Act Free no they would not. A fair tax is 100% equality for all. Everyone would pay the exact same percentage. Those who make more would contribute more and vise versa.
But for people who barely make enough to get ends meet that taxation would be hurting more than helping them, & those jobs are usually the ones that usually contribute the most to society, but not much monetarily. An example of this is garbage collection, who just make enough to afford the cost of living, but if forces to pay any form of tax would damage them more than help. Yet they're the ones that take away our waste & help with neighborhood sanitation.
Even if you're a super small business or self employed (1099 recipient) you can take advantage of write offs to reduce your profit and pay less in taxes. Yes, the laws favor the rich but even the little business person can take some. Why not take all you're allowed? I wrote this book, "radically simple accounting", about how to setup an accounting system, what are the deductions, and the price of the book is a deduction too. Because some of taking those write offs is about having a system for organizing information.
Great logic, cause they stole less of Bobs money, the gave him some. NO, they stole less. It's obvious that entrepreneurs can handle money way better than the state, therefore were they to pay less taxes, they can expand more by creating new jobs, giving more people employment and in turn boosting the economy and reducing poverty while generating as much or more money in taxes. Oh, and the regular guy gets a break too buy keeping more of his hard-earned money. It's so simple.
here's food for thought the endowment of some of the top us universities ' is more than GDP of some countries and all of it's tax free why don't the government tax them even at bare minimum level and use those taxes to fund state college systems
You clearly know nothing about the economy, maths or statistics. I suggest you to read the book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Then read all the rest of his books.
This video helps prove leftists are communists that have no understanding, regard or respect for private property. 1:27 "Even if you make the argument that it's about getting your own money back, well then why do we let home owners get their money back but not renters? Why don't we subsidize people who give their time to charities, but we only subsidize people who give money?" Because home owners own the home, and renters do not. The one who owns the rental gets money back because he owns the property. Renters should be working toward not being renters, owning assets and property and becoming home owners so they can do the same eventually, and if they don't want to, then that's on them, but that's how it works. And for charities, people who give time are called "volunteers", and they didn't give property like the people who gave money, called "donors", which is what really makes an organization function. Also, instead of forcing Bob to hand over more of the money he earned to government so they can give it to people who didn't earn it, let everyone else pay less like Bob does and keep their money where it belongs - in the hands of the ones who earn it. C'mon, people, think a little. This isn't difficult stuff...
The average effective tax rate of individuals making the average income ($50K) is 9%...that's less then 30%. Not saying we shouldn't end deductions/credits, ideally they are removed evenly from all income levels & corporations. We should also increase taxes on the lower income levels, not decrease them. Too many people pay nothing & have no skin in the game.
The government is not loosing money from tax breaks. The whole point of those tax breaks is to encourage business owners to stay. The 15% revenue is far better than the 0% revenue, not to mention the jobs that are created from them having income to invest. What should be more alarming is not that millionaires pay 15% their income, but that regular joes pay 30% that's crazy! This video is incredibly deceiving, especially the graph of tax deductions. Also I think I've seen this video before, is it just me or does vice just re-release old content?
Trickle-down economics is a farce. We've had over 3 decades to learn this very simple lesson. If you aren't on board yet, you are willfully ignorant and objectively dumb.
Let's see... tax breaks for big business to encourage them to stay here, presumably to create jobs (which *you* yourself alluded to, ironically enough), thereby creating further tax revenue for the state... Sorry, this simply *screams* trickle-down economics. In fact, it's a very worn-out argument we've heard time and again since the Reagan era. Get with the times and learn to recognize neoliberal trickle-down bullshit when you hear it.
No economist ever has ever put forward a trickle down theory. It is used as a bogeyman by people who hate the rich. And again, would people be better off with less jobs created or more?
You might be right though, I mean having insanely high taxes on the rich did nothing bad at all to the uk in the 70's, in fact it didn't lead to thatcher and nobody suffered at all
Youshizzle its most definitely fair. 1st off the poor don’t pay taxes. So why would they have tax breaks. Lol....The lower middle class pays minimal taxes. It’s based off common sense. If your economic status is categorized as poor you shouldn’t get 66%pension tax break,73%mortgage interest tax break,84%charity tax break,93%capital gains tax break. Can you see the common sense logic here! I think taxation is theft myself and basically government extortion. Why should anyone be forced to give up a portion of their earnings which is their personal property for causes they may not necessarily agree to.
