1:52 they buy $500,000,000 yachts. what about people in western Europe who are given a little more? they don't refrain from working - the money is used to pay for healthcare and college, because they understand a healthy, well educated population is good for all of society. in the USA, our economic system is only concerned with what is good for the wealthiest who own everything.
Thank you so much for posting this. I saw his course the day it came out. Please understand how I appreciate your website, and that these basic courses are free to the general public. Bless you for that!
It's free because it's propaganda, if you aren't paying for it you're the product little duckling. Who do you think finances this stuff? Do you think poor people, or working class people are? Whenever a rich man tells you redistributing his wealth is wrong, immoral, or bad for the economy, I encourage you to recall that the highest income tax rate in this country was once 90%, during the golden age of the 50s-60s. And recall what Jesus said about a camel through the eye of a needle and the rich entering heaven. The rich man did not become so because he was honest, good, kind. He became so through deceit, evil, avarice, and an abundance of good fortune. If you weren't a millionaire by 5 years old, statistically speaking you won't become one no matter how hard your work or how smart you are.
@@LMYS5697 I read through your note, dear piggy. You and I might not agree on much, but at least we agree that libertarianism makes you stupid and that I am a little duckling. Hahaha! Have a nice day!
If I said stuff like this in my professional or social circles the amount of friends I have would be exactly zero. It is a lonely time for those who value freedom over security.
I think it might not be about your economics so much as your personality champ. No-one is stopping you from speaking your "mind" such as it is. You are the one not exercising your freedom for the security of your "friends" aren't you? A little ironic given your final squeak?
Exactly right👍 Equality of outcome and redistribution of wealth -- some of the biggest marxist's ideology bs . I still remember the reality of it in former Soviet Union.
If the U.S. ran a socialist economy, even if the country's total wealth were reduced to 4% of what it is today, everybody would have the same wealth that the median earner has today
I saw this video as an ad and was immediately intruiged by it. I understood the points made and the final conclusion was powerful and solid. This is a very good propoganda tool for convincing citizens that welfare is wasteful and inefficient, plus it even subtly implies that those in poverty are often slothful while also implying the exact opposite for those with wealth. Yes, redistributing wealth so that every person has the same income would probably reduce the populations net income to zero and plunge the economy into turmoil, but is this video seriously advocating for scaling back or even the complete removal of welfare? I think there is plenty of untapped capital horded by the top percents to atleast help those without basic necessities. Sure, there are examples of poor people wasting and abusing the welfare system, but you dont have to look far to see corporations and affluent individuals wasting money at a level that is orders of magnitudes higher. Not to mention that these entities have the privlidge to spend their cash to further their interests, often at the expense of the middle class and lower. They're the ones who can afford ads like this that attempt to convince us that their money is better spent on whatever they want. Not to mention that this "net income" is hardly a great tool for measuring how well a population is thriving, and ignores how happy and fulfilled the citizens are. Sure, a nation with a high GDP can accomplish astounding feats and hold great influence in the world stage, but these factors hardly matter to most people who are trying to get through the day. A silver lining to this video is that I see plenty of people openly critiquing this video's message, and it gives me more faith in humanity that there are those challenging these worldviews that should have been left behind in the gilded age.
It's not that the wealthy are or are not slothful... you can say that of the individual wealthy person. But, what you CAN'T say is the wealthy person's MONEY is slothful. Wealthy people (all?) have their money INVESTED, meaning, it's working elsewhere to add to production. A poor person can be extremely productive (not slothful), but since they have no $, their money isn't productive so the production of the poor person is limited to the hours in the day they can work, personally. Elon Musk's effort made PayPal, but his wealth made Tesla, SpaceX, et al. That said, I do think there should be a floor for the "least of these". Just like The Good Book says, "the poor you'll always have with you". Perhaps we can incentivize the wealthy towards charity instead of forced welfare spending (which isn't charitable by nature).
@@swesleyc7 Money at work is the biggest fraud on the planet. You invest it so it gets counted more than once because it is in circulation back and forth between banks in addition to paying for new expansion of industry. What happens when the markets become full of products that can't be sold at an acceptable profit? Of course you stop expanding production now your profits go to driving up the value of fictitious capital. In 1929 the stock market was booming until suddenly banks could not pay their depositors. A similar thing happened in 2008 when no one could pay the outrageous mortgage contacts. Next thing you 2 trillion dollars in fictitious capital value disappeared. It happens precisely because money doesn't "work". Only people do. To be a capitalist is to occupy a social position that allows the accumulation of surplus value produced by labor. Naturally the capitalist doesn't have real money silver and gold he has paperwork that says he ow this and he owns that and then his friends decide how much he is worth based on what they would pay in exchange. Of coutse if he goes bankrupt the brig him to bankruptsy cuort where the creditors feast upon whats left of the corpse.Afterall the corp is a fictious person.
Welfare should be something available to people who need it period. The biggest problem I think people have is the fact that the approval for these programs are set extremely lenient and leaves the door open for individuals to take advantage of the system. As far as corporate greed I can think in my mind that any person with millions or billions of dollars seems irresponsible and that money in circulation would be better used than in one pile just setting there, but then again the largest portion of the pie sets with the federal government in the form of taxes. If middle class families were able to keep the largest portions of their income tax and state tax and all the money we payed in taxes were actually making it to the intended destination I think everyone would have more incentive to be productive and we could fund all need for welfare and assistance with a flat rate of 10% tax from all providers. The more you make the better your 10% will cover. Also with the help of unions and people having a little more change in their pockets the supply chain would be very competitive and as consumers we would end up spending less for what we need and not allowing corporations to take advantage of employees. No one I know wants people in need to go without, we just can’t continue to pretend that what we have now is even close to being fair. We are all slaves to this system and change may be uncertain, but we have to try and fix what we allowed to become broken.
We already have redistribution, to the top. All of societies money is being siphoned up by the rich and powerful. It is curious that ending this is what is denounced as redistribution.
Redistribution does not happen if people, whether rich or poor, do not buy their services or products - so don't blame the rich people That is a choice made by said consumers In the Caribbean, people emigrated as slaves Slavery was outlawed Chinese and East Indians indentured their way out of slavery - and they prospered - they started out with nothing, but they lived their lives frugally - and saved, until they felt comfortable enough to spend African-descent people, unfortunately, were slaves by no choice - but they finally gained their freedom - and like the Chinese and East Indian, started out with nothing too - but ended up being surpassed financially by the East Indians and financially indebted to the Chinese - and groaning about owing the Chinese - not all African-descent citizens, but a good fair portion - I have seen this dilemma with my own eyes - no one brought this upon them but themselves - as they chose to spend every penny of every dollar earned to live (and party) for the moment (and often times on borrowed money) In America, I see lower-income and welfare people doing their nails, pedicures, weekly hair appointments, etc - and these things are not cheap - rather than doing these things themselves (as I do) - where is that money coming from??? I cant afford all of these fancy services, so I make do best I can I know people (and family members) who are on welfare and don't want to get off - they have control of their own lives - no need to get up and work a job - but they sure know how and have time to go shopping, go to the beach, or party all night, every night (food provided by your tax dollars) Work is actually good for you and helps give your life meaning and a sense of self Just like some rich families, whose children or descendants inherited money, but blew it - the same would happen with the majority - maybe not all - but a majority of people - they would just spend without abandon - and then come back with their hand out for more
He has you convinced that the capitalist earned his money instead of using his special position in the exchange of labor and production to accumulate more than he puts in. He leaves out the process with which modern money is created.
This is an Interesting Minimalist view of how taxing the rich causes the poor not to work. But, what if the rich actually paid higher wages to those who wanted to work. What would happen then?
We are seeing an example where the UAW is forcing the rich to pay them more. Oh, how the rich are fighting back, saying .. ur gonna bankrupt us!!! Yet, can give execs 36% pay increases (millions of dollars)
Agreed. The presenter is already giving a scenario with which everyone has to agree. Of course no moral person would say that taking from A to give to B is appropriate. However, I have seen upper management talk about hourly personnel as if talking about cattle. I have seen hard working responsible employees have their vacations cancelled just because the super rich company did not want to pay overtime. This is not "give to the lazy". And all this while saying "we lost 200 million" as an twisted narrative because the company made 1.8 Billion when it wanted to make 2 billion in profits that year. I have also seen the company tell the county they were going to do a 40% 'expansion' if it got a property tax break. Who would not want more jobs?! So they got the tax break, then turned around and expanded the WAREHOUSE by 40% and did not hire one more person. But presented the expansion as if they were about to hire 40% more workers. The speech is definitively an oversimplification. Mind you, I am a capitalist, conservative, Republican, anti-communist. But I am past the ideal picture that was presented to me when I was younger. The talk about "if you had a better bakery and the guy and the corner had a bad bakery, should your bakery not be more profitable and his go out of business?". That is all talk disconnected from reality.
What do you call it when you use the same asset to create money in more than one place at the same time. Like when banks loan gold and silver deposits as certificates of deposit. You gave the bank $20 in gold they give you back a certificate saying it worth $20 and you agreed to let the bank loan what you left on deposit as long as the bank keeps a fractional reserve. The bank has two contracts now one says you've got $20 in gold the other lets a borrower have a certificate worth $15 while the bank keeps $20 in Gold. Of course as long as the certificates stay in circulation no one is the wiser. When you have a large number of separate banks they can also create private money with deposits and loans to each other. This is just one way money you think is connected to your work becomes private money accumulated in banks.
Even in the our system, in periods of high taxation in the US there was more prosperity , and economic development ... Loot after the great depression 40s 50s 60s etc
This professor uses a logic so unassuming and simplistic that I don't see any difference between his ideas and anything a 5 year old could say. Entrepreneurs are driven by many things besides profit-making. Clearly, this guy has learned economics from a textbook.
No, he is taking a complex topic and dumbing it down for his under educated private students to understand. As u mentioned, your 5 yr old understood it. What does that say of his students.
Yes. It does sound like common sense, but as I noted above there are problems with his logic. Allowing us as individuals to monopolize nature results in a massive redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers.
@@swesleyc7 This is basic economic theory, as developed initially by David Ricardo's "law of rent." The supply of land is fixed by nature; it is almost inelastic. Gaining control over large portions of the planet that have desired features and resources provides the opportunity to charge others simply for access. Thus, the "rentier" is someone who takes without producing, gains income because of the fact that under the society's system of law they are able to claim legal control over nature without any obligation to make direct productive use thereof. This was pointed out by Locke as a serious injustice because when one person controls more of nature than they can use, others are denied opportunity. Under the laws of most countries, there is nothing that prevents the very wealthy from acquiring ownership of millions of acres of land, putting up a "no trespassing" sign and holding the land idle forever.
