PBD Podcast - Sam Seder In HEATED Tax Debate With Patrick Bet-David | Ep. 250 | Part 1

Episode Date: March 24, 2023

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David and Sam Seder will discuss: If investors should pay the consequences for the SVB collapse? If we should increase or lower taxes The FED's plans to inject 2 trillion dollars into the banking system FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://minnect.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://valuetainment.com/academy/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks:⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL⁠⁠⁠⁠ Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N⁠⁠⁠⁠ Text: PODCAST to ⁠⁠⁠⁠310.340.1132⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get added to the distribution list --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

Did you ever think you would make it? I still am so close, I could take sweet victory. I know this life meant for me. Yeah, why would you plan on galiah when we got bettated? Value came and giving values, contagious, this world on your panors, we can't no value that hate it. I'd be running home and you look what I've become. I'm the under one.

Okay, so today's guest, Sam Cedar. A lot of you guys were asking to have a mon after we had Kyle Kolinsky on Pac-Man on all these guys on. They said, why don't we get Sam on? Sam Rons is a show called the majority report. With Sam Cedar, he's got a big YouTube channel, 1.2 million, two four million subscribers. We just found out he was a big banker at Goldman Sachs. He's hardcore. But he does have a bear, you do have a good story. Maybe you'll share that with the audience, what happened, we'll get into that here in a second.

So thanks for being on the podcast. My pleasure, thanks for having me down here. So we got a lot of things going on right now. Just yesterday, if you just bought the Wall Street Journal today, this is what the opening story is on the cover of it. Fed boosts rates, Amid bank turmoil, Powell calls financial sector sound, but stresses oversight. The concern becomes whether, you know, they're saying they're going to protect depositors, what everybody's talking about, depositors, depositors, depositors.

Will they protect the banks or not? We don't know. We'll talk about it. Maybe people will have some opinions on it. Sam, if you don't mind for the audience that doesn't know, you may be sure to leave a bit about your background. I am, I've been doing a podcast YouTube for, well, and I was a first in AM talk radio starting about 18 years ago. Prior to that, I was a writer, comedian director,

in showbiz, and sort of stumbled into talk radio on Air America radio. And grew up in Worcester, Mass, and that's, I like the red socks. How did that happen? How did it happen from goal from acting, from comedy, from writing to one of the stories? It was a total fluke. I mean, as a kid, I was involved in government.

Like I did an internship in DC and in the Connecticut State House, and I was a government major, and I was involved in municipal politics in Worcester, mass when I was in high school. But I also had a dual track of like doing sort of theater-y stuff. And when I left, I went to law school for a year, left to do comedy with a buddy of mine. And then about 14 years later, Jeanine Garoflo, who I was friends with, said she had this opportunity to do a political talk radio in the run up to the 2004 election. And I just thought, I'll do it for six months and get back to show business.

And I enjoyed it. And so during that time, I got married. My wife got pregnant and so I Decided that's that's what I would what I would stay. I mean, I still did some show business stuff probably as ladies 2012 and I'm still a voice on Bob's burgers, which is a cartoon, but that is just sort of what are you doing Bob's burgers? Hugo I'm A couple a couple of characters. That's cool. What's a bigger passion?

Politics or entertainment? I mean, they can kind of, you know, collide, but what's movies, shows, actors, or more? I would say politics are probably more of a passion for me. I mean, you know, I had fun in the entertainment world, and I do have a little bit like I see with my friends who have all been not all but many very successful and I like their lifestyle, but I Find politics more stimulating and I interview a lot of like on my show policy experts authors

Historians and so it's like every every day I get paid to come in and learn something new, and I like that. Did you ever have like, I'm gonna go into politics or is it more, you know, doing a show? There were times where I thought about it. I mean, there were times where I thought about it as a kid maybe. I had enough money in it.

What was the reasoning to say I'm not gonna do it? Was it just like, I'm more gonna be from the outside than the inside? No, I think it was, you know, the, you know, I did a lot of like political stuff in college and I felt like on some level it was a little bit constraining but there are times I've contemplated it. Since you're in politics pretty actively now

on the political spectrum, where would you say that you identify not the current form of identification with the Hishi Wee, they then the political spectrum, where would you say that you identify not the current form of identification with the Hishi Wee, they then like political spectrum, if there's a football field, where do you stand? Like 50 yard line left, right? Where do you, where I'm, I'm definitely of the left without a lot of love. How far left? You know, I don't, I don't know. I mean, within the context. Are you in the red zone? Are you near the goal line? Are you closer to the 50? I, you know, I don't know. I don't, I don't really think context... Are you in the red zone, or are you near the goal line, or are you closer to the 50? I don't know. I don't really think about it too much in those terms, to be honest with you.

I think a genuine socialist would say, I'm certainly not a socialist. I don't know. I have no problem with how people identify me in that way. I mean, I'm really more interested in a set of policies and really ultimately just the outcome of what will create the best outcomes for the most amount of people. For me, there's a couple of different ways of saying that, but that's basically what it boils down to me.

As a kid, who was your guy? Like, if you were to say, this is the book that influenced me, this is the guy that I liked the way he spoke. You know, this is the TV guy, or the president, or the politician, or who was your guy. I would say I was very moved by the autobiography of Walter Mondale. I'm joking.

Mondale. You're like fire to guy. You're like land- you got it. You're like landslide. I was a big like, I really liked Clint Eastwood movies when I was a kid. I mean, I didn't really realize much about him, the person, but I liked those, I liked the spaghetti, westerns and stuff like that.

But I guess what I'm asking is, more because you said you were in politics and high school, like you were interested in government from earlier on. What was a source of inspiration? Was there somebody you looked up to? Was it kind of like, like if you and I were in high school together in 10th grade, who was Sam? Um, I think people thought I was a little bit nerdy.

People thought you were a little nerdy. Yeah. Yeah. Did they think you would go into Hollywood and act or no? Um, I got, I think I got like voted class clown. Really? Yeah. That makes three of us. Yeah.

Yeah, I think I did. Yeah, but I also, um, you know, I was, I was, I was, I was working for the Worcester Charter Commission at the time, which was starting to like reassess how they were going to a portion votes in the city. And so I don't know. I don't, I don't, I tend not to have like heroes per se. I don't, I don't find that healthy.

