Can you share which specific advice Thomas Sowell said that helped you? I'm hitting rock bottom and I need everything I can. Thank you!

Fantastic. Great chemistry between them. I could listen to them for hours

I believe that he actually reads the books and knows the context before interviewing.

Mine too.

Mine too, aditya

Lol, I rewound it just to watch it again 😂

+Ralph Bernhard You'll also never find a Democrat who didn't like a new tax. Perhaps the solution is to reduce taxes across the board, along with government spending.

+Ralph Bernhard The idea that Warren Buffet pays a lower personal income tax rate than his secretary on earned income is simply not true. Buffet earns a majority of his income via capital gains, not earned income. His secretary receives solely earned income. If his secretary got capital gains, he/she would pay the exact same percentage as Buffet. It's fine if you want to say them paying the same rate is unfair, but definitions of things are important. "Personal income tax rate" is a very misleading term. Capital gains are paid when they occur, but they are in no way guaranteed. If you invest your money in something you may make money over time, you may not, or you may lose your money. Earned income caries with it no such risk. If you work a designated number of hours, you will get paid your salary. The difference in risk between the two is one of the reasons that the tax rate on investment income is lower. Another reason is that investment income is typically accrued over many years, so the government actually receives more money if they wait until the end and tax it at a lower rate. Still another is that the money invested has already had income tax paid on it (unless it is in an IRA or similar account). The debate here is about the income tax, not taxes in general. I'm pretty sure that Sowell would have strong opinions about the wisdom of a 50% gas tax. Oddly, the same people that tend to support high gas taxes are the same people that scream about income inequality. Also, there is no place of which I am aware that has a 50% gas tax. Finally, the point that Sowell was making is that adjusting the income tax rate makes people feel better but actually hurts the primary function of taxes, which is to extract money to fund the government. If it makes you feel good that rich people pay a higher percentage in taxes, fine, but that does lead to consequences including less money coming in. If you are designing a tax system, you'd be most interested in what would generate revenue efficiently, not what would meet some arbitrary definition of "fairness". You're changing the argument here to suit your narrative, rather than debating what was actually discussed. If you want to talk about earned income tax rates, or capital gains rates, those are fair topics. You also propose a dubious assertion that the "90% of average and low income families" (I have no idea what you mean by this) pay the vast majority of fuel and sales tax. Even if we accept this as true, why should we expect 10% of the population to pay the majority of those taxes?

pebutts​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Thanks for your input. The reason I posted, is because I recognize a certain justification made by those who are better off, when determining the criteria used in this debate. First off, why limit the debate to personal income tax only? Why, if the question of 'taxation' arises, immediate point the finger at the overall amount generated by a single tax, if there are hundreds of different forms of systems of tax? You seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject, so let's admit to a few facts first. Let's also not limit the debate to Buffet (a man whom I admire BTW, for his savvy and because of his philanthropic side) and his secretary, who were only examples used by Obama to address a wider problem. Firstly, there is hardly a wealthy person on the planet, who is not ALSO a company, or several companies, at the same time. This fact already offers massive advantages of ' shifting' money around. Extremely wealthy people keep money invested in firms, company funds and accounts, etc. As a 'mere' average bloke, if I sell my shares with a profit, get dividends, etc., I immediately have to cough up the taxes due. Not so, somebody with much more money than I do. That person would use the methods made available to him by ' the system', and found a company. As you know, companies have all the benefits of using bookkeeping tricks to artificially reduce the 'profit'. Therefore, if I get a few thousand Euro in dividends, I ( as a private person) IMMEDIATELY pay the tax due. With a person who has more money left over to invest in stocks and shares, and collects several hundred thousand, won't get paid directly. These dividends first flow into a 'company', where it is then handled in the usual profit and loss manner. In end effect, the 'businessperson' pays a lower rate overall, despite the added costs involved in running a company. I know what I'm talking about, since I was the PA of a rich family here in Europe for a long time, and I can add up the sums myself :-) Of course, the overall amount paid by ' rich folks', is still higher, BUT as a percentage of overall income, it is lower. The taxation on fuel (50% for some US states) is about right. I didn't work out the exact average of all US states though, because I was merely using it as an example to illustrate a problem. I quickly googled it before I wrote this essay. If I remember correctly, some states had rates as low as 35%, other states were much higher. Over here in Europe, rates are as high as 60%. All of this is beside the point though. Look around you on the streets, and then determine that the most cars that you see belong to lower and mid income citizens, who also do most of the driving, and therefore use most of the fuel. If they use most of the fuel, they also pay most of the taxes generated by the sale of gas. Correct? However, you don't see a lobby for low and mid income citizens trying to limit the debate to gas taxation ONLY. You don't see average Joes pointing out how they pay most of the gas taxes generated by the government, because it benefits their argument. You don't see a low and mid income citizens lobby cherry picking criteria which makes it look as if they are being treated unfairly. This is my only point. It's the 'whiney super rich', complaining about how the unfair system is milking them, when the reality is that they actually already have 'the system' on their side. It's system which affords the really affluent to shift money around, to avoid what most others have to do AT ONCE. That is to pay their taxes, the moment the income is generated, or a service is paid (VAT), without the benefit of getting some of that back at the end of the year with a MASSIVE tax return. And, again, I worked for 'rich folks' long enough to know exactly what I'm talking about... Furthermore, how many of these low and mid income citizens (like 'Buffet's secretary') have a company along the side, under which they can balance the income generated by the dividends they earn, and can 'juggle the figures' in order to evade immediate payment of taxes? But, how many '10%-ers' make use of this opportunity?

