Skip to main content

tv   Stossel  FOX Business  March 14, 2015 4:00am-5:01am EDT

4:00 am
strange"strangeinheritance," i am jamie colby thank you for watching. >> send me an e-mail or go to our web site ♪ >> tell me what it looks -- show me what it looks like to run like a girl. john: do girls run like a girl? do they earn like a girl? >> there's one thing that just about every single job in america has in common: dudes get paid more for doing it. john: especially white dudes. >> we're still fighting some of the same battles we did a half century ago. john: what is fair? >> raise the minimum wage. [cheers and applause] john: what's fair on the internet? >> major shake-up in how the internet providers can control what we all see online. john: why doesn't she make enough money? >> new fallout from the sony pictures cyber attack a. john: some americans do have much more than others. that's not fair, but that's our
4:01 am
show tonight. ♪ ♪ >> and now, john stossel. john: what is fair? in america today some people are really rich. that guy, for example, he has more than a thousand times the money that i have. that's not fair. this guy's also rich and better looking and more famous than me. this woman is richer and better looking than most everyone. that's unfair. i could go on. obviously, we are all different and unequal, and when it comes to unequal money politicians want to do something about it. the president says -- >> i believe this is the defining challenge of our time. john: the next president says this: >> as secretary of state, i saw the way extreme inequality has corrupted other societies. john: okay, i don't know that she's the next president. finally here's how a british
4:02 am
guy who these days seems to speak for young opinion in america portrays american inequality: >> okay -- [cheers and applause] as always, we have two drawings, first up a drawing for people with inherited wealth. okay so now the lot -- lottery for those who were born poor. [laughter] john: is that america? the rich party and the poor who are tuck at the bottom? yes, says alexis goldstein. she works for a group called the other 98%. she also joined the occupy wall street protests. george mason university economist garrett jones says she's wrong. garrett, donald trump's kids paris hilton's siblings, they're born with an advantage in life. that's not fair. >> and i was born, too, being born in the united states of america is one of the least fair things that ever happened to me. being born with great parents, totally unfair. the question is whether
4:03 am
government policies to try to fix this actually make things better or worse. john: you say they make things better. >> i do. and look, we're living in a situation where corporations have profits higher than they've been in 85 years, workers that have wages that are lower than they've been in 65 years -- john: well that's not absolutely not true -- >> that is true. let me continue. 40% of bank tellers in new york state are forced to rely on government assistance just to scrape by. and thats' wrong in a country where we have record corporate profits. john: and government should then take from the corporations and rich people and just give it to poor people? have programs more programs for poor people? >> if we raise the minimum wage in this country, workers are immediately going to spend that money in the economy and that is going to stimulate the economy. >> but one of the things that makes people least happy according to regular economics and surveys, is being unemployed. so even if raising the minimum wage only costs a few jobs -- and if it costs a lot of jobs --
4:04 am
you're concentrating a lot of missly on a small group of people in the hope -- >> raising the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs. john: come on. what? what studies? >> studies by berkeley the university of new mexico -- john: yeah, but the vast majority of economists all agree economists at the federal reserve and california irvine 85% of studies in the last 20 years show raising the minimum wage causes job loss. >> the most recent studies look at county that are in two different states. one state raises the minimum wage, one state doesn't the one state that does does not lose jobs to the state that is right next to it because morale is boosted. looking other their shoulder -- productivity. >> if that were true, businesses would go ahead and do it -- >> walmart just did. >> and that's fantastic. that's great news. john: if this works, why don't we raise it to $100 an hour? everybody would be rich. >> well, i'm glad that you have
4:05 am
some good ideas, john. i'm excited you and i think that some people are making $15 per hour and that's a start. but there's a state-by-state calculator for what a living wage would be in those states and the that is a good place to start. >> here's what elizabeth warren said laster. >> i cannot believe that i have to davis in 2014. but someone has to say it and say it again. we need equal pay for equal work. [applause] >> we need to raise the minimum wage two. >> we need to addressed the cost of student loans. john: alexis, you support all of it. >> actually think that the senator doesn't go far enough when she's talking about student debt. she wants to make the cost of freedom that lower.. you take $8.6 billion that goes
4:06 am