Really? No, I don't think so. I think people get to caught up in the personalities of politicians and really sort of miss what, what, what, what is actually going on. So no heroes as a kid, you don't have any heroes. You didn't like he man, you didn't see, you know, Rocky, well, Rocky would have been what, 19, so yeah, Rocky when I was a kid, I was a kid.

You must have had Larry Bird on your list. Come on, Larry Bird, let's get real here Sam. Well, I'm gonna go sports, like Bird, I loved Bird. And I was a fan of McCale in Paris as well. I got very excited about Russ Francis on the Patriots and Bobby Orr on in hockey. But, you know, I remember I'm not going to say his name, but I met a guy I was a fan with on the red socks in person. And I was like, I wish I had met him. Cause in person, I'm just not that impressed.

I like what he does on the field. So does he kind of look like you? Oh, the guy you're saying that, cause there's a meds guy that looks like you. No, I know. No, he didn't look like me. Okay, got it. Cause I thought you were talking about the,

okay, anyways, very cool. So you're, I met my father that dad. That's very cool. So okay, that sounds good. Let's go into the Silicon Valley bank story. What do you think is going on there and do you think it's the end of it? Obviously yesterday Powell came out. A lot of people didn't think if he's going to increase interest rates or not.

I was just going to do it. Is he not going to do it? It's not a good time to do it. Maybe take a gonna increase interest rates or not. I was just gonna do it. Is he not gonna do it? It's not a good time to do it. Maybe take a break for a month or two. We're seeing what happened with Silicon Valley body. I don't know, 10-year bond for $100 billion at 1.7% thinking they're gonna make it and bam, they have to sell that for some $20 billion.

Depositors are afraid. Those below 1,000,000 below quarter million which is a small percentage whatever the number was three percent They're covered but the ones above everybody's coming in and we got to build the depositors out What are your thoughts about what's going on with Silicon Valley? Well, there's a couple of different issues. I mean and you can sort of go down the line the the biggest issue is is that in 2017 the Trump administration the the Republicans, and with some corporate Democrats as well, basically rolled back the regulations that were required for banks like SBV. It used to be, if you had $50 billion worth of holdings as a bank, you were subject to

the Dodd-Frank requirements about capital to keep the bank safe. And that would have also come along with like sort of subsidiary regulations and regulators being there to make sure that you can't make stupid decisions like that. I mean, they made some very stupid decisions that were, that, you know, people involved in banking could take issue with assuming that interest rates were always gonna stay low, whatever.

The point of regulations like that, where you take more or less a meat cleaver. And you say is that people can make stupid decisions, but we're going to be here to protect the system and the depositors. The other thing that was going on there with all the depositors had all this other money, this is a kickback situation. There's no doubt about it, right? Because you, you know, anybody with $251,000 cash knows that there is a $250,000 FDIC limit. And if you're putting half a million dollars in there or billions of dollars in there,

you're getting something from the bank in return, which is low cost business loans, or like zero percent mortgages, I'm sure you run into this, you put your money into some big investment bank, you're getting kicked back, you're getting a zero percent mortgage. So you go out by a $13 million house, you don't have to pay anything for that money,

you keep your money in a CD, and you're still making money off of that $13 million house essentially that you bought. Cause you've just got that money borrowed cheap. And if they're gonna do that, I mean, look, to each their own, if they're gonna do that, they need to pay the consequences. They took a risk.

I'm gonna put my money in an uninsured bank because I'm getting back all this like, you know, and sometimes I think it was like they did this with their businesses and then they get the personal mortgages, which is also, it's just a kickback. So I say we don't bail those people out because we have the rules and these are the rules.

Now, a lot of these people are big names. They have the ability to go on to every show that exists on TV and what not and claim that this is going to be a systemic risk. But I don't believe that frankly. And so, you know, I think what we need to do and nobody's talking about it is put the regulations back. We have now proof that it's dangerous to have rolled back the regulations on these mid-sized banks. And so, you know, the deafening silence about it is amazing to me.

So Sam, let me ask you based on what you just said. So your, so obviously we know the guys below quarter million, they're covered, but it's a small percentage with Silicon Valley banks. Not like it's a big number. The people above quarter million with these guys that are coming out saying, hey, we gotta, we gotta take care of these depositors

because if we don't you know all these other smaller communities and regionals are gonna get hit these twenty seven regionals we have one is gone out twenty six they're gonna remove their money and they're gonna put it in the big banks this is one of the ways to nationalize it and we're gonna go through only five banks and all this stuff so the people above the quarter you're straight up saying if you had more than a quarter, a million, anything

you had, let's not back them up, let's not protect them. They lost the money. I think there is that danger that you talk about that there could be a run on these other banks. I think it's overstated, but I think there is a danger. And I think the way that you deal with that is you come out and you say, we're going to make sure that we're going to subject these 23 other mid-size banks to the kind of regulation that we impose upon the bigger banks so that the security you

feel with those bigger banks, we're going to provide that security for you by regulating and making sure that they have the capital requirements that they need to protect your money. Okay, so then go to, if I give you like a cause of, to say it's this person's fault, let's go through rankings of it, okay. Below quarter million, obviously didn't do anything wrong there. The guys above a quarter million dollars in savings, then you have the people that own shares in the company,

their shareholders are the company, then you have employees that work for Silicon Valley bank, then you have the employees where the companies who banked with Silicon Valley bank where the payroll is stuck and they can't pay the payroll, then you have the politicians coming up with the guidelines, the regulations. If you were to put the blame on those folks

and who to take care of, who not to take care of, who would you put at the top, who would you put at the bottom? Well, I don't know how to apportion blame amongst those to take care of who would you put at the top who would you put at the bottom well i i mean i don't know how to apportion blame amongst those things but i can tell you this the the but for uh... in that situation is clearly uh... the lack of regulation right i mean i don't know who screwed up in in in and all of those different levels but i know that if the regulation if they were subject to those same capital requirements,

none of that stuff would have happened in the first place. Yeah, you know, it's kind of tough to debate that because I've been an insurance business for 20 some years, right? You don't see a lot of insurance companies going out of business because insurance companies capital requirements are a lot higher than bank's requirements. Banks can be a little bit more, we saw what happened in 08 with the whole knowing come no assets.

