Milton Friedman - Redistribution of Wealth 

Serious ?

Real question: Are you leaving your inheritance to your children?

@@nate7778 😂😂😂

@@nate7778 Of course he is. He was a trial lawyer in SF. Prob made a good amount of money. Do you think he's going to sell all his assets and go on the streets of Oakland and distribute the money equally to the poor blacks, criminals and homeless drug addicts? Of course not. All progressives are hypocrites.

His 'debate skills and decorum' are of secondary consequence. What is most admirable is that he tells the truth. That's what matters.

It was a time where the society was definitely more unified. They all felt like they were in it together, but, also a time of shared dress norms, shared social expectations and shared fear. No thanks.

all of that sounds good to me actually. people polished their shoes before they left the house, dudes could wear hats without looking like hipster d-bag, women didn't dress like hookers, no beyonce, all good, i think we've gone downhill fast.

Nick Kavakos - so you're saying because I'm white, I'm too sensitive? wtf

So it seems the era your post associates with middle class manners. is behind us now? The disappearance or de capitalization of the middle class itself was yet another outcome of better than 30 years of public policy influence wielded by elite private interests, who used frontmen like Milton here to promote privatization of public assets, deregulation of markets, austerity, tax reductions on inherited wealth, capital gains and corporate profits. Meanwhile, the once upon a time secure middle class employee of todays consolidated big business sector is most likely an overworked, underpaid temp struggling to hang on to his or her depreciating real estate with what is left of a stake in businesses' profits. Desperation and loss tend to breed the social conflict to which politeness and public decorum are only secondary casualties. I you want to see how far this trend can go, try staging a debate in the midst of a food riot. Libertarian ideologues promised to rescue us from egalitarianism and it would seem they have succeeded in at least pitting what remains of the haves against a mushrooming population of have nots. It you are one of those lucky few with a secure niche on top you can always scapegoat the government for the decline of civility. On the other hand, the millions who have been left behind to scavenge for scraps of food clothing and shelter in the rubble of once great American cities, are not listening to economists utopian theory of free market prosperity to come anymore..I am less concerned about the survival of propriety than you seem to be because it seems that even savages can be taught good manners.

So it sounds like history is in the grip of an ongoing conspiracy to persecute manly, sekf sufficient men, like yourself, who are innocently seeking nothing more than economic freedom? I happened to cross paths with the USPS lady who delivers the mail this morning and asked if she was a "fabian socialist" and she said she hadn't heard of it but she was still an Elvis fan at heart..

The whole “take from the rich to give to the poor, but don’t take from me” mentality makes my head spin.

Ok www.michaelwest.com.au/revealed-how-the-murdoch-men-looted-1-4-billion-in-salary-from-public-companies/ www.michaelwest.com.au/hidden-billions-ato-forgot-to-say-corporations-get-tax-rebates-too/

@@ozwunder69 I've seen similar schemes like this before. Where investors are promised the moon to invest their money in what turn out to be ponzi and pyramid schemes. Only to lose all their savings. However, I don't have even less confidence in the bureacrats planning the economy. I've lived in a capitalist and a communist state. Difference is you have far much more freedom in making your own desicions, about your life, which includes where to invest your money, in a capitalist leaning country than one where government has immense control. Though, because the desicions are mostly yours, it is a "buyer beware" situation. Which is why I opted to start my own small business and as I grew bought homes. Government buerocrats in my home country have immense control over the economy. However, they're extremely corrupt and are busy looting the public coffers through government procurement and contracting. The state corporations are very inefficient yet are bailed out by taxpayers in the bilions annually. On top of that, bilions have been borrowed from China for so called governmental projects. Most of the projects are awarded to China and the sub contractors are the bureacrats themselves. Most of the projects are short lived, incomplete, outdated, terribly maintained and unproductive. Yet we have to keep servicing the loans through even higher taxes. Moreover, they keep borrowing to fund more "projects " and bail out more failing state corporations. What this article says is a good critique of how big business is looting from trusting investors. But what Milton is saying, at least what I grasp here, is desicions made by bureaucrats can cost the economy dearly on a macro level . In the case of my country, Kenya, we are knee deep in debt thanks to bureaucrats. The more control you allow them the bigger the corruption and abuse of power. In my country, the bureaucrats are so wealthy and so powerful that criticizing them is like signing your own death sentence. And each year, they expand their sphere of control further. We have gotten to a point where you have to bribe authorities to get licences for business or it won't even get off the ground. They've colluded to become an oligarchy of elitists who run both government and big businesses. Capitalists can be ruthless opportunists. But, unlike our bureaucrats you can say no to handing over any or more of your money. With taxes especially in an oligarchy, soon to be tyranny, like ours, you have no choice but pay them, have little say on how it's spent and will go to jail if you don't, or worse. Socialism such as the one in reported of Sweden only works when you have intelligent bureaucrats with stellar integrity. A phenomenon that is usually rare in most countries. And even Sweden taxes business profits low(20% ) and personal income high(50%), no wealth tax, no inheritance tax to avoid killing incentive for doing business. Balance is needed but you have to be very careful about how much control you give to bureaucrats lest you end up with an oligarchy.

@@dolphineachonga8724 l can feel an African talking. I see brothers pass through the sea to enjoy what de west has, all systems has problems but learn to be grateful

@@godfred7146Being grateful doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand as your country is run to the ground. We've had to fight to wrestle our country from ruthless dictators before and are trying to keep it from slipping back there. Having blind gratitude to corrupt bureaucrats is exactly how we got there in the first place.

That’s why we love him

Which is a characteristic of someone that really understand the essence of what they're talking about. If you really know the subject manner, you're able to explain it in a very simple way that everyone can understand

If you wanna say taking the humanity out of exploitation of third world countries "light and easy" sure.

if your brain doesn't allow nuance, then obviously you can talk in a light manner. Everything this charlatan said has been proven wrong and people are still clinging to him.

What you call "light and easy" i call "smug".

He is educated, understanding, and respectful. It is how people should be when put in the position he holds

He did not “demolish” anyone. Even Alan Greenspan, a Milton Friedman acolyte, admitted after the 2008 financial crisis that this view of reality is flawed. There is no empirical data that supports these conclusions.

