Business

Why Did TED Talks Originally Refuse to Publish This Presentation on Taxing the Rich?

Multimillionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer gave a presentation on taxation and “income inequality” at the TED University conference in March. And although it was well-received, it was not originally published on the TED website.

Why? It was apparently “too political.”

“It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one,” Hanauer said, “If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today’s economic landscape.”

“But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe.  It’s not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy,” he added.

“In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are ‘job creators’ and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

TED has since backed down and published the video of his talk, which you can see here:

“In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class.  And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich,” Hanauer concluded.

What was TED’s reason for refusing to post the video?

The problem, according to Gawker’s Neetzan Zimmerman, was that as a “nonpartisan nonprofit” organization, TED didn’t want to be seen as siding with an advocate of raising taxes on the “1 percent.”

Hanauer was informed earlier this month by TED curator Chris Anderson that they couldn’t possibly post his “out and out political” presentation.

“We’re in the middle of an election year in the US,” Anderson wrote in an email. “Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party. And you even reference that at the start of the talk. TED is nonpartisan and is fighting a constant battle with TEDx organizers to respect that principle.”

TED believed that publishing the video would incite “a tedious partisan rehash of all the arguments we hear every day in the mainstream media,” Anderson added.

Hanauer responded by accusing TED of not being exactly honest in their reasoning:

[I]f it was too political, why have me do it in the first place?

They knew months in advance what I would speak about and I gave the talk word for word. My arguments threaten an economic orthodoxy and political structure that many powerful people have a huge stake in defending. They will not go easily.

However, as mentioned in the above, TED backed down and posted the video.

It’s a “non-story about a talk not being chosen“ over ”better ones,” Anderson wrote in response to Hanauer. So, to prove a point, as Neetzan puts it, TED posted the video.

“No doubt,” Anderson adds, “it will now, ironically, get stupendous viewing numbers and spark a magnificent debate, and then the conspiracy theorists will say the whole thing was a set-up!”

But what do you think? Do you think that hosting a guest speaker who advocates raising taxes on the rich is appropriate for a “nonpartisan nonprofit” organization?

Keep in mind, this isn‘t the first time they’ve hosted a lecturer who was political in nature. Earlier this year, The Blaze reported on a popular TED talk by Gen. Peter van Uhm, who gave a passionate defense of the military — and even made some controversial comments about people owning guns.

 

Nick Hanauers TED Talk: Taxing The Rich Will Create JobsThis story has been updated.

Comments (116)

1 2 3 4
  • gooeylewie
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:41pm

    I’m confused, he claims to be a Capitalist yet argues for Socialism…

    since he beings with the false premise of him being a Capitalist, the following speech is rendered moot. He not be a capital “S” Socialist, but by no measure is he really a Capitalist.

    Report Post »  
    • ohnomrbill
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 10:30pm

      What he explains is you don‘t have a consumer you don’t have wealth, without people being able to buy cars, boats, homes and the basic necessities they have no reason to hire and create jobs because there is no demand. If the wealthy has no need to hire then they won’t which means the economy goes stagnant and the industries die because no one is able to buy wake up people its simple just give thought to who is the consumer and if they no longer have the ability to spend then everyone loses even the wealthy.

      Report Post »  
    • Max jones
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 1:01am

      If the economics of this country were fair, then the lazy and the stupid would once again have to be slaves just to live. That is why we have so many calling for big govt. and socialism.

      Report Post » Max jones  
    • majasdad
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 5:02am

      He’s definitely not a Socialist for simply wanting to achieve a smarter Capitalist system that works for everyone including the rich. Leave your petty politics aside and listen to and embrace some common sense for once.

      Report Post »  
    • HellPhish89
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 7:39am

      Majas, govt spending to spur the economy isnt “smarter,” its more destructive and generally not smart. The govt didnt create the middle class… the rich did. I suppose it could be more akin to the chicken and the egg question but an example would be Henry Ford paying his employees more than most so they could afford his products.

      Its not quite socialism either, its the failure known as Keynesian Economic Theory. Socialism requires control of industry. Like Airbus, EADS, Yugo, etc..

      Report Post »  
    • majasdad
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 11:47am

      @HELLPHISH89
      It sounds like you haven’t even watched the video. He was primarily talking about taxing the rich. That was his point, and that middle class consumers are the job creators and not the rich.