The reason to limit the debate to the personal income tax is because that's what most people think of when they think of "tax rates". Even if you broaden the idea to all forms of taxation, Warren Buffet does not pay a lower tax rate than does his secretary. Buffet pays the same sales tax rate, gas tax rate, FICA rate, and so forth, along with a higher capital gains rate and marginal income tax rate. It's just not true to claim that high income earners pay lower tax rates than those with median incomes. Please define what "wealthy" means. Are we talking the top 10% of all income earners? But income does not equal wealth, which is what you accumulate. Wealth is a very hard thing to measure. Most people who are in the top 10% of income in a given year do not stay there. Do we define someone as wealthy one year and not the next? These are hard questions that must be answered if we are going to have an honest discussion about these matters. "Filthy rich" is not a term with any meaning. An income of $65,000 puts you in the 90th percentile of income in the United States. I guarantee you most people wouldn't consider than income level to be "rich". I would also challenge you that people making 60k are not the top ten percentile company owners you are postulating. I would challenge your assertion that the wealthy, when they sell their assets, do not have to pay taxes. They can take the proceeds and immediately buy something else to defer taxes, but they have to eat, pay for housing, and buy food with something. They must realize at least some income, so they will pay some taxes. If they roll the proceeds, they are merely delaying taxation until that income is realized. I've done the same thing myself when selling mutual funds and buying new ones, and anyone can do it, not just rich people. If you decide to use the proceeds to buy a business, you must do so within 180 days of the sale. The business is then subject to risk. Some statistics indicate 8 out of 10 small businesses fail within the first eighteen months. I've seen others say one third. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Either way, you're rolling the dice on a 33-80% chance of losing all your money, not the percentage of it the taxman would take. If what you mean is that the wealthy person forms a holdings company, it is true that they can offset some of the taxes paid through company expenses, but to do so the company must spend money. Theoretically one could spend all of the money coming in to avoid taxes, but in practice there's very little point. Furthermore, if the owner of the company pays him/herself a salary, that amount is then taxed as personal income. Although it is true that there are investment opportunities available to the wealthy that are not available to others (accredited investment opportunities come to mind immediately), the reason those opportunities are not available is because they are prohibited by law for the reason that they carry high risk. A good example would be hedge funds, which may produce less volatility and higher gains than standard types of funds, but also carry enhanced risks, including fraud (Bernie Madoff is an extreme example). You are correct that total taxation for the U.S. runs about 50% if you add up all forms of taxation. This leaves out the hidden tax of inflation fueled by massive government borrowing and money creation. Rich people tend to own more vehicles than the poor or middle class. They also have less sensitivity to fuel economy when making purchasing decisions (meaning they get fewer miles per gallon) and tend to purchase cars that require premium fuel, which is taxed more in many states. If they own a company, they pay for the gas used by that company. The tractor trailers all over America's roads are not being gassed up by the poor. In other words, it's likely that the wealthy actually pay for a higher percentage of the fuel consumed in America than you are supposing and therefore pay a higher percentage of the total tax.

On further review, the percentile figures are variable depending on what source you consult. For an individual, the figure that puts you in the top 10% seems to vary between 60 to around 90k. Even if you accept the 90k figure, it's still far lower than what most people would think of as rich. The numbers for household income percentile are higher, of course, but not by as much as you'd think (about 150k or so).