Tax the Rich!- Econ in Real Life

[@leopard6554]

Mr. Clifford, thank you for opening our minds and eyes 👀...!!! Spending time watching your videos is one of the most productive and efficient uses of time...!!! May God bless you and your entire family...!!!👪

[@okosenpai2172]

gotta love this channel, started studying business administration but now i'm so hooked on it! could listen to you for hours!

[@michaelarchbold2129]

His first point about our circumstance vs the rest of the world is literally a nail in the coffin.

[@JacobAClifford]

This video has more of my opinions rather than just facts. Do you agree with my views? Let me know. Do you disagree? Let me know. Either way, leave a comment. Thanks for watching!

[@Krishnasaish1]

Why isn't there an institution with the sole purpose of pursuing efficiency in government?

[@Krishnasaish1]

Also, the statistic you brought up tracks the "perception of waste" rather than actual waste. Do you have any studies on the "actual waste"? What was your rationale for not having a disclaimer noting the distinction?

[@quintessenceSL]

+krishna saish There is: the GAO.

[@bbiggie97]

Perhaps an institution that obtains revenue by stealing value rather than creating it will never be fixed? I know that if I had fiscal discretion with other people's money I wouldn't be so careful with it. Especially if I ran the courts and everybody believed I was the epitome of moral good!

[@JacobAClifford]

Yes, and the GAO does a great job. There findings need more media and public recognition and they need to blow the whistle on individuals nor just general policies and practices.

[@jesslocd]

Fantastic👏🏾👏🏾 I would love to see some one go out on the street and ask people these questions. Maybe take a poll. I bet a lot of people would feel differently if they had to share ANY percent of their income. I wonder if people would go along if the countries could agree to a cut off point. Something saying the US could stop sharing their taxes after a certain point.🤔

[@JoseRamirez-yh2ll]

That is so true! Actually knowing where your tax money is going ! then maybe you'll have people more willing to give. thanks for your channel last semester I was taking econ and your videos helped me pass my class. really appreciate it!

[@loudrockacdc]

I don't understand the relevance of the stat showing how much Americans BELIEVE taxes are wasted? Wouldn't it be better to show how much they actually are wasted?

[@flyingphoenix113]

Is such a thing even empirically measurable? What constitutes "waste?" How do you account for things such as government wages in this study? I agree with you, but I'm not sure it's even possible on a pragmatic level since there are so many variables at play.

[@RosethornJMF]

loudrockacdc - The determination of how much the government "wastes" is subjective. Is it wasteful to support the arts or to educate farmers in other countires on techniques that improve yield? I don't think so, but plenty of my fellow Americans would. Other than out and out theft from the treasury, can we all really agree about what is a poor use of our taxes?

[@JacobAClifford]

I see what you are saying, I think the other comments address this well. Actual waste statistics outside of the GAO are hard to quantify. That said, I think that knowing that Americans (regardless of party) feel that the government wastes tax payer money is telling.

[@ДмитроКостюшко]

Yes the fact that so many people afraid that tax money is wasted is troublesome, but do you really believe that this is an actual metric of efficiency. Not to sound overly pessimistic, but i am not sure that average american will be able to name all of the government agencies functions, or even their names. Much more appropriate will be a study that will conduct a similar polling among the people that work inside the government and know something about how does it work.

[@BRockandriffs]

loudrockacdc it's hard to define "wasted". For some excessive military spending might be wasteful, for others the welfare state is a waste.

[@xaeverna]

absolutely. people demand the rich to pay more taxes but if they became rich themselves and were expected to pay taxes they'd become defensive

[@jamesgriffithmusic]

I'm a huge fan of your videos. I'm an economics major and your content and personality keep me coming back. I will say that the one example for the world tax is interesting. However, that would have to imply that the cost of living across the globe would be constant. That makes the example of anyone over $34,000 paying an international tax pretty much null. Do you agree with this?

[@stefanpeev7308]

Whoa, I remember watching your vids as a freshman, you had only a few thousand subscribers.I was kind of angry that my teachers were not the same as you.Happy to see you're getting well-deserved recognition!