      Report Post »  
    • dthall
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 12:49pm

      I find it very interesting that very smart rich people are so stupid. This Ted guy, I assumes he’s some smart rich liberal, that now feels bad about being rich, so he goes around making it seems like he’s not that important, and that he is on the side of “the little people” so that the MSN will paint him as one of the good guys.
      His explanation, sounds good on the surface, but as you think about what he’s saying, you then realize that he’s full of _hit! He claims that demand for product and or services is the driving force to create jobs. And it is hard to argue against that. But after thinking about it for a time. I expanded out his theory.
      Lets take my past business where I was a local Builder in NC, building over 100 rental houses a year, during the great Sub-Prime Lending Era. All my other builder friends, the normal hardworking, yet broke Builders were wondering how was I building so many houses? I would tell some of them how I was able to walk into any bank in the State, and within 30 days have a new credit-line of over a few million dollars to build more houses for my unlimited customer base. So far I guess it sounds like I’m proving Ted right, but I not finish.
      The real difference between me and the other Builders was that I was rich, at least on paper. Because I was rich, I could take advantage of the unlimited Investors that wanted more and more rental houses. The other Builders could not do so. Because they were broke. I was the Builder that created 100′

      Report Post »  
    • mvfoley1215
      Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:37am

      OHNOMRBILL are you really suggesting that wealth is created by the Middle Class? Did you actually read your post after you wrote it. You and Hanauer are basically stating that demads comes before supply which is with out question WRONG. You say that if the middle class does not buy cars and homes etc no jobs will be created. Please tell me how anyone can buy a car or home with out a job. Your own comment directly confirms that jobs are needed in order for the “middle class” to purchase those things that then create jobs. There was zero demand for Henry Ford’s model T. There weren’t people writing Ford asking him to build it, people weren’t sitting around waiting for Ford to built it. Ford determined that if he built the model T people would buy it. Ford created the demad for the Model T by creating the supply. The same thing goes for TV, HD TV’s, IPad, Cell Phones, Computers etc. etc. etc. Only the wealthy by definition have the capital to invest that create the jobs. Jobs and Gates both created products that had there not been wealthy people with capital in invest in there ideas we would not have computers, ipads etc. too day.

      OHNOMRBILL it is you that needs to get a clue. Businesses existing and new ones are who create the jobs. They will do so in a situation where they can have a good sense of the future and feel they can earn a return on their investment. When Government threatens business directly and thru tax policy and regulation businesses will s

      Report Post »  
    • WillieJ
      Posted on May 20, 2012 at 7:03am

      It’s a chicken and the egg analogy. Sure you won‘t sell any goods if there isn’t a market, but you need investment to produce the products to sell.
      You can have millions of consumers waiting to buy a product that they don’t know they really want. It takes a capitalist to recognize a need for such a product, design it, and produce it. Then market it to the consumers.
      Yet if the consumers don’t purchase the product, they in a sense, have not lost a single penny, only the capitalist has.

      Report Post »  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on May 20, 2012 at 1:37pm

      I had to google TED
      Technology
      Entertainment
      Design

      So this ‘entity’ Has a focus of what?
      I would like to know that before I form an opinion on the rest.

      Report Post » Stoic one  
    • Rob Tacoma
      Posted on May 20, 2012 at 3:42pm

      It is about Taxation….ON THE MIDDLE CLASS….”It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies….” the progressive tax is the restriction on individuals and their ability to fuel ideas with capital. We must do a flat tax that all people pay and we must lower our state and federal business operating taxes.
      Oh yes….The two important thing to remember; 1 government must cut spending. 2 If you feel like paying more taxes to the government, you can freely chose to do so. NOTE: You can chose to give away your money to other charities or what ever you chose. If it makes you feel guilty to have it, give it away.
      Dear Mr. Hanauer: Please don’t encourage the government to take more than it does now, especially since you have already made yours.
      Thank you
      Robert W. Cohee

      Report Post »  
    • Tuhme21
      Posted on May 20, 2012 at 11:27pm

      This is ridiculous. Just after the first minute he contradicts his whole argument. He said that he, being a rich man, has created or helped created jobs, which were used to produce a good or service. That has to come first. Consumers do not create jobs. Consumers buy the products. How do the products get to the consumer? Someone has to make them. In order for that product to be on the shelf in the first place, it must be created by someone who got hired by someone else who had the capital to do so. The job comes first. What happens if that capital is not available for that person to hire? They do not create a product for the consumer to buy because the hired help was not hired because a rich guy (simplified version of the argument) did not have the capital to hire them. What he is not explaining or maybe not understanding himself is that when a business gets taxed it passes it on to either the consumer or the employee as much as it can. If taxed enough, the cost of a product to a consumer will get to a point that some consumers can not buy them. This is another point he makes about people being able to afford things. If there were less taxes, the rich guy would not have to raise the price of his good, therefore more people would be able to afford it. It is ideological crap that is so frustrating for an economist to deal with.