to school and he redirected. >> subsidies for college is redistributing the average person to the top. because college graduates are some of the most fortunate people in america. >> but we promise people if you get a vocational degree that you will make a difference in your life and we are seeing something else. people are doing this. >> the idea of redistributing wealth to college graduates as a way to reduce inequality. >> redistributing wealth now we are just redistributing to the top. the corporate subsidies account for $100 billion per year. john: we all agree on that. there's some other stuff we can agree upon as well get rid of corporate welfare which include subsidies and the bailouts like
4:07 am
too big to fail and special deals for banks and wrestling those that fail. limiting defense spending and the left. and we shouldn't jail so many people and have a ridiculous drug war. but beyond that there's so much where i think that the idea that the poor are doing worse, even the brookings director says that it's up to hundred% but incomes have increased among all groups. 40% for the middle fifth and 49% for the bottom fifth of. >> if i could take a time machine and i knew that i was going to be in the bottom in the american fifth today, versus that of 1970 in 1960. it's hard to imagine that anyone would want to take that time machine for the past. >> the bottom classes making $15,000.500 per year for government subsidies and i don't think anyone thinks about his
4:08 am
american dream. but it's at its lowest level that it's been in decades but it is a tiny bit compared to where it was before. and so we are fighting over peanuts instead of talking about which i totally agree with you, that we should cut defense spending. john: do you want to cut defense spending altogether? >> may be not altogether but pretty close. >> i would not feel very okay with us. in a free society someone do better than others. but you're saying leave it that way? the way that it is? >> and so it depends mostly on where you're born. >> here's something else that he likes to say about working
4:09 am
families. >> for generations they have been squeezed until they are gasping for breath. >> gasping for breath? some people are richer than they used to be. >> that doesn't mean that they are making a living wage or having to rely on government assistance to survive. 300,000 individuals have to rely on their state medical plan just to survive two alexis once the government to step in and fix things. i say what it does it usually makes things worse the poor. here's one way the government does that. >> chuck has an idea. i'm going to fix computers and sell them for low prices. >> in the lobby starting a business means that you can't work in your garage, can have any employees and can have any deliveries. unless you come up with the money for commercial lease right away you won't be starting your business at all. >> because government wants
4:10 am
orderly neighborhoods they create zoning rules that make it hard for anyone to start a business. especially if you're poor you have to be rich enough to hire lawyers. patrice is a generation opportunity leader, a group that fights or opportunity for young people and says that there's lots of ways that the government for its young people especially minorities and poor people. >> hairdressers or hear braiders. >> they have to get licenses to do basic simple things. >> absolutely. in some states they are going to spend 1500 hours of education trying to learn how to cut hair and on top of that they are going to school but cost you 10 or $20,000 just to get that certification. so if you imagine for a poor person or people from communities of color who are coming out especially with terminal record that is a huge hurdle to overcome especially when you have other opportunities cut away from you. >> sometimes this makes it
4:11 am
difficult to get to that point. so many individuals, makeup artists teaching assistants, travel agents. thousands of dollars in fees. >> the private sector we need them to be able to provide those jobs. so they can that they can take their ideas and passion to the marketplace. john: higher education? >> we are spending a lot of debt and we are graduating with that amount and that is because the government is subsidizing student loans. it's a vicious cycle. come and take free money and then schools know that as a parent or student you can get that money and they will continue to raise their cost. john: the younger kids you say that government helping k-12 education hurts way back it hurts poor people? >> again we throw money at k-12 education. $600 billion i believe that we spent on k-12 education to our children are turning out to be
4:12 am
undereducated. john: more than 12000 per student now. >> which is ridiculous and our students are not prepared to enter into the job for his. worse than that is when we are also because of zero-tolerance policies we are punishing students for small infractions and that leads them into the juvenile justice system and then puts them into the larger system. as a child of color you are more likely to be penalized more harshly than even white student in large part driven by the war on drugs. we have mandatory minimums that are meant to create some sort of baseline of punishment and in fact they trap people of color in higher punishments and sentences than they need to. and unfortunately have no opportunity to be able to provide for yourself and your family. john: all of these government plans or programs are meant to make life more fair. >> it is well intended, but just because there's been tension doesn't mean there is going to be good outcomes and that's what we are seeing and a lot of this is the idea of throwing money at a problem when private solutions are the best options.
