my tax is 50-55%(above 84 hours) so I litterly refuse to work over 84 hours cause I make half my wage!
dam right maybe even 90 per cent
What about a hundred and ten percent? Goof ball.
The Kid arguing against the Professor ???
He should rather go to British pub and drink more , forget about economics which would take more than half of his life to figure out , let alone arguing with such a prominent Author !
Regrettably IQ can not be improved, but common sense can acquired by listening to someone with a higher IQ - Thomas Piketty's research is impressive and disregarding his conclusions is unforgivable narrow- mindness.
It is arguing of nationalist b/ French and British good old foe for the century not arguing what is the fact and admit it.
Inequality is not a problem, poverty is! This fucker doesn't seem to think that inequality's causing poverty. There's wealth transfer that's happening from the bottom to a tiny top. The old classical understanding of earned and unearned income, parasitic and non parasitic finance/economic activities has been forgotten.
Insanity.
one thing people tend to forget too easily is that "unearned income" is interest or stock value appreciation as a result of lending out one's money that then goes to increasing the size of the economy, creating jobs, creating new better stuff with greater efficiency. So the "unearned income" comes from allowing others to earn, and charging on average about 7% interest. In this process, jobs are created, more people can earn, and no national debt is accrued. And the risk is laid on the investor, not the government or "the people". Many investments fail, and no one pays the piper except the investor.
In these discussions it is also pertinent to consider whether or not a government, which claims to need more tax revenue, is perhaps too large. The bureaucratic class just grows and grows...but is it doing more, or getting in the way?
And one last point. Modern economic growth is not merely more of the same old stuff....we have not just produced, since 1900, more of the same stuff that was being sold back then. Every increase in tech that makes stuff better, increasing bang per buck, is very expensive, meaning capital intensive, and becomes more capital intensive over time. The total amount of capital in use has increased immensely. That capital can't be wrung out of the system as it supports the system at a cost of only, roughly, 7%, maybe a bit less.
GaTrillions of dollars are tied up in investments, must be tied up in investments to keep the ball rolling. Increasing taxes on the rich will only reduce the amount tied up in investments and will therefore slow the rolling of the ball.
And if anyone thinks more taxes on the rich will end up in the average Joe's pocket they are fooling themselves, as all that money will just go to enlarging the political and bureaucratic class.
Not all investment goes to productivity increasing stuff.
Some people buy well placed land and buildings in large, well developed cities in order to generate rent income from this property. In an underdeveloped market, that helps incentivize land development, but in a very mature market, it turns into a form of rent paid to people who have the money to buy/sell/trade the control of that land. For instance, the real estate market in Vancouver has turned into an investment playground for rich Chinese people, property values are through the roof (and it's not like there has been tons and tons of building to support that value increase), companies are complaining that it's starting to become hard to hire because rents are high, and the crazy exponentially increasing values are looking a lot like a bubble ready to pop at any moment.
Some people buy consumer debt. That's fine but it doesn't really add any more real production capacity to the economy. It's just 'investing' into the compound interest generated by this debt, and generally a movement of money from those who have some income but not cash on hand (generally poorer people) to those who have cash on hand (generally richer people on average).
Some rent-producing equity is ownership of strategic distribution channels and advantageous market position, generally in industries with strong network effects (Telecoms for instance). Generally, the result of this is that one or a few well placed companies that generally developed first and will capture most of the profit margins in a given field. For instance, if you look at movies, generally the companies that make all the profits are the distributors. Companies that actually produce the movies (VFX shops, sound studios, etc) often have razor-sharp profit margins. Or if you look at the iphone appstore, it has become ridiculously competitive, so much so that the expected profit for app makers (over the 'salary' value) is essentially 0. But Apple makes 30% no matter what. Sure, some of this goes into running the store, but they have essentially all the profit in that market, and when you buy a share of Apple, the expected money that will be made in the future from that 30% is priced into it.
The question you've glossed over here is about how much investment goes into innovative growth, and how much goes into rent extraction. In the Medieval and Renaissance days, rent extraction totally dominated the equation (that's why the aristocracy had so much power and money), but thankfully in the 20th century a lot of the investment has gone towards growth... My personal impression (which might well be wrong, but I think it's founded) is that unfortunately, the recent trend has been somewhat back towards rent-extracting investments.
boptillyouflop Yes, there is the problem of rising prices of everything as productivity increases in many places leading to more and more people having more money.
Speculators do push up rents, but they can only push so far, after which new building creates more square footage for rent and rents go down. The Japanese speculators is US properties lost big time in the 1980s. Generally speaking, when foreign speculators begin driving rents up you can expect the bubble to burst. That's because those who sold them the properties were already calculating that a real-estate bubble was going to pop, so they unloaded their real estate.
Any app that can't turn a profit has little value. Sometimes, a lot of the time actually, value price is depressed by competition.
I remember a YT lecture by an economist on the Pikkety side, who argued that software companies were moving to could based apps so they could charge monthly or yearly rent instead of selling software that a customer could buy just once and use for years.
That's an argument for preserving the horse and buggy against the automobile.
I was skeptical of the move to the cloud. But as a small biz owner who does my own IT stuff, I am now convinced that the relatively small rent for cloud apps and storage is less than expensive than the old way cuz I don't have to maintain and upgrade hardware much anymore. My IT costs and headaches have gone down and I get a boost of efficiency that leads to extra business and so profit.
