Thanks for watching! If you found this video informative, be sure to also watch our video on how we got into this mess. ruclips.net/video/gSlHVZpNxMM/видео.html
My question is why just 2%? My annual property tax is about 5% of the value of my home. Every year I pay a "wealth tax" of about 1.5% on my car - based on the value of the car. Over the past 40 years, my homes have been a slow growth investment - a moderate to aggressive equity portfolio should return at least 7% these days. Why not 3% or 4% and why only on estates of over $50 million? Why not $10 million? I understand that, much lower than that could impact family farms and small businesses negatively, unless the farm is also covered as a homestead for tax purposes. But seriously - we all pay wealth taxes - even people with NO wealth! If someone owns an apartment, the "wealth tax" (property tax) that the owner pays is folded into the rent, but they have no equity stake in the property.
@@kiabil6194 Google already did this and the study found they were under paying men in the work force. They were forced to give them raises. Lol. Back fire argument.
@@kiabil6194 I would appreciate such a video, since I have found no evidence of any such thing (well, a tiny one) I would like to know if I am wrong. What I have found is an earnings gap, which is not the same thing at all. Women, on average, work fewer hours than men. They tend to gravitate toward lower paying professions, they are far more likely to take long periods away from work (usually to raise kids) and they tend to be less aggressive about negotiating for higher pay than men. I saw it in my own life. My wife was a dental hygienist. That is a tough profession, believe it or not. It is very difficult for them to even get private disability insurance because they are so prone to serious back problems and carpal tunnel syndrome. She was already starting to feel the effects by the time she was 32. I offered to have her quit working, and I would pay her way through Dental school so that she could be a dentist, but she did not want to do that. Her dream was to have kids, and stop working, and let me provide - which I was fine with. But, she couldn't have kids as we discovered, and now that we are divorced, she struggles as a hygienist with a very bad back and carpal tunnel surgeries on both arms. But she could have been earning a lot more than me. I had the business acumen and resources to set her up in practice, and I would have happily done so - but the earnings gap between the two of us is about two to one because she chose not to advance, when the red carpet was rolled out for her to do so. I have several other examples from my career of women offered opportunities and turning them down because it was not what they wanted - and that is fine - do what makes you happy, if that is what you want. I didn't do that nearly as often as I might have. A couple of months after meeting the woman would be my wife of nearly 20 years, when I was running my own business, I told her that in five years I expected to be either rich, or bankrupt - not sure which. he couldn't deal with that, and I chose her over my dream of being rich, and went down a more traditional path. I never got rich, though I did pretty well, but then again, I never went bankrupt. But the guy I sold my business to (at a small loss) DID get rich. He could buy and sell me ten times over. That's a big earnings gap - but it was my choices that caused it.
We live under a noble class so powerful and firmly entrenched the kings and sultans of the middle ages would be proud, and unlike despotic rulers of the past, they have managed to keep us bickering with each other for the scraps rather than fighting against our continued exploitation.
Finally! I have been sounding the alarm about this since the Reagan years! It doesn't matter if you call them "lords" or Earls, or Dukes, or Barons, or the 1% - it is all about concentrating power in a very few hands, and money is POWER. We put checks and balances on governmental power - but failed to put any on the power of money - which is at least as dangerous.
@@pdoylemi We decided to let a bunch of liberals convince people that violence against a bank account equates to violence against a person or people... there might be no going back from it.
What do I think? I'll tell you what I think. I think Professor Reich would make a damn good president. I know he has said he wouldn't want that job or the job of running for it. That's exactly the kind of person we need in that job--a highly competent person that doesn't want it and forces us to draft him/her into it. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
He's not running for president, but Elizabeth Warren, who has proposed a wealth tax, is. I suggest thinking about her and her candidacy. She is exactly what this country needs to get out of the hole being dug by Brokahontis.
@@wendyscott8425 I agree that Elizabeth Warren would make a good president.... however she had alot of political baggage. Bernie agrees with her on almost every issue and is very popular.
People who don’t know the difference between marginal tax rate and income tax rate shows why USA is behind in math and why so many Americans are in debt
@@terrisuder7455 Totally! I suspect Robert Reich may be one of her supporters. He certainly seems to be promoting all her ideas. I'm all for them, too.
W need to teach children how to manage their own fiscal lives in adulthood. But the republicans don't want an educated populace, makes it harder to pull the wool over their eyes.
Middle class Americans? Is that like the Easter bunny or Santa claus. Always here oh these but never met one. Besides misery loves company trump will take the 16% poverty rate in America and double it . Wait and see!
The middle class is a participation trophy. Mediocrity shouldn’t be rewarded. We need people to aim higher. Success should be rewarded. “If you ain’t first, you’re last”-Ricky Bobby. Also, I’m rich and paid $911,000/yr under Obama and still paid $857,000 after Trump cut my taxes. Did you or the middle class pay that much? If not, then complaining about the middle class carrying the tax burden is very hypocritical.
The thing is. 99% of people who think their middle class? Are just high end working class. If you trade your time for money? You're working class. Period. Full stop
would a wealth tax apply to corporations? remember Mitt Romney said corporations are people too. We need to eliminate corporations that pay $0 federal taxes
Incorrect, the Supreme court said corporations are people in 1986. You also need to revise your wording, saying corporations who pay 0% federal income tax would give your argument so logical footing. Well, the reason giant corporations pay 0 income tax is complicated as it comes to tax incentives form everything to moving to a certain location to reinvesting in the company. It is easy to prove that you claim of 0% federal tax is 100% false. The majority of the government's money comes from income taxes, this is usually paid every pay period, this is also known as payroll tax. If you are a W-2 employee, like most who work at giant corporations, half of your payroll tax is paid by the company you work for. So well Amazon paid 0 corporate income it paid billions in federal payroll taxes.
McCarthy got Americans so scared of communism that anything even smells like communism is seen as bad regardless of whether it will help the people it is the thin end of the wedge and if you let one thing in then the commies take over there is also the attitude in America of i never got that why should everyone else "i was nearly bankrupted by my surgery... why should my neighbour get it for free when i had to pay?" is the attitude of a lot of Americans
"Sounds" and "is" are a billion light years apart. And it is not reasonable to mention "racism" as if all the work the left has done was just nothing. The only substantial racism today is coming from the left's leaders and those that are buying thier plastic reality. I hope you won't let this guy manipulate your heart. True progressives don't see sides, they just see people and if they must catagorize people they don't do it to praise or blame! That is the essence of the NAZI ideal. Nationalism and Globalism are the same thing to those that want power but ok, we can call it GAZISM.
Sorry, but it only sounds reasonable if you have no economic understasnding of how tax revenue is generated. Reber Robert is a philosopher, it what his degree is in, he is illiterate when it comes to monetary policy and how markets work. I would be surprised if he ever took Calculus. Read this New York Times article, it is a left-leaning outlet and even it can point of the stupidity of a wealth tax. www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/your-money/tax-wealthy.html
@@woodchuck003 you obviously turend off you brain half way throuht that video becaus he said you culddnt tax the rich lice you can coman people because is diffrent to income why the fuck are you using a Anomis mask if you don't want to tax the 1%
@@woodchuck003 Well the article basically says there are more millionaires(50mill+) than billionaires, it may be unconstitutional, and getting the amount of taxes due would take a long time and cost money. First, it doesn't really matter that there are more millionaires(50mill+) because they will pay less in taxes than the billionaires in Warrens plan anyway and it isn't about the fairness of taxation for the wealthy, its about taxation for the wealthy for their countries benefit. For the second concern, it's really unclear whether or not the taxation would be constitutional or not. If you actually read into it the history of the 16th amendment and it's language you will see that the founding fathers didn't really convey what direct taxation meant. It is however pretty obvious to most people that the taxation that Warren is proposing *should* be constitutional and that's all that matters (taxing the wealthy has always been bipartisan and has majority support from both major parties). For the final failure that the article suggests Warrens plan has is not even a problem the amount of money the tax would generate is incredible and would no doubt pay for whatever is necessary to fund it. The amount of time it would take to figure out the amount of taxation the wealthy folk would have to pay doesn't really matter as long as they pay something to the government (btw they probably have people to figure that stuff out anyway considering that they find loopholes out of taxes already which I doubt they find themselves). (sorry about the formatting I'm not very good at that)
You apparently don't actually know what trickle down economics is if you think it would be something that happens with a wealth tax, which we should totally have along with a higher corporate tax rate and an increase in the marginal tax rate.
@@Daedalus_Dragon trickle down doesn't work. It's the belief that tax breaks to wealthy and corporations will benefit those Lower socio-economic levels. The only way wealthy individuals and corporations will benefit poor is a tax. Reagan did the same BS as an excuse for wealthy tax cuts.
MD P I am well aware what it is, the way you were using it suggested you didn’t, but I understand now what you were trying to do, it just didn’t come across
MD P somewhere I heard the term “bubble up economics” to refer to a system where the wealth tax is used to fund a UBI thus moving money through the economy, taking it from the wealthy, giving it to the poor who then spend it on goods and services that ultimately generate profits for the wealthy, so they get their money back eventually but everyone else benefits along the way. Instead of the current system where the wealth just stays with the wealthy not doing anything productive.
