Tax The Rich?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- Visit newsoveraudio.com/patrickboyle (or use coupon code PATRICKBOYLE) to get a free 7 day trial of Noa's premium subscription, plus 37% off the annual fee.
Jeff Bezos' superyacht is too large to pass through the Dutch port city of Rotterdam, so the town decided to dismantle the bridge. In retaliation, local residents vow to egg Bezos' yacht as it passes through.
Should we be upset about billionaires and inequality? Does a wealth tax make sense?
Patrick's Books:
Statistics For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3eerLA0
Derivatives For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3cjsyPF
Corporate Finance: amzn.to/3fn3rvC
Patreon Page: / patrickboyleonfinance
Visit our website: www.onfinance.org
Follow Patrick on Twitter Here: / patrickeboyle
Patrick Boyle On Finance Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7uhrWlD...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcasts: tinyurl.com/62862nve
Join this channel to support making this content:
/ @pboyle
Timestamps:
0:00 NOA
0:10 David Geffen
0:35 Jeff Bezos & The Bridge
1:22 Should We Be Upset?
1:51 Tax The Rich?
3:25 Should Billionaires Spend So Much?
5:36 How Much Could Billionaires Be Taxed?
7:47 How Wealth Taxes Could Work
9:34 Incentives
10:29 Do They Get Government Handouts?
14:00 Too Big To Fail?
15:25 Monopolies?
17:43 Cultural Differences
19:15 Milton Friedman
20:17 Conclusion
![[안방1열 풀캠4K] 베이비몬스터 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER FullCam)│@SBS Inkigayo 240707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_2HL-ogzzBU/mqdefault.jpg)
Visit newsoveraudio.com/patrickboyle (or use coupon code PATRICKBOYLE) to get a free 7 day trial of Noa's premium subscription, plus 37% off the annual fee.
I did the trial and its kind of disappointing, I'm on desktop and it lacks basic features like the ability to change volume or make a playlist, deal breaker for me.
It's not as much about fairness as it is about moral, or if that's not a thing for you, good taste. When there is literally toddlers dying simply because of not having access to food or water, how do you feel happy living a lavish life on yachts, in private jets, on private islands. You dont have to feel ashamed for wealth, but psychologically, how do you detach so much from the reality of millions of people.
On another note, someone who is on top of the food chain is likely personally responsible for quite some injustice in the world. The argument often times then is, if they aint doing it someone else is. I have to remember that quote when I do amoral things. So , to remain in your logic of one person gets rich by selling the same song over, one person who buys an Iphone does little damage. But the person who is responsible for selling all of them, let's say the CEO, is responsible for children being recuted as soldiers to secure coltan mines. Which is just one of many horrible things happening in the supply and production chain of an Iphone or any smartphone for that matter.
So, that's just 2 points that negate the relevance of your argument that the rich already pay more than the fair share.
I knew Rose Friedman .. she was one sharp cookie
They should enjoy their yachts! They should do so without disabling the car drivers of an entire city to cross a bridge for weeks. For me that basically justifies a a happy lynching of the yacht owner who is responsible for sexually intercoursing up the bridge.
Also I bought an aftermakred trailer hitch 7 days ago directly from Jeff Bezos (not some of his business partners) and it's still not put into mail by him. I don't like to be treated like this as a paying customer even if it's fabulous Jeff Bezos owning the business.
@@TremereTT Well, it is not him who asked for bridge to be dismantled but the local ship building business. So there are two choices, allow local large ship constructor to work and continue to routinely dismantle and reassemble the bridge, as was done in the past mutliple times, or force the business to relocate by cutting lucrative deals.
What would you chose ?
I think the thing that stands out the most to people that wasn't mentioned here is that most normal middle class people pay a significant percentage of their incomes in taxes, while billionaires pay basically no tax at all, sometimes fractions of a percent of their effective income. It isn't just "well you pay 30% and they pay 30%" its "You pay a 30-40% of every check to the government, while someone who makes more than the combined incomes of your entire state in a week pays less than 1%"
But remember these companies often get these tax breaks from the government by making deals to build offices, warehouses and factories in their states. By getting their tax breaks we get our jobs which in turn pay taxes. I'm not saying it is perfect but I am glad I have my job which as taxed as it is allows me to live a nice life. If one person has to be rich for me to live a decent life I am ok being jealous of them.
@@hopelessdecoy I don’t mind people being rich, and I’m not necessarily talking about corporate taxes, I just don’t like that an individual with an ungodly income gets to keep every cent of it while normal people with normal jobs need to give up almost half of every paycheck, especially when the way the system is supposed to work is higher taxes for higher incomes but the richest of the rich have found a way out of it.
But still they pay more. And what, exactly, extra benefits from the taxes they pay do they receive from the grubbymint? Why SHOULD they pay more when they aren't getting in the exchange? Your jealousy-based mindset is irrational and emotional, and not intellectually honest.
@@chuckschillingvideos I don't think our tax system is perfect, and I don't think he's being irrational, emotional or dishonest.
Taxation is an extremely complex issue open for debate.
If anything your the one being emotional shutting down conversations with no constructive arguments or added info.
@@chuckschillingvideos i don’t understand where you see jealousy in that argument. It’s just about everyone playing the game by the same rules. I don’t like the idea of certain people getting to cheat it just because they have a lot of money. If I pay a big chunk of what I make in taxes, so should Jeff Bezos. If they barely pay any taxes at all, neither should I.
It’s the same as how when the punishment for a crime is a fine, it essentially makes it legal for the rich, or how rich people get under prosecuted in courts because they can afford better lawyers, how rich people can steal millions of dollars and pay back thousands in fines. It’s not a matter of being jealous, I’m totally fine with people being successful, it’s just a matter of whether they’re succeeding within the bounds of the game we’re all playing or if they just get to cheat their way to the top.
Isn't the main problem of ultra-rich paying less taxes about the rich simply having more loopholes and ways to avoid paying taxes like a good citizen? For example getting company bonuses that don't somehow add in to the salary in tax books? Raising the taxes won't do anything when the ultra-rich pay themselves really small salaries and get their money in some other ways instead, those loopholes need to be fixed.
What angers people is that they get taxed on their income, then they give their money to amazon by buying something and pay (sometimes) sales tax only to find out Amazon did not pay any taxes con the money they made by using accounting gymnastics. People are asking for decency, nothing more.
Simple boycott and they will end up like some of the companies they put out of business.
@@neilwhite6305
How does one boycott one of the most convenient and pivotal shipping companies in the US…?
@@neilwhite6305 - You make no sense. Amazon was able to get as big as it is, by losing money and pricing competition out. It's like saying boycott Walmart. Communities tried. But, corrupt politicians would always let them in and give them tax breaks, grants, etc. After the 10 year term was up, Walmart would shutter the OG store and build a Super Store with even more incentives, tax breaks, etc etc.
Patrick likes to smooth over the mess and use nonsense to gloss over the rest. He is a happy, very wealthy mouthpiece for Capitilism.
The Wealthy get tax law catered to them, rampant corruption takes care of the Courts and Politicians. Patrick thinks that because they have Billions, they are better and more deserving then others not Born Lucky, and they'd just take their money and go home if you taxed them. B.S. Elon is a grifter, and egomaniac. All of them are. They'd keep on doing as they do, especially if the system was designed better. They need the attention and like screwing people.
@@neilwhite6305 people benefit from amazon low prices, a boycot is not the solution. however amazon cannot keep operating without paying taxes at the same time that the small guys has to pay otherwise will be arrested. amazon is turning a lot of profit, they can pay taxes, but they chose not to.
@@lemmonboy6459 You can boycott Amazon by buying at brick and mortar stores instead.
At least in the US there is a cohort of people closing in on 40 years old, who finished school in the wake of the Great Recession, when entry-level jobs were hard to find. The result was a permanent scarring, as the group missed their apprenticeship window. My own legal career was a downward spiral, and I ultimately left it for a job with proper insurance benefits. We could be fairly called disillusioned, cynical, or even bitter. It cost us dearly in terms of things like student loan debt, and perpetually delayed marriage, family, and home ownership.
Sounds like the dark side of one of the principles from Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.
"scarring"? Really? How do you measure THAT?
@@judychurley6623clearly you haven’t heard of metaphors.
@@judychurley6623 I probably would start with being overly risk-averse. The psychology of a beaten dog and all that.
As an ex super-yacht stewardess I can attest to both sides of this argument. Does one’s ownership of a super yacht create jobs for others? Yes, it does. How many jobs has that boat created or maintained through the ownership? More than just a handful. Lifelong careers are created within the yachting industry. On the other hand, is the amount of money spent building, and maintaining a super-yacht a life changing way to spend money to improve life on this earth? No, there are a million and one other, and more useful ways to spend that money. Say, to help fund ways to stop polluting the earth, which the super-yacht industry is notorious for polluting in every way possible. A sailing yacht is no better than a purely motorized one. Yachts are pure luxury and more so, non essential “toys”. That is all they are, and most likely all they will be.
You can't stop polluting the earth if you want the things that these billionaires offer you. Amazon = goods at your fingertips and quick shipping - that supply system creates a ton of pollution. Musk and his rockets - pollution (we really don't need to be going to space at the moment), Tesla's still involve a lot of pollution in the process to build the things, Satellite internet = polluting the low earth orbit sky with tens of thousands of them which are needed for the network he is proposing. Any electronic company = a ton of pollution in countries that don't have the best track record of caring about such thing. Everything we have that is a modern convenience is pretty much non essential. The entertainment industry that provides endless amounts of movies and tv - employs 60k directly at most and pollutes like crazy.
@@debanjannandi9149You need to have funding and not generally care about pollution if you want to progress - look at quick we went from the industrial revolution in the west to the tech we have today - that rapid pace was purely due to financial incentives. If there are no incentives then human potential and growth drop significantly.
th-cam.com/video/NJQt6qLjofI/w-d-xo.html
well, yacht technology is used in big logistical ships to improve stability and efficiency, so? do video games change the world for better?
provably yes with VR
No one needs super yachts for 500 zillion dollars or any expensive luxury goods, it's just waste of resources and effort to create something even more special and exclusive. It's another boost of status and ego which leads to nowhere.
I bet everyone is just ecstatic with the 2 miles of $52 million Vegas tunnel with human-driven Teslas going slow. Not quite a hyperloop dreamed up 100 years ago.
Musk sold all his possessions, paid $11B in taxes and donated over $5B to charities last year but for some people it's never going to be enough to change their preconceived notions or ignore the fact that Tesla and Musk themselves are against government subsidies as long as subsidies for fossil fuels (about 100x larger) are also axed.
The Las Vegas loop has become quite the attraction I heard and was deemed successful enough to start on expanding it.
It only exists as an idea because the US doesn't have a comprehensive train system for the public. So they went and reinvented a thing that works perfectly in other countries
@@MattCasters Tesla would not even be solvent without government handouts (Corporate Socialism!) so the average citizen is paying HIM. Absolute conman.
He did not pay 5b to charities. He gave tesla stock to "unnamed charities" - probably ones he owns! - to avoid taxes further.
