Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?

Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?


Can we balance the budget by taxing the rich?
Let’s look at how much Americans pay in federal taxes compared to their incomes. Accounting
for federal income taxes and tax credits, the richest 5 percent of Americans paid almost
30 percent in taxes in 2009. The 20 percent of poorest Americans paid negative 1 percent,
that is, they received more money back than they paid in. Some argue that the rich aren’t
paying their fair share of taxes. Yet the tax rate on the rich is almost three times
the tax rate on all other Americans. In 2009 the government’s budget deficit
was $1.5 trillion. Let’s see how much we’d have to raise taxes to balance the budget.
We’ll start by raising taxes on the rich by half, from 29 percent to 44 percent. Increasing
taxes on the richest 5 percent of Americans by 50 percent only raises about $400 billion,
leaving us with a deficit of $1.1 trillion. Let’s go back to the rich. How much would
we have to tax the top 5 percent in order to raise enough money to balance the budget?
The answer is 88 percent. Of course, the average household in this top bracket earns $300,000,
which means that the 88 percent tax reduces their income to $36,000, making the average
rich household worse off than the average household. It’s true that back in the 1960s, the top
income tax rate was 90 percent, but that was the top marginal rate. After adjusting for
the various tax brackets and deductions and exemptions, people in the 90 percent marginal
tax bracket actually paid an average effective rate of about 50 percent. That is nowhere
near the 88 percent we’d need to tax the rich in order to balance the budget. In addition,
in the 1960s there were only about 5,000 households that earned enough to be in the 90 percent
tax bracket. To balance the budget, we’d have to apply our 88 percent tax rate to almost
9 million households. This means that to balance the budget we’re going to be forced to raise
taxes on those earning between $100,000 and $180,000. Suppose we raise taxes on this group as well.
How high do the taxes need to go in order for us to balance the budget? To balance the
budget, we’d have to more than double taxes on everyone earning $100,000 or more. This
means that a household with two wage earners, each of whom earns $50,000, would pay an additional
$21,000 in taxes annually. The lesson is that arguing about taxing the rich wastes our time
and diverts our attention from meaningful solutions like cutting spending. The budget
deficit is so large that there simply aren’t enough rich people to tax to raise enough
to balance the budget.

100 Comments on "Will Taxing the Rich Fix the Deficit?"


  1. If by your own admission the EFFECTIVE tax rates for the richest were around 50%, why the heck can't we raise the highest marginal rate from under 40%?!

    And let's be real, we have to cut spending AND raise taxes on almost everyone.  But the richest should never have an effective tax rate of single digits.

    Reply

  2. The argument for taxing the rich isn't because it will eliminate the deficit, but because it will reduce the deficit.

    Furthermore, no proposal has been been made that would raise even the marginal tax rate to 88%, let alone the actual tax rate.

    His entire argument is a straw man.

    Reply

  3. Not true. It's progressive taxation that allows more small firms in (while profit-taxing the rich more) and so more competition, there being more output, quality, efficiency, employment & a better redistribution of wealth. It's the existence of inefficient, wealth taking oligopolists that cause misery, this increasing social security expenses. What a misleading video

    Reply

  4. You guys are not taking into account Corporate tax loop holes (See General Electric), people hiding taxable income in foreign banks(Romney), and Capital Gains tax which is incredibly low. 

    Reply

  5. Does it completely escape this gentleman's thinking that the solution might be somewhere between the two – i.e. not fully-funded by taxation and not fully by spending cuts, but by a combination of the two?

    Reply

  6. Raising taxes on the rich will NOT balance the budget. Hell, any logical thinker, left or right, knows that. BUT raising taxes on the rich is a start. It can contribute. Just like cutting the military budget and redirecting the funds to retraining people from the military-industrial complex to new jobs. And investing in education and trade schools. And other ventures that can produce new jobs or industries. Like investing in science and technology.