This video is pure propaganda.The 3 richest people in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 50% combined. On top of that, the richest 1% owns ~50% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of people owns only 1-2% of all wealth. That means that even if a socialist U.S. economy were 96-98% less productive than it is today (and there is no reason to assume it would be, but even if it were), everyone could still have as much wealth as the median earner in the bottom 50% has today. Also, have you ever been unemployed? it's great for like a week and then it becomes unbearable. Why would masses of people choose that when work would be incentivized by the improvement of life for themselves and everyone else? Common sense.
@@trentbundy2296 Read what I wrote, which provides the reason why wealth is so concentrated and so many people are never able to raise themselves out of poverty.
there are so many assumptions and logical fallacy’s in this video. the predominant one is that income is the only incentive to produce. i also watched the video on ethics and wondered how these two videos interact in relation to ethics, care, “the good,” and religious teaching of giving to the poor without incentive. what does that mean for society? and who is asking for “exact” equal distribution of wealth anyway???
@@dudebros6122 I agree we shouldn't have to pay some malign fat tick who profits off of our hard work. Rent should be criminalized. Rent collection regularly robs working class of far more of their money than taxes, which provide government services, that we, in a democracy, vote on and pay for. We all need shelter and housing. We could easily create a system that provided housing in such a way everyone could own their own place, instead we have created a system that allows fat ticks to do nothing but suck money from hard working Americans because the fat tick happens to own a property. Abolish rent, it's redistribution to lazy eaters who profit off the working man.
Whatever happened to the saying of "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Thanks, God bless.
Where did free and low cost college tuition go? We don't teach men to fish anymore because of regulatory capture and the marketization and commodification of higher education. Rich people are the cause not the solution.
Haha, better paying jobs are easier? I guess you don't know your boss, or boss' jobs very well. Very low resolution thinking. From a low paid schmuks frame of reference maybe.
Thomas Sowell goes through the data of this very well. Every time welfare was increased, poverty increased with it. Unemployment increased with it. Single motherhood increased with it. Its a bad system. It needs to go.
This would be a great video if productivity, and thus income, was the most important factor in actually making people happy. But the psychological research is very clear, income is just one among *many* factors that makes someone happy and *not* the biggest. Good relationships are what make people happy. And unfortunately vast income inequality is an antagonist to good relationships in a society.
It's not income inequality that's the enemy, it's not having any income to be able to take time off. lack of time is the issue not income inequality. If someone wants more time they need to make more money and that can easily be done by learning one's own innate value and what they provide well for others, and charging for that.
@@soccerboy7jqcool capitalist realism. These poor fools take market relations to be the norm, rather than an aberration of history. There are no friends anymore, just people you should monetize.
Same argument could be made for corporate bail outs. The more the government steps in to bail out a mega corporation. The less incentive they have to actually produce competitive products. You're going to get a lot of corporations not being competitive in the market.
Agreed, they destroy the entire concept of a "free" market. The problem is they know a bailout comes because they have become so massive and effect the overall health of the economy, when they fail, it would crush the working class economy. The government at that point has no option but to bail them out. The worst are the banks who take other peoples money and play high risk trades and profit billions.
I don't care how much other people's incomes are. And I also think nobody else is entitled to any of my income. If my money is taken without my explicit consent, it's theft.
I agree, which is why I live in a democracy, vote for my representatives, and pay taxes happily. My consent is constantly invalidated by rent though. I do not freely consent to rent. It is under duress. I need a roof and the regulatory capture of large landlords prevents the construction of property that I could buy and afford.
@KlintWithA-K Charachorder ah I stand corrected haha, though it is a psychology device and rather smart one at that for them to have the entire subject linked to an outside source, whether free or not haha
@@AltrTheEgo lol you're good. The trailer has over a million views, so my guess is that there would be more viewers if they just post the whole could here instead of requiring people to go to their site and make an account. :) Have you taken it yet? It's a fascinating class.
@KlintWithA-K Charachorder no I haven't, I have seen a bunch of the trailers and looked up hillsdale and taken some of their polls and to me it seems very blatant some of the points they try to force you to comply with(one poll didn't give any options other than "Hey you're wrong" about if you believe in the electoral college being inherently inadequate for representing the American people) It all seems highly partisan and leaves out information(at least in the trailers) to give a shallow understanding of certain topics with so much informational holes that you want to dive deeper. Then the time investment makes you more likely to agree with/not want to fact check information. It's a tactic that a lot of left and right wing lobbyist/propagandists use and I tend to try to stay away from those sort of psychological red flags haha 😅 I generally stay away from MSM and corporate influences. Look at the donors and you get a sneak peek and see what they are trying to sell, ya know?
The sad thing is that capitalism has become a normalized thing to hate on the internet. People think socialism is an innocent and acceptable system without knowing the facts behind it.
The theorem presented neglects the effect of emigration: that is the most productive people move from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax jurisdiction. I am in the intellectual property business and can operate anywhere in the world with rule of law and good communications. Why pay 60% tax when I can move and pay 10% tax?
We saw this effect during the "pandemic" by redistributing wealth on a massive scale. Many people left the workforce and now we have a shortage of productive people. Many people who were in business were shut down and eventually went out of business or were forced to go into debt to survive. Some returned to the marketplace; some did not. I semi-retired but decided to go into contractual work.
@@LMYS5697 Which is why we in the U.S. need a much more progressive (and simply to comply with) individual income tax structure. My idea: exempt all individual incomes up to the national median. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt level, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of income. This system will greatly reduce taxation of wages and shift the burden of taxation to income derived from speculation and competition-limiting licenses.
How much production do you want? What happens when you are talking about fiat instead of gold? How long can it be sustained without causing damage? What things can be purchased with the redistributed currency? Was the same currency taken as given?
You are fighting the truth! More production increases prosperity and makes life easier, a good thing...except to perverse liberals believing in a climate change hoax!
What does the same currency have to do with anything! Do you have a cell phone, a computer, a reliable car? Why don't you go without those things then?
We get more production through bottom up economy. Rich don't spend their wealth. Poor do. It's well known and established that things like SNAP/food stamps creates something like $1.50 of growth in the economy for every dollar spent in the program. It's also just logic. If I give one man 50 million and fifty men one million, the fifty are more likely to spend a greater share of that money back into the economy, creating economic growth.
These are the same types of people that say that there shouldn't be a minimum wage. Just increase your skill set (they say) and you are GUARANTEED to get a raise, promotion and/or better higher paying job. Yea, sorry, the REAL World doesn't always work that way.
More income overall, yes. The problem ISN'T income inequality (I don't measure myself against my neighbor), but rather, how relatively poor the poorest in our society is. It's not that we should lift the poor up to become billionaires, it's that we should help the poor help THEMSELVES out of poverty.
@@socl6534 Yes it does. You increase your own value, you simultaneously need to find a market (employer) who will value you for your increased skills. It appears you're in a camp of people who stupidly think by merely getting an education (for example: english literature degrees) you should instantly be paid more. You have to be sure the skills and education you're gaining are MARKETABLE, meaning, you need to find a market/employer who will value your increased skillset. That is your responsibility.
I have a democrat friend, yes, one, who says this isn’t true. I told him I’m a prime example, have worked for several decades, would quit right now if I got paid not to work.
The issue is that it may appeal to common sense, but you need actual evidence for these claims. You need logic and facts. His initial argument is neither logically correct nor empirically correct. "Whenever you redistribute income, you reduce total income" is his first, main argument. Lets look at it logically. What is redistribution of income? It is the reallocation of income generated, which means that on its own it can never cause a change in the amount of income generated. You need more arguments which would show that in no case does the effect of redistribution of income lead to equal or increased income generated. Lets use his own style of common sense logic, when you increase the tax of a company they have a greater incentive to invest in their company so as to increase that companies income in face of the reduced specific income of that company, and to in general have more expenses be business expenses so as to write them off.
And what seems to have been left out is the added cost of the bureaucracy. Let's say we take $100. If the cost of the bureaucracy is 10%, then we will only give out $90.
You realize private industry also has bureaucracy, and a profit motive? Whatever the government can do @ 10% loss to bureaus companies can do @ 25% of loss for bureau and profit.
The government is always inefficient with money that isn't their (yours). Charity is the best way to help the poor (person to person), not mandated welfare.
@@ENetArch I called the BBB about a scam charity that phoned me and was told they give 6% to the cause and keep the rest claiming expenses. A true charity can be quite efficient if it is not just a way to pay salaries.
The government can only take from someone. The government creates nothing. It manufactures nothing. Any money the government has, it took away from someone. Under the threat of violence and imprisonment.
If high taxation reduces the incentive to produce and the production why the US had the highest growth and development during the period of high taxation?
The problem is that the wealthy want the lower income to think they are the job creators. This myth was busted during the pandemic, when there was no job growth or innovation. The real job creators are the middle class, as they have all the innovative ideas, but not the means to produce their products at scale.
What Art Laffer could never bring himself to accept is the fact our system of law embraces and protects the redistribution of wealth from those who produce goods to those who enjoy rent-seeking privileges. Economists would do well to spend some time reading (or rereading if they ever read) their predecessor political economists. Much is to be learned by reading what A.R. Jacques Turgot or Adam Smith wrote on the distribution of wealth to the three factors of production. Those who manage to gain legal title or control to nature are able to take without producing.
Funny video, it's like highschool lvl econ... and then you get more into the actuall reality of it all instead of just random smartass arguing. I dont think I actually ever heard anyone except them saying that redistribution is about taking money to give to someone else "directly"... it is usually thought of, to my knowledge, as funding indirect policies to actually provide people to even be able to work and make a living, similarly to the new deal. Not that I am a keynesian but taking demand-side econ into account is still important as well as the older Say's supply side.
I got an ad for this neoliberal propoganda that completely ignores the keynesian economic model the US adopted after WWII: the same model that resulted in wealth inequality being the lowest in US history, the same model that ended hunger in America, the same model that allowed for affordable college and middle class jobs straight out of high school, the same model that redistributed wealth in the form of wages and social programs and not gifts. And stop framing the redistribution of wealth as an upper working class vs lower working class issue. This is a proletariat vs bourgeois issue. Why was the US been so prosperous when it adopted keynesian economics if it discouraged people not to work (your words, not mine)? Why is the US continuously failing to address its own people's need for food, housing, fair wages, etc ever since it adopted neoliberalism?
