We can do without the IRS. Accountants would still be needed at businesses because they need to show a favorable opportunity to obtain a loan to expand.
I think people need to educate themselves more on videos like this. You see how Friedman can debate about flat rate tax in a reasonable manner, not the typical emotional driving argument for the so called "fairness"? Both sides get too hung up on the word "fair" which is always a reflection of their sentiments.
Regardless of fair, the flat tax would be very damaging to the economy. Flat tax benefits the oldest generation the most, they are at the top of their income earnings and not contributing to the economy like younger adults who make less but are buying and furnishing homes and raising kids. Older tax payers are saving money for retirement aggressively. The logical argument against flat tax would be the sustainment of our economy.
@@galewosten2010 sorry but I gotta be frank: what you said… everything you said is very incorrect, especially your conclusion. First of all thinking of the economy as a battle between different generations or groups is foolish. It isn’t a zero sum game and it isn’t a battle between generations. I don’t know what muppet of a professor taught you that but it’s wrong. The economy It’s a giant cooperation between individuals of all ages, all 2 genders and backgrounds. It’s all about value provided to customers. That’s what raises living standards of everyone across the board and makes people better off. Provided the government doesn’t intervene too much. It’s Not anything less or more. That’s the first thing. Another thing is, you are incorrect about the effect of a flat tax. It would ENABLE the economy. Not disable it. That’s completely wrong. There is no logical argument against a flat tax system. In fact, a flat tax system would be the only tax system that was truly Just towards all citizens, and it would also enable us to save a shit ton of money on obsolete governmental institutions. Because any retrogressive tax system fails to understand the fact that people’s income is never arbitrary unless they work in government. Because taking more from one persons income than the other persons is not just. Obviously. It is the opposite of Fair or Just. You’re also ignoring several key nuances. The older people tend to have more investments than younger people too. Which means they’re providing jobs and raising living standards, unlike people who have just joined the workforce because they are just starting out. You could help all people in many different ways by completely binning Cap gains tax btw. Older people have already enabled the creation of Thousands of Jobs through their investments over time. Which is why you live more comfortably than your grandparents at your age. You’re very narrowly focused on one meaningless variable, ignoring all the others. Yes, elders are saving for retirement… so? Isn’t that good? Why would you not want them to have a comfortable retirement? What you’re arguing for is letting everyone have less money (progressive taxes instead of flat taxes, and high tax rates + cap gains tax) so that everything is more expensive than it needs to be and so that old people can’t retire without downgrading their lifestyle massively and that young people can’t generate wealth for themselves through investments because they have little disposable income and compound interest cannot be as efficiently utilized as possible, due to the fact that everyone is being taxed into oblivion, raising prices of everything while chasing wealth creators (business) away. That’s a very weird thing to argue for i would say. You are arguing in favor of people being poorer than necessary. Yikes. A flat tax system benefits everyone. As long as the tax is low. 25% tops, but the lower the better. People would have more money from their gross paycheck, more businesses would come into the country, increasing competition and lowering prices, wages would rise, for one due to increased competition for talent, and secondly because that always happens when you stop taxing corporations at stupid rates. More jobs created, more currency in people’s hands, lower prices for goods and services (also lower perceived prices because of increased buying power), higher general wealth level, higher employment… and many more positives. All of that would come from a tax rate that was sensible and a smaller government, as long as it applies only to private citizens and only to their work income. Businesses shouldn’t be taxed at all. That would supercharge the effect I just laid out. It would lead to much higher wages (it’s important that those cannot be mandated), cheaper costs of living and way better off people. That would also enable more investments and wealth generation as a consequence of that, because a business could now afford to hire people, paying them the gross as a net , which they can do because they pay no additional taxes on that job, you and all other workers would have more money but goods and services wouldn’t cost more due to increased competition and lower input costs, because much of the price you pay for something is the business factoring in Taxes they have to pay.... you’d have more cash to put aside and invest, again improving the lives of everyone in the economy where you invested. You fail to recognize the fact that older people HAVE CONTRIBUTED FOR 40 years+ already too, and are investing more as well. Think things through before you say things that are objectively incorrect, because your professor, who’s losing in life, told you so.
I like how Friedman's argument is based on math and actual use of money, he is looking at it strictly from economic point of view not social where he argues fairness and equality and therefore it resonates on practical level more
It needs to account for the math of demographics. People make more.money as they age but their highest expenses are often in their early adult years. Flat tax doesn't account for the impact on economy. A 25 year old has a house and student loan, is at their lowest salary, has to buy all the furnishings for their home I've the next few years, and probably a decent car. They also want to save up for a kid or two in a few years. The costs outpace income. The 50 year old is at near peak income potential and has kids moved out and likely paid off their home. The older, more wealthier people can afford the taxes but if you flat tax the 25 year old it delays home ownership and child raising. It might even delay child raising tot he point a couple is childless or one child. That is the ground work for demographic decay and setting up a problem like in China with the consequences of their one child policy.