    Reply

  7. In addition to this video there is another problem, tax the rich too much and they leave. That is what California did, taxed the rich more, and the rich picked up and started an exodus to Arizona, Nevada and Texas, leaving California in even larger financial problems. People who believe in raising taxes on this class of citizen are hypocrites, I bet that if they themselves would be in this class they would not want to pay the high tax and also they often believe in the unnatural and fantasy notion of "equality." Well where is the equality if one person pays more taxes than the next, just by using percentages to determine this takes the "equality" away from "equal." If you really believe in "equality" then you should support a tax system were nobody pays a single cent more than the next, only then would I believe in this unrealistic word.

    Reply

  8. What this leaves out is the fact that there's a tax cap. You see, someone earning 200k and someone earning 200 billion will pay the same, because it caps out at around 200k. The key isn't to just blindly raise taxes on everyone that's over 200k a year, but raise the cap so that multibillionaires are being taxed proportionately to everybody else. That's what this guy (and many economic analysts) choose to leave out. It's about PROPORTION. Wouldn't be quite as distraught if this guy just didn't parade himself along as if he and his ideas are the next Messiah.

    Reply

  9. Write to your congress person. That ain't true. The Rich can afford to pay it all.
    How to Make Money Like Top Hedge Fund Managers: Secrets of America's Finance Industry (2013)
    In addition there is another problem. There are so many brainwashed folk on here.
    Tax the Rich: An animated fairy tale, There is no other way.

    Here is the too big to fail. Wall Street’s Lies Brought To Light In Court & The Result Stuns

    The problem here is that they take so long to explain it.

    Reply

  10. I know of no one in the 20k bracket that pays no taxes, much less -1%. He leaves out all the people who make 1 mil a year or more. I dare to say that if you taxed everyone above the 1 mil a year bracket, (including the billion + bracket) they alone would balance the budget. Lets give it a shot anyway for a few years, just for the heck of it, and see what happens.

    Reply

  11. This guy is an asshole. The whole Republican plan of "be nice to rich people" hasn't worked for thirty years. It's still not working.

    Reply

  12. The big lie in this video is at the 1:27 mark.  the 88% tax would not be applied to the money below 180K. It would only apply to money above 180K. That's how it works in Canada. No one in Canada pays taxes on the first $10700 (or something like that). you always get that income tax back. then we pay a very low tax from 10.7K to somewhere in the 20K range. Then from that 2nd mark to somewhere in the low 40K range is a slightly higher tax range and so on up to somewhere in the 6 figure income. Then everything above that is taxed at the highest rate. In this system it's impossible to get a raise and earn less.

    Reply

  13. I mean no disrespect to anyone who cares to read this comment. This is just a personal observation and an untested hypothesis.
    I think that the theory of either cutting spending or adjusting tax rates is pointless. The USA, along with many other nations, have been borrowing money and accumulating debt in the same way we as American citizens do; we borrow a lump sum, then agree to pay it back with interest.
    I submit that we have too many loans to ever payback fully. I think somewhere down the line we crossed the threshold into inevitable demise. To try to pay back that money all at once would gouge the whole nation. Perhaps a VERY careful and well thought out restructuring of our payment plan to the banks would help, but I think it would be a long shot.
    Ultimately the USA needs to cut up its credit cards and only buy what we can afford. But our nation is so dependent on the supplemental money, I don't know if America could even tread water if we tried.
    I don't claim to have the answer, but I think that this video might not either….
    Maybe another video will…
    maybe not…
    Life is weird…
    Thanks for listening

    Reply

  14. Your definition of rich is off, how to establish the threshold of rich? Take the average household income and times 2, that is, if your household has double the average then you are rich. So not your definition of 180000+, they would be the super-rich; but more like the 62000+ that is the rich group.
    At 2:35 in your video, you have 39% and 69%. So next by your chart, you're going to distribute that increase the the 3rd largest group 62000-100000 as well, and then its less of an increase for each of the 'rich' groups.  Once you establish what the 'rich' categories are, then your own argument shows it is possible. Now your last statement is untrue, that there 'are not enough rich people to tax', your own math here has shown that there is, its possible.

