We need more videos on this subject.

Same argument could be made for corporate bail outs. The more the government steps in to bail out a mega corporation. The less incentive they have to actually produce competitive products. You're going to get a lot of corporations not being competitive in the market.

So fellas we take the IRS out of the equation.... Next speech

I saw this video as an ad and was immediately intruiged by it. I understood the points made and the final conclusion was powerful and solid. This is a very good propoganda tool for convincing citizens that welfare is wasteful and inefficient, plus it even subtly implies that those in poverty are often slothful while also implying the exact opposite for those with wealth. Yes, redistributing wealth so that every person has the same income would probably reduce the populations net income to zero and plunge the economy into turmoil, but is this video seriously advocating for scaling back or even the complete removal of welfare? I think there is plenty of untapped capital horded by the top percents to atleast help those without basic necessities. Sure, there are examples of poor people wasting and abusing the welfare system, but you dont have to look far to see corporations and affluent individuals wasting money at a level that is orders of magnitudes higher. Not to mention that these entities have the privlidge to spend their cash to further their interests, often at the expense of the middle class and lower. They're the ones who can afford ads like this that attempt to convince us that their money is better spent on whatever they want. Not to mention that this "net income" is hardly a great tool for measuring how well a population is thriving, and ignores how happy and fulfilled the citizens are. Sure, a nation with a high GDP can accomplish astounding feats and hold great influence in the world stage, but these factors hardly matter to most people who are trying to get through the day. A silver lining to this video is that I see plenty of people openly critiquing this video's message, and it gives me more faith in humanity that there are those challenging these worldviews that should have been left behind in the gilded age.

Thank you so much for posting this. I saw his course the day it came out. Please understand how I appreciate your website, and that these basic courses are free to the general public. Bless you for that!

There is some incentive to earn more in that better paying jobs are often easier. At least for us regular middle class people.

Fantastic, Professor. Greetings from Argentina

The theorem presented neglects the effect of emigration: that is the most productive people move from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax jurisdiction. I am in the intellectual property business and can operate anywhere in the world with rule of law and good communications. Why pay 60% tax when I can move and pay 10% tax?

Thank you!

If I said stuff like this in my professional or social circles the amount of friends I have would be exactly zero. It is a lonely time for those who value freedom over security.

Income inequality cannot be reconciled until there is effort equality.

How much production do you want? What happens when you are talking about fiat instead of gold? How long can it be sustained without causing damage? What things can be purchased with the redistributed currency? Was the same currency taken as given?

1:52 they buy $500,000,000 yachts. what about people in western Europe who are given a little more? they don't refrain from working - the money is used to pay for healthcare and college, because they understand a healthy, well educated population is good for all of society. in the USA, our economic system is only concerned with what is good for the wealthiest who own everything.

And what seems to have been left out is the added cost of the bureaucracy. Let's say we take $100. If the cost of the bureaucracy is 10%, then we will only give out $90.

Good clip. Have noticed that Dr. Laffer resembles Al Franken.

I don't care how much other people's incomes are. And I also think nobody else is entitled to any of my income. If my money is taken without my explicit consent, it's theft.

Exactly right👍 Equality of outcome and redistribution of wealth -- some of the biggest marxist's ideology bs . I still remember the reality of it in former Soviet Union.

No problem to help those in need, this has been going on forever but this should never be a governmental mandate, ever.

This would be a great video if productivity, and thus income, was the most important factor in actually making people happy. But the psychological research is very clear, income is just one among *many* factors that makes someone happy and *not* the biggest. Good relationships are what make people happy. And unfortunately vast income inequality is an antagonist to good relationships in a society.

This is an Interesting Minimalist view of how taxing the rich causes the poor not to work. But, what if the rich actually paid higher wages to those who wanted to work. What would happen then?

This only makes sense if the sole reason people work, or don't work, is for money, rather than other motivations to work like duty, motivation, identity, conscientiousness, ethics, pride, civic duty, self-expression, autonomy, helping others, the satisfaction of producing something etc etc

Those who can work should, those who can’t work should be helped.

You're talking about low-income employees, like they're beneath dignity.

We already have redistribution, to the top. All of societies money is being siphoned up by the rich and powerful. It is curious that ending this is what is denounced as redistribution.

That assumes that all people are purely extrinsically motivated.

Interesting. What should happen to handicap people then? Those who cant physically work?

"Why would anyone farm or create necessary goods and services if there were no money incentive and no overlords?!!" Stupid.