Flat taxes are regressive. An equivalent percentage of tax on income affects the wealthy disproportionately less than it would the poor. What's 15-20% to you when you have so much money that it has no bearing on your overall well-being anyway, vs. 15-20% when you're struggling to pay your rent and feed your kids. It's pretty easy to see. A flat tax would solve none of our problems. And given the recent revelations of money laundering scandals, high-profile financial crimes, the Panama/Paradise papers, etc., don't try to pretend that the wealthy wouldn't figure out a way to shuffle their money around so they can under-report their income and, once again, pay less effective tax than the rest of us, even it it's "flat" and "fair".
Jubilant Lienal Labile Song you can't do a deal without a us company involved in some way. Wich in one way or another adds to the us economy. Better economy=higher standard of living. Thou the us lacks far behind in in social aspects because of the shity isolationist ideals
Nah, in the 2008 crash the bankers had to carry most of the weight of the crash. They carried all those big heavy bonus checks of 20+ million dollars, all the way to the bank.
this video definitely raises some questions. The biggest one imo, is it bad to incentivize people from getting rich? If yes, then whats the benefit of giving more tax breaks for the poor? aren't you then incentivizing people to stay poor or de-motivating people from getting rich?
Vitticent145 i think its about time to stop dreaming about becoming rich and for society to make other things desirable. Being humble and making the world a better place for all of us should be the dream to work towards.
Just thinks for a second, if I have to go work 80 hours plus, then gets taxed so much that I can barely pay my bills, then why would I work? I would rather work under the table, move out of the country, resort to crime or go homeless.
Increasing marginal tax rates never incentives people to stay poor, as you are always getting more money even if you are paying more taxes. At no point do you ever get paid more but earn less after taxes. There are theoretical ways that the government where the government is incentivizing people to stay poor, but this is in terms of government benefits. So, if you are very poor and especially if you live in a high cost area there are times where earn more can make you worse off. Ei, if you have a part time job and get housing subsidies, food stamps, child care and medical care through the government, some times, getting a better full time job can make you worse off. Though the biggest one for the negative incentive is unemployment, as if you lose a good job and can only get a job that pays way less, you can't take that job and improve your self or you will earn less money then not working. What we should do is allow people to kept 50% of their unemployment until 90% of their past income for the time unemployment lasts. Example, if someone earned 100K (because it is a easy number to work with), they get $55K from unemployment, they can then find work earning $50K. To take that job with the current unemployment system would be insane, work 40 hours week for -$5000 a year... But if we allowed people to keep 1/2, taking that job would mean they earn $50K, and their unemployment drops by $25K, but their net income goes to $80K, while the government saves $25K, there is more productivity and less unemployment.
That would incentivize people to work in jobs that are temporary/seasonal but pay more, (i.e. what seasonal workers do in canada so they can live off unemployment insurance during off seasons). And this still doesn't address the problem of low wage trade employees who would make more by working under the table than working at a company for a shit pay that then gets taxed.
Stop taxing the rich, just eat them
If you want equality, pass a flat tax where every American pays the same percentage with no deductions.
Except this is a great way to make the poor pay proportionally more money.
Flat tax is fair. It works better than million deductions.
Act Free no they would not. A fair tax is 100% equality for all. Everyone would pay the exact same percentage. Those who make more would contribute more and vise versa.
Equality is not justice.
But for people who barely make enough to get ends meet that taxation would be hurting more than helping them, & those jobs are usually the ones that usually contribute the most to society, but not much monetarily. An example of this is garbage collection, who just make enough to afford the cost of living, but if forces to pay any form of tax would damage them more than help. Yet they're the ones that take away our waste & help with neighborhood sanitation.
Does anyone talk about a federal consumption tax as a viable alternative anymore?
