TYT Hour 1 December 4, 2017

In The Young Turks Hour 1 - On Demand by Gigi Manukyan33 Comments

Cenk & Ana. Brian Ross suspension. Grassley on people spending money on booze & hookers. Rep Chris Stewart can’t name corporate tax loopholes they are closing. John Dowd: president cannot obstruct justice.

0 seconds of 50 minutes, 51 secondsVolume 90%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
50:51
50:51
 

Comments

  2. It was Adam Smith and later David Ricardo who first discussed the importance of some kind of progressive tax rate and estate tax on unearned income. Capitalism was in its nascence, having evolved out of the brutal kleptocracy of the Monarchies, and Smith, in particular, understood that Capitalism was a system which would require a civil society willing to follow certain rules of private property and exchange, which meant incentivizing Labor as well as Capital, by providing “living wages” to workers, and taxing investment income (namely land rents in those days) at a progressively higher rate. “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
    Smith also believed that a large portion of a man’s wealth should revert to the state or the commons, upon his death. His argument was that, in that new system of Capitalism, without an estate tax and progressive taxation, all the country’s resources would be in the hands of a small oligarchy, within a few generations. And that unassailable inequality would, eventually, disincentivize the civil participation of the labor class in this scheme.
    Great inequality creates great unrest. In countries like Mexico, with an almost nonexistent social safety net and an undertaxed elite, a large percentage of wealth must be spent on private security.
    Markets are not natural law. They require all parties to be compensated adequately to survive.

  3. Even leftie Norway where you pay $9 per liter of gas and you get taxed at nearly 70% above $250k doesn’t have an estate tax and there are a lot of Billionaires there who left massive fortunes without being taxed.

    The reason? Utility, it is a useless tax that does not raise enough reliable money and does not address the problem it is claimed to address namely wealth inequality.

    The inheritance tax should be scrapped in my opinion.

    The problem is not wealth inequality, it is income inequality.

    1. I could not disagree more. Wealth inequality is even more severely important to reduce than income inequality. Yes, Norway removed it. Why? There are no legitimate arguments for it. Hard work should pay off, not inheriting massive fortunes. Why should any worker accept that their income is taxed at many times the rate of what wealthy heirs are taxed for an inheritance they didn’t work for? Coincidentally, the conservative government of Norway which removed the estate tax is closely linked with the norwegian financial elite, and they receive millions in political contributions from wealthy norwegians. The same contributors have in their turn received a large return on their investment (bribe) in tax cuts such as with the estate tax.

      A low or non-existent estate tax is social engineering that is maintained to give the financial elite advantages.

    2. Inherited wealth is one of the least economically efficient systems that exist in the world. And, funnily enough, support of inherited wealth completely flies in the face of everything conservatives claim to stand for (ie personal responsibility)

      1. We have a continuous data set from the 1700s that show the obvious, in a capitalist system even with high taxes wealth ratios are stable with the top 10% owning at least 50% of all wealth if not more.

        The reason is simple, disposable income saved is technically wealth. When you have a head start or you have a high income by default you will have more disposable income and eventually more wealth. This builds up over the average working life of a professional (45 years) and if you are lucky like mark Zuckerberg you will go from an upper middle class level where your daddy was in the 2nd quintile of wealth into the top 10 wealthiest individuals in the US owning more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans.

        Only is a true Marxist system where there is no wealth to begin with that wealth inequality is reduced to parity. You can’t have that.

        Is wealth inequality a problem? To a certain extent no because what matters is actual income and so long as incomes are high and the cost of living is low, which is the case in the US as opposed to Japan or Europe where wealth inequality is a problem, it is not and indeed if anything it is a boon to the economy because wealth is part of the national capital stock and thus acts as a leverage for the entire economy making credit cheaper overall.

        1. Are you pretending capitalism is not a global system and that 8 men now hold the same wealth as 50% of the Earth’s population?

          1. And who told you that the US has a capitalist system in the first place?

            As for the income disparities, not long ago those 8 had what 60% of the earth’s population had.

            If you want to reduce global wealth inequality you must have free trade in its purest form, last time I checked that is precisely what Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump campaigned against.

      2. Not true at all.

        In the UK the laws were designed so that a limited number of people inherited the wealth, namely the oldest son or the closest male relative. That meant that even in 2017 the 1000 families that came with Billy the Conqueror still owns much of the wealth in the UK. This slow accumulation of capital, gold in this case, meant that the UK not France would see the industrial revolution because in France everyone inherits and that lead to a large % of the population being small land owners who barely could feed themselves let alone the nation (large estates only produced wine) and provide enough revenue or demand for the industrial revolution and hence the political revolution.

        Much of the inherited wealth in the US is actually productive capital in the form of investments in mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity or family funds like the Rockefeller family’s. Even unproductive capital like land and houses is considered collateral for credit and even if it is not used for collateral it is still taxed at the local level.

    3. When you inherit a vast some of money from your rich parents, that IS income. Inheritance is just free money to the inheritor. It should be taxed as high as possible. The goal is to prevent ruling aristocracies. an estate tax isn’t nearly enough, but we shouldn’t scrap it, just keep doing more.

      In Norway, for your taxes, you get a decent, humane society, so wealth inequality is less of an issue. Gas should be that expensive, or more expensive. it’s a planet destroying chemical that also leads to massive destructive wars. When your tax system provides universal health coverage, generous welfare systems, unemployment, childcare, a year off from work for raising children, free higher education, etc. You can still live a decent life even if you’re on the lower end of the wealth spectrum. You still get an education. You still have other opportunities even if you fall off the horse a few times. It’s an investment in the country as a whole. when you’re system is set up to reward the rich as much as possible and kill the poor, you create a system that will eventually destroy itself.