    Reply

  15. There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. This douche bag is cherry picking numbers to misrepresent the truth. Tax the rich and tax the corporations!

    Reply

  16. False premise to begin with.  You don't ONLY raise taxes on the rich, you also have to cut spending.  In another episode by this guy, he used the false premise that we cannot balance the budget by ONLY cutting spending either.  So, he says we can't cut spending and balance the budget and we can't raise taxes to balance the budget.  It leaves the impression we might as well give up because there's nothing we can do.  But, we can raise taxes…especially on the rich…AND cut spending.  Plus, he says the tax rate on the rich is nearly three times what it is for all other Americans.  But he fails to point out the richest 5 percent make about 15 time what the average american makes.   I agree with Tubbier Wombat's combat below and Artago Falcon.

    Reply

  17. The question shouldn't be "how long can we afford the poor?". It should be: "How long can we afford the rich?"

    Reply

  18. People are poor because rich people pay too much taxes, therefore less capital to invest on young people and more wasteful spending for the government. 

    Reply

  19. This is a nice collection of ridiculous hypotheticals and distortions of numbers in an attempt to distract from the fact that that rich are ROBBING our country with their ridiculously low taxes. The rich are not people earning 100K a year – they are the top 1%, perhaps only the top 0.1% making MILLIONS a year and corporations making BILLIONS, and paying so little in taxes. These ultra-rich have special tax loopholes that our corrupt wealthy politicians have installed to make the effective corporate tax rate a mere 14%. They pay no more in taxes than the average struggling American. That's insane! You admit that in the 1960s they payed up to an effective rate of 50%, and we had a fantastic economy then. 50% should be the lowest top rate – everyone in the 1% should be paying far more than 29%. Then we can actually CUT taxes on the middle class, and with moderate spending cuts, actually reduce the deficit fairly and grow the economy again.

    Oh, poor little millionaires, might have to pay a little extra to help others. Oh, I forgot, since that won't pay off every last cent of the deficit, we should just forget it and cut healthcare and social services and all the other important programs you conservatards want to gut. Ridiculous.

    Reply

  20. To those watching, this is a great example of what's known as a "False Dichotomy". The numbers are dubious*, but even if we granted them, the entire premise is one giant logical fallacy. 

    *He uses FY2009 numbers, which are mid-recession and not typical at all. He tries to balance the budget, when in fact deficit spending is normal during recessions — the actual goal should be to remove the structural deficit so that in non-recession years we run a surplus. He ignores the blindingly obvious possibility of a joint solution (tax more AND spend less), and he defines "rich" according to the "married filing separately" tax bracket because it's the lowest one. The top tier for all other categories is about $370k.

    Just layers of spin on top of a logical fallacy. I'd expect more from a professor.

    Reply

  21. Don't fool yourself and others by looking at the country's debt. It's the deficit that needs to be pondered (who here's taken some level of calc?) and right now it's lower than it was in the Bush administration. The middle class IS better off and the deficit is as well. These things take time. The debt, contrary to popular belief, is not automatically a bad thing. It's how a group responds to that debt. America HAS TIME so we should use it.

    Reply

  22. Does this video account for the tax bracket system? The part where the 88% tax lead to $36000 was misleading i think, however i am still not in favor for raising the tax on the "rich."

    Reply

  23. And I hate how he makes it seem like only income tax is the tax used to balance the budget, as if all the companies in the system does not apply.

    Reply

  24. If the rich leave then let them. They could go and corrupt some other country, and I think everyone would be better off. 

    Reply

  25. This is a fact since Obama repealed the job killing tax Bush tax cuts, the yearly deficit been sliced in half over six years.

    Reply

  26. This video is ridiculous, one major tax reform argument it completely glosses over is increasing the catchment areas for what are considered taxable incomes.  People in the $180k+ bracket may be making that amount of money as a salary, but they could be making millions more through their various investment and stock options.  If taxes are increased a moderate amount across the board, and were applied on all forms of income (not just salary income, but income derived from investment opportunities) then huge amounts of extra tax revenue could easily be generated.