Saf 299 I would suggest that moral and religious laws *must* evolve to reflect changing technology. Without judgement I will cite Islamic morals, since you brought up Islam. 1400 years ago technology was such that almost everyone was involved in subsistence level agriculture, and having girls marry shortly after puberty worked with the technology level and overall code of morals of the time. Because of advancing technology those morals no longer work and modern moral codes have evolved to better reflect the world we live in today. Just one example of many where the morals of past have evolved. As far as charging interest, that is another consequence of advancing technology. Modern finance exists (at its most fundamental level) to allow us to move wealth from the future into the present so we can use it today. Two things are required for finance to work: a growing economy and interest payments. Without interest no one will loan money and without loans the pace of technological advancement grinds to a near standstill.
A lot of wealth is tied up in real estate that just sits there, empty. Taxing wealth will ensure the highest and best use of the property. Instead of empty vacation houses, people could be employed to keep the houses up and ready to rent. It would create maintenance jobs that are badly needed.
Stephen Wimer nonsense- the rich would rather bury their cash in a hole in their backyard than let tax-n-spend liberals confiscate it to finance the Welfare State. You’re not getting your hands on their money no matter how much you think you’re entitled to it.
@Adam George Take Southern California from San Diego to Santa Barbara within 30 miles of the ocean. All about the same land. If you do the math, each person should get about 2000 square feet. All private land is taken already so there is no bidding. Anybody using less than 2000 square feet gets a check and anybody using more pays per square foot. This money does not go to the city. I think I will add this somehow. There are areas such as Thousand Oaks where people live on 1 acre, these are new homes in gated communities where people cant even park in rvs. All these areas have strict building codes. This money initially needs to be put in trusts to buy land and build apartments. Your system is to complicated for now, homeless in LA are virtually everywhere. Thanks for the reply.
Let us enjoy our vacation houses and mind your own business. If you’re that jealous, then make better career choices so you too can have a vacation house.
If people took the Bible seriously, there would be less concentration of wealth in the top 1%. "No greedy person, in effect an idolater, has any share in the Kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5
@@dorisjung1839 I can tell people have a blast with you at a party. Dude people from everywhere use youtube.... not just American's. They could be from anywhere, and possibly Russia. But grammar aside, more than knocking people down.... how about contributing to the conversation.... or just continue w/e that is you're doing acting like someone waking up on the wrong side of the bed...
Unfortunately here in America we have one political party (the GOP) who doesn't even mention income inequality. And whose only purpose is to give bigger tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and corporations under the guise that it will help every day Americans.
We actually have two political parties. Let's vote for people in the one that's most helpful to the poor and middle class. The rich already have enough money, imho. It's everyone else who needs the help.
@@wendyscott8425 - The don't already "have enough". They already have far more than they could EVER possibly use - and still feel the need to get more...SAD!
Bruce Moeller the lefties should know that corporations and nonprofits fund WIC very well. If the lefties were to look at cash flow statements of corporations and governments they would change to conservative
@@gibransaliba8801 - That would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire! And if one side is worse than the other, I think the recent tax break for the filthy rich should tell you that the Party of Trump is far worse than the lefties....
As this country confronts the need to build a sustainable energy infrastructure, we will need trillions for the wind turbines, batteries, electric cars, smart grid, etc. The only place to get that money is from the only people who have money - the rich and getting-ever-richer crowd of diletantes who daily lecture us to work harder if we want to live better.
A wealth tax is a good start at combating runaway generational wealth, but how about a "talent tax" to combat the rising income inequality between CEO's and labor? Since corporate excuses for such lavish pay packages often include the "but we want to attract and retain top talent" excuse. Okay, pay them what you will, but we're going to tax you for retaining that "top talent" too!
It's too bad that "tax" seems to be a dirty word. See also the recent episode of Last Week Tonight about carbon tax. When taxes are raised on one end it allows to lower them on the other (such as sales taxes which affect even those who really can't afford anything) or invest into things that benefit everybody.
I was thrilled, as a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby, to hear John Oliver give a shout out to the idea of a carbon fee and dividend going back to the people, which is what CCL has been promoting for years. It's time. As he said, it's not the only thing we should be doing, but it couldn't hurt, and it'll help our economy, as it has in British Columbia.
@@wendyscott8425 The idea needs time to sink in but I'm convinced we need to drastically ecologize our tax systems. Tax work and sales less, tax wealth and energy use instead. As the German word "Steuern" implies, taxes can influence human behaviour and should be used that way.
Some taxes should go like the sales tax, this is mainly a tax on the poor. Income taxes should also not rise too much. The problem isn't income or spending, it's wealth and so wealth should be taxed. Taxing wealth is also good for the economy cause stagnant wealth is useless. You want wealth to be used for stuff.
You are right. And while we are taxing the top 1%, lets not just stop with America. Lets do a global wealth tax and redistribute it. Lets see... the top 1% globally would be anyone making $32,000 annually, or anyone who has accumulated over $770,000 in property and retirement savings.
@@bleuwater9629 Sure, but maybe stop big companies from over exploiting workers in poor nations so they can get some real economic benefit from their productivity.
@@tonedowne I was being sarcastic. When you leftists talk about the "top 1%", you are talking about anyone who is in the lower middle class of western society. Anyone who makes $30,000 per year is in the top 1% globally. Anyone with a retirement account that would sustain them through their senior years would be in the top 1% globally. So if we are going to be ok with the idea of taxing wealth that has already been taxed(five times over), it wont stop with the 1% in the US.
@@bleuwater9629 I know what you meant. But you have stumbled onto a really important, if not the most important aspect of inequality and capital consolidation. It is pulling apart the economic fabric of the developed world by kneecapping the economic viability of its workers, and is not developing poor nations that play by free market rules, because they cant get good enough deals out of multinational employers to boost their economy and pay for the public services that they need to add value to their workforce and infrastructure in order to attract higher skilled jobs. The only low wage country to really make this neo liberal globalism work for them has been China with its state run version of capitalism. Maybe Chinas offshoring of manufacturing will be more mutually beneficial and start doing the job properly? I genuinely wondered if you had any thoughts beyond sarcasm.
@@erl7466 its not an attitude its reality. What robert is suggesting is for people to stop liking money....lets be for real. What are the chances of that happening.
@@jaybusa3302 I didn't get that about not liking money.it is about collecting taxes differently and spending it differently. It is strange that there is no wealth tax where is income tax. Wealth is income too. But what is more strange is psychology of people when they are extremely wealthy. They are so isolated by their wealth from the rest of the world, so out of touch with other classes that they don't offer to be taxed on their wealth themselves. It is like having a five mile long birthday cake and not sharing a bite of it with other people, even if they are starving :) it is what growing up in wealth, or getting extreemly rich during the life does to a person. It is wicked. Sure we like money, but having so many times more than you actually need turnes people in assholes, apperantly.( Even simple psychological tests show that) And that is a bad combination. :)
So, isn't this where people must change their values and vote for people who really want to help everyone in our country? It's easy to be cynical, but takes real intelligence and compassion to move things forward for everyone. Our country grew tremendously after WWII when more people entered the workforce and were given rights in the workplace, but when unions stopped really supporting people they were supposed to serve and lost power, our citizens worked harder and found it harder to be happy in their everyday lives. Privatizing business has turned what should be supportive services into money-making machines. We have to stop believing that the wealthy will have compassion in legislation. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have plans and experience that will push the needs of the majority of Americans into the spotlight where there is hope for shared prosperity.
@@lostcozproductions again that is a lovely notion. Do you think these rich people and corporations are just going to roll over and play dead. After all of the effort and money they have spent in order to gain control and power. Please dont be naive. I like your optimism but reality is no matter who is in the oval office that person can do nothing by themselves. These rich people and corporations have more than enough money to buy politicians in the house and Senate. I truly hope i am wrong and things change for the better but i wont be holding my breath.
Yes, I support the wealth tax. We had it in the 50's and the working class or middle class did just fine. If we bring the tax back at what it was in the 50's we would have medicare for all, no student loans, possibly fix the homeless problem and the National Debt! No one rich enough to pay this tax will miss the money!
Yeah, could you imagine storming the White House and throwing the Trump Bunch in prison. Our military leaders actually have to agree to serve whoever's is president, not the country, and not the people. So it would be an all out battle. But so worth it if Trump got his way with abolishing elections.
@@cptKamina why? Did we force you to make bad career choices? No. Instead of eating us, which sounds pretty disgusting, how about you stop being a victim, take personal responsibility for your life, and make better career choices so you can be rich like me? It’s easy to do if you actually try.
@@johnmartin4641 Haha first of all, you're not rich. Secondly, saying "Make better choices" is the telltale sign of either a moron with brainworms or a liar.
@@cptKamina I have never met anyone who has made these 3 choices that isn’t successful: 1. Major in business administration instead of stupid crap like gender studies. 2. Work for a large corporation instead of a small business. 3. Work for a recession resistant/essential company/industry (recession resistant and essential are usually the same thing). Those are 3 simple choices that people can make to be successful, but too many people are just too lazy and irresponsible to make these choices to improve their lives.
I support it, because at a certain point, the money becomes useless. It’s not being used for consumption of good, but also not for producing new goods or investing in technology, progress and new corporations that might improve lives and create jobs. The money is dead. And although the government sometimes does stupid things, it’s still better with that money.
Absolutely. The big and rich need to be taxed just like the rest of us. I work a total of 40 hours per week, but because of all the different taxes that are taken from my check each week I'm lucky to have at least 30 hours worth of pay. This has a problem in America for a long time. Unless we the people do something about it, it will only get worse. It won't be long until we work for free.