Stagflation killed Keynes, though it was not a product of Keynes. Unfortunately traditional Keynesian economics did not foresee or have an explanation for Stagflation. Beyond that the gutting of unions did insurmountable damage as well
This only makes sense if the sole reason people work, or don't work, is for money, rather than other motivations to work like duty, motivation, identity, conscientiousness, ethics, pride, civic duty, self-expression, autonomy, helping others, the satisfaction of producing something etc etc
Its interesting that the rich are considered job creators, yet recent history has shown that the rich are not job creators, but instead wait while job creators have spent their life savings building an idea only to swoop in and buy it for pennies, then send it off shore to be mass produced. The real job creators are the middle and poor who have the ideas but not the means to execute it or scale it.
@@MAX3D2, actually i was a dishwasher for a restaurant for several yrs. The owner took his 180k and invested in his dream job. He wasnt a billionare, just a regular class person. 5hose people create jobs, create new products, create communities. Billionares dont. They buy them.
@@MAX3D2happens all the time over seas usually a group creating a solution to a problem in their society, and when it takes off give it a few years Corporation X catches wind of it and buys the idea from them and profits off it.
@@ENetArch That is very true. Which is something I really like about crowdfunding. Sadly China has picked up on this and is using it to their advantage. There are whole towns in China dedicated to creating knock-off products and stealing ideas from people and large companies. Many times they steal these ideas from crowdfunding websites. Almost every home and family member in these towns has a role in the creation of the final product right down to the packaging and distribution. A few years ago I wanted to buy an ACOG for my SCAR 17H but the price was very expensive. I found a place online where I could buy an ACOG for a reasonable price. After doing some research I found out these scopes were knock-offs. I went to a local gun dealer that actually had both at his store. Even he was fooled and bought a few of the knockoffs. From the outside, these scopes look better than the real scopes. I am a big fan of crowdfunding but nothing can be done to force the Chinese government into obeying international patent laws or obeying any law for that matter. This was another reason I was opposed to the Paris Climate Accord.
The 3 richest people in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 50% combined. On top of that, the richest 1% owns ~50% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of people own only 1-2% of all wealth. That means that even if a socialist U.S. economy were 96-98% less productive than it is today (and there is no reason to assume it would be, but even if it were), everyone could still have as much wealth as the median earner in the bottom 50% has today. It's common sense. Also, have you ever been unemployed? it's great for like a week and then it becomes unbearable. Why would masses of people choose that when work would be incentivized by the improvement of life for themselves and everyone else? Common sense.
"You MO-RON, you are not to question my ORDERS! When I say JUMP, you JUMP! When I say FIGHT, you FIGHT! When I tell you to DIE for your COUNTRY, then you will certainly DIE! Have I made myself CLE-AR?"
Correct. Thank You for telling the truth. The incentive for politicians to do and say the opposite grows with every person who willingly takes the bait.
This guy is selling you a bunch of lies lololol. Hillsdale is a mouthpiece for the rich & elites. That's why this is totally free. It's rich people propaganda, they are the ones paying for it, so they can inculcate in good little workers the idea that workers don't deserve more. Because you haven't earned it like they did, by being born into wealth and connections.
@@LMYS5697 if you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you attach a penalty to something, you get less of it. subsidies green light unwed mothers…and penalize the fathers of the very children corrupt politicians were actually bold enough to attach a monetary value to. You may be okay with that type of $#;+, But people who are willing to hate God show up in the most unlikely places…Like in the sacredness of one of God’s holy creations, the Family. WHY do they do that, you may ask? Well it ain’t all the good intentions they’re always a-bragging about…noooo, that’s not it. it’s because they hate God…. And to show Him just how much they hate Him, they’re willing to destroy everything He holds sacred.
I ask everyone “Do you enjoy paying ever higher taxes, exorbitant gas/diesel prices, groceries, utilities, property & income taxes then keep voting Democrat because that’s what you’ll get”… More of the same.
What folks like the guy in this video won't mention is that we could shift taxes from labour and capital onto land value - this would not reduce productivity or total income, it would increase both.
@@smartiepancake abolish rentism, lower property taxes to almost nothing on property under $1m, increase the income tax on anything over $5m to 90%, tax CG as income, lower income tax to 0 on anything under 50k.
Since Reagan and supply-side economics wealth has under gone a radical redistribution upward. The two wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans. Democracy can not survive in this environment.
This Republic survives because of capitalism, not crony capitalism. What does Elon Musk or Bill Gates owe to you for their success? NOTHING! They owe you ZERO or anyone else NOTHING! If you do not like the rich then don't contribute your hard-earned money to make them rich. YOU could invent a product or provide a service that would make you millions or billions of dollars. How much would YOU give to support a socialist society? 50%, 75%, 90%? I certainly do not think they if you were rich that you would be so quick to give up your hard-earned money! If people would strive to build a better life for themselves rather than depend on someone else to solve their problems. Maybe if people would stop voting for scumbag corrupt politicians who do nothing but get rich off of the American people we would not have the following criminals. Nasty Pelosi, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the LONG LIST of dirtbags.
Let's start by redistributing grades in college...take grades given to students that have worked hard and give them to students that skip class. That would stop this BS immediately.
It’s been done already. There are at least 2 RUclips videos on this. Everyone got the same grade, the average of all students. What happened? The ENTIRE CLASS FAILED. The lazy bums made no effort since the smart kids would carry all the weight. And the smart kids realized it was a waste of their time and effort to work hard to get a mediocre grade. So no one tried.
Thank God we're still free enough for these kinds of videos to be found online. Because these kids that are indoctrinated in our schools at least have a chance to learn the economic truth before they spend their entire lives in some form of slavery to the State.
Yes it’s worming out just as Obama said it would. He said it would take time for everyone to move to where they should be. Thank you, democrats for not defending our country but defunding our country.
What about multi-millionaires and billionaires - the wealthy? What about capital gains and dividends? Stock buybacks? Too many generalization and assumptions. Show me the numbers Art!
First off, I completely agree with everything in this video... But... yeah there's a but... In the general sense this is true, but in the specific case it may not be, and it depends on what you consider "income". If there is a person with a medical disability preventing them from working, and you tax everyone just a little so that they can pay for this person's medication, such that this person is now able to work, then that redistribution of income actually INCREASES the average income. Note that what we didn't do is give this person money as income. We gave them medicine as income, and specifically because they have a medical condition that would be solved by that medicine. This exception to the rules specified in the video do not negate the rules. They are simply an exception, and there are many exceptions. So the key is understanding when, where, and how to apply the exceptions, and that is the difficult problem. Extremely difficult. I don't know the solution to poverty, but I know there is one. And I also know that the solution is NOT the welfare system we have today and is not just giving people free money. I recommend we come up with 50 different ideas and implement each in 50 different states and 20 years from now go back and see what is or isn't working, then end all the programs, and iterate on the problem again, until we have solutions that work.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 You say potAto, I say pOtato. If you tax the rich to give free education to the poor, that can be considered redistribution of income. Like I said, depends on what you consider income... Okay so clearly you don't consider it redistribution... let's blur those lines... What if instead of buying this person medicine so they could get healthy enough to work, what if we bought this person a car so they could drive to work, because they had no car and thus couldn't get afford to get to work, catch-22? Is THAT social welfare and not distribution of income? And what if we just gave this person money, so they could buy a car, clothes, an education, and pay rent, so that in the future they could work when their education is complete? Is THAT just social welfare or is it redistribution of income? From some people's perspective, any time you take someone's income, in the form of taxes, and distribute it to others, even for a good cause like social welfare, they consider that redistribution of income. In fact, I am pretty sure the person in this video would see it that way too.
@@TheNativeTwo Blah, blah, blah. Words have meanings. Redistribution of income is taking income from some people and redistributing it as income to others. Levying a tax and using it to pay for schools or roads or courts or military defense is not redistribution of income.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 You completely misunderstood the point of this video... LOL. "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your ignorance." -Thomas Sowell. People like you think you know all the answers but simply don't know enough to realize the extent of your ignorance. Here, I did one simple search for the definition of redistribution of income: "Redistribution of income and wealth is the transfer of income and wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others through a social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation, divorce or tort law." By this definition, and the definition accepted by most everyone else, taxes and welfare is 100% redistribution of income. Like I said, you completely misunderstood the video. Sad.
So, genuine question, is he saying if no one makes money there's no incentive to work? What about people who do things they love doing for free? I'm genuinely curious, I either misunderstood his conclusion or he doesn't understand intrinsic motivation. He leaves out the fact that people forced to work jobs they hate don't WANT to work, while people working jobs they love DO want to work. So yeah by redistributing wealth you'll be stealing from the people who want to work, which crushes their spirit. The question should be what do we do about the poor who don’t want to work? Which redistribution attempts to answer. This guy just ignores the poor who don’t want to work and says “redistribution doesn’t work”. Ok yes agreed so what’s the solution to poverty? If you can’t answer that, which is the real question, no solution will be found that makes anyone happy. We’ll either end up with a demoralized, apathetic and soulless society of once-bright people who loved life, and everyone is equally miserable. Or we’ll end up with a society of massive inequality, where only the ones who provide the most value make the most money and those at the bottom are left to starve and rot, despite their innate skill and ability to be useful, due to lack of opportunity. Poverty needs a solution that isn’t redistribution of good workers money, but what is that solution?
There are 11 types of homeless, just to start. As for those there is a group who doesnt want to work, and another that dont want to be part of society. Unfortunately, both groups still rely on society to support them. As, the level of basic social services increases due to automation, these groups become more independent, ironically.
Exactly right we need a100percent tax on inheritance.If you know you're going to inherit a lot of money what incentive is there to work or contribute to society.