I have a democrat friend, yes, one, who says this isn’t true. I told him I’m a prime example, have worked for several decades, would quit right now if I got paid not to work.

Even in the our system, in periods of high taxation in the US there was more prosperity , and economic development ... Loot after the great depression 40s 50s 60s etc

What did I just listen to?! These guys just tried to convince me that income inequality is the key to more income 😂 I guess that is true for them!!!

Arthur Laffer should get the Nobel prize for his influence on world economics

Whatever happened to the saying of "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Thanks, God bless.

Cause trickle down economics worked so well.

That's what you want us to believe, sure that their will be some, but you could say the same for the other side as well. Let's go with what you said, that's what we are dealing with currently. The gap is killing us now, and people regardless have a cost that we also can't afford. It's a fallacy that redistribution is a waste of time. Best wishes, and why should a hand full of people have more resources than everyone on the planet.

I am just an average guy, but this is common sense.

It's Art Laffer! Mr. I'll bet Peter Schiff a penny! Loook it up, worth a laugh.

Is Redistribution whats really behind the recent blocking of Refuge's in Chicago by the Locals who now fear what must feel like a Replacement Move?

Thank God we're still free enough for these kinds of videos to be found online. Because these kids that are indoctrinated in our schools at least have a chance to learn the economic truth before they spend their entire lives in some form of slavery to the State.

I got an ad for this neoliberal propoganda that completely ignores the keynesian economic model the US adopted after WWII: the same model that resulted in wealth inequality being the lowest in US history, the same model that ended hunger in America, the same model that allowed for affordable college and middle class jobs straight out of high school, the same model that redistributed wealth in the form of wages and social programs and not gifts. And stop framing the redistribution of wealth as an upper working class vs lower working class issue. This is a proletariat vs bourgeois issue. Why was the US been so prosperous when it adopted keynesian economics if it discouraged people not to work (your words, not mine)? Why is the US continuously failing to address its own people's need for food, housing, fair wages, etc ever since it adopted neoliberalism?

Also, if the recipient passes a certain threshold, the government will tax that money a second time.

If you give money someone who doesn't have any money, they don't work more, but they cause other people to work more compared to the person with no money just dying from lack of money. The US's Congressional Budget Office actually quantifies this effect with their estimate of fiscal multiplier with various types of government spending. Not surprising, really: poor people are more likely to spend money that you give to them, while rich people will just put it in the bank as they already have everything they need.

If composit government (all levels: federal, state, and local) in terms revenue and borrowing holds a resource of 115T, and if IRS declared Adjusted Gross Income was 116T, and if the basic understanding is that government exists to promote the general welfare in the US Constitution's Preamble, isnt part of an anti-equity and equity stance/platform tap dance cleverly around basic economic reality? Who gains a value nearly as large as declared income (individual and corporate, etc) through and from government? See: OMB Historical Budget Numbers, Flow of Funds by the Federal Reserve, and State and Local revenues at the Tax Policy Center. From memory (2000-14, but rounded). 34T Federal Revenue, 32.455T State and Local Revenue, Federal Direct Borrowing 38.562T, State and Local Direct Borrowing 4.2532T. And ignoring 15+T in Mortgage Backed Securities, there's 2.8836T in Debt Securities (additional debt financing), and 2.8482T in Federal Enterprise borrowing. Add it up!

Pretty obvious to me. Never works out either.

“A word to the wise ain’t necessary. It’s the stupid ones that need the advice.” -Bill Cosby

what about the redistribution upward from workin ppl to rich. i read once that for every 10 dollars in foodstamps there is a thousand in corporate welfare. seems whole thing here is a ruse to deceive public into receiving a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Given the popularity of this video, the whole series should be uploaded here on youtube as a playlist.

A distribute is Saint denism

Funny video, it's like highschool lvl econ... and then you get more into the actuall reality of it all instead of just random smartass arguing. I dont think I actually ever heard anyone except them saying that redistribution is about taking money to give to someone else "directly"... it is usually thought of, to my knowledge, as funding indirect policies to actually provide people to even be able to work and make a living, similarly to the new deal. Not that I am a keynesian but taking demand-side econ into account is still important as well as the older Say's supply side.

Not a hard concept to grasp but there is plenty of folks who can't seem to grasp it

Laffer is saying : get rich or die trying.

It would not reduce the incentive to produce and to invest because you can legislate more taxes on capital which is not invested .... and tax even more if one exports capital to avoid taxation .. it is not that difficult.. And if the "taxpayer" wants to continue this practice he always abandon his passport and go - AFTER paying the appropriate taxes .. Good luck in Europe.