America is such a great country. With hard work and dedication, everyone can reach the top 10%. ...I'm now being told that's literally impossible. Oh well. Tax the rich. Tax the hell out of 'em.
What about those that started with nothing and became wealthy. Like the loss of a lung and a eye . This do to a chemical accident at work . And received a large settlement . The wealthy take chances. Let’s tax them. That way they will lay off how many it takes to get the 2% back. That is what I would do. And I’m a retired commercial roofer. Not a owner a worker . If gasoline is 2.50 per gallon. And it is raised to 3.50 per gallon. You drive less if possible. Taxing the owners of a business is not the answer. They will just raise prices. It never makes since to tax your boss. They are the one that gives you a raise. Has the government ever given you a raise. Or just more tax.
Robert, I almost love you. Thank you for being so smart and strong! I just want to send pink hearts to you! The world needs a proper education from you!
Pia, as a professional economist, I can’t assure you there is far more to this problem than can be explained in 3:51 seconds. There is a huge fundamental problem with Roberts video. I’d love to explain if you’d listen.
Taking away wealth to reduce inequality misses the point. The real issue is how you let those that do not have it earn and accumulate wealth. The problem is NOT that the wealthy never have to work to survive. The problem IS that everyone else has to work JUST to survive. When you're working double shifts just for the basics chances are you are not thinking up how to build that next great company. The problem IS that everyone else that does not have wealth will never have wealth due to the structure of our system. Either people are denied opportunities to make wealth or lack the skills to gain wealth. Create those opportunities, teach those skills. The problem IS that wealth perpetuates this servitude by unfair political and economic influence. The stock market is fine as long as the fat cat investors aren't getting the best deals and leaving your average Joe holding the bag. Most decent people would be fine if their neighbor all of a sudden put up a mega mansion next door. Might even bring them an apple pie with good wishes. Where decent people have a problem is when they cut your salary, raise prices on your food, jack up your taxes and THEN put up that mega mansion on top of your house after they kick you out of your neighborhood from the profits they made off you because they OWN your income, your food and your government i.e they own you.
I’ve sent this to friends and my Social Media pages. You are so right about this Robert. We need as many people to see this and talk about it as possible. We need to not surrender our intelligence to our political parties or other organs of the Super rich. An end to the tribalism that is eating away at our representative democracy is of paramount concern too.
@Joseph Geiger: in the US it worked pretty well until the eighties. In Northern Europe where I live it still does. It provides us with niceties like healthcare, education, social security, top notch infrastructure etc. You should come and check it out some time.
Another excellent video! I've found all of the video's you've created thus far to be very well made. They are most often succinct and filled with useful facts that would otherwise have gone unnoticed (most often). Also, the animations are on point. Keep up the great work!
@@freetrailer4poor I read your piece. As far as I have seen, common land ownership is the prerequisite for a land tax. Singapore does operate a little bit in the way that you espouse, in that nation is the ultimate freeholder, and it provides the majority of the housing supply. It's not for free but it sets the initial price of the new stock way below what is achievable in the free market, and puts conditions on who can buy it. So no speculators or foreigners. The Apartments are to be lived in by the buyers. In the ACT in Australia they nationalised the land in order to implement a land tax. It has resulted in the ACT having the lowest average house prices despite having the highest average wages. And this is at the same time as two other states had insane speculative housing bubbles that are now bursting. It looks to me like you are going down a libertarian path with this idea. It seems a bit wonky to me. If people can as individuals secede from the nation state in order not to contribute to its functionality, then the guts will be ripped out of the nation and it will become dysfunctional and weak. Join or die right? And also the level of bureaucracy that would be needed to operate this system, would make a communist blush. At the end of the day, putting rights before ownership is the sanest way of looking at housing and land. The real estate industry is parasitical, doing nothing but leeching money out of the productive economy and into the hands of the debt industry. The debt industry is constantly pushing for looser lending regulations so that more people can borrow huge sums of money for property, which drives the prices up, which pushes more and more of peoples earnings into the hands of the lenders. If residents have real rights like in Austria, the pressure is eased. I know of a man in Vienna who passed his tenancy on in his will. People can rent all their lives without fear of eviction or exploding rents or any social stigma. People renting houses in Austria pay the same percentage of their earnings on housing as homeowners. The important thing is to take the speculative aspect of housing as far out of the picture as practically possible. People should make money from what they do not what they own.
I agree. In fact, I'm surprised that Reich didn't point out that, come tax time, rent, interest and dividends (the "investment income" he referred to in the video) are referred to as "UNEARNED INCOME" (emphasis mine).
@@wendyscott8425 even at 75%, they would still be wealthy. Look at tax rates in the 1950's. They always claim they want to take things back to this time, but never want the tax rates we had then.
@@NUCLEARARMAMENT raising taxes on wealthy will not create inflation. They do not pay for anything anyways. Remember when Trump thought they gave away groceries???
@@supportthebandsstopfakecop1679 Raising taxes on the people who provide ALL of your goods and services, will ONLY raise the general cost of living--otherwise known as INFLATION. That's literally all that will happen, not to mention that there is over $400 billion a year given out every year willingly by private citizens and this country is the most generous in the world when it comes to charity. $400 billion is 10% of the federal budget, which also happens to be the same amount of the overall federal budget comprising of the corporate income tax. In other words, the rich pay $800 billion a year in taxes anyway, and since the economy tends to grow in size over time while tax rates tend to stay the same, that tax revenue will just keep increasing every year EVEN if taxes are mildly cut like they were under Trump. Go to France or Cuba if you want half your labor taxed if not more.
@@UpperCaseX Oh puh-leeze. No, she's not "tax-free," whatever that means. She has a small amount of Native American heritage in her background, a distant ancestor, but she has never claimed membership in a tribe and never gotten governmental benefits because of it. She comes from a lower-middle class background and worked hard both academically and politically to get where she is. And now she has people like you spouting crap about her. Got a problem with a woman candidate? What is wrong with men these days? Sheeeeeesh! Oh, right, they all follow Brokahontis even as he leads them off a cliff. Go figure.
@@kdmdlo That's why Bernie's getting my vote. I respect Warren but unlike Bernie, who had a tremendous uphill battle and still fought it out in a rigged system of super delegates in the Hillary backed DNC election, Warren didn't get in the race also and AT LEAST try when she had a great chance running as a woman. She's running on Bernie's coat tails like all the others.
@@jungoogie And, certainly, you're entitled to vote for whomever you want. First, I don't think the Bernie will do that well in the primaries. Second, even if he does, I fear that he will do poorly in the general. I think there are other candidates out there that have the chance to do better in the generals than Bernie would.
Rhys Tomos , if this didn't happen during the Golden Age, when regulations such as these were in place, and proven to work beyond (I'm certain) anyone's wildest dreams, where the income inequality gap was closed (significantly) and people of all walks of life and socioeconomic levels prospered why would it apply now?
We need this because people who are already born on third base should not be allowed to think they hit a home run on their own merits. They need to be knocked back to second or first base if others are going to be able to move onto first, second or third base. The only problem with a 2% wealth tax is it starts low, but revenue generated can still go far.
He isn't running for president. But Elizabeth Warren is, and she's been promoting Robert Reich's ideas for years now. I suggest looking at her candidacy and see if you don't find her as inspiring as I do.
The way the currently existing "wealth tax" works is that wealthy individuals and corporations use a small proportion of their wealth to "buy up" politicians, thereby insuring those politicians do their bidding (see Gilens, Page: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens).
Or the woman who also has been promoting a wealth tax lately, right? You know, _Elizabeth Warren._ Reich isn't running for president. I don't know why people keep insisting on his holding that office.
Yes, the influence of such wealth inequality is very troubling and a wealth tax would help, but, I am also concerned with how wealth is used to manipulate our economy. This is why I would like to see some taxation to address certain types of investment and financial behavior. A transaction tax and a tax on stock buy backs might help. Also, a tax imposed on jobs sent offshore seems very much needed.
I like the idea of a wealth tax but it's just a hard policy to enforce. Other counties that have tried it either move money out of the country or they have to liquidate assets to cover the costs. I think raising inheritance tax is a better start.
I worry that a wealth tax would be largely avoided by more accounting shenanigans. Why not just bring capital gains (and business) taxes back in line with personal income taxes, and make the estate tax harder to avoid?
In the UK Normans are richer than Angles. Are they smarter? Do they work harder? Is there discrimination against the English? No, they won at Hastings and are still richer because of it
One of the side effects of wealth taxes will be the continued growth of the parasite industry of accounts and tax lawyers who build and find loopholes for their wealthy clients. For example, there exists now something called a Walton Trust, named for Sam Walton who used it to shelter hundreds of millions of dollars from inheritance tax, and now anyone with more than about 30 million in their estate can pay about $10,000 to set up a Walton Trust and shelter their stock assets’ appreciation from inheritance tax.
Is there a “top 10” list of items advocated for by RR? Could be wealth tax, inheritance tax, stopping lobbying, repealing Citizens United , etc. I love his ideas but need a framework to remember ideas when discussing with others.
We already have a wealth tax for the vast majority of Americans. It is called a property tax. The the average middle class American the most expensive asset is their home. We pay property taxes on our homes. And even if the bank owns 80% of the value of our home we pay 100% of the tax on its value. A billionaire might live in a $100 million dollar home, but he owns assets that greatly exceed that value. He might own valuable artwork. Or his wife owns more jewelry than that value. Or he owns yachts or jets and a car collection that exceed the value of his home that he does not pay taxes on. I have zero issues with instituting a wealth tax as a wealth tax is already employed for the middle class.