Hey Sam, how much money made last year? 72 grand, Sam, one more time. How much money did you make last year? 72 grand, Sam, one more time. How much money did you make last year? 158, okay, great. How much you have in the bank, Sam? eight? Okay great How much having a bank Sam? Hey, I got twenty eight thousand dollars in a Mac one more time How much you have in a Mac three eighty perfect knowing come no assets and then boom ninja loans right everybody takes it

So there's a part of that that I agree with the whole ninja alone you know it was never supposed to be for Low and middle income families the ninja alone I recall, came from Australia and Bank, it was something they were using and we brought it to the States and it was supposed to be more for like the, you know, clients at the gold man and the higher.

And then they said, let's launch this to everybody out there in the streets. And that's where they took it here. You're a bank loan officer, right? Like, I mean, there was a fiduciary responsibility by the person in that scenario there's a scenario there kept saying like you know put the number up because i am i i come in for a mortgage i don't know

i don't i mean i'm not i'm not a financial was you know we had here on the podcast uh... four months ago very uncomfortable podcast uh... it was with the former seal of one more i don't know if you remember one more washington oh yeah yeah yeah oh yeah and that that that thing was a beh former CEO of WAMO. I don't know if you remember WAMO, Washington, Michigan. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. And that thing was a behemoth of a bank,

right? 330 billion dollars. I think as far as I can. Well, we had it carry a killinger. By the way, he was kind enough to come in. I didn't know what he thought we were going to talk about. I banked with WAMO for years and I loved WAMO. I thought it was a phenomenal experience.

You'd go there, you know, the customer service, the way you would feel like you're not out of bank, there's not a window where you feel like, hey, you can't shoot us, everybody was open, there was a relationship thing that was going on, I said, what caused this? You know, why get so reckless about it? Why, what made you think some of these things you were doing with the amount of money that you had

were you ended up selling it for Chase? So I guess, and I don't know how much you follow the stories. Obviously, you're a guy that's been following every story every day because this is what you do for living. What have we learned from O.A.T. that we're not repeating today? Maybe even the way Janet Yellen and the Fed is handling the bailout model, their carnal different thing. What's different about it today than it was in O.A.T. in your eyes? Well, I mean, the situation is very different, too. I mean, I think, you know, the amount of leverage that we're talking about in the system

is just not nearly the same. And a lot of those, you know, Dodd-Frank eliminated a lot of the more risky stuff. But, you know, again, I can tell you more importantly, what we didn't learn is when we rolled back those regulations. You know, like, you and I, we could go through that whole thing, we could spend six months examining every aspect

of what happened there. And we might come up with a different, you know, who was really responsible? Or there could be shared responsibility, but the bottom line, this is why you need regulation. Just like you said, in the insurance industry, you have a tighter regulation on this stuff. You don't allow for people to come in and play fast and loose with all this stuff to gamble like they're at the race track. And then come for a bailout from us because, look, the bottom line is, I know it

comes from FDIC fees, but who's going to get those fees? It's going to be, and actually, the fees that are going to be imposed upon people to bail out guys like David Sachs and all these other like, you know, right wing so-called libertarian. They're suddenly libertarians looking for the government handout, but the people are going to be paying off these fees more than anybody else are lower income people because they are stickier with banks. They don't have the opportunity to go around. They don't have the time.

They don't have the inclination. The savvy to go around and shop around banks where they're going to get lower fees. Maybe they don't have the same amount of deposits in there. So they're not going to be. So that's who's going to get stuck with this bill. I want to continue with this. But let me go to our sponsors real quick. Okay. And this is so interesting with the sponsor.

Obviously, with all the stuff that's going on, I've been in the financial industry now for 22, 23 years. And for the longest time, I was very skeptical about alternative investments. I was like, no, you strayed stocks, real estate, this is kind of what you look at. And you saw the last few years, more and more people are looking at alternative investments.

Masterworks, what it does is it allows you to buy shares in high and art. Maybe you can't buy $5 million Bank C or a Picasso painting, but you can buy share into it. They're allowing folks to do it. It's like blue chip art to invest into. I think when you look at the numbers last year, art prices rose on average 29% per barrens. Everything you do with these guys is gone through the SEC and it's broken into shares. So it's the same exact way you buy stocks as you do through masterworks. If this is of interest to you and you have a small percentage of your portfolio you want

to put and consider into alternative investments, you may want to look into masterworks, Rob, if we can put the link below their website. Let me read their website where we have your masterworks.artforestlashpbd podcast. One more time, masterworks.artforestlashpbd podcast, but we'll also put the link below for you to join. So let's go back to this on what we can find the fault with. We can say, you know, we need more regulation is what we can find the fault with we can say you know we need more regulation is what we need we can say you know it's it's the greedy bankers fault you know we can say hey why are you being so reckless you're putting all your money in the bank you should

never put all your money in the bank right you got to kind of diversify and put a little bit more money in place. Well there's also something called sweeps and everybody who's involved in a business knows this I'm sure you know, that there are third parties out there who will distribute those $250,000. They had those money there for a reason. And now I think it was kickbacks. I think it's probably gonna come out in a couple of months

after more investigation. But again, we don't have to spend our time worrying about who's to blame of those individuals. Maybe they all... No, this is where I was going. How old were you when you bought your first house? Do you remember? I would. Let's see. It was in 98. Okay. So you got 20. I was 25. Yeah. Perfect. So 25 years old. What was the interest rate when you got an idea? Do you remember? God. No. I was I was an actor.

I didn't. I just, you know, I had a business manager at the time. I was making a lot of money. I was just like, You were living the dream. Exactly. But don't worry about the end. Can you go to 1998, average 30 or more years? I don't know. Just Google it and see what the number was. I imagine it was probably around. Probably similar to what it is.

That's what I'm thinking. Yeah, I'm trying to see what it was. Okay, 6.91. Yeah, very similar. Okay, 6.1. By the way, I think that's where it it was. Okay, 6.91. Yeah, very soon. There you go. Okay, 6.91. By the way, I think that's where it needs to be for about a decade.