      Report Post » Tuhme21  
  • ndimi
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:38pm

    This guy is way off on his analysis, who would control the money that is generated by taxing the rich?
    Are you seriously going to tell me that you will trust the Federal government to to that, and what exactly would you do to invest in the middle class? Would you give them, credit, money, or how about a new car??
    Moron!

    Report Post »  
    • TurboCat
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 4:00am

      That guy is really twisted.

      Report Post »  
    • rodeogolf
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:28pm

      it then becomes a question of tax avoidance…always a big favorite…

      more money spent on growing business rather than paying taxes on it…

      Report Post »  
  • MammalOne
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:36pm

    I understand the part about a healthy middle class driving the employment rate but I don‘t understand the jump from don’t over-tax the middle class to we need to tax rich people. Taxes don’t create jobs so how is taxing the richest Americans going to stimulate the economy? By his own argument, cutting taxes on the middle class is what would stimulate the economy. He doesn‘t even address what it is about the rich people’s taxes that will raise up the middle class…

    Report Post » MammalOne  
  • Twinspeedr
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:34pm

    Economic facts are just too political…

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

    Report Post » Twinspeedr  
    • MojoHand
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 1:30pm

      FACTS aren’t pollitical. Opinions are. This guys OPINION that taxing the rich would stimulate the economy flies in the face of the FACTS that this SOLUTION has never worked in the history of the free market. But even facts are manipulated to suit the argument of what ever group is trying to persuade you to believe what they are selling.

      Report Post »  
    • rodeogolf
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:30pm

      @mojohand…no proof that lowering taxes works to create jobs either…we have at least 12 years of that kind of proof…

      See job growth rate during Ike’s era and 90% top tax rate…

      Report Post »  
  • TheSoundOf Truth
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:31pm

    It’s amazing how this “venture gambler” can’t grasp the simple notion that most people buy stuff with post tax, disposable income. If you tax us business owners, we have a) no incentive to make more money, cus why work 1/3 of the year just to pay the government? b) we won’t be able to handle overhead AND pay taxes; something must be cut, and usually it’s staff and c) we have less to spend on B2B items and vendors.

    This guy is a creep. he is a venture capitalist, which means he either has really good credit and gets money (capital) from a bank or has a trust fund to spend on so-called “ventures”. He never had to start a business from scratch with no start up capital and only a great idea to build from.

    Maybe he “invested” in businesses but that is just a some AZZ with money that isn’t his so he can pick winners and losers.

    I already hate this guy.

    Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • crazyrightwingmom
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 4:12pm

      So true JDOG. People call themselves capitalists to give themselves credibility, then go off on taxing people. He is just using a sneaky way to attack those who favor lower taxes.

      Report Post »  
    • squirefld
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 6:21pm

      He’s no different then Buffett, who cries “TAX ME MORE” all the while he’s in court battling the IRS over one billion they say he owes. Look into this guys business, but I‘ll bet it’s private, and you will find dozens of CPA’s doing everything to cut his taxes.

      Report Post »  
    • Tallaron
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 8:46pm

      Our tax should be equal to ALL! Laws should be equal to ALL!

      Report Post »  
    • dthall
      Posted on May 19, 2012 at 12:47pm

      You are spot one about this guy. Furthermore…

      Report Post »  
  • matinva
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:12pm

    Mr. Hanauer, how about you provide some solid, statistical proof that your hypothesis is correct? Having run a business for 36 years, hiring and training many employees, working through years of plenty and years of lean, I can honestly say that you are full of crap. You have no more proof of this nonsense than Barack-the-Stupid has and you should acknowledge that fact. We already have way too many Americans believing this kind of moronic thinking.

    Report Post » matinva  
    • ndimi
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:38pm

      Great observation!!!

      Report Post »  
    • berin rassoud
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 5:23pm

      These nutballs always attempt to separate reward from contribution. This results in the ideal
      strategy being: do little as possible since it “all pays the same”. In such societies you get
      shortages and shoddy work, just as predicted. It does appeal to the non-contributors
      however who think that all can consume more than they produce.

      Report Post »  
    • Link8on
      Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:26pm

      Taxing the wealthiest is like paying the most productive members of somebody’s company the lowest wages.

      Do that for a while and see how long the productive members of your company will keep working , or the productive members of a nation stay citizens.

      Report Post » Link8on  
  • ronin_6
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:55pm

    Say it with me folks “People are stupid”. Its really easy, the more you tax an activity the less of that activity you get. Plain and simple.