Deepank Devate And if there is no incentive to have wealth, say goodbye to innovation, productivity, and progress.

It is a law of the universe that at the moment of the most important answer being given, it will be interrupted by an asinine distraction

That sounds incredibly fallacious.

@Sawyer Well, it seems that statement is suggesting that the only possibilities are pure capitalism or communism, which doesn't make sense at all. Obviously a false dichotomy.

​@@adrianhutabarat1736 That's not what he meant. He wanted to say, that as long as wealth exists wealth inequalities would be there, so if we want to stop the "inequalities" the only solution is not to let people accumulate wealth. For example by taxing too much the incomes so people are discouraged and can't accumulate wealth...That's a real socialist view lol : don't care if people become poorer if the rich become poorer for more "equality". I'm from a "socialist" country, France and some years ago we broke the world record of taxes : 46-48% taxes ! We have been trying the high "Redistribution" for decades and guess what ? The inequalities have increased, more poor on the streets and the "redistribution" didn't affect the real inequalities. It didn't really decrease the income's inequalities before taxes....With all being said many wealthy people get out of the country, it heavily weighs on the growth (companies and people too much taxed), high debt to found the social programs and high unemployment but that's all GOOD. So yes, if we want to end the economic inequalities we need to tax way more than "only" 48% of GDP which already affects really badly the economy and by consequence the incomes, and our net wages are low because too heavily taxed...In the name of "equality" we are all poorer than normally. And it doesn't even work. I repeat it, it needs way more than 48% taxes to end the inequalities but the result would be that the economy collapse LOL....

And the way he does that so well just shows how many people have a minimal understanding of economics. Especially the ones that have the angry questions.

Friedman on other videos say that capitalism only works if money doesn't sleep but is always reinvested, that seems contradictory with this statement

@@taurtue You've absolutely misunderstood it.

shining a light on the motivation of the left to destroy the family, thus destroying the motivation to continue with capitalism.

Very funny

That's wrong...I laughed out loud, but you're wrong for that...

Indeed.

He's probably in Obama's government.

Good one

+Antonie de Vry "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain" Winston Churchill.

Well he was talking about Lloyd Georges Liberal party. If it was 20 years before under Gladstone it would be the other way round. Gladstone is probably the most Libertarian Prime Minister Britain has ever had.

How is he a genius? His logic isn't sound at all. Proposing that someone would spend their money on "frivolous entertainment" as the only means of redistributing wealth is a fallacy. Proposing that their would, for some reason be no capital for factories is a fallacy. His outdated ideas are being proven wrong at an increasingly rapid rate as the wealth gap increases and upward mobility stagnates. Perhaps if there were a 100% inheritance tax, instead of "frivolous entertainment" people would spend their money on philanthropy. Perhaps if individuals with vast sums of capital didn't exist, people would pool capital for industries, thus putting power and agency into more hands. I see Friedman's view on society as lacking generosity in the assumptions of what people are capable of.

​@@Jazzy_BoopI'd also add the fallacy of capitalists striving for their children. For this I think of climate change. Wealthy people contribute far more greenhouse gas and other pollutants than the rest of us, given their life styles and profit motives over social good. They seem unconcerned about the world they are leaving their descendants. Do they really think that their wealth will protect them? If so, I expect their attitude for the rest of us is, "Let them eat cake".

@@Jazzy_Boopa 100 percent inheritance tax is the craziest idea of all time and would surely lead to disinterest in savings

@@jeffgifkins7684exactly, more money would stay in circulation

@@Jazzy_Boop but having consumption in the current moment is not what leads to long term growth in prosperity. You would have less people saving money meaning less investments in new businesses and technology etc. which is bad long term

+ROGER2095 I think I understand you argumentation, but ... Yes you can tax the money again without being ''immoral'' as you put it. It is exactly how things work when we exchange money in our day to day lives. In inheritance tax, it is the recipient that is taxed and not you. Same thing happens when you buy stuff with the money you earned (after you paid tax), the receiver (ie the person you give money to) is taxed. Inheritance tax is nothing special, it is just following through on how things work in every day life. Not taxing inheritance money would be out of the ordinary. Tax is paid when money is exchanged, because this is where value (profit or loss) is created. And by the way if tax was abolished completely, the concept of money would lose its meaning . Noone would value a piece of paper. And especially not imaginary bits of data (as this is how money and value is represented in our day and age)

The reason I say it's immoral is because the promise (perhaps implied, but nevertheless understood) is that once your income is taxed to the government's satisfaction, it can't be taxed again. Intentionally breaking that promise is immoral. It is true that a sales tax, for states that have it, is one more bite of the after tax income. The distinction is that A.) The federal government does not have a sales tax, and the 10th amendment guarantees that states can raise taxes any way they can get away with. As a citizen I can decide to live in whatever state I want for any reason I want, and if I don't like the taxing system, I can move. And B.) If I don't spend my money, I don't have to pay a sales tax. I am a free man and it's my money to do with as I please and nobody elses. If I want to give you my all-paid-for-with-after-tax-money house, it's not income to you. It's a house. And you can do with it as you please. If you decide to sell it for money, then it's still not your income. (What if, for example, you sell it for less than I paid? On paper it's a loss.) Now, if (and when) you spend that money, and whoever receives it profits from the transaction, they THEY will have to pay an income tax. In the end, the government receives their due, one step removed. You didn't pay. Likewise, if I give you cash or or other assets while I'm alive or after I'm dead, it's already been taxed and you should owe nothing. If and when you convert it to cash and spend it, then whoever profits from that sale will owe tax. And one way or another, you'll spend it. (If you leave it in a bank, they'll loan it to somebody and THEY'LL spend it. Except in a piggy bank, money never stays idle.) This will encourage people to buy and save assets, which encourages risk-taking and business growth. One of the destructive things about the inheritance tax is that heirs often have to sell the asset in order to raise the cash to pay the tax on it. A farm, for example, that's been owned and operated by the same family for several generations suddenly has to be sold just to raise money to pay inheritance taxes.