His views will always remain true as long as the workforce is made up of human beings. Socialism kind of works when it's the machines doing the production and handling efficiency, then there is no way to corrupt them and incentives don't matter since feelings aren't involved. It is true however that in the current system even 5% socialism can destroy the economy
IMHO the rate would be much lower if the fed gov got back to a rational interpretation of the Constitution and returned to it's proper Constitutional size and scope, i.e. MUCH smaller.
You’d put more money back into the economy and you’d also be motivated to earn more money and be more productive. Better than govt taking your money and wasting it.
FICA Normalized is 15.3%. Add the lowest tax bracket of 10% and you are now at 25+ percent. Flat tax of 20% with zero deductions. Of course corporations etc. we still have to come up with cogs.
Would be even lower if we cut gov't entitlements and decreased the amount of gov't agencies and spending. but with sociliast dems in office, this will never happen.
The United States SHOULD be on a Flat Tax system of taxation. Every business and individual should pay the same percentage of income tax. This would eliminate the overly complicated and unecessary tax system we have in place in the US currently. First off, if all businesses and wage earners were proportionally taxed, it would be more fair to all. It would be a win-win situation. This would eliminate tax loop-holes. No more tax breaks of ANY kind for ANYBODY, would be a more fair and a refreshing change.The IRS would become strictly a Tax Collection Agency, thus able to operate with probably about 20% of the personnel it employs today. There'd be no 'April 15', as taxes would be deducted all-along-the-way, no more high-priced Tax Accountants or Tax Lawyers would be needed. With Flat Taxation, there would be a drastic reduction in paperwork and no yearly changes in the tax laws.
The problem is that governments are more concerned with using taxes as a means of controlling people rather than raising funds. So, a flat tax may even out or even raise government incomes, but it would reduce the government’s control over our actions.
That cut off at the end was deliberate. Didn't want that info out. He could have run the credits and no music so we could hear what they were saying. FAKE NEWs even back then.
There can never be a flat tax unless you change the apportionment provisions of the Constitution, Steve Forbes knew that very well, thats why he kept selling it, he knew it was politically advantageous but realistically impossible.
I like this guy. Also. States should not receive more in federal income/welfare than they contribute to the federal tax. Force states to raise their own incomes for their needs. Let states decide what is best for themselves.
Remember Elvis Presley ? He was STILL paying a 90% tax while he was in the United States Army . Bring on the flat tax with the wealthy paying a 90% tax .
Hopefully it isn't just nostalgic old guys like me looking up these 2 titans but the younger generations asking 'who was this guy, Friedman I keep hearing his name when I'm trying to learn why the Country is in this position?' Yes it's because Friedman saved us once, but 4 years later those in power can pretend he never existed.
If it makes you happy, I'm 18 and I'm currently learning economics and politics. I have great ambition to be like some of the greatest intellectuals to live like Friedman, Sowell and the Founding Fathers, for example.
The other thing a so-called 'Progressive' tax does, is tell poor people 'Don't even try to become rich, because if you do, the govt will take it all off you,' 😂😂
The loopholes exist such that the only way to take advantage of them is to do the government's job for them, thereby Latrobe the cost of doing government business.
This is why I am kind of against the Trump tax bill. It wasn't exactly tax reform, rather just changing some stuff in the code. It should've had flat tax and simplification of the code. I am against any tax bill that doesn't have a flat tax and a simplification of the code.
Friedman at 4:00 advised doubling exemptions, applied negative tax AND flat tax. He said in the beginning the progressive tax rate we have now is more like a flat tax.
I wonder whether people who favor flat taxation oppose market price discrimination, or would argue it really negatively affects the businesses which apply it.
Petitio Principii I see this was posted a year ago and you didn’t answer the other persons question. However, I will try to ask this question. What does one have to do with the other? If a business wants to charge more to a person who only buys one item compared to a person or company that buys 10,000 what does that have to do with flat tax?
The flat tax is the only really viable semi-moral tax system available, especially if one takes out the sales tax. I don't really see why we need a sales tax, it just takes out potential economic activity that could have gone into other things, it's far better to have an accountant that produces his own money and pays taxes on it than to have the government hire the same man and pay his entire salary and only get part of it back in taxes. Taxes should be as low as is consistent with an effective, stable government, along with a prosperous society that grows as fast as it can sustain, one with solid social programs like healthcare, a negative income tax, a faith tax, a size and scale infrastructure tax etc. and without loopholes it could be done at 20% and 2.5% inflation, which would be a great deal better than paying a third of your income to the government and an additional 9% because of inflation for unwise causes like the proxy war with Russia which should really be their turf, not ours. It's true that we need a strong military, but mainly for defensive purposes, only going abroad in North America, and then only in absolute emergencies.
