Why the Rich Can and Should Pay More in Taxes - Richard D. Wolff

[@willardchi2571]

Richard Wolff is absolutely correct.

[@brianwhite3428]

Why would Corporations pay high income taxes? When it makes sense to have other countries make their products The rich pay their fair share Which brings me to my question Where does the money from the rich goto The pockets of the politicians and Illegals LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@spirittammyk]

Taxing the corporations is what sent our jobs overseas to begin with. It's why NAFTA was created.

[@spirittammyk]

@zan tarr Oh, you mean like how drugs are prohibited, but seem to still be on the market? Not to mention, prohibiting free trade is against the concept of the United States of America. Don't forget, it all started because of a tax on tea.

[@a.duncan6791]

VAT vs: Slavery First - income tax is a form of slavery. If you buy into that but still want a fair tax structure, abolish income tax and replace it with a Value Added Tax, a VAT or consumption tax as it were. AT 20% of all transactions, the revenue collected by the FED would be about the same as they collect from income tax now ($3T US). But, it would be an equitable spread across all income strata. For instance: If an individual wanted to purchase an automobile, they would pay the same percentage whether it was a Ford fiesta, or a Ferrari. So, if you can afford 20k or 200k, you'd be taxed at the same rate, though the amount would be greater for the rich person. Taxing consumption (VAT) would also help the environment. Think about it. If you're considering a new item, vs. repairing an older version, the impact of the potential tax burden may actually help in the decision. So, a new car requires mining materials, transporting them, assembling them, and then transporting them once again to a place potential end users can view them or test drive them. But, fixing an engine or transmission or re-painting an older automobile has far less impact on the environment.

[@nicholasrichard-thompson6209]

I stopped reading after you compared it to slavery, lol. Nonsense. If you're not working for your income, i.e., you exploit it from someones else's labor, that's closer to slavery not being taxed, lol.

[@brianrichards7006]

Just check you tube on real estate millionaires, of which there are several who brag they are worth low to multi millions and also pay no taxes. They always make sure their tenants get regular rent raises though (because that's good business). The very rich don't seem to anxious to give back to their communities either, so vast fortunes are passed down in family trusts without any taxes. Our tax code is written for the very rich. There is no doubt it has stimulated our economy, but I wonder about the long term effects of rent increases on our middle classes and lower classes.

[@snipview8363]

BS. The top 1% ALREADY pay 40% of all taxes even though make only 20% of income. AND are taxed for all they have ANOTHER 40% when they die. And the bottom 50% pay little or RECEIVE. AND taxing corporations more is STUPID, because they will have to raise prices so YOU will end up paying, AND you will screw them, weaken them against their foreign competitors and lose your job. LOL!!!!!!!!

[@PeterProf7777]

Rents go up because banks provide loans which increase the money supply and force prices up. That is what happened from 1999 to 2007 in the housing market. It is banks that cause the problems. Watch the movie "The Big Short." Yes, when you have an income tax, it is easy for rich people to cheat. That is true. So the income really doesn't work well. Instead replace it with The Fair Tax. Read up on it. Watch a KZbin video on it. You will like it.

[@snipview8363]

@@PeterProf7777 so you think people should live in the streets until somebody saves enough money to build a house? And you think these loans just increase rents, not buying power in general and wages? LOL!!!!

[@PeterProf7777]

@@snipview8363 Bank loans are based on the Fractional Reserve Banking System. Money that you deposit in the bank is then lent out. So, you have ownership of your deposit and someone else makes a claim on the same deposit with their loan. It is crazy. The Fractional Reserve Banking System increases the money supply. When the money supply increases, prices go up. All prices in general. People get home loans and housing prices increase. Same with apartment buildings. This is what happened from 1999 to 2007. Fractional Reserve Banking Loans cause upward pressure on prices. The reason people need large loans is because of the Fractional Reserve Banking System. Go to KZbin and look up Fractional Reserve Banking System. Then you will understand. You want the prices of homes to go down not up. But when people take out large loans, falling prices is the last thing they want. But it is what they should want. But nobody wants to see prices fall when they are severely in debt. Deflation increases the value of debt. Ouch! See? The solution is to build more apartment buildings and homes. A greater supply of housing means lower priced housing. Lower priced housing means lower rents. Wages cannot keep up with inflation of homes and apartment buildings. It is impossible. Wages cannot keep up with inflation in general. Inflation causes a decrease in buying power. That is the problem. Loans through the Fractional Reserve Banking system are the problem. The system puts the price of homes and rentals out of reach. I hope this helped. Peter d: : economist

[@smhsophie]

@@snipview8363 bootlicker

[@pmcMatilda]

The problem of the current "system of things" is that costs keep rising, often mandated by uncontrollable factors. In accounting, business prospects are enhanced when revenues minus expenses are consistently a positive number. Further, there is the concept of "break even" point. A problem is that families have increasing expenses, but the revenues are not sufficient to "break even." To solve the problem, one increases revenues or reduces costs. Property taxes are are a major problem (your property can be sold through tax sales). Local governments are often controlled by people who can vote their own personal interests, which can be adverse to others (especially the poor). Local governments are perfectly willing to send people into the streets (thus causing crime indirectly). What is a doctor who pays $30,000 in taxes on his property to do, after property taxes increase to $40,000. How will he pay the taxes, especially if he is getting older and finds "running as fast as he can to stay where he is" more and more difficult. The consequences might be that that doctor might have to stop taking Medicaid or Medicare customers (and serve only the elite of his area). What if a mechanic has a garage and was paying $50,000 in property taxes is next required to pay $75,000? Where will the added income come from to maintain his pay? He could raise prices. But more and more the solution is to move to a more sane environment where he will have lower costs, as in a small town.