4:13 am
so when we look at mandatory minimums, let the laminate them together and then let's redefine what we call criminal in this nation. the average american has committed three felonies in a given day. so that means even i are already felons. >> we are pretty active and would probably did six or seven. >> you are right. john: to join this discussion follow me on twitter. use the hash tag equality or like my facebook page you can post on my wall. we want to know what you think. coming up next what is not fair to women. >> show me what it looks like to run like a girl.
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
mended. is that fair? no, center politicians. republicans as well. as a result. >> no woman can never be charged more just because she's a woman. [applause] john: that seems fair. but it's not. insurance is supposed to cover
4:18 am
cost. actual cost. women go to the doctor more often. and the cdc says twice as often as men. women should pay more. but i'm wrong say liberals like pamela. why should you pay more? >> i should not pay more. it should be paid across the board a boeing. women and men should have the same amount of insurance and all men are created equal. john: so should you pay more than you pay now for car insurance and life insurance? because you pay less now. >> right spirit should have equalized aide you are a safer driver. >> i don't drive. john: women in general. >> as for the fact as to whether men should pay more last than car insurance, people do not drive, some people drive and some people don't.
4:19 am
but everybody needs health insurance. everyone needs care at some point in their life. does that mean that women should be paid less because they go to the doctor more? john: let's talk about something else. we are talking about pay the controversy over gender in the wallaby, the fact that men make more money. women make 77 cents to the dollar. >> there's one thing that just about every single job in america has in common. dudes get paid more for doing it. >> it's time to have a way to all the ones in. >> women deserve equal pay for equal work. >> women are less likely to be ceos because he make other choices in life enact. >> like having a baby. john: like caring more about family. like not being so work driven to work all the time like some of these technology nerds do two i think that women make less
4:20 am
because the society thinks that we are worth less. john: that is sexism. >> i don't think it's sexism. we've come a long way but we have a long way to go. there are jobs, most of the jobs, let's see. another thing. nineteen out of 20 of the most common occupations for women men make more. men are getting paid more. >> maybe men work harder or are willing to take risks. >> i don't think so are you really saying that women don't take bigger risks and they don't work as hard as men? john: they don't go put oilfields in north dakota as often as men do. >> should they be paid less two. >> they should be paid what the market says they should be paid. >> that the market should also be regulated. john: really? >> well, we need to make sure that there is equality. all men are created equal the
4:21 am
declaration of independence says that and i know that you believe because it means men. >> show me what it looks like to run like a girl. >> show me what it looks like if i like a girl. now throw like a girl. john: this is a stereotype. but isn't that okay because there's some truth to that. we are different. sumac growing like a girl is an okay okay stereotype. i want to see you fight like a girl. i know you're a big mma fan and rhonda would really kick you in the butt. john: i'm sure that she would. but i'm not a mixed martial arts fighter. >> are you sure?
4:22 am
>> her own mother says that she doesn't fight men. >> her mother says that she's world judo champion. men and women are different. >> if i listen all of the things my mom said i couldn't do i wouldn't be here today be one let's play the rest of the commercial. >> schuman what it looks like to run like a girl. >> throw like a girl. fight like a girl. john: the implication is that we are not different. but we are different two of course we are different. but this growing like a girl has an insult connotation, if you say to avoid a throw like a girl. so it is taking this and turning it around. john: but now it's not an insult because girls can throw as well as boys? >> i know i can't throw a ball
4:23 am
like peyton manning. however, you are not telling women that they can throw the same you are saying that the negative connotations that young women should be empowered and i can equally be empowered. john: make no question because women dominate higher education. masters degrees. 60% go to women in all education. student government, the yearbook dance classes. should government intervene and push men into these activities? >> no, but if a man goes into dancing he shouldn't be paid less. we are equal. john: we are in many ways. thank you. coming up next, inequality in hollywood. and the black man tells government please stop helping
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
[beep] why is connor having trouble focusing in school? [beep] having trouble finding connor's middle school? would you like directions? no. why is connor having trouble focusing in school? [beep] finding lowest airfare to istanbul. no. i'm tired of fighting with him over homework. [beep] home wok restaurant. need a review? no, i need help. he's very smart, but his mind wanders. he's disorganized.