+ROGER2095 I agree with all that you say. Everything that you create with your mental and physical energy and efforts should belong to you, except what is minimally necessary to protect your life and property. That was the basis for the existence of government in the first place. To keep order, to keep people from hurting each other or killing each other, and to protect the property that they've earned by their sweat and effort. Whatever is minimally necessary to provide for the society and to preserve liberty is what the government at all levels should be doing. We've lost the concept of liberty and freedom, upon which this country and its once great form of government was created to protect. We must get back to this or we will soon see the demise of all that our soldiers have fought to protect and defend.

+Free Information Taxes are immoral, period.

You should write your own dictionary. That would be hilarious. By the way, taxes are inevitable in any currency, so why spend a lifetime complaining about it?

Go right ahead. The problem is not that the people need more money. What they need is for you to have less. If you burnt all that money, the state could simply print replacements. Since it is only replacing currency (and not adding to the currency supply), we end up exactly where we started. Only this time we don't owe any undue fealty to your entitled ass. Any money you hang onto is like a "share" in the nation's collective wealth. It gives you a sort of authority over how society directs its resources. Obviously, such power must be justified, and it cannot be justified based on what your parents did. The best justification is for you to add to the collective wealth (and investment does not count) and receive share commensurate of what you contributed. If you aren't going to do anything (or if you want stuff over and beyond what you do), then why should the rest of us tolerate you sitting around diluting our shares. It's parasitical. At least welfare recipient have the decency to acknowledge that they have not contributed and to (usually) only take as much as (or less than) they need.

Jason Calhoughny What? I lived in Tanzania where they did what the young man suggested. Pretty soon, everyone was waiting for everyone else to leave their wealth behind for redistribution. The motivation to acquire wealth beyond the basic needs died. Everything was produced only for consumption. Factories and firms shat down to the point the economy nearly came to a stop. We made a complete change to capitalist attitude and are slowly seeing growth of the economy. I say don't burn the money, but, no one else has any right to it but you who worked hard to earn it.

@@jasoncalhoughny8160 Everything you've said is false. Congratulations.

Willaev No it’s not lmao

@@theodorboon yes it is. Plus, I don't know if you've noticed, but if the state could really replace the money I burn/spend by printing more, taxation would make even less sense than it does in reality

@Gordon Shumway Ok I need to set the record straight with you Gordon. No leftist-socialist today would agree with that kid and we can even make a better argument than Friedman against redistribution of wealth and the inheritance tax. The Inheritance tax would literally do nothing because the loophole is very obvious. The obvious loophole is that it's a tax on money after the parents die. So a smart parent would just give their money to their kids before they die. And wealth is much more than just money; It's in assets that can generate wealth such as land/property and businesses which the inheritance tax would not touch. So kids born into those wealthy families that have those kinds of assets would still get a free ride in life because they still inherit assets that will generate them a lot of money anyways. These are just not good ideas for addressing the problems with capitalism but it's funny seeing Friedman fumble and faceplant with such low hanging fruit. It's too bad he's not still around because it would be fun for me and my comrades to make fun of the stupid things he says and his lack of logic.

@Gordon Shumway There are plenty of leftist who REALLY would love to debate Thomas Sowell actually. All we can do is make a youtube video like this one addressing his stupidity: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kQxXPjiW1k0.html My argument against the inheritance tax is much better than Friedman. Not sure why you are stubbornly simping for him. All he made was an emotionally charged argument. I made an argument with substance that is much more believable.

@Gordon Shumway Why do you keep saying the same lines? There's absolutely no reason for them to be "worried" about a small minority of people like us. All I have said so far is that socialist today are not arguing what you believe we are. And since I have clearly stated this you seem to have a sudden communication malfunction. I don't care about these stories of "escaping communism". No socialist other than what we call 'Tankies' (which is an even smaller and more fringe group of 'leftist') is saying that society should be like North Korea, China, and the late USSR. We are looking towards better options that you would have an impossible time arguing against. Well, you can argue against it, but you would look like a complete idiot.

@Gordon Shumway You are a very smug fellow lol What i'm talking about is literally the definition of socialism. Worker self management and ownership of the means of production and distribution of good/services. This is reflective of worker cooperatives that we see all around the world, including in the U.S. They work really well and it's probably time for people to learn how to be more responsible and become much more involved, rather than letting someone tell you what to do and never think for yourself. The idea of socialism today is much different than what the Soviets thought it was. Sadly this trend isn't at all uncommon because we have seen this with Democracy too. When Democracy was first formed in Athens, it only lasted for a short time until Cleisthenes passed away. The reason why Democracy didn't last is pointed out by Socrates and Plato. For Democracy to actually work you need the people to be logical, reasonable, and educated on the matters for which they vote for. Right now all around the world we have what we call a "Representative democracy" which is basically an Aristocracy where we elect Aristocrats to make decisions for us. Socialism is ultimately a process of moving us away from being controlled by a small group of people by implementing a kind of structure where the people will have to learn how to think and do things for themselves rather than being told how to think and what to do. Worker cooperatives are a great starting point in giving workers much more economic mobility so that they don't only know how to do their jobs but also know how to manage them as well. They can have complete ownership of their own labor rather than someone else owning it so they make more money than a typical worker in a privately owned business who's wages are set for them. Essentially worker cooperatives are a great idea and in my opinion seem to be the future of how businesses are structured and operated. This is one solution to the problem of capitalism that todays socialist would give. Like I said though, it would be impossible to argue against this since there is plenty of evidence to back them up showing that they actually perform better than privately owned businesses. They have much more durability to price shocks as we have seen with the farming industry in America and they tend to survive longer than the standard private businesses (which typically fail 8 out of 10 times).

@Gordon Shumway Yeah good luck to you too 😎✌

Yet his economic talking points are individualist in nature, even if not to the "pull yourself up by the boot straps" degree.

And one of BLMs stated tenants is the destruction of the nuclear family

@@wwilcox2726 source?