It is impossible to have imposed goodness, and one's own the sense goodness stand robustly intact.

13th, 3 October 2022

First off, I completely agree with everything in this video... But... yeah there's a but... In the general sense this is true, but in the specific case it may not be, and it depends on what you consider "income". If there is a person with a medical disability preventing them from working, and you tax everyone just a little so that they can pay for this person's medication, such that this person is now able to work, then that redistribution of income actually INCREASES the average income. Note that what we didn't do is give this person money as income. We gave them medicine as income, and specifically because they have a medical condition that would be solved by that medicine. This exception to the rules specified in the video do not negate the rules. They are simply an exception, and there are many exceptions. So the key is understanding when, where, and how to apply the exceptions, and that is the difficult problem. Extremely difficult. I don't know the solution to poverty, but I know there is one. And I also know that the solution is NOT the welfare system we have today and is not just giving people free money. I recommend we come up with 50 different ideas and implement each in 50 different states and 20 years from now go back and see what is or isn't working, then end all the programs, and iterate on the problem again, until we have solutions that work.

So, genuine question, is he saying if no one makes money there's no incentive to work? What about people who do things they love doing for free? I'm genuinely curious, I either misunderstood his conclusion or he doesn't understand intrinsic motivation. He leaves out the fact that people forced to work jobs they hate don't WANT to work, while people working jobs they love DO want to work. So yeah by redistributing wealth you'll be stealing from the people who want to work, which crushes their spirit. The question should be what do we do about the poor who don’t want to work? Which redistribution attempts to answer. This guy just ignores the poor who don’t want to work and says “redistribution doesn’t work”. Ok yes agreed so what’s the solution to poverty? If you can’t answer that, which is the real question, no solution will be found that makes anyone happy. We’ll either end up with a demoralized, apathetic and soulless society of once-bright people who loved life, and everyone is equally miserable. Or we’ll end up with a society of massive inequality, where only the ones who provide the most value make the most money and those at the bottom are left to starve and rot, despite their innate skill and ability to be useful, due to lack of opportunity. Poverty needs a solution that isn’t redistribution of good workers money, but what is that solution?

Let's start by redistributing grades in college...take grades given to students that have worked hard and give them to students that skip class. That would stop this BS immediately.

Yes it’s worming out just as Obama said it would. He said it would take time for everyone to move to where they should be. Thank you, democrats for not defending our country but defunding our country.

The welfare bureaucracy eats up a huge amount of money doing something that produces nothing. No gain. Siphons productive possibilities from the economy. We all lose.

PERFECT

Great work Arthur! Scooby snacks for you. My allegiance is to Liberty, the Repubic and Democracy.

This professor uses a logic so unassuming and simplistic that I don't see any difference between his ideas and anything a 5 year old could say. Entrepreneurs are driven by many things besides profit-making. Clearly, this guy has learned economics from a textbook.

Its interesting that the rich are considered job creators, yet recent history has shown that the rich are not job creators, but instead wait while job creators have spent their life savings building an idea only to swoop in and buy it for pennies, then send it off shore to be mass produced. The real job creators are the middle and poor who have the ideas but not the means to execute it or scale it.

YES, YES, YES!

I’d paint my house but that would make the value go up then I would have to pay more taxes so then I would have to do more work to put more of my money in an envelope and send it out of the house I’m not going to paint my house I’d rather take all that work time and spend it with my grand kids

Hey… I’m looking forward to living in a cave. Anybody have a cave for sale?

Ethically speaking it should not matter what a wealthy person does with his money. It is his he earned it he should do what he wants with it. If he wants to wipe his butt with $100 bill so be it he should not have to make an argument that he will use it more virtuously than the poor person you would re-distribute to. Because taking something from somebody and giving it to another with force i.e., the full power of the federal government is just plain wrong.

Why not tax people who don't work and pay the people who do work?

Homage to Catalonia. Animal Farm.