[@coopsnz1]

because of inflation by government printing money , for socialism

[@willardchi2571]

@@coopsnz1 - No. The government is printing money because corporations don't pay taxes like they used to. And when the government has to borrow money to make up for that lost revenue, interest rates rise and it costs the rest of us more money to get by. In the form of inflation and mortgage and loan interest, the rest of us pay the cost of giving corporations and the rich their tax breaks.

[@coopsnz1]

@@willardchi2571 the poltical class stealing more like it he lying

[@coopsnz1]

@@willardchi2571 franchise own 90% businesses who making a net profit liar

[@DaHonestAbe]

Wolff is right about the 91%, but no one ever actually paid that rate because of the deductions that were available at the time.

[@joec5544g]

You know nothing about taxes.

[@EuphoniaPooch]

Here's a stat I'd never heard: That the income tax was 91% ONLY on past the threshold of $100,000. Is that correct? Big difference between taxing 91% of someones income and 91% past that marker.

[@willardchi2571]

Sure. Especially when $100,000 around 1960 is like a million dollars today.

[@PeterProf7777]

The marginal rate of 91% was for wages over $200,000. The highest average tax rate in 1952, when 91% was the marginal rate, was 42%. The highest average tax rate now is 36%. Only a 6% difference! The rich back in 1952 did heavy tax planning to avoid the 91% marginal tax rate. Corporate tax rates should be low: Also remember that this was shortly after WWII. Other countries could not compete with us economically. Many relied on us. We were a monopoly in a sense and because of that an economic powerhouse. Today, there is a lot more competition. So we have to make our corporate tax rates appealing because we can't compete with wages.

[@AceofDlamonds]

That should be common knowledge for people who pay attention to economics. Some public commentators even don't know this or they DO know it but misrepresent it in order to sell it to their base.

[@rozachernushchernush5549]

@@PeterProf7777 He said this in the previous video.

[@willardchi2571]

@@PeterProf7777 - Despite their tax planning, they still ended up paying more than they do today.

[@feelmehish8506]

It's always fun to be generous with other people's money

[@Lilmiket1000]

I can't understand why this is and still continues to be a question. it's very simple and logical. if you take 30 dollars from a man with a yearly income of 100 dollars your taking food from him and his families mouth. but if you take 100 dollars or even 500 dollars from a rich family they won't miss it and may not even know its gone. that's a really simple concept!

[@snipview8363]

But we DON'T because while the rich top 1% ALREADY pay 40% of all taxes even though make only 20% of income, AND are taxed for all they have ANOTHER 40% when they die .... the bottom 50% pay little or RECEIVE. AND taxing corporations more is STUPID, because they will have to raise prices so YOU will end up paying, AND you will screw them, weaken them against their foreign competitors and lose your job. LOL!!!!!!!!

[@glasslinger]

The top 1% of people in the USA pay more than the bottom 95% combined! If the tax was raised to the bottom 99% it would only temporarily solve the debt problem. The indigent are multiplying MUCH FASTER than the productive population. The burden on the tax system thus will always grow faster than the productive people can produce! (we are screwed!)

[@anomaly2990]

Rich people already pay more. Do not punish success. It is the corporations who often pay less than 5% of their revenue annually. This is a corpocracy.

[@ScottBakernewthinking]

We need to have the RIGHT kind of tax - a tax on Land. All other taxes, in the modern age, can be avoided. Corporations can set up shop in other countries & are. Rich people can store their "winnings" (it's not accurate to call the results of their rent-seeking "earnings") offshore & are. Land, however, cannot be moved, can be accurately accessed in the comfort of the homeland (sometimes on nifty new assessment tools in the comfort of the assessor's office), and, according to economists like Michael Hudson, Mason Gaffney, Nic Tideman, etc. is worth over 1/3 of GDP - that ought to be enough to run an efficient government (yes, we would have to forgo some wars, but we could pay people in other countries a fair price for the products of THEIR land, instead, which would be a fraction of what we spend on the, more aptly named, "war department" now). See more about this here: www.opednews.com/articles/Fairness-Sustainability--by-Scott-Baker-Community_Fairness_GROWTH-DEVELOPMENT_Georgism-140210-926.html

[@therealshadow99]

Actually land is often inaccurately accessed. Within the last decade the county in which my parents live did a massive re-assessment for tax purposes. My parents own their own home & a house my mom inherited from her mother when she passed away. Both houses were incorrectly attributed to other houses than the actual ones and both where assessed for nearly twice the rate a private assessment gave.

[@ScottBakernewthinking]

therealshadow99 We do need honest assessors. During the runup to the crisis, assessors were blacklisted by the banks if they did not over-appraise properties (thereby "justifying" high dollar value loans). There are ways to do this, however, and it is easier if they only have to value land, and not the structures on land. Nothing is perfect, but taxing land produces more efficient use of it, which no other tax can claim for whatever else is taxed.