@@PeachesandCream225 it was on BLM's own website. They've since removed it.

we're not a family society, we're a tribe society. Families exist for two reasons. 1. All mammals know that there are higher chances of survival in groups 2. The family structure was imposed by religion a long long time ago in order to mediate conflicts and control masses. I'm not going to debate too much on here but he views are heavily biased by his upbringing and the people he studied with and we all are. However, one thing is very clear. For any society to survive both the needs of the individual as well as the needs of the community have to be met. The individual is a product of the community and he in his turn shapes the community. There is one secret ingredient which has the power to tip over any bright economist's predictions and that is humans perception of self. this is because the economist's view is based on assumptions about the market existent until that time which in turn is dependent on the behaviour of humans under an Ego drive to survive. Unfortunately we can't continue with the tribal mentality anymore or we risk oblivion. It's very simple, economic expansion has been blind to the real cost of progress which is first and foremost environmental degradation and then inequality, corruption stifling of innovation through market domination and so on. His theory and only through family individuals would be motivated is outdated. We are all a family and the life support system that is this planet is going to shit us out if we fail to integrate with it instead of living like a pest and turn resources into digits in our bank accounts. The problem with Milton is that he is a preacher, he's got and idea and he will run with it and find any justification that will validate his belief system. Sounds like religion to me. I would much rather listen to someone who is more wiling to consider other points of view rather than find ways to justify his belief system. Also marriage and the family system is also an outdated system of social structure that humans must evolve beyond.

I loved that too :)

adstanra To prevent Aristocracy, if you want to promote "hard work," then I don't see how allowing someone's children to inherit enough wealth that they don't ever have to work in their lives. Especially if you consider what the tax is spent on.

RDO 123 If the government is going to confiscate the wealth I accumulated after I die, then I am going to spend it all before I die---maybe on expensive assets to my children or I am going to quit working the moment I have enough.....no way I am going to be working for nothing....

adstanra So if you spend it all, does would that not boost the economy? What do you think the government does with taxation.

RDO 123 If I spend it,it does boost the economy. Rich people also invest in the economy. They do not just put their money under the bed, they invest in businesses, buy bonds etc. This is usually what people inherit. Are you suggesting the government liquidize all that and take it for themselves? The government uses taxes for police, army but also to maintain itself and take from some people to give to others. I don't mind paying some more taxes than others to support those who are disadvantaged or to provide a net, but I am motivated by self interest as much as anyone, so if the government takes away what I earn, my production will decline----> not good for the economy.

adstanra The richest 100 people have the same as the 3.5Bn poorest, if they would invest in their companies, they already have the ability to do so. You are also ignoring the role the public sector has on the economy.

Nice socialist dream, but the kids will likely ruin it since they don’t know the colossal work gone into building it. Happened in 2 cases I saw in my own life. And the kids are horrible people cause they don’t know what work is. LMAO.

@@johnetro8806 I can see where you might say that but they both work in my business since they were kids oh, and they work in the business as adults. And there's no way they can really mess it up anyways because they just received the checks once I'm dead it's all residual income at that point.

@@johnetro8806 Depends how you bring up your kids. I’m in the process of taking over from my old man in his construction business. I’m working 6am-8pm 6 sometimes 7 days a week. Started out labouring and repairing machines at weekends, moved onto tools on site, then we got a contract with a housing association and I moved onto fitting kitchens, bathrooms, flooring as that contract grew I found subbies and expanded that part of the business on my own. I was turning over 90k a month running the whole thing with subbies until a few months back as we took on a new guy to take my place. I’ve now moved on procurement working as materials manager across the company on 2 kitchens and two bathrooms a week, various civils jobs, small roads, drainage, car parks etc and large high end refurbs. Can’t see my ol man packing it in any time soon although he can’t work like he used to when he’s ready things will hopefully run as they have before.

@@johnetro8806 Yes, what you say can be true. It depends upon how the kids are brought up. I find if the children work in the business they will learn the amount of effort to keep the business going. And from the experience they may not want to carry on the business which is actually OK, but they will learn what working is about.

@@johnetro8806 how is it socialist dream lmao do you even know what socialism is?

Envy is a terrible thing

There is nothing more disgusting than a billionaire that made his wealth on slave wages.

@@vkrgfan there are no slaves working for billionaires, dude. No one is whipping people and forcing them to work.

@@jr-yn4lk when you live in a "work or starve" dichotomy, yes, there is slavery.

Until we either break the law of conservation of mass or perfect recycling, people already must work.

i agree, this guy is very pacient, i don't think i would have such calm.

+7beers I don't know why but that comment had me in stitches. Friedman makes so much sense, and destroys what at first seems a reasonable idea, so absolutely incontrovertibly, that your comment somehow became hilarious to me

@G G Noam Chomsky is low tier propaganda.

😂😂😂

Well put, I like him very much

HooptieHamburger Yeah, why not-US universities already redistribute SAT scores in the admissions procedure. I consider that racist against Asians.

+HooptieHamburger what? you have control over what your grade point average is......You don't have any control over your inheritance.....You missed the whole point.

Its a joke

Darius RapMusic People do have control over how hard they try in school and in the work world. If everybody made the same amount of money, how hard would people try?

Do I need to explain the parallel to you, or do you think you have a big enough brain to figure it out? Any two things can be compared, and a comparison is not an inherent suggestion that two things are exactly the same in all aspects. It's about the relevant parallel. Lars Magnus Samuelsson Svenssonsenn Magnussvensamuelsson Thor

Yawn

NO ONE OWNS MONEY. ITS THE WORLDS MONEY OR IT BURNS CUNTS.

That bitch talked the talk, but she never walked the walk. And you're a f*cking idiot for sucking up to her, kid!

The problem with capitalism is that it allows for idiots to feel good being idiots

I mean Margaret Thatcher also said that poverty is a lack of character so I get where you're coming from but not the best example

"He came to this country legally..." - there lies a privilege that was not quite 'earned'...there was a path for legal migration which does not exist for million others. Another hidden privilege is that your family had an inclination to value education and the importance of study, which ultimately made your father strive to succeed. A child born to drunkard homeless parents living on the streets in India or anywhere else will NEVER EVER have that privilege. Now tell me you dad was not one lucky son of a bitch, just like most of the rest of us.