I admire you Mr. Reich but your are delusional to think that any such thing would ever be either politically executed or fundamentaly sustained. Your country is just too bent on limitless capitalism and the concept of meritocracy died around 1964 with the draft..
Your cynicism is not without validity, but that's is exactly the attitude they want you to embrace. As long as you feel disempowered and disengaged...they win! Yes, we gave up over the last twenty years, but there's still a chance we can incrementally change things today. It took African Americans over 400 years to gain equality in this nation. They fought hard in the twentieth century just to reverse Jim Crow! And the fight continues even today. We must do the same to empower people and help them realize the indisputable fact that economic independence and political freedom are intertwined.
I am curious what you think of inflation as a wealth tax? We have had really low inflation for the last decade but it is not always that way. This forces people with wealth to make good investments otherwise they start to lose their purchasing power.
This is all good until they decide to lower the threshold at which they start taxing wealth. Also it means declaring all your assets which is a huge violation of privacy.
Yes. We do have an aristocracy in America now. I'm cool with a wealth tax but we also need better politicians who will actually take the money and reinvest back into the things mentioned in the video. 👍
I love the idea of a wealth tax. And only Two Percent?! That's practically nothing. Five or ten percent would still be almost invisible to those with 50 million or more, and imagine what could be done! "Free" college, single payer medical coverage, universal basic income, AND real investment in infrastructure for the betterment of all. Finally, the _Wealthiest Country In The World_ would finally actually be doing something productive with that wealth (just a small fraction of it) instead of letting it be hoarded by a select few and/or used to corrupt politics and maintain oppression over those below the wealthy. And go for 90% over 100 million. Because that's an extraordinary amount of wealth and no person, no family, needs that much or could be trusted with that much. Even 50 million is more than anyone needs in a society where we're expected to work our entire lives to be able to survive... unless you've got 50 million sitting around.
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine
The middle class needs a chance to even the odds. People with a hundred thousand or even a few million are taxed far too much. As for someone making over 50 million, a wealth tax would definitely be a good start in fixing a deeply broken economy.
People complain about Russian oligarchs and their affiliation with their government, but don't seem to have a problem with American oligarchs and their affiliation with our government.
A wealth tax is totally responsible and reasonable. Right now the richest could use 100 dollar bills for toilet Paper and never run out of paper. In reality they have more money than they now what to do with. And they want more? It’s time to give back to the country that Allowed the accumulation of such wealth and gratification and thanks. Give.
I believe better would be for wealth to not be inheritable. There will still be loopholes, people would just give their wealth in life but even that is better.
The only thing worse than the concentration of wealth and power in private hands is its confiscation and concentration by an increasingly powerful federal government. Also, in a free market economy, wealth (if it is legitimately earned) is the reward for increasing the wealth of others. A wealthy society is fueled by wealth creation. A poor society is the result of wealth confiscation.
Something to consider... There is a value in being respected, having people grateful to you for taking care of you-having your employees be grateful not only for a job, but a job that pays well. But... The amount of that you can buy with a dollar is generally worth less than a dollar. Depending on how wealthy you are and how you were raised, you might get 50 cents worth of that "social wealth" from each dollar you spend. Of course, these dollars, what you pay for payroll and such, are pre-tax dollars. Which leads to an interesting equation. When taxes are high enough on the rich, the value of paying workers better is higher than the value of keeping what is left of those dollars after tax. Lower tax rates and you incentivize the rich to stop giving wages. This is backed up by the end of real wage growth that started in 1982 when the tax rate on the richest was cut in half.
Another fine summation, Mr. Reich. You always seem to hit the nail Right on the head, friend. If one were looking for another solution, one might look to Aerosmith's 1993 song, "Eat The Rich." Perhaps ironically, this song comes off of the album, 'Get A Grip." They might have to have warning labels about the possibility of ingesting Botox, implants, steroids, uppers,downers, implanted fat from buttocks, etc, etc, etc. Author P J O'Rourke, penned a funny, mind-bending book that is a World Tour about how the different global economies operate. The title is: "Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics." (1999)
I understand the logic and fairness of a "wealth tax". But the forces we would have to fight to enact it would be overwhelming. The wealthy own the political and media machines to get the information out.
Many people who aren’t rich think it is unfair to take somebody else’s hard earned money. The kind of money that is contemplated to be taxed here is money earned by our economic system rather than hard work. Without the government’s help, these companies would earn no profits. It only seems fitting that the government would require a dividend on some of the profits, seeing that they contribute the whole system that makes the profits possible. Right now, all this massive wealth is not paying for the gigantic cost of government that makes the profits possible. A better balance is necessary. Just make it so.
I sort of agree, but I think it's quite easy for opponents to paint it as a penalty for success. I think it makes more sense to go after the wealth at the point of intergenerational transfer. As a high and progressive inheritance tax, it becomes an incentive for the children to do well on their own rather than depend on their inherited money. Too many examples of what happens to societies dominated by inherited wealth. I think England may be the best example of the bad things that can happen to a nation that once led the world.
Sounds good but from what I understand the implemention would be difficult because the wealthy hide their money. Please make a video on how it can be successfully implemented. From what I understand it failed in other countries. It would help me in chosing a candidate.
Thanks for watching! If you found this video informative, be sure to also watch our video on how we got into this mess. ruclips.net/video/gSlHVZpNxMM/видео.html
Lets take people's money! ☭ ☭ ☭
💰💰🤑💵💶💴💷☭
My question is why just 2%? My annual property tax is about 5% of the value of my home. Every year I pay a "wealth tax" of about 1.5% on my car - based on the value of the car. Over the past 40 years, my homes have been a slow growth investment - a moderate to aggressive equity portfolio should return at least 7% these days. Why not 3% or 4% and why only on estates of over $50 million? Why not $10 million? I understand that, much lower than that could impact family farms and small businesses negatively, unless the farm is also covered as a homestead for tax purposes. But seriously - we all pay wealth taxes - even people with NO wealth! If someone owns an apartment, the "wealth tax" (property tax) that the owner pays is folded into the rent, but they have no equity stake in the property.
Can you do a video for a gentle convincing argument for convincing people of the issue of wage inequality between genders
@@kiabil6194 Google already did this and the study found they were under paying men in the work force. They were forced to give them raises. Lol. Back fire argument.
@@kiabil6194
I would appreciate such a video, since I have found no evidence of any such thing (well, a tiny one) I would like to know if I am wrong. What I have found is an earnings gap, which is not the same thing at all. Women, on average, work fewer hours than men. They tend to gravitate toward lower paying professions, they are far more likely to take long periods away from work (usually to raise kids) and they tend to be less aggressive about negotiating for higher pay than men.
I saw it in my own life. My wife was a dental hygienist. That is a tough profession, believe it or not. It is very difficult for them to even get private disability insurance because they are so prone to serious back problems and carpal tunnel syndrome. She was already starting to feel the effects by the time she was 32. I offered to have her quit working, and I would pay her way through Dental school so that she could be a dentist, but she did not want to do that. Her dream was to have kids, and stop working, and let me provide - which I was fine with. But, she couldn't have kids as we discovered, and now that we are divorced, she struggles as a hygienist with a very bad back and carpal tunnel surgeries on both arms. But she could have been earning a lot more than me. I had the business acumen and resources to set her up in practice, and I would have happily done so - but the earnings gap between the two of us is about two to one because she chose not to advance, when the red carpet was rolled out for her to do so.
I have several other examples from my career of women offered opportunities and turning them down because it was not what they wanted - and that is fine - do what makes you happy, if that is what you want. I didn't do that nearly as often as I might have. A couple of months after meeting the woman would be my wife of nearly 20 years, when I was running my own business, I told her that in five years I expected to be either rich, or bankrupt - not sure which. he couldn't deal with that, and I chose her over my dream of being rich, and went down a more traditional path. I never got rich, though I did pretty well, but then again, I never went bankrupt. But the guy I sold my business to (at a small loss) DID get rich. He could buy and sell me ten times over. That's a big earnings gap - but it was my choices that caused it.
We live under a noble class so powerful and firmly entrenched the kings and sultans of the middle ages would be proud, and unlike despotic rulers of the past, they have managed to keep us bickering with each other for the scraps rather than fighting against our continued exploitation.
Excellent point.
Very well put Reid
Finally! I have been sounding the alarm about this since the Reagan years! It doesn't matter if you call them "lords" or Earls, or Dukes, or Barons, or the 1% - it is all about concentrating power in a very few hands, and money is POWER. We put checks and balances on governmental power - but failed to put any on the power of money - which is at least as dangerous.
Hear! Hear!
@@pdoylemi We decided to let a bunch of liberals convince people that violence against a bank account equates to violence against a person or people... there might be no going back from it.
What do I think? I'll tell you what I think. I think Professor Reich would make a damn good president. I know he has said he wouldn't want that job or the job of running for it. That's exactly the kind of person we need in that job--a highly competent person that doesn't want it and forces us to draft him/her into it. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
The guy who doesn't want it, would be the best. Not a sociopath.
He's not running for president, but Elizabeth Warren, who has proposed a wealth tax, is. I suggest thinking about her and her candidacy. She is exactly what this country needs to get out of the hole being dug by Brokahontis.
labor secretary again!