[@Diaming787]

You forgot to take into account that the living standards in the USA is much higher than in other countries. What you buy with $10 in America can get you a whole lot more in other countries once you exchange currency.

[@IIRemy]

3:31 average Americans _think_ the government wastes. notice the emphasis on 'think.' this is problematic because what i think is a waste of money (over-militarization) may not be considered a waste to my antipode, and vice versa. these differences of ideology can't merely be categorized as 'waste' for some independent commission to decipher. 4:20 "if the rich had good reason to believe that the government were officially helping the needy and improving the country, they'd probably be willing to pay higher taxes." that seems to be a naively optimistic claim that needs to be substantiated either through evidence or reasoned argument, neither of which is provided in this video. i'd argue that we don't have good reason to think the rich would be willing to pay higher taxes if they thought it would improve things. why not? because we, as relatively rich people compared to the rest of the world, have every opportunity to help those who are starving or dying from malaria and we (largely) choose not to. we prefer our own material comforts over providing shelter, food, medicine, mosquito nets, etc. to those living in other disadvantaged countries around the world. we have every opportunity, the same way that rich people have every opportunity to redistribute their wealth in order to improve the lives of others, but we simply don't take them. we prefer, in practice, to ignore these problems so as to maintain our cushion of excess (probably for evolutionary reasons.) there's a lot of psych research worth looking into that reveals some of the mechanisms behind these biases in quite convincing detail. things like, the disadvantaged individual being present makes you more liable to want to help vs. their not being present (when, rationally speaking, that shouldn't matter). also, if i have you correct, saying "but _you_ wouldn't be more willing to pay higher taxes to help those beneath you, so why should the rich?" suggests that: so long as we're not hypocrites, what we are doing is fine. that is a mistake too i think. there's a chain of priority we must establish, and if that chain suggests that getting a 4K TV or a yacht are more important than feeding children or preventing malaria, then i think our priorities need reworking. if we're going to consider ourselves rational in morally relevant terms, then we must come to recognize our current thinking (or lack thereof) on the topic as dangerously flawed. please check out Peter Singer's work.

[@chasefitch2245]

Never heard this perspective before very interesting!

[@anshul4608]

What Mr. Clifford gets at in his video is that since people THINK that the government is wasteful, they are less willing to pay higher taxes (he's basically talking about perception) so your argument makes sense but that's not what I believe he's trying to say (notice "I believe" I might be wrong). However, in the video, he says that "if the rich have good reason to believe that the government was officially helping the needy... then they'd probably be willing to pay higher taxes. I mean I know I would." This is where his proposition just falls apart. This huge assumption is basically a very weak foundation for his entire video (no hate). Many rich people who fall on the right side of the political spectrum argue that they should have lower taxes because they want to reap the rewards of their labor. It has nothing to do with government waste most of the time. Therefore, I don't think that your hypothetical proposition bears much weight. Just my opinion. I found the video very interesting and thought-provoking though! :)

[@anshul4608]

This was also a reply to a previous comment

[@Exachad]

This reply is three years late, but I think he's alluding to the fact that many rich people donate to charity, and if they believed that the government was as efficient at using the money as the charities they donate to, maybe they'd be willing to pay slightly more.

[@catscrem4567]

Mr. Clifford, you should totally do a national tour to the schools who purchase your ultimate review packet and give them econ lessons.

[@kevinbuckley4231]

Loved the video up until the last minute. I'm surprised you'd insert a poll that asks what citizens "think" about how much waste is in government. That citizens think half of government spending is waste isn't an indictment of government spending, it's an indictment of public information and understanding.

[@andrewbeckstrom2638]

I really like this video and this talks about something that I also discuss with my students that we are much better off in the US than we think. Having traveled to 24 countries on 4 continents I agree. My big issue with this video is how it ends. The viewer is left with unclear views of wasteful spending. The polls were on perception. I feel like the last 30 seconds of the video leave us with an unclear picture about waste of tax payer dollars.