4:27 am
[beep] i think i understand. ah, good. french fries. finding best potatoes. no! russets, fingerlings, yukon gold. argh! why don't you understand me? [beep] sorry, i was trying to show how connor feels every day. frustrating, isn't it? redirecting to narrator: for the one in five kids with learning and attention issues this is what life can feel like. explore a free online resource about learning and attention issues designed to help your child thrive in school and in life. because understanding is everything. ♪ ♪ john: one group has clearly received unfair treatment in
4:28 am
america and that's blacks. first slavery, then laws like jim crow that segregated blacks and now well, now it's not so clear. is america still unfair to blacks? many say yes, and they want government to do more to to help blacks. but manhattan institute senior fellow jason reilly says, no. -- rudy giuliani wrote, no -- jason riley wrote a book called "please, stop helping us." why do you say stop? >> no great society program has ever been able to replicate the success that blacks were having prior to the implementation of that program than v. us what was happening after that program was implemented. john: before the war on poverty began, blacks were lifting themselves out of poverty. >> sure. john: and more were married, more owned businesses. then the war on poverty starts, and we can see the chart here. there was great progress for about seven years and then
4:29 am
progress stopped because these programs taught people to be dependent? >> open-ended welfare policies do not help people develop a work ethic. paying women to have more chirp and keep the father away from the home puts exactly the wrong incentives in home concern. john: and to be clear they didn't pay women to have more children or keep the father away -- >> well they rewarded women who had more children and penalized them if the father stay in the home. but even if you go back further, between 1940-1960 black poverty in america fell by 40 percentage points. now it continued to fall throughout the '60s, '70s and '80s, but at a much slower rate. john: despite all these laws, we have the civil rights act of '64, voting rights act of '65, the fair housing act of '68, equal credit opportunity act the equal educational opportunities act. >> right.
4:30 am
john: congress has been very busy. >> we went from trying to insure equal opportunity to trying to insure equal outcomes. and the haws you just named -- the laws you just named there were put in place, again, aimed at discrimination. we thought if we handled that, we'd get proportionate outcomes. it didn't happen, and our emphasis on pretending wherever we don't see proportional outcomes that something must be amiss, i think, is where we've gone wrong. you don't see call outcomes not in the u.s -- john: and that's okay? big disparities? >> it shows the limits of government benevolence. there's only so much the government can do beyond providing a level playing field. then it's up to a group to take personal responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities, and that's what hasn't happened in too many cases in black america. due in part to a lot of policies that have been put in place to help. john: and you would include affirmative action in that? >> oh, absolutely include
4:31 am
affirmative action. blacks were entering the professions at a faster rate prior to the society programs and affirmative action efforts blacks were increasing their levels of education both in absolute terms and relative to whites. nothing that the great society did has been able to replicate what was goip on prior to the implementation of these programs in terms of the rate of progress. john: and yet the public supports these programs. affirmative a 63% think it's good. most rights 84 -- most whites, 84% of blacks. >> when the university of california system ended admission rate, it went up by more than 50% including in some of the more difficult disciplines like math and science engineering -- john: because people were more likely to go to colleges that were suitable for them. >> exactly. but the left doesn't care about that because they care about -- [inaudible conversations] diversity on campus whether they graduate is a secondary concern
4:32 am
at best to the left. john: but why is it so popular? this is the left and the right -- >> because good intentions have come to trump everything else. data, facts it does not matter. as long as you feel good and pat yourself on the back for trying really hard and having the best intentions in mind, it's okay. john: thank you, jason riley. up next hollywood celebrities love to talk about equality, but they are hypocrites! ♪ ♪
4:33 am
4:34 am
earth hour is for citizens of the world to want action on climate change. if we don't do anything about climate change, we will have lost the chance to do so. carbon emissions are at unprecedented levels. now is you moment for act. [music] [music] i'm using my power... i'm
4:35 am
using my power... save the great barrier reef. i'm using my power... i'm using my power... to raise children's awareness about the environment. we are using our power... to make our city more sustainable... to save my forest... to save our home. [music]
4:36 am
♪ ♪ john: did you watch the oscars last month? the moment the media called their favorite was went actress patricia arkansas debt used her acceptance speech to demand wage equality once and for all for women. got the biggest applause of the night. but kelly says they're
4:37 am
hypocrites. kelly covers hollywood for the web site big hollywood. what do you mean they're hypocrites? >> take a look at sean penn and alec baldwin, right? both of these men routinely make comments, disparaging comments towards minorities, yet they're given a free pass. t they don't have trouble finding work, or they don't seem to right? john: what disparaging comments about minorities have they made? >> before the oscars the other night, sean penn -- he said who gave this guy a green card? john: it was a joke. >> of course it was a joke but can you imagine if a conservative would have said that? what would have happened? instead they laughed it off right? free pass. john: so gender inequality is one of the big areas, obviously, from all the applause. in this web clip mad men actress christina hendrix makes this complaint. >> did you know that almost 70% of the minimum wage work force is female but only 15% of our fortune 500 ceos are?
