Peter Schiff schooling Congress
 

Great speaker, interesting to listen to, but he's outright lying about numerous things. Unfortunately, that made it go from a "Hell yes!" to a "Great, another liar goes before a bunch of liars to lie."

Maybe you're lying blaen99? In fact, you ARE lying about a few things.


Just kidding. Someone needs to tell this corporate jet riding fat cat CEO to simmer down. Look at him on that video, not paying his fair share or sharing in the sacrifice. Disgusting!

Wow.

Good to know someone is telling them what's going on.

No, he's lying.

Oh really, Brainy?

He claims that he pays more now than people did in the past. In the past, taxes for those who made a million+ were as high as 95% - okay, you can play the exemption and deductible card, that is fine. Sure, it made it under 95% counting those. But if you ignore exemptions and deductibles, we have historically low rates.

Later in the video he claims he paid half of his income in taxes. The rates he quoted were excluding any deductibles and exemptions.

Either you include or exclude them. You can't ignore them when it suits your point, and then include them when it suits your point. This is just one example. Alternatively, you could try to tell me he takes no deductions, but then I'd just laugh at you.

I like his points, and I said I liked him as a speaker. But you can't do this if you expect to be taken seriously.

your confusing private taxes and corporate taxes. look i owned a shop right. when i got a job the money coming in had to pay 6% in sales tax, 25% on what my employe earned and i need to pay 35% on what i earned. opening a legit shop was what made me fail. i couldn't sustain enough income to keep afloat. i should have just made it a cash base business, cut the gov out, and my shop would still be around.

How can ANYONE defend what we are currently doing. IT IS NOT WORKING. We see it everyday. Something needs to drastically change. This guy seems to be on the right track.

He was talking about before 1918 when America was booming, and our money was worth far more. Your discrediting him because you found a higher tax at some point in time. STFU dude. Was there a lower tax earlier in History? Yes

Edit: Here ya go

Year $10,001 $20,001 $60,001 $100,001 $250,001
1913 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1914 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1916 2% 3% 5% 7% 10%
1918 16% 21% 41% 64% 72%
1920 12% 17% 37% 60% 68%
1922 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1924 7% 11% 27% 43% 44%
1926 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1928 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1930 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1932 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1934 11% 19% 37% 56% 58%
1936 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1938 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1940 14% 28% 51% 62% 68%
1942 38% 55% 75% 85% 88%
1944 41% 59% 81% 92% 94%
1946 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1948 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1950 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1952 42% 62% 80% 90% 92%
1954 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1956 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1958 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1960 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1962 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1964 23% 34% 56% 66% 76%
1966 - 1976 22% 32% 53% 62% 70%
1980 18% 24% 54% 59% 70%
1982 16% 22% 49% 50% 50%
1984 14% 18% 42% 45% 50%
1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50%
1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1990 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1992 15% 15% 28% 28% 31%
1994 15% 15% 28% 31% 39.6%
1996 15% 15% 28% 31% 36%
1998 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2000 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2002 10% 15% 27% 27% 35%
2004 10% 15% 25% 25% 33%
2006 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2008 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2010 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%

Amusingly, Jacob proved my point with the source I was going to post. Thanks Jacob.

P.S. You guys may want to read what someone writes. I said I agree with his points, what is it with politics and nonexistent reading comprehension? My issue isn't with his points, it's how he made them, and Jacob pretty effectively demonstrated mine.
P.P.S. If he seriously is trying to claim before 1918, that's laughable, and re-watching the video as well as reading the transcripts, it's pretty clear he's not. The specific period of time he is referring to is likely the 50s to 60s or 70s - America's so-called "peak" as what he has talked about in other sources referred to. Pre-1918 America wasn't a prominent country by any means, and that's being nice about it. The roaring 20s? Sure, absolutely. But pre-1918 killed that argument bro.

You got a corporate tax by year link?

Corporate taxes have nothing to do with my argument if you are trying to rebut my points, Jacob, although corporate tax rates look similar to income tax rates IIRC, with the notable exception of corporate deductions and exemptions is much greater %-wise than individuals.

I've got a source somewhere on hand, trying to dig it up.

(Edit) Be warned, it's an obnoxious PDF.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...al_bracket.pdf

Corporate tax rates peaked at 53%, although taxing corporations is the peak of silliness. If the gov't insists on taxing both corps and individuals, it's double taxation.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with the other 15 points he made. Your trying to discredit him without actually knowing how much he pays in taxes, all taxes income, state, federal, corporate, sales, gov fees, property, etc. Your just looking at one tax.

[Placeholder/subscription reminder]

I ran out of time about 4 minutes in. I will reserve final judgment until I have time to listen to all of it, but he seemed to either gloss over or plain misdiagnose two elements:

1. Speaking of jobs, he refers to profits and capital as the reason for hiring. I assume he is considering demand for the product being produced as being wrapped up in the "profits" element, but it is worth disentangling.

2. Regarding capital, he says "there is no money to borrow." I will be curious to see how he expounds on that as, on its face, it is factually and operationally incorrect. It seems to smack of the "deposits create loans" way of thinking. There is no lack of lending capability.

1. If there was no money behind the demand, the product will not be created.

2.

2. Everyone has a credit limit. We are dangerously close to ours.

see GDP to debt ratio. our economy cannot grow itself out of debt.

That would be true of private investment. When the gov't borrows or taxes and spends, in the name of "stimulus", it will spend money on crap for which there may be no demand. Such as Solyndra solar panels. This is what happens when bureaucrats spend other people's money. Wealth is not created when money is spent where there isn't matching consumer demand.

I am not sure what you were going for, but you actually just described a very important aspect of modern, free-float sovereign monetary systems quite elegantly. :D

In the USA (and Japan, Australia, Canada, the UK, but not Greece, Belarus, Argentina, etc), loans create deposits. Banks are capital constrained, not reserve constrained.

http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-43.pdf
http://www.bis.org/publ/work292.pdf


Try not to let that :crx:

Okay, do you want me to go over the video point by point Jacob? It's actually rather hard and distasteful for me to tear his points apart because I agree with what he is trying to say, but as Scrappy Jack pointed out, he's either glossing over, misdiagnosing, or simply lying via omission (My biggest problem being the last).

He's got great points! He chose poor ways to make them :(. Quite honestly, lying via omission pisses me the fuck off. He could have very easily came up with alternative arguments that were completely true and didn't rely on what I've covered before. His points are strong! But they don't make good sound bytes. He went for good press/sound bytes and sounding good over actually trying to get something done, which makes me both sad and angry.

(Edit) I mean, just look at his hiring restrictions example in the video! That's freaking gold. But he went for sound bytes and political points over sound arguments!