@@wendyscott8425 she is very specific on her policies as well.
@@wendyscott8425 I agree that Elizabeth Warren would make a good president.... however she had alot of political baggage. Bernie agrees with her on almost every issue and is very popular.
People who don’t know the difference between marginal tax rate and income tax rate shows why USA is behind in math and why so many Americans are in debt
*WARREN GETS IT!!!*
@@terrisuder7455 Totally! I suspect Robert Reich may be one of her supporters. He certainly seems to be promoting all her ideas. I'm all for them, too.
W need to teach children how to manage their own fiscal lives in adulthood. But the republicans don't want an educated populace, makes it harder to pull the wool over their eyes.
@@jamesdean2185 true
9 out of 7 Americans agree.
The dying middle-class has carried the tax burden far to long. We need a middle out economy. As the middle class goes so does America.
Middle class Americans? Is that like the Easter bunny or Santa claus. Always here oh these but never met one. Besides misery loves company trump will take the 16% poverty rate in America and double it . Wait and see!
Theres no such thing as a middle class. Just the owner who does nothing and gets rich and the working class who gets scraps
@Gary Smith I don't think he's competent enough to do that in the remaining year of his presidency.
The middle class is a participation trophy. Mediocrity shouldn’t be rewarded. We need people to aim higher. Success should be rewarded. “If you ain’t first, you’re last”-Ricky Bobby. Also, I’m rich and paid $911,000/yr under Obama and still paid $857,000 after Trump cut my taxes. Did you or the middle class pay that much? If not, then complaining about the middle class carrying the tax burden is very hypocritical.
The thing is. 99% of people who think their middle class? Are just high end working class. If you trade your time for money? You're working class. Period. Full stop
would a wealth tax apply to corporations? remember Mitt Romney said corporations are people too. We need to eliminate corporations that pay $0 federal taxes
Michael: you might like this from our band The Stray Dawgs;
ruclips.net/video/R9XrM5_otD4/видео.html
"If Corporations are People My Friend"
It wasn't just Romney: the Supreme Court also said that, legally speaking, corporations are equivalent to people.
I'd say the corporation itself is wealth and should therefore be taxed.
Tax revenue not profits.
Incorrect, the Supreme court said corporations are people in 1986. You also need to revise your wording, saying corporations who pay 0% federal income tax would give your argument so logical footing. Well, the reason giant corporations pay 0 income tax is complicated as it comes to tax incentives form everything to moving to a certain location to reinvesting in the company. It is easy to prove that you claim of 0% federal tax is 100% false. The majority of the government's money comes from income taxes, this is usually paid every pay period, this is also known as payroll tax. If you are a W-2 employee, like most who work at giant corporations, half of your payroll tax is paid by the company you work for.
So well Amazon paid 0 corporate income it paid billions in federal payroll taxes.
Like what another RUclips comment on another video said “sounds reasonable so it will probably not happen in America”
McCarthy got Americans so scared of communism that anything even smells like communism is seen as bad regardless of whether it will help the people it is the thin end of the wedge and if you let one thing in then the commies take over there is also the attitude in America of i never got that why should everyone else "i was nearly bankrupted by my surgery... why should my neighbour get it for free when i had to pay?" is the attitude of a lot of Americans
"Sounds" and "is" are a billion light years apart.
And it is not reasonable to mention "racism" as if all the work the left has done was just nothing. The only substantial racism today is coming from the left's leaders and those that are buying thier plastic reality.
I hope you won't let this guy manipulate your heart.
True progressives don't see sides, they just see people and if they must catagorize people they don't do it to praise or blame! That is the essence of the NAZI ideal. Nationalism and Globalism are the same thing to those that want power but ok, we can call it GAZISM.
Sorry, but it only sounds reasonable if you have no economic understasnding of how tax revenue is generated. Reber Robert is a philosopher, it what his degree is in, he is illiterate when it comes to monetary policy and how markets work. I would be surprised if he ever took Calculus.
Read this New York Times article, it is a left-leaning outlet and even it can point of the stupidity of a wealth tax.
www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/your-money/tax-wealthy.html
@@woodchuck003 you obviously turend off you brain half way throuht that video becaus he said you culddnt tax the rich lice you can coman people because is diffrent to income why the fuck are you using a Anomis mask if you don't want to tax the 1%
@@woodchuck003 Well the article basically says there are more millionaires(50mill+) than billionaires, it may be unconstitutional, and getting the amount of taxes due would take a long time and cost money.
First, it doesn't really matter that there are more millionaires(50mill+) because they will pay less in taxes than the billionaires in Warrens plan anyway and it isn't about the fairness of taxation for the wealthy, its about taxation for the wealthy for their countries benefit. For the second concern, it's really unclear whether or not the taxation would be constitutional or not. If you actually read into it the history of the 16th amendment and it's language you will see that the founding fathers didn't really convey what direct taxation meant. It is however pretty obvious to most people that the taxation that Warren is proposing *should* be constitutional and that's all that matters (taxing the wealthy has always been bipartisan and has majority support from both major parties). For the final failure that the article suggests Warrens plan has is not even a problem the amount of money the tax would generate is incredible and would no doubt pay for whatever is necessary to fund it. The amount of time it would take to figure out the amount of taxation the wealthy folk would have to pay doesn't really matter as long as they pay something to the government (btw they probably have people to figure that stuff out anyway considering that they find loopholes out of taxes already which I doubt they find themselves).
(sorry about the formatting I'm not very good at that)
A wealth tax is the ONLY way "trickle down economics" would work.
You apparently don't actually know what trickle down economics is if you think it would be something that happens with a wealth tax, which we should totally have along with a higher corporate tax rate and an increase in the marginal tax rate.
@@Daedalus_Dragon trickle down doesn't work. It's the belief that tax breaks to wealthy and corporations will benefit those Lower socio-economic levels. The only way wealthy individuals and corporations will benefit poor is a tax. Reagan did the same BS as an excuse for wealthy tax cuts.
MD P I am well aware what it is, the way you were using it suggested you didn’t, but I understand now what you were trying to do, it just didn’t come across
MD P somewhere I heard the term “bubble up economics” to refer to a system where the wealth tax is used to fund a UBI thus moving money through the economy, taking it from the wealthy, giving it to the poor who then spend it on goods and services that ultimately generate profits for the wealthy, so they get their money back eventually but everyone else benefits along the way. Instead of the current system where the wealth just stays with the wealthy not doing anything productive.
Saf 299 I would suggest that moral and religious laws *must* evolve to reflect changing technology. Without judgement I will cite Islamic morals, since you brought up Islam. 1400 years ago technology was such that almost everyone was involved in subsistence level agriculture, and having girls marry shortly after puberty worked with the technology level and overall code of morals of the time. Because of advancing technology those morals no longer work and modern moral codes have evolved to better reflect the world we live in today. Just one example of many where the morals of past have evolved.
As far as charging interest, that is another consequence of advancing technology. Modern finance exists (at its most fundamental level) to allow us to move wealth from the future into the present so we can use it today. Two things are required for finance to work: a growing economy and interest payments. Without interest no one will loan money and without loans the pace of technological advancement grinds to a near standstill.
A lot of wealth is tied up in real estate that just sits there, empty. Taxing wealth will ensure the highest and best use of the property. Instead of empty vacation houses, people could be employed to keep the houses up and ready to rent. It would create maintenance jobs that are badly needed.
Stephen Wimer nonsense- the rich would rather bury their cash in a hole in their backyard than let tax-n-spend liberals confiscate it to finance the Welfare State. You’re not getting your hands on their money no matter how much you think you’re entitled to it.
@@MichaelJames-lz7ni I would rather burn my money than have one penny go to a school or university.
@Adam George land should never go to highest bidder but local residents.
@Adam George Take Southern California from San Diego to Santa Barbara within 30 miles of the ocean. All about the same land. If you do the math, each person should get about 2000 square feet. All private land is taken already so there is no bidding. Anybody using less than 2000 square feet gets a check and anybody using more pays per square foot. This money does not go to the city. I think I will add this somehow. There are areas such as Thousand Oaks where people live on 1 acre, these are new homes in gated communities where people cant even park in rvs. All these areas have strict building codes. This money initially needs to be put in trusts to buy land and build apartments. Your system is to complicated for now, homeless in LA are virtually everywhere. Thanks for the reply.
Let us enjoy our vacation houses and mind your own business. If you’re that jealous, then make better career choices so you too can have a vacation house.
This is be benefit of keeping people stupid, superstitious, and religious. They're so easily controlled and scammed.
DrumWild
You are so right, is scary!
This is their hidden agenda to control the masses
If people took the Bible seriously, there would be less concentration of wealth in the top 1%. "No greedy person, in effect an idolater, has any share in the Kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5
you can't be Americans, I bet you are Russian trolls. I can tell by your grammar. I can even do your accent! "Dis is be benefit!" Haha
@@juverparadox Go away Russian troll. I can do your accent. " You right, is scary" haha
@@dorisjung1839 I can tell people have a blast with you at a party. Dude people from everywhere use youtube.... not just American's. They could be from anywhere, and possibly Russia. But grammar aside, more than knocking people down.... how about contributing to the conversation.... or just continue w/e that is you're doing acting like someone waking up on the wrong side of the bed...
Unfortunately here in America we have one political party (the GOP) who doesn't even mention income inequality. And whose only purpose is to give bigger tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and corporations under the guise that it will help every day Americans.