[@thestonemaster81]

That is the worst idea. Your saying give all the land to the government. Because when you have to pay property tax that never ends (which we have) We do not own it. We rent. So even when you paid off your 30 year mortgage you have to pay. Never free

[@ScottBakernewthinking]

Burton Nelson The fact is, the value of the land increases because of demand, and that this demand has nothing at all to do with the land-owner. It is locational value. The land-owner should only be rewarded for his improvements to the land, e.g. buildings, so untax those 100% to encourage improvements, but tax the land to discourage hoarding and speculation. Where this has been done, or closely approximated, living standards are better. The high cost of a mortgage is largely due to land rent being included. If that was paid to the government instead, the price of the land would drop by half, or more in urban areas, and mortgages would be more affordable too. Then, government could afford to untax productive activities as well.

[@freetrailer4poor]

We should go back to 1900 when the country was really growing at 5-10% annually. We had no income tax, no state income tax, no gasoline tax, no sales taxes. If a police officer wanted to be a police officer he had to pay $100. Parents paid for their own kids education. Once the gold standard ended to country went to pot. The rich should be paying about 3% in income tax. Mr Wolff should get a job in a factory instead of taking from others at Universities, PBS, RT, and his tax free foundations in which he begs. We need to jail liberal mayors and return the land back to the people so they can grow their own food and build houses without paying a rent to government.

[@elpasadomuerto1375]

99% tax on the 1%!

[@blackjesus9641]

Why? Why would anyone want to strive to be better?

[@staceystrukel1917]

@@blackjesus9641 nobody needs that much money. If that stops your motivation you are just lazy.

[@willardchi2571]

@@blackjesus9641 - Funny thing is, people like you believe that people only work to make money. People have risked their lives just to help others. Firemen, good police, soldiers, doctors without borders, clergy, even ordinary people who in a sudden emergency, will help someone else in danger, will pull someone from a burning car, save people from the Nazis,, the list goes on, and on. In some cultures, the wealthier people gain points by sharing their wealth with the fellow tribesmen. And they do so willingly. And why shouldn't they? Beyond a certain amount, someone doesn't need money to survive. But if they want more, it's so they can show off because they think that gains them social capital. In a sane, strong society, it is public service that gains one social capital. And that is actually how we evolved to behave: we are social beings. Our strength comes from not just our big brains, but from being team players, not pulling-oneself-up-by-one's-own-bootstraps. That nonsense was preached to us by the powerful to keep us divided and weak. Imagine how much better our country would be run if we elected people whose motivation is to make the country a better place for the majority of Americans, instead of electing one wealthy candidate after another and then wondering why nothing ever changes.

[@niichigary8609]

That's actually really unfair 😭😭😭😭 99% is insane. I hope this is satire

[@pottingsoil]

One highlight missed was our move from manufacturing to commerce and finance

[@couchrider9917]

Thx for the help doing a paper on this

[@clarestucki5151]

We should definitely tax producers (corporations) to the max. That conceals the true magnitude of the taxes we bear by having the taxes included in the price of the things we buy, rather than having it deducted from our paychecks. That fools stupid people into thinking the taxes are being paid by the rich.

[@snipview8363]

STUPID, because they will have to raise prices so YOU will end up paying, AND you will screw them, weaken them against their foreign competitors and lose your job. LOL!!!!!!!!

[@PeterProf7777]

We did not tax producers in the 19th century and there was massive economic expansion in that century. Real wages also increased strongly. It is better to tax with a progressive consumption (The FAIR TAX than income just like it was done in the 19th century. Taxing income taxes work. It is a disincentive to work and to start businesses. It is better to have a progressive consumption tax. Then all workers will receive their gross pay with no deductions. Get rid of the income tax and the payroll tax which is a regressive tax on workers. Replace it with the FAIR TAX. Read up on it. You may like the idea.

[@snipview8363]

@@PeterProf7777 problem is then you discourage consumption. Is NOT that simple.

[@martincagle9226]

Where do you think they get their money for taxes from?

[@taramaclaird9633]

It is 2024. Say this again. Not enough people paid attention and the country is really in the outhouse.

[@waindayoungthain2147]

It 's a great idea for paying taxes upon the income. It 's good 😀🙏🏼for the poor and society .

[@PeterProf7777]

It is better to tax consumption than income just like it was done in the 19th century. Taxing income taxes work. It is a disincentive to work and to start businesses. It is better to have a progressive consumption tax. Then all workers will receive their gross pay with no deductions. Get rid of the income tax and the payroll tax which is a regressive tax on workers. Replace it with the FAIR TAX. Read up on it.

[@Dano-uf8ys]

And even that is too much.

[@jambandbillyd]

While I agree with Dr. Wolff about the rich paying their fair share in taxes, that doesn't fix the waste and corruption in government! I live in Illinois and my dad is on a teacher pension after 35 years of teaching high school. We need to do something about the 8.2 trillion bucks that the Pentagon lost before handing them more money, right?

[@runicvision26]

I think that's quite clear. Yes. And there is a considerable amount of waste and corruption in government. Much of which is tied to subsidizes that go to institutions and industries that simply do not require them.

[@willardchi2571]

@@runicvision26 - Corruption in government wouldn't happen if corporations and the rich paid such high taxes they'd have no money left for bribing government officials.

[@srglepore]

Yes and I keep getting lied to and by people who aren't even rich, saying the 1% pays more. So I'm going to point the finger on too many individuals who think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires. The worst kind of scum I can do without.