I think the number needs to be there. And if you ask me, if you ask me, I think we need to go a little bit more old school in the way we buy stuff, right? Meaning how much down payment you got? I got this much down payment. Great. You know, and now you may disagree with that

and say that's not gonna be fair to loan middle income families, but I think there's part of it also, the guidelines to buy stuff has decreased. The guidelines to lend out money has decreased. Money became so cheap for such a long time where people were going out to getting money left and right. What are your thoughts on that? Well, I know mortgages, no, it's a lot stricter than it was,

let's say 15, 20 years ago. I mean, it's much harder. You need to provide much more documentation and the loan companies are far more stricter. I mean, they're not quite where they were in the wake of the financial crisis, but they're still pretty tight. I mean, the problem I have with the raising of the interest rates is basically what Jerome Powell says every time he does it, which is we need to get more people unemployed and that's I mean and look we can argue as to whether the the the Fed has the tools it needs to fight inflation in

this instance I happen to think I happen to you, I don't even know if I agree so much or just like the Fed itself says that the inflation that we went through, only about 30% of it was a function of demand, right? The other, you had a significant portion of it was a function of logistics and like mismatch products and this and that with because of COVID, right? It wasn't a question that we didn't have the productivity or the capacity to meet demand. It was just that it was mismatched for a long time.

You're sending shipping containers to places you would never sent it before to get them back is a lot more expensive. These things are starting to work through the system. Wages contribute a little bit because there has been some wage growth for the first time in decades, essentially. A lot of it is also maybe the plurality of it. This is based upon the Fed numbers is basically just the corporations seeing the opportunity to raise these rates.

And so the Fed comes in, they have one tool to deal with inflation, and that is, you know, they're a hammer, except for I'm arguing that it's not a, it's not a nail that they're hitting, it's a screw. And they're doing this in my estimation as a way of weakening labor. They are gonna kick a million people. How would you do it?

How would I do it? How would I do it? Well, I would deal with it fiscally or I would just wait. I would wait because you're starting to see the trends all move in the right direction in terms of inflation. And I would wait. And so you wouldn't have raised the in this way.

I would have probably done maybe half of what they'd done. Maybe. So, 20,500, whatever the number is. Yeah. You being the most recent? No, no, no. He's saying like, I'm all whatever's happening.

I mean, look at it today, right? Like, they're worried about the banks. At the same time, they're like desperate to, like, we need to, we need to kick a million, two million, three million people out of work. That, I mean, they're explicitly saying this. And so, you know, I, I, I, that does not make sense to me. Sam a guy here, Scott Rodriguez just said, sorry,

but 80% alone is given the last three years, only required 5% down payment. It was much harder to get alone in the 90s. In terms of mortgages? Yeah. It's conceivable that it was harder to get alone in the 90s. I'm comparing it to like the odds. But I can tell you, I mean, I have some very close.

Do you think it's a better guideline to put a minimum 25% for anybody to buy a loan or no 5% down payment is fine? I mean, I think, I don't know if the numbers 10% or 20% I'd have to like read in to see, you know, where we're talking about foreclosures, but we're not having a foreclosure problem right now. Not yet. Not yet because if he keeps raising the interest rates and decreasing the value of homes at this type of rapid rate we might. But you know

the way you avoid that is don't do that. So let me read this about what happened. This is an insider story. The Fed may provide as much as a $2 trillion in liquidity relief for banks after Silicon Valley collapse, J.F.E. Morgan says, the chase estimates that the Fedors may need to inject $2 trillion into the US banking system after the collapse for three lenders last week. This would help prevent a run on deposits and address

the scarcity issue in the US banking cause by the US Fed monetary policy. The Fed's bank term funding program the btfp is an emergency loan mechanism that will allow banks to obtain liquidity by putting up their bond holdings as collateral the fed will accept a bond that face value and set it a current market value uh... has not been qualified by the fed yet but it is accepted expected to be significant enough to cover all on and sure deposits in the u.s.j.p. Morgan estimates that this is going to be around seven trillion dollars but suggest that the five largest banks are unlikely to use the program which would bring the actual amount

the fed provides to closer to two trillion dollars. Why is this sound like a bailout? Why? Yeah, of course. Why are those big five banks not taking the money because they have been subjected to the Dodd-Frank regulations and they haven't been able to get themselves in this type of situation. So to be clear, the feds raising rates this fast, explicitly to make more people unemployed in this country, explicitly to do that.

That's explicitly their goal is to reduce inflation. That's their first goal. That's a buy product. No, no, no, no, no no no that no that it's not a byproduct anymore than me like taking my hammer slamming it on your hand and saying both your product that are hurt both of you are right but Powell when he was asked if you remember to hear him when he was asked he says you realize and i think was Kennedy that ask him senator Kennedy that said hey you realize what you're doing is to fix the economy you have to to lower the unemployment.

And then what did he say? Powell said, you could be a cause of it, but that's not why we're doing. There's says, no, no, that's why you're doing it. I know you're not a candidate guy because he's a Republican side, but he's like, no, no, that's exactly what you're doing. Everybody knows it. It doesn't matter Republican, a Democrat. Anybody who's honest knows exactly that's what the plan is.

But do you really think that's the plan? Do you really think the plan? That's explicitly the plan. I think he said today, by the end of 2023, we need to have a million people out of work. I mean, why would they do that if they know it's gonna hurt the economy? Why?

Because they have one tool to deal with inflation. And that is to raise interest rates as a way of cooling the economy and cooling the economy. And frankly, I mean, this is the charitable view. I'm articulating the charitable view. And cool the economy means, as a byproduct, that you're going to kick people out of work. In my estimation, this is the first time we've seen any type of wage growth in decades, in decades, right?

The wages versus productivity has been out of sync for decades. And I think, frankly, people don't want labor to have any power. You're seeing increased unionization, you're seeing increased work action, you're seeing people saying, like, you know, I don't work in the field. Yes, I definitely think that you think how is playing politics in increasing this is not politics, this is not.