From my limited knowledge that would only be true if income is the exclusive vehicle of investment...Even if you where referring to profits, I believe there is a marginal benefit for every dollar invested...diminishing returns especially considering competition where there is a finite amount of profits attainable. Conversely subsidies encourage economic activity where there are perceived market failures. The taxes still exist as the consumer is unable to compete with the market leader, the market leader, possessing a large share of the profits only has an incentive to innovate when theres competition which redistribution seeks to create. Borrowing for the market leader is lower and they receive preferential treatment from the government. A tendency for the market to monopolize might take hold meaning profits are actually taxes as monopoly's compete with the government. In conclusion it is Numericaly* just as beneficial not to tax the wealthy as it is to redistribute wealth, the catch being redistribution, I assume, has greater attractive benefits of society, culture and personal stability while a supply side approach benefits mass production, the consumer surplus and stable prices. In that way economics is like an accounting game.

there are so many assumptions and logical fallacy’s in this video. the predominant one is that income is the only incentive to produce. i also watched the video on ethics and wondered how these two videos interact in relation to ethics, care, “the good,” and religious teaching of giving to the poor without incentive. what does that mean for society? and who is asking for “exact” equal distribution of wealth anyway???

Seems complicated !!!!

The progressive dream

This is coming from a rich dude saying redistribution is a bad idea because he has money

If high taxation reduces the incentive to produce and the production why the US had the highest growth and development during the period of high taxation?

Correct. Thank You for telling the truth. The incentive for politicians to do and say the opposite grows with every person who willingly takes the bait.

Just print cash. Get everyone working down at the mint. In Zimbabwe everyone became a billionaire. Under socialism "everyone's a winner babe and that's the truth".

Love Art Laffer. Very smart man. See: The Laffer Curve. Macroeconomics 101.

How about pay decent salary to people and we would not need redistribution. Person who works should not be poor.

What about multi-millionaires and billionaires - the wealthy? What about capital gains and dividends? Stock buybacks? Too many generalization and assumptions. Show me the numbers Art!

Is this a free course, class, or something??? who's paying for it????? AND WHY?????

At the end ... If income equality was legislated, who would be incentivised to enforce it? Who would bother with all of that effort for no gain?

Covid was a sneak peak at what happens if/when a universal basic income social program is legislated. People stay home, why work when the government will send you money either printed from deficit spending or taxed away from ambitious people who do work. Raising minimum wages isn’t the answer, that just pushes unskilled labour out of the workforce altogether hurting low income earners more. The challenge is to create incentives for workers to gain skills that employers are willing to pay more for that employment. There are no easy answers but there are poor choices for legislators, the road too often taken for political reasons.

People should be left alone and encouraged to work hard. And stop big corporations from taking the pie! We the little people deserve 85 percent of that pie. Not 15 percent like we are getting today. Smash Cultural Marxism now and the 2 percent in charge.

The fallacy in this argument is that government spending does not, and never has, relied on "taking" from anybody.

Yes, however , the" Redistribution Fallacy" premise may not be entirely accurate in scope. When monetary distribution "IS " paired with "educational empowerment " in the proper and effective use of resources, it now becomes an INCENTIVE towards upward mobility...not a deterrent! For much of the financial wealth in this country was conceived ( and nurtured to success) by those who were once in poverty/ignorance themselves. So, the only "fallacy" being promoted in this video is, the video itself!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

An empty belly is incentive for me

Lets play a thought experiment. The weathly are taxed at 33 % of all their income just like reguar citizens. Non of the money is redistributes to poor people. Instead, everyone is exected to get a job or create one after 18 yes of schooling. And, no ine is all9wed to inheriet wealth. If the owner of. Company decides to retire or die, the conpany dies w him. But, most importantly .. how would this system affect the working class? Would single mothers be able to bargin for a wage to send their children to day care? Should day care be state provided so that mothers can work. What if a citizen cant work due to age, injury, deformaty, or mental status? Remembwr everyone by age 24 is expected to be working or running a business. They must own a home, transportation, pay the bills, and save for retirement. There is no safety net. You dont get to go live on the streets or in the basement of your parents.

Exactly right we need a100percent tax on inheritance.If you know you're going to inherit a lot of money what incentive is there to work or contribute to society.

I love this throwback 80s propaganda. Nostalgic in it's own way..

It is not a redistribution for FREE!!! IT IS TO PAY A BETTER SALARY to whoever works 60 to 70 hours weekly. No one likes to receive alms, but anybody who works hard appreciates being sufficiently paid to have enough income not to work three jobs to make ends meet. I agree with you That people who make MORE PAY MORE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. Enough to educate their kids, finance a house, have time and extra vacation, yadda, yadda, yadda. I GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE NO FOOD STAMPS OR HANDOUTS!!!!!!! REMUNERATE BETTER. ( SIMPLE LIKE THIS). Do not complicate economics!!! Make it simple!!!!