[@no-bozos]

Same old one-note song. 40 years ago, the reason this country was doing so well is because Europe and Asia were still crawling from the ashes of WWII. The United States had a monopoly pm factory production and exports. Not so much today. Also, the country was a lot more conservative with its spending. One last thing, it wasn't those nasty Republicans that started lowering tax rates, it was... wait for it... President John Fitzgerald Kennedy that started that trend. Look it up. www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244772593/jfks-lasting-economic-legacy-lower-tax-rates He was correct. The coffers of the federal government grew and was able to pay for the space program. Taxing the rich more was NEVER the answer. The answer lies in our federal government not engaging in inflationary tactics. Printing money, raising minimum wage, wasteful spending, arbitrary hiring practices, fraudulent spending, etc., etc., etc.

[@Claude-sf1hn]

agree to more taxes to rich people and companies but not the rates :)

[@carlosphillips8447]

Corporations just add that tax on to price of their products or services so I say let business and industry run tax free and this is the way to do it fairtax go to fairtax.org to learn more

[@staceystrukel1917]

That's what is happening now and it is not working. Do you study history and pay attention? They pay nothing now and inflation is high, wages are low, the middle class is disappearing, infrastructure is failing etc...corporations do not have to add that on to their product. Our society has become tolerant and even looks up to extreme wealth.

[@bluewater454]

*You gotta love the socialist justification for raising taxes here.* We had higher corporate taxes in the 1950's; we also had more jobs and were growing faster - therefore, higher taxes equate with more prosperity! Wolff fails to mention that Europe owed us billions of dollars because of WW2, our gold supplies increased exponentially, the Dollar became the most stable currency on the planet, and became the default currency for trading oil. We were also not running our government on deficit spending at the time. We were still on the gold standard. There were a host of reasons for our prosperity. But...Mr Wolff only focuses on the insane tax rates(which he fails to mention were implemented to fund the war effort, not create prosperity). He also fails to mention that Pres Kennedy lowered the tax rates later because they would damage our economy. No surprises here. The usual half-truths and misinformation from Mr Wolff. _This rare truth moment was brought to you by the RRW(Radical Right Wing). The views expressed by the RRW do not in any way reflect the views and opinions of this Marxist channel, or its Marxist host(even though they should). We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming of Marxist half-truths and indoctrination._ Thank you for your support.

[@volta2aire]

The associates at Wal Mart were quiet this morning. I wonder if they heard the news about Gravity's CEO and how generous he was to his employees.

[@PeterProf7777]

Taxing income distorts the economy period because it influences behavior. Instead tax consumption and reward production.

[@rendomstranger8698]

Wrong on so many levels. But I'll just name the most obvious one. Under capitalism, money flows *up*. Taxes exist to make that money flow back down. That is the only way in which capitalism even comes close to working. By taxing the rich and investing the money in the poor. Do you know who owns the means of production? The rich. Do you know who need to consume the most per dollar earned? The poor. So what you're proposing is that the poor get taxed while the rich get massive subsidies and tax cuts. That system already exists and has a name. It's called "socialism for the rich". And it is the system that has destroyed the US for decades at this point and has gotten a corrupt incompetent draft dodging traitorous dictatorial criminal elected as president.

[@PeterProf7777]

@@rendomstranger8698 There was a time when Steve Jobs wasn't rich. There was a time when Bill Gates wasn't rich. There was a time when Oprah Winfrey wasn't rich. There was a time when Rockefeller wasn't rich. Herman Cain was not born rich. And so on. See what I am saying? Not everyone is born rich. They created. It is usually people that are born rich that praise socialism like Beto. But you do have one good point. There is crony capitalism. There is greed in capitalism. Charles Dickens, the great writer, was a harsh critic of capitalism in England. Just read the story "the Christmas Carol." His solution wasn't socialism. His solution was a more loving and compassionate capitalism. Same with Adam Smith the laissez-faire economist. He also wrote a book called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" It was a best seller just like his Wealth of Nations book. The Theory of Moral Sentiments was about the joy of sharing. Also my friend don't forget all the greed in socialist countries. Taxes are accumulated and the leaders live like kings. Greed is the problem. Also remember that in Scandanavia, it is the middle class that are taxed heavily not the rich because they benefit the most from them; not the rich. The corporate income tax in Denmark is 20%! The solution: provide ways to help the poor own capital. Open up opportunity for them. Improve capitalism. Jefferson talked about it in the late 18th century. He called it Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson suggested that everyone own land and be self-sufficient. The standard of living in the colonies was higher than in England because of ownership of land and farm capital. It was when people moved to cities when the income gap widened. Cooperative corporations is a great solution. Just don't give up the idea of the "invisible hand." Giving money to the poor does not help. Giving some fish is not the way. Teaching them how to fish is the way.

[@PeterProf7777]

@@rendomstranger8698 Check out the FAIR TAX on KZbin. It is the way to help everyone. It is a progressive consumption tax with a monthly prebate. It would propel the economy. For the working poor and middle class there is no payroll tax. Your net pay would be the same as your gross pay. With the Fair Tax, the tax base is widened. Everyone would be paying taxes to the Federal Government because everyone consumes. It is hard to cheat with a consumption tax. It is easy to cheat with an income tax. There are tax shelters which causes money to go to unproductive assets. Check it out.