    Report Post » ronin_6  
  • sbenard
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:37pm

    I know from my own experience that the premise (just a claim or opinion, really) of this speaker is false. He’s a liar!

    Once, I was working in an office that was open 5 days, 10 hrs weekly. They decided to go 24/7 and offered us unlimited overtime. I signed up. I worked 70 hrs of overtime in the first two weeks. I was rubbing my hands greedily, waiting eagerly for that first paycheck and to put away a hefty chunk for a down payment on a house. When I received that first paycheck, I was floored! It was just $5 more than my paychecks had been previously! I worked 70 hrs for $5! I never worked another minute of overtime again!

    The point that Hanauer misses is that when we penalize productivity, we get LESS of it! Can someone be so stupid that they miss that fact?

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • Tax Revolt
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 3:28pm

      I had the same experience earlier in my working days. Since then I refused to work OT for any company. Now that economic times are bad, the company I am with will not allow it and if you have OT, you better have a good reason.

      Report Post »  
  • www.k12math.com
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:36pm

    I think people are missing the point of his talk. “Grow the middle class”…I would have liked to hear more actual facts instead of a derivative argument with a chart backdrop. Proven correlation? It sounds good but what he fails to address is that recent policies have not invested in the infrastructure designed to promote the middle class.

    Report Post »  
    • Brad Wesselmann
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:51pm

      The only way to maintain and grow a “middle class” is to ensure the currency is strong and property rights firmly established and maintained. A middle class only exists as long as they can make their own money so they can maintain their freedom of choice. If the government does anything in defense of the middle class they are in essence attempting to destroy it leaving us as serfs to the system instead of a lord…the govt becomes the lord of the manor and we receive our “status” as they see fit.

      Report Post » Brad Wesselmann  
  • wolverine
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:35pm

    I don’t thinks its fair that I worked for 55 years paid taxes, Soc. Sec and all the other taxes the gov’t takes and now a bunch of morons that sat on their a$$ for a few years now want the same benefits I receive

    Report Post » wolverine  
  • enigmaman
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:16pm

    Obamas father would agree with the speaker because he advocated a 100% tax, so its true the apple doesnt fall far from the tree

    Report Post »  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:15pm

    I am still waiting for someone to tell me why taxing rich people more is fair. Fair is this…TAX EVERYONE THE SAME!
    Unless you are a COMMUNIST taxing the rich is NOT fair at all. And I anint no damn Commie!

    This guy is a frigging idiot.

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • Brad Wesselmann
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:55pm

      No, he is evil and looking to enslave people.

      Report Post » Brad Wesselmann  
    • Leader1776
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:12pm

      @BADDOGGY
      Yes, his answer isn’t to reform the tax code, reform government choosing of winners and losers (favoritism/cronyism) but to single out one group to the exclusion of the groups. But this again, proves the beauty/wonder that is America. Even morons like Hanauer can make money ;-)

      Now, because of his money, he has time to sit and think/ponder/pontificate. I suggest he use a different room in his house than he uses now to do that work ;-)

      Report Post » Leader1776  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:15pm

    This is the re-distribution model that made America great: Find the people with the money- AND ASK THEM FOR A JOB! Offer them a goods or services in exchange!
    The obama’s and their progressive posse have bred a generation of kids ill suited to survive anywhere. They keep pointing at the “rich”. Pointing at the money! But no one seems to be able to figure out that this money is as close as their ability to be worth Some of it!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • MistaB
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:12pm

    This guy went to work for his daddy after majoring in philosophy in college. He was then lucky enough to invest in Amazon.com to build his fortune. Poor little rich boy!

    Report Post »  
  • jdog777
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:12pm

    this dufus knows nothing about Macro economics. This is much more complex than taxation. It is taxation, regulation, free markets, world trade, tariffs, etc…..

    I own a business and the work I do creates jobs. Anybody can create a “job” for them self if they are willing to work and take a risk as an entrepeneur.

    Report Post »  
    • jpschaeffer
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:48pm

      excellent

      Report Post » jpschaeffer  
    • rodeogolf
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 2:34pm

      question would be what happens to the money?…

      For you, you’d roll back into the business…making jobs and money

      For the very wealthy, they’d be tossing it Goldman Sachs (or the like) to throw into a hedge fund that’s making microsecond trades taking advantage of disparities in currency values… Money just making money…but not jobs…

      Report Post »  
  • tsosumi
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:10pm

    It is a lot of spending problem and a little bit of revenue problem. He nailed it when he stated the 15% on carried income is a problem. I would say count all revenue as income for individuals and tax it all at the same comparative rate.