Even if you're a super small business or self employed (1099 recipient) you can take advantage of write offs to reduce your profit and pay less in taxes. Yes, the laws favor the rich but even the little business person can take some. Why not take all you're allowed? I wrote this book, "radically simple accounting", about how to setup an accounting system, what are the deductions, and the price of the book is a deduction too. Because some of taking those write offs is about having a system for organizing information.
never saw the point of shilling for the rich. they make enough cash to live in luxury, you should focus on helping the middle class
STEALING LESS MONEY IS NOT A GIFT!
abolish ALL taxes
The government did not give him money he made money with the business. So don't act like the government is giving him free money
What the video is saying is that money should be the government because he is a citizen of the USA and has to pay taxes just like everyone else
No what its saying is they should be able to rob more of his income. TAXATION IS THEFT
if that's the case why do the rich get frisked, while the poor get held at gun point?
steers182 how would we do anything without taxes
because I am not paying for your roads, school for your kids, your hospital, or your life then
Great logic, cause they stole less of Bobs money, the gave him some. NO, they stole less. It's obvious that entrepreneurs can handle money way better than the state, therefore were they to pay less taxes, they can expand more by creating new jobs, giving more people employment and in turn boosting the economy and reducing poverty while generating as much or more money in taxes. Oh, and the regular guy gets a break too buy keeping more of his hard-earned money. It's so simple.
And people wonder why America is in so much debt!
Facebook only pays a 4% tax
Loses ?
here's food for thought
the endowment of some of the top us universities ' is more than GDP of some countries and all of it's tax free why don't the government tax them even at bare minimum level and use those taxes to fund state college systems
DO WE WANT TAX CUTS OR WHAT? MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!!!!
You clearly know nothing about the economy, maths or statistics. I suggest you to read the book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Then read all the rest of his books.
I love this, we let them keep the money they earned so in essence the government GAVE them money.
I know, I was going to steal your car, the one you earned and paid for your self, but I didn't, so you should thank me for giving you your car
boooooooo! boooooo!
This video helps prove leftists are communists that have no understanding, regard or respect for private property. 1:27 "Even if you make the argument that it's about getting your own money back, well then why do we let home owners get their money back but not renters? Why don't we subsidize people who give their time to charities, but we only subsidize people who give money?" Because home owners own the home, and renters do not. The one who owns the rental gets money back because he owns the property. Renters should be working toward not being renters, owning assets and property and becoming home owners so they can do the same eventually, and if they don't want to, then that's on them, but that's how it works. And for charities, people who give time are called "volunteers", and they didn't give property like the people who gave money, called "donors", which is what really makes an organization function. Also, instead of forcing Bob to hand over more of the money he earned to government so they can give it to people who didn't earn it, let everyone else pay less like Bob does and keep their money where it belongs - in the hands of the ones who earn it. C'mon, people, think a little. This isn't difficult stuff...
The average effective tax rate of individuals making the average income ($50K) is 9%...that's less then 30%.
Not saying we shouldn't end deductions/credits, ideally they are removed evenly from all income levels & corporations. We should also increase taxes on the lower income levels, not decrease them. Too many people pay nothing & have no skin in the game.
Um, it's higher than 9%.
"Just 15%" sounds reasonable to me, imagine if he had to hand over more, 20-30% for what?
The government is not loosing money from tax breaks. The whole point of those tax breaks is to encourage business owners to stay. The 15% revenue is far better than the 0% revenue, not to mention the jobs that are created from them having income to invest. What should be more alarming is not that millionaires pay 15% their income, but that regular joes pay 30% that's crazy!
This video is incredibly deceiving, especially the graph of tax deductions.
Also I think I've seen this video before, is it just me or does vice just re-release old content?
Trickle-down economics is a farce. We've had over 3 decades to learn this very simple lesson. If you aren't on board yet, you are willfully ignorant and objectively dumb.
At no point did the comment you responded to mention anything trickling down. Are you saying that people would be better off if jobs were not created?
Let's see... tax breaks for big business to encourage them to stay here, presumably to create jobs (which *you* yourself alluded to, ironically enough), thereby creating further tax revenue for the state... Sorry, this simply *screams* trickle-down economics. In fact, it's a very worn-out argument we've heard time and again since the Reagan era. Get with the times and learn to recognize neoliberal trickle-down bullshit when you hear it.
No economist ever has ever put forward a trickle down theory. It is used as a bogeyman by people who hate the rich. And again, would people be better off with less jobs created or more?