@@MattCasters "Expanding" how? Making the single-lane tunnel longer? God knows it won't include elementary safety elements like ventilation or escape walkways. Musk's "design" doesn't appear to offer many options for "expansion", unless that means making adding more stupid to the idiocy that's already there.
I will say that this boondoggle does support Boyle's citation of Milty Friedman's theology. The Vegas city council hacks who signed off on the stupid thing are lab-grade specimens of government pissing dollars down the sewer.
The problem is that the biggest corporations get the best tax abetments or tax incentives instead of regular small businesses. I believe in neo-liberal principles but it's unjust for a Amazon fulfilment center to pay a smaller property tax (via tax abatement) rate than Joe Shmoe who runs a restaurant down the street.
Amazon is a big corporation with deep pockets, that's why lots of foreign government are willing to give them the lowest possible tax rate so they open ofices and warehouses, creating jobs and paying that low tax that otherwise wouldnt be payed.
A low tax on amazon still generates more money in direct, indiriect taxes and associated economic activity than an high tax on Joe's Shmoe restaurant down the street.
Boycott Amazon and buy from ebay
that can have the unpleasant side effect of discouraging growth, as companies don't go from Jon Shmoe down the street to Amazon size overnight. where i live ive seen lots companies refraining from hiring new people and expanding because of that (or worse, hiring people informally to evade taxes)
@@eris7070 It helps to expand if you have got $50 million to start, and starting in garages story is utter fabrication.
since when did fair enter the capitalist game?
Patrick doing sit-ups and chores in suit made my day
Thankss~~~~
This. Who does that? Patrick does.
The zero-sum argument at 4:25 implies a dichotomy of private billionaire spending on goods, which is characterized as inherently mutually beneficial and growing the economy because something is created, and taxation, which is characterized as a zero-sum game. This seems unbalanced because it mentions all potential follow-up benefits of the private spending but only considers the tax transaction for the taxation. But the government is spending the money on something too, buying some service which can also grow the economy and pay salaries that aree spent again.
The comparison would instead have to be on whether the private spending on engineers creating a yacht is more beneficial to the economy than some government spending on e.g. engineers extending a rail network, building a school or some other infrastructure in a states budget.
Governments have proven themselves far less efficient at spending and improving the economy then billionaires. They are too corrupt and disorganized. It's like giving money to most so called "non-profit charities", by the time all the inflated salaries and middle organizations get done with the funds only a small portion ever makes it to anything useful. If the Government could ever figure out how to run the Country like a well ran Business then there would be tons of tax money to go around already, but no, they are to busy building their own wealth off the backs of every day people even more so then innovative billionaires.
@@bmartin2304 In the US about 15% of discretionary spending is on federal worker compensation (salary, healthcare, retirement). That's everyone from The POTUS to your local park ranger. This would be on the lower side of salary compensation, business consultants recommend between 15-30% of revenue be spent on payroll. I do agree with your statement on running the country like a business with regards to taxes; A business would never under-fund it's collections department to the extent that the US gov't has. The US should increase IRS funding substantially and remove loophole laws that get in its way.
@@MWNVproductions OK, I may have hyperbolized the non profit analogy when it comes to total cost of salaries etc, but my point on inefficiency stands all the same. Through corrupt back door deals and over paying for just about everything they spend on. Just look at what it cost nasa to develop rockets vs musk. With the government spending the money we get slow painful expensive development of technology as all these companies and politicians milk the system. I don't disagree that tax reform is needed, but I think it's more on the corporate end then going after the owners personal wealth through some sort of billionaire tax. The "step up" tax loophole when estates are passed on is bullshit too.
@@bmartin2304 But what you label as corrupt helps the economy. Yes, the SLS is overdue and over budget because Musk can centralize the processes where NASA has to purchase from suppliers they're told to. So instead of just improving one state's economy they improve 40 states' economy. It increases costs and inefficiencies at the expense of helping more people. This comes about because we like to think that NASA's, Musk's, and the government's goals align when they don't. The government wants the money as spread out as possible where NASA and Musk just want rockets.
@@haroldsandahl6408 I get your point, it adds a perspective I hadn't thought of, but I still feel that the reason the particular suppliers are chosen is not based of some strategic balanced economic approach. It seems to me its based more off lobbying and shady back door deals which end up costing tax payers while enriching themselves. Maybe sales tax luxuries more and leave wealth tied up in productive companies which is beneficial to the economy/progress of innovation/job creation alone.
I miss the videos you used to make in your office rather than the ones you now produce in your fancy wine chateau. I feel like I need to dress up in a velvet suit and make reservations now to watch your new content.
Lol
Don't know if sarcasm or a whoosh scenario...
@@fullclear8562 what is a whoosh scenario lol
@@savannah-marc it comes just after the Ushin…
@@ranjith27 woosh is not just a reddit thing, it's a way of saying something went over someone's head.
The problem is not about taxing the rich, but about making the rich paying their fair of taxes, which they rarely do!
In the US is almost impossible to find a very wealthy person that pay taxes, and I am not talking about special taxes, the regular taxes that they should be paying but they don't because they can afford schemes to avoid all taxes.
The banks even given them loans at almost no interest so that they don't need to sell any stocks and ttherefore not to pay any taxes.
I thought the philanthropy bit was very interesting. "In Germany we don't do charity, we have taxes." This fascinates me as I see things like San Francisco dealing with all thier problems even though they are home to so many rich people. The rich are not obligated to solve any particular problem. They can put it towards helping a rare disease impacting people in other countries while the communities they "are a part of" burn around them.
One thing California has in large numbers: stupid politicians.
I would not say that san Fransisco has solved all their problems and they are one of the richest areas in the world on account of the concentration of tech companies and their highly paid workers, this both lessens the need for public spending (as people can afford to just pay for things themselves) and increases tax revenue.
San Francisco city government doesn’t seem to be doing a bang up job of fixing their problems.
@@pioneer_1148 "they can just pay for things themselves"
Whenever I hear from some average person in the bay area it's like earning relatively much compared to the rest of the country but rent, etc are so high it more than cancel that out
Helping rare diseases is also important. Not just your average druggie in frisco.
Elon Musk didn't start Tesla.
True, but dont get caught saying that. Also, he's bald. Just saying.
In a way he did, when he joined Tesla they had a Lotus chassis with batteries and no doors, he put his money and his vision into Tesla, the original guys dropped out unable to cope
And his dad was rich, so ultimately he’s a product of privilege, not skill. He won the lottery, money makes more money. No money makes nothing
Maybe not start it, but he made it.
But… Jeff isn’t a rapper.
Patrick must know something we don’t know
My only issue with the approach of not taxing the wealthy heavily (either through wealth tax which isn't ideal or much higher income tax) is that we as the public give subsidies to their private corporate endeavours through grants/infrastructure bills taking essentially from the tax payer and giving it to the rich instead of having these be made/run by public services. If we take the approach of not directly giving or taking money from individuals of wealth then this should extend to the grants/incentive programs. No private entity should be given money or grants and instead should only be given these as low interest loans in the best of cases with equity being required in the case of risker investments. In no other walk of life would a VC give out money on the basis of no return and if a private entity wishes to receive public help then they should have the same requirements put upon them if we wish to properly treat private wealth generation as private. As quite a few billionaires owe a large portion of their wealth to public contracts or incentives that could/should have been completely run by public government agencies (i.e in the case of SpaceX being fuelled mainly from NASA contracts). This is especially egregious where their company would not have survived or prospered without government contracts securing their companies future as they are not viable in a normal commercial setting.
Thankss~~~~
well said
This only works if those government agencies are capable of actually providing the service in question, which is most often not true. For the given example of SpaceX, it is important to note that NASA has essentially never built their own launch vehicles. This is simply impractical. NASA is deeply involved in the design process and will work closely with contractors, but the closest you could say they have come to "building a rocket" is with cost-plus contracts with Boeing, in which they WILDLY overpaid for the given hardware. Here SpaceX is actually providing RND which NASA is UNABLE to provide for itself. Additionally, the research grants and favorable contracts given by NASA to SpaceX led to the development of the Falcon 9, which has decreased the cost of launch to such a high degree that the savings from using the vehicle have overwhelmingly offset the cost of the grants themselves.
My overarching point is that the government hires contractors to do things because, if the contractor doesnt live up to expectations, they can go and hire a different one, which you just cannot do with government employees.
This is a great point ! Thank you
I think I can speak for everyone when I say we just want them to pay at least what we pay in taxes especially when they're getting billions of our tax dollars in subsidies
Proportionally, at least in US they actually still pay way more than you do.
@@_TeaMaster they literally pay no taxes at all. That just got leaked like 6 months ago that the top richest paid zero tax and you know what The whole day pay just as much in no, they don't not percentage-wise and let's face it. If you take 30% from somebody who makes $100,000, You're taking a lot more away than someone who makes 1 billion as a percentage of their net income
@@_TeaMaster Not exactly. Clever accounting and outdated tax laws allow a for a lot of wealth retention that the IRS doesn't collect. Billionaires reducing their taxable "income," underpaying their workforce and relying on welfare subsidies to increase their company's profits with an unofficial subsidy, etc.
@@missingpiece2071 mf doesn’t know how taxes work
Roughly 45% of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. In 2020 that was a lot higher due to stimulus funds (61%)
Hi Patrick, I think that a lot of billionaire spending falls under the "Broken glass" falacy of value generation, super yatchs are non productive assessts and building industries around catering to the ultra wealthy is a less desirable outcome than say, those same shipbuilders being employed making ships used for logistics or fishing.
it feels as though he actually believes in trickle down economy...
@@hh-nh6ju He probably believes in Santa Claus too
But that implies that there aren't enough shipbuilders making "productive" ships. One of the things Economics Explained cited as the downfall of the communist system was that they focused on the "means of production" at the expanse of consumption. But there is only so many hammers that are needed in the economy. Eventually, you need to start putting those hammers to work building fancy things that are not necessarily productive.
Now throughout human history, we have had situations where productivity has been diverted towards the wealthy while leaving the average person wanting. For example, fertile fields used to produce plants for luxury goods and not food, causing a famine in colonial India. But is that what's happening with luxury yachtes? I would argue no. Unless and until building a mansion causes a shortage of builders for housing for the average person, we should let builders offer their services to whom they want!
@@tinnic just the fact you cited economics explained as your source makes your whole argument invalid
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 In this case works usually means "efficiently and makes society better" if you mean can it be physically done, yes it works, but it's not only not the only viable option, it's not a viable option, it crashes very hard and will lead to revolution (or at least severe civil unrest) if left unchecked.
Well I totally agree on that cultural aspect. We in Germany don't like to share how wealthy one is. There is the athmosphere that somebody would judge you badly for having much money. It's quite surprising if you find out that an acquaintance is a millionaire.
@@bluejar5614 i will never understand this as well. Hiding salaries and wealth is why some companies are deciding on being transparent about all of the employees salaries. Keeps the employees happier, they can negotiate better and keep the average salaries up. And it’s also more predictable. Hiding income numbers and wealth only leads to bad outcomes
I believe there is a difference between boasting and having wealth, and one can be rich without being a twit
@@ciril2643 There are such companies? What's the advantage? If no one knows how much his friend the next desk earns he will never ask this much. I know about teams with the same job, the same performance and skill across the workers but only three guys got for example $900-1000. All 20+ others were held to believe that their earnings had reached their absolute maximum for the job earning $550 to $650.