Same, my father grew up in a ghetto in 3rd world country in Asia to become an Anesthesiologist in the 1960s in the US

Well done sir!!! And well said!!! 👍💯🎉

ok Mr. RAO

That's what I'm talking about!!! 💯💯💯

+Eric D That tends to be the case when any tax rate is too high.

That would seem to be a good argument against such a tax

Yes I think the solution would be 1. No charity towards family members who are not facing financial problems such as a. Debt b. Physical injury c. Homelessness d. Other purposes as repliers to my comment see fit. 2. Only tax liquid assets 3. Get rid of inflation because nobody cares anymore Here's how I think it will work, but if you disagree or would like to point something out then go ahead. No charity towards family members is essentially just blocking conflict of interest. Only taxing liquid assets means that there is an intentional loophole around the tax. Because directly giving money to relatives is illegal under Act #1, the only way to pay less tax is to invest directly into the economy. We can get rid of inflation because Acts #1 and #2 create a new incentive to invest in the economy other than the devaluing of currency.

The rich are the very ones demanding higher taxes, because they know that it prevents New Rich from rising up and replacing the Old Rich such as themselves.

That isn't remotely what would happen. The rich would simply not pass their wealth along through inheritance. I would employ my children and pay them a nice salary. I would contribute to Roth IRAs with yearly untaxable gifts. I would use my business to pay for everything for them, effectively avoiding taxes through debt and supplying them homes and vehicles through the company. There are many ways to avoid taxes that do not include subverting the government. Most of us cannot do these things which is why most taxes just screw the middle class and working poor. Thanks, democrats!

I get the exact opposite view when I see him. There's nothing humble about him. He was a famed economist and he knew it and he's quite bombastic and cocksure when he talks. What he says is always borderline condescending. Listening to your opponent has nothing to do with how humble you are. FYI I'm a big Friedman fan, I just see him very differently than you do.

What are the chances that any of them are today's policy makers?

+Jordan Rodriguez would look like Bernie Sanders

+Jordan Rodriguez That's only true (that you bust your butt for nothing) if you assume people won't change their behavior based on new taxes. If we had a 100% inheritance tax, I would certainly change my behavior. I plan to live many years still, but I would structure my assets to avoid that inheritance tax. The evidence? I already do that, to a great extent. Almost none of my assets would go through probate if I were to die tomorrow. There's a small amount (about 8% or so) that would go through probate if my wife and I both died tomorrow, but that's about it. With a 100% tax, I'd get around that part. The richer someone is, the more access he has to professionals who will help with such issues, and the more incentive he has to make use of them. This same basic principle applies to any significant change in taxes.

+Jordan Rodriguez Any tax on inheritance is immoral, period. No one should have the right to dictate how I choose to spend and distribute the fruits of my labor.

+ZigZaggy P Your comment applies to *all* taxes, especially income-based taxes. When I earn my first dollar of the year, the U.S. federal government gets about 40c, and the state another 4.5c. That's the federal and state governments dictating how the fruits of my labor are spent and distributed. When I buy something with the slightly-more-than-half that's left over of what I earned, the state and local governments take some *more*, again dictating how the fruits of my labor are spent and distributed. This is the nature of taxes. If you believe it's fundamentally wrong and immoral, the only answer is anarchy. To me, taking wealth left over by a dead person is less immoral than taking the food out of a living person's mouth, but YMMV.

The demons were the ones who taught you that.

I know what you mean 😊... Propaganda had crept into every aspect of life in this country... My old hillbilly mama, at 90 years old, explaining to me about the "evil rich people"😭.... Last night... In church... That her four sons built... 🤣🤣🤣... "Bless her heart" 🙏😊

Absolute opposites!

chutdiggadigga Not Friedman. I meant the idiot he was talking too.

Thanks for clarifying, I'm glad you're not foolish

Lol, I don't even think Bernie is that extreme on taxes

...

fishblades Which only effects .1-.3% of ppl, oh the inhumanity (sarcasm)

Illya Lypyak So because it only affects a minority it's ok.

William Lennie It's funny because he only read the first line of my comment. His comment just proves my point.

fishblades Not to mention it's not a tax on you but your children. True it effects almost no body but ordinary ppl that want to be abolished over fear of being effected by it so nothing but an illogical fear over a very optimistic view of the future

William Lennie No but the context of the situation of it and the effects afterward allows me to draw to the conclusion that it is not a big deal to those even affected by it.

@MrLeonthepro There has never been a static lower class in America. The average Asian immigrant achieves middle class within the same generation. For latino immigrants it averages one and a half generations. 83% of American millionaires are first generation millionaires. Problem is, the growing reach of government in the form of higher and higher taxes as well as ever more business stifling regulations is eroding the middle class. It's getting harder to start and run a business in this country! Which is just what the Democrats want! A strong middle class is a threat to them.

spot on

Most billionaires give 100s of millions to charities as well.

Actually it would be even more simple. Just send all your liquidity to your kids and have them buy your fixed assets. Another option would be turn all your liquidity into fixed assets and then sell it all for $10,000 to your kids. What is the government going to do then? Make it illegal to sell stuff to your kids or put a threshold stating how much everyone should pay for certain goods? This kid is so amusing he doesn't realise that to enact such a legislation and make it effective one would have to encroach on certain consumer rights.

Marcus William Believe it or not, thats the way it works in the UK. Gifts are subject to inheritance tax if the gift is less than 7 years prior to death (and low price is deemed a partial gift). The idea is to stop people giving everything away on their dead bed. The tax rate is not 100% of course, but the morality is the same... its already been taxed as income anyway.

Mike Blain Thanks for your post Mike. I am actually from the Uk but didn't know the exact thresholds or such. Either way I find it ridiculous that you would work all your life and then the government wants to cash in on it. I am actually studying economics so this glimpse you gave me has just sparked my curiosity into the inheritance criteria. I knew there was an inheritance tax but didn't know the full extent of how it just tramples on consumers. Thanks for your comment I really appreciate it!

Unfortunately that law already exists. It's called the "arm's length principle". You cannot arbitrary set a price to sell your assets. To legally sell it, the asset must be appraised. That means you cannot sell a $1 million hotel to your children for $10.

Andrew Carnegie didn't think so, you fucking tool.