We actually have two political parties. Let's vote for people in the one that's most helpful to the poor and middle class. The rich already have enough money, imho. It's everyone else who needs the help.
@@wendyscott8425 - The don't already "have enough". They already have far more than they could EVER possibly use - and still feel the need to get more...SAD!
Equal opportunity and not equal outcomes. Checkmmmout the left's vision of utopia, and watch your step.
Bruce Moeller the lefties should know that corporations and nonprofits fund WIC very well. If the lefties were to look at cash flow statements of corporations and governments they would change to conservative
@@gibransaliba8801 - That would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire! And if one side is worse than the other, I think the recent tax break for the filthy rich should tell you that the Party of Trump is far worse than the lefties....
I certainly support of wealth tax
As this country confronts the need to build a sustainable energy infrastructure, we will need trillions for the wind turbines, batteries, electric cars, smart grid, etc. The only place to get that money is from the only people who have money - the rich and getting-ever-richer crowd of diletantes who daily lecture us to work harder if we want to live better.
A wealth tax is a good start at combating runaway generational wealth, but how about a "talent tax" to combat the rising income inequality between CEO's and labor? Since corporate excuses for such lavish pay packages often include the "but we want to attract and retain top talent" excuse. Okay, pay them what you will, but we're going to tax you for retaining that "top talent" too!
Excellent idea!
It's too bad that "tax" seems to be a dirty word. See also the recent episode of Last Week Tonight about carbon tax. When taxes are raised on one end it allows to lower them on the other (such as sales taxes which affect even those who really can't afford anything) or invest into things that benefit everybody.
I was thrilled, as a member of the Citizens Climate Lobby, to hear John Oliver give a shout out to the idea of a carbon fee and dividend going back to the people, which is what CCL has been promoting for years. It's time. As he said, it's not the only thing we should be doing, but it couldn't hurt, and it'll help our economy, as it has in British Columbia.
@@wendyscott8425 The idea needs time to sink in but I'm convinced we need to drastically ecologize our tax systems. Tax work and sales less, tax wealth and energy use instead. As the German word "Steuern" implies, taxes can influence human behaviour and should be used that way.
Call it a fee then. But saying tax in conjunction to rich isn't a bad word to most American's I don't believe. Depends what you tag onto "tax".
Some taxes should go like the sales tax, this is mainly a tax on the poor. Income taxes should also not rise too much. The problem isn't income or spending, it's wealth and so wealth should be taxed.
Taxing wealth is also good for the economy cause stagnant wealth is useless. You want wealth to be used for stuff.
@@MrMarinus18 Very good point. There should be less incentive to "accumulate more wealth" beyond a certain point (such as saving for your retirement).
To whom much is given, much is expected!
Eat the rich
You are right. And while we are taxing the top 1%, lets not just stop with America. Lets do a global wealth tax and redistribute it. Lets see... the top 1% globally would be anyone making $32,000 annually, or anyone who has accumulated over $770,000 in property and retirement savings.
@@bleuwater9629 Sure, but maybe stop big companies from over exploiting workers in poor nations so they can get some real economic benefit from their productivity.
@@tonedowne I was being sarcastic. When you leftists talk about the "top 1%", you are talking about anyone who is in the lower middle class of western society. Anyone who makes $30,000 per year is in the top 1% globally. Anyone with a retirement account that would sustain them through their senior years would be in the top 1% globally.
So if we are going to be ok with the idea of taxing wealth that has already been taxed(five times over), it wont stop with the 1% in the US.
@@bleuwater9629 I know what you meant. But you have stumbled onto a really important, if not the most important aspect of inequality and capital consolidation.
It is pulling apart the economic fabric of the developed world by kneecapping the economic viability of its workers, and is not developing poor nations that play by free market rules, because they cant get good enough deals out of multinational employers to boost their economy and pay for the public services that they need to add value to their workforce and infrastructure in order to attract higher skilled jobs.
The only low wage country to really make this neo liberal globalism work for them has been China with its state run version of capitalism.
Maybe Chinas offshoring of manufacturing will be more mutually beneficial and start doing the job properly?
I genuinely wondered if you had any thoughts beyond sarcasm.
Wealth tax is a start.
What do you mean? It’s not a start, it’s the end...
@@daniellamont3439 some scary ideology a brewing. Well said
It a cute idea. Problem is money talks and bullshit walks. These rich people can buy whatever they want even people. This will never change
attitudes like that are exactly why. get on board dude, it’s all falling apart!
@@erl7466 its not an attitude its reality. What robert is suggesting is for people to stop liking money....lets be for real. What are the chances of that happening.
@@jaybusa3302 I didn't get that about not liking money.it is about collecting taxes differently and spending it differently. It is strange that there is no wealth tax where is income tax. Wealth is income too.
But what is more strange is psychology of people when they are extremely wealthy. They are so isolated by their wealth from the rest of the world, so out of touch with other classes that they don't offer to be taxed on their wealth themselves. It is like having a five mile long birthday cake and not sharing a bite of it with other people, even if they are starving :) it is what growing up in wealth, or getting extreemly rich during the life does to a person. It is wicked. Sure we like money, but having so many times more than you actually need turnes people in assholes, apperantly.( Even simple psychological tests show that) And that is a bad combination. :)
So, isn't this where people must change their values and vote for people who really want to help everyone in our country? It's easy to be cynical, but takes real intelligence and compassion to move things forward for everyone. Our country grew tremendously after WWII when more people entered the workforce and were given rights in the workplace, but when unions stopped really supporting people they were supposed to serve and lost power, our citizens worked harder and found it harder to be happy in their everyday lives. Privatizing business has turned what should be supportive services into money-making machines. We have to stop believing that the wealthy will have compassion in legislation. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have plans and experience that will push the needs of the majority of Americans into the spotlight where there is hope for shared prosperity.
@@lostcozproductions again that is a lovely notion. Do you think these rich people and corporations are just going to roll over and play dead. After all of the effort and money they have spent in order to gain control and power. Please dont be naive. I like your optimism but reality is no matter who is in the oval office that person can do nothing by themselves. These rich people and corporations have more than enough money to buy politicians in the house and Senate. I truly hope i am wrong and things change for the better but i wont be holding my breath.
Yes, I support the wealth tax. We had it in the 50's and the working class or middle class did just fine. If we bring the tax back at what it was in the 50's we would have medicare for all, no student loans, possibly fix the homeless problem and the National Debt! No one rich enough to pay this tax will miss the money!
That's just the problem, though. They will "miss the money" - they're in love with it and no amount will ever be "enough". SAD
The French people had the right idea 200 years ago.
I've said for years that it is time to eat the rich again.
Yeah, could you imagine storming the White House and throwing the Trump Bunch in prison. Our military leaders actually have to agree to serve whoever's is president, not the country, and not the people.
So it would be an all out battle. But so worth it if Trump got his way with abolishing elections.
@@cptKamina why? Did we force you to make bad career choices? No. Instead of eating us, which sounds pretty disgusting, how about you stop being a victim, take personal responsibility for your life, and make better career choices so you can be rich like me? It’s easy to do if you actually try.
@@johnmartin4641 Haha first of all, you're not rich.
Secondly, saying "Make better choices" is the telltale sign of either a moron with brainworms or a liar.
@@cptKamina I have never met anyone who has made these 3 choices that isn’t successful:
1. Major in business administration instead of stupid crap like gender studies.
2. Work for a large corporation instead of a small business.
3. Work for a recession resistant/essential company/industry (recession resistant and essential are usually the same thing).
Those are 3 simple choices that people can make to be successful, but too many people are just too lazy and irresponsible to make these choices to improve their lives.
I support it, because at a certain point, the money becomes useless. It’s not being used for consumption of good, but also not for producing new goods or investing in technology, progress and new corporations that might improve lives and create jobs. The money is dead. And although the government sometimes does stupid things, it’s still better with that money.
4 years later… are you joking? Wealth grows BECAUSE it is invested. Money invested helps to grow companies, create new products etc.
So, about 33,000 people have the same amount of wealth as almost 330,000,000. Let that sink in for a moment.
It's normal if you understood math
Yes, a much needed vehicle to stop the greedy.
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
Yes, I believe in having a wealth tax and closing loopholes that keep people from paying their taxes.
Absolutely. The big and rich need to be taxed just like the rest of us. I work a total of 40 hours per week, but because of all the different taxes that are taken from my check each week I'm lucky to have at least 30 hours worth of pay. This has a problem in America for a long time. Unless we the people do something about it, it will only get worse. It won't be long until we work for free.
America is such a great country. With hard work and dedication, everyone can reach the top 10%.
...I'm now being told that's literally impossible. Oh well. Tax the rich. Tax the hell out of 'em.
It's always been impossible for 90% of Americans to be in the top 10%!
What about those that started with nothing and became wealthy.
Like the loss of a lung and a eye . This do to a chemical accident at work . And received a large settlement .
The wealthy take chances.
Let’s tax them. That way they will lay off how many it takes to get the 2% back.
That is what I would do. And I’m a retired commercial roofer. Not a owner a worker .
If gasoline is 2.50 per gallon. And it is raised to 3.50 per gallon.
You drive less if possible. Taxing the owners of a business is not the answer. They will just raise prices.
It never makes since to tax your boss. They are the one that gives you a raise.
Has the government ever given you a raise. Or just more tax.