@@HanSolo__ You're all treating it like you're a slave to one company. Not happy with your salary? Send resumes to other companies and negotiate your potential salary. That's your worth, that's your transparency.
@@HanSolo__ look up wage transparency. The advantages are the ones I mentioned above.
The problem I have with the argument about transactions by willing parties that are mutually beneficial is that there are a heck of a lot of "essential" things people are basically forced to buy at the prevailing price whether they want to or not. If I were to decline to provide proper medical care for my family, for instance, because I wanted to be able to afford decent place to live instead I would be derided for not taking care of my family. The easy availability of credit makes this worse, as often the person in debt has no real choice - they can either get themselves in further over their head knowing there is little to no chance they can repay, or they can forgo essential services and possibly die or worse.
The overwhelming use of short term credit is used to buy non essential stuff though. How many people living on benefits have a SKY TV subscription?
seeing BNPL "services" being advertised for essentials like diapers and baby food is scary.
Funny that your proposed "scenario" is a first-world problem. Admittedly these are difficult questions. Are you willing to spend your life savings (and your children's education fund) to extend your grandmother's life for six months? If not, does that make you a heartless bastard or a rational individual? One hundred years ago, those services you call "essential" did not even exist. How can they be essential now if they weren't "essential" 100 years ago?
@@davidwebb2318 I don't know, how many? I suspect the answer is well short of the one in your imagination.
@@davidwebb2318 Waiting for the source for this data
The core problem with the superwealthy is that they have the money in the first place. The money they have in surplus tend to be either unpaid taxes or unpaid wages. Both are a net loss to the 99%.
The other problem is using their money for things that is terrible for basically everyone else involved. Funding misinformation, lobbying, private planes, golf courses.
You just look at the money they have, you don't see the benefits they've provided. Jeff Bezos is insanely rich but the world would be considerably worse off without him.
And most of their money is in an asset, it's already being put to use. Even if they liquidated their portfolio and put in a bank, the bank would use their money to hand out loans to people and businesses.
Patrick is a master of dry wit.
'indignity of disassembly' was my favourite line from this vid
And based on those bottles behind him, also a master of dry _Brut_
I wonder how much time he spends dehydrating his wit each day...
yeah and master of bad matemathics... I wouldn't expect anything else from an eng. person.
Isn't that an English characteristic? Stiff upper lip.
I was quite happy to see the money I spent at Amazon go towards sending Jeff Bezos into space.
It's just a shame that they to bring him back down again.😁
th-cam.com/video/NJQt6qLjofI/w-d-xo.html
Actually I am happy for private money to go to improve space exploration and innovation in general. Arts and sciences have advanced in history due to private patronage and we are all reaping the benefits now, so this is a true investment for the future generations, and not at my personal expense.
What did Jeff Bazos do to you?😂
@@coscinaippogrifo Going up to space for an 8-minute joyride isn't advancing science.
@@coscinaippogrifo I don't think nobles and kings could be considered as "private patronage", they were spending public funds after all... As for science I disagree even more, while SpaceX has done a lot in terms of marketing they're still nowhere near as successful as NASA or even the indian space program which is far cheaper in comparison. Most inventions we have were state funded, especially the biggest ones ( the Internet, computers, rockets ) even the ones that weren't funded directly by a state succeeded thanks to their financial support ( cars, electricity, locomotives etc etc )
It's not the amount of money they have that worries me, its the amount of power they are accumulating without any competition. Like media moguls who decide what the truth is and highlighting opposing views become a necessity for higher earnings, Bezos decides what prices for products should be as all other venues are squeezed out. I'm not sure its in our best interest long term to let a few people dictate every facets of our lives without any competition. At some point money will become the deciding factor for every facet of government internal policies, lobbyist will be the deciding factor not what the people want or need. I think the huge companies should be forced to split into smaller companies, spread the power and invite innovation.
Money is power and power is money. You have one you can get the other which you can again use to get more of the other. It is a positive feedback cycle that we should controll.
@@someonespotatohmm9513 There is a difference between having a lot of money and controlling a whole industry though.
@@bar10dr Is there? If you have more money then that part of the industry is worth you can buy it. The only thing stopping you is those fair competition rules which are rarely enforced. And if they are it is because there already are only 2 or 3 major players (nvidea and ARM)
Your original post also gives some examples how power gives money, you can buy politicians or if that somehow fails you can just sanction countries because they don't play by your rules. Good luck running your country without our chips.
edit: To be clear I don't disagre with you it is just that from what I have seen money and power are mostly interchangable (with some convertion costs)
At some point?
Without competition? You think these ultra competitive sharks "cooperate" with each other? Name 3 companies that were the top of the foodchain for over 2 decades please. Or 2 families that dominated Forbes list for more than 1 generation.
Part 1: billionaires should keep their money because they spend a lot and that trickles down to the poors. Part 2: billionaires are strapped for cash and can’t pay taxes
He is correct that spending money generates wealth, but he completely ignores that billionaires are *incredibly* frugal as a segment of the population, relative to the poorest people. A poor person spends 100% or more of their annual income whereas a rich person, even a super yacht buyer, will spend only a small fraction. Thus they are hoarding wealth and hurting the economy, in a way that a poor person would not.
Billionaires who reinvest most of their money via charity (Gates, Buffet) or structural reinvesting (like musk or bezos do) arguably are less 'frugal' than some simply because they do actually spend their money, but when we look at the 1% as a whole, most of them spend only a small portion of their income. Someone making 200k is going to be saving/hoarding a lot more than someone who makes 20k. If you do a direct cash transfer from the richest to the poorest, it'd be an incredible stimulus that would spur MASSIVE amounts of spending (for good or ill - the result could just be inflation)
As for the second half.... I agree that a wealth tax is sort of arbitrary and hard to implement in a fair fashion, mostly because its very hard to evaluate how much someone's assets are really worth. (and that ambiguity leaves lots of room for the wealthy to hide their assets - not a good outcome) But that isn't the only way to tax the rich! Corporate and Capital Gains taxes are very low relative to historical levels, and respresent sources of income only available to relatively wealthy people. A Land Value Tax is similar.
I don't buy that people like Musk wouldn't found companies if they faced marginally higher tax rates. They might reinvest slightly less, but even then I'm skeptical.
@@TheStrangeBloke lol at you for believing that billionaires stuff their billions under their mattress. When you're talking about a billionaire's wealth you are mostly talking about the price of a stock they own. Their wealth is an illusion. There's no money bin full of cash anywhere.
@@NYCZ31 Obviously billionaires own stocks rather than giant wads of dollars. But "owning stocks" is not a vital component of the economy. Anyone can own stocks. What a stupid argument.
What super-wealthy people don't do, is consume. Very little of their wealth goes to consumption of goods. Sure Bezos buys a super yacht and sure this video is correct - that spurs the economy! But as a fraction of his wealth its pretty trivial.
Poorer people do consume. You give a broke guy 1000 dollars, that money is spent within the hour.
So a direct cash transfer from billionaires to the poor is a huge boost to consumption, leading to the economic development he talks about but way way way more pronounced. That's something we maybe don't need right now, but it did pretty much inarguably save us during the pandemic.
So true 😂
@@TheStrangeBloke You are not adressing the point. You fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent what values a billionaire has. A billionaire owns (parts of) large companies. The value of these companies directly arise from their ability to generate income in the future. The values therefore take the form of machines that produce things people need, people with in-depth knowledge, supply chains, physical sites where people work, et cerera. These are the 'dead' billions of the 'frugal' billionaires that 'dont contribute to the economy'. Is it better for the economy to have a steel plant producing steel, or for that plant to be dismantled for parts and the money given to poor people to buy cheeseburgers? And what about the cheeseburger store? Perhaps they should close and sell all their inventory and buildings and give the money to poor people to do ... what? What the economy really relies on are things being made and distributed, and what is portrayed as the net worth of billionaires are the things doing exactly that.
Hell, even money on a bank account is productive. That money is a loan that finances something somewhere, probably in some way a government bond. So that money is helping building schools and maintaining roads, no tax required. It's just that you can claim it when you want to.
Your thought exercise on the zero-sum game between taxing and spending is ignoring the fact that one population predominately spends while the other predominately saves. Milton Friedman's statements on "who spends money the best" is only relevant on an individual scale. At the level of an entire economy it becomes a statistics game; $10 will change hands X amount of times and it will trend towards Y marginal utility. Friedman's work on how economies function has been radically improved upon, we really shouldn't be taking his words as gospel anymore.
Its nice hearing an opinion different from my own, I'd really like to see more of these videos in the future. Thanks for your hard work.
Well said!
I agree, the velocity of money helps maintain a vibrant economy. Keynes stated that in times of economic depression, increasing government spending into the economy, while lowering taxes on the consumers are required to stimulate the economy again, as the businesses and the rich in general will actually become more frugal and don't take advantage of stagnant wages to invest in increased production because there is no demand for it.
The downside of course is increased government debt which leads to increased inflation, which is slightly offset by the higher interest rate, but both of which will slow the economic recovery.
I would argue that increasing taxes on the rich while lowering taxes on low and middle income consumers instead of an across the board tax cut is the best policy during times of depression, because the tax revenue will help stymie the government deficit. Taxing the rich instead of the poor has greater recovery effect since money in the hands of lower earners (who have less disposable income) returns into economic circulation at a higher rate than the wealthy who have more capacity to save, thus slowing the velocity of money.
Even if you didn't tax the rich, their savings value would erode because the decrease in tax revenue would lead to increased government debt, which leads to more money printed to service the debt, which eventually lead to inflation which is an indirect tax on savings anyway.
But if the rich agree to pump all their savings into GME stock, then I'll be on board in not taxing them because I have 3 GME shares that I'm holding for the MOASS.
People who save money are losing money due too inflation. No rich dude is saving money at least in FIAT currency. Most of it's in the stock market producing
I was disappointed by this video, here you realize a financier is not an economist.
@@LaFacedera Very true. I guess it's good to be alerted to extreme obtuseness, but it's still disappointing.
Well, the classical Keynesian argument for higher top tax rates on the wealthy isn't about redistribution per se, it's that containing inflation by taxing the wealthy is better than all the other available options.
Some goods and services need to be provided via public spending (the argument about which ones these are can be deferred for a bit, but only the most insane libertarians would argue for privately owned law courts, military and police). Governments CAN just conjure this money into existence via fiat, but this will cause inflation once the economy is running at capacity. Letting the inflation happen will be disruptive to businesses and people's personal spending, and it also amounts to a wealth transfer from housing renters to housing owners. So the solution is either higher taxes on someone or having the central bank impose high interest rates on the economy to slow growth and constrict the money supply. For the most part, the latter option has been preferred by the US since about 1981. The problem with higher interest rates is that they hurt small businesses and entrepreneurs, and make it harder for talented people to climb the social ladder if they need to borrow money to pay for their higher education. They also tend to increase unemployment, suppressing growth in the wages of working people.