If a man decides to buy all the bread in the world with his money, what would you want to happen? It's his money right? If he wants to, he can do whatever he wants with it. There are no simple answers. Many wealthy people have money because they were born with it and their children will have better lifes than any of us without ever moving a finger. Life is not fair. I don't have a problem with that. But I don't tell people that that's the way it should or shouldn't be because of what I belive. Everyone should get an opportunity to live a good life. How we achieve that it the point of no return, where politics suddenly becomes a shared reality. If you have the answer, enlighten us. You know what big governments are at their core? A representative of the people that created them. A billionaire hopefully gets rich because he is brilliant, works like a devil and advances our life but you know why people from poor countries come to say the US? Because back home, they could not make it. And why? Because back home, the society they were once a part of had either created or suffered or become a society with a goverment which made it virtually impossible for them to live happy lifes. Maybe you should be a bit more thankful for the big goverment. Or maybe I am wrong - I don't know yet. Just a theory to perhaps keep in mind.

Arcaryon Please keep in mind that when talking about wealthy people, most of them were not born into wealth. Most of them worked to achieve what they had by investing in 401Ks and Roth IRAs. People tend to think that rich people are a monolith and that attaining wealth isn’t possible for low income people. It’s a lie. Completely false. Source: www.daveramsey.com/research/the-national-study-of-millionaires

@@andrewpycke3255 I know that this is the case; I even firmly believe in the fact that almost everyone in leading industrial nations can become a millionaire if they want tk. But I also know that while www.chrishogan360.com/investing/how-many-millionaires-actually-inherited-their-wealth This is true; a million dollar though is not really a lot of money. For billionaires the same thing is true BUT www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/10/wealthx-billionaire-census-majority-of-worlds-billionaires-self-made.html Billionaires get lucky. I know the side already sounds very left but I am actually a centrist so I may be forgiven but I think the article deserves attention: inequality.org/great-divide/billionaire-bonanza-2018-inherited-wealth-dynasties-in-the-21st-century-u-s/ inequality.org/topics/plutocracy/ The thing is; people like me would not say anything if there wasn't a problem. But with less people having more and more money and even replacing governments and using lobbyism to gain advantages and access to the elected western world's decison makers, it's time to ask the question if an inequality that is worse than what the French king had in comparison to a peasant is still acceptable an if billionaires should in fact be accepted in the way they currently are present in the US. This is not about moral fairness anymore, this is about protecting core fundamental values like freedom and the right of elect our leaders and to gurantee that our children will be able to live as free as our society should allow as well.

@J Donovan The US has very complicated relationship with this word "big government". I would actually prefer high or low government intervention but like anyone, there are issues where I think governments do too much or too little. And again; the only things I can safely and full condem is total anarchy and total authority.

If you think that most rich people give away their wealth then must not have heard of shell companies then.

Well, who knows what else happened that evening, when there's no camera?

@@stevenfrasier5718 Milton's televised work occurred several decades ago... When it was customary to behave yourself in a civil manner... Or you went to jail...

Exactly that's why you should be against the inheritance tax

The wealthiest people in the world make their money through capital gains (and/or inheritance), which is by definition, NOT earned income. The fact that we have a tax system that taxes capital gains LESS than earned income creates a redistribution of wealth from those that earn income to those that don't.

Actually, capital gains or inheritance are earned. People invest into companies to help them get off the ground. For that investment they are paid back more money than they invested in. With inheritance, the wealth that was passed down was earned by the person that passed away. In both situations the money that the people receive is earned.

You are distorting what "earned" means. There are well-accepted definitions for "earned income" and "unearned income." Capital gains and inheritance are not earned. www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unearnedincome.asp

ajnosek You're using a needlessly narrow definition of the word "earned". The definition of earned income for financial and tax purposes isn't really relevant to this discussion of the creation and distribution of wealth. Shane S's point is that people who earn money from investments or other capital gains have still earned the income even if they did not work for it, because they took the risks with their money that are necessary for economic development. The term "unearned" implies they don't deserve that income when they absolutely do.

You assume that parents die before kids are born. Parents could still fund their kids for a majority of their lives just not give them millions when they die. You haven't thought this through mate.

You can give your kids an education, and thats all they need. Its a head start on half the kids of the world.

Sam Osborne If my parents have a business and I work for them, what would be my incentive to work my ass off knowing perfectly well that the government would effectively confiscate it when they die? Are you against the concept of inheritance? The parents might be able to fund their children, but I'm not convinced that we would have got to this point if they knew their money or property would be taken from them by the government. Keep in mind that when Friedman made that statement, he was speaking in a time where people weren't as extravagant spenders as they are today. He is from a different generation. Today's generations perhaps seem more content to start from ground zero, but the society we inherited was not that society, thus his observations remain relevant.

dios bananos No one deserves a free ride just because they won a genetic lottery. If you want to work your ass off for your family business you can. You can succeed them are continue to manage that company, but when you eventually sell, if this tax were in place, you will be giving all that money to the government. Instead of ownership succession, it is management succession. If you truly believe in the business and enjoy working in it the government won't stop you from running it.and will get a salary like any other employee (probably much higher as you'd be ceo). If you know you won't be getting all the money at the end but strive to be rich, you might go off get a education and create your own business further contributing to society. One would hope prior to them passing they would have a clear succession plan. The only thing that inheritance does in my opinion is cause laziness and inequality. I am against the concept of inheritance, my parents have been wonderful enough to pay for my university education and I will use that education to gain my own wealth but contribute to society. I do not however want to be left money, as it would lead to me becoming complacent. People that know their going to inherit are not motivated to work and contribute as much to society. Why would you work your ass off in your parents business if they've already done that for you and provided for you, I do not believe that humans are that selfish but Friedman uses that exact point as his argument but it clearly doesn't ring true in real life. When you say "where people weren't as extravagant spenders as they are today" Do you have any proof? I do not believe our spending habits have changed at all, and if it was the case wouldn't we not want to start from ground zero as you put it ? You contradict yourself further by saying ", but the society we inherited was not that society, thus his observations remain relevant." If society today was not the same as the society he lived in then his observations are then no longer relevant.... You have a strong opinion on this issue without fully understanding the fundamentals behind it.