You didn't get his main message that income(getting paid for working hard) is not the same as wealth
@Joseph Geiger The USA's population is 327 million, 90% of that is 294 million. You named five people.
@Joseph Geiger "Every year thousands make it rich"...while millions don't. Why punish _them?_
Robert, I almost love you. Thank you for being so smart and strong! I just want to send pink hearts to you! The world needs a proper education from you!
Pia, as a professional economist, I can’t assure you there is far more to this problem than can be explained in 3:51 seconds. There is a huge fundamental problem with Roberts video. I’d love to explain if you’d listen.
Such a terrific series. They engage and communicate complex and important ideas in five or ten minutes. Great stuff.
Taking away wealth to reduce inequality misses the point. The real issue is how you let those that do not have it earn and accumulate wealth.
The problem is NOT that the wealthy never have to work to survive.
The problem IS that everyone else has to work JUST to survive.
When you're working double shifts just for the basics chances are you are not thinking up how to build that next great company.
The problem IS that everyone else that does not have wealth will never have wealth due to the structure of our system. Either people are denied opportunities to make wealth or lack the skills to gain wealth. Create those opportunities, teach those skills.
The problem IS that wealth perpetuates this servitude by unfair political and economic influence.
The stock market is fine as long as the fat cat investors aren't getting the best deals and leaving your average Joe holding the bag.
Most decent people would be fine if their neighbor all of a sudden put up a mega mansion next door. Might even bring them an apple pie with good wishes.
Where decent people have a problem is when they cut your salary, raise prices on your food, jack up your taxes and THEN put up that mega mansion on top of your house after they kick you out of your neighborhood from the profits they made off you because they OWN your income, your food and your government i.e they own you.
Yes, I found this video to be informative as are most of your videos. Thank you.
I’ve sent this to friends and my Social Media pages. You are so right about this Robert. We need as many people to see this and talk about it as possible. We need to not surrender our intelligence to our political parties or other organs of the Super rich. An end to the tribalism that is eating away at our representative democracy is of paramount concern too.
Off with their heads!
So, yes, I support a wealth tax.
Before they start yelling, "let them eat cake," @ everyone!
Or as Aerosmith said "Eat the Rich"
@Joseph Geiger: in the US it worked pretty well until the eighties. In Northern Europe where I live it still does. It provides us with niceties like healthcare, education, social security, top notch infrastructure etc. You should come and check it out some time.
Another excellent video! I've found all of the video's you've created thus far to be very well made. They are most often succinct and filled with useful facts that would otherwise have gone unnoticed (most often). Also, the animations are on point. Keep up the great work!
They might start out taxing the rich, but ultimately it will trickle down to the small person and they will also be taxed
Robert, will you do a video on Land Value Taxation please?
Dumb idea it has failed wherever it has been tried. Please nominate my idea: equalland.blogspot.com for the Berggruen Prize.
Good call!
@@freetrailer4poor I read your piece.
As far as I have seen, common land ownership is the prerequisite for a land tax.
Singapore does operate a little bit in the way that you espouse, in that nation is the ultimate freeholder, and it provides the majority of the housing supply. It's not for free but it sets the initial price of the new stock way below what is achievable in the free market, and puts conditions on who can buy it. So no speculators or foreigners. The Apartments are to be lived in by the buyers.
In the ACT in Australia they nationalised the land in order to implement a land tax.
It has resulted in the ACT having the lowest average house prices despite having the highest average wages. And this is at the same time as two other states had insane speculative housing bubbles that are now bursting.
It looks to me like you are going down a libertarian path with this idea.
It seems a bit wonky to me. If people can as individuals secede from the nation state in order not to contribute to its functionality, then the guts will be ripped out of the nation and it will become dysfunctional and weak. Join or die right? And also the level of bureaucracy that would be needed to operate this system, would make a communist blush.
At the end of the day, putting rights before ownership is the sanest way of looking at housing and land. The real estate industry is parasitical, doing nothing but leeching money out of the productive economy and into the hands of the debt industry. The debt industry is constantly pushing for looser lending regulations so that more people can borrow huge sums of money for property, which drives the prices up, which pushes more and more of peoples earnings into the hands of the lenders.
If residents have real rights like in Austria, the pressure is eased. I know of a man in Vienna who passed his tenancy on in his will. People can rent all their lives without fear of eviction or exploding rents or any social stigma. People renting houses in Austria pay the same percentage of their earnings on housing as homeowners.
The important thing is to take the speculative aspect of housing as far out of the picture as practically possible.
People should make money from what they do not what they own.
I agree. In fact, I'm surprised that Reich didn't point out that, come tax time, rent, interest and dividends (the "investment income" he referred to in the video) are referred to as "UNEARNED INCOME" (emphasis mine).
I 100% support the wealth tax.
Antonio Huerta Good luck passing an amendment to the constitution to get your klepto way
Wealth tax is a great idea
The wealthy could easily get by with 2% tax
It should actually be much higher, but 2% is a start. Even at 25%, the rich would still be rich.
@@wendyscott8425 even at 75%, they would still be wealthy. Look at tax rates in the 1950's. They always claim they want to take things back to this time, but never want the tax rates we had then.
Raising taxes will just increase prices and thus inflation, you will gain nothing.
@@NUCLEARARMAMENT raising taxes on wealthy will not create inflation. They do not pay for anything anyways. Remember when Trump thought they gave away groceries???
@@supportthebandsstopfakecop1679 Raising taxes on the people who provide ALL of your goods and services, will ONLY raise the general cost of living--otherwise known as INFLATION. That's literally all that will happen, not to mention that there is over $400 billion a year given out every year willingly by private citizens and this country is the most generous in the world when it comes to charity. $400 billion is 10% of the federal budget, which also happens to be the same amount of the overall federal budget comprising of the corporate income tax. In other words, the rich pay $800 billion a year in taxes anyway, and since the economy tends to grow in size over time while tax rates tend to stay the same, that tax revenue will just keep increasing every year EVEN if taxes are mildly cut like they were under Trump. Go to France or Cuba if you want half your labor taxed if not more.
It’s a shame you don’t have a nationally televised program
Wealth tax that is used to help fund UBI would get more support than traditional government spending.
Thank you Robert Reich for making these videos available and help us to think about the academic problems of governance.
yes that is a good idea!
Yes ' I support wealth tax and I also support Elizabeth Warren , I think she's the best person to vote for, for president in 2020 .
Shes tax free because shes an American indian
@@UpperCaseX Oh puh-leeze. No, she's not "tax-free," whatever that means. She has a small amount of Native American heritage in her background, a distant ancestor, but she has never claimed membership in a tribe and never gotten governmental benefits because of it. She comes from a lower-middle class background and worked hard both academically and politically to get where she is. And now she has people like you spouting crap about her. Got a problem with a woman candidate? What is wrong with men these days? Sheeeeeesh! Oh, right, they all follow Brokahontis even as he leads them off a cliff. Go figure.
When Warren backed down from running in 2016, I lost respect for her. I think her time has passed for a serious run at the WH.
@@kdmdlo That's why Bernie's getting my vote. I respect Warren but unlike Bernie, who had a tremendous uphill battle and still fought it out in a rigged system of super delegates in the Hillary backed DNC election, Warren didn't get in the race also and AT LEAST try when she had a great chance running as a woman. She's running on Bernie's coat tails like all the others.
@@jungoogie And, certainly, you're entitled to vote for whomever you want. First, I don't think the Bernie will do that well in the primaries. Second, even if he does, I fear that he will do poorly in the general. I think there are other candidates out there that have the chance to do better in the generals than Bernie would.
Thank you Mr. Reich for the amazing work you're doing. These videos are wonderful tools to aid in discussion of these topics.
A wealth tax is necessary. Thank you Mr. Reich.
Tax the Rich, like it was before Reagan ended the Rise of the Middle-class and introduced Reaganomics.
Tax the rich, feed the poor. Til there are no rich no more. Ten Years After, is love to change the world. Try Venezuela.
and Reagan started killing unions further diminishing workers
The middle class is a participation trophy. Mediocrity shouldn’t be rewarded. Aim higher. “If you ain’t first, you’re last”-Ricky Bobby.
BERNIE 2020!
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
@Rhys Tomos Crawl back into 4chan my neo-nazi memer friend.
Rhys Tomos , if this didn't happen during the Golden Age, when regulations such as these were in place, and proven to work beyond (I'm certain) anyone's wildest dreams, where the income inequality gap was closed (significantly) and people of all walks of life and socioeconomic levels prospered why would it apply now?
Why not medicare for only those that can't afford regular insurance? Why should the rich have to use medicare? Welfare is only for poor people
@@gibransaliba8801 Because the rich profit off of the poor.
They can't profit if said poor are dead because they couldn't afford surgery.
Prism Volt then tax the rich to fund medicare
Very clear and well produced video with an excellent and desperately needed message.
We need this because people who are already born on third base should not be allowed to think they hit a home run on their own merits. They need to be knocked back to second or first base if others are going to be able to move onto first, second or third base. The only problem with a 2% wealth tax is it starts low, but revenue generated can still go far.
I support Robert Reich for President.
He isn't running for president. But Elizabeth Warren is, and she's been promoting Robert Reich's ideas for years now. I suggest looking at her candidacy and see if you don't find her as inspiring as I do.
@@wendyscott8425
I wholeheartedly stand by my previous statement.