So when inflation rears its head, someone needs to pay more in taxes. Should it be folks like Bezos or the ordinary 47% of freeloaders who, per Mitt Romney, pay no income tax? Well if Bezos ain't got the money to buy a new superyacht, then all the folks employed to make and staff that superyacht are out of work, but what about the 10,000 ordinary schmoes who need to pay higher taxes instead if taxes on income are increased by a flat rate instead? Every one of them has a few hundred or thousand per year less to spend on their consumption, or less to spend on reducing their mortgages or paying down their student loan debt. So all of the people employed providing the goods and services they would have bought are now out of job, OR the money they need to borrow or the debts they didn't pay off means that the money lent to them DOESN'T get used by corporations or businesses looking to borrow or expand. No matter how you cut it, taxing Bezos hurts the economy less than taxing the poor, or forcing them further into debt.
But aren't the rich better at starting productive businesses than ordinary people? Congratulations, you no longer believe financial markets work.
Does this mean I think Warren wealth tax is a good idea? No, I'd prefer much higher top income brackets, capital gains taxes and a much more draconian estate tax that eats a higher percentage of assets as the size of the estate and the difference in ages between the testator and beneficiary increases. Also I'd have this estate tax treat emigration as death. I'd also allow the wealthy to borrow money to pay estate and capital gains taxes early and write off the interest they pay against their income taxes, with the amount of the prepayment increasing at the rate of the interest on the national debt. If Elon Musk/Jeff Bezos is genuinely consistently able to beat the market in business creation, then the value of their estate will increase faster than their debt, so that their heirs will come out ahead of where they would be if they paid the estate tax duties at the time of inheritance.
this kicks ass. why emigration tho?
@@pretor92 As of right now in the US, a billionaire can simply evade the estate tax by moving to the Bahamas and renouncing their US Citizenship. The most famous example I can think of would be the late Sir John Templeton. I guess I should have elaborated that emigration PLUS citizenship renunciation would be required.
Very Interesting and quite clear vs Patrick Boyle's pseudo right-wing talking points. I don't understand how emmigration could be treated as death though, there is no political party in any democracy that could swing that
@@maxmelser35 See my above clarification, we're only talking about people who emigrate AND renounce their citizenship to evade the estate tax. That's a current loophole in the US system.
You are absolutely wrong that “when Inflation rears it’s ugly head, someone needs to pay more taxes.” That misdiagnoses the inflation problem to begin with. Reduce the size of government and inflation will end… full stop.
I think you bring a good perspective to the table on these sorts of tax issues but I do feel you should elaborate on certain points such as different systems working differently in different cultures, as that's often used as a catch all to disregard policies which have proven successful in other countries on the basis that the US is different and so it couldn't work here, when in fact many policies and programs are indeed transferable across a wide and diverse range of countries. People often overstate the cultural differences between countries in conversations like this, while understating the arguably far larger pool of commonalities between cultures when it comes to general human behavior
Trauma in a person, decontexualized over time, looks like personality.
Trauma in a family, decontexualized over time, looks like familial traits.
Trauma in a society, decontexualized over time, looks like culture.
Liked the video overall but a couple of points: 1. Wealth redistribution can allow more spending (more mobile than investment). While you may be supply side there are demand side arguments too. 2. People at the very bottom may have nothing to offer in a consenting exchange, and may remain locked out of the economy if not aided by government.
profit sharing / stock purchase plans for all employees of a corporation should be part of every corporate charter
so if the profits are negative should the employees then have to write a check???
@@dontmarkettomeimpoor2856 I think his idea is to hand out stock and when a profit has a loss the shareholders don't pay
Company not a proft
@@omniladdrr6899 but the shareholders pay in dilution.....better to pay the workers cash and if they want they can buy stock or not
Thanks to our growing list of Patreon Sponsors and Channel Members for supporting the channel. www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleOnFinance : Marc De Mesel, Annie Chen, Nate Stapleton,Timothy Baird, WIlam, Hernan Merino, Random Encounter, Nieuwsbrief Ikwil, Bee Positive Consulting, hyunjung Kim, John Cadena, Ian Tracey, Callum McLean, Oscar, Simon Pena, Ed, Pavle Obradovic, Erik Van Ekelenburg, David O'Connor, Zak Patterson, Pjotr Bekkering, Alex, Robert W Proudfoot, pooh shmoo, Robert Muller, Andre Michel, Ivan Iliev, Gopaljee Atulya, Milan Tomic, Mark Hooker, Artem Vasenin, P H, Sebastian, Michal Lacko, Peter Bočan, Michael Pierce, V Jordan, Gil, HalfwitHam, Mark Brophy, Patrick T, David Urdenata, Juan Valdez, Bruce Roberts, Chad Norman, Bruce Roberts, Shamikh Rana, Friday Guy, Marc De Mesel, Augusto Ramos, Soy Boomer Doomer, Bob Slartabartfast, Robert Feiler, Camil Dbouk, Erik Montesinos, Matthew Loos, Az Indragiri, Aman Bali, Lautaro Parada, Pratap, Deborah Joseph, Robin Sung, Kurt Johnston, Dominik Auerbach, Gurmeet Kaushal, John Hall, Dara Mo, Josef Goergen, Wilbert Cheng, Daniel Talero, Jaroslav Tupý, Trevor Lucey JB Weld, Alex, Sunny, Carlos Figuera, Peter Pomelov, Null065, Rick Thor, MeBerzerk, Henry Nguyen, Sola F, The Collier, Carlos Mejia, J Wadia, Bitcoin OG, easy boekhouding, Albert, Eugene Jung, Oisin Quinn, Daniel Cervini, Jonathon Yong, Iris Ji, Emil Nicolaie Perhinschi, Charles, Gerard Scott Eli Auto, Excks, Michael Li, Par Hedman, Praveen Mishra, Gerard Scott, joel köykkä, Areeb Ahmed, David Wang, Yazan Qaraqish, Rodolfo Cornetti, Daniel Winroth, johnny, Nick Jerrat, Chris Houston, Alastair Currie, Robert Griffin, Andrei, zizi Golo, Fab Vida, Constantin Petrenco, pawel irisik, NotAScam, James Halliday, 22 Dust, Carsten Baukrowitz, Heinrich, Arron T, Ben Brown, Stephen Mortimer (to The Moon), Ryan B. Hicks, B S, Liam, Logan Vrankovic, William Heaton, Paul McCourt, Daniel, Aaryan Koura, mikhail tyurin, Steven, Christopher Boersma, Dave Cooke, Ulf Lundblad, Dorothy Watson, Greg Blake, Simon Bone, Livermores Quant, The Collier Report, Scott Gardner, The Man Koala, Brian McCullough, Daniel S. Smith, Finance Student, Milton Danielsson, Julie, Mohammad Rehman, James Wallace, Daniel Poellmann, Edosa Odigie, Dixon Yuen, Marek Novák, Stamatis Drepaniotis Michael Smith, Etienne Cordonnier, Ahmed Hamadto, Chris Davey, Mike Farmwald, Michael A. Mayo, Lachezar Georgiev, Kamet Batra, Bradley Johnson, Sagar Gudi, Michael Chessar, Kate ATL, Tong Cheung, Lady Dje, James Barnes, Chris Hall, Kurt Johnston, ICBM Catcher Juan Valdes, KernelSC, Josh Garcia, Linn Engström, Veltsh, Konrad P-kala, Pastacat, Adam Vorting, Matthew McQuade, Christopher Lesner, freebird, Kenneth WedMore Lund, erfective, Jason Young, Jonathan Kopnick, Peter Hendrickson, steel, MM420, Bastien, Tom Willett, Chris Whitehead, Anil Jason, JOJO, Jason Butterley, AS7, Greg Thatcher, Ezekiel Templin, Robert M Daily, MrLuigi1138 Grecia Bate, Leszek Frankowski, Nam Nguyen, Goutham, Karim THIBAULT, C, David R. Ingemi, Robert Wave, Dmitri Alexeev, Aaron Rose, Ethan Hernandez, Brett Turley, Claude Chevroulet, Adrian, Stephan Marosvary, Yigit Yargili Louis Julien, Jan Lukas Kiermeyer, Gearoid O Connor, Fredrick Saupe, Subliminal Transformation, Jason Horton, Alex McMahon, Adi, Ben, Kurt Mueller, Joaquin Madruga, Janusz Wieczorek, Federico Viscomi, Corgi, Mahdi, Burgerinn, Quinn Cone, Sam Doyle, QiKaiQian, Stephen, Joshua Rosenthal, Timotej Zat’ko, Frank Yashar, Michael Smith, Emilian Marius Tudor, Julian Aßmann, Cormac, Max Kaye, Ian Shearer, Theodosius the Elder, Michael Kopřiva, Tinni, Goran Milivojevic, chris, Daniel Mooney, Joe Del Vicario, Alexandre Mah, ultima9, Norman A. Letterman, maRiano polidoRi, Andrew Steinborn, Stephan Prinz, Gary Yrag, Mark, Mattia Midali, Matthew Berry, Ann Williams, Jay T, Gabor, Florian Haas, Shivendra Saklani, Zachary Tu, Jeffrey, Lane Alan Deyoe, Chett Flynn Jonathan Horn, Andrei-Gabriel, Mo Herbert, manuel Rodriguez, Lane Andrews, Justin Thuet, Olaf Thiele, Ivan Ilaev, Todd Gross, Andrea Russo, Douglas Caldwell, Devere, Wade Hobbs, Volodymyr Palii, James Hoctor, Gavotti SGP, Ryne Davis, Jean-Philippe Lemoussu, Keanu Thierolf, Grizzly Grey Bear, Muhammad, Michael Chow, Stefan Alexander, James Blandford, Miroslav Ognyanov, Scott Guthery, Vanya Davidenko, Oswaldo Caraballo Fermin, Arto Karhu, James Bache, EJ, Jason Harner, Cameron Batko, Dale Patch, Stefan Penner, Katlego Mogolwane and Yoshinao Kumagai
You spend all ya patreon monet on champagne! Woooo!
I love your content and presentation, but I'm really against trickle down economics: the wealth gap wouldn't be increasing around the world if trickle down worked
Remember that the most equal nations all have one thing in common: High taxation rates, especially on corporations and the rich.
I'll take my own native Sweden as example:
The Swedish taxation rates vary depending on the income level, as it is a progressive taxation system. The highest marginal tax rate are 57.1% for income above SEK 685,000 per year. That is about USD 63,299 at the time of writing.
I think looking at giving grants due to a wealth tax as being zero-sum is a bit short sighted. You yourself said that billionaires spending money puts money in the economy and the same is true for anyone else. Someone or some organization that supports people in poverty also puts money in the economy in the same way. The difference would be instead of money going into the economy for super yachts and massive mansions, it goes into the economy for people in poverty to get dental work, rent a home/apartment, have kids, send their kid to a good school, buy a car, etc.
Assuming that people getting benefits from wealth taxes would just horde the money in a bank account just to be able to claim it's a zero-sum wash is really strange to me. I've never heard of of someone who is really poor who wouldn't use money to spend on things to better their living conditions.