4:38 am
john: but in hollywood it turned out that amy adams and jennifer lawrence made less money than their male counterparts in "american hustle." jeremy repper? he's not -- renner, he's not a big star. chris ban bill, bradley cooper, they are. >> why are they not entitled to equal pay? these top executives for minor and major film studios 100% white? 94% male. these guys are the ones in charge of financing, green lighting all these films. they're controlling the narrative. you're telling me that, you know women aren't entitled to equal pay? john: well, i don't think anybody's entitled to equal pay. everybody should be paid whatever the market would bear. but some e-mails got leaked that revealed executives saying the women didn't ask for it they didn't push as hard. >> yeah. she said i'm not going to give them something they didn't ask for. if they -- you know i'm not going to give them more money,
4:39 am
basically, in a nutshell. but there have been more and more stars fighting back at that, demanding i'm going to be paid just as much as my male counterpart, and it's been happening more and more. john: and reese witherspoon started a production company for only women. >> yes, she did. john: that's a much better way to change things than to ask government to do i. >> absolutely. she even said speaking out about something, it's wonderful, but she believes doing something about it says more. john: these stars are influential. lee e owe dicaprio has 12 million twitter followers which is huge, i would think, and then i see lady gaga, katie perry. so when they say illiterate things, it reaches people. >> yes, it does. john: you wrote dicaprio stopped in new york sunday for the people's climate march. >> yes. he announced he was going to travel around the world doing good for the environment in his
4:40 am
private jet. so i mean, what message is that sending to everyone else? he cares about the environment, yet he is riding around on yachts traveling around the world on his private jet. john: gwyneth paltrow, what'd she do? >> okay. this is one of my favorites. she hosted a fundraiser for president obama and it was there that she said she wanted the president to possess the power to pass the things he needed to pass, one of those was wage equality. so the holidays come around, and gwyneth releases her annual holiday gift guide on her blog that basically recommends what you know, holiday gifts. so on that list there was a vase on there. so can you imagine -- john: a $1,000 watch, a $4,000 valentino canvas bag, a juicer or that sells for almost $5,000. >> people on twitter were like, yeah, gwyneth, you got it, girl. john: finally racial equality. hollywood tries hard to be
4:41 am
racially sensitive. they're america's moral compass on issues like race. except -- >> there's new fallout from the sony pictures cyber attack. sony executive amy pascal and producer scott rudin chatting before they went to a fundraiser with president obama in 2013. john: they were guessing what would be his favorite movie? and it was between -- >> it was between "the butler," and they said i bet he likes kevin hart. i mean, this is coming from hollywood's leadership. this is what's going on behind closed doors that people aren't even seeing. john: thank you, kelly. after the break, government says the internet isn't fair, so government is going to fix it. >> a major shake-up in how the internet providers can control what we all see online. ♪ ♪
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
♪ ♪ >> for once in your life, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction! [laughter] seize your moment -- john: that was comedian john oliver last year urging his viewers to write the fcc to support net neutrality.