[@PeterProf7777]

@@rendomstranger8698 The top 10% of income earners in the U.S. pay 70% of the U.S. Income Taxes. taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

[@rendomstranger8698]

@@PeterProf7777 Only going to respond to your last comment as it simply is not worth my time to refute your other comments. The link you provided is for 2015, making it almost 5 years out of date. It also only talks about income tax. Most of the income by the 1% is not subject to income tax due to it being rewarded in stock. As a result, it is not included in the calculations. Thanks for demonstrating that you're willing to blindly cite statistics without understanding them. You've also demonstrated a complete lack of understanding when it comes to socialism. No country in the world has given the people control of the means of production. Even Bernie isn't planning to go that far at the moment. Those are 2 major areas in which you have already demonstrated your lack of credibility. I hope you understand by now why I won't waste my time responding to the rest of your comments. Especially not when you have to ignore reality in favour of fiction. Oh, and thanks for ignoring my entire argument about the poor consuming more per dollar earned than the rich. There is nothing fair about your proposed fair tax. The problem is that the rich aren't spending money and are physically incapable of spending their money at a faster rate than the poor. Go do some fucking research instead of blindly believing in fairy tales. Because nothing that I'm saying should be new information to you. Learn to question yourself, because that is a skill you clearly lack.

[@SleekMinister]

Absolutism has nothing to do with fairness

[@uturniaphobic]

What's missing in your argument is optimal tax rate. Tax them too much they'll just leave to do business elsewhere. I think we'd do better to entice the ultra rich into acts of philanthropy.

[@CG0077]

No one in a decent society should be dependant on pity to survive.

[@StanAmonette]

We used to...yeah how about tax rates from 1780?

[@ibelieveinblue]

That's idiotic. Fair means treating people in the same circumstances the same, and people in different circumstances differently. If you have legs that work, then it's fair for me to assume you can get up the stairs. If, however, your legs don't work and you're in a wheelchair, then it's fair for you to expect me to build a ramp so that you can access the building (or whatever). So, people who can afford to pay more should pay more, people who can't pay as much shouldn't have to pay as much.

[@govindshah8057]

B.S, the prosperity of 1950s was mainly due to productivity boost by war economy that was set during ww2, if your idea of raising taxes is to spend on productivity instead of social spending then that might be a good idea.but,your socialistic model focuses on social spending not productive spending it will fail and actually not generate the revenue you are expecting

[@rd264]

Ok, but are other economists making these points in detail and forcefully? The few economists I've heard or read argue that taxing the rich will not be sufficient.

[@romeg4534]

The rich are rich because of all those presumed and assumed contracts the people have giving up their rights & property as a gift to whoever will accept them. The best things in life really are free, to criminals that is.

[@ReluctantZer0]

@shifragri I would imagine not considering how much money the United States makes. There's enough for every single citizen in the US, young and old, to receive 45 to 50k a year if completely split evenly. But I suppose it also depends on what kind of economy we have, too. If we started to actually produce things again, the more likely more people would get more money. My 2 cents, anyway

[@DaHonestAbe]

@shifragri Between 25 and 35 percent if I remember correctly.

[@soularddave2]

I was around when America was doing well in the '50s & '60s. Let's all do well again - tax the richest at 91% again until everyone has an opportunity to do well.

[@dux7029]

so the people that provide jobs and go above and beyond should pay more? for the people with less incentive to make their own wealth? HMM.... so if I try to improve myself and my work I should get penalized for it? THATS ANTI PRODUCTIVE! There should be a FLAT TAX, So EVERYTHING IS ACTUALLY FAIR. IF you put more work into something you get more benefits from it like it should be.

[@PeterProf7777]

Good point Dux. But instead of a flat tax, a better idea is a progressive consumption tax called The Fair Tax.

[@Ye7ia07]

what stops coorporations and rich people from moving to other countries with more attractive taxing structures?

[@coopsnz1]

Or business owners selling up and retrying

[@willardchi2571]

More than a hundred years ago, would you have asked what would happen if slave masters moved to other countries were slavery outlawed in the USA?

[@coopsnz1]

Happening in Australia since 90s

[@ahsanulhaque1000]

Interesting...

[@PeterProf7777]

After WWII, we were able to get away with high marginal tax rates because most of the European countries were badly destroyed by the war. We were the only industrial country standing and we had a monopoly in production.

[@y2kcjc]

I know plenty people who would just stop working if you wanted to rob them of 91% of their income over a certain level. Or business would shift to the black market. Globalisation means more competition, so we get cheaper prices, better products and thankfully lower tax rates. We also have far more information nowadays, so its much easier to find the cheapest healthcare / pension and also much easier to donate to the best charities or those who are dealing with poverty most effectively. Technology is making government welfare defunct. Maybe in the 1950s you could argue that there was not enough information for people to make genuinely informed choice - but not anymore. There's huge irony in a man saying "the 1950's were better than now"... on his KZbin channel... using a video recorder... on a laptop.

[@stevemora7845]

So why isn't it working????

[@buttole]

how does raising taxes on the rich lower unemployment, when the unemployed are sustained by taxes

[@coopsnz1]

In Australia unions , taxes , regulations have caused more unemployment . The unions kill more jobs than consertives create in government

[@JDHJDH1]

Are you proud that at no point in your comment did you approach anything resembling a refutation of the points raised in the video?

[@PeterProf7777]

We did very well in the U.S. in the last quarter of the 19th century when there was no income tax. Richard, if you look at the 20th century it is a Century of inflation. Inflation because the Fed and commercial banks were creating too much new money. The 19th century was a era of deflation because of industrial expansion and a defacto gold standard. We need to go back to a time of sound money by keeping the money supply constant and expanding the economy through equity financing.

[@goranmilic442]

Poverty was still a problem in US late 19th century, even though country in total was doing great. You can't have constant money supply, because 1) population is not constant, 2) no new value would be produced, every money you earn somebody lost. I agree on FED and too much new money.