No, but it is, though, union is a form of pif, your policies, power is one of the most powerful men in the world today. You know that I know that, right? So when he moves the, he's controlling one of the most important knobs, right, which is the rates without a doubt. Yeah, so but I'm trying to think myself like I'm trying to sit there and say, okay You know when they gave 1.7 trillion dollars in you know relief. Hey, we're gonna do this Are you gonna do that or during COVID? Hey, we're gonna give 2.1 trillion We're gonna send people this much of money this this that hey are they all they're trying to do is they're gonna

They're trying to get people not to work, right are they, all they're trying to do is they're trying to get people not to work, right? That's what they're trying to do. Are they really, or were they doing it because they're like, dude, I'm not letting you work from home, so I have to send some money to you if you're getting unemployed. And just laid off how many people at the restaurant were crushed by COVID? Well, I got to kind of take care of you, but then what happened with the money? The money went into the rich because, you know, the low income middle income doesn't know how to save money, and they spend the money, they're trying to make ends meet.

So sometimes you think from the policies and you say, oh, they're trying to do something really bad. You think Powell has negative intentions, or, well, I don't think he sees this as a... I don't, I don't think, I don't think any of this, I have a different perspective on how all this works. I don't think the policy they're going like it's going to negative. I just don't think that these people care. I mean, how do, look, look, we attacked Iraq, right?

20-year anniversary yesterday or two days ago by anybody's estimates we killed hundreds if not hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians why at this point this story we both are the same page on we know right exactly but but how is it it that decision was made? They don't care about that human loss.

And I don't think Powell, at the end of the day, really cares enough about the emisoration of millions of people. He thinks the most important thing for the stability of society is to save the bankers. Sam, do you think? I just disagree. Sam, do you think it was healthy for us to go on a hundred and twenty-eight-month economic expansion only to be disrupted by COVID? It would have continued, you think it was healthy to have interest rates as low as we did

for over ten years? it would have continued into honor you think it was healthy to have interest rates as low as we did for over ten years i mean i think there's an argument that you could have crept them up uh... you know uh... slowly you know up a couple of percentage points but but i was also told listen in the arts when i started this job you know you sound like the capitalist if you defend that by i don't care what i sound like i mean when uh... during uh... during the the odds, I was told that the lowest rate of unemployment we can have in this country is 6%. If we have it lower than that, then the whole thing falls apart. Remember that? Of course. We were told that was the absolute nature only allows that. And then all of a sudden that

we can have more unemployment. I mean, less unemployment. We can have 3%. I mean, they, they, they're, we are presented by, you know, the, these powers, um, ideas that happen that, that, that basically they're in a closed loop with just other people who have power and money and have decided that this is just sort of the natural state of being. And it's not. I just disagree with that premise. Okay, so let me go back to this. It's very important.

I want to make this point. I'm going to ask you this. 128-month expansion. Is it fair to say during that period when rates were as low as they were, they benefited capitalists, they benefited, someone's phone is, if you get such a point as that from the mic, yeah, you know, it's typically Verizon, whoever's Verizon AT&T doesn't do it's only Verizon, but you know, it's, it's, that benefited, that benefited, the capitalist because money was cheaper, right? So to argue your argument saying,

well, a true socialist would say, I'm not a socialist, but I'm on the left, you're not for making it that easy for those guys, right? So money was so freaking cheap for so long that we have to pay a price for it. And now you're looking at the economy, it looked like everything was good, but a big part of it was fake Sam.

We had a lot of fake success the last few years. Well, I mean, look, I'm just measuring on, again, my, the way I view things is what's gonna make things better for the most amount of people. And in terms of like, you know, it being in favor of the capitalist, I would also change our tax policy. So, I mean, I would claw some of that back, quite a bit of it back.

What would you do? I would return to the tax policy when we had the greatest, sort of the widest economic expansion shared by more people as a percentage of our population than any other time in this country, which was in the 50s and the 60s. And I would return to the tax rates more or less there. So your top tax rate at that time was 90% top marginal rate for every dollar over $470,000 you would earn. So that would be equivalent to around $3 million today.

I think we should return to that type of tax. When it's ago as high as 90% at the top marginal tax rate. At the top marginal tax rate. So understand that only kicks in with every dollar above $3 million. I hear you. Yeah. I mean, that's the famous Reagan situation where I think it was over anything over $200,000 at that point.

This might have been in the 40s. He would only do two movies a year because he'd get paid a hundred grand per movie and then he would even do a third movie because he would only get 10% of the revenue because he, and he's like, fuck it, I'm not doing another movie. Yeah. So when Reagan started telling that story, you know who he was working for when he started telling that story, right? He was going around. I think it was for working for GE trying to convince people not to get Medicare for all.

I mean, if Reagan could have gotten three movies, five movies, he would have done it. He was working with chimps. He would have been happy to do that for his career. Believe me, so believe me. What's the top marginal tax rate right now? 39%. What is that right now?

I think it's 37, 39%. I will say this though, 39%. You're in favor. I will say this, though, just to finish up that Reagan story. I will say this to you. I remember being in LA and taxes, top line, I had hit whatever the all-in was, 57 and a half. I don't know what the number was. I was around 57 and a half.

You know, you're in Brooklyn. So 57 and a half percent, people are like, what the hell is going on here? There was this girl who was a top realtor in the San Fernando Valley area, one of the top realtor. So her picture was on all the benches. Everywhere you would go, you would see her. And she was one of the realtor's making very good money.

So making a half a million dollar your income, doing good for us or whatever, the number was 400, 500,000 dollars. One day I stopped seeing her pictures on the seats. And I'm at wood ranch with my wife and I said, hey, are you, you're the girl, right? She says, yeah, I am. She's with a husband or two kids. I said, what happened?

We haven't seen you lately. So it's so funny you ask, my husband and I made a decision that the moment taxes got so high, it was more important for me to be a stay home. It wasn't worth me working to pay this much in taxes. So there's a part of what he's saying. Yeah, whatever whether he's gonna do the movie for the kids and all that stuff.

I guess there's a part of it that kind of can set him needs to be there. America would not have suffered by the lack of Ronald Reagan movies. And I would also argue that like, I bet you, I guarantee you there was no less houses that sold because that one particular broker stopped selling houses at a certain point.

So go to it. So right now, I don't think that's a problem. I really don't. I mean, I think to raise it to 90%. Yeah. No, I don't think I think, you know, what we're talking about is sort of the laffer curve actually, right? Yeah. You love the affic what we're talking about is sort of the Laffer curve, actually, right? You know, the Laffer curve.