4:46 am
a plan to have government make sure the internet is fair to everyone. so many of his fans went to the fcc's web site the web site crashed. as a result, the fcc has now passed a net neutrality rule. well, actually i'm not sure oliver was the reason. there was this other guy who got involved. he told the fcc: create new rules. so now they have. >> a major shake-up in how the internet providers can control what we all see online. neil: and you thought your cable company was a nightmare, just wait until you're on hold with washington. john: well, that's neil cavuto's spin. he suggests the internet will be smothered by government. and i think he's probably right. but most of the media seems to like obama's new plan. here's how nbc explains it. >> think of the internet citizen a congested superhighway taken up by big fat trucks taking up content. the fcc's new rule means those big companies will not be able
4:47 am
to pay to dominate the fast lanes they will also prohibit service providers from slowing down internet traffic and blocking access to competitors. john: yes, no blocking no slowing down, it sounds great. i'd be more certain if we were allowed to read the 300-page rule, except they wouldn't allow us to see it. of course, the fcc commissioners are able to read it, and fortunately, one of them joins us now. republican commissioner ajit pai voted existence the new rule. why -- against the new rule. why? >> first and foremost, there is no problem with the internet. the internet isn't broken today, as most of us who rely on it, know. >> secondly, decisions about how the internet works are now going to be made by bureaucrats and politicians uninstead of by engineers and innovators, and third most importantly to me as consumer, this is going to be a bad deal for the american consumer, especially rural and low income americans. it's going the mean higher prices for broadband, slower speeds fewer competitive choices. this is a massive shift in favor
4:48 am
of government control. john: you make it sound lie you and your -- like you and your fellow commissioners are out of control and you're going to jump all over the internet. the other commissioners say, oh we're going to have a light happened. we're just going to punish somebody who does something wrong. >> do you trust washington bureaucracy to get internet policy right. john: no. >> look at europe where the internet's treated like a utility to see the consumers are worse off especially because, i would argue or, government is so actively involved. john john and yet there are so many smart people in the world who are for this supporting government intervention. the internet is built on the principle of openness, this allows sellers to compete with much bigger brands. the implication is without net neutrality, somebody will cut 'em off. >> i certainly respect what they have done to build up their
4:49 am
companies, but the problem is what they don't understand is the platform has to exist to allow them to innovate. and if we adopt these heavy-handed regulations that are going to dissuade some of the broadband providers from building or upgrading their americas then future etsys won't have enough bandwidth, so to speak, to deliver some of those innovative services to the american consumer. i think that's why you're seeing companies like netflix and tumbler saying, whoa, these rules might not be what we bar gained for. -- bargained for. john: some say internet is a public good and should be regulated like one. >> i could not disagree more and the best case i can make is the two decade experience we've had with the internet. it has thrived without the heavy hand of government regulation. even if there were a problem which there isn't, the common carrier regulations we just adopted are going to make it a lot tougher for broadband to be deployed to some of the most
4:50 am
difficult-to-reach parts of this country. so ironically enough -- john: why? >> well because if you are a provider and you have a limited amount of capital and the government says now we are going to for the first time micromanage how you deploy your network, what service plans you're going to be allowed to offer and all kinds of different business practices might be under scrutiny now, you're going to be a lot more careful about deploying some of that -- spending some of that capital to build out your network. you might not bill -- build it at all. john: it ends the two decades of permissionless innovation. now you have to say mother, may i, and that slows everything down. >> absolutely right. and i think some of the innovators who have been pushing us to adopt these heavy-handed net neutrality regulations ultimately might find themselves swept up in this regulatory vortex where the agency, as a referee might throw a mag on some innovative business plan they want to pursue. john: thank you, commissioner ajit pai. coming up, why freedom sometimes is not fair.
4:51 am
and also just how clueless is al sharpton? >> the top 1% in this country pay very much less than 10%. very much less than 5%. ♪ ♪ @?
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
♪ ♪ john: if fair means equal, freedom isn't fair. when people are free some who are smarter or luckier get very rich.