    A moderate graduated tax structure is better for a society imo. I am also an advocate for limiting tax refunds to be no greater that taxes paid, and would accept a minimum tax in those sitations. I would also add to that that any federal aid, or state aid from state returns if applicable, recieved be deducted from federal tax returns, or state returns if applicable, so that those who recieve help understand where the money is coming from and that they are not entitled to you but in the good graces of the public there is aid for them.

    Also, workfare and requiring volunteer hours or job counseling or other things is way better for a work force than welfare. But that is a different topic.

    Report Post »  
  • Steve28
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:09pm

    So his logic is correct then if we tax more then we create more jobs? Well, if that is the case then he feels the government can spend your money better than you because they will tax and reallocate it. I can tell this guy has no business education. He might be great at what he does, but he’s cluless about economics or just a shill for the left and lying.

    Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:09pm

    You cannot create demand by destroying the mechanism that produces paychecks. This is azz backwards to think that giving money to people so they can buy cheap chinese crapp at walmart is a job creator here in the U.S. It has never worked anywhere. NOWHERE . EVER!
    As the likelihood of losing money in a venture increases so does the likely hood of anyone risking anything. PROOF: Tell your wife you are going to take a chance with your kids tuition fund. Tell her it is a scheme where you have to pay rent. utilities, raw materials, employees and taxes before you see a nickel. See how that goes and report back please!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • Wringeaux
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:09pm

    He neglected to tell us exactly what kinds of “investments” create middle class growth. We know it’s not Solyndra. What should we try next ?

    Report Post » Wringeaux  
  • Cashel
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:08pm

    This guy has a good point.The problem is that the government uses tax money to hire more useless workers to vote for their own higher and higher salaries and benefits until there’s not only nothing left to “invest” they have to borrow to keep the scheme going.

    Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:05pm

    You can be Rich… by being Lucky… by doing something at the Right Time… by having someone as a Benefactor to you… by being Inovative… or by being Smart… but being Smart is Not the Rule nor Primary Reason. So, when Nick says… Demand creates Employment… he shows a Socialist Beliet and that he is Not Smart. No Product; No Employment; No Demand: Production gives Wages creating Demanders resulting Purchases & Profits, which pay back Loans and allows for Expansion and reduced Cost & Pricing. Nick is an IDIOT Savant-Investor!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • doomytram
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:05pm

    This guy is 1/32 the commie that Oblamer is…. what a useful idiot.

    Report Post » doomytram  
  • Steve28
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:04pm

    Sure but what creates consumers? Yes, people that creat jobs with people that now have money to consume. What kind of ass backward logic is this guy using? So, if you create jobs therefore you have consumers.

    Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 1:00pm

    Similarly– When the richest entity in the World takes money out of your community in ever growing amounts, you have less and less money circulating that will pay for your State, local and municipal needs.
    This is the problem and this is the keystone of the progressive destruction strategy. You see this very clearly in the stimulus where the argument was that the porkulus was needed to underpin your local and State responsibilities. Under this model the politicians are Kings of cash control and corruption runs rampant. This is why politicians in ultra dependent communities oppose enterprise zones and any other strategy (including Bush’ faith based initiative) that threaten to increase the tax base. Big Government and bureaucratic control are the two most corrupt entities known to man!

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • cemerius
    Posted on May 18, 2012 at 12:49pm

    Flat Tax Flat Tax Flat Tax……17% for ALL and written in stone in the US Constitution as an amendment!! Followed by term limits for the criminals in Washington DC!!! If you make money for that year NO MATTER it’s source you pay 17%!

    Report Post » cemerius  
    • WhisperingVoice
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 12:57pm

      it is a spending problem not a revenue problem

      Report Post »  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on May 18, 2012 at 2:36pm

      I can’t in good conscious pay 17% of my income when 1) DC doesn’t have a budget and 2) will only take that money and give it to someone else.

      We have a $14T economy. I figure that no more than 10% of that should be given to ALL governments, state, local, federal. Meaning, I won’t give more than 10% of my earnings IN TOTAL to all governments combined. And I believe that people should be able to opt-out of taxes if their governing body does not pass a budget. It’s not fair that we should have to give money to people who have no idea what they are going to do with it.

      A 17% flat tax is still robbery. We need 75-90% overall spending cuts, a balanced budget amendment, and an itemized budget.

      Then we can have a “fair tax” based on consumption, which in my mind shouldn’t be more then 5% for the federal government and 5% to local/state. And states can still have indirect forms of taxation, like lotteries and tolls to raise money.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love