A combination of UBI and Wealth Tax should do it 😁
The way the currently existing "wealth tax" works is that wealthy individuals and corporations use a small proportion of their wealth to "buy up" politicians, thereby insuring those politicians do their bidding (see Gilens, Page: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens).
very informative, and I'm all for it! Thank you Robert Reich for continuing to care about Americans and this country!
A wealth tax is a must have! You should join Bernie's campaign to be the next labor secretary!
This is why I am all for Elizabeth Warren to be our first female president. She actually has a plan. And would do a great job for the working class
The true first step is campaign finance reform. So that we can elect politicians who aren’t corrupt before they even take office
I agree 100% thank you for your knowledge implementing this policy is vital..
The man that should be President
Or the woman who also has been promoting a wealth tax lately, right? You know, _Elizabeth Warren._ Reich isn't running for president. I don't know why people keep insisting on his holding that office.
Yes tax the wealthy! Go Elizabeth! It's time they pay taxes like the rest of us!
I fully agree. Thank you for your insight!
Yes, the influence of such wealth inequality is very troubling and a wealth tax would help, but, I am also concerned with how wealth is used to manipulate our economy. This is why I would like to see some taxation to address certain types of investment and financial behavior. A transaction tax and a tax on stock buy backs might help. Also, a tax imposed on jobs sent offshore seems very much needed.
Bernie Sanders 2020!
I like the idea of a wealth tax but it's just a hard policy to enforce. Other counties that have tried it either move money out of the country or they have to liquidate assets to cover the costs. I think raising inheritance tax is a better start.
I worry that a wealth tax would be largely avoided by more accounting shenanigans. Why not just bring capital gains (and business) taxes back in line with personal income taxes, and make the estate tax harder to avoid?
I absolutely support a wealth tax.
First view, first like! Also, I can't agree more!
I concur with yo. Fixing the system will never happen. The government is ran by people with the money.
Actually our system IS "fixed" - by the people with the money! We do, after all, have the best politicians money can buy!
@@peacemonger766 Robert Reich also said cynicism and lack of participation will kill democracy.
In the UK Normans are richer than Angles. Are they smarter? Do they work harder? Is there discrimination against the English? No, they won at Hastings and are still richer because of it
This is the Republican economic system at work.
I'd aim for 5% and not settle for anything less than 3.5%.
Mr. Reich, Thank you for your work.
One of the side effects of wealth taxes will be the continued growth of the parasite industry of accounts and tax lawyers who build and find loopholes for their wealthy clients. For example, there exists now something called a Walton Trust, named for Sam Walton who used it to shelter hundreds of millions of dollars from inheritance tax, and now anyone with more than about 30 million in their estate can pay about $10,000 to set up a Walton Trust and shelter their stock assets’ appreciation from inheritance tax.
That's why it needs to be paired with increases to the IRS and stronger penalties for tax evasion.
Yes it sounds great make the RICH pay
Yes, The Wealth Tax need to be at least 10%,
And you’re still going to be poor.
@@seanm3226 Sorry not Poor here,
Is there a “top 10” list of items advocated for by RR? Could be wealth tax, inheritance tax, stopping lobbying, repealing Citizens United , etc. I love his ideas but need a framework to remember ideas when discussing with others.
We already have a wealth tax for the vast majority of Americans. It is called a property tax.
The the average middle class American the most expensive asset is their home. We pay property taxes on our homes. And even if the bank owns 80% of the value of our home we pay 100% of the tax on its value.
A billionaire might live in a $100 million dollar home, but he owns assets that greatly exceed that value. He might own valuable artwork. Or his wife owns more jewelry than that value. Or he owns yachts or jets and a car collection that exceed the value of his home that he does not pay taxes on. I have zero issues with instituting a wealth tax as a wealth tax is already employed for the middle class.
I admire you Mr. Reich but your are delusional to think that any such thing would ever be either politically executed or fundamentaly sustained. Your country is just too bent on limitless capitalism and the concept of meritocracy died around 1964 with the draft..
Your cynicism is not without validity, but that's is exactly the attitude they want you to embrace. As long as you feel disempowered and disengaged...they win!
Yes, we gave up over the last twenty years, but there's still a chance we can incrementally change things today.
It took African Americans over 400 years to gain equality in this nation. They fought hard in the twentieth century just to reverse Jim Crow! And the fight continues even today.
We must do the same to empower people and help them realize the indisputable fact that economic independence and political freedom are intertwined.
@@letosgoldenpath1993 I was looking to respond similarly but you put it so eloquently that I'll merely second your response, thank you.
Mr. Reich is performing a very valuable service displacing the myths and lies of the wealthy. I need to write down his main points of his videos
I am curious what you think of inflation as a wealth tax? We have had really low inflation for the last decade but it is not always that way. This forces people with wealth to make good investments otherwise they start to lose their purchasing power.
This is all good until they decide to lower the threshold at which they start taxing wealth. Also it means declaring all your assets which is a huge violation of privacy.
Yes. We do have an aristocracy in America now. I'm cool with a wealth tax but we also need better politicians who will actually take the money and reinvest back into the things mentioned in the video. 👍
I love the idea of a wealth tax. And only Two Percent?! That's practically nothing. Five or ten percent would still be almost invisible to those with 50 million or more, and imagine what could be done! "Free" college, single payer medical coverage, universal basic income, AND real investment in infrastructure for the betterment of all. Finally, the _Wealthiest Country In The World_ would finally actually be doing something productive with that wealth (just a small fraction of it) instead of letting it be hoarded by a select few and/or used to corrupt politics and maintain oppression over those below the wealthy.
And go for 90% over 100 million. Because that's an extraordinary amount of wealth and no person, no family, needs that much or could be trusted with that much. Even 50 million is more than anyone needs in a society where we're expected to work our entire lives to be able to survive... unless you've got 50 million sitting around.
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine
The middle class needs a chance to even the odds. People with a hundred thousand or even a few million are taxed far too much. As for someone making over 50 million, a wealth tax would definitely be a good start in fixing a deeply broken economy.
An absolutely positive idea. One cannot benefit without supporting the system that permitted it.
The world is much better with you in it, Robert Reich!
People complain about Russian oligarchs and their affiliation with their government, but don't seem to have a problem with American oligarchs and their affiliation with our government.
A wealth tax is totally responsible and reasonable. Right now the richest could use 100 dollar bills for toilet
Paper and never run out of paper. In reality they have more money than they now what to do with. And they want more? It’s time to give back to the country that
Allowed the accumulation of such wealth and gratification and thanks. Give.
I believe better would be for wealth to not be inheritable. There will still be loopholes, people would just give their wealth in life but even that is better.
The only thing worse than the concentration of wealth and power in private hands is its confiscation and concentration by an increasingly powerful federal government. Also, in a free market economy, wealth (if it is legitimately earned) is the reward for increasing the wealth of others. A wealthy society is fueled by wealth creation. A poor society is the result of wealth confiscation.
Thanks for the GREAT information 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🙏👍
Something to consider...
There is a value in being respected, having people grateful to you for taking care of you-having your employees be grateful not only for a job, but a job that pays well.
But...
The amount of that you can buy with a dollar is generally worth less than a dollar. Depending on how wealthy you are and how you were raised, you might get 50 cents worth of that "social wealth" from each dollar you spend. Of course, these dollars, what you pay for payroll and such, are pre-tax dollars.
Which leads to an interesting equation. When taxes are high enough on the rich, the value of paying workers better is higher than the value of keeping what is left of those dollars after tax. Lower tax rates and you incentivize the rich to stop giving wages.
This is backed up by the end of real wage growth that started in 1982 when the tax rate on the richest was cut in half.
Absolutely, we need a wealth tax!
Another fine summation, Mr. Reich.
You always seem to hit the nail Right on the head, friend.
If one were looking for another solution, one might look to Aerosmith's 1993 song, "Eat The Rich." Perhaps ironically, this song comes off of the album, 'Get A Grip."
They might have to have warning labels about the possibility of ingesting Botox, implants, steroids, uppers,downers, implanted fat from buttocks, etc, etc, etc.
Author P J O'Rourke, penned a funny, mind-bending book that is a World Tour about how the different global economies operate.
The title is: "Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics." (1999)
I understand the logic and fairness of a "wealth tax". But the forces we would have to fight to enact it would be overwhelming. The wealthy own the political and media machines to get the information out.
Many people who aren’t rich think it is unfair to take somebody else’s hard earned money. The kind of money that is contemplated to be taxed here is money earned by our economic system rather than hard work. Without the government’s help, these companies would earn no profits. It only seems fitting that the government would require a dividend on some of the profits, seeing that they contribute the whole system that makes the profits possible. Right now, all this massive wealth is not paying for the gigantic cost of government that makes the profits possible. A better balance is necessary. Just make it so.
I actually wouldn't mind if they shifted tax burdens. That the introduction of a wealth tax goes together with the elimination of the payroll tax.
Would you comment on supply-side economics?
I sort of agree, but I think it's quite easy for opponents to paint it as a penalty for success. I think it makes more sense to go after the wealth at the point of intergenerational transfer. As a high and progressive inheritance tax, it becomes an incentive for the children to do well on their own rather than depend on their inherited money. Too many examples of what happens to societies dominated by inherited wealth. I think England may be the best example of the bad things that can happen to a nation that once led the world.
Yes I do , absolutely.
Sounds good but from what I understand the implemention would be difficult because the wealthy hide their money. Please make a video on how it can be successfully implemented. From what I understand it failed in other countries. It would help me in chosing a candidate.