All I know is it is rich people every time who say that a flat tax is a better idea which tells me it is very likely not. The loopholes were put there via controlled legislators owned by the rich.
And the revenue lost by putting all the accountants and bureaucrats that are dependent on the current system out of work? Not to mention the flow on effects considering that they're generally at the high end of earners? The economy thrives on complexity and inefficiency. We need a completely different model.
You may as well suggest that we should make things more complicated so we'd need more bureaucrats and accountants so we can get more tax revenues from those high paid jobs. Doesn't make much sense, to me.
@@crusherven I'm suggesting a completely different system of remuneration based upon permanently making the system more efficient not less. If your efficiency gain leads to you and your positions "unemployment" then you would be permanently rewarded for life. I mean isn't this the ultimate purpose of technology, to make labour obsolete? Everything in our current economic system works against this end. For without labour you have no real market.
Funny story, I had a friend who was angry that Trump wanted a flat tax. He didn’t, as he specifically said he didn’t support one on Adam Carolla’s show. He never implemented one... From there I knew that people were lying about Trump to the point that they couldn’t even explain his policies correctly.
@@scottyrobot3836 His tax bill made it so that rich people now pay less in taxes(effective rate) than middle-class people, so no, you are wrong. But then again, you dont qualify as a real person, come her and i'll show you.
@@patrickbateman1660 Capital gains taxes are higher for people in higher tax brackets. A big problem with the housing crisis right now is that a large portion of the housing supply is being bought up by big money interests who jack up the prices.
@@theskepticalskeptic1351 prices are jacked up to their being no new supply. Housing needs less regulations. Getting permits in states like California can take years.
Barely a semantic argument. Every source disagrees with you, as the majority of us are smart enough to understand that the "flat" part pertains to the rate, not the absolute amount.
@@tarkfarhen3870 again you're incorrect in your use of these terms. It is capitalism, because the means of production are privately owned... I see that you're probably not well educated in basic economic or political principles, which will make this conversation futile for me. But no, generally, taxes are not just redistribution from rich people to poor people. They often pay for things that cannot exclude free riders, and is deemed necessary for society. If one person owns a $20 mil property, and the other owns no land, wouldn't the former be getting more from the government just in protective services, that facilitate him keeping is wealth safe- i.e. police, fire, military? Or the wealthy who made money, which most do, through the government protections of patents/copyrights and the ability to form corporations (shielding your personal assets from risk), are they really not getting more from the government than someone making 30k a year? And to propose a number that was equal for everyone, we would land at a number that was higher than the income of many employees? We would end up imprisoning all of our poor and lower middle class people, costing absurd amounts of money to do so. And there would be no people to do the shit jobs anymore, and many businesses wouldn't be able to function. Or there would just be an outright revolution. Either way the economy would be no where near stable or sustainable. I mean if you even bothered to think about this for a second, you would hopefully realize how absurdly impossible this is, and probably why no one does this. I find it amazing that you're not a very low earner, based on my brief insight into the way you think. Rich connections or something?
@@tarkfarhen3870 so you're proposing not taxing a large group of people, but then at a certain income you just pay a flat rate? So you would essentially disincentize a huge group of people- near that salary- to not make more money, for if they make 1000 more, they lose a ton in tax? And if we had no corporations or patents, we would not be the wealthiest country in the world.
But lower tax decreases costs for small businesses and new corporations. This makes it easier for them to compete with bigger business, not harder. Therefore it actually hurts monopolists.
@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo A flat tax creates a monopolistic financial system, it is the goose that lays their golden eggs. If you want all-powerful, unelected, unaccountable private individuals to rule the world according to their whims then agree with Milton by all means.
@@homergee3381 as I’ve explained, the opposite would occur. You haven’t explained why your sentiment is correct, you’ve just restated your point, which is itself ignorant. It is very hard for most monopolies to thrive in a free market without providing better and/or cheaper goods and services. Most monopolies are either government run or heavily protected by government.
@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo Flat tax = no income limit. Progressive tax = an income limit. It is pretty basic and hard to misunderstand but you're doing a great job.
The rich are already evading high taxation (as Friedman says, because it is high). The ones who have to suffer are beginning entrepreneurs who are delayed from making necessary investments by mandatory taxes (in the case of Germany for instance, health insurance tax where you can’t pick a plan that suits you and assume risks. Meanwhile careless people who relish in their unhealthy habits will have their expenses covered by the hard working person. I’d argue though that money being put into innovation is a win win).