You're a big fan of it apparently. I'll tell you what I love about the Laffer curve is that we had a perfect example of, we had almost like a perfect model of what happens with the Laffer curve, right? Like the Laffer curve argues that the higher the tax rate goes, the less inclined people are gonna be to generate income. And then because they're generating less money,

there's gonna be less tax receipts collected by the government. Art Laffer was a Sam Brownback's number one advisor in Kansas. Do you remember this when Brownback became governor? He basically gave over his entire tax structure to Art Laffer. They had such a, it destroyed the tax base in Kansas. It ended up destroying their entire education system. They had an amazing Kansas University. Brownback gets plucked out of Kansas

and literally sent to be ambassador to Ether. You know what they made be ambassador to Ether. You know what they made them ambassador to faith because they didn't want this guy around it all. The Republican controlled Kansas legislature raised taxes back up because it destroyed their tax receipts. The theory may sound good, but it doesn't work in practice. So are you on YouTube and Rumble or just YouTube?

I'm on YouTube. I think we put it on Rumble. I think we're also on Twitch and I think all over the place. Okay, so let me ask you this question. If YouTube took their ad cents from 55 to 15 would you continue creating content? Yeah. You sure? Sure.

You'd continue creating content. I wasn't doing YouTube for a long time. How do you make a living today? I have membership. I have membership that people pay. I get ad revenue from different places. Okay, so let's just say the membership that you get from Patreon or whoever it is. Okay. What if their fees went from them keeping 5% to 60% to 90% Would you continue creating content? I mean I percent to 90 percent would you continue creating content? I mean, I would, I would probably have to cut back if there was that. Exactly.

Well, but that's only because it's such a big change. No, that's the part about incentive. Same. So your audience gets to enjoy you. No, no, no, no. I'm not saying we'll cut the revenue for these businesses. I'm saying that the amount of money. You have no choice though because you're paying these guys,

you need the revenue. No, no, no, no, no. I'm not suggesting we cut revenue for businesses. What I am suggesting is after that revenue comes in, and we divvy up and I have my net profits, then my taxes would go up. But I will say this, like if, let's say, the taxes went up on me personally,

would I stop going on YouTube? No. So would you be able to scale it at the, how many employees you got working for you right now? I'm not talking about cutting revenue though. I get that. How many employees are you working for you right now? We have payroll, I think like six or seven.

Okay, you got six or, that's a small business you got there right now. Sure. Sure, seven people, okay. If all of a sudden, atsense went up, the fees for your Patreon, I don't want to offend you when I say Patreon, I don't know who you use.

Whoever you use that's got your membership stuff that you get. We use fans FM. Okay, there you go, that's a shout out to them. So fans FM, fans.fm. Fans.fm, it's absolutely great. Fans.fm, okay, fantastic. So if they raise it, they take less than Patreon.

If they take 50%, all of a sudden, and they say YouTube says that sense goes to 15%, would you be able to employ those six people? No, if my, well, I don't know. But probably, that's because you're rich. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, probably, probably not. But, but, but I'm not suggesting that we cut revenue for businesses.

I'm suggesting that what is left over from revenue, if it's over $3 million, and that goes into the pocket of the owner of this enterprise, that $300 million and $1 gets taxed at $90, 90 cents. Let's have fun with this. So here's a question for you. And I kinda know what your answer is. And I wanna be clear on something.

I'm doing this. I subscribe to this, not because I think that we need the money or that this is going to be a panacea in terms of like how we would spend this money. But I see in this country a massive problem with wealth inequality and the commensurate political inequality that comes with it. We have wealth inequality in this country like we've never had before. I don't disagree.

So, so there's not a disagreement there, but the solution is where we're going to disagree. So let's kind of process that together. Okay. So you know the of process that together. Okay. So you know the whole thing, like I remember when I first got out of the military and I went into the financial industry, it's 1999. I know nothing. It's 2000. I know nothing about it.

The speaker gets up. Well, have you been noticing that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poor? I'm like, okay, my dad's at a cashier out of 99 cents store 15 years. My parents got divorced twice. I hope you said to that guy, you ain't seen nothing yet. Right to 20 years now. But your rights could go completely out. But you're right though, but why is the question?

So here's a question for you. So you're saying above three million, you know, that money that the owner's gonna keep, we got to tax them 90%. Fine, okay. So you believe the money, like when I was in a military, you would buy a product for the Humvees and they would say, yeah, you know, we pay $600 for this piece.

We're like, do this piece? $40. Right. Why the hell are we paying $600 for? Well, you know, the contracts, you know how they are, man. The government always pays a lot because they're dumb. They always pay more than it's usually worth. A $40 piece for a Humored, they're paying $600 on like, that's an awesome business for the other guy.

Yeah, we have horrible oversight. But this is the point though, this is the point. And I wanna actually sincerely get your thoughts on how we address this. So if somebody overpays for a product, that person's either gotta be fired or or don't overspend or a terrible negotiator, but it's one of the three, right?

Okay, so you feel money going to the government we do more good with or money staying in the free market for people to produce more value. What do you feel values produce more? Well, I'm not, I mean, I I'm not sure I fully get what you're saying, but let me put it in this way. It's a very simple question. I want it to be clear. Let me make it a little bit more concrete. So you guys know that the biggest part of the budget,

more or less, is Social Security and Medicare, right? And Medicaid, yeah. And Medicaid. And entitlement programs. Yeah, I mean, yeah, you can call them entitlement programs. They are. I call them social insurance programs because I know tomato. That's what they really are.

I mean 90% of the budget I want to say. No, the military is about $850 billion. Social security is like $1.7 trillion. I think Medicare is probably close to like $700 billion. It's about $6000. And then there's other, but it's a high number. It's a big number. You'll write it. You'll find that that's it's a but it's a high number it's a big number you'll write it the high number you'll find that that's it's I think where our annual budget is somewhere around

like two point seven trillion and and the military is like eight hundred eight hundred billion nine hundred billion you know that that you can see anyways that they show it yeah but um uh but nevertheless Social Security Medicare the two biggest things that the government does are wildly popular. Medicare, you come from the insurance business, you probably know this, to administer health insurance, there's like 13, 15 far more efficient, and copays are less. I mean, and the, whatever, you wanna call it, consumer satisfaction. I don't like to think of citizens as consumers,

but the satisfaction's huge through the roof, particularly if people use it. It's even, it's, people appreciate it, who don't use it, you know, if I got my parents there on medicare, I'm pretty psyched about it because I don't have to take care of them. My mother's in a nursing home now. It's Medicaid that's doing that.