If your parents for example had 1 billion dollars, and you knew that you would get that. Would you contribute to society or just live a lavish, selfish lifestyle? You might contribute but you wouldn't need to. Whereas if the billion was given to the government (they could redistribute that to the poorest members of our society) and you would be forced to contribute. Friedmans whole premise is that inheritance tax would affect our motivation to innovate and contribute, but he's not thought it through. As inheritance leads to complacency, lack of productivity and wasted resources spent on rich little children who grow up to be rich little men just because they won a genetic lottery not because they contributed further to society.

Milton Friedman's system is working as intended. That's why more and more people are starting to realize that capitalism is a failure. 🤷‍♂️

@@Hunterchuck I know right! That's why we need Communism in the US, because that is a proven system that is fair and makes everyone equal.

@@wordpressobsessed9067 Um no. Communism will never be possible. First you have to get democracy working. I mean a real Democracy, what they had in Athens in 508 BC under Cleisthenes until he died. It only lasted two years but it wasn't a bad idea. That's the only way Communism is achievable. But we can still do Socialism at the very least. Worker cooperatives are pretty good alternatives to the standard privatized version. Dictatorships no matter how small are still dictatorships after all. 🤷‍♂️

@@Hunterchuck Maybe so, but the first thing we all need to do to get rid of Capitalism as we know it is throw away all of the things that came out of free markets and Captalism. iphones, computers, automobiles, etc. Anyone who doesn't is simply perpetuating the evils of Capitalism.

@@wordpressobsessed9067 I mean i guess we could do that if we wanted to act like children throwing a temper tantrum. Then we'd have to make all those things again in Socialism. 🤷‍♂️ The invention and creation of things has nothing to do with how a business is structured after all. I know a lot of propagandist like Friedman have done a great job of changing the definition of socialism to dupe everyone into believing there are no alternatives to our current problems. This new definition amuses me: "Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production..... BY THE GOVERNMENT!" 🤣

the fella sounds like an econ major

***** interesting point

I don't think it's a decrease of intelligence or eloquence at all between the generations due to technology. The viewer does not have any information how students were selected to listen to Friedman speak or how much they practiced or the research that went into the questions they asked. When one speaks to a world renown economic mind, I would imagine you would prepare. In addition, while I understand some college students may not have "eloquence" there are many who do. Those who have the gift of eloquence however are more thoughtful and opt out from speaking. Also, I do not agree that the person asking the question is stupid. Him challenging his view point to someone like Milton Friedman is a signal of intelligence. So, instead of people stating how wrong the student is, just let him learn. I do not believe in ridiculing people for trying to expand their viewpoint.

I think he was right about it being wrong that some people are born into disadvantage through no fault of their own I just think that the solution he was proposing was a touch extreme! we don't need a 100 percent inheritance tax rate to have progressive policies which promote social mobility, just a progressive tax regime that ensures those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest cost!

The boys heart was in the right place but his idea of an inheritance tax rate that high needs a cold dose of reality! there's more than one way to skin a cat. and there's far more rational ways to finance a decent social safety net and promote social mobility.

+BlackFox0911 Just a comment. By 'working for someone else' you probably mean 'being employed by someone else'? You are always working for someone, you can not escape that if you earns any money. You are always working for the one who choose to pay you for your labour. Even if you did the labour without any employment.

+Free Information No. You provide a service or talent at a certain rate. sometimes people provide these services on a contractual basis. That's called having a job. Quit the gloomy " you'll always be working for someone" shit. It's your life to live, and that's what America and every other pleasant Judeo-Christian society is for. A place where you have the unalienable right to comment on this video. Just be glad this isn't 1928 SSR and Stalin isn't taxing you for all your grain and effectively putting you out of business rendering you....unemployed, working for nobody.

I love how passionate that comment was, but you would be hard pressed to find any numbers that support your claim of minorities being disadvantaged. Their is no single law preventing the advancement of A black person growing up in an inner city(cities with largely liberal AND minority government employees, politicians). The two richest ethnic households in this country are Japanese-Americans, followed by Indian-Americans. Any person with enough ambition can make a living anywhere they go. Liberals just buy into the narrative of inequality and seek a utopia by spending money that's not theirs, and doesn't exist, on programs that are crippling employment in this country like welfare and lawsuits and law changes for unions. You need to read up on what's caused the disparities before you try to slander someone that was merely using logic.

+imaginativelads you can insult republicans all you want, and you can complain all you want. complaining isnt a strategy. public school exists, and has existed for many years. is it a good system? its not as good as it could be. the main problem is not the educational system. it is the problem of the familial unit. it is based in the fact that the vast majority of its poor constituents see NO value in education, because they were raised by people who see no value in education. the reason why private school works, the reason why the military produces good citizens for the most part, is EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY of message. message from home, message from school, message from church/religion must all coincide. that consistency creates INTERNAL CONSISTENCY, which drives proper behavior.  hearing the same message, same recommendations, same morals from all parties involved in ones life, will inevitably create a person who isnt confused. what you see in downtrodden black neighborhoods is the complete and total opposite. may I ask what length of time you have spent interacting with these folks? I do on a daily basis, and have for 30 years in school, in sport, in business. explain to me the merits of any type of educational system in which its constituents see absolutely zero value in learning. explain to me how even the best educational system would produce positive results, when there is absolutely zero accountability among the familial unit to provide a proper home environment. you can fucking sit on your high liberal socialist horse and toss insults as many liberals do, as its their only line of defense. at the end of the day, you present no solution. you refuse to go to second level thinking. you place all the blame on rich white people, and stereotype all wealthy white people as assholes. i submit that you are a complete faggot waste of space. over educated, underachieving whiner. move to greece.

Only around 50% of restaurants starting up actually work what happens to those other 50%

And the result of that is that people set their aspirations much lower than in the past. Why expend any more effort than what it takes to live a comfortable life yourself? I sure don't. Any further effort would be charity work on behalf of people who probably want me dead anyways. Screw it.