The issue with this video is that it portrays the redistribution being from the common man to the poor for equal outcome, instead of the ACTUAL redistribution theory of utilizing taxes for equality of OPPORTUNITY by using high taxes on the wealthy(far wealthier than the average engineer, doctor, skilled worker let alone the most common/lower capped salary jobs) to subsidize the costs of average citiziens and provide a safety net so that one bad medical bill doesnt bankrupt a family(40% of US families are that close to poverty, even in periods with the lowest unemployment rates debunking the thought high amounts of people working drives average income up) everyone can utilize transportation for job opportunities outside of impoverished communities to bring more income to those communities, we dont have to spend extra money on food, tutors or private education with our children recieving quality education and care, therefore quality opportunities, no matter which public school they go to, the average family doesnt have to live paycheck to paycheck paying for pre-k/daycare since both parents need to work to afford rent and utilities, and our working class be embolstered to pursue opportunities and risks they want to take since they aren't forced to stay at a big business for healthcare, retirement funds, and other perks that should be given to people to maintain their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately the super wealthy(hello Hillsdale) try to pin this as a "common man vs the poor" argument instead of what it actually is, the wealthy disciplining the common man to keep them from leaving their shareholder-oriented company. With social safety nets, they have to offer more to the worker to keep them in their company. This isnt just a theory but proven from other more social leaning countries, as well as the US' previous history. Before Reagan adopted trickle down economics for us, we had a tax rate of up to 90% for the wealthy(effective tax rate of around 50%), the largest middle class empowerment and size, union embolsterment, and we kept tabs on the US debt with the high amount of taxes coming in(we are the business/resource/consumer hotspot, businesses can't easily move out of the country without losing near everything they worked for). Tax cut atter tax cut we see the middle class dwindling, profits skyrocketing, and businesses laughing at the people that believe their billions of dollars spent on pro-big business propoganda. Tl;dr Hillsdale is another profit-oriented group that wants to keep your children from having the best opportunities unless you can afford to send them to school there.
As one commenter pointed out, the speakers portrayal of the issue is at a level a 5 yr old can understand. This begs the question of how wel educated their students are, if they are coming from private educational institutions and attending a for profit private higher education institution.
If you give money someone who doesn't have any money, they don't work more, but they cause other people to work more compared to the person with no money just dying from lack of money. The US's Congressional Budget Office actually quantifies this effect with their estimate of fiscal multiplier with various types of government spending. Not surprising, really: poor people are more likely to spend money that you give to them, while rich people will just put it in the bank as they already have everything they need.
I think in 50s and 60s even though we had high taxes people produced more and now when we reduced the taxes they just getting rents on assets. So it's the other way around.
That's what you want us to believe, sure that their will be some, but you could say the same for the other side as well. Let's go with what you said, that's what we are dealing with currently. The gap is killing us now, and people regardless have a cost that we also can't afford. It's a fallacy that redistribution is a waste of time. Best wishes, and why should a hand full of people have more resources than everyone on the planet.
What do "redistributionists" have as their goal, their "vision"? They must realize that in a "redistributed" society they will be completely dominated by a very tiny minority who tell them not just what to do in their jobs, but in their personal lives as well.
Why would you ever work a hard job when you would get the same results from doing an easy job? I mean if you own a small business and have to give up what you make so that someone who won't work or holds a crappy job can live as well as you do then why would you even try? Equity = Theft.
Income equality is being legislated.. the wages for a position post are required. Employers arent allowed to stop employees from discussing their wages. Employees can form unions to negotiate better wages, working conditions, health benefits, and such. And, ...
The problem with income redistribution isn't economic, it's educational, social and cultural. Why does half the US population believe in income redistribution? They are taught false econ theories in school, college and media. Politicians run on the promise of equality while living and planning their lives on a more than equal level of income. It's an appeal to the lowest mental capacity with the highest education level as its common denominator.
3:45. "None at all" "those who work, those who don't" this dude really loves his false dichotomies. Except for "someone with a little bit more, someone with a little bit less." A little? This is trash
The welfare bureaucracy eats up a huge amount of money doing something that produces nothing. No gain. Siphons productive possibilities from the economy. We all lose.
Covid was a sneak peak at what happens if/when a universal basic income social program is legislated. People stay home, why work when the government will send you money either printed from deficit spending or taxed away from ambitious people who do work. Raising minimum wages isn’t the answer, that just pushes unskilled labour out of the workforce altogether hurting low income earners more. The challenge is to create incentives for workers to gain skills that employers are willing to pay more for that employment. There are no easy answers but there are poor choices for legislators, the road too often taken for political reasons.
Most people got around $3000 dollars in stimulus checks. Nobody can afford to stay home and not work on just $3000 dollars. Try to think about the problem and research it rather than having a kneejerk reaction: "Derp, Govinment give money, people no work, derp derp.."
They are also doing redistribution through environmental regulations. I’m ready to quit producing food and just take it easy and live within my means. I’ll just ride the wave to the bottom and pray for my children’s future. . 😢
what about the redistribution upward from workin ppl to rich. i read once that for every 10 dollars in foodstamps there is a thousand in corporate welfare. seems whole thing here is a ruse to deceive public into receiving a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Your really wright,this is the truth.not politician truth. A politician truth will not hold water. Everyone else truth will. (Hopefully) the truth will set you free.
All of these theorems on redistribution and socialism miss one essential point. If these policies are taken to their ultimate, the end is violence. Always has been, always will be.
Well, let me put it to you this way - On the subject of Money, would you rather listen to someone who has money or someone who does not have money? Hahahaha!
Ethically speaking it should not matter what a wealthy person does with his money. It is his he earned it he should do what he wants with it. If he wants to wipe his butt with $100 bill so be it he should not have to make an argument that he will use it more virtuously than the poor person you would re-distribute to. Because taking something from somebody and giving it to another with force i.e., the full power of the federal government is just plain wrong.
That is not true in all case. Things was not shared with the people who did not have an equal opportunity once slavery was over. Don't have to be exactly the same blacks was never given their share of the money with all the work done for Free. So how fair that. And what they are saying is crazy same about of cotton produced they never made a single dime.
If composit government (all levels: federal, state, and local) in terms revenue and borrowing holds a resource of 115T, and if IRS declared Adjusted Gross Income was 116T, and if the basic understanding is that government exists to promote the general welfare in the US Constitution's Preamble, isnt part of an anti-equity and equity stance/platform tap dance cleverly around basic economic reality? Who gains a value nearly as large as declared income (individual and corporate, etc) through and from government? See: OMB Historical Budget Numbers, Flow of Funds by the Federal Reserve, and State and Local revenues at the Tax Policy Center. From memory (2000-14, but rounded). 34T Federal Revenue, 32.455T State and Local Revenue, Federal Direct Borrowing 38.562T, State and Local Direct Borrowing 4.2532T. And ignoring 15+T in Mortgage Backed Securities, there's 2.8836T in Debt Securities (additional debt financing), and 2.8482T in Federal Enterprise borrowing. Add it up!
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
We need more videos on this subject.
1:52 they buy $500,000,000 yachts. what about people in western Europe who are given a little more? they don't refrain from working - the money is used to pay for healthcare and college, because they understand a healthy, well educated population is good for all of society. in the USA, our economic system is only concerned with what is good for the wealthiest who own everything.
Yes! And the ultra rich still can buy their yachts in those places.
Thank you so much for posting this. I saw his course the day it came out. Please understand how I appreciate your website, and that these basic courses are free to the general public. Bless you for that!
It's free because it's propaganda, if you aren't paying for it you're the product little duckling. Who do you think finances this stuff?
Do you think poor people, or working class people are?
Whenever a rich man tells you redistributing his wealth is wrong, immoral, or bad for the economy, I encourage you to recall that the highest income tax rate in this country was once 90%, during the golden age of the 50s-60s.
And recall what Jesus said about a camel through the eye of a needle and the rich entering heaven.
The rich man did not become so because he was honest, good, kind.
He became so through deceit, evil, avarice, and an abundance of good fortune.
If you weren't a millionaire by 5 years old, statistically speaking you won't become one no matter how hard your work or how smart you are.
@@LMYS5697 I read through your note, dear piggy. You and I might not agree on much, but at least we agree that libertarianism makes you stupid and that I am a little duckling. Hahaha! Have a nice day!
Capitalism is a rigged game where the house always wins.
Income inequality cannot be reconciled until there is effort equality.
does the mom who works two jobs, and takes care of two children by herself not give enough effort for you?
If I said stuff like this in my professional or social circles the amount of friends I have would be exactly zero. It is a lonely time for those who value freedom over security.
Then learn how to ask it as a question instead of asserting. Plant the seed.
I don't need that kind of friends.
Its also nearly 100% wrong. Laugher is an idiot.
Since this is totally false, why would anybody repeat it?
I think it might not be about your economics so much as your personality champ. No-one is stopping you from speaking your "mind" such as it is. You are the one not exercising your freedom for the security of your "friends" aren't you? A little ironic given your final squeak?
Exactly right👍 Equality of outcome and redistribution of wealth -- some of the biggest marxist's ideology bs . I still remember the reality of it in former Soviet Union.
Old joke: "In Soviet Union, we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
Я тебе не верю.
😵💫
@@davesmith5656~😮💨
...potentially funny, if it wasn't so true!
If the U.S. ran a socialist economy, even if the country's total wealth were reduced to 4% of what it is today, everybody would have the same wealth that the median earner has today
I saw this video as an ad and was immediately intruiged by it. I understood the points made and the final conclusion was powerful and solid. This is a very good propoganda tool for convincing citizens that welfare is wasteful and inefficient, plus it even subtly implies that those in poverty are often slothful while also implying the exact opposite for those with wealth.
Yes, redistributing wealth so that every person has the same income would probably reduce the populations net income to zero and plunge the economy into turmoil, but is this video seriously advocating for scaling back or even the complete removal of welfare? I think there is plenty of untapped capital horded by the top percents to atleast help those without basic necessities. Sure, there are examples of poor people wasting and abusing the welfare system, but you dont have to look far to see corporations and affluent individuals wasting money at a level that is orders of magnitudes higher. Not to mention that these entities have the privlidge to spend their cash to further their interests, often at the expense of the middle class and lower. They're the ones who can afford ads like this that attempt to convince us that their money is better spent on whatever they want. Not to mention that this "net income" is hardly a great tool for measuring how well a population is thriving, and ignores how happy and fulfilled the citizens are. Sure, a nation with a high GDP can accomplish astounding feats and hold great influence in the world stage, but these factors hardly matter to most people who are trying to get through the day.
A silver lining to this video is that I see plenty of people openly critiquing this video's message, and it gives me more faith in humanity that there are those challenging these worldviews that should have been left behind in the gilded age.