You might be right though, I mean having insanely high taxes on the rich did nothing bad at all to the uk in the 70's, in fact it didn't lead to thatcher and nobody suffered at all
Pause at 1:11 and if you think that's unfair 👍upvote; if you think it is fair then comment on this comment why you believe it to be so -
Youshizzle its most definitely fair. 1st off the poor don’t pay taxes. So why would they have tax breaks. Lol....The lower middle class pays minimal taxes. It’s based off common sense. If your economic status is categorized as poor you shouldn’t get 66%pension tax break,73%mortgage interest tax break,84%charity tax break,93%capital gains tax break. Can you see the common sense logic here! I think taxation is theft myself and basically government extortion. Why should anyone be forced to give up a portion of their earnings which is their personal property for causes they may not necessarily agree to.
Why can't we 1. Dismantle the welfare state and 2. Have a flat tax with no breaks
Flat taxes are regressive. An equivalent percentage of tax on income affects the wealthy disproportionately less than it would the poor. What's 15-20% to you when you have so much money that it has no bearing on your overall well-being anyway, vs. 15-20% when you're struggling to pay your rent and feed your kids. It's pretty easy to see. A flat tax would solve none of our problems. And given the recent revelations of money laundering scandals, high-profile financial crimes, the Panama/Paradise papers, etc., don't try to pretend that the wealthy wouldn't figure out a way to shuffle their money around so they can under-report their income and, once again, pay less effective tax than the rest of us, even it it's "flat" and "fair".
God vice has really gone down hill
The government only took part of my paycheck, so if you think about it, the government effectively gave me all the income i have.
did you ever thought instead preaching for higher taxes to all, preach lower taxes to all? blame government not the rich ?
Tax people not company's
Sam George companies profit from tax payer money, they should pay the most back in taxes
Arcticwulf yes but the only reason America is number 1 in the world is our profitable company's.
Jubilant Lienal Labile Song you can't do a deal without a us company involved in some way. Wich in one way or another adds to the us economy. Better economy=higher standard of living. Thou the us lacks far behind in in social aspects because of the shity isolationist ideals
Nah, in the 2008 crash the bankers had to carry most of the weight of the crash. They carried all those big heavy bonus checks of 20+ million dollars, all the way to the bank.
First
this video definitely raises some questions. The biggest one imo, is it bad to incentivize people from getting rich? If yes, then whats the benefit of giving more tax breaks for the poor? aren't you then incentivizing people to stay poor or de-motivating people from getting rich?
Vitticent145 i think its about time to stop dreaming about becoming rich and for society to make other things desirable. Being humble and making the world a better place for all of us should be the dream to work towards.
haha, so you are saying people choose to be poor and would do so more if the rich had to pay more taxes? Do you listen to yourself sometimes?
Just thinks for a second, if I have to go work 80 hours plus, then gets taxed so much that I can barely pay my bills, then why would I work? I would rather work under the table, move out of the country, resort to crime or go homeless.
Increasing marginal tax rates never incentives people to stay poor, as you are always getting more money even if you are paying more taxes. At no point do you ever get paid more but earn less after taxes. There are theoretical ways that the government where the government is incentivizing people to stay poor, but this is in terms of government benefits. So, if you are very poor and especially if you live in a high cost area there are times where earn more can make you worse off. Ei, if you have a part time job and get housing subsidies, food stamps, child care and medical care through the government, some times, getting a better full time job can make you worse off. Though the biggest one for the negative incentive is unemployment, as if you lose a good job and can only get a job that pays way less, you can't take that job and improve your self or you will earn less money then not working. What we should do is allow people to kept 50% of their unemployment until 90% of their past income for the time unemployment lasts. Example, if someone earned 100K (because it is a easy number to work with), they get $55K from unemployment, they can then find work earning $50K. To take that job with the current unemployment system would be insane, work 40 hours week for -$5000 a year... But if we allowed people to keep 1/2, taking that job would mean they earn $50K, and their unemployment drops by $25K, but their net income goes to $80K, while the government saves $25K, there is more productivity and less unemployment.
That would incentivize people to work in jobs that are temporary/seasonal but pay more, (i.e. what seasonal workers do in canada so they can live off unemployment insurance during off seasons). And this still doesn't address the problem of low wage trade employees who would make more by working under the table than working at a company for a shit pay that then gets taxed.