[@random19911004]

Why do you think you are entitled to 91% or 70%?

[@folieadeux5463]

+Bob Bill because it worked before. Look around you. More equality means higher peformance and higher life satisfaction..

[@enrique5850]

+Folie A Deux where it worked before? More equality does not mean higher performance.

[@UnknownEntity334]

Armando E Yes it does..Just go read economics, neurobiology, politics or psychology and its very clear in the body of research across all the fields. More equality give higher performance both on group and individual level mate..higher lwsf, low er psychopathology etc. .its why leaders who Work as part of their team us so effective - theyre part of the group on their level but at the same time organizing, strategising and being carismatic. So the workers better identify with them as part of their group and will be willing to subconsciously Work more deligent and percieve more support and vigor

[@enrique5850]

UnknownEntity334 no it doesn't, what produces higher performance and life satisfaction is to get out of the fucking poverty, not to be equal if that's the case: Giny coefficent: USA:45 Cameroon: 44.6 Uganda: 44.3 Kenya:42.5 Nigeria: 43.7 Nicaragua: 40.5 Venezuela: 39 Pakistan: 29.6 etc etc etc All impoverish countries where most of its people live with less than 10$ a day, where we have to make long lines for food (at least in my country Venezuela), we are more "equal" than the US, does that translate in higher performance and life satisfaction? as a frustrated person living in socialism with a useless public college degree hanging on my wall, I can tell you it doesn't So it must be something else rather than just "equality" right ? are you from the US? if so I don't think you would be so eager to switch place with me, wouldn't you? you come to my equality paradise of higher performance and life satisfaction and i go to you hell of inequality. how about that?

[@enrique5850]

FALSE: 1) Norway didn't' get out of poverty by socialism you don't even know your own country , the welfare stare is rather new in that country when we compared it to its economy system. 2) Socialism means poverty and is always has, if you are saying that poor n Norway stop being poor because government took money from others than they never stopped being poor. 3) trickled down economy? what is that? see honey that's where I can see you are being ignorant and uneducated (maybe Norway's education is not as good as they say) I've red multiple books in economy theory and history, I've read multiple studies of different economies and I'VE NEVER read about anything called "trickled down". 4) ""socialism doesnt mean less money, it means less for the topp more for the people. arent you people?" don't put me at your low level I like t produce my own money and I don't feel good about government robbing at gun-point some else to give money to me. The money robbed (get use to using that word) it could be use to invest more in salaries/more jobs/ new research, etc.

[@DaHonestAbe]

@ReluctantZer0 Nothing off the top of my head.

[@PeterProf7777]

In the 1950's and 1960's very few people paid the 91 percent marginal tax rate. There were loop holes. In fact the effective tax rate in the 1950's for the top 1% was 42%. The effective tax rate now is 36%. Link: taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

[@carlosphillips8447]

The rich are tax collectors not tax payers stop spreading bull

[@Theking2000401]

1- Citations and support please2- Why don't we go back further when every person in America was the highest paid in the world. Back before illegal income tax3- If a rich person pays bonus or buys a boat that puts money into the economy and most likely creates jobs directly4- What about the size of government compared to 1950s to now? What 3000 times bigger? What about Spending? Why tax more how about spend less? Cut regulation and enforcement by 50%5- What are you a professor of?

[@elpasadomuerto1375]

+Theking2000401 Economics at Amherst and International Affairs at the New School.

[@Theking2000401]

Thanks, any citations on your claims?

[@elpasadomuerto1375]

mine or his?

[@Theking2000401]

His

[@nicholasrichard-thompson6209]

@@Theking2000401 they're all histroical adn easily researched lol. Which claims?

[@your_animia]

Poor people talks

[@ReluctantZer0]

@DaHonestAbe Do you remember any sources?

[@se7ensnakes]

Why dont Wolff tell you that most of what we use for money are converted promissory notes?

[@vi_EviL_iv]

The worst part is, change will never ever come. Get used to it.

[@GetsumJ]

My question would be a simple one. Why should anyone pay more taxes than another ? Does he get more from the government because he pays more ? Would it also be fair to say that the rich should pay $7.00 for a gallon of gas, and the poor should pay $2.00 per gallon ? Isn't it the same gas ?

[@jonc2914]

FLAT TAX ALL CLASSES, problem solved

[@eddiematthew495]

Which problem are you referring to. Not a problem I can see at all.

[@joedefreece1947]

Jon C they don't want fair tax, but they do want equal outcome

[@darrenwoolsey484]

Fairness is strange in that it is regarded as a disease by the right-wing rich and wealthy inhabitants of this planet. . . why is this, and what went wrong to produce this unhealthy reaction?

[@thewall796]

Darren Woolsey they prosper and make more money and know how to manage well. we should tax them more because it's just not fair.

[@PeterProf7777]

Don't tax income. Taxing income taxes production. It is a disincentive. Tax consumption instead. Tax with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is a progressive consumption tax. It will widen the tax base. Everyone would be paying federal tax including illegal immigrants, criminals, income tax cheaters, people who work "under the table," and tourists. It can replace the payroll tax as well and corporate income tax. It would eliminate the tax compliance costs; no IRS. Taxing income distorts the economy. Rich people attempt to find tax shelters or take "capital flight." They invest in non productive assets like art. Peter de Luca: Economist

[@nicholasrichard-thompson6209]

lmao harm poor, working people more what a strategy. It's class struggle. it isn't a good thing that when we twx corporations or wealthy, that they then harm the entire economy. Too much power. the problem is that relations and system.