EXACTLY! And he also uses a strawman argument that if we tax the ultra wealthy, small businesses with little free cash flow won't be able to stay open. The whole argument is the ULTRA WEALTHY, not middle class citizens starting a business. Billion dollar corporations hide their money in assets, overseas, and anywhere where they can't be taxed on it. Not that they can't liquidate it but rather that it'd increase their taxes. If we get rid of that gap, they can no longer hide it and have to pay on capital gains right away.
Yeah, I'm really not sure how Patrick missed this point. When you're talking about ultra-wealthy and their ability to convert goods via various transactions, there isn't anything exclusive to billionaires that allows this to occur. We see this at all levels of the economy, at all levels of income, and in all types of economies.
The biggest issue with me is that this description of a tax being zero-sum seems to directly conflict with basic common sense about other conversions that the government does cause with their budget. I don't think anyone would view a tax for schools as zero sum, I personally enjoy living amongst an educated population and it's pretty easy to see how those initial tax dollars are converted into long-term economic returns on value. If we tax, let's say all people with a net worth greater than 10 billion USD @ 1% annually, and direct it to education, is it still zero sum? Does it magically now convert as opposed to if the funds are directed to say, cash stipends? If we direct the funds to just buying gobs of bombs and guns, doesn't that employ a metric ton defense contractors who earn a salary who now contribute more to the economy?
You could play that game all day, with every form of tax, and every type of economic transaction. In this case, I'd like to see Patrick actually cite or source some amount of research that finds that wealth taxes and the uses of that tax are inherently more zero-sum than any other tax or economic transactions.
@@2639theboss Yeah I try and think in this way too. To me if you want to keep the same budget, by not raising taxes, fine and I'm all for it. But then the solutions to solving clear and obvious problems to anyone that goes outside needs to include cutting wasteful spending on things that don't impact the public en-masse.
Looking at these type of issues with a basic 2 - 2 = 0 mindsight totally ignores tangential benefits and future benefits even if it is mathematically a zero-sum move. Moving money from mega-ultron transformers yachts into education is a better use for that money even if it's zero-sum.
@@troy3423 It would be interesting to see what research has been done on tax structures based around net worth or assets instead of income. People and corporations with money can easily game the system by moving around assets/money by "paying" for services from another company that's in a certain industry while owning both companies. Using each company to fund their lifestyle with physical assets under corporate ownership and so are tax deductions.
They can be like Musk and Bezos where they "only get an 80,000" salary but utilize business assets constantly in their day to day life in the highest luxury you can buy. Or get massive hundreds of millions in lines of credit to fund your life using huge stock options as collateral.
@@mohi0ne306 Them Spending IS the value. It being spent on consumer good is beneficial to economies.
Also I'm not sure you really got the point I was making. I agree that you can look at it as "zero-sum" and I have no issue there. But I feel that it is overlooking the longer term economic impacts that each scenario has overall. WHERE the money is used is also important.
Looking at economics in purely math terms and stripping away the context of what is happening with the money doesn't make sense to me.
Low taxation is surprisingly not correlated with higher potential for economic growth. But it seems to me, an external observer, that high wealth disparity within the US is causing a rift within the society, eg. decline in the midwest and increases on the coasts causing a political polarization. And not to mention the insane pressure of massive student loans just so you can hope to get a job that might eventually pay it off. Such communal stress can't be good for the society long term.
I don't quite buy the argument that the mega wealthy would give up London, NYC or LA because of increased taxes. It sounds easy, but not too many would pull their kids out of school and move to Switzerland for example. I'd like to hear billionaires argue with their spouses that they should move from Manhattan just because the government wants a million more per year, and that's why they should find a new school and social life somewhere else.
spot on.. america is in cultural, political, economic decline and the situation is not improving
Just look at California, some of the highest taxes and most scrupulous business regulations in the country and people are leaving in mass for states that are friendlier to business. Proving even middle class Americans are willing to move for lower cost of living/taxes.
Agree with the communal stress part. I grew up in a Chinese city with extreme income inequality (Beijing, for anyone wondering) and little social safety net. The result is that people are forced to subscribe to the rat race because 1) the door for getting into the top is almost shut, 2) if you don't accumulate "enough" wealth, and something bad, like divorce or illness happen to you, you lose your basic human dignity due to the almost non-existent social security. Notice how I put quotation marks around the word "enough", because "enough" it not a set number. People's anxiety is rarely alleviated which means people work more and more in pursuit of more and more wealth.
Economists like to say how the removal of social safety net motivates people to work harder, and leads to more efficient spending, but I wonder how many Americans really know the downside of anxiety caused by lack of safety net. Some downsides include: anxiety about financial prospect lead to overworking, overworking leads to lack of recreational spending, the pressure to climb the ladder makes people stop cooperating with each other and hurts innovation, inadequate social safety net means people are less willing to take risk which also hurts innovation.
Inequality is an extremely complicated problem. Patrick Boyle discussed many aspects of this cluster mess, but I feel that he focused more on the macroeconomic side of things (which I understand, since that is the area he has expertise in). Average North Americans like us who are stressed about housing cost, gas prices, food prices going up right in front of our eyes do not have enough mental bandwidth to focus most discussions on the zoomed out picture of the economy
The current situation isn't a simple one, and can't be viewed entirely through economic lens. Its not going to have a clean answer because of that. It's not a policy problem, but a matter of politics.
Inequality is a problem because it's a sign of growing concentration of power and businesses, which ends up increasing stress everywhere. Part of it is political changes that has disempowered the working class and small business over the years. A lot of it is technological though. Many of the internet industries are winner take all, which leads to monopolies. There's not a clear policy to solve this, although if I had to offer one up, stopping corporate consolidation and forcing companies to break up would make the most sense.
@@Jameleo No proof for what you are saying
In Australia, my perspective is that the mining companies should be more heavily taxed, and the money used to invest into new science and technology industries. Mining makes up a large part of the economy, but it cannot last forever as eventually either supply will run out or demand will drop. It's just putting all the eggs in one basket if they don't diversify.
Nah mate, you couldn't sell it to the Australian people 😂😂
Hello. I'm actually looking for a good
trader that can help me trade and make good profit, Ive been seeing so many recommendations but i don't think they're trusted. Please do you have any recommendation?
Trading on crypto you'll need to get am expert manager so you'll be earning on crypto investment
Crypto is a very profitable investment to make at the moment
@@jessicawilliams973 yes you are right about that
Bitcoin to the moon
Get a legit manager that can help you trade
Also, I doubt it went like: "I'm Jeffy McBezos, I want the bridge put down to make room for my immense boat! Wrahwrahwrah..."
And more like: "Hello, I'm the ship builder in this city and have a really lucrative job offer (money for years). BUT the bridge is in the way. Do you think we can do something about it?"
My answer to your sugar coated stupidity:
"You said lucrative job offer for money for years? Okay, you're paying for ALL of this thing you want to do with the bridge and fixing it and punitive damages, or just go build that fucking boat on a coastal harbor, what the fuck is wrong with you!?"
@@jmitterii2 I won't retort, because I made a humorous point and you called me stupid; so, suck it! 😆
I think the super wealthy need to be convinced it’s better, and in their self-interest, to live in a safe, just, and beautiful society than it is to lock yourself in a gilded prison on the high seas…
Those aren't even mutually exclusive
@@gustopher6500
No, but they should realize that the actual difference between five billion and ten billion really doesn’t affect them.
There’s nothing you can do with a hundred billion of something that you can’t do with fifty billion. At a certain point wealth just becomes a dick measuring contest….
The adage: ‘How many yachts do you need to waterski behind’ comes to mind.
@@Ckom-Tunes did I not agree lmao?
@CoeusQuantitative
‘If you need to be convinced…’ What the hell does that mean? You’re quite the incomprehensible philosopher aren’t you?
@@gustopher6500
Sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that I disagreed with you.
You are 10x better than CNBC and The Wall Street Journal combined! Thanks for the great video!
Kind of an insult. I would imagine he's _at least_ 13.455562x better with a variance of +- 0.3448x
LMAO i love the sponsor part picturing Patrick doing EVERYTHING in a suit xD
Yeah, like government just hoards all this money or gives it directly to others. Spoiler alert, government spends this money on public goods, which both require skilled work and provide the public good, while rich spending just requires skilled work. Also what is growing net worth in stocks if not saving money. Investment creates goods only when u put money in
The government consists of people who in aggregate have the following agenda:
1. Siphon what you can into your pocket.
2. Buy favors/votes.
@@finwalter395 a group of people is better than one individual, first of all the chance of u being in that group is higher, second the chance that one of them has goals close to u is higher, third it's easier for u to affect them, since individualy they have less power. I could continue, but since u ignored my first arguments, there's little chance u aren't gonna do it again.
P. S. It's funny that people in government are inherintly bad, but rich people are inherently good
@@user-rk7nf1ot4b First, be respectful and don't put words into my mouth. I never mentioned rich people nor did I implied that they are somehow inherently good. It doesn't even make sense to view top government officials and rich people as different groups, because top government officials are rich. Thinking in terms of good and evil isn't helpful at all. It's in every humans nature to look for his own advantage.
I would argue that governments and public companies are the same structure. Therefore you will find the same breed of people in their leader boards. Top government officials and top executives both fight ruthlessly for the top positions in their organisations. They have to focus on short term results to please their voters/share holders. And they're usually looking to boost their wealth while in power.
It's naive to view the government as someone who has your well-being at heart.
I really expected better from Boyle. At a minimum, I'd expect him to acknowledge that huge swathes of what we consider an "advanced" economy simply wouldn't exist were it not for publicly funded basic research -- the kind of scientific inquiry that the private sector has practically *never* been willing to support. Boyle's presentation sounds like a glibertarian hack's fallback argument, "It's Econ 101".
@@samuelglover7685 It's a balance. Government does thing's that are not profitable which is good for humanity in some cases but the government is terrible at producing which capitalism is good at which make's a population strong. You need both because either one left to it's own devices is bad. I am more right of center but realize the positive of government but they spend way too much in my opinion
"Or that small underground taxi company he owns in Las Vegas" 🙆♂️🤣🤣🤣
The other thing to consider about mutually beneficial free market transactions, is that it's not only taxation that is coercive. Being poor means you have to sell your labour under duress, due to the threat of homelessness and starvation, leaving you at a massive disadvantage in negotiating a position, or in having any resources or time to improve your value on the market.
I'd argue that if that's the burden the poor have to bear, then extra taxation is a reasonable burden for the wealthy to bear, if we're going to keep the system operating to everyone's benefit.
The free market is only really free if all the participants are within a reasonable band of wealth. Massive monopolies and extremes of hoarded wealth break it from above, and poverty breaks it from below.
Money is always attracted to more money. Wealth always flows upwards. At the end of the day, there has to be a mechanism to recirculate it from the top back down to bottom, otherwise it will just end up piled up at the top, and the market will cease to function.
Trickledown economics and relying on wealth being spent downwards is demonstrably too slow and weak a force to balance the upward flow. If it worked, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
Excellently argued. Well done.
thank you
In all fairness, no company owes you a job.
@@shauncameron8390 .