It's not that the wealthy are or are not slothful... you can say that of the individual wealthy person. But, what you CAN'T say is the wealthy person's MONEY is slothful. Wealthy people (all?) have their money INVESTED, meaning, it's working elsewhere to add to production. A poor person can be extremely productive (not slothful), but since they have no $, their money isn't productive so the production of the poor person is limited to the hours in the day they can work, personally. Elon Musk's effort made PayPal, but his wealth made Tesla, SpaceX, et al.
That said, I do think there should be a floor for the "least of these". Just like The Good Book says, "the poor you'll always have with you". Perhaps we can incentivize the wealthy towards charity instead of forced welfare spending (which isn't charitable by nature).
The wealthy have always had charities. But, that money works in such a way that it always comes back to the wealthy.
@@swesleyc7 Money at work is the biggest fraud on the planet. You invest it so it gets counted more than once because it is in circulation back and forth between banks in addition to paying for new expansion of industry. What happens when the markets become full of products that can't be sold at an acceptable profit? Of course you stop expanding production now your profits go to driving up the value of fictitious capital. In 1929 the stock market was booming until suddenly banks could not pay their depositors. A similar thing happened in 2008 when no one could pay the outrageous mortgage contacts. Next thing you 2 trillion dollars in fictitious capital value disappeared. It happens precisely because money doesn't "work". Only people do. To be a capitalist is to occupy a social position that allows the accumulation of surplus value produced by labor. Naturally the capitalist doesn't have real money silver and gold he has paperwork that says he ow this and he owns that and then his friends decide how much he is worth based on what they would pay in exchange. Of coutse if he goes bankrupt the brig him to bankruptsy cuort where the creditors feast upon whats left of the corpse.Afterall the corp is a fictious person.
Welfare should be something available to people who need it period. The biggest problem I think people have is the fact that the approval for these programs are set extremely lenient and leaves the door open for individuals to take advantage of the system. As far as corporate greed I can think in my mind that any person with millions or billions of dollars seems irresponsible and that money in circulation would be better used than in one pile just setting there, but then again the largest portion of the pie sets with the federal government in the form of taxes. If middle class families were able to keep the largest portions of their income tax and state tax and all the money we payed in taxes were actually making it to the intended destination I think everyone would have more incentive to be productive and we could fund all need for welfare and assistance with a flat rate of 10% tax from all providers. The more you make the better your 10% will cover. Also with the help of unions and people having a little more change in their pockets the supply chain would be very competitive and as consumers we would end up spending less for what we need and not allowing corporations to take advantage of employees. No one I know wants people in need to go without, we just can’t continue to pretend that what we have now is even close to being fair. We are all slaves to this system and change may be uncertain, but we have to try and fix what we allowed to become broken.
We already have redistribution, to the top. All of societies money is being siphoned up by the rich and powerful. It is curious that ending this is what is denounced as redistribution.
Keep in mind Hillsdale is a propaganda outlet.
it's a war and they know it. the question is, when will we.
Redistribution does not happen if people, whether rich or poor, do not buy their services or products - so don't blame the rich people
That is a choice made by said consumers
In the Caribbean, people emigrated as slaves
Slavery was outlawed
Chinese and East Indians indentured their way out of slavery - and they prospered - they started out with nothing, but they lived their lives frugally - and saved, until they felt comfortable enough to spend
African-descent people, unfortunately, were slaves by no choice - but they finally gained their freedom - and like the Chinese and East Indian, started out with nothing too - but ended up being surpassed financially by the East Indians and financially indebted to the Chinese - and groaning about owing the Chinese - not all African-descent citizens, but a good fair portion - I have seen this dilemma with my own eyes - no one brought this upon them but themselves - as they chose to spend every penny of every dollar earned to live (and party) for the moment (and often times on borrowed money)
In America, I see lower-income and welfare people doing their nails, pedicures, weekly hair appointments, etc - and these things are not cheap - rather than doing these things themselves (as I do) - where is that money coming from??? I cant afford all of these fancy services, so I make do best I can
I know people (and family members) who are on welfare and don't want to get off - they have control of their own lives - no need to get up and work a job - but they sure know how and have time to go shopping, go to the beach, or party all night, every night (food provided by your tax dollars)
Work is actually good for you and helps give your life meaning and a sense of self
Just like some rich families, whose children or descendants inherited money, but blew it - the same would happen with the majority - maybe not all - but a majority of people - they would just spend without abandon - and then come back with their hand out for more
The rich generate wealth. Even if it doesn’t “trickle down,” it needs to be generated before it can be shared😮
@@timothyjackson4653 lolno
You're talking about low-income employees, like they're beneath dignity.
It's only fair when you're getting the lions share in their minds. Turn up the gaslights
Fantastic, Professor.
Greetings from Argentina
He has you convinced that the capitalist earned his money instead of using his special position in the exchange of labor and production to accumulate more than he puts in. He leaves out the process with which modern money is created.
This is an Interesting Minimalist view of how taxing the rich causes the poor not to work. But, what if the rich actually paid higher wages to those who wanted to work. What would happen then?
That is the real issue. Its not a competitve market and redistribution accounts for that.
Well said
We are seeing an example where the UAW is forcing the rich to pay them more. Oh, how the rich are fighting back, saying .. ur gonna bankrupt us!!! Yet, can give execs 36% pay increases (millions of dollars)
Agreed. The presenter is already giving a scenario with which everyone has to agree. Of course no moral person would say that taking from A to give to B is appropriate. However, I have seen upper management talk about hourly personnel as if talking about cattle. I have seen hard working responsible employees have their vacations cancelled just because the super rich company did not want to pay overtime. This is not "give to the lazy". And all this while saying "we lost 200 million" as an twisted narrative because the company made 1.8 Billion when it wanted to make 2 billion in profits that year. I have also seen the company tell the county they were going to do a 40% 'expansion' if it got a property tax break. Who would not want more jobs?! So they got the tax break, then turned around and expanded the WAREHOUSE by 40% and did not hire one more person. But presented the expansion as if they were about to hire 40% more workers. The speech is definitively an oversimplification. Mind you, I am a capitalist, conservative, Republican, anti-communist. But I am past the ideal picture that was presented to me when I was younger. The talk about "if you had a better bakery and the guy and the corner had a bad bakery, should your bakery not be more profitable and his go out of business?". That is all talk disconnected from reality.
Arthur Laffer should get the Nobel prize for his influence on world economics
What do you call it when you use the same asset to create money in more than one place at the same time. Like when banks loan gold and silver deposits as certificates of deposit. You gave the bank $20 in gold they give you back a certificate saying it worth $20 and you agreed to let the bank loan what you left on deposit as long as the bank keeps a fractional reserve. The bank has two contracts now one says you've got $20 in gold the other lets a borrower have a certificate worth $15 while the bank keeps $20 in Gold. Of course as long as the certificates stay in circulation no one is the wiser. When you have a large number of separate banks they can also create private money with deposits and loans to each other. This is just one way money you think is connected to your work becomes private money accumulated in banks.
Those who can work should, those who can’t work should be helped.
"Why would anyone farm or create necessary goods and services if there were no money incentive and no overlords?!!" Stupid.
Even in the our system, in periods of high taxation in the US there was more prosperity , and economic development ... Loot after the great depression 40s 50s 60s etc
This professor uses a logic so unassuming and simplistic that I don't see any difference between his ideas and anything a 5 year old could say. Entrepreneurs are driven by many things besides profit-making. Clearly, this guy has learned economics from a textbook.
No, he is taking a complex topic and dumbing it down for his under educated private students to understand. As u mentioned, your 5 yr old understood it. What does that say of his students.
I am just an average guy, but this is common sense.
Yes. It does sound like common sense, but as I noted above there are problems with his logic. Allowing us as individuals to monopolize nature results in a massive redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producers.
@@nthperson Can you explain what you mean by "monopolize nature" and how that would move wealth from producers to non-producers?
@@swesleyc7 This is basic economic theory, as developed initially by David Ricardo's "law of rent." The supply of land is fixed by nature; it is almost inelastic. Gaining control over large portions of the planet that have desired features and resources provides the opportunity to charge others simply for access. Thus, the "rentier" is someone who takes without producing, gains income because of the fact that under the society's system of law they are able to claim legal control over nature without any obligation to make direct productive use thereof. This was pointed out by Locke as a serious injustice because when one person controls more of nature than they can use, others are denied opportunity. Under the laws of most countries, there is nothing that prevents the very wealthy from acquiring ownership of millions of acres of land, putting up a "no trespassing" sign and holding the land idle forever.
This video is pure propaganda.The 3 richest people in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 50% combined. On top of that, the richest 1% owns ~50% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of people owns only 1-2% of all wealth. That means that even if a socialist U.S. economy were 96-98% less productive than it is today (and there is no reason to assume it would be, but even if it were), everyone could still have as much wealth as the median earner in the bottom 50% has today.
Also, have you ever been unemployed? it's great for like a week and then it becomes unbearable. Why would masses of people choose that when work would be incentivized by the improvement of life for themselves and everyone else? Common sense.
@@trentbundy2296 Read what I wrote, which provides the reason why wealth is so concentrated and so many people are never able to raise themselves out of poverty.
there are so many assumptions and logical fallacy’s in this video. the predominant one is that income is the only incentive to produce. i also watched the video on ethics and wondered how these two videos interact in relation to ethics, care, “the good,” and religious teaching of giving to the poor without incentive. what does that mean for society? and who is asking for “exact” equal distribution of wealth anyway???
@@dudebros6122 I agree we shouldn't have to pay some malign fat tick who profits off of our hard work.
Rent should be criminalized. Rent collection regularly robs working class of far more of their money than taxes, which provide government services, that we, in a democracy, vote on and pay for. We all need shelter and housing. We could easily create a system that provided housing in such a way everyone could own their own place, instead we have created a system that allows fat ticks to do nothing but suck money from hard working Americans because the fat tick happens to own a property.
Abolish rent, it's redistribution to lazy eaters who profit off the working man.
Whatever happened to the saying of "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Thanks, God bless.
If the man can’t afford a pole to fish with, is the knowledge of fishing really all that important.
@@joshuanewman5988 Nope, you steal it from a liberal politician
Where did free and low cost college tuition go?
We don't teach men to fish anymore because of regulatory capture and the marketization and commodification of higher education.
Rich people are the cause not the solution.
You do realize it requires a license to fish. Who can afford to fish? And, if Robinhood is an example, the king killed poachers, so ..
There is some incentive to earn more in that better paying jobs are often easier. At least for us regular middle class people.