I'm not responsible for that cost. So security through the roof. In fact, I think even Republicans, I think even a majority Republicans want to expand. But so how can you? Popular is not a way to qualify something. If I, if I, if I want to, I get, if I if I went out and I get a satisfaction if I went to a high school I say guys I'm given dime bags of to everybody we'd I'd be a very popular High School. So that is a wrong way to qualify it. Well, you said efficiency. Yeah, Medicare 3%

Administrative cost versus 15% like the kid that's running for class president It was like every Friday. We're throwing a pizza party Well, he's gonna get everybody's vote if If the loser's for fighting for the pizza party, so workers, in fact, I would argue that we should be actually removing the cap on Social Security taxes, because right now, you know, it goes only up to $160,000, right? There's a cap. Traditionally, Social Security has captured or touched 91% of the country's income.

You follow me? And now it's somewhere down in like the mid 80s because of wealth in it. Yeah, well your argument on the flip side of it, the argument can be as well to say, well, at the beginning when they came out with Social Security, there was only a few thousand people in America that was actually using it. It was not meant to be for as big of a behemoth of what it is today. They kept two thirds of our elderly out of poverty. It keeps two thirds of our elderly.

Nobody's arguing that's not the argument. That's not the argument. The argument is originally when it came out, it wasn't for the bigger percentage. You had to wait. You had to wait until you know, no, no, no, you didn't have to. You had to have capitalist work and overtax them to be able to fund it. That's what you had to wait. You had to wait until you know, no, no, you didn't have to. You had to have capitalist work and overtax them to be able to fund it. That's what you had to do.

Well, let me go back to the question. I think what you are saying just to validate your point, I think at that point, this is FDR back in the day. Yeah, we can pull up the data. That's not a, I think there was 40 workers for every retiree. I think now it's closer to like three workers. Yeah, it's that's a saying of what I'm saying.

No, no, no, it is sustainable. You think it's a, no, no, I don't think it's sustainable. I'm looking at the social security trust run at actuarial. With the letter when they sent you, when they sent you to, in the social security letter, they're telling you if we go this way, this is going to go bankrupt. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're misreading it. The trust fund is going to go bankrupt. In 1981, Green Span and Reagan expanded the trust fund. We had a surge of baby boomers. There is a trust fund that exists

that is essentially like a rainy day fund. That is gonna be insolvent around 3033. 2033. 2033. No, no, sorry. 20 years. 10 years, 10 years. You are correct.

I just had this conversation that was sweet. That's not a concern. However, that's the first week. That's not a concern. However, that's not a concern. That's not a concern. It is a concern. It will cause 20% in cuts to our benefits. Okay. But that's it, period.

Now, the way that we can get rid of that, 20% in cuts in the Social Security Trust Fund is to do what I'm suggesting. Remove the cap so that every dollar you make, even above $160,000, is taxed by social security. And then your kids will be long dead before that challenge is that. Well hopefully if I raise my kids right,

my kids won't need to be supportive about the government. They don't need to be, they don't need that social insurance. Look, I mean, how can you, as an insurance guy, how can you not understand that? No, no, I don't sit around saying like, you know, I hope that I don't need my fire insurance. I hope I don't.

If your kids don't need social security, all the age insurance, then you know what? But I also, I am better for society, I am better for society, if I find ways to get people off of needing any of this stuff, then to rely on it more and more and more because I'm truly hurting those who are creating commerce. That's why I'm hurting. But let me go back to my question. Hold on, once I'm in it. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let me ask the question for you. Let me ask the question.

You still haven't asked my question for me. No, no, wait. I'm going to... You still haven't answered my question. Let me go back to the question too. Okay. My question at the beginning, you have not yet answered, okay? When you said, you know, I would go back to the old tax system and I would take you to the 50s and 60s

where we had a 90% out of, I don't know, okay. And I asked you question, I said, who do you think produces more value? I gave the example of the Humvee, the pieces and the army, how much we were paying $600, but the piece was only $40. And the government tends to overspend because they're reckless spending.

They're not really held accountable. Does money going in free market create more value? Or money going to the government create more value for people? Explain to me what you mean by value. OK, so value to me is, you know, if I can give money to free market and lower taxes where they can go create more jobs, more opportunities,

is that better for us long term, or is it better for us to raise taxes to take away incentives and give that money tax money, goes to politicians to make decisions what to do with the money. Are politicians better at making decisions on what to do with our money or are we? I mean, I guess unlike in a broad way, I would say if we're going to look at the biggest chunk of money in the government to make this assessment, right?

$1.7 trillion, Social Security. And we can compare it to the one sort of like comparable thing in the private, in the private sector. And that's a 401k. I would have to say, I mean, just based upon your, the way you set up this question, that obviously the government, because Social Security has been the single most effective program that we have in this country. It has kept two thirds of our senior citizens out of poverty as a social insurance program for a one case have been a disaster

they've been a disaster just google right there in front of you the four o one k experiment people took the money out i mean and grant you like you know you can make an assessment that these individuals were stupid or immoral or whatever it is, I'm looking at the goal of keeping senior citizens out of poverty. The government has been able to do that far more effectively. Two-thirds of our seniors are in nursing homes because the government is paying for it.

You can look around at anything that doesn't involve a profit or a motive. Like for instance, the post office, if we didn't have a government run post office, do you think you could live in, you know, the most rural parts of the country and get postal service or 42 cents, you can, or 48 eight cents you can send a letter no way what what person looking to make a profit would do that in fact i've got a great example this is you know i was doing radio during katrina and there was a story that haunted me for years and years the uh... when when bill clinton i'm not a huge fan of bill Clinton's administration, frankly, but one of the things he did do well was to build up FEMA.

I guess having come from Arkansas, he had a pretty good sense of what was important there. And Bush, when he came in, very early on privatized a ton of it. There was a story, a very small story, in New Orleans, the buses that were supposed to come to New Orleans to evacuate people before Katrina hit, there was a whole ton of buses that went through three different contractors, right? There was like a general contractor and then a subcontractor and then the subcontractor was going to bring the buses.