Nobody can delegate to another, authority which they do not have. I have no authority to tax you, so I cannot delegate to government the authority to tax you.

this guy sounds like James Madison

The issue with this video is that it portrays the redistribution being from the common man to the poor for equal outcome, instead of the ACTUAL redistribution theory of utilizing taxes for equality of OPPORTUNITY by using high taxes on the wealthy(far wealthier than the average engineer, doctor, skilled worker let alone the most common/lower capped salary jobs) to subsidize the costs of average citiziens and provide a safety net so that one bad medical bill doesnt bankrupt a family(40% of US families are that close to poverty, even in periods with the lowest unemployment rates debunking the thought high amounts of people working drives average income up) everyone can utilize transportation for job opportunities outside of impoverished communities to bring more income to those communities, we dont have to spend extra money on food, tutors or private education with our children recieving quality education and care, therefore quality opportunities, no matter which public school they go to, the average family doesnt have to live paycheck to paycheck paying for pre-k/daycare since both parents need to work to afford rent and utilities, and our working class be embolstered to pursue opportunities and risks they want to take since they aren't forced to stay at a big business for healthcare, retirement funds, and other perks that should be given to people to maintain their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately the super wealthy(hello Hillsdale) try to pin this as a "common man vs the poor" argument instead of what it actually is, the wealthy disciplining the common man to keep them from leaving their shareholder-oriented company. With social safety nets, they have to offer more to the worker to keep them in their company. This isnt just a theory but proven from other more social leaning countries, as well as the US' previous history. Before Reagan adopted trickle down economics for us, we had a tax rate of up to 90% for the wealthy(effective tax rate of around 50%), the largest middle class empowerment and size, union embolsterment, and we kept tabs on the US debt with the high amount of taxes coming in(we are the business/resource/consumer hotspot, businesses can't easily move out of the country without losing near everything they worked for). Tax cut atter tax cut we see the middle class dwindling, profits skyrocketing, and businesses laughing at the people that believe their billions of dollars spent on pro-big business propoganda. Tl;dr Hillsdale is another profit-oriented group that wants to keep your children from having the best opportunities unless you can afford to send them to school there.

Your really wright,this is the truth.not politician truth. A politician truth will not hold water. Everyone else truth will. (Hopefully) the truth will set you free.

"Whenever you redistribute income, you reduce total income" -- You need actual evidence for this claim, sorry. (Even if you just look at the logic it is clearly wrong, redistribution is specifically not a change in the total amount, it can never be true with just these two propositions that the former can be true and the latter be true, you would need another proposition)

Art Laffer got owned by Peter Schiff. Peter showed Art knows nothing.

The claim here is that if all incomes were equal everyone would stop producing value for the society. Does anyone really believe that? This is like the argument that the only reason people behave morally is because they fear God will punish them. The only thing it shows you is the fact that the speaker lacks any actual moral inclinations or at least is not aware of their own internal moral compas. Overbearingly religious people are often the least moral people in the room. Almost all humans have drives to be creative and productive. In truth it takes a fairly harsh system to grind that out of them and/or a set of options that will not allow them to feel satisfaction in a job well done. These absolutes are simply ridiculous and only make sense to people who have spent no time watching people and understanding the large set of motivations that get us up each day. That does not mean there is no such thing as a point of diminishing returns, but this is a gross exaggeration which leads to foolish and selfish policy. That is why GDP, deficits, employment and most other economic indicators perform much better under Democrats than Republicans.

You are talking about holding back the bast majority of the people and their advance. Thats how the society of the powerful families of the industrial revulsion accumulated so much wealth . If there are any options to advance my next generations they will be diminished by my limited acquisition power dictated by the wealthy. While it will only accentuate they perpetual power of their next generations that can afford a better education etc . The assumption that the poor are just gonna sit an collect is just creating phobia to control. A Number of them will surge and eventually compete with the richs. This is just a theory of centralized power among those who all ready have it. In any case the rich and their influence have carved the laws so that the majority of the expenses are carried by that same working class he criticizes.

What Art Laffer could never bring himself to accept is the fact our system of law embraces and protects the redistribution of wealth from those who produce goods to those who enjoy rent-seeking privileges. Economists would do well to spend some time reading (or rereading if they ever read) their predecessor political economists. Much is to be learned by reading what A.R. Jacques Turgot or Adam Smith wrote on the distribution of wealth to the three factors of production. Those who manage to gain legal title or control to nature are able to take without producing.