reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Stephen Moore, a renowned economist, attends a press conference on Capitol Hill where some wealthy individuals express their desire to pay more taxes. However, when presented with a pledge to voluntarily pay a 90% tax, none of them sign it. The speaker questions their sincerity and asks if it is their patriotic duty to pay more taxes if they advocate for it. The millionaires deflect the question and avoid committing to paying more taxes themselves. This highlights the hypocrisy of advocating for tax increases while not being willing to personally contribute. Out of the 20 millionaires present, not one is willing to pay more taxes.

I prioritize my security because I've had threats on my life, but I believe defunding the police is necessary. We should take the money from the police and invest it in social safety. It's important for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. When asked what percentage is fair, I suggest they pay the same proportion as I do, around a third of their income. The effective tax rate on the poor is lower than on the rich, and I understand that. As for changing the tax rate for the wealthiest, let's say they pay around 45%.

Speaker 0 stated they will ensure their security due to past attempts on their life, citing the importance of their work and the many people who need help. They advocate defunding the police and reallocating those funds to social safety nets. Speaker 1 questioned what percentage constitutes a fair share for the wealthy to pay in taxes. Speaker 0 suggested that if a third of their income goes to taxes, a similar proportion should apply to the wealthy. Speaker 1 noted that the effective tax rate on the middle class is lower than on the rich and pressed Speaker 0 for a specific percentage for the wealthiest Americans. Speaker 0 proposed that the wealthiest 1% could pay 45%.

The speaker discusses taxation without representation in the US, highlighting how Americans pay roughly 50% of their income in various taxes. They break down the different taxes they pay, including income tax, property tax, and sales tax, showing how it adds up to nearly 50%. Despite this high tax burden, they express frustration at the lack of benefits and services they receive in return, such as affordable healthcare, nutritious food, and quality infrastructure. The speaker criticizes the government for not adequately representing the interests of taxpayers.

Speaker 1 argues that many people hate leftists, and when asked bluntly why, states that leftists are psychopaths who will destroy everything he cares about through suicidal empathy. Speaker 0 asks whether he means progressives or the entire left, and Speaker 1 says the delineation is threshold minute; when examining granularity, it all comes down to ethics, and leftists don’t have ethics, so it’s about degrees of psychopathy. Speaker 0 asks about people who want a little more wealth redistribution but generally love America, noting they exist on the left. Speaker 1 questions why they want these changes. Speaker 0 explains that they think the left has a different view of human nature and that luck and structures matter, contrasting with the right’s caricature of merit and hard work. The sensible left would acknowledge that luck can affect outcomes and that some people face sickness or accidents, so society should help those who are struggling, supporting social safety nets to a greater extent than those who want the lowest taxes. This is presented as the steelman argument. Speaker 1 says that makes sense and identifies the core idea as social safety nets. Speaker 0 asks why such safety nets aren’t voluntary. Speaker 1 responds that achieving the level of redistribution desired requires some degree of force. He notes that the entire idea of progressive liberalism is supposed to be volunteerism, with left-wing government not forcing people to do anything. Speaker 0 calls that a contradiction, and Speaker 1 counters that the left’s promise is that secular government will be fair and allow personal freedom as long as one does not hurt others, whereas Christian nationalists would compel certain actions. The conversation then shifts to the claim that the left’s promise of secular governance leads to compelling people to do things against their will, contradicting the previous ideal of voluntaryism. Overall, the dialogue centers on: a critique of leftists as lacking ethics and exhibiting psychopathic tendencies; a defense of a more nuanced left view that accounts for luck and structural factors; the tension between voluntary redistribution and the necessity of force to achieve redistribution; and the contrast between secular fairness and religiously motivated coercion. The speakers dispute whether progressive liberalism can be both voluntary and sufficiently redistributive, and they contrast secular promises with perceived implications for personal autonomy.

At Davos, the speaker expresses their bewilderment at the hypocrisy of the event. Despite discussions on justice, equality, and transparency, no one addresses the issue of tax avoidance by the wealthy. The speaker suggests that instead of focusing on philanthropy, the conversation should revolve around taxes. They mention the success of a 70% top marginal tax rate in the United States during the 1950s. The speaker emphasizes the importance of discussing taxes and dismisses other topics as irrelevant.