[@DhroovPatel]

If this is the case (governments wasting tax money & and inefficient bureaucracy), why are welfare states like Denmark and Norway so successful when they collect upwards to 70% in income tax from the wealthiest in their country? Are their governments just more efficient than ours? It has been argued multiple times that Norway has a lot of oil that they extract, which is why they are rich, but this money from oil is just stored in a reserve fund for Norway, and social services and programs are funded purely through taxes.

[@goldpilgrim]

All money is created as debt. If you redistribute recklessly or "morally", the money will disappear. The mere existence of money is predicated on income inequality and wealth gap.

[@tonycotto7106]

This video points out (correctly) that humans are all equal, but ignores the fact that money is not equal in different countries. Yeah, by worldwide standards, $30-40 thousand a year is quite rich. In America and many other developed countries, a person with that income will likely struggle with several of the basic life needs that they have to purchase. If you take that same income to a developing nation, you could set yourself up with a pretty luxurious lifestyle. It is also worth it to point out that the higher taxes that rich people pay do benefit them directly. That money gets funneled back into the communities where they live and increases their own quality of life. Though I get the argument being presented here, it's not the same thing as asking someone to pay higher taxes so that someone on the other side of the world can have a better life. Incidentally, a portion of US tax money goes to foreign aid, and I have no objection to that whatsoever. Some people need it more than we do.

[@thomaswiwchar1661]

is there a way to see where the government wastes/doesn't waste taxpayer dollars and how efficient they are with our countries resources?

[@shermanngjazz]

Well said Mr. Clifford. I'm no conservative but I'm tired of the hypocrisy from liberals regarding the rich people's taxes.

[@lineikatabs]

Okay, we create the USDKATN but that's still a government agency which is supposed to make sure the government isn't wasting money? Who controls them? They will have huge power over government finances which almost surely leads to corruption. To ensure it works properly, we need very complicated and highly precise laws which dictate how the USDKATN operates. It sounds good on paper but I'm not sure it is possible.

[@dolcespiano]

Make more of these kinds of videos! These are great!

[@sanjitmisra6753]

Although, disproportionate income distribution among the rich and the poor is a major global moral concern, it is still economically necessary for the governments to not disturb the arrangement to a great extent. If everyone earned an equal income after taxes getting levied, the Personal Disposable Income of the masses will not be sufficient to keep an economy's markets afloat. Lower the availability for domestic/forex investments, lower is the economic growth. Bill Gates's income is economically way more important for the government to maintain rather than maintaining and stabilizing a roadside cobbler's earnings- Economic Inequality is necessary for economic growth and development.

[@charles8664]

as a brit I have experienced this "solution" to wealth inequality, its called austerity and has resulted in the steady decline of my nation including damaging the quality of life for those at the very bottom rather than those at the top. There will never be a truly objective method of reducing governmental wastage because inevitably the targetting of the disadvantaged will seep into the decision making.

[@isaacliu896]

Of course inequality isn't inherently bad, but our country needs to pay our debts and fund social programs and the rich should bear more the burden because they spend less of their income anyway. The reductio ad absurdum Clifford used doesn't get to the real reason for taxing.

[@coleman2586]

Isaac Liu that doesn't make a lick of sense

[@oiausdlkasuldhflaksjdhoiausydo]

What about direct redistribution? So, taxes in, money paid to recipients directly. Wouldn’t eliminating all social programs by direct redistribution get rid of waste?

[@clarestucki5151]

Obviously, all humans are NOT "equal". Some are vastly more productive, and some are vastly less productive. Inequality of income is simply a manifestation of inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition etc.

[@julianajanot4280]

That's such a good reflection!!!!

[@jwill7998]

Important Questions: At what point does the wealth gap become immoral? Does anyone really believe that the government should make laws based on morality? Also, I find that people qualify "having more money than someone needs" as "having more money than they do". In other words, people never accuse themselves as having more than they need.

[@ayeshasahim9969]

You're videos really helps me in Economics, you're really good at explaining things which are really hard for me to understand!!! Thanks MR. Clifford. ###Go ACDCledership

[@briangallardo3246]

this is very right. Can you make a video on the inequality of education?