Haha, better paying jobs are easier? I guess you don't know your boss, or boss' jobs very well. Very low resolution thinking. From a low paid schmuks frame of reference maybe.
Thomas Sowell goes through the data of this very well.
Every time welfare was increased, poverty increased with it. Unemployment increased with it. Single motherhood increased with it.
Its a bad system. It needs to go.
Love Art Laffer. Very smart man. See: The Laffer Curve. Macroeconomics 101.
This would be a great video if productivity, and thus income, was the most important factor in actually making people happy. But the psychological research is very clear, income is just one among *many* factors that makes someone happy and *not* the biggest. Good relationships are what make people happy. And unfortunately vast income inequality is an antagonist to good relationships in a society.
You are over-rationalizing things...and contradicting yourself!
@@danielohara415 nuance, my good sir. There is no contradiction.
It's not income inequality that's the enemy, it's not having any income to be able to take time off. lack of time is the issue not income inequality. If someone wants more time they need to make more money and that can easily be done by learning one's own innate value and what they provide well for others, and charging for that.
@@queengoblin why does everything go back to charging people money?
@@soccerboy7jqcool capitalist realism.
These poor fools take market relations to be the norm, rather than an aberration of history.
There are no friends anymore, just people you should monetize.
Same argument could be made for corporate bail outs. The more the government steps in to bail out a mega corporation. The less incentive they have to actually produce competitive products. You're going to get a lot of corporations not being competitive in the market.
Agreed
Agreed, they destroy the entire concept of a "free" market. The problem is they know a bailout comes because they have become so massive and effect the overall health of the economy, when they fail, it would crush the working class economy. The government at that point has no option but to bail them out. The worst are the banks who take other peoples money and play high risk trades and profit billions.
But also the less incentive they have to be risky. So I think it's a balance.
@@henryspragge The step in precisely because they failed in thore risk taking.
@@kimobrien. I don't understand what you're saying
Interesting. What should happen to handicap people then? Those who cant physically work?
So fellas we take the IRS out of the equation.... Next speech
If you aren't worth a millionaire the IRS does more good for you than bad.
I don't care how much other people's incomes are. And I also think nobody else is entitled to any of my income.
If my money is taken without my explicit consent, it's theft.
I agree, which is why I live in a democracy, vote for my representatives, and pay taxes happily.
My consent is constantly invalidated by rent though. I do not freely consent to rent. It is under duress. I need a roof and the regulatory capture of large landlords prevents the construction of property that I could buy and afford.
Given the popularity of this video, the whole series should be uploaded here on youtube as a playlist.
They can't do that because then people wouldn't redistribute their money to them
@@AltrTheEgo I took the course on their site and it's free
@KlintWithA-K Charachorder ah I stand corrected haha, though it is a psychology device and rather smart one at that for them to have the entire subject linked to an outside source, whether free or not haha
@@AltrTheEgo lol you're good. The trailer has over a million views, so my guess is that there would be more viewers if they just post the whole could here instead of requiring people to go to their site and make an account. :) Have you taken it yet? It's a fascinating class.
@KlintWithA-K Charachorder no I haven't, I have seen a bunch of the trailers and looked up hillsdale and taken some of their polls and to me it seems very blatant some of the points they try to force you to comply with(one poll didn't give any options other than "Hey you're wrong" about if you believe in the electoral college being inherently inadequate for representing the American people)
It all seems highly partisan and leaves out information(at least in the trailers) to give a shallow understanding of certain topics with so much informational holes that you want to dive deeper. Then the time investment makes you more likely to agree with/not want to fact check information. It's a tactic that a lot of left and right wing lobbyist/propagandists use and I tend to try to stay away from those sort of psychological red flags haha 😅 I generally stay away from MSM and corporate influences. Look at the donors and you get a sneak peek and see what they are trying to sell, ya know?
Great course. Should be REQUIRED for every high school and college student. I learned so much about capitalism and why we should defend it.
The sad thing is that capitalism has become a normalized thing to hate on the internet. People think socialism is an innocent and acceptable system without knowing the facts behind it.
The theorem presented neglects the effect of emigration: that is the most productive people move from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax jurisdiction. I am in the intellectual property business and can operate anywhere in the world with rule of law and good communications. Why pay 60% tax when I can move and pay 10% tax?
Can you operate from the moon?
I'll listen to what this guy has to say, just as soon as I see proof that he's ever held a shovel in his life.
How is that relevant?
What 😂
Stop being a Silly. Art Laffer is one of the most preeminent Economists . He was one of the chief architects of the Reagan fix of what Carter caused
We saw this effect during the "pandemic" by redistributing wealth on a massive scale. Many people left the workforce and now we have a shortage of productive people. Many people who were in business were shut down and eventually went out of business or were forced to go into debt to survive. Some returned to the marketplace; some did not. I semi-retired but decided to go into contractual work.
Most of that redistribution went to the top 1% who became far more wealthy during the pandemic.
@@LMYS5697 Which is why we in the U.S. need a much more progressive (and simply to comply with) individual income tax structure. My idea: exempt all individual incomes up to the national median. Eliminate all other exemptions and deductions. Above the exempt level, impose an increasing rate of taxation on higher ranges of income. This system will greatly reduce taxation of wages and shift the burden of taxation to income derived from speculation and competition-limiting licenses.
How much production do you want? What happens when you are talking about fiat instead of gold? How long can it be sustained without causing damage? What things can be purchased with the redistributed currency? Was the same currency taken as given?
You are fighting the truth! More production increases prosperity and makes life easier, a good thing...except to perverse liberals believing in a climate change hoax!
What does the same currency have to do with anything! Do you have a cell phone, a computer, a reliable car? Why don't you go without those things then?
@@danielohara415 You sidestepped what he said
We get more production through bottom up economy. Rich don't spend their wealth. Poor do. It's well known and established that things like SNAP/food stamps creates something like $1.50 of growth in the economy for every dollar spent in the program.
It's also just logic. If I give one man 50 million and fifty men one million, the fifty are more likely to spend a greater share of that money back into the economy, creating economic growth.
What did I just listen to?! These guys just tried to convince me that income inequality is the key to more income 😂 I guess that is true for them!!!
Yep, more for themselves and less for everyone else is fair to them till the tables turn.
These are the same types of people that say that there shouldn't be a minimum wage. Just increase your skill set (they say) and you are GUARANTEED to get a raise, promotion and/or better higher paying job. Yea, sorry, the REAL World doesn't always work that way.
More income overall, yes. The problem ISN'T income inequality (I don't measure myself against my neighbor), but rather, how relatively poor the poorest in our society is. It's not that we should lift the poor up to become billionaires, it's that we should help the poor help THEMSELVES out of poverty.
@@socl6534 Yes it does. You increase your own value, you simultaneously need to find a market (employer) who will value you for your increased skills. It appears you're in a camp of people who stupidly think by merely getting an education (for example: english literature degrees) you should instantly be paid more. You have to be sure the skills and education you're gaining are MARKETABLE, meaning, you need to find a market/employer who will value your increased skillset. That is your responsibility.
@@swesleyc7 That's you whole problem putting everything up for sale and in a market for the highest bidder.
No problem to help those in need, this has been going on forever but this should never be a governmental mandate, ever.
I have a democrat friend, yes, one, who says this isn’t true. I told him I’m a prime example, have worked for several decades, would quit right now if I got paid not to work.
Not a hard concept to grasp but there is plenty of folks who can't seem to grasp it
They’re driven by emotion
Envy resentment bitterness, they don’t want to understand or grasp it
The issue is that it may appeal to common sense, but you need actual evidence for these claims. You need logic and facts. His initial argument is neither logically correct nor empirically correct. "Whenever you redistribute income, you reduce total income" is his first, main argument. Lets look at it logically. What is redistribution of income? It is the reallocation of income generated, which means that on its own it can never cause a change in the amount of income generated. You need more arguments which would show that in no case does the effect of redistribution of income lead to equal or increased income generated.
Lets use his own style of common sense logic, when you increase the tax of a company they have a greater incentive to invest in their company so as to increase that companies income in face of the reduced specific income of that company, and to in general have more expenses be business expenses so as to write them off.
@@IonaOrr One class produces the other class does not. One controls the national government and the national bank. The other doesn't
Thank you!
I encourage you all to donate to Hillsdale College. I watched this particular one twice. it was so interesting and eye opening
I would sooner donate my money to a 🔥 pit, at least that would smell good.
And what seems to have been left out is the added cost of the bureaucracy.
Let's say we take $100. If the cost of the bureaucracy is 10%, then we will only give out $90.
You realize private industry also has bureaucracy, and a profit motive?
Whatever the government can do @ 10% loss to bureaus companies can do @ 25% of loss for bureau and profit.
The government is always inefficient with money that isn't their (yours). Charity is the best way to help the poor (person to person), not mandated welfare.
I remember a charity for vets that had a 95% overhead. That seems really efficient. 🤔🤔🤔
@@ENetArch I called the BBB about a scam charity that phoned me and was told they give 6% to the cause and keep the rest claiming expenses.
A true charity can be quite efficient if it is not just a way to pay salaries.
@@ny1t Instead of beggars at the market. Capitalism creates a market for beggars.
The fallacy in this argument is that government spending does not, and never has, relied on "taking" from anybody.
The government can only take from someone. The government creates nothing. It manufactures nothing. Any money the government has, it took away from someone. Under the threat of violence and imprisonment.
If high taxation reduces the incentive to produce and the production why the US had the highest growth and development during the period of high taxation?
The problem is that the wealthy want the lower income to think they are the job creators. This myth was busted during the pandemic, when there was no job growth or innovation. The real job creators are the middle class, as they have all the innovative ideas, but not the means to produce their products at scale.
It has not. Ever.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 1945 1970. and even before the war.
Check it out.
Re-distribution is criminal… it is thief…
What Art Laffer could never bring himself to accept is the fact our system of law embraces and protects the redistribution of wealth from those who produce goods to those who enjoy rent-seeking privileges. Economists would do well to spend some time reading (or rereading if they ever read) their predecessor political economists. Much is to be learned by reading what A.R. Jacques Turgot or Adam Smith wrote on the distribution of wealth to the three factors of production. Those who manage to gain legal title or control to nature are able to take without producing.
😯🤔
based landpilled georgist
Funny video, it's like highschool lvl econ... and then you get more into the actuall reality of it all instead of just random smartass arguing.