[@Dano-uf8ys]

Maybe we should tax you more.

[@willardchi2571]

Multi-Billionaires make so much an hour, that if they dropped a hundred dollar bill they would lose money if they stopped to pick it up.

[@Curious112233]

Taxation is theft, regardless of how rich the victim is. If you want things fair, lets talk about reducing or eliminating taxes for all.

[@bomaite1]

35% and 55% don't add up to 100%

[@avanpham123]

91% tax, that's silly. Why would any company work hard to make profit if 91% go directly to uncle Sam? They just work enough, break even then close shop.

[@bomaite1]

+Alan Pham The 91% rate was during WWII. We were just coming out of the great depression. You can't fund a world war by taxing the general public who have nothing. But this rate is on income over $100,000. The first $100,000 gets taxed at the much lower rate. And don't forget that this was an enormous amount of money in 1941. Would you think they could afford it? Or, would it have been a good idea to have let our corporations get rich while Hitler crushed the rest of world? And tax rates came down very slowly until about 1970, which is when the middle class here started to feel the pinch. Do you think there is a connection here? We have had wars and huge military expenditure for the last 15 years, and we have cut just about everything else out of the budget that we can get by with. Now it is only fair that those who have it should pony up and support our country in a way that they easily can. We don't ask them to give us everything. We ask them to give back just some of the enormous wealth that this country has made possible.

[@willardchi2571]

91% isn't silly. It's fair. No human being is worth billions of dollars. No human could possibly work any combination of harder, faster, longer, and smarter more than the rest of us, to be worth that much. There is a distortion of reward that results in our current system. T A X T H E R I C H.

[@coopsnz1]

My as well , sell up and retire

[@coopsnz1]

Shareholders invest in a company .Thats why CEOs earn a millions a year

[@coopsnz1]

They don't earn billions a year , they earn millions year . And pay millios of taxes CEOs . Ask my mum she's a senior account manager

[@wickedprophett1638]

💙

[@joedefreece1947]

This is false info, the top 2% of IRS income files pay 71%of the tax burden while the bottom 20% receive more in tax credits than they pay in. All of this is provided at the IRS website.

[@joedefreece1947]

Miss print; 61% of tax burden is payed by 2% of filers of income taxes

[@Nugschris]

The information is absolutely correct. Professor Wolff is talking about corporate files vs individual files in the first part (not individual vs individual as you are talking). It makes sense that the richest 2% pay around 60% of the total INDIVIDUAL tax monies collected because income inequality is so high (the top 2% are making all the money compared to everyone else and there is a progressive tax rate). That 60% will only get higher as income inequality continues to grow and you will continue to think that stat is bolstering your argument. That statistic about the 2% doesnt mean anything as long as 70% of the money belongs to 10 percent of the people. The source below will show you that corporate tax monies only account for about 6% of the total tax monies collected by the IRS and the vast majority come from individuals. Instead you should realize that Amazon made 11 billion in profit in 2018 and paid zero federal income tax. On top of that Amazon actually paid some employees low enough wages that they qualified for food stamps that are paid for by ACTUAL taxpayers. Amazon is just one example. If you can't see something is wrong with that then you aren't looking at all. www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from

[@cstarsfly]

This professor is wearing an expensive golden bracelet, a fancy expensive shirt, an expensive watch, and look at the stereo in back round and all those books and the nice furniture... Imagine how many poor people we could feed if we took all of these things from him and and sold them to pay for that food. This professor doesn't NEED all these luxuries and it is grossly unfair that he has them and so many others do not.

[@staceystrukel1917]

What?!

[@jerrykinnin7941]

Im for a LIMITED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.If you need Assistance from the government YOU SCREWD UP. WELFARE FOR NONE.

[@willardchi2571]

I could understand someone do such good work that they are worth a million a year--maybe even a little more. But beyong a million a year, they are benefitting from a snowball effect, and any money made in excess of a million or two a year should be taxed 90%. If they want to leave, let them go screw up some other country's economy (if the people there will let them).

[@ntskl]

Why would I bother trying to refute his points? I don't care if he tries to tax the rich. It will never work, but all the power to him. I'm just pointing out that this video is one giant ball of logical fallacies.

[@se7ensnakes]

Wolff is blatantly wrong, and although you may agree with him you are also wrong. I dont know why he does not tell you the entire problem. Maybe he does not know, maybe he is paid to ignore it (like every other public politician). Here is my view on the basis of the problem. Most of what we use for money, over 90% are actually promissory notes converted into endogenous money (their own digital money). What does this mean? It means that when the promissory note is paid off that money disappears because fulfillment voids its value. A promissory note that has been fully paid off has no value. This means that the money supply contracts. What plunged Europe into the dark ages was the severe money contraction. The great depression is also known as the great contraction. Money contracts and this throws off the economy into a downward spiral. These bankers know this and know what it takes to make the economy to go up and down. But perhaps the most important part of this whole scam is that that the bankers become HOLDERS IN DUE course without giving up anything of value. They hold property, house, car, business as collateral for this endogenous money. Each time that someone borrows from these banks (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Morgan Chase) they acquire property for free. You have to understand this insanity, because it is what affects our lives directly. We dont need more taxes, We need for the government to be mindful of MONEY CREATION and prevent these bankers from acquiring and inflating the prices of everything including house mortgage/rent.