4:55 am
globalization multiplies the effect. as a result, today america's richest 1% own a third of america's wealth. 1% owns a third. to many that's just wrong. but why? some say it's because the rich get rich at the expense of poor people, but they say that because they don't understand free markets. they see capitalism as a zero sum game. be he get -- if he gets rich, he must have taken something from me. it's as if the economy is this pie that's already on the table. if i or bill gates say, take this big piece, that means you get less. but this is absurd. bill gates did take a huge slice of pie but he didn't take it from us by expanding microsoft. he baked a million new pies he made all of us better off. now, i admit if someone gets rich through i political connections, government handouts or special privileges, that is
4:56 am
unfair. frederick's correct when he called it "legal plunder." but there's nothing unfair when people make big money through productive work. people have a range of talents and ambitions. some serve consumers better than others. then they get really rich. the difference in wealth between rich and poor has grown, but why is that a problem? so what if the rich get richer if the poor don't get poorer? progressives claim they did, but it's not true. poor people's incomes grew at a slower rate, but they did grow. today poor americans live lives that rush people lusted for a century ago -- rich people lusted for a century ago. even poor people have access to flush toilets, air-conditioning, fruit in winter things kings didn't have a isn'tly ago. we have them now thanks to free markets. what do progressives want to do about inequality? they say, well keep the innovation, keep the progress, but have government make us more equal. but it's been tried, and it's
4:57 am
worse. look at cuba, venezuela. socialism, government-gorsed equality leave -- forced equality leaves everybody poor. have government take a higher percentage from the rich and give that to the poor like they do in much of europe. progressives are big on that, although they're often clueless about what the rich already pay in taxes. al sharpton once told me this: >> the top 1% in this country pays very much less than 10%. very much less than 5%. john: so what's fair the top 1% should pay 10% of america's income taxes? >> they should pay somewhere around 15%. they don't pay 5%. anybody could see that as e unequal and unfair. john: so they should pay 15%, he says. and the richest 1% now pay less than 10%. then he said they pay less than 5%. but that's ridiculous. that year the richest 1% actually paid 34%, more than
4:58 am
twice what that sharpton wanted them to pay. he barely reacted when i told him. they're already paying 34%. >> no. i think that be you deal with the quality of their lives -- john: he quickly changed the subject. he never would admit how far off he was. today the top 1% pay more, 35% of the income tax. of course the rush could pay as much as -- the rich could pay as much as europeans pay, but what's the result? it's not good. innovation doesn't happen. unemployment's high. young entrepreneurs leave. worse, big european government encouraged europeans to be dependent on government and that's left them neither rich nor happy. and now some of their governments are broke, and they can't pay the pension and health benefits they promised. when government takes your money and tries to create equality, most everyone becomes poorer and less free. as government grows, individual liberty shrinks.
4:59 am
that's not fair. opportunity is much more important than equality and, fortunately, there is still opportunity in america despite our high taxes bureaucracy and government-run schools. most americans are not trapped in poverty. researchers at harvard and berkeley found 64% of kids born to the poorest fifth of families rose to a higher income group. 11% moved all the way from the bottom fifth to the top. the rich ant guaranteed -- aren't guaranteed their place at the top, 66% of those born to the richest of families fell from that group and 8% fell all the way to the bottom. opportunity requires allowing people to pend their own money -- to spend their own money and take their own risks. instead of talking about fairness, it would be better if we talked about justice respecting other people, respecting their freedom and their belongings. real fairness requires limiting
5:00 am
government power. that's our show. see you next week for a new episode again in our new time slot, fridays on fbn. ♪ ♪will be just as wild. liz: we'll be here. "the willis report" is next. gerri: hello, everybody, i'm gerri willis and this is "the willis report" the show where consumers are our business president obama goes to the va hospital as a snort of center of the veterans health care scandal. why is his administration still ignoring one of the most critical issues facing our vet. >> veterans should get private care if they can not get mental health care immediately at a va hospital. gerri: we'll investigate. from hillary clinton's email scandal to secret service agents acting more like keystone cops. dysfunction in washington pushes competence in government to record lows. "national review"'s john fund is here with analysis. also, the fed says we're all richer than ever before. >> household net worth


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on