@@timeWaster76 there are “libertarians”(maybe even in this comment section) who would make the (absurd)argument that Milton was a socialist for not supporting the total abolition of taxes. Your comment didn’t make it readily apparent.
@@specialknees6798 Just because you failed to get it doesn't mean it wasn't . Jjust take your lumps. Why do the libertarians say or thing anything they do... They're crazy. So just remember when someone started a question with 'So" there is a twist of some kind coming. The is not at all an uncommon rhetorical device. But I bet that it is more likely that Milton was proponent of negative income tax that would make a libertarian say that Milton was a socialist ... the abolish taxes thing has petered out... please tell me it has LOL The Sovereign Citizen Movement took over that after the "libertarians" dropped it because it became obviously ridiculous.. I thought they moved on to the flat tax.
The United States SHOULD be on a Flat Tax system of taxation. Every business and individual should pay the same percentage of income tax. This would eliminate the overly complicated and unecessary tax system we have in place in the US currently. First off, if all businesses and wage earners were proportionally taxed, it would be more fair to all. It would be a win-win situation. This would eliminate tax loop-holes. No more tax breaks of ANY kind for ANYBODY, would be a more fair and a refreshing change.The IRS would become strictly a Tax Collection Agency, thus able to operate with probably about 20% of the personnel it employs today. There'd be no 'April 15', as taxes would be deducted all-along-the-way, no more high-priced Tax Accountants or Tax Lawyers would be needed. With Flat Taxation, there would be a drastic reduction in paperwork and no yearly changes in the tax laws.
The complication of our tax system comes not from the graduated tax rates (tax brackets) but from the exemptions, loopholes, and other diddly BS. Changing to a flat tax system would not help one bit to make the system less complicated. I see you want to get rid of all that too, but you're not using the term "flat tax" correctly. It has nothing to do with those complications, so you're simply using the wrong term to advocate for what you want.
Instead of ANY income tax, I feel they should replace it with a federal sales tax- NOTE, I said replace it, not augment it! If there was a federal sales tax on new items only,( none on food), then everyone would pitch into the pot, including those who do not report their income at present. This would include, but not be limited to, prostitutes, burglars, drug dealers, tradesmen working “under the table” and anyone else not currently reporting their income! If there was a federal tax- with zero exemptions (other than food)- everyone would pay. Those awful rich people, that others like to hate, would most likely pay more tax, as they would purchase more new items which are 100% taxable. Those less well off could lesson heir tax burden by buying second hand items. Is there a more fair tax system!?
@@garypiatt4666 A more fair tax system is Land Value Tax(LVT) also known as Georgism. Milton Friedman himself agrees that it’s the best system, as did Adam Smith(the Father of Capitalism) But yes the system you propose is my 2nd option
If we went to a flat tax, jobs in the accountant industry and IRS would be devastated over night. It would be awesome!
80,000 IRS jobs lost overnight 😂😂
We can do without the IRS. Accountants would still be needed at businesses because they need to show a favorable opportunity to obtain a loan to expand.
They were like “he’s telling the truth, time to cut him off!”
I think people need to educate themselves more on videos like this. You see how Friedman can debate about flat rate tax in a reasonable manner, not the typical emotional driving argument for the so called "fairness"? Both sides get too hung up on the word "fair" which is always a reflection of their sentiments.
The west will die trying to attain "fairness", hopefully those that come after us learn from our mistakes.
Regardless of fair, the flat tax would be very damaging to the economy. Flat tax benefits the oldest generation the most, they are at the top of their income earnings and not contributing to the economy like younger adults who make less but are buying and furnishing homes and raising kids. Older tax payers are saving money for retirement aggressively.
The logical argument against flat tax would be the sustainment of our economy.
@@galewosten2010 sorry but I gotta be frank: what you said… everything you said is very incorrect, especially your conclusion. First of all thinking of the economy as a battle between different generations or groups is foolish. It isn’t a zero sum game and it isn’t a battle between generations. I don’t know what muppet of a professor taught you that but it’s wrong. The economy It’s a giant cooperation between individuals of all ages, all 2 genders and backgrounds. It’s all about value provided to customers. That’s what raises living standards of everyone across the board and makes people better off. Provided the government doesn’t intervene too much. It’s Not anything less or more. That’s the first thing. Another thing is, you are incorrect about the effect of a flat tax. It would ENABLE the economy. Not disable it. That’s completely wrong. There is no logical argument against a flat tax system. In fact, a flat tax system would be the only tax system that was truly Just towards all citizens, and it would also enable us to save a shit ton of money on obsolete governmental institutions. Because any retrogressive tax system fails to understand the fact that people’s income is never arbitrary unless they work in government. Because taking more from one persons income than the other persons is not just. Obviously. It is the opposite of Fair or Just. You’re also ignoring several key nuances. The older people tend to have more investments than younger people too. Which means they’re providing jobs and raising living standards, unlike people who have just joined the workforce because they are just starting out. You could help all people in many different ways by completely binning Cap gains tax btw. Older people have already enabled the creation of Thousands of Jobs through their investments over time. Which is why you live more comfortably than your grandparents at your age. You’re very narrowly focused on one meaningless variable, ignoring all the others. Yes, elders are saving for retirement… so? Isn’t that good? Why would you not want them to have a comfortable retirement?