It is my opinion that most of the economic hardship felt by many in N. America and Europe is due to globalization. So globalization is bad for N. America but good for Latin America and Asia. I don't know what to do about that in favor of N. America, but maybe if Donald Trump is the next pres he will figure out some solutions.
I totally agree with you !
Don't forget that taxation is paying for our infrastructure and welfare and the Nordic system of making the "broadest shoulders" carry most has in no way hindered people with initiative from creating huge fortunes like Mærsk McKinley Møller and his dad. Mærsk and f.inst. Bill Gates in the USA, deserve our admiration, but I believe in our democratic system with all it's shortcommings. It is the best system there is and no individual has ever proven democracy inferior. Many "strong men" has tried and failed utterly. To try to put a "communist label" on all, who like Thomas Piketty advocate the need for less inequality in our societies, is cheap demagogic nonsense and hopefully based on pure ignorance and not evil intent. Neither Thomas Piketty nor I are socialists, but consider us educated social liberalists. Free markets but regulated free markets work and create welfare for all. Taxing the rich is part of this regulation that hopefully will prevent social unrest and revolutions as seen thru history. If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it!
Why? So the gov't can waste it paying interest on its over-borrowing?
The moderator is clearly biased in favor of Picketty, who himself is a big mouth whose only claim to fame is that he can speak English.
The State:
An idea so good that people have to be forced to support it.
One of the worst interviews I've ever seen of an academic!
Piketty's view on taxation and theory on capitalism are i'll conceived. Inequality is due to intellectual rights and property rights. Obviously these are iviolable and if people own the intellectual capital they will be much better off than most other people around the globe who do not. There is not an objective capital measurement system in his theories, which makes his views I'll conceived and his conclusions wrong. Viktor
why wouldn't people just stop at 499000$.... dont punish people for working hard and being successful. its just not going tto work
you can't use the tax code as a weapon against people
No one should be taxed that much. If we're going to have taxation, let's do it fairly and have a flat tax rate.
WHILST EVERYONE IN THE VIDEO AND IN THE COMMENTS ARE WASTING THEIR LIVES AWAY BY ARGUING WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE RICH OR NOT..........I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BUILD MY BUSINESS INTO A GLOBAL CONGLOMERATE - LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!
The same old transparent argument about economic growth. Of course highter taxes on there rich often means a negative growth rate because they are in a position of power to invest in the economy at their discretion. It is this power that has to be confronted if we are going to solve the problem of income inequality, simple, but not to someone who is invested in protecting capitalism of course.
Piketty has some really nutty notions.
This debate is one of those that sounds so appealing but isn't. So many people would move and then the economy would be worse off. The only thing to do is to hand out credits isn't of money to benefit users! For example. A card that allows one to spend the credit on certain items! Stop benefit users from binge drinking!
Classy initiative there.
+Steven Cooper nobody would move, where's really no examples of what ever happening, stop talking shit
+Steven Cooper nobody would move, where's really no examples of what ever happening, stop talking shit
What an incredibly dumb idea. The super rich would simply move to jersey or the caymans or where ever else. One thing the french really shouldnt be lecturing on is economics.
No they wouldn't. They didn't leave when the taxes were much higher in the past. They wouldn't leave now either.
Golden Boy
Well the rich are leaving france in droves due to high tax rates on the super rich. They simply move to belgium officially yet continue to spend most their time in France
***** That's a myth. Read this:
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/03/-huge-flight-of-rich-after-french-tax-hikes-nope.html
Golden Boy
Taxes where not higher in the past that is a myth. Certain tax classes may have been higher but the tax liability is much higher today.
In the Nordic countries they have high taxes but amazing services and rich people have more or less taken this as a trade off and are willing to accept this.
Move taxes to 80% today and people will leave for countries with lower taxes and if you close those countries off guess what the rich will do they will set up their own country.
bighands69 No, the tax liability is most certainly NOT higher today. Not on the rich. You know why? Because the rich are the ones who write the tax code. They lobby members of congress who are in their pocket. That's how you know.
theft
That pseudo analyst is a bully.
France vs. Britain?
Moderated by Iran?
Y not discuss on "LVT" --Land Value Tax?
Piketty is clueless incompetent!
Who is this high-born Torrie, yapping about what???? Leveling a modest tax on super wealth to improve the very society in which they live and continue to amass wealth?
Great Idea Piketty...its not like the French tried this. Oh yea, they did, and lots of these rich people left the country...lmao,
If they leave the country, they should take their businesses with them... Shopping around for somewhere to live, where the authorities let you keep the proceeds of tax evasion crime isn't really acceptable.
Only 2 or 3 celebrities left France lol
and of course, since he knows what he's talking about, he talks about taking such a measure at least "regionally" which he means at a size of "only almost a continent" like Europe for example, or the USA, because he knows very well about tax evasion and is against national protectionism.
bring back williem hage the savior ,what a man kind caring true blue patriot along with the very tasty pretti patel
I thought we had done with socialist thinking such as this!
It never went away.
Most higher rankings in the civil service, universities and media are socialists and everything they publish is just their agenda.
But they never managed to take over private businesses because they could not run them and when they tried they just run them to the ground.
+Alan Thomas socialist thinking will never go away because it's the common sense, the voice in the back of your head.. market has it's limits and they're nearing to the end..
@@dragonno6587 well said capitalists know nothing and blindly listen to their masters, while at the same time these conservatives think the mainstream media is against them...
And the mainstream media at large supports capitalism as it is funded by the ultra rich at large...
Who is the banking stooge who won't shut up?? God Bless Pinketty. Capitalisim is good just not crony corrupt capitalism.