I dont think I actually ever heard anyone except them saying that redistribution is about taking money to give to someone else "directly"... it is usually thought of, to my knowledge, as funding indirect policies to actually provide people to even be able to work and make a living, similarly to the new deal.
Not that I am a keynesian but taking demand-side econ into account is still important as well as the older Say's supply side.
I got an ad for this neoliberal propoganda that completely ignores the keynesian economic model the US adopted after WWII: the same model that resulted in wealth inequality being the lowest in US history, the same model that ended hunger in America, the same model that allowed for affordable college and middle class jobs straight out of high school, the same model that redistributed wealth in the form of wages and social programs and not gifts. And stop framing the redistribution of wealth as an upper working class vs lower working class issue. This is a proletariat vs bourgeois issue.
Why was the US been so prosperous when it adopted keynesian economics if it discouraged people not to work (your words, not mine)? Why is the US continuously failing to address its own people's need for food, housing, fair wages, etc ever since it adopted neoliberalism?
Stagflation killed Keynes, though it was not a product of Keynes. Unfortunately traditional Keynesian economics did not foresee or have an explanation for Stagflation.
Beyond that the gutting of unions did insurmountable damage as well
He is right- Art Laffer makes it make sense-
This only makes sense if the sole reason people work, or don't work, is for money, rather than other motivations to work like duty, motivation, identity, conscientiousness, ethics, pride, civic duty, self-expression, autonomy, helping others, the satisfaction of producing something etc etc
Its interesting that the rich are considered job creators, yet recent history has shown that the rich are not job creators, but instead wait while job creators have spent their life savings building an idea only to swoop in and buy it for pennies, then send it off shore to be mass produced. The real job creators are the middle and poor who have the ideas but not the means to execute it or scale it.
When was the last time you were HIRED by a POOR person? Huuuummmm? NEVER! because they cannot PAY YOU!
@@MAX3D2, actually i was a dishwasher for a restaurant for several yrs. The owner took his 180k and invested in his dream job. He wasnt a billionare, just a regular class person. 5hose people create jobs, create new products, create communities. Billionares dont. They buy them.
@@MAX3D2 an inventor of a new product doesnt need to be rich to have a community invest in his product.
@@MAX3D2happens all the time over seas usually a group creating a solution to a problem in their society, and when it takes off give it a few years Corporation X catches wind of it and buys the idea from them and profits off it.
@@ENetArch That is very true. Which is something I really like about crowdfunding. Sadly China has picked up on this and is using it to their advantage. There are whole towns in China dedicated to creating knock-off products and stealing ideas from people and large companies. Many times they steal these ideas from crowdfunding websites. Almost every home and family member in these towns has a role in the creation of the final product right down to the packaging and distribution. A few years ago I wanted to buy an ACOG for my SCAR 17H but the price was very expensive. I found a place online where I could buy an ACOG for a reasonable price. After doing some research I found out these scopes were knock-offs. I went to a local gun dealer that actually had both at his store. Even he was fooled and bought a few of the knockoffs. From the outside, these scopes look better than the real scopes. I am a big fan of crowdfunding but nothing can be done to force the Chinese government into obeying international patent laws or obeying any law for that matter. This was another reason I was opposed to the Paris Climate Accord.
This is coming from a rich dude saying redistribution is a bad idea because he has money
The 3 richest people in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 50% combined. On top of that, the richest 1% owns ~50% of all wealth, while the bottom 50% of people own only 1-2% of all wealth. That means that even if a socialist U.S. economy were 96-98% less productive than it is today (and there is no reason to assume it would be, but even if it were), everyone could still have as much wealth as the median earner in the bottom 50% has today. It's common sense.
Also, have you ever been unemployed? it's great for like a week and then it becomes unbearable. Why would masses of people choose that when work would be incentivized by the improvement of life for themselves and everyone else? Common sense.
That assumes that all people are purely extrinsically motivated.
Also, if the recipient passes a certain threshold, the government will tax that money a second time.
Laffer is saying : get rich or die trying.
"You MO-RON, you are not to question my ORDERS! When I say JUMP, you JUMP! When I say FIGHT, you FIGHT! When I tell you to DIE for your COUNTRY, then you will certainly DIE! Have I made myself CLE-AR?"
I agree. Stop redistribution from the lower ses to the top
Correct. Thank You for telling the truth. The incentive for politicians to do and say the opposite grows with every person who willingly takes the bait.
This guy is selling you a bunch of lies lololol. Hillsdale is a mouthpiece for the rich & elites. That's why this is totally free. It's rich people propaganda, they are the ones paying for it, so they can inculcate in good little workers the idea that workers don't deserve more. Because you haven't earned it like they did, by being born into wealth and connections.
@@LMYS5697 if you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you attach a penalty to something, you get less of it. subsidies green light unwed mothers…and penalize the fathers of the very children corrupt politicians were actually bold enough to attach a monetary value to. You may be okay with that type of $#;+, But people who are willing to hate God show up in the most unlikely places…Like in the sacredness of one of God’s holy creations, the Family. WHY do they do that, you may ask? Well it ain’t all the good intentions they’re always a-bragging about…noooo, that’s not it. it’s because they hate God…. And to show Him just how much they hate Him, they’re willing to destroy everything He holds sacred.
“A word to the wise ain’t necessary. It’s the stupid ones that need the advice.” -Bill Cosby
What happened to Bill Cosby?
@@dongkwon1242Prison and disgrace.
I love this throwback 80s propaganda. Nostalgic in it's own way..
😵
Reaganomics. We tried this already, it didn't work. I'm not a Commie but what the guy in this vid is talking about just doesn't work.
This video is perfect for people who put zero effort into thinking things through
Great work Arthur! Scooby snacks for you.
My allegiance is to Liberty, the Repubic and Democracy.
Dumb nonsense as well.
Its a rigged game.
I ask everyone “Do you enjoy paying ever higher taxes, exorbitant gas/diesel prices, groceries, utilities, property & income taxes then keep voting Democrat because that’s what you’ll get”… More of the same.
What folks like the guy in this video won't mention is that we could shift taxes from labour and capital onto land value - this would not reduce productivity or total income, it would increase both.
@@smartiepancake incorrect
@@kevinblackburn3198 Kevin has spoken
We are the biggest exporter of inflation and when those dollars come back well, you know what's next.Wheel barrell of dollars for a loaf of bread.
@@smartiepancake abolish rentism, lower property taxes to almost nothing on property under $1m, increase the income tax on anything over $5m to 90%, tax CG as income, lower income tax to 0 on anything under 50k.
Good clip. Have noticed that Dr. Laffer resembles Al Franken.
Cause trickle down economics worked so well.
Since Reagan and supply-side economics wealth has under gone a radical redistribution upward. The two wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans. Democracy can not survive in this environment.
This Republic survives because of capitalism, not crony capitalism. What does Elon Musk or Bill Gates owe to you for their success? NOTHING! They owe you ZERO or anyone else NOTHING! If you do not like the rich then don't contribute your hard-earned money to make them rich. YOU could invent a product or provide a service that would make you millions or billions of dollars. How much would YOU give to support a socialist society? 50%, 75%, 90%? I certainly do not think they if you were rich that you would be so quick to give up your hard-earned money! If people would strive to build a better life for themselves rather than depend on someone else to solve their problems. Maybe if people would stop voting for scumbag corrupt politicians who do nothing but get rich off of the American people we would not have the following criminals. Nasty Pelosi, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the LONG LIST of dirtbags.
Let's start by redistributing grades in college...take grades given to students that have worked hard and give them to students that skip class. That would stop this BS immediately.
It’s been done already. There are at least 2 RUclips videos on this. Everyone got the same grade, the average of all students. What happened? The ENTIRE CLASS FAILED. The lazy bums made no effort since the smart kids would carry all the weight. And the smart kids realized it was a waste of their time and effort to work hard to get a mediocre grade. So no one tried.
Thank God we're still free enough for these kinds of videos to be found online. Because these kids that are indoctrinated in our schools at least have a chance to learn the economic truth before they spend their entire lives in some form of slavery to the State.
This video was paid for by a CEO who wants to take уοur retirement account to help buy a third yacht.
Yes it’s worming out just as Obama said it would. He said it would take time for
everyone to move to where they should be. Thank you, democrats for not defending our country but defunding our country.
What about multi-millionaires and billionaires - the wealthy? What about capital gains and dividends? Stock buybacks? Too many generalization and assumptions. Show me the numbers Art!
First off, I completely agree with everything in this video... But... yeah there's a but... In the general sense this is true, but in the specific case it may not be, and it depends on what you consider "income". If there is a person with a medical disability preventing them from working, and you tax everyone just a little so that they can pay for this person's medication, such that this person is now able to work, then that redistribution of income actually INCREASES the average income. Note that what we didn't do is give this person money as income. We gave them medicine as income, and specifically because they have a medical condition that would be solved by that medicine. This exception to the rules specified in the video do not negate the rules. They are simply an exception, and there are many exceptions. So the key is understanding when, where, and how to apply the exceptions, and that is the difficult problem. Extremely difficult. I don't know the solution to poverty, but I know there is one. And I also know that the solution is NOT the welfare system we have today and is not just giving people free money. I recommend we come up with 50 different ideas and implement each in 50 different states and 20 years from now go back and see what is or isn't working, then end all the programs, and iterate on the problem again, until we have solutions that work.
What you describe is not redistribution of income, it's social welfare, like free education.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 You say potAto, I say pOtato. If you tax the rich to give free education to the poor, that can be considered redistribution of income. Like I said, depends on what you consider income...
Okay so clearly you don't consider it redistribution... let's blur those lines...
What if instead of buying this person medicine so they could get healthy enough to work, what if we bought this person a car so they could drive to work, because they had no car and thus couldn't get afford to get to work, catch-22? Is THAT social welfare and not distribution of income? And what if we just gave this person money, so they could buy a car, clothes, an education, and pay rent, so that in the future they could work when their education is complete? Is THAT just social welfare or is it redistribution of income?
From some people's perspective, any time you take someone's income, in the form of taxes, and distribute it to others, even for a good cause like social welfare, they consider that redistribution of income. In fact, I am pretty sure the person in this video would see it that way too.
@@TheNativeTwo Blah, blah, blah. Words have meanings. Redistribution of income is taking income from some people and redistributing it as income to others. Levying a tax and using it to pay for schools or roads or courts or military defense is not redistribution of income.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 You completely misunderstood the point of this video... LOL. "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your ignorance." -Thomas Sowell.