    Also, the fact the speaker is suggesting that people are adamant in their beliefs that only taxing the rich will 100% balance the budget is lunacy.  There has to be effective tax reform in conjunction with a revised spending policy (moving money away from already-bloated sectors into those with higher potential for future job creation – like education, sciences and general R&D) to even begin working at balancing the budget.  Taxation isn't the only tool in your tool belt.

    Reply

  27. Class warfare is the lefts most diabolical transgressions against humanity. Bastards. May they all rot in hell.

    Reply

  28. Why the heck should anyone have to pay more than half their income in the form of tax? There's no incentive to get a good job if that is in effect since you only have spending money at the level that people earning less than you have. In Middle East e.g Qatar/ Kuwait its low tax but I assume that it's dependant on if you're a native or not; what about Singapore,S, Korea and Japan? I was told they're expensive but you get a lot of bang for your buck

    Reply

  29. It's always easy to raise other peoples taxes. How about a fair tax on everything we buy then everyone would have some skin in the game when they want to raise taxes.

    Reply

  30. If you pay less than 15 percent income tax then your a parasitic leach living off of others hard earned money. Do your fair fucking share and stop relying on other people to wipe the governments asses and yours

    Reply

  31. This video doesn't mention the top 1% who are far beyond this graph and are not mentioned, what about taxing them? Here's a better video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

    Reply

  32. This is a really shoddy video. Each bracket has a range of $20k to about $100k except for the $180+ range which goes from $180 to MILLIONS. The people at $300 aren't going to see 88% unless you lump people making $300k with people making $300M.

    Reply

  33. We aren't wasting our time thinking about taxing the rich at all. In fact what this unequivocally proves is that this needs to be the starting point.

    Reply

  34. the top ten corporations have their companies on an island so they don't pay tax those alone would fix it and if you take the tax burden off the poor they WOULD HAVE MONEY TOO BUY THE STUPID THINGS YOUR CORPORATIONS MAKE fucking rich cunts !!

    Reply

  35. There is another very key element that is not presented here. If America were to do this, the rich will leave. They have the means to do so. Last year I paid almost $75k in taxes with federal the highest at almost $50k. I have been advised by my financial team that moving to more tax friendly location would be a financially smart move. So if I spend $25K to move somewhere else, my tax burden would go down to about $15k……and I am looking into it.

    Reply

  36. This is a stupid analysis. What about pegging taxes against wealth ownership. If taxes were calculated that way income from the richest 3 percent of the nation would easily balance the budget. The wealthiest 3 percent of households control nearly 60 percent of the nation's wealth. The top 3 percent of American households now hold over double the wealth of America’s poorest 90 percent of families.

    Reply

  37. If we raised taxes to reduce the deficit, our government would spend more money, until Rome crumbles.

    Reply

  38. Two issues: 1) Exactly zero of our federal income taxes goes to programs and services. It all goes to service the interest on the National Debt. 2) All currency issued by The Federal Reserve is spent into the economy through government spending. Cut spending and currency creation gets cut. Cut currency creation and the money supply and growth will halt, the economy will implode.

    Reply

  39. effective rates in the 1960s were actually 70% http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare

    Reply

  40. There are so many lies and half truths here that I have to conclude that this presentation is intended to mislead. Household income is not the statistic you should be looking at, that would be household wealth. Income disparity only matters insofar as it affects wealth inequality, because that is the true measure of what is paid by the rich compared to what they own. If you consider household wealth rather than income, what you find is that the richest 10% own 77.2% of the wealth. Clearly there is a lot more they could be taxed without even denting their accumulated wealth because income accounts for only a tiny fraction of what the richest 1% earns. Therefore the statement that they would be "worse off than the average household" after these cuts is a bold faced lie.
    Moving on. You chose to look at 2009 for reasons that are self serving and obvious. That year was immediately after the financial crisis and FAR from representative of the norm. For comparison, the deficit last year and the year before were both below 500 billion. Might I also point out that this collapse was due to lack of regulation which you so heartily advocate on a different video. Again, more dishonesty.
    To wrap things up, the top 1% in America have a combined wealth of roughly 60-70 trillion and could pay off the federal debt many many times over, and still have enough left over to pay their butler and snort cocaine off Paris Hiltons ass.