What you’re arguing for is letting everyone have less money (progressive taxes instead of flat taxes, and high tax rates + cap gains tax) so that everything is more expensive than it needs to be and so that old people can’t retire without downgrading their lifestyle massively and that young people can’t generate wealth for themselves through investments because they have little disposable income and compound interest cannot be as efficiently utilized as possible, due to the fact that everyone is being taxed into oblivion, raising prices of everything while chasing wealth creators (business) away.
That’s a very weird thing to argue for i would say. You are arguing in favor of people being poorer than necessary. Yikes.
A flat tax system benefits everyone. As long as the tax is low. 25% tops, but the lower the better. People would have more money from their gross paycheck, more businesses would come into the country, increasing competition and lowering prices, wages would rise, for one due to increased competition for talent, and secondly because that always happens when you stop taxing corporations at stupid rates. More jobs created, more currency in people’s hands, lower prices for goods and services (also lower perceived prices because of increased buying power), higher general wealth level, higher employment… and many more positives. All of that would come from a tax rate that was sensible and a smaller government, as long as it applies only to private citizens and only to their work income. Businesses shouldn’t be taxed at all. That would supercharge the effect I just laid out. It would lead to much higher wages (it’s important that those cannot be mandated), cheaper costs of living and way better off people. That would also enable more investments and wealth generation as a consequence of that, because a business could now afford to hire people, paying them the gross as a net , which they can do because they pay no additional taxes on that job, you and all other workers would have more money but goods and services wouldn’t cost more due to increased competition and lower input costs, because much of the price you pay for something is the business factoring in Taxes they have to pay....
you’d have more cash to put aside and invest, again improving the lives of everyone in the economy where you invested. You fail to recognize the fact that older people HAVE CONTRIBUTED FOR 40 years+ already too, and are investing more as well. Think things through before you say things that are objectively incorrect, because your professor, who’s losing in life, told you so.
Two of the greatest intellect in history. One devout Roman catholic and the other a Jew. They were lifelong friends
lol sounds like the beginning of a good joke.
I like how Friedman's argument is based on math and actual use of money, he is looking at it strictly from economic point of view not social where he argues fairness and equality and therefore it resonates on practical level more
It needs to account for the math of demographics. People make more.money as they age but their highest expenses are often in their early adult years. Flat tax doesn't account for the impact on economy. A 25 year old has a house and student loan, is at their lowest salary, has to buy all the furnishings for their home I've the next few years, and probably a decent car. They also want to save up for a kid or two in a few years. The costs outpace income.
The 50 year old is at near peak income potential and has kids moved out and likely paid off their home.
The older, more wealthier people can afford the taxes but if you flat tax the 25 year old it delays home ownership and child raising. It might even delay child raising tot he point a couple is childless or one child. That is the ground work for demographic decay and setting up a problem like in China with the consequences of their one child policy.
@@galewosten2010he was suggesting doubling the current exemptions...so the person starting off in life would pay no tax on most of their income
the economic point of view IS the social point of view.
I wish we'd have listened more to prof. Friedman while he was alive :(
His views will always remain true as long as the workforce is made up of human beings.
Socialism kind of works when it's the machines doing the production and handling efficiency, then there is no way to corrupt them and incentives don't matter since feelings aren't involved.
It is true however that in the current system even 5% socialism can destroy the economy
you are so wrong @@robertmills3830
IMHO the rate would be much lower if the fed gov got back to a rational interpretation of the Constitution and returned to it's proper Constitutional size and scope, i.e. MUCH smaller.
They cut it off right where he was talking about the losses for the middle class and arguing against the rich being inherently at the disadvantage.
Sounds so good for my paycheck... wow ~19% flat tax.
You’d put more money back into the economy and you’d also be motivated to earn more money and be more productive. Better than govt taking your money and wasting it.
FICA Normalized is 15.3%. Add the lowest tax bracket of 10% and you are now at 25+ percent.