Insightful as always. On the specific piece of news I personally feel the crux here isn't really about how big Jeff's yacht is (insert joke?), it's about his ability to even request something like the "temporary dismantlement" of a historic landmark, and the fact that the request is actively being considered. I believe this isn't a matter spite or envy. Also, I'm sure he could pay the extra cost of installing the masts at a seaside shipyard later without issues, actually it would grease the economy even further, wouldn't it? (Guess now I should check the cost of dismantling and riassembling the bridge for a proper comparison)
It is not his ability to request it but the company that builds those yachts. The bride has been designated as 'historic' recently and city council said it will not dismantle it. But when another multi million opportunity came to the city it is hard to turn it down and have the yacht building company relocate somewhere else.
Jeff most likely doesn't even know the bridge exists it all resolves around local ship building industry that routinely has the bridge dismantled
Well said. How many people can get a city council to cater to their extravagences? And tycoons like Bezos aren't shy about using the same strong arm tactics on national governments.
Actually it had been done before and it was agree upon before he had the yatch built.
@@randomfcounter1930 He would VERY likely know. It's not like he's going to commission a yacht and not be kept abreast of what's going on in it's construction, especially when it clealrly involves more payment for the deconstruction of that bridge to fascilitate it eventually getting into operation. He would either be told upfront about it and it factored into overall costs, or told later and about the costs involved.
Seems like the yacht builder may need to relocate to another site that supports the building of these larger vessels.
The good news - the government says the rich can pay for everything.
The bad news is the gov thinks you're rich.
PJORourke (RIP)
I feel like net worth and earnings are the two most overused yet misunderstood metrics that cause this debate in the first place. The US public ed system doesn't teach on business or finance, so the whole of society isn't even equipped to enter this conversation before reactionary arguments come their way.
what's your point. musk or bezos are major stockholders in their companies and those are valued, sometimes more sometimes less realistically. They use that valuations to get loans so they dont have to spend actual money of their own and can get tax deductions.
Right, so they should shuttup, keep being taken advantage of and never given a voice. Because they just dont get it, so leave the conversation to the “smart” ones… K bud. People might not understand the ins-and-outs but can still know something is skewy.
@@creatrixZBD I believe their point is that we should have business and finance classes at all schools, and not a "sometimes offered, sometimes not" class in random areas. That way everyone is equipped not only to spot the problem, but to better find a solution. It will also make it harder for elites to pull a fast one on us.
Omg that add read - you cleaning an oven in a suit killed me hahaha
I found this to be a more nuanced look at the feasibility of a wealth tax than what economics explained did. But I am a little bit disappointed that Patrizio neglected to cover why there are calls for a wealth tax in the first place. Because the mega rich are using creative accounting to avoid paying taxes. Both on their earnings and their companies earnings. Yeah they are two separate issues technically but they overlap when looked at more broadly in terms of widening wealth disparity. The rich are getting richer while the working classes are sliding into poverty as the cost of living skyrockets all around
If you were a billionaire how would you like politicians spending your hard earned money on absolute garbage?
Limiting the number of houses someone can own and controlling rent prices fixes the housing issues
While oil is expensive because companies make it expensive
food is expensive because china is hoarding it to sell for indebting africa and asia
Like the gates foundation. Most of the money spent in "charity" goes back to Bill Gates clean because he employs his own companies to do the charity work for him.
@@rumplstiltztinkerstein yeah the charity is a scam, but if i was a billionaire i'd trust my own companies to do the work better, if it was actually for charity.
@@thatundeadlegacy2985 if I were a billionaire I’d happily pay taxes in full if the government was using its tax revenue to maintain a robust social security network so that everyone can afford healthcare and education and that the government was investing in maintaining and developing critical infrastructure needed for future economic growth
@@unstoppableExodia oh sure i'd be fine with an equal % as everyone else, but politicians get a MASSIVE HARD ON TO EXCESSIVLY TAX THE RICH. caps.
I’m from Rotterdam, people over here aren’t that happy about bringing down the bridge… it is one of the pieces that did not got destroyed during ww2 in Rotterdam!
Thnx for the video again.
It's getting put back up again, and the municipality benefits from the jobs and tax revenue. People over there have more pressing matters to be concerned about, like the fact that actual Dutch people make up less than half of the population of the city.
Do what they do elsewhere - take a chunk off the top and finish it elsewhere.
This is called in DeFi, the opposite of where Boyle works, “shilling his bags”. i.e “I’m a business owner and I’m only paper rich” “please don’t make me pay taxes”. But what he forgot to mention is that those gentleman use their “paper wealth” to serve as collateral for spending loans that are tax deductible! 😂
I pay 25% , you pay 25%. I earn 40k, you borrow 40M. Let’s both pay 25% ;)
Seems mostly reasonable to me (though some people would point out that if their business goes under they'll lose all their collateral) I guess in this scenario you would be taxed on a home equity loan as well if your house's assessed value went up?
are you suggesting business owners borrow against their assets to pay taxes on unrealized gains? What if the assets go down in value? Do they get a refund?
@@mikehallrealestate if you borrow against something that has appreciated in value it's hard to argue that it's an unrealized gain. If the asset decreases in value and that drop is recognized by the bank/lender then maybe you should get a tax write off for the next year just like when a company loses money.
@@j03man44 you’re missing the broader picture. When you borrow against assets it’s done to inject money into the economy and/or grow your business with that money pulled out. If you’re just removing equity from firms to completely lose on taxes, you’re just weakening them. Like hollowing out a tree.
Think about being forced to take out a heloc on your home every time the value rises to pay Uncle Sam.
@@mikehallrealestate that argument seems valid against any form of taxation. I would grow the value of my house more if I wasn't paying a 20% tax rate. I would invest in a more fuel efficient vehicle. I would save more for my children's education. There's a whole lot of liquidity to be gained by abolishing taxes in general and we can have that discussion but you haven't persuaded me that it would be any more harmful to recognize borrowing against an appreciated asset as a gain than taxing someone's labor.
What I'm wondering about the incentive argument: isn't it good for competition that there's not an incentive to create so big companies that they're essentially monopolies?
This is the first time I press a like button on a video that makes arguments I might not totally agree with. As a person with a background in physics rather than economics, your videos make me want to study these topics in more depth as they provide a perspective I was mostly unaware of.
Thank you for the good work and the dry delivery
When they say that taxing the rich and passing it to the poor is a 'zero sum game' because no services are being produced in relation to this transaction and thus this doesn't help the economy, it's a very myopic view of the situation and kinda besides the whole point. The point is to let the poor a better starting position. The money given is effectively invested into better education and living facilities of this poor, so that they can create wealth, knowledge and solutions in a better way than they would otherwise be able to. This point was completely ignored it seemed, so I couldn't have the patience or interest to continue listening. Also the services that some of this money that the rich spend to buy is actually often overpriced and harmful for the sustainability of the planet, for example nonsense space trips, yacht ride for a person and his pets, and not relevant to developing humanity and human potential. I have some background in a subject related to yours and about none in economics, and I usually like the videos on this channel, but this one seemed not so well made, at least.
Also their spending is not really commensurate to the amount wealth they accumulate, another reason taxation is good.
@Debanjan Nandi Yeah whatever dude, but it's hard not to notice that your comment glaringly avoids the whole "what about the luxury yacht seat cover artisan upholsterers that would needlessly go unemployed if you were to tax the rich?" argument which is so convincingly addressed in this video. Not to mention the Siberian beaver poachers who have to work extremely hard to find such rare and endangered animals to provide the fur for the helicopter carpet. So mate, please try to think these things through in the future.
@@SofaKingShit ''Not to mention the Siberian beaver poachers who have to work extremely hard to find such rare and endangered animals to provide the fur for the helicopter carpet'' .. Kinda sounds like sarcasm or parody.. Anyway, we were all poaching and hunting, until some got better livelihoods as civilization progressed, through access to better education and resources, thanks to taxation.
th-cam.com/video/NJQt6qLjofI/w-d-xo.html
Nice jacket
Nice champagnes at hand!
Come on, Patrick, you know trickle down economics doesn't work. Like a turbocharged car, our whole successful societies all work on cross subsidy and that includes some form of progressive tax system. And remember, except for those like your mate Hugh Hendry, people want to migratev to such countries.
agreed. if elon musk stopped working when he made his 100 mill, then someone else would have done what he has with spacex and tesla!
@@itemushmush Like take a billions of taxpayers and retirement fund money and burn that cash for something that normal company in industry can do for 1% of the cost.
The issue arises when certain individuals have found a way to have so much power they can influence to such an extent they're playing by a different set of rules. Think special "foundations" and other interests who have influence over governments, other international organisations that set policy, the UN, WHO and so on
'Inequality' is complaint that's way too vague to take seriously. It's politics - it is a perfect justification for 'eat the rich' demagoguery since it's not even specific.
Like, unless we're talking about *everyone* being equal, what is an acceptable level of inequality? Why should it be expected?
Genuine lol at your exercise and oven cleaning clips.. Great content as always with bonus lol
"...free services like Facebook and Google..."
To me, I think we have to actually redfine the value of data, because obviously Facebook and Google aren't running off donations and the will of the people. There is money there, and that money lies in the data. Ipso facto: data is money. Many would like to discredit this position, as the uncertain terms of data makes it so that the general consumer or investor doesn't really know where the money comes from. Therefore I don't distinguish. Data is money. Your private data is money.
I'm not a fan of the idea that "data" is what is valuable. It's the advertising space that is valuable, not your data. More data just allows for more effective advertising.
In my opinion, increasing the tax rates for high income households and spending this additional revenue on subsidising public education is definitely not a zero sum game. Neither would be just giving it to low income households, since they have a higher marginal propensity to consume compared to high income households. This money would find its way back into the economy by spending it on consumption goods instead of keeping it in the bank or on the stock market..
You make a good point. Having now been at both ends of the wealth spectrum, I now spend far less of my income and increased net worth in the economy. Instead, I'm making sure that next year when I pay for that expensive sailboat I've ordered I'll still be flush. Your points support why a universal basic income would be far better for government, business and individuals than allowing the mega-wealthy to pay no taxes. Money is utility. If it's just piling up it's not doing much. Musk's 'money' (20% ownership of Tesla) is working very hard, but that $11 billion in taxes he's just sold shares to pay will make an impact, as will the $5 billion he's set aside for charity. (I hope he opens his engineering and science university.) When he sold those shares my Tesla investment dropped noticeably, it's dropped even more because of other factors - I'm not worried.
Define high income
@@samwiseganja4071 doesn’t really matter, all I’m trying to say is that it is not a zero sum game. Let’s say the top 10% for arguments sake. Besides income tax there are numerous other ways to do this btw, higher estate taxes, higher capital gains tax etc
@@WillN2Go1 if you are interested in this kind of thing you could read “the price of inequality” by Joseph Stiglitz or “Utopia for realists” by Rutger Bregman.
@@blox1990 it does matter, ultra rich, rich, middle class ? Cause I can say that middle class is heavily taxed.