They were from like three or four hours away. And maybe it was six hours, I can't remember the exact details. They were gonna send the buses, but the guy whose job it was, who owns the bus company, and then the contractor above that, they waited longer because if you send the buses and they're not used, they're gonna eat that cost, right?

They're gonna cut into their profits. They didn't send the buses, they didn't get there in time, people couldn't get evacuated. Would it have changed the trajectory of the thing? I doubt it, but it would have saved some people. And the point is that there are some jobs that the government does better because the value there is not measured in terms of actual sheer dollars.

It is measured in, essentially, how much amisseration are you inhibiting people from suffering? And so, you know, like, yes, I agree that when it comes to auditing in the military, worst, the worst government agency we have, because it's very easy, very hard to sort of like scrutinize the military, people don't like that.

And it's also a huge power base of a lot of money. They make a ton of money out of this. I agree with that. But if you look at Medicare, and I said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, different things. I think to Pat's question whether the government is better at spending your money or whether the private markets or private companies are better, it's not even close. If private companies ran out, like soda or to actually like just direct it in a way that keeps less people from sucking. Okay, we have 31 trillion dollars in debt right now. I think that's evidence enough Sam that we're not so good at spending money here in America. It's a politician spending money. It's not good at managing the better world. Yeah. Okay, there's a difference between being frugal and being smart with your money and just being wasteful. The government is clearly fucking wasteful. Where you are correct is that most retirees and most Americans do appreciate social security.

Do appreciate the entitlement programs that come with this country, whether it's social security, Medicaid, Medicare, no doubt. But that doesn't mean that government is good at spending money. We're seeing that social security is about to go bankrupt. No, and the next thing is... The trust fund is gonna be sold.

The trust fund by 2023. And yes, I just had this conversation literally two days ago in DC, where he kept using the word bankrupt, bankrupt, bankrupt. I said, days ago in DC where he kept using the word bankrupt bankrupt bankrupt Bankrupt I said what does that mean who kept using that word? This was a Republican use it wasn't even a Republican who was sort of a social security financial advisor expertise type of guy But I said what do you keep saying banker? Is that meaning that retirees will not be receiving benefits? It goes no, they'll probably be slashed by

25% you use 20 so we can you know cut the baby in half here but You help familiar you with the three-legged stool of retirement of course. Yes, okay, so it used to be You had three avenues to retire you had pensions which payers do they even exist anymore for they they 90% people or as a defined contribution then then to find then to find out very popular these days i don't know any people here pensions you have social security which was never meant

to be every time it program was an insurance policy if you live too long which basically americans are now or you have your personal savings which is the four one k we can argue the merits of four one's and Roth IRA's would have you. But social security should not be keeping Americans

afloat for 30 years of their life. And that's the problem. And that's the private industry, isn't it? Why is it a failure of the private industry? Well, I mean, social security is maintained, the idea that we're leaning on the government stool because the other two have failed. That's a function of privacy.

Is that a function of just the average person understanding how money works and saving money, investing and doing it properly? I don't know. Versus the government or institution. What, 60% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. How are they supposed to save this money? Well, how are they spending their money?

I guess is the biggest question. How many people have credit card debt? How many people? You just said, when you took out a mortgage, you said, I'm an actor. save this money. Well, how are they spending their money? I guess is the biggest question. How many people have credit card debt? How many people? You just said, when you took out a mortgage, you said, I'm an actor. What was the rate? You're like, I don't fucking even know.

You should know. Well, I was making so much money that I don't give a shit I'm much money. I'm saying Sam, you should know what your mortgage rate is. But, you know, I mean, I didn't remember what it was in 1998, but I mean, I know what it is now. But, I mean, but didn't remember what it was in 1998, but I mean, I know what it is now, but I mean, but I was making so much money, but I was making, I was in the top,

I don't know, I don't know if I was in the top 1% at that time, but probably pretty close. Well, let me ask you a question. And I was a single guy who had just gone from making, you know, $22,000 a year to all of a sudden making that in a week at that point. I mean, I was making a lot of money. Now, how comfortable at that point would you have been

paying 90% taxes? Sure. So you actually want to pay 90% tax? No, no, no, no. Let's be clear. I think it should be 90% over for the, for the, for the every dollar you make over 3 million. Yeah.

That would not have been, that would not have impacted me at three million. Yeah. That would not have been, that would not have impacted me at that time. So, but I would have been happy to pay more taxes. But what, I would, anyone would be, you know why I'm laughing? Because it's always, it's always, let's tax the people, a little richer than me. It's always, let's tax the guy that I,

Oh, it was a little richer, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, But I'm just going back to when we had the great compression, which was when we had the least wealth inequality in this country. We had the GDP was consistent with where, you know, on our trajectory, but it was spread out. It wasn't like this, essentially. It was going, it was more spread out, it's called the great compression. And I'm just using that figure. I mean, look, if it's going to be 85% over 3 million or 85% over 4 million, I'm just basing it on what was the most successful economic era of this country. Why not to 90% over $250,000? I mean, if the numbers beared out, I'm agnostic as that.

Again, I'm just pegging on when we had the most success in this country in terms of our economy. I appreciate that you're pointing out the success, but right now the top marginal rate federally is 37, 39. Okay, you do realize how shocking it is to say, all right, rather than go from 37 to 39, how about 40? How many people do you assume? How many people do you assume?

How many people do you assume would be touched by that tax? Would be implicating that. Top 1%. Look at this number right here, share of total income tax is paid. The top 1% in this country pay 42.3%. The bottom 50%, only pay 2.3%.

So 150 million people are paying nothing in taxes. And you want to keep the 1% paying more and more and more. I think it's actually even less than 1% to be honest with you. I think we're talking about 0.05%. But let's tax on me one more. Oh, I specifically want to make it illegal to be almost as wealthy as you, not quite, but a little bit more.

Like I want to make it not illegal. You're not going to go to jail. So nobody can be a billionaires. No billionaires in America. Absolutely. 100%. Why? Don't you want America to be known for greatness, for innovation, for capitalism, for all the amazing

things that we've done in this country? My definition of glory. You want to go to like Nordic socialism. My definition of greatness is different from yours.