Flat tax of 20% with zero deductions. Of course corporations etc. we still have to come up with cogs.
Would be even lower if we cut gov't entitlements and decreased the amount of gov't agencies and spending. but with sociliast dems in office, this will never happen.
Run out of time!?!?! excuse me?!!!!!!!!! >:(
TV sucks. Milton should've been around in the era of RUclips.
TV Convenientaly ran out of time just as he was explaining how elites cheat the system.
The United States SHOULD be on a Flat Tax system of taxation. Every business and individual should pay the same percentage of income tax. This would eliminate the overly complicated and unecessary tax system we have in place in the US currently. First off, if all businesses and wage earners were proportionally taxed, it would be more fair to all. It would be a win-win situation. This would eliminate tax loop-holes. No more tax breaks of ANY kind for ANYBODY, would be a more fair and a refreshing change.The IRS would become strictly a Tax Collection Agency, thus able to operate with probably about 20% of the personnel it employs today. There'd be no 'April 15', as taxes would be deducted all-along-the-way, no more high-priced Tax Accountants or Tax Lawyers would be needed. With Flat Taxation, there would be a drastic reduction in paperwork and no yearly changes in the tax laws.
What a stupid point. You can get rid of the loopholes without having a flat tax system.
Where can I get a chair like that?
The problem is that governments are more concerned with using taxes as a means of controlling people rather than raising funds. So, a flat tax may even out or even raise government incomes, but it would reduce the government’s control over our actions.
The man.
That cut off at the end was deliberate. Didn't want that info out. He could have run the credits and no music so we could hear what they were saying. FAKE NEWs even back then.
I love the confidence you have.. just blindly assert something with no info to get you there. Make one conspiratorial inference, and just launch 😂
There can never be a flat tax unless you change the apportionment provisions of the Constitution, Steve Forbes knew that very well, thats why he kept selling it, he knew it was politically advantageous but realistically impossible.
So what flat tax number are we looking at if we would like to cut the feds budget by 75$ and get back to basic forms of government...
I like this guy. Also. States should not receive more in federal income/welfare than they contribute to the federal tax. Force states to raise their own incomes for their needs. Let states decide what is best for themselves.
Remember Elvis Presley ? He was STILL paying a 90% tax while he was in the United States Army . Bring on the flat tax with the wealthy paying a 90% tax .
Insane that they would cut him off.
Hopefully it isn't just nostalgic old guys like me looking up these 2 titans but the younger generations asking 'who was this guy, Friedman I keep hearing his name when I'm trying to learn why the Country is in this position?' Yes it's because Friedman saved us once, but 4 years later those in power can pretend he never existed.
If it makes you happy, I'm 18 and I'm currently learning economics and politics. I have great ambition to be like some of the greatest intellectuals to live like Friedman, Sowell and the Founding Fathers, for example.
Good for you. And good luck. @@victor_2216
The other thing a so-called 'Progressive' tax does, is tell poor people 'Don't even try to become rich, because if you do, the govt will take it all off you,' 😂😂
Exactly 🎉
The loopholes exist such that the only way to take advantage of them is to do the government's job for them, thereby Latrobe the cost of doing government business.
This is why I am kind of against the Trump tax bill. It wasn't exactly tax reform, rather just changing some stuff in the code. It should've had flat tax and simplification of the code. I am against any tax bill that doesn't have a flat tax and a simplification of the code.
Friedman at 4:00 advised doubling exemptions, applied negative tax AND flat tax.
He said in the beginning the progressive tax rate we have now is more like a flat tax.
Your just a trump hater who hates America
I wonder whether people who favor flat taxation oppose market price discrimination, or would argue it really negatively affects the businesses which apply it.
Could you explain in more detail?
Petitio Principii I see this was posted a year ago and you didn’t answer the other persons question. However, I will try to ask this question. What does one have to do with the other? If a business wants to charge more to a person who only buys one item compared to a person or company that buys 10,000 what does that have to do with flat tax?
The flat tax is the only really viable semi-moral tax system available, especially if one takes out the sales tax. I don't really see why we need a sales tax, it just takes out potential economic activity that could have gone into other things, it's far better to have an accountant that produces his own money and pays taxes on it than to have the government hire the same man and pay his entire salary and only get part of it back in taxes. Taxes should be as low as is consistent with an effective, stable government, along with a prosperous society that grows as fast as it can sustain, one with solid social programs like healthcare, a negative income tax, a faith tax, a size and scale infrastructure tax etc. and without loopholes it could be done at 20% and 2.5% inflation, which would be a great deal better than paying a third of your income to the government and an additional 9% because of inflation for unwise causes like the proxy war with Russia which should really be their turf, not ours. It's true that we need a strong military, but mainly for defensive purposes, only going abroad in North America, and then only in absolute emergencies.