      1. True enough, however that will present you with a different problem because the way wealth is structured this will mean dissolution of a large number of companies in order to pay for those taxes because most wealth is in equity not securities or land. An no exception high inheritance tax will change the landscape of small and medium size enterprises especially those that have elderly owners because it will automatically increase credit risk.

  4. Okay, Senator Chuck. Just gift me a million dollars and I’ll show you how to invest it. I 100% guarantee I can do better than that fool in Trump Tower. And I promise to spend hardly any of it on women and booze!

    Seriously, the rich are the prime example of why you don’t want to give the rich any money. If anyone spends it on women and booze, it’s people with money. How many jobs have they created with the Reagan tax cuts? How many jobs have they created with the Bush tax cuts? If this worked so well, there wouldn’t be a single unemployed person in the country.

    Really, we should scoop up all the inheritance money and divide it up equally among U.S. citizens. How do we justify giving all of it to some people and none of it to most?

  5. I get it, update on Russia and shit.

    They can try & convict ALL these assholes, Trump & his Merry Band of Money-Hungry Maniacs … EVERYONE.

    Throw them away for a billion years times two.

    It is still pissing in the wind as the death of Net Neutrality is staring us in the face.

    NONE OF THIS MATTERS if the majority of Americans will be fed a new steady diet of the Oligarchy’s approved “News” and their approved “Watch-dogs of the Govt & Corporations.”

  6. Guys please calm down! Now listen to me: None of this is poor Donald Trump’s fault, he’s sick! He has an ILLNESS known as AFFLUENZA. He didn’t get taught the difference between right and wrong and what consequences are by his parents (all in Trump’s short 75 years on Earth). Punishing Trump would be unfair. I mean… he’s WHITE. He’s RICH.

    Sadly I think this post might be the defense they actually decide to go with.

  7. The only limitation to Presidential pardon power is that they can’t pardon people related to their own impeachment. But, Trump installed one of his guys as the acting CFPB in clear violation of the law and the court said he could even though it’s written in clear wording that he can’t so already the door to that sort of thing has been opened

    1. Actually, The Constitution states the only limitation on the Pardon Power of The POTUS; The President cannot pardon crimes of Treason or Sedition against The United States of America.

  8. For the last time, Cenk. Trump cannot pardon himself. Pence will pardon Trump much like Ford did with Nixon. No way Republicans are letting one of their Presidents rot in prison.

  9. Hey! How about a goddamn App! At least one for podcasts! Spend some of that 20 Mil.

    Ps. My two cents. if the US government wants to control the whole world. We should get to vote in US elections.

    PPS. Love the shows. Apologies for my sense of entitlement. Keep up the good work. The rest of the word appreciates it.

    From Australia.

    1. I have the same problem! ‘I want more of you guys at my fingertips!’ To ‘ah jeez, I’m sorry guys, I just want more because you guys are so awesome!’

      They do/did have an app, but I asked one of their tech guys about almost a year ago and he had mentioned they were distancing themselves from it.

  10. You know beyond the fact that “not going to the movies” is not going to save a person millions I hate this attitude of “your poor you aren’t allowed to enjoy things”. The idea that somehow because you have drinks with friends sometimes, or occasionally splurge to buy a meal that’s a little pricey, or something like that is some huge sin and the reason why you are poor. No the working poor work their asses off and very rarely have any extra money to spend so if we buy ourselves something we enjoy with that like 20 bucks a month fuck you for judging us for that. It’s beyond just unrealistic. No poor person becomes rich by eating only beans and rice. No, it’s also just plain awful. The little money I have left over after everything I do I am allowed to spend on things that might bring me joy. The rich have a lot of money to spend on joy don’t you dare judge me for buying a video game every once in awhile or having some beers now and then.

  13. Paris is actually way smarter and hard working than she lets on, an a fuckload more successful than Trump. Granted she an obvious advantage and near-zero risk to starting her own businesses, but she didnt piss it away in failure or gluttony. Bad Example. She’s actually a big player in the fashion world.
    http://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-ig-paris-hilton-20160705-snap-story.html

    The booze thing you followed up on is a great example. The rich drink as well, and will drop a 1/2 year+plus salary of a middle class worker on a bottle of wine.

    Not that I’m a giant fan of Paris Hilton, but to say she isnt doing shit isnt accurate, and she is independent enough to take the hit of an estate tax. Just keeping it a hundred, as Ana would say.

    1. I know I’m going to catch some shit for that, for the typos and all that. My points are:
      1. Paris had a leg up on pretty much everything, but she leveraged that inheritance to create her own money.
      2. She could have make her own way despite the so called “death tax” she didnt need it.
      3. If you want to find lazy ass inheritance kids, look out for the trump 2.0s
      4. Cenk, dude. I know it’s probably tough to rant hard 5 days a week, but clean up your shit. I’ll give you a B10+/A-1 as a viewer. If I want to take your vicious rants seriously, rehearse a little bit. You said just a few days ago the “Navaho cracked the Nazi code” That’s even less correct. Rant you’re ass off, just dont fuck up.
      Just some constructive criticism. I source you guys to my Trump friends so I have to keep that shit tight.

  15. What american justice? I think Trump is going to get away with everything and will even win in the second term. The rest of USA does not have a single leader with the here withall to defeat him. This is how dark I feel the times are. And the conservative justices already are in majority so save if Trump’s ass needs to be saved anyway.

  16. I kick myself in the ass when I think back about the millions of dollars I spent going to the movies in my twenties. Now that I’m in my thirties it’s all going to avocado and bread…

Leave a Comment