People like you think you know all the answers but simply don't know enough to realize the extent of your ignorance. Here, I did one simple search for the definition of redistribution of income:
"Redistribution of income and wealth is the transfer of income and wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others through a social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation, divorce or tort law."
By this definition, and the definition accepted by most everyone else, taxes and welfare is 100% redistribution of income. Like I said, you completely misunderstood the video. Sad.
PERFECT
Compelling ! 👍
So, genuine question, is he saying if no one makes money there's no incentive to work? What about people who do things they love doing for free? I'm genuinely curious, I either misunderstood his conclusion or he doesn't understand intrinsic motivation.
He leaves out the fact that people forced to work jobs they hate don't WANT to work, while people working jobs they love DO want to work. So yeah by redistributing wealth you'll be stealing from the people who want to work, which crushes their spirit.
The question should be what do we do about the poor who don’t want to work? Which redistribution attempts to answer. This guy just ignores the poor who don’t want to work and says “redistribution doesn’t work”. Ok yes agreed so what’s the solution to poverty?
If you can’t answer that, which is the real question, no solution will be found that makes anyone happy. We’ll either end up with a demoralized, apathetic and soulless society of once-bright people who loved life, and everyone is equally miserable. Or we’ll end up with a society of massive inequality, where only the ones who provide the most value make the most money and those at the bottom are left to starve and rot, despite their innate skill and ability to be useful, due to lack of opportunity.
Poverty needs a solution that isn’t redistribution of good workers money, but what is that solution?
Look up keynesian ecnomics. The US adopted it after WWII before adopting our current economic model, neoliberalism, during the reagan era.
@@squidbombproductions1106 Thank you so much for the answer!!!!!
There are 11 types of homeless, just to start. As for those there is a group who doesnt want to work, and another that dont want to be part of society. Unfortunately, both groups still rely on society to support them. As, the level of basic social services increases due to automation, these groups become more independent, ironically.
Exactly right we need a100percent tax on inheritance.If you know you're going to inherit a lot of money what incentive is there to work or contribute to society.
The issue with this video is that it portrays the redistribution being from the common man to the poor for equal outcome, instead of the ACTUAL redistribution theory of utilizing taxes for equality of OPPORTUNITY by using high taxes on the wealthy(far wealthier than the average engineer, doctor, skilled worker let alone the most common/lower capped salary jobs) to subsidize the costs of average citiziens and provide a safety net so that one bad medical bill doesnt bankrupt a family(40% of US families are that close to poverty, even in periods with the lowest unemployment rates debunking the thought high amounts of people working drives average income up) everyone can utilize transportation for job opportunities outside of impoverished communities to bring more income to those communities, we dont have to spend extra money on food, tutors or private education with our children recieving quality education and care, therefore quality opportunities, no matter which public school they go to, the average family doesnt have to live paycheck to paycheck paying for pre-k/daycare since both parents need to work to afford rent and utilities, and our working class be embolstered to pursue opportunities and risks they want to take since they aren't forced to stay at a big business for healthcare, retirement funds, and other perks that should be given to people to maintain their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Unfortunately the super wealthy(hello Hillsdale) try to pin this as a "common man vs the poor" argument instead of what it actually is, the wealthy disciplining the common man to keep them from leaving their shareholder-oriented company. With social safety nets, they have to offer more to the worker to keep them in their company. This isnt just a theory but proven from other more social leaning countries, as well as the US' previous history. Before Reagan adopted trickle down economics for us, we had a tax rate of up to 90% for the wealthy(effective tax rate of around 50%), the largest middle class empowerment and size, union embolsterment, and we kept tabs on the US debt with the high amount of taxes coming in(we are the business/resource/consumer hotspot, businesses can't easily move out of the country without losing near everything they worked for). Tax cut atter tax cut we see the middle class dwindling, profits skyrocketing, and businesses laughing at the people that believe their billions of dollars spent on pro-big business propoganda.
Tl;dr Hillsdale is another profit-oriented group that wants to keep your children from having the best opportunities unless you can afford to send them to school there.
As one commenter pointed out, the speakers portrayal of the issue is at a level a 5 yr old can understand. This begs the question of how wel educated their students are, if they are coming from private educational institutions and attending a for profit private higher education institution.
the best description of the 'nanny state' / communism I've heard -Art Laffer is a Treasure
If you give money someone who doesn't have any money, they don't work more, but they cause other people to work more compared to the person with no money just dying from lack of money.
The US's Congressional Budget Office actually quantifies this effect with their estimate of fiscal multiplier with various types of government spending. Not surprising, really: poor people are more likely to spend money that you give to them, while rich people will just put it in the bank as they already have everything they need.
I think in 50s and 60s even though we had high taxes people produced more and now when we reduced the taxes they just getting rents on assets. So it's the other way around.
That's what you want us to believe, sure that their will be some, but you could say the same for the other side as well. Let's go with what you said, that's what we are dealing with currently. The gap is killing us now, and people regardless have a cost that we also can't afford. It's a fallacy that redistribution is a waste of time. Best wishes, and why should a hand full of people have more resources than everyone on the planet.
What do "redistributionists" have as their goal, their "vision"? They must realize that in a "redistributed" society they will be completely dominated by a very tiny minority who tell them not just what to do in their jobs, but in their personal lives as well.
Socialism given in small doses till it's too late to realize we are in communism.
This was an ad on my video. It was long and dumb. I had to come here to say that. Please put this guy in a suit that fits.
Is Redistribution whats really behind the recent blocking of Refuge's in Chicago by the Locals who now fear what must feel like a Replacement Move?
At the end ... If income equality was legislated, who would be incentivised to enforce it? Who would bother with all of that effort for no gain?
Why would you ever work a hard job when you would get the same results from doing an easy job? I mean if you own a small business and have to give up what you make so that someone who won't work or holds a crappy job can live as well as you do then why would you even try? Equity = Theft.
Income equality is being legislated.. the wages for a position post are required. Employers arent allowed to stop employees from discussing their wages. Employees can form unions to negotiate better wages, working conditions, health benefits, and such. And, ...
The problem with income redistribution isn't economic, it's educational, social and cultural. Why does half the US population believe in income redistribution? They are taught false econ theories in school, college and media. Politicians run on the promise of equality while living and planning their lives on a more than equal level of income. It's an appeal to the lowest mental capacity with the highest education level as its common denominator.
3:45. "None at all" "those who work, those who don't" this dude really loves his false dichotomies. Except for "someone with a little bit more, someone with a little bit less." A little? This is trash
The welfare bureaucracy eats up a huge amount of money doing something that produces nothing. No gain. Siphons productive possibilities from the economy. We all lose.
Pretty obvious to me. Never works out either.
Covid was a sneak peak at what happens if/when a universal basic income social program is legislated. People stay home, why work when the government will send you money either printed from deficit spending or taxed away from ambitious people who do work. Raising minimum wages isn’t the answer, that just pushes unskilled labour out of the workforce altogether hurting low income earners more. The challenge is to create incentives for workers to gain skills that employers are willing to pay more for that employment. There are no easy answers but there are poor choices for legislators, the road too often taken for political reasons.
Most people got around $3000 dollars in stimulus checks. Nobody can afford to stay home and not work on just $3000 dollars. Try to think about the problem and research it rather than having a kneejerk reaction: "Derp, Govinment give money, people no work, derp derp.."
@@amatingmind7258 It’s not a knee jerk reaction, it is economic fact. Improve your skills, improve your employment chances and renumeration.
It's Art Laffer! Mr. I'll bet Peter Schiff a penny! Loook it up, worth a laugh.
They are also doing redistribution through environmental regulations. I’m ready to quit producing food and just take it easy and live within my means. I’ll just ride the wave to the bottom and pray for my children’s future. . 😢
Don’t give up, the doom and gloom serves no one but your inner demons. Fight them to the death and help the world rise.
what about the redistribution upward from workin ppl to rich. i read once that for every 10 dollars in foodstamps there is a thousand in corporate welfare. seems whole thing here is a ruse to deceive public into receiving a more equitable distribution of wealth.
100% correct. Vary good example . Thank you.
Your really wright,this is the truth.not politician truth. A politician truth will not hold water. Everyone else truth will. (Hopefully) the truth will set you free.
Why not tax people who don't work and pay the people who do work?
It was called Leveling and it is unconstitutional
All of these theorems on redistribution and socialism miss one essential point. If these policies are taken to their ultimate, the end is violence. Always has been, always will be.
Says someone who has money.
Get a job, and you will have money.
Well, let me put it to you this way - On the subject of Money, would you rather listen to someone who has money or someone who does not have money? Hahahaha!
Says someone who’s guaranteed equality to do the same..
@@JSomerled Exactly! Hahahaha! Don't you love being an American?!
Says the sovereign being made of light, refusing to use her innate divine skills and talents to lift herself up out of poverty
Ethically speaking it should not matter what a wealthy person does with his money. It is his he earned it he should do what he wants with it. If he wants to wipe his butt with $100 bill so be it he should not have to make an argument that he will use it more virtuously than the poor person you would re-distribute to. Because taking something from somebody and giving it to another with force i.e., the full power of the federal government is just plain wrong.
that's funny
YES, YES, YES!
That is not true in all case. Things was not shared with the people who did not have an equal opportunity once slavery was over. Don't have to be exactly the same blacks was never given their share of the money with all the work done for Free. So how fair that. And what they are saying is crazy same about of cotton produced they never made a single dime.
What
@@queengoblin They are playing the victim card as usual.
If composit government (all levels: federal, state, and local) in terms revenue and borrowing holds a resource of 115T, and if IRS declared Adjusted Gross Income was 116T, and if the basic understanding is that government exists to promote the general welfare in the US Constitution's Preamble, isnt part of an anti-equity and equity stance/platform tap dance cleverly around basic economic reality? Who gains a value nearly as large as declared income (individual and corporate, etc) through and from government? See: OMB Historical Budget Numbers, Flow of Funds by the Federal Reserve, and State and Local revenues at the Tax Policy Center. From memory (2000-14, but rounded). 34T Federal Revenue, 32.455T State and Local Revenue, Federal Direct Borrowing 38.562T, State and Local Direct Borrowing 4.2532T. And ignoring 15+T in Mortgage Backed Securities, there's 2.8836T in Debt Securities (additional debt financing), and 2.8482T in Federal Enterprise borrowing. Add it up!
Redistribution is effectively making the income earner a slave.