Yes, the rich wouldn’t dare try to find a loophole to get around 14% 😝 🤦♂️
That’s why he simultaneously proposed to end all deductions and so on
What accent is that?
Mid Atlantic. A mix of Standard American and Received Pronounciation(British). Mainly taught in upper class prep schools and Acting Schools.
I love how they ran out of time right when it was getting interesting
All I know is it is rich people every time who say that a flat tax is a better idea which tells me it is very likely not. The loopholes were put there via controlled legislators owned by the rich.
And the revenue lost by putting all the accountants and bureaucrats that are dependent on the current system out of work? Not to mention the flow on effects considering that they're generally at the high end of earners? The economy thrives on complexity and inefficiency. We need a completely different model.
You may as well suggest that we should make things more complicated so we'd need more bureaucrats and accountants so we can get more tax revenues from those high paid jobs. Doesn't make much sense, to me.
@@crusherven I'm suggesting a completely different system of remuneration based upon permanently making the system more efficient not less. If your efficiency gain leads to you and your positions "unemployment" then you would be permanently rewarded for life. I mean isn't this the ultimate purpose of technology, to make labour obsolete? Everything in our current economic system works against this end. For without labour you have no real market.
I'd gladly give up doing tax work to focus on more important financial specialties, just saying.
Sounds like what trump did, now just do the flat tax part
Funny story, I had a friend who was angry that Trump wanted a flat tax. He didn’t, as he specifically said he didn’t support one on Adam Carolla’s show. He never implemented one... From there I knew that people were lying about Trump to the point that they couldn’t even explain his policies correctly.
@@MCCrleone354 I was talking about doubling exemptions and making it easier to do your taxes,
Trump is a dick
@@timeWaster76 yeah well at least gas wasn't 4bucks a gallon and double for groceries, he definitely could have shut up but everyone was better off
@@scottyrobot3836 His tax bill made it so that rich people now pay less in taxes(effective rate) than middle-class people, so no, you are wrong.
But then again, you dont qualify as a real person, come her and i'll show you.
Simple solution to this idiotic debate: Tax capital gains higher!
No it makes markets less efficient. An example is housing. Higher capital rates means its harder to buy a house as less people are selli g.
@@patrickbateman1660 Capital gains taxes are higher for people in higher tax brackets. A big problem with the housing crisis right now is that a large portion of the housing supply is being bought up by big money interests who jack up the prices.
@@theskepticalskeptic1351 prices are jacked up to their being no new supply. Housing needs less regulations. Getting permits in states like California can take years.
Then people would either not work as hard or find some other loophole. Or just leave the country
@@billslim1112 The capital gains rate used to be 40%.
19% is too high.
He is talking about a proportional tax, not a flat tax. Flat tax is $ flat, proportional tax is % flat.
Barely a semantic argument. Every source disagrees with you, as the majority of us are smart enough to understand that the "flat" part pertains to the rate, not the absolute amount.
@@tarkfarhen3870, how is that socialism, meaning the means of production are owned by government?
@@tarkfarhen3870, well no, not communist either. Wouldn't all taxes be taken by force, according to you?
@@tarkfarhen3870 again you're incorrect in your use of these terms. It is capitalism, because the means of production are privately owned... I see that you're probably not well educated in basic economic or political principles, which will make this conversation futile for me.
But no, generally, taxes are not just redistribution from rich people to poor people. They often pay for things that cannot exclude free riders, and is deemed necessary for society. If one person owns a $20 mil property, and the other owns no land, wouldn't the former be getting more from the government just in protective services, that facilitate him keeping is wealth safe- i.e. police, fire, military? Or the wealthy who made money, which most do, through the government protections of patents/copyrights and the ability to form corporations (shielding your personal assets from risk), are they really not getting more from the government than someone making 30k a year?
And to propose a number that was equal for everyone, we would land at a number that was higher than the income of many employees? We would end up imprisoning all of our poor and lower middle class people, costing absurd amounts of money to do so. And there would be no people to do the shit jobs anymore, and many businesses wouldn't be able to function. Or there would just be an outright revolution. Either way the economy would be no where near stable or sustainable.
I mean if you even bothered to think about this for a second, you would hopefully realize how absurdly impossible this is, and probably why no one does this. I find it amazing that you're not a very low earner, based on my brief insight into the way you think. Rich connections or something?
@@tarkfarhen3870 so you're proposing not taxing a large group of people, but then at a certain income you just pay a flat rate? So you would essentially disincentize a huge group of people- near that salary- to not make more money, for if they make 1000 more, they lose a ton in tax?
And if we had no corporations or patents, we would not be the wealthiest country in the world.