- Under Trump’s tax plan, taxes rise for lower incomes and fall for higher incomes. The bracket claims include: - Less than $28,000: taxes go up by $790. - $28,000 to $55,000: taxes go up $1,400. - $55,000 to $94,000: taxes go up $1,500. - $94,000 to $157,000: taxes go up almost $1,800. - $157,000 to $360,000: you only pay an extra $610. - More than $360,000: you get a tax cut. - More than $914,000: a $36,000 tax cut. - It literally says poorest to richest, and the poorest get a tax increase, and the richest get a tax cut. It's right there, literally in blue and yellow. - The speaker notes the chart shows poorest to richest with this distribution.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with working long hours for low pay and wasting their life away. Speaker 1 reflects on the struggles faced by people like them and wonders what the world has to offer. They discuss the unfairness of the rich and the struggles of the poor, emphasizing the need for change. Speaker 0 mentions the neglect of politicians towards those in need, while Speaker 1 criticizes the country's system for keeping people down. They both express a desire to understand each other's perspectives. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 mentioning their name and location.

Speaker 0: There is no law. And to date, nobody has been able to show that there is a law for the average American citizen working day in and day out to pay an income tax. Speaker 1: But We, The People Foundation for Constitutional Education put a full page ad in The USA Today on 07/07/2000. And within the body of that ad was a $50,000 challenge for anyone that could show the law. And to me, $50,000 is a lot of money. So I went after that and did the research based on the fact that I thought, let's put this baby to bed. I'm hearing all these rumors. You know, I'm gonna kill two birds with one stone. I'll answer these people's questions they're asking me, and then I win this $50,000. And, you know, based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked congress. We've asked a lot of people in the IRS, IRS commissioners, helpers. They can't answer because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud. Speaker 2: There is no law. There is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor and compensation for services. There is no law. Speaker 3: I really expected that, of course, there's a law that you can point to in the law book, the code, that requires you to file a tax return. Of course, there is. I mean, I don't know what it is right then as we as he was speaking to me, but sure. So, naively, I agreed to go off and research it and get back to him. Three and a half months later, I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me and, most people I know. And I had no no choice in my mind except to to resign. Speaker 4: I had to leave the IRS because I presented, evidence that I had accumulated indicating that the agency was violating the law and violating people's rights. And I asked the agency for a response to my sincere concerns, and the answer I got was that they would not respond to my concerns and that they would, provide me with the paperwork necessary to tender my resignation. Speaker 5: You can look through the statutes and look for the law that requires you to pay. And when you do that, you can't identify a law that requires the average person in America who earns a wage and works in private business to pay an income tax. Speaker 2: American citizens, along with the foundation, have been asking the IRS to specifically provide them with the the underlying legal foundation upon which they administer and enforce the personal income tax laws in our country. Speaker 3: At the national level, when people would attempt to contact somebody of a much higher authority, say the cons the commissioner, same kind of thing. They wouldn't get they would get answers that were in effect non answers. Speaker 6: You have to understand that an agency which will unlawfully impose a tax that doesn't exist it's not gonna care. If we, the people, don't know what our rights are, they're not gonna tell us. Speaker 4: If Americans just learned that the IRS was actually knowingly deceiving them, that that enough that would be enough for them to rise up and put a stop to it. Speaker 7: 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government. People have been told, you know, that you need this income tax system to fund government, is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, my question is, well, if that's true, how did we fund government from 1776 to 1913? Speaker 8: The main purpose of the income tax is not to raise revenue, but to redistribute wealth and to control society. And a lot Speaker 9: of people might say, well, gee, if there wasn't an income tax, what would happen to education? They don't understand that education is paid for, for the most part, out of state and local taxes, your property tax. People might say, well, how are we going to build and maintain our highways if there's no money coming into the government? We need our highways. There is a tax on every gallon of gasoline that people buy. Proceeds from the income tax do not pay for highway construction. Speaker 10: I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss why Speaker 1 dislikes leftists and progressives. Speaker 1 bluntly says they are psychopaths who are going to destroy everything he cares about through suicidal empathy. When pressed to distinguish leftists from progressives, Speaker 1 says the delineation is threshold minute, and that, at a granular level, it all comes down to ethics, which he believes they lack, equating it with degrees of psychopathy. They touch on people who favor a bit more wealth redistribution but love America. Speaker 0 notes these people exist on the left, though they are a smaller share. Speaker 1 probes why such people want redistribution, and Speaker 0 explains they see human nature differently from the right, arguing luck and structural factors influence outcomes. The right allegedly overestimates agency, with a caricature that people get what they deserve through hard work and merit. The sensible left, according to Speaker 0, acknowledges luck and misfortune, suggesting that not everyone’s struggles stem from personal failures, and therefore society should support those in need more than those who want the lowest taxes. This is presented as the steelman argument for more robust social safety nets. They move to why such redistribution isn’t voluntary. Speaker 0 asserts that achieving the desired level of redistribution requires some level of force. Speaker 1 notes that progressive liberalism is supposed to be about volunteerism, with a left-wing government not compelling individuals to do anything. Speaker 0 dismisses this as bullshit, while claiming the promise is that secular government will act fairly and not impose coercion, allowing people to do as they please as long as they do not hurt others. The contrast is drawn with Christian nationalism, which is framed as promoting forcing people to act in certain ways. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 suggesting that the left’s promise of secular government leads to compelling people to do various things against their will, illustrating a tension between voluntary principles and government coercion.