    Reply

  41. This video is outdated, the us deficit is 426 billion, taxing the rich would only leave us roughly 26 billion to deal with. 26 billion could easily be solved by legalizing and taxing marijuana, in Colorado alone revenue from marijuana taxing was 5.6 billion.

    Reply

  42. Honestly mate the 61,39 idea sounds like a better idea than cutting spending to anything, but defense

    Reply

  43. It only makes sense e to tax where the money is, just do it fairly. Figure out what the actual effective tax rate (% of gross income) is on the top earners and use that rate with no deductions. Make 4 or 5 rates using the same math. Increase those rates equally until the budget balances. Drop the rates if or when or we ever decrease spending.

    Reply

  44. I'm not sure what training this person has had in macroeconomics — he has completely overlooked the secondary effects of raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy and what happens when those additional taxes they pay are distributed by government.  It isn't the direct amount of taxes collected from the ultra-wealthy that makes the difference in paying down the deficit.  Rather, the additional taxes collected from the ultra-wealthy, if used to rebuild the infrastructure, subsidize education, etc., will lead to more teachers being hired and paid, more spent on infrastructure construction (more construction workers who earn money). These additional workers will spend their additional income on groceries, appliances, etc. And this additional spending becomes additional income for those who those groceries and appliances etc.  And each of the people (teachers, construction workers, grocery store owners and workers, appliance manufactures and workers, etc., etc.,) who now receive more money in turn will pay more taxes on their increased income.       What this presenter either completely forgot or just doesn't understand is that there is a MULTIPLIER EFFECT on the national income of the whole economy when taxes are increased on the ultra wealthy, a multiplier effect that can be four to ten times the amount directly collected from them as described above! That is, every extra million dollars collected in taxes from the ultra-wealthy, when spent by government, will increase national income four million to ten million dollars. And that additional four to ten million dollars will be taxed as income as well!  So not only is there the initial one million dollar increase in taxes initially, there will be additional taxes collected on the four to ten million dollars in added national income generated by the initial collection of the million dollars in taxes from the ultra-wealthy.  And it doesn't stop there either.  Once the additional taxes are collected on the four to ten million dollars of increased national income, those tax dollars are in turn spent in the economy hiring additional teachers, doing more infrastructure work, etc.  It goes on and on because each dollar that someone spends on a good or service becomes income to someone providing that good or service. And each time income is generated, that leads to more taxes being paid.

    Reply

  45. he's only talking about about the richest 5% though. It needs to be much more of a sliding scale! people making fuck all should be helped more (both with finance, finding work, medical and other aspects) working somewhere in the middle should stay the same, then a sliding scale to the top. the top earners (like he said the 5%) should be on much higher tax (no where near 88% but higher) then the top 15-20% should be also much higher. This should apply not only for individuals, but also company taxes. Obviously this will not defeat everything but it will help close the gap and will save a bunch of money….surely. Anyone in the world with 12 billion sitting in an account just to make money on that money should be ashamed and it should be illegal when you consider what good this money could do.

    Reply

  46. ""BOTTOM LINE"" RAISING TAXES DOESN'T LOWER OUR DEFICIT. RAISING TAXES DOESN'T MEAN THEY WILL SPEND MORE MONEY. RAISING TAXES DOESN'T DO NOTHING BUT HURT OUR ECONOMY. WE NEED TO DEDUCT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. PERIOD = END OF STORY.. WAY TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT SPENDING & WAY TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT CONTROL. . GOVERNMENT TRIES AND MAKES AMERICA SUFFER TO SAY CAN PAY THEIR OWN MESS OF THE DEFICIT. . WHY SHOULD WE SUFFER?? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. * TRUMP KNOWS WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT * NO ONE ELSE FROM DECADES & DECADES HAS HELPED AMERICANS. IT IS TIME TO DO AWAY WITH GOVERNMENT.