Socialist are the most generous people that I've ever come across. The problem is they are only generous with other peoples money. You'll also find that these very generous socialist, when they do their tax return each year, they always try and claim back as much as they can as they don't want to pay tax either. They are like little kids that want everything given to them for doing nothing. Their parents forgot to tell them when they left home and went out into the world that if you want something you need to pay for it. Instead of growing up they look at big government to be their De facto parents and give them everything for doing nothing. The government can't give you anything unless they take it from you first. It really all boils down to jealously, deep down inside they really want all the toys that the rich have but they don't want to work or take any risk for it, they just want their big daddy government to give it to them for doing nothing. I've got a really radical idea, how about if you want something go and pay for it yourself.
I love the photos at 18:03 very funny.
They just want big daddy government to steal it from their neighbors on their behalf.
All questions of taxation aside, it does seem inherently obscene that one person might control the income and resources of thousands of average people, while others struggle to afford a home, an education, or even starve. A society that is comfortable with this situation seems a bit unhinged to me. The 99 percent just taking a ton of wealth, by taxation or even force, would seem almost like a logical outcome. Submitting to increased taxation might be a smart PR move for the truly wealthy at this point.
You're in unhinged. Equality is a pipe dream.
I 100% agree. I also know a lot of people have tried to solve this in the past, a lot of people died.
I try to avoid the word "bailout" because it obfuscates the (large) difference between grants, loans, and asset purchases.
Otherwise, another very good video.
is "baller bailout" better? or would you prefer "Huge-ass bailout"
Is he implying that when a poor person gets money, they don't immediately spend most of it? don't they circulate a larger percent of their income? How can he say it's a zero sum game? Giving 100 dollars to poor working people circulates a lot more then if i gave that same 100 dollars to someone of extreme wealth???
I dunno, you can extend that "$1 song giving more value to an individual listener while simultaneously making the artist rich" example to the converse case of the government taking taxed wealth of many ultra rich people and, say, building a high speed rail network. I'm traveling through Europe on SNCF, Renfe, ICE, etc., and I'm willing to bet that the aggregated utility given to the millions of riders vastly outweighs the monetary worth the otherwise extremely rich in Europe had to pay.
The richest in the US have significantly more wealth than the richest in Europe but I don't particularly feel bad for the rich in Europe. Trust me, they're doing just fine and not particularly complaining that they can't eat lizards too. This seems like a very American sentiment of being prepared to fight "the man" when they as a poor/middle class citizen inevitably become the next Jeff Kizzes. Dear TH-cam comments section, you are never going to become a billionaire, you don't need to be so prepared to protect your ability to get divorced and wear tight pants or buy Twitter to compensate.
High speed rail in Europe is because of good, dense urban planning saving infrastructure money that goes to sprawling and congested roads. The billionares aren't important to high speed rail.
🤔 They could increase the wages of their employees instead of buying super yachts.
It's mostly individuals who buy Mega yachts not corporations.
@@MOFOSGTFO Its most individuals who fuck with the workers and hates the poor.
@@MOFOSGTFO It's mostly the CEO's/ COO's whom collect large, sorry RIDICULOUS sums of money from their companies. These people could afford to improve their workers lives financially instead of spending insane sums of money on items that scream Morgan....big M ....little organ.
I’d like to hear you talk about the middle class. Ideas on how to make the middle class larger. What is the current middle class income(definitely varies by region) are how many (middle class people are moving out of cities/states due to housing prices and taxes) Is there an imbalance between costs of certain commodities that are benefiting the rich and why is that? What do you think about “you will own nothing” I don’t take it literally but I think there is a possibility that most Americans will HAVE to be in debt to be “middle class”
Right now most people will have to take on debt to pay for a home but with guidance at a young age a middle class income and saving strategies it is possible to pay it off in 15 years but it feels like the expensive stuff is getting wayyyy more expensive. Outpacing normal price things. Monopolies?? Big corporations?
Taxes aren't used for debt repayment or used in budgets. Just learned. It's used to make people hate the rich, and keep us ignorant. We pay taxes on earned income, not dividends.
According to MMT, the Fed clicks and the assets appear. We always have enough money for the military and corporate bailouts. Corporations could reward their workers making a percentage of profit a benefit to workers.
Philanthropy is not largesse. It's a tax loophole. It's impossible to become wealthy without inheritance, which eliminates 99% of us.
I appreciate your work and analyses. This episode though…I find a number of assumptions with which I disagree and some are based on political statements, which are not reality. Bottom line is we have some very well off people contributing very little proportionately to the common good, and benefitting hugely from systems the masses sustain. How they are held to contribute is the sticky wicket.
Assume we distribute the entire net worth of America's 1% to the population of the United States. Then remember that this wealth in large part is not a salary but net worth so you don't get to repeat this every year. How much did you benefit? If you actually do the math you see it's not solving any real problem other than making you feel happy about eating the rich.
@@Oscar-vd4cvDid you read what I wrote? Since I believe everyone should contribute, how that is done is the “sticky wicket.” You appear to assume I support a fixed proportion of wealth be contributed.
@@jaymacpherson8167 in the united states, the rich already pay a much higher proportion already in taxes than the non rich. I didn't say you were in support of a fixed wealth contribution, but by doing that thought experiment, it shows that the source of problems isn't solved even if we completely confiscate the entire net worth of the 1%. It's meant to make you realize the differences in wealth are not the source of all our problems, and if completely confiscating their wealth doesn't solve anything how is taxing it more even close to one of the solutions.
@@Oscar-vd4cv Because this is just a perfect solution fallacy. Obviously there is no single solution to solving the problem of debt. However taxing rich people from a cost/benefit perspective is about as good as it gets. So it should be a cornerstone of any serious attempt to pay down the debt.
Also he is cherry picking hard. Using overly inflated numbers that include pandemic relief spending. And ignoring the fact that rich people, are probably going to get significantly richer over time, as they tend to do.
''which are not reality''.......you meant to say......not YOUR reality.
Meanwhile Patrick is flexing on us with his champagne collection in the background
To help offset that he could have Elvis in velvet on the wall
Nice talk :-) Any chance of a video about land value tax (LVT) in relation to inequality and prosperity? Thanks!!
With philanthropy we trust 1 or few people. In a democratic process of redistributing money we have discussion, elections, debates and many people. Is Bill Gates smart? Sure! Do I trust him more than a democratic process, no. And not everyone is like Bill Gates. Charity is very arbitrary and we have unelected people redistributing.
And the claim, that in Germany we don't do charity and pay taxes is just plainly wrong! Without food banks funded by large companies: (international) retail chains like Aldi, Lidl, etc…; and better-of private citizens a big pillar of our care for the poor would vanish and It'd surely have great consequences.
The 1990 Yacht tax in the US is a prime example of why envy based tax laws like this don’t work. Sales of US built yachts fell off a cliff and resulted in the loss of 25,000 middle class jobs in the industry and another 75,000 jobs in associated suppliers. And rich people just got their yachts in other countries. So a tax that was supposed to stick it to the rich guy just screwed the little guys.
That's why you put higher import taxes too 😂
For a person who is aware of many angles and elements of financial reality, you have made a few elisions which avoid the real subject.
The purpose of the tax proposed by Sen. Warren is not to obtain the same multiplier effect as spending by billionaires on yachts.
No, it is to systematically support people getting access to full functionality in our society, and make that integral to how our government works. It might help to remember that Warren practiced bankruptcy law. The support of failures which lead to bankruptcy is an important part of the confidence of capitalism.
Your use of the term "confiscation" is a rhetorical device to avoid acknowledging the obligation of us all to pay taxes, and characterize the brackets of taxation at the very top as an offense to a natural right.
I expect a better reasoning from you, and I look forward to seeing a video with an evolved understanding..
Dude ... the point was, is and will be that there will be ppl with (=rich) and those without money (=plebs). This has been the case during the stone age and is the case today and will be in the future. Currently in the "west" we have a social capitalism - if we had pure capitalism that would mean that 0.1% would own everything (remember the middle age, kings, dukes, etc?).
So the next point is - who runs the system ? I hope you guess it right - it's not you and not the plebs. It's those who have the money and they will make sure that the system will stay as it is - whether it's a Warren Buffet or Nancy Pelosi or Elon Musk or whoever. So get used to it you poor losers - swallow it and get over it. Be happy that anyone rich pays at all some taxes - it's a piece of cake to not to pay taxes as you might guess it.
@Patrick - well done !
He addressed pretty much all points that needed to be addressed, if you are interested you can do a point by point breakdown. You on the other hand have two points, 1) the tax isn't a tax because a politician said something and promised to use it on things. 2) The usage of the term confiscation is wrong. One of your points are wrong, the other is debatable.
When the US gov bail out big banks, back in 2008, I thought they received equity in exchanged? I think US fed received their ROI in early 2017 or 2018, from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I believe they did.
For most people it's not evident that the only option to Inequality is Equally doomed.
If you remove the incentives to creating goods and services EVERYBODY goes below poverty level.
Sorry, but to have some "wealth tax" is completely stupid. There is wealth tax already, called inflation.
The better question would be whether it is good idea to have just 1,5-2% inflation as monetarist say, because for the most of US economy history inflation was far higher and economy was still doing better than for last 30 years we use monetary theory for inflation.
3:35 When people spend their money, it works it's way through the economy, to grocery stores and transportation paying those people's wages, so on and so on. Poor people, by definition, spend all their money, while the wealthy, by definition, do not. So if the sole goal was maximizing money spent, would that not be in *favor* of taxing the vast majority of wealth and distributing the resulting money to people who would spend all of it?
If the Milton Freedman argument is correct, why is the American healthcare system so ineficient? Especially when compared with systems based on redistribution? Even though the neo-liberal outlook has some good points I just can't buy it in full...
because people like to make those "with all else being equal" statements, and all else is.... well, most of the times, not equal, in real life
Because the current healthcare system is subsidized and heavy regulated so no true free markets exists. Same reason why schools are supper expensive.
@@MOFOSGTFO Yes, in a true "free market" system we'd have the courage to allow the poor to sell their organs, and we wouldn't mind plagues culling the population because vaccines produce a lousy return on investment. You've really thought this through, haven't you ace?
@@samuelglover7685 Don't put words in my mouth by insinuating i'm making an anarchical capitalist argument. I'm not against regulation. It's just fact that heavily subsidized industries become inefficient and expensive for the end user. Learn to debate without logical fallacies buddy.
@@MOFOSGTFO Every advanced economy outside of the US has a public health system that relies on substantial public support -- your dreaded "subsidies". Every one of them sees better outcomes for substantially less aggregate cost. Overall, health care is one of many crucial economic sectors where "free markets" simply fail. Education is another. Your remarks fall squarely in line with the kind of libertarian bleating that we've all been hearing for 40 years at least. I really don't give a damn what particular sect you belong to, if you insist on tossing off their cliches. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.....
I did not think this was needed to be pointed out, but 10% from 1B equates to far more taxed money, than your 40% on a 60k average salary.. Don't get caught in flashy headlines.. 👀👀👍
Man, it is not about tax the rich -- it is about rich to pay their fair shares. The current tax system in US has such giant holes to allow rich to evade tax legally. US will collapse one day because of this.
How is a progressive tax rate “fair” to begin with?
They already do accounting for 70-80% of all taxes paid.
Absolutely love how you can present such a controversial topic in all its complexities. Really adds to the conversation about wealth inequality instead of just reading the same talking points over and over again.