Not really, many of his theories are debunked, Neoliberalism led to NAFTA which to quote the great presidente “has been the worst trade deal in history” neoliberalism is an excuse to increase the plunder and accumulation of wealth in the upper class, some argued that the wealth will trickled down to the lower class but that is never the case. Also Friedman was overtly friendly to the Pinochet dictadorship

@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 dont insult Friedman, he's one of the market radicals gods.

There are voices like Milton's out there, but todays's gods of tech do everything within their power to limit their speech and access to communication media outlets, much in the same way the young man was critical of wealth.

​@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 agree in that Margaret thatcher implemented some of his theories which have caused significant issues in three UK where we have sold off too much with British people polls show things such as water should be taken back into public ownership.

Don't forget your jacket! ;)

Loooool no. Encore. Give me more!

Marko Ivančičević - ta da tish

I'll allow it.

I agree. I don't wamt 'Free things' I want Feedom!! Thats what wrong with out country today. The Lemmings want free things.... Stupid People

Wealth got to redistributed to Blaq America

Only after they opened up their economy. They were heavily socialist initially. It dragged down the country. Wish their first prime minister listened to Hayek instead of Keynes and Fabian socialists.

@@gabbar51ngh It was due to corrupt congress party rule for 60 years. They kept India backward and poor.

I am an Indian, we hav make problems but yes we are improving slowly as a nation. I think instead of wealth redistribution we need good free health care, good free education and more job opportunities. And mainly corruption of govt n politicians must stop

@Sc0ut op no not really lmao

It comes from a mindset of "Other people's stuff should be mine" mentality.

He's just following the socialist mindset of stealing as much as one can from hard working people

In my opinion, a 100% Inheritance Tax is somewhat of a bad idea, but with some modification and an intentional loophole the problems could be solved. If we only tax liquid assets, people will find a new incentive to invest in things so that they can pay less tax. And because people are investing in the economy. we can dump this inflation policy which only exists to ensure that people are investing in the economy

He was influenced by a girl that he likes.

His socialist economics lecturer at college probably suggested it as a good idea.

Because it's far easier to bitch and be jealous about someone else being successful than it is to get off our own asses, acquire a relevant skill or education, and do something with our own lives.

Because marxists and similar envy illiterates managed to brainwash a lot of people into thinking that economy is a zero sum based game and the only way of accumulating wealth is by taking it away from someone else.

Ways exist right now for poorer people to increase their own standards of living. The issue are government handouts. The more you give, the more dependent they become. A lot of them feel as if it's the government's responsibility to pay their way through life. Some of them will even do deplorable things such as having children for the purpose of listing them as dependants and receiving even more government benefits. The poor people who understand these things and work to elevate their station in life typically aren't poor for long.

Because people don't like the fact that 10 white dudes own as much as half the wealh in the world

Or, at best, you make damn certain almost all your assets are passed down within your lifetime. Like Warren Buffett, who dodged at least $10 billion in estate taxes by turning over his foundation and other assets. But in both cases, the incentive of a 100% inheritance tax is to die without one red cent to your name.

***** I agree but then we'll have to suffer too. All because of these redistribution morons!

dignan1000 alright, why don't you mention some of those ramifications. You'll be surprised to know that just calling someone naive isn't a logically sound argument.

Devon Allary Friedman stated it perfectly in this video.

dignan1000 "Whose wealth do you want to redistribute today, Napoleon?" "Who ever I freaking feel like it, GOSH!"

John Doe I wouldn't say so. That seems like a rather cynical take on altruism, especially when such a thing is asserted by a libertarian.

In Denmark there is a new town designed to be "green" named Nye, after planet champion Bill Nye.

Funny, I lived in the UK for a year and heard that town name bandied about numerous times. It never occurred to me where it came from.

Miltons idea that people would just spend their money away is such bullshit. Besides a family society it is also a society society. Look at all the great scientists and scholars working to benifit society. I am pretty sure capitalists tell themselves they are doing good by generating wealth for society. And with a 100% inheretance tax it would still be better to pay the tax (since your kids will also benifit from it) than spend the money away.

Sure they will. The median salary is double what it was. Maybe it is the cost of property that has considerably risen that makes you feel that way. And spending habits geared for more consumerism. New and added costs. Your parents didnt always have cable bills and car payments, their children will. Spend your hard earned money wisely.

Wages are part of a voluntary exchange, wherein someone agrees to work for another in exchange for money. There's no coercion involved, unlike government taxation, which is what people usually mean by the 'redistribution of wealth.'

ConsideringPhlebas I would argue that there is coercion involved. Many people in the world are forced to work long hours on crap wages, or face either living on benefits (getting demonised by mainstream media) or starvation, depending on the country. This is why we have and need mass unemployment in our current system, so that the working class can get treated like shit, but made to feel grateful that they've got a job at all.

Stephen Wood That's like saying employment itself is coercive because the alternative is to have no money and thus to starve or live on the street. Besides, a company won't throw people in jail if they don't want to work for it. On the other hand government does coerce people by throwing them in jail or confiscating their property. There may well be a cynicism about people who purposefully hire the desperately poor knowing that they will work for peanuts, but they can't force them to work for them, and presumably even such lowly employment is better than starving.

Stephen Wood Friedman cannot avoid repeating cleches like "voluntary exchange" to frame decontextualized abstractions having no correspondence to what happens in the world where the working majority cannot afford the necessities of a decent life. Milton lives in a capitalist Utopia conceptualized by the economics industry whose advocates themselves just happen to be situated in the the top 20% of the income distribution. His world is the playground of the rich where PhD's manufacture the myths and rationales of a culture intended to blind us to inequality social exclusion and poverty as outcomes.

gary morrison so you're just repeating the same thing: "employment itself is coercive because the alternative is to have no money and thus to starve or live on the street." voluntary exchange doesn't become fallacious just because you refer to it as cliché, and economic laws are what they are regardless of the context you place them into.

In the UK the inheritance tax threshold is only £325,000. The standard inheritance tax rate for everything above this is 40%. In the UK we have wandered into this socialist nightmare without realising.

He does 😂

The tax would serve exactly those childeren, since it was meant to create funds to give equal opportunities to childeren (with or without parents).