    Reply

  47. As someone who made $150k last year running my own business, I'd say "fuck that"! I'll take a fun job doing skydiving lessons or selling toys at REI before I take risks and bust my ass just to wind up in the same place.

    Reply

  48. well done, set the people against eachother, by "tax the rich", we mean apple, google, starbucks, walmart, amazon and other mega corporations who dodge corporate and federal tax

    Reply

  49. It won't help the deficit, the government spends too much on everything especially the military budget.

    Reply

  50. but that completely ignores the 15% capital gains where the richest people in america the ones with billions of dollars making a significant portion this way, or the corporate executives that make millions in bonuses and actual salary. the focus should be on a comprehensive strategy not a binary solution.

    Reply

  51. when we talk about taxing rich, we talk about raises long term capital gains tax, not income tax. Captial gains is how CEOs are paid.

    Reply

  52. This video is totally disingenuous, as he refers to "the rich" as households earning more than 180K. When anyone suggests taxing "the rich" more they mean the very rich, those individuals and households earning so much that they are often able to shelter earnings and use loopholes to pay a very low effective tax rate.
    Next video.

    Reply

  53. the richest? or the biggest earners? there's a big difference. Old money and new money. Old money people usually don't make jobs nor do they pay income tax. New money people usually make jobs to make more money and pay a lot of income tax. The fair-tax would fix all of this

    Reply

  54. prohibit prayer in schools is a more freeedom issue, its infact about securing a secular nation and secularism of its institutions which includes education which is cruicial freedom of/from religion and freedom of information where fiction isnt presented as real information in institutions of teaching where children are sent to learn facts and science not newage or some other religious bulshit.

    Reply

  55. What about the top 0.2% of the rich? (ie the very top of the food chain) What % of tax do they pay?

    Reply

  56. If President Trump were to halt the prior authorized chemical spraying of our skies , we could save 2.5 Trillion dollars.

    Reply

  57. bring back the death tax/estate tax. increase fees on trading. increase capital gains tax. freeze tax increases on earned income. the richest 1% just control too much capital in this country and it needs to be remobilized.

    Reply

  58. Since Bush cut taxes in presidency, the economy has not stimulated. It's has proven that the economy will stimulate when more money is put in the middle classes hands as apposed to the top 1 percenters. Mitt Romney I believe makes around 20 million but only pays 14% not saying it's fair or unfair but raising taxes will put more money in the middle classes hands. The top 400 richest people in the us accumulate as much as 150 million Americans in the middle class, not only will then middle class conditions strengthen, the economy will stimulate a lot more. Democratic socialism for the win (with a tiny side of capitalism for desert)

    Reply

  59. I love how the solution to monetary problems is always "spend someone else's money to fix it". Get the class warfare going, or gender warfare, or race warfare, and you may allow whomever is feeling victimized to feel better, but you don't improve their lot in life. You may anger them to the point that they burn their cities and business's, but then you've left them in greater misery than they were before. We have to all work together to find solutions best for the country.

    Reply

  60. whos? considered rich? when most people make minimum wage and work part time . to live normally in this country one needs to make at least 25 dollars an hour,

    Reply

  61. Paul Ryan will cut Social Security and Medicare… Entitlements?…. Massive Tax Cuts… HUGE Budget Deficit.

    Reply

  62. Just because taxing the rich won't wipe out the ENTIRE deficit in one move doesn't mean it wouldn't help ($400 billion per annum is not chump change). For anyone who is so adamant about balancing the budget, wouldn't raising taxes while also decreasing spending be the most reasonable approach?

    Reply

  63. I call BullShit! How much money did Apple and google Pay in income tax,? With thetheir double Irish schemes and their offshore bank accounts. he’s talking about individuals not corporations and the corporations own the politicians and the media and are deregulating themselves and avoiding taxes.