**Speaker 0:** 212 Democrats voted against no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime. If the government makes money and spends it responsibly, taxes aren't necessary. The new administration is holding the government accountable, and people are mad about it. **Speaker 1:** There's no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security in the budget resolution. Taxes are normal. This utopia where nobody pays taxes isn't going to work. Read the budget before lecturing people about it.

One speaker believes cutting corporate taxes overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy because capital income represents a huge amount of their income. Another speaker argues corporations provide jobs and pay taxes that fund government jobs. The first speaker asks where the government gets the money to pay its employees, and the second speaker answers, "Revenue from both households and corporations," further stating that trickle-down economics has not worked for the past 50 years. Michael Faulkinder believes tariffs are an important tool to address practices like currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, particularly by China, and to bring them to the table to negotiate trade inequities. He anticipates tariffs would incentivize moving supply chains to more resilient locations.

Speaker 0 states that those who own and utilize technology are becoming phenomenally richer. This issue relates to tax reform and addressing massive income and wealth inequality in America. Speaker 1 raises the concern that taxes go to an incompetent, corrupt government. Speaker 1 expresses a willingness to pay more taxes if they felt they lived in a better country where everyone is surviving and doing well. Speaker 0 concludes that this relates to the issue of how to revitalize American democracy.

The speaker discusses the difference between equity and equality. They explain that equality refers to equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background. On the other hand, equity focuses on ensuring equal outcomes for everyone. The speaker expresses their preference for equality over equity.

Today, nearly half of every dollar earned in the U.S. goes to taxes, often unnoticed because they are embedded in business costs. Politicians advocate for taxing businesses to help the average person, but these taxes ultimately increase product prices, acting as a hidden sales tax. There are numerous such taxes affecting consumers. Additionally, there is a call to raise corporate taxes to ensure that large corporations and billionaires contribute their fair share. While success is not criticized, the emphasis is on the importance of equitable tax contributions from those who can afford it.

Someone questions why money is taxed multiple times. They describe a scenario where someone gives them $500 that has already been taxed. They then have to pay taxes on that $500. When they spend any of that money, they pay taxes on the item they purchase. The person they bought the item from also has to pay taxes on the money received. They suggest that every dollar is taxed repeatedly.

A recurring struggle is the long-standing disparity between wealthy and poor. The conversation points to Los Angeles, where many people still live on the streets, alongside the idea that it “shouldn’t” be possible for anyone to have billions. The speaker argues there “should be a limit” on how much someone can have because “there’s enough to go around to everyone,” and suggests creating “an allure” or system that results in equal access for everyone. The speakers acknowledge uncertainty about how such a law would be implemented. They also connect these ideas to personal observations, saying they have met starving children and that knowing how lucky many people are—and not taking everyday life for granted—is “so important.”

The speaker emphasizes the importance of paying a fair share, specifically targeting the wealthy and big corporations. They express their commitment to ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share and highlight the need for everyone to contribute their fair share. The speaker concludes by stating that paying a fair share is a matter of basic fairness.

A person paid their bonus daughter $50 for cleaning the kitchen cabinets, then taxed her. They then gave $20 to another person for doing nothing. The bonus daughter said it wasn't fair to take money from her after she worked hard and give it to someone who did nothing. The person stated that if she votes liberal, they're going to take her money away and give it to people who do nothing, but if she votes red, she'll get to keep most of it. The bonus daughter said she's going to vote red.

Today, nearly half of every dollar earned in the U.S. goes to taxes, often unnoticed because they are embedded in business costs. Politicians advocate for taxing businesses to help the average person, but these taxes ultimately increase product prices, acting as a hidden sales tax. There are numerous such taxes affecting consumers. Additionally, there is a call to raise corporate taxes to ensure that large corporations and billionaires contribute their fair share. While success is commendable, it is crucial that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.

Speaker 0 argues for a 20% tax rate cut while preserving middle-class benefits, citing past examples like Kennedy and Reagan. Speaker 1 disagrees, mentioning bipartisan deals and Mitt Romney's low approval rating. Speaker 2 shifts the conversation to golf handicaps, challenging Speaker 1 to a game. The discussion ends abruptly with mention of President Trump.

Before the tax cuts for the rich, those making over $100,000 paid 30% of taxes. After the cuts, they paid 65%. Those earning under $5,000 went from paying 15% to less than 0.25%. Despite facts showing otherwise, critics claim the rich benefited greatly, while ordinary earners paid little tax. Millionaires' tax share rose from 4% to 19%. Critics dismiss these changes as mere "trickle-down" effects.