I don't know. It sounded like the standard 'rich people create jobs' talking points.
@@davidjohnston1799 well yeah….that’s because they do. 😂
@@davidjohnston1799 Yeah, I can't help but feel this was by far the least well argumented video of his I've watched in the last year or so. It also ignored facts like how Walmart makes so much profit by pushing competition out of the market, which in turn is accomplished by paying below-poverty-level wages, to the point that large swathes of their employees require welfare to survive - and this is just ONE example.
Also some factual errors like Musk "starting up" Tesla. He bought his "founder" title, he was not an actual founder of the company.
There was also nary a peep about how one of the greatest golden eras of US was when the rich had 90% tax rate, which would suggest taxing the rich is actually good for the country.
Your analysis assumes that wealthy individuals spend their income and poor individuals don’t. In fact the opposite is more true. Poor people spend the majority of their income and that money is turned over many times in the economy. Also poor people are forced to spend their money efficiently since they have very limited income compared to their expenses. So maybe the reaction to bezos’ conspicuous consumption is related to the inefficient use of those resources
A lot of the economic issues the working class is dealing with we've done to ourselves. We've, on both sides, voted against our interests as non-wealthy citizens. We've put people in power that treat corporations as people and elevate capitalism above social security...which has created and benefited the wealthy. Forced to buy into private insurance rather than have government funded basic healthcare is huge business. Deregulating businesses as if their primary interest isn't making money, not building a nation. I don't hate capitalism, but I'm tired of ppl pretending that a business's primary goal isn't growth and profits...periodt. It's frustrating....
He... doesn't even know Elon DIDN'T found Tesla? And that the value of "providing jobs" that barely pay enough to live on whilst being in a physically unsafe toxic workplace is questionable? Why should I take this seriously?
tax avoidance = "distortive behaviour". OK, good to know.
Tax evasion
5:29 : "On the other hand, when money is taken from a person as a tax, and given to another as a grant, that is really a zero-sum game". Not sure I follow you here. Government will spend money on infrastructure and transfers, and this grows the economy. BTW, not sure if Amazon would be a multi-billion dollar company today if there is no government-provided infrastructure and services. BTW2 : Good luck selling on the Internet if it was not created by the army and universities (both subsidized by the government).
Good point. Governments don't hoard money at all.
Regarding infrastructure your argument is flawed in the same way. There is no fundamental difference if the infrastructure is built and maintained by the government or by a company. In case of the internet Amazon is with it's huge data centers (AWS) probably the biggest infrastructure provider itself. Yes they leverage the infrastructure of telecom companies, but telecom companies use the infrastructure of power companies and so on. Everything is intertwined. The same is true for research. It happens in state funded entities and it happens in companies.
The wealth transfer doesn’t grow the economy. To believe that, you are only looking at one side of the balance sheet. The transferred wealth would have been spent (likely far more productively) by the private sector. Both lead to “growth” in the sense that the money continues to circulate and have a multiplier effect through the economy. However if you are suggesting that the government is significantly better at managing capital in comparison to the private market, you are simply wrong.
Let's be clear, government should not spend money on investments that the private sector already does well (don't worry guys, not a commie). Government should mostly stay out of the economy (which it already does in western countries).
The are some investments that the governments are better placed to do, or that lead to better outcome than the private sector.
My only point was that Patrick's way of presenting it seems to suggest that taxes go in a big black hole of nothingness, which does not compute for me.
I do agree with some of Patrick's points BTW. For example, most people underestimate how much "rich people" contribute in taxes (in absolute terms). Many people on the left imagine rich people as paying no taxes, which is a gross oversimplification.
@@shbehna fair enough. I think Patrick was generalizing, because only a tiny fraction of government expenses are actually infrastructure. Most of the government budget is just transfer payments (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)
@@LegalAutomation Nope, he wasn't generalizing. He was building a straw man and using it to hold up a very shoddy "argument".
I love the juxtaposition of some couple doing tai chi on a super-yacht, with a masked guy on a balcony with head in hands.
good points mentioned as always. learned something new today. thanks Patrick!
Defending trickle down economics without calling it trickle down economics. Clever.
YES. I thought this guy had some coherent analytical skills but there he goes right of the mark with this vid. Its so weird!
The problem isn't trickle down economics in and of itself. It's that it's ill-fit for golbalization. If rich people make jobs in America, well and good. Problem is that so many of the benefits in the last 30 years have been put in China.
Right. There’s a reason he’s an quantitative investor instead of macro economist I guess. Just adding this comment I made to point out why his whole argument is faulty with just a tiny bit of logic
The problem with your first point is that it neglects to apply the same logic to taxes. When the government taxes rich people, that money goes back into schools, public work projects, higher minimum wage, etc., which then gives more money to poorer people. These people then spend the money as well, putting it back into the economy and multiplying it as well.
Trickle down economics is not 100% the solution to every recession, that is just stupid
The economic multiplier of money going into the government is less than 1 which is really remarkable given the things they could theoretically, but show me a Western government that actually tries to improve the population, do things with public health that have big returns. Instead the government actively promotes moral hazard, and does things like replacing the population. If you think the government is better in charge of your money, make a cash donation. No one is stopping you
For me, the problem isn't that people are buying absurdly expensive items nobody truly needs. Hell, great works of art have cost obscene fortunes but are certainly a win in my book. The problem I have is that while there are a lot of people suffering due to a lack of opportunities and low income these people are spending their vast wealth on buying these boats instead of attempting to use their wealth to better the world. Jeff Bezos for example could easily spend half his vast fortune on helping others while still being so very rich he need never worry about living in any condition other than extreme comfort. Whether taxes are the solutions to this though, considering the often inept systems governments have in place, I honestly can't say, and I personally have my doubts if that'll be a one trick fix. It also certainly does not help that the companies under the wing of these billionairs are more often than not accused of under paying, over working, and generally treating staff poorly. *Cough* Amazon cracking down on unions *Cough*
Its very sad to see, that you seem to assume jealousy is the driving force when it comes to people taking about inequality.
Define "willingly pays it to them"! I hate to shop at Amazon, because it ruins local businesses, but during the pandemic i didn't have much of a choice for certain items, since the local shops i usually buy those from were not allowed to open. In return all the big corps doing business in my country did online sales AND had their local stores deemed essential enough to open for business. - Even big liquor store corporations!
So i would argue that a lot of those corporations doubled their wealth, because people like me didn't have any other choice!
I agree that the wealthy should spend their money in the countries they do business in and that the Besos yacht issue is kind of laughable, but I can understand that people who are struggling to pay rent and feed their children feel like it's a bit on the nose.
The question is if the show off rich people, will stop showing off their wealth or in other words spend it, if we tax them more.
I doubt that's the case to be honest. In my opinion it's just going to show that they can still flex on us even though we tax them more.
Almost entirely omitted from this video is the *real* criticism of the extreme concentration of wealth embodied in the billionaires -- their wealth equates to *power*, which they zealously use to cement and extend their advantages. It's cute that 6% or 11% will drift into or out of "the 1%". That only means that people cross the threshold from upper upper middle class to upper class, from six figures per year to seven (my guess is that the fraction dropping from the 1% to, say, the bottom 25% or even 50% is tiny). But the *real* action is in the 0.1% range, where you can hire platoons of lawyers and lobbyists, rent legislators or even entire legislatures, and have laws made to order.
*This* is why steep taxes on the very wealthy are necessary: It's not so much about raising revenue and funding social benefits as it is about preventing the rise of an oligarchic aristocracy. This is hardly a new idea. Teddy Roosevelt used the same argument to argue for steep inheritance taxes. It is *extremely* disappointing that Boyle seems totally oblivious to this concern, and resorts to some very tired defenses of Our Betters. (More jobs for yacht builders?!?!? Really?)
I don't think anybody really cares about Bezos' stupid yacht, or the n-th house bought by some other billionaire. Whenever I look at pictures of monster yachts, I can't help noticing how far they go to make passengers *forget* they're at sea, which seems a little....odd. There's a kind of special pleading floating about, which claims that criticism of oligarchs is rooted in envy, particularly envy of their toys. I suppose that's true of some, but I doubt that I'm the only person who looks at ostentatious wealth displays and sees a very deep inner emptiness on display.
No, the real problem with the oligarch crew isn't their stuff, it's their mission of establishing dynasties, a new aristocracy. It needn't even be intentional on their part, just a consequence of social and political and economic structures. But whether by intent or accident, it needs to be opposed.
Didn't close bolding correctly. Too bad we can't edit comments.
Patrick doing "house hold chores" is fucking hilarious
This. It drives me crazy when people complain that billionaires buy boats. Good!! They should buy 30 more boats each. Because thousands of people will be employed building those boats.
Thankss~~~~
Exactly.
Patrick, your analysis is excellent and you obviously strive to show multiple viewpoints. What would you think is a plausible solution? Make a video on some options! Thanks.
I'll be there egging his yacht. They're gonna dismantle a historical bridge in order to let the yacht sail through, fuck that
*dismantle and then reassemble
F Jeff, but the local economy had an extra half billion pass through it thanks to that yacht which is a good thing for the average person, something that might not happen again if the next rich banker thinks his new tacky palace will get egged, it'll just happen somewhere else.
I've enjoyed many of your videos, and I enjoyed your perspective on this one, but I completely disagree.
Warren's "wealth tax" is a silly idea. But taxing the pants off of INCOME seems very reasonable. All income is income. Tax it at the same rate. If you happen to own a giant company and hold your wealth there, that's great. And THE COMPANY has all sorts of tax loopholes and incentives to encourage them to invest in growth and diversify. But the second that money hits your bank as income... tax it. As income.
And we live in a society where we all get a say in what's important to our government, which is supposed to be responsive to our social desires. Philanthropy is by definition spending on what one rich guy likes. He wants to endow a foundation for left handed knitters with $5billion? He can, and he gains the exact same tax benefits as if he funded food banks for the hungry. I say the government absolutely spends our money "on citizens" better than any random rich dude. Tax them and let the government spend on larger programs of social good. If we don't like what the gov does, we can elect different leaders. What makes Bezos or Koch's opinion about "beneficial programs" worth more than the collective opinion of 300 million of us?
I have no objection to the existence of billionaire's. I wish I were one. But anyone making billions a year in INCOME needs to either pay a boatload of taxes, or claim deductions and exemptions that benefit all the rest of us. Not by endowing his left handed knitters foundation. And with the billions they have left, they can buy all the yachts they want, with the secondary job benefits you touted. No difference. You buy ONE yacht, you stimulate X jobs. It's not like they're going to buy 6 or 7 yachts. Their consumption, no matter how conspicuous and grandiose, will NEVER equal the consumption value of the rest of us circulating whatever money we get in benefits or reduced taxes. 100 million average people will spend more than 1000 rich guys. Every year. And we'll spend it on food, clothes, transport and everything else, thereby creating and driving far, far more jobs across the economy.
So in short rather than taxing the rich better approach would be making sure corporations don't evade paying taxes by transfering their profits to tax havens and increase worker participation on wealth distribution by forcing companies to pay them significant share of their profits or offer them company shares if they don't generate enough profits (for example due to 'clever accounting practices').