Don't watch this drunk!
A flat rate turns free market capitalism into monopoly market capitalism, Milton works for the monopolists it is that simple.
But lower tax decreases costs for small businesses and new corporations. This makes it easier for them to compete with bigger business, not harder. Therefore it actually hurts monopolists.
@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo A flat tax creates a monopolistic financial system, it is the goose that lays their golden eggs. If you want all-powerful, unelected, unaccountable private individuals to rule the world according to their whims then agree with Milton by all means.
@@homergee3381 as I’ve explained, the opposite would occur. You haven’t explained why your sentiment is correct, you’ve just restated your point, which is itself ignorant. It is very hard for most monopolies to thrive in a free market without providing better and/or cheaper goods and services. Most monopolies are either government run or heavily protected by government.
@@JonathanSmith-kz2jo Flat tax = no income limit. Progressive tax = an income limit. It is pretty basic and hard to misunderstand but you're doing a great job.
The rich are already evading high taxation (as Friedman says, because it is high). The ones who have to suffer are beginning entrepreneurs who are delayed from making necessary investments by mandatory taxes (in the case of Germany for instance, health insurance tax where you can’t pick a plan that suits you and assume risks. Meanwhile careless people who relish in their unhealthy habits will have their expenses covered by the hard working person. I’d argue though that money being put into innovation is a win win).
So Milton is a socialist
This is your brain on libertarianism holy fuck
OFFS ! @@specialknees6798 Have you ever heard of sarcasm .... He also was a proponent of negative income tax.
OFFS !@@littlelarry2912 Have you ever heard of sarcasm .... He also was a proponent of negative income tax.
@@timeWaster76 there are “libertarians”(maybe even in this comment section) who would make the (absurd)argument that Milton was a socialist for not supporting the total abolition of taxes. Your comment didn’t make it readily apparent.
@@specialknees6798 Just because you failed to get it doesn't mean it wasn't . Jjust take your lumps. Why do the libertarians say or thing anything they do... They're crazy. So just remember when someone started a question with 'So" there is a twist of some kind coming. The is not at all an uncommon rhetorical device. But I bet that it is more likely that Milton was proponent of negative income tax that would make a libertarian say that Milton was a socialist ... the abolish taxes thing has petered out... please tell me it has LOL
The Sovereign Citizen Movement took over that after the "libertarians" dropped it because it became obviously ridiculous.. I thought they moved on to the flat tax.
I think a flat dollar amount would be most fair. $X.YZ
The United States SHOULD be on a Flat Tax system of taxation. Every business and individual should pay the same percentage of income tax. This would eliminate the overly complicated and unecessary tax system we have in place in the US currently. First off, if all businesses and wage earners were proportionally taxed, it would be more fair to all. It would be a win-win situation. This would eliminate tax loop-holes. No more tax breaks of ANY kind for ANYBODY, would be a more fair and a refreshing change.The IRS would become strictly a Tax Collection Agency, thus able to operate with probably about 20% of the personnel it employs today. There'd be no 'April 15', as taxes would be deducted all-along-the-way, no more high-priced Tax Accountants or Tax Lawyers would be needed. With Flat Taxation, there would be a drastic reduction in paperwork and no yearly changes in the tax laws.
The complication of our tax system comes not from the graduated tax rates (tax brackets) but from the exemptions, loopholes, and other diddly BS. Changing to a flat tax system would not help one bit to make the system less complicated. I see you want to get rid of all that too, but you're not using the term "flat tax" correctly. It has nothing to do with those complications, so you're simply using the wrong term to advocate for what you want.
@@billyte1265 Good points Billy, but what IS the correct "term"? Thanks, Ross
@@rossmartenak5517 Not sure there's a term for it. I mean "tax loopholes" covers some of it. You could use a term I just made up: "tax labyrinth" ; )
Instead of ANY income tax, I feel they should replace it with a federal sales tax- NOTE, I said replace it, not augment it!
If there was a federal sales tax on new items only,( none on food), then everyone would pitch into the pot, including those who do not report their income at present.
This would include, but not be limited to, prostitutes, burglars, drug dealers, tradesmen working “under the table” and anyone else not currently reporting their income!
If there was a federal tax- with zero exemptions (other than food)- everyone would pay.
Those awful rich people, that others like to hate, would most likely pay more tax, as they would purchase more new items which are 100% taxable.
Those less well off could lesson heir tax burden by buying second hand items.
Is there a more fair tax system!?
@@garypiatt4666 A more fair tax system is Land Value Tax(LVT) also known as Georgism. Milton Friedman himself agrees that it’s the best system, as did Adam Smith(the Father of Capitalism)
But yes the system you propose is my 2nd option