[@chegouparalutar]

Hi Mr. Clifford, I would like to know your opinions on Chinese investment on Africa in economic and morality perspectives. Is this just another way of neocolonialism on its work or could Africa really benefit from it? I just wrote under this video just cause it was your latest.

[@andrewca1659]

Your video brings up an interesting points--especially with the world's 1% earning $34,000 a year. However, do you feel it is a fair comparison to claim that someone earning $10,000,000 per year is in the same boat as someone earning $11,000 per year for a tax argument? Yes, they are "rich" by world standard. That is not debatable. Nonetheless, the $11,000 per year population can barely afford to feed themselves. Of course, they live better than 3rd world countries, but people who earn $10,000,000 per year have ALL their basic needs met and more.

[@loudrockacdc]

My econ teacher described it as Reagonomics giving the rich a bigger piece of the pie, but making the pie bigger as a whole for everybody which ends up making everyone better off in the end. Is this a fair comparison?

[@RadicalShiba1917]

loudrockacdc It has helped the rich, and there is a bigger "pie" now than there was in the 80's, wages have stagnated since the early 80's too. For the average American, "Reaganomics" hasn't helped

[@HardStickman]

No. Because the pie growing is not the result of the rich getting richer or the increase in income inequalities. It is just the result of a higher productivity of the workers. Which is then divided between profits and wages. The pie was made by workers. But the rich (aka CEOs, traders, etc) take a big piece of it nonetheless.

[@coopsnz1]

Big Government high taxes is the problem @@HardStickman

[@HardStickman]

@@coopsnz1 Nah. Taxes can be justified or not. It depends. But I don't see why government taxes should be any less justified than corporate taxes like private insurance.

[@toniok.4726]

Why aren't you considering the cost of living in each country?

[@postnubilaphoebus96]

Your argument that people in other countries are worth the same, leading you to the conclusion that people of median income in developed countries should pay more taxes to people in less developed countries, is deficient on three accounts. First, living expenses vary between countries. Even though someone might earn more in country A, it doesn't mean they can afford more than someone who is earning less in country B with lower living expenses. Secondly, you never mention the notion of relative deprivation/poverty. It's one of the main contributors to people's unhappiness. Thirdly, I'd presume that less developed countries are even less efficient at spending tax revenue.

[@angelesmena622]

It's kind of funny to think that average American thinks half of what they pay as taxes is wasted. I mean...I live in a non-developed country, a "nation abroad" if you prefer. I've heard things like "yeah, I would love to pay taxes if I lived in a country like the US. They are all happy paying taxes because they have a wonderful country". Now I realize it's not true. We are all greedy. We don't like, as human beings, to get separated from our precious money and income. Kind of Gollum, you know?

[@palomawoma]

I hope I live to see a world that is fair and equitable! We in the West ARE SO LUCKY! I want taxes to go up, massively for the 1% and I am more than willing to pay more, to help raise the living standard globally. But governments need to be less corrupt and not owned by big business that destroys not only our economies and societies, but also our environment! Transparent ecologically responsible governments + more empathetic citizens = better planet for all 🌎💚🌍

[@owenferrara]

But my main question is why the gap is happening and by how much? Sure you can assume that its those damn greedy rich but is it because of them. Honest question, no politician gives evidence they just complain.

[@Asma-db2jm]

Can you talk about Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds?

[@Mrcinlow1760]

Can you make a video on how neoclassical liberals theory of price and utilitarianism theory of price are put together in Alfred marshall point of view on price

[@Verdad2024]

Keep the videos coming! Love the content! I only share your videos and not my wealth

[@thegreatnihil7854]

We just need a flat tax!

[@michaelarchbold2129]

Chris Jones no we dont. It would be ideal, but the top 2% of income earners in the united states pay for 60% of the federal tax revenue. If we had a flat tax, the nation would go bankrupt.

[@Monafis5]

Really enjoyed your thoughts! Good video!

[@koukkoufos2000]

A Social Democracy works in the Nordic nations so it can work in America too because those countries have real/strong progressive politicians who are against corporate money ( what causes waste ) we need a REAL progressive to shrink the income/wealth inequality gap.

[@quintessenceSL]

Social democracies can also fail like they did in the Nordic countries in the '70s, requiring massive restructuring of the economy, austerity measures, and reforms that would give libertarians wood. What you are looking at isn't the triumph of socialism, but rather the unmitigated wealth creation of markets. And comparing to welfare state from the '70s to now, the parable is clear: don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[@koukkoufos2000]

+quintessenceSL They work as of RIGHT NOW because EVERYONE pays taxes in in a Social Democracy unlike now in our country the U.S were our poor don't even pay minimal taxes ( the least possible ).

[@quintessenceSL]

Per wiki, the tax rate in Sweden is 0% up to 18,800 kr. Come again? Anyone with even a mild curiosity towards left-wing politics should be interested in how someplace like Sweden has succeeded where so many others fail. And at least per my reading, it's less to do with the Nordic countries having some supernatural understanding of economics than the very mundane issues of creating a good business environment and controlling costs. Somehow when you mention adopting a Nordic model, I doubt you mean mass deregulation and increased privatization even though they have been core components of the Nordic model :) Bits per wiki on Sweden. I wholly invite you to explain how it fits in with your notions of "social democracy". "Also since the mid-1980s, Sweden has had the fastest growth in inequality of any developed nation, according to the OECD. This has largely been attributed to the reduction in state benefits and a shift toward the privatisation of public services. Since 1990, taxes as a percentage of GDP collected by Sweden has been dropping, with total tax rates for the highest income earners dropping the most.[151] In 2010 45.8% of the country's GDP was collected as taxes, the second highest among OECD countries, and nearly double the percentage in the US or South Korea."

[@alexfilo7929]

When the Nordic countries started their socialism movement 20 or so years ago they did not have near the poverty levels the we do in the US. Those countries also are not world powers in the way America is. Its not the same, it wouldnt work

[@koukkoufos2000]

+Alex Filo Maybe we should stop being the globe's police because I feel like we are an empire maybe it's time for our interventionist empire to fall like the British empire and use all that money home we can afford all these benefits if we stopped spending money abroad we are the way we are because of big corporations ( Wall Street, pharmaceutical industry, military industrial complex and multinational corporations) who don't care about unions and the good for working Americans it could work if we lost our empire like status.

[@thatmoose6339]

why cant we instead minimize spending and as humans own up to the moral obligation that comes with accepting we have unalienable rights that its our job to help and protect others not the governments.

[@ozziecomedian1786]

Why should a rich person pay more taxes just for working harder?

[@limnostiger9240]

50c per dollar is still 50c better spent than on Tate’s next Bugatti

[@MyFunZone]

First comment!! Keep up the awesome work Mr. Clifford, your videos are very helpful!

[@gerardoixehuatl6776]

agreed... good job. 👍👍👍👍👍

[@egonzalez4294]

How to remove inequality in the world. Open all the borders... Then everyone has the same opportunities and can work anywhere, everyone shares really one economy. A real free market, true capitalism.

[@TheAtuldon]

very nice vid :)

[@ybalakrishnarao6587]

nice video

[@danieldimartino1448]

The problem Mr Clifford is that Liberals, at least the ones I have talked to, think that it is not about improving the lives of the poor or eliminating poverty. They think poverty is relative and not absolute, so to eliminate it everyone must earn almost the same. I think such reasoning ends up in communism and is very concerning for me

[@ZakIsWin]

Really enjoying these inequality themed videos. It's great to hear critical analysis of leftist theory from someone who understands and appreciates the sentiment behind the ideology. I think this is the most constructive way to move the conversation forwards - though I'm sure there's plenty of people who disagree with me here, and that's okay.

[@bernicedardar5486]

Only if they help American first.

[@bernicedardar5486]

Rich people should pay more duh.

[@bbiggie97]

"Willing to pay more taxes" is an odd phrase; how about people write a check instead of taking their earnings without their consent? Let's try to convince our neighbors of the wrongness of income inequality, not demand that they pay for it "or else."

[@HardStickman]

To me this libertarian / austrian school shit is nonsense. When you live in society you respect the norms and rules of this society. You can disagree with some of them but rules have to exist in order for society to be peaceful and not the law of the jungle. Saying that taxing rich people to give to poor ones is stealing is just dumb : - You got this wealth from somewhere and not by your work only (public schools, public infrastructures, legacy...) These institutions were built by the society and you owe society for some of it. And even if you think you owe less than what you have to give : - These moral rules exist because if they didn't poverty would be way higher and same for inequalities. I mean I don't agree with everything Marx said but one thing he got right is his demonstration of how workers are exploited by capitalists. So if stealing concerns you so much, why do you hold this kind of double standard ?

[@bbiggie97]

I have nothing against rules. Legitimate rules, rules enforced by private individuals on their property, are important and necessary for societal order. But when an institution claims the power to set rules onto persons or property that it has not justly acquired, we are entering the realm of criminality and chaos; not the realm of law and order. The relationship between workers and entrepreneurs depicted by Marx and other leftists is unfounded; the interactions between them are voluntary and are therefore moral. What problems do you have with two consenting adults coming together and having a mutually beneficial exchange? The worker always gets his money, the entrepreneur has already spent loads of money and may not see it returned in the marketplace. The worker is simply avoiding risk and taking home a steady cash flow whereas the entrepreneur is taking huge risk and has the opportunity to multiply his investment.

[@HardStickman]

First of all, laws are more legitimate than private rules because they are supposed to be democratically decided. Secondly, you clearly didn't read Marx or at least try to understand it. Interactions are not volontary because people act on their needs. When you need to eat, you have to find a job and agree to the conditions required by the capitalist. So you clearly don't have a choice. Either you work or you die. So it is not volontary nor moral. And then the analysis made by Marx is exactly that the worker doesn't get his money because the worker's productivity is way higher than the salary he is payed. If the worker was payed for what he produces, then there would be no profit. It is quite simple, the profit is the difference between the worker's wage and the added value. Here if you want more info : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value I really recommand you to pay attention to other economic schools than the one you're currently agreeing with. I mean i try to do that too. Try to keep an open eye and to consider you may be wrong. I'll go to sleep and see your answer tomorrow i'm kind of tired right now

[@HardStickman]

(also i'm not marxist by the way, currently i lean toward en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_school)

[@bbiggie97]

I find major problems with the statement that public laws are more legitimate than private rules because of democracy. Where does this claim come from? Whatever 50+% of people want is what should be? What are the geographical limitations on this? Surely if such a rule were to exist it would exist for all of humanity; we should have a world government; in which democracy rules. China and India would rule the world in this instance. Should democracy be based on cultural communities? Who defines that? If two people wished to gang-rape somebody in a room, wouldn't that be moral according to democratic principles? I am not so sure where you are coming from on the economic moral side. Yes, the workers are paid less than what they produce. But why is the entrepreneur completely removed from this equation? Shouldn't he be paid for his work? At one point, that entrepreneur or his parents or his grandparents or whoever worked and saved up a lot of capital and risked it all to meet his vision. However faulty I believe Marx's moral argument is, I see disasters from the utilitarian/consequentialist side of things. If there is no profit, what is the incentive to innovate and build? Even work? If it is immoral for someone to die because he doesn't work, one could not work and be perfectly sustained. Isn't there something wrong with the person working being enslaved to feed those who do not work? What about those who exercise and require more calories, aren't they selfishly enslaving others even more? Marx points out nature's oppression, that one must work in order to acquire scarce goods to even survive, but poses an even more oppressive regime in order to "solve" that problem that is reality.

[@Voodootiger]

Progressive taxes. End of job

[@lucasnydam469]

A better question than asking how much of your own income you deserve to keep would be: is it moral to forcibly seize the fruits of someone's labor (which is what income taxes are)? If another person kept 100% of the wealth you produced, then you would be, in effect, a slave. But at what point are we to believe that the distinction between free individual and slave occurs? 50%? 75%? if you accept the premise that another person or group of people (gov. in this case) are morally justified and have the right to take your earnings involuntarily and without your consent, then you are already a slave. The percentage is arbitrary, the principle is the same.

[@JacobAClifford]

Interesting. I never thought about it in that way.

[@wr8756]

No, the people collectively in a democracy choose to have the government take money in the form of tax. The 16th amendment started income tax. The reason people consent to give taxes is the public benefit that comes from it, i.e defense, police, infrastructure, firefighters, and tons of various other programs. So yeah, this isn't a dictatorship or monarchy that leeches off taxes, it's the people voluntarily choosing it when saw the opportunity cost for taxes was better than the one without. The USA government doesn't require you to stay and live here and pay taxes so you can't claim to be a slave when you are free to go.

[@JacobAClifford]

Fair enough. Do you agree that 100% would be akin to slavery?

[@matthewmckay4355]

Slavery is not just about taking 100% of the fruits of someone's labor. Slavery is about OWNING an individual. Being able to sell them off, to separate them from parents or children or other family members, to have a social power over them to dictate what they can and can't do not just at work but over all aspects of their lives. That is slavery. But since the English language doesn't have a better word to talk about how someone's productivity is being siphoned by a company owner I understand why people keep coming back to it. But if the worker has the choice to stop working at a place, if they have the freedom to walk away from a firm that would take 100% of their production fruits, then they are not a slave.

[@lucasnydam469]

So if 51% of people voted to take 100 percent of the other 49%'s income, that is all well and good because its "democracy" and if you don't like it you can leave? Even though there is really no where else to go that offers more freedoms and isn't under the rule of a government much worse than our own? is that the extent of your argument? Most people would agree that the government lacks the proper means (price signals in a competitive market) to produce cars, food and other products that we use in our daily lives, but yet we are led to believe that for some reason, government is the only institution capable of producing laws, under which all of those said items are produced. The government itself is riddled with the public good problem that so many people claim it needs to solve. Just look at the election of competent, honest, and smart politicians as a "public good". You as an individual voter are unlikely to make much of a difference (especially on a national level) and it requires a good deal of time and research to become informed on the issues and make a decision, so people do not have an incentive to make informed voting choices.

[@dwood2001]

This video is wrong in one respect and illogical in another. Wrong because plenty of us would pay a tax to help those less fortunate, certainly a democratic socialist like me. Illogical because all you've shown here is that people *believe* government is wasteful, not that it actually is. So what we actually need to do is improve education about government and improve public perception. While I'm not against reducing government waste, the issue is blown out of proportion to a insane degree. For example, government run healthcare systems are WAY more efficient than private systems, especially the US. To an extent, higher spending always means higher waste, no matter who is doing it. So claims about getting rid of waste are often analogues for cutting programs that poor people rely on.

[@wr8756]

It's so easy to say "plenty of us would pay" and not actually do anything. You understand there are many organizations out there that help the poor. You saw that chances are if you are in USA you are in top 1% of the world. So as a "democratic socialist" by all means go donate more of your money since you are freely able to do so and don't require a government requirement to donate? Oh, wait that's right you don't want to and would much rather blame someone who has more than you that worked hard, to pick up the entire tab.

[@JacobAClifford]

No. I'm not saying we should cut programs at all. I'm saying that democratic socialists (like you) spend more time on getting money from the rich and less time on government waste. I'm not against government spending or progressive taxes, but there needs to be balance.

[@dwood2001]

will isthebest We do a LOT to help the poor, but we're only one family. What we can do is miniscule compared to what can be done through taxes. In the end I care more about those in need than the freedom of rich people to pay a little less in taxes. To me only one of those things is a moral imperative.

[@patmcd7849]

So you don't think your taxes finance the wars in the Middle East?

[@HardStickman]

That is an other issue though. It's not because part of the budget goes to wars that we shouldn't implement better redistribution and sharing of wealth. This kind of waste is nowhere near inherent to a sharing process. To be clear, it is illogical to say you don't want richs to be taxed because you fear their money may go to the army rather than the poors, and thus you want to cut taxes or at least not increase them. The logical answer is to cut the military budget, raise taxes on high revenus and wealth and distribute it to all the people who need it.