[@coopsnz1]

government causes inflation , why there is more poverty

[@dobson777a]

I think I will do a video on why we should boot communist professors out of colleges who never worked in the real world and replace them with patriot workers from the real world.

[@JerryThorpeStory]

Tax the rich landlord, it gets added to your rent. Tax the rich employer, it comes off your paycheck. Tax Bill Gates, it gets added to the price of Windows. The poor people pay the taxes of the rich people, and their own taxes. I have a better idea. Abolish all taxes. Government should be supported only by voluntary donations, nothing else. If government doesn't get enough money this way, then it shapes up or shuts down.

[@H4I2I2EE]

That's a libertarian view. What modern country is that successfully implemented in? I don't think there has ever been one, actually.

[@smhsophie]

Lmfaoooooooooooooo dude that would never work. You've created a government that cant solve any problems.

[@James22426]

I wonder if Prof Richard Wolff is wealthy? He sells lots of books and has a lot of speaking engagements. Does he give the profits to the workers who made his books? I wonder if Capitalist publishers printed and marketed his books? I wonder if he uses technology invented through Capitalism?

[@thestonemaster81]

tax is thief. We used to be a lot better because the government was very small and the fed did not print money out of thin air. You are just saying to steal from some and not other. We are taxed every where. To say we have lower tax then some other country so what? You want to race to be the highest tax country? You forget inflation is a tax. also don't forget all the other tax. state, local, sale tax, property tax just to name a few. Even when the government gets there tax. Are they wise with your money? NO. After they steal from you (TAX) Then they borrow in your name. (identity theft) then they print the money supply out of thin air. To where our savings are wiped out. You think if they just get the rich. Where do you think the rich get their power? From the government. Stop feed this machine.

[@deleventy]

Wage labor is slavery. At the very least we can take back what was stolen from the working class and put it to good social use.

[@thestonemaster81]

deleventy Really ? The social good? More power to the government which are in bed with the rich. So the tax is used for WAR, Stealing from the people through more enforcement agencies. (Police speeding tickets , Mounds of regulations which cost the small guy so much he cant start a business which leaves the big guys happy because he has no competition) Set your mind free. Everytime people say more government or let the government do it. It says "let me be a slave".

[@deleventy]

Burton Nelson What you're really criticizing is capitalism. Corrupting democratic governments is a natural process of capitalism.

[@thestonemaster81]

deleventy No way! Capitalism does not take your money by force. It is a mutural exchange. I sell you a cup of coffee. You value the coffee more then the dollar you gave. I wanted the dollar we both walk away happy. No force used. If I sold you a bad cup of coffee. You would never buy from me again.The market would shut me down. I would go out of business. As far as your statement " Corrupting democratic governments is a natural process of capitalism" I would say all governments become corrupt. If the governments had limited power. you would not see all this corruption. 

[@deleventy]

Burton Nelson If governments had limited power, corporations and other rich lobbyists would make sure their power grew, through bribes and throwing money behind their candidates. If there were no State at all, the upper class would make one or BECOME one. Capitalism necessarily leads to plutocracy, just by nature of being capitalism. What you're describing with the cup of coffee is free trade, not capitalism. Capitalism is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." Capitalism does not necessitate free trade and vice versa.

[@ntskl]

1. Appeal to tradition 2. Appeal to popularity 3. Appeal to emotion

[@nicholasgergetz5941]

No offense, but you're COMPLETELY WRONG! Even if the heads of corporations really are selfish and they give money to executives, the executives still have to spend it or invest it to get anything from it, which generates jobs. YOU call yourself a professor? Have you even heard of the Laffer curve? Taxing the rich at such a high percentage rates DOES NOT yield as much tax revenue as taxing the rich at lower revenues. What's fair about charging one person 10% of what they earn and charging another person 35% of what they earn?!

[@stefmanbrett91]

+Nicholas Gergetz I'll think you'll find that the US implemented the Laffer Curve economic theory under Ronald Reagan and instead of raising tax revenue it created a huge increase in national debt and the poorest in America got poorer. The rich got richer. People who get more out of the economy should pay more taxes. A company makes their money by using public services. They have a productive workforce because of public schooling. They have a healthy workforce because of public healthcare (at least in every other industrialised country with national healthcare). They use the roads to ship their goods. They use more of the countries resources and infrastructure. As someone put it, taxes are in essence like insurance. You have more expensive stuff? Then you pay higher insurance as you have more to lose. The public fire service, police force, military defense are used to protect company property. Yes it does protect the average worker, but the average worker has little to lose. Trickle down economics does not work. It has been proven time and time again. This is why today 62 people have as much money as the bottom 50%. Average incomes have not increased whilst those at the top earn more.

[@coopsnz1]

Flat tax for everyone fair

[@coopsnz1]

Socialism grew debt growing government . It's caused the debt in Australia

[@rosserjake]

KZbin comments make me lose hope in humanity. Laffer curve is discredited and neoclassical economics is a perverted pseduoscience.

[@samparker4153]

Sorry, but this reasoning is faulty. You keep saying it's unfair for the rich to not have to pay ridiculously high percentages in income tax. Why is it not fair? Or better yet, what gives you the right to steal money from someone else? If the government really wanted to lower the deficit, they'd cut the exorbitant spending.

[@coopsnz1]

Left party always raped small business

[@bradhienzachary]

Tax you more!

[@anymoose]

wow check out this mad guy and his strawman

[@JohnSmith-qd2ur]

Hey, guys look at me I'm so cool fight the power! XD