Who Pays Taxes?

12/12/2013---Pulitzer Prize--winning journalist David Cay Johnston and tax law scholar Edward Kleinbard discuss the misconceptions and realities of who exactly is paying U.S. federal income taxes. Johnston, a 13-year veteran of the New York Times, won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for uncovering loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code. His books include the bestseller Perfectly Legal, and a new book, The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use "Plain English" to Rob You Blind. Kleinbard is a professor at USC's Gould School of Law and the former chief of staff of the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation. His work focuses on the taxation of capital income, international tax issues, and the intersection of tax policy and contemporary politics.
hammer.ucla.edu...

[@richardbambenek2601]

The tax code is written for the rich and corporations.

[@Bigbudd0045]

o god yes. My law school required everyone take tax law (personal income tax law) which isnt normal for most law schools. There is simply no way to understand the tax code without understanding that it was written to help the wealthy.

[@throckwoddle]

1:16:46 In a government of citizens, government workers are not only servants but also citizens of equal standing.

[@shirimewows3394]

Oh 2013, you ain't seen nothing yet...

[@geoffdearth7360]

My grandfather lived from 1901- 1993. He was on SS for 28 years.

[@jasonlacroix6083]

In 1993 Al Roker would wish a happy 100th birthday to a half dozen people a week. Now he makes those same wishes to a dozen people everyday.

[@iansragingbileduct]

Starts at 1:12

[@elsiegel84]

The a priori statement that current fiscal policy is unsustainable should not be accepted at face value. The assertion is based on the false premise that "taxation funds spending" whereas, in the aggregate, it is spending that must precede, and therefor must fund taxation. Think about it, the US Government is the only source of US dollars. You and I can't make them, China can't make them, only the US Government. As the monopoly supplier of dollars, the US Gov (directed by congress and executed by the treasury through its bank) spends dollars into existence. Those dollars are simply credits against liabilities to the US Government, but they are the only credits the gov will accept. Those dollars are then circulated through the economy and ultimately taxed out of existence. If the US Gov runs a surplus, it means more dollars are removed from the economy than were added, and the economy can only grow by increasing private sector debt. If the US Gov runs a balanced budget, the private sector will be unable to have net savings, and it will need to borrow, both to grow and to replenish dollars removed from the economy through trade deficits. Only if the gov runs a sufficient deficit can we import goods, grow the economy and raise the overall standard of living. Good fiscal policy would reduce deficits, and raise the standard of living by directing spending and taxation policies more intelligently.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Wrong - you have ignored facts when you say" it is spending that must precede". There is no reality to what you say unless you ignore timelines entirely which is just a plainly idiotic idea. You also say there is a monopoly supplier of dollars. Again utter rubbish which ignores the fact that most money in fiat money based economies is created by private banks who are purely private enterprises who create and lend money based on their risk assessment and profit motive. This is the case in almost every country since sovereign denominated fiat money is the norm in almost all countries. Your idea of only deficits growing the economy is also utter rubbish. Examination of past federal budgets proves this.

[@apricotcomputers3943]

David is a true patriot ❤🇺🇸⚡

[@Rob-fx2dw]

The 17 minute mark is the part of this argument that is most indicative of the thinking of the first speaker. At the 17 minute mark he utters his opinion on the congressional budget office's projections which he states is " 100% reliable " under which our deficit problems are resolved. He also states the budget office has projections "Under which our deficit problems will be solved" . There are no deficit problems 10 years from now- 'we will be running deficits of well less than 1%. ' HA. HA. HA. What a fool for making such an outlandish statement given both the government's track record had recently been so poor and the government policy at the time was to ignore the historical fact which are that Federal deficits are not able to be reduced because the obligation of paying off the National debt would mean either more reduced spending on government programs or higher taxes that they are not wiling to wind back.

[@throckwoddle]

I can hear the sarcasm at the 17:07 mark. And also his use of words such as "assumption", and "if you imagine". He knew it wasn't going to happen even back then. Start listening at the 18 minute mark where he says "the difference in current policy versus the baseline" where he then starts discussing why this didn't happen. What he's doing is reading the official line of the CBO in an earlier era as a SET UP to the explanation as to why it didn't happen. He even states under this assumption that "we have a very rough and rocky 2012", and this was in 2013, so he knew, absolutely knew, it didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? Because of politics. The CBO had projections, but Congress ignored these projections and kept the Bush tax cuts in place. He really hits this at the 19 minute mark.

[@shawntruckingwithbs5302]

Question how did 26 USC 83 (a) operate in your conclusion that I owed tax on my income?

[@shawntruckingwithbs5302]

If nobody talks about property transfered in the connection of the performance of services 26 USC 83 (a) Did not research the tax code

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Wrong explanation of the debt ceiling by the first speaker. The ceiling reduces the overspend that resulted from congress's original estimate having been less than the actual cost of programs. The fact that it is deficit spending means it is a delayed tax that people in the private sector will have to pay yet the speaker does Not even recognize this. Again he ignores the facts which entitlement spending is. The reality is entitlement is just another name for placing an obligation on people (the providers of a service) to pay for what someone else gets. Both of the speakers ignore this fact to put across their faulty argument.

[@ToddSloanIAAN]

Watch "Free Lunch: Who Is Paying...." All who think that learning that things can be changed because America helps is not thinking right but wrong.

[@justgivemethetruth]

It is absolutely insane that the tax code does not differentiate between anyone making over $1,328,000 ... that is a hardworking business man like a doctor, plumber or dentist for example, and the people who make multi-millions of dollars such as financial speculators, corporate officers, top level stars, etc. Also the first speaker claims the deficit is because of the financial crisis, but we had 5 trillion dollars in debt never paid off from Reagan, and then Bush added on another 7 trillion - meaning that we have the debt because of the Bush tax cuts - and we would have been able to weather the financial crisis much better if Bush had not weakened the country to the point of no return during his administration.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

That's because the government can't differentiate between the two.

[@thetawaves48]

what was that heckler saying?

[@billyhack9673]

The middle class pays most tax per capita, to use an archaic spelling.

[@Smerdyak0v]

1:10:38 He talks about single-payer health care

[@Johnconno]

Who eats all the pies? If anyone knows about free lunches it's got to be this bloke.

[@sanford943]

Don't be a dope.

[@adamnelson2958]

God bless the Unatid State of America