    Reply

  64. The current US budget deficit is 666 billion dollars. Military spending is 611 Billion dollars cut military spending in half and that'll make the deficit 361.5 billion (that still makes the US #1 on defence with China spending 215 billion and Russia 66 billion)

    Now that the deficit is 361.5 billion increase taxes. Make income taxes 25% larger for all Americans. That'll make 370 billion dollars. That'll put the US in a surplus of 8.5 Billion dollars

    With the US in a surplus of 8.5 Billion dollars a year and a federal debt of 7.3 Trillion dollars it'll take 858 years to pay off the debt. Or the US could cut more US defence spending by 100 billion dollars (still the #1 military spender) and it'll only take 67 years to pay off the debt. Try and cut another 100 billion in wasted spending in other areas and it'll take 34 years to pay off the debt.

    Seriously though, why would the US need a military that is bigger than the entire rest of the world combined when you're not even at war? If the US was in a ground war with China then yeah it makes sense but the US has nukes, I'm pretty sure nobody would attack the US knowing it has nukes.

    Reply

  65. I was thinking that the controversial aspect of this was that most people (myself included, if only to reduce this inflated stock market) wanted the rich to be taxed, but it seems that you don't even understand how marginal tax rates work.
    Let's say that the effective (i.e. average) income tax rate of someone earning $100k is 10%, and then the marginal tax rate for anyone earning more than that is 90%. Someone earning that $100k would have $90k (90%) remaining, but someone earning $200k would have MORE: $100k = $90k + $10k (10% of the second $100k).
    Income earned in that margin hardly matters in terms of happiness, but in large quantities, millions and millions are addicting, hence the oligopolistic billionaires of today.

    Reply

  66. The deficit is so big that the US is going to go broke — THAT IS A FACT — and FYI the really rich don't pay taxes , the rich he is talking about is the working rich (these rich draw a salary and can not hide any money, so they are not the really rich in this country). The really rich live off dividends and other investments – and on these if they should cash out they pay less than 20%. It is all stupid talk anyone — THE UNITED STATES IS BROKE AND THE ONLY REASON IT CAN PAY FOR A MILITARY AND ENTITLEMENTS IS BECAUSE US IS WORLD RESERVE CURRENCY -this money is borrowed from the FED (which is a private bank) and the FED makes it from nothing. NOTHING – Once US is no longer world reserve currency this all falls apart and that day is coming.

    Reply

  67. I wonder what happens if you raise the tax on the poor and middle class. Would that be enough?

    Reply

  68. Funny there is another video where he says cutting spending will not solve the problem even if we cut everything including the whole military and all else. Something is wrong and off.

    Reply

  69. In 2009 it was only $407 billion budget deficit not 1,5 Trillion. So it;s enough just to cut military spendings and that's it.

    Reply

  70. Who cares? That’s not the goal. The goal is reducing the ridiculously asymmetrical political influence that billions bring.

    Reply

  71. Taxing the rich isn't quite the whole scope.Higher tax rates on the rich create a re investment in the country.So if a rich person is going to get taxed 70-90% that person has to re invest the money rather than hoard it.This creates a large vibrant middle class that is the backbone of a tax base.I worked for a number of bakeries when I was younger.Every single one was financed by a person of wealth.The baker would then work 12-16 hours a day pay of the 300,000$.Then start hiring good bakers to expand his income.It is not the tax on the rich that creates the tax base but where the money goes to get the write offs and lower the tax rate.

    Reply

  72. You don’t have to tax income. If you introduced a 20% vat/sales tax that would bring in 1.4 trillion

    Reply

  73. To everyone saying how if you tax the rich more they'll leave, just ban them from travel. It's already the government, an institution that gets it's power by forcing people to do things or say things or give things under threat of force, if you're already bathing in the blood of a hundred virgins might as well raise it to two hundred. Just ban all the rich people from leaving. Ban everyone from leaving, for that matter. Will solve a whole bunch of other problems. Nobody enters or leaves without government permission.

    Reply

  74. Also, bear in mind, this is just the deficit. This doesn't even take into account the total national debt. Good luck with those taxing endeavors, Leftists!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *