20 Burst results for "70 Percent"

"70 percent" Discussed on 5 Things

5 Things

01:33 min | Last month

"70 percent" Discussed on 5 Things

"Continues to lead with thirty gold medals and team. Usa is in second with twenty two followed by host japan with eighteen. The us does lead and overall medals medals with sixty five for all the latest head to olympics dot usa today dot com seventy percent. That's the chunk of american adults that are now at least partially vaccinated against cove in nineteen. The milestone comes about a month later then president. Joe biden's fourth of july goal but as white house corona virus coordinator. jeff. Zion said monday. There's been a recent increase in vaccinations with these ongoing efforts. There's a strong sense of progress and you see it in the number of shots were getting into people's arms each day over the past few weeks we've seen a nearly seventy percent increase in the average number of new people getting vaccinated each and every day in the last seven days alone. Three million americans have gotten their first shot. That's the highest seven day total since july fourth. And just today we hit seventy percent of adults with at least one shot including ninety percent of seniors with at least one shot these are significant milestones in our fight against the virus. And it's very important to note in the states with the highest cates rates daily vaccination rates have more than doubled. The eight states with the highest current case rates have seen an average increase of one hundred seventy one percent in the number of

cova cdc louisiana tennessee house intelligence committee florida vladimir zilenski california Vin Colonel Donald trump alexander usa army
U.S. Hits 70 Percent Vaccination Goal, Four Weeks Late

5 Things

01:14 min | Last month

U.S. Hits 70 Percent Vaccination Goal, Four Weeks Late

"Percent. That's the chunk of american adults that are now at least partially vaccinated against cove in nineteen. The milestone comes about a month later then president. Joe biden's fourth of july goal but as white house corona virus coordinator. jeff. Zion said monday. There's been a recent increase in vaccinations with these ongoing efforts. There's a strong sense of progress and you see it in the number of shots were getting into people's arms each day over the past few weeks we've seen a nearly seventy percent increase in the average number of new people getting vaccinated each and every day in the last seven days alone. Three million americans have gotten their first shot. That's the highest seven day total since july fourth. And just today we hit seventy percent of adults with at least one shot including ninety percent of seniors with at least one shot these are significant milestones in our fight against the virus. And it's very important to note in the states with the highest cates rates daily vaccination rates have more than doubled. The eight states with the highest current case rates have seen an average increase of one hundred seventy one percent in the number of

Joe Biden Zion White House Jeff
"70 percent" Discussed on Coronavirus 411

Coronavirus 411

07:16 min | 7 months ago

"70 percent" Discussed on Coronavirus 411

"This is corona virus. Four one one. The latest covid nineteen info and new hot spots. Just the facts for february fifteenth twenty twenty one average daily new cases in the us dipped below one hundred thousand recently for the first time in months. The average dropped below one hundred thousand friday for the first time since november fourth and stayed below. One hundred thousand. Saturday the cdc says the country is still at about one hundred thousand cases a day at around fifteen hundred to thirty five hundred deaths per day speaking of the cdc. It's director dr rochelle. Walinsky said despite encouraging numbers states should keep mask wearing mandates in place governors in montana and iowa lifted statewide mask requirement. This month. north dakota's mask mandate expired in january and new york governor. Andrew cuomo recently allowed indoor dining at twenty five percent capacity. One reason to not jump the gun are the various strains of the virus and british scientists have reinforced and a new study. The variant first detected in the uk is not only more contagious but more lethal contributing to increase deaths in the country. Scientists earlier said there was a realistic possibility that was because of the new variant. But now they say it's likely japan formally approved its first vaccine yesterday. The one from pfizer and said nationwide inoculations would start within days that puts at months behind the us and many other countries but still a process that usually takes a year happened in two months. Medical workers are first in line grumble. If you like about slow vaccine rollouts but unicef reminds us there are one hundred thirty countries that have yet to administer a single dose that represents about two and a half billion people mostly in low and middle income countries. The result is they're being forced and desperation by vaccine with lower levels of effectiveness against the original and new strains of the virus in the united states cases. Were down thirty. Seven percent deaths are down sixteen percent and hospitalizations down twenty-eight percent over fourteen days the seven day average of new cases has been trending down since january twenty fifth there now nine million five hundred forty thousand eight active cases in the united states the current top five states by number of active cases california new york florida arizona and georgia the top ten counties with the highest number of recent cases per capita according to the new york times scurry texas aleutians. East borough alaska san saba. Texas bent colorado lexington. Virginia van buren texas scott tennessee marian tennessee making tennessee and jackson tennessee. We all want to make sure. Our family is protected and a medical emergency. What many of us don't realize is that health insurance would always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight even with comprehensive coverage you could get hit with high deductibles and copays. That's why air med care. Network membership is so important as a member if an emergency arises. You won't see a bill for air. Medical transport win loaned by amc c. n. Provider best of all a membership covers your entire household for as little as eighty five dollars a year. Amc and providers are called upon to transport nearly one hundred thousand patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without now as a corona virus. Four one one listener. You'll get up to a fifty dollar e gift card with a new membership. Simply visit air. Med care network dot com slash. Four one one and use offer code four one one. The five states with the highest risk levels and most daily new cases per capita over seven days are south carolina new york new jersey tennessee and oklahoma there have been a total four hundred eighty five thousand three hundred thirty two deaths in the us reported as kovic related with a current national fatality rate of one point seven six percent. The states with the most new deaths reported as cova related california two hundred texas one hundred twenty nine new york one hundred twenty two florida ninety six south carolina eighty seven massachusetts sixty north carolina thirty eight illinois thirty four tennessee thirty one and arizona and thirty the top three vaccinating states by percentage of population. That's had at least one dose or alaska at sixteen point seven percent west virginia at thirteen point five percent and new mexico at thirteen point. Two percent the bottom three are rhode island at nine percent idaho at nine point two percent and tennessee and georgia at nine point three percent. Globally cases were down twenty eight percent and deaths down sixteen percent over fourteen days the seven day average of new cases has been trending down since january eleventh. Globally there are twenty five million three hundred fifty three thousand nine hundred eighteen active cases the five countries with the most new cases the united states sixty four thousand two hundred ninety seven brazil. Twenty three thousand two hundred fifty eight france sixteen thousand five hundred forty six russia. Fourteen thousand one hundred eighty five and india. Eleven thousand four hundred thirty four. There have now been two million three hundred ninety nine thousand. Three hundred thirty deaths reported as cove related worldwide for the latest updates subscribe for free corona virus. Four one one on your podcast app or ask your smart speaker to play the corona virus. Four one. one podcast sound that brands looking for a new podcast listened to. Here's what we love. Courtesy of a cash recommends theon. Burt from the virchow. If people on a show that really don't like morning show stealing entire school buzz. I gotta be on his. That is my dream still take initiative when you can take a nap like keeping it real and i like keeping it growth so we created a show that we really wanted to hear. It's real and it's funny and we will talk about our personalized. We're not scared of anything. Okay you want this prize right hit you. Go have to wear phone what i love. Most about this show is everybody's vulnerability maybe different working together. It's actually fun. We put the fun and dysfunction. Unlike anything that you've heard before adverts show new episodes every weekday in the weekly top ten on saturdays listen to this show on a cast or wherever you get your podcast can't be..

Andrew cuomo Two percent nine percent Seven percent sixteen percent january eleventh five countries two million nine million One hundred thousand Amc january february fifteenth twenty five million Fourteen thousand uk twenty-eight percent twenty eight percent Walinsky one hundred thirty countries
70 Percent of Republicans Believe Election Unfair

The Afternoon News with Kitty O'Neal

00:24 sec | 11 months ago

70 Percent of Republicans Believe Election Unfair

"Anew. Politico morning consul poll shows 70% of Republicans don't believe President elect Biden one of free and fair election. On the other side of the aisle. Nearly all Democrats surveyed thought the opposite and trusted the election process. Plus, the majority of Republicans didn't feel some states. Results were reliable. That includes Pennsylvania and Nevada, which didn't have a projected winner until days after the

Politico Biden Democrats Pennsylvania Nevada
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

01:41 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"The United frustration working in Washington for seventeen years as Washington chews up and spits out. Good ideas, as well as bad ideas. So the seventy percent tax, regardless of what you think of it is going absolutely no or anytime soon, I will say in closing to that seventy percent tax. Again, would be an eighty five percent marginal rate when you include Medicare and state taxes and no person. No multi-millionaire worth his salt is gonna take their compensation wage income in order to pay an eighty five percent tax. So the amount of money. This is going to raise is going to be close to zero. And I also I will had even if you took every dollar earned by millionaires in America in a given year that e that that would raise about three and a half percent of GDP still not even enough to the green new deal. So the idea that if we just get a lot of smart people in a room of good taxes a hundred percent tax rate, even if everybody kept working on millionaire. Wouldn't even raise a trillion dollars a year? Well, Brian, I'm going to take it back from you. Because I want to give Peter dime. You've just got about fifteen seconds left. Professor diving. What do you have to say your last thought, it's important to be talking about a range of good ideas? Because the first reaction to many of them is negative where the line is between bold and radical. I'm not quite sure. One of them's supposed to be good. And in the eyes of some. But not all the other is bad. I think it's good to have more things on the table. Peter diamond is a professor emeritus MIT. He won the two thousand ten Nobel prize in economics. Thank you. So very much and Brian Riedel senior fellow at the Manhattan institute. Thank you so much as well and listeners, thank you. As always I Magnin Tucker bardy, this is on point..

Brian Riedel Washington Peter diamond Magnin Tucker bardy Peter dime professor emeritus MIT Nobel prize Medicare Professor Manhattan institute senior fellow America eighty five percent seventy percent trillion dollars fifteen seconds hundred percent seventeen years
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

01:41 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"The United frustration working in Washington for seventeen years as Washington chews up and spits out. Good ideas, as well as bad ideas. So the seventy percent tax, regardless of what you think of it is going absolutely no or anytime soon, I will say in closing to that seventy percent tax. Again, would be an eighty five percent marginal rate when you include Medicare and state taxes and no person. No multi-millionaire worth his salt is gonna take their compensation wage income in order to pay an eighty five percent tax. So the amount of money. This is going to raise is going to be close to zero. And I also I will had even if you took every dollar earned by millionaires in America in a given year that e that that would raise about three and a half percent of GDP still not even enough to the green new deal. So the idea that if we just get a lot of smart people in a room of good taxes a hundred percent tax rate, even if everybody kept working on millionaire. Wouldn't even raise a trillion dollars a year? Well, Brian, I'm going to take it back from you. Because I want to give Peter dime. You've just got about fifteen seconds left. Professor diving. What do you have to say your last thought, it's important to be talking about a range of good ideas? Because the first reaction to many of them is negative where the line is between bold and radical. I'm not quite sure. One of them's supposed to be good. And in the eyes of some. But not all the other is bad. I think it's good to have more things on the table. Peter diamond is a professor emeritus MIT. He won the two thousand ten Nobel prize in economics. Thank you. So very much and Brian Riedel senior fellow at the Manhattan institute. Thank you so much as well and listeners, thank you. As always I Magnin Tucker bardy, this is on point..

Brian Riedel Washington Peter diamond Magnin Tucker bardy Peter dime professor emeritus MIT Nobel prize Medicare Professor Manhattan institute senior fellow America eighty five percent seventy percent trillion dollars fifteen seconds hundred percent seventeen years
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

02:31 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"And so regardless of how it may it may help the environment. May it certainly may be. Part of the solution. I'm not saying it won't when we're talking about the budget aspect of whether or not it can pay for the clean initiative the net revenue after the rebates again, you're looking at maybe fifteen billion dollars a year, which is virtually nothing compared to a trillion dollars a year. So I'm not I'm not arguing against the environmental aspect of not even saying, it's a bad policy. What I am saying is it doesn't get us off the hook for having to pay for a lot of these big. Would you take a further step in go beyond? It's not a bad policy and say, it's a good policy. Not not not yet. I think that right now there are there are certain concerns that a carbon tax could have negative economic effects that we have to look at one thing that that needs to be part of the solution. And that I think the congresswoman occasional Cortez has talked about is we need a lot more investment in research on new technologies to help us to to basically come up with new ways to avoid. Overdoing carbon and improve the technology. I would focus a lot on that. I I'm not ready to endorse a carbon tax. But I'm also not ready to say, it's a terrible idea. Either. Brian me, let me ask you something that comes from. I don't know maybe a another radical corner of economic theory because this morning, I was reading up on modern monetary theory that might say. That might say that looking at these issues through through a budgetary lenses, the wrong idea entirely, right? So for example, Stephanie Kelton of professor at Stony Brook. You know, I I saw a quote from her that saying if the deficit has to be what five percent of GDP to create the economy that we want with full employment low inflation poverty reduction who cares? I think this is an extraordinarily dangerous and misguided view. When I think ninety nine percent of the economists would tell you that as well the viewpoint between modern monetary theory is essentially if the government can print money, what's the problem? We can't go bankrupt. Well, there is a certain thing called hyper inflation, and when MTV theorist talk about allowing the debt to double triple quadruple in almost entirely funded essentially in a roundabout way through the printing press economic history has not been kind of that approach when you look at hyper inflation and. MTA's become very popular on Twitter. I've learned a lot of new swear words on Twitter when I when I talk about people with it..

Twitter Stephanie Kelton Brian me Cortez Stony Brook MTV professor fifteen billion dollars ninety nine percent trillion dollars five percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

02:31 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"And so regardless of how it may it may help the environment. May it certainly may be. Part of the solution. I'm not saying it won't when we're talking about the budget aspect of whether or not it can pay for the clean initiative the net revenue after the rebates again, you're looking at maybe fifteen billion dollars a year, which is virtually nothing compared to a trillion dollars a year. So I'm not I'm not arguing against the environmental aspect of not even saying, it's a bad policy. What I am saying is it doesn't get us off the hook for having to pay for a lot of these big. Would you take a further step in go beyond? It's not a bad policy and say, it's a good policy. Not not not yet. I think that right now there are there are certain concerns that a carbon tax could have negative economic effects that we have to look at one thing that that needs to be part of the solution. And that I think the congresswoman occasional Cortez has talked about is we need a lot more investment in research on new technologies to help us to to basically come up with new ways to avoid. Overdoing carbon and improve the technology. I would focus a lot on that. I I'm not ready to endorse a carbon tax. But I'm also not ready to say, it's a terrible idea. Either. Brian me, let me ask you something that comes from. I don't know maybe a another radical corner of economic theory because this morning, I was reading up on modern monetary theory that might say. That might say that looking at these issues through through a budgetary lenses, the wrong idea entirely, right? So for example, Stephanie Kelton of professor at Stony Brook. You know, I I saw a quote from her that saying if the deficit has to be what five percent of GDP to create the economy that we want with full employment low inflation poverty reduction who cares? I think this is an extraordinarily dangerous and misguided view. When I think ninety nine percent of the economists would tell you that as well the viewpoint between modern monetary theory is essentially if the government can print money, what's the problem? We can't go bankrupt. Well, there is a certain thing called hyper inflation, and when MTV theorist talk about allowing the debt to double triple quadruple in almost entirely funded essentially in a roundabout way through the printing press economic history has not been kind of that approach when you look at hyper inflation and. MTA's become very popular on Twitter. I've learned a lot of new swear words on Twitter when I when I talk about people with it..

Twitter Stephanie Kelton Brian me Cortez Stony Brook MTV professor fifteen billion dollars ninety nine percent trillion dollars five percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

03:52 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"Coming up with the green new deal that they would require Medicare for all to be part of that pack, of course, not. But here's the thing you notice they recycle the same tax increases across all of these. They say how we gonna pay for Medicare for all tax hikes on the rich. How we gonna pay for free college tax hikes on the rich. How are we gonna pay for a green new deal tax on the rich? You can't keep going to the same. Well, you can't you can only raise tax rates seventy percent one time. And so there's a certain incoherence here and let me point out too that the green new deal is approximately. According to the left's own advocates seven hundred billion to a trillion dollars per year and the seventy percent tax rate proposed by Keynes court. A congressman okay, Joe protest would raise at most twenty billion a year. So we're talking it would it would pay for three percents of her proposal. That's at three percent. So I understand that we have a lot of priorities, and I agree with the caller that there's a lot of lot of national priorities. But you can't just put everything on the nation's credit card have deficits going to be four five trillion a year. Peter diamond I'm going to get your response to Justice to this injustice second, but I wanted to play another little piece of tape from oh Cossio Cortez's interview on sixty minutes on Sunday with Anderson Cooper. Because you know, he also pushed her on the fact that it seems her her idea seems rather outlandish, and here's what she said what you are talking about just big picture is radical agenda compared to the way politics is done right now. Well, I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country. Abraham LINCOLN made the radical decision to sign the emancipation proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like social security that is radical. Do you? Call yourself a radical. Yeah. You know, if that's what radical means call me radical Peter diamond, what do you say? I think climate change. Thanks to the caller is a huge deal. Unlike the budget aspects, which Brian was just citing budget changes are made repeatedly we go down a path that's too expensive. We can slow it down, we can reverse it. Climate change is a looming massive problem that takes time new address that will be disruptive in part to address but new technologies are going to do wonders for it and have been happening. So I think addressing climate change is a huge deal. And what's important is to focus on what we should be doing with a bit less attention to some people have too long list, and in particular, and this is something that I know a lot of conservatives economists are in favor of a carbon tax, which would Jen. Haredi huge amount of revenue. Most of which it's commonly proposed is used to hand out to people equally per capita to handle the increased costs they'll be living with but some of it can be used for these factors. And whether we do or not in terms of disastrous costs down the road addressing climate change is right at the top of my list of things we need to do. I wonder what? Brian, thanks, Brian. Go ahead. Well, a carbon tax is definitely a, you know, something to look at and what I put out a budget report a couple of weeks ago on a thirty year plan to fix the budget. And I did take a look at a carbon tax one of the challenges is according to the Congressional Budget Office, the most common carbon tax rates about one hundred billion dollars a year, except we're going to wanna give rebates to the low income families who are going to be paying a lot of it through higher energy costs..

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Brian Peter diamond Congressional Budget Office Justice Medicare Anderson Cooper Abraham LINCOLN congressman Keynes court Cossio Cortez Joe protest Jen seventy percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

03:52 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"Coming up with the green new deal that they would require Medicare for all to be part of that pack, of course, not. But here's the thing you notice they recycle the same tax increases across all of these. They say how we gonna pay for Medicare for all tax hikes on the rich. How we gonna pay for free college tax hikes on the rich. How are we gonna pay for a green new deal tax on the rich? You can't keep going to the same. Well, you can't you can only raise tax rates seventy percent one time. And so there's a certain incoherence here and let me point out too that the green new deal is approximately. According to the left's own advocates seven hundred billion to a trillion dollars per year and the seventy percent tax rate proposed by Keynes court. A congressman okay, Joe protest would raise at most twenty billion a year. So we're talking it would it would pay for three percents of her proposal. That's at three percent. So I understand that we have a lot of priorities, and I agree with the caller that there's a lot of lot of national priorities. But you can't just put everything on the nation's credit card have deficits going to be four five trillion a year. Peter diamond I'm going to get your response to Justice to this injustice second, but I wanted to play another little piece of tape from oh Cossio Cortez's interview on sixty minutes on Sunday with Anderson Cooper. Because you know, he also pushed her on the fact that it seems her her idea seems rather outlandish, and here's what she said what you are talking about just big picture is radical agenda compared to the way politics is done right now. Well, I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country. Abraham LINCOLN made the radical decision to sign the emancipation proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like social security that is radical. Do you? Call yourself a radical. Yeah. You know, if that's what radical means call me radical Peter diamond, what do you say? I think climate change. Thanks to the caller is a huge deal. Unlike the budget aspects, which Brian was just citing budget changes are made repeatedly we go down a path that's too expensive. We can slow it down, we can reverse it. Climate change is a looming massive problem that takes time new address that will be disruptive in part to address but new technologies are going to do wonders for it and have been happening. So I think addressing climate change is a huge deal. And what's important is to focus on what we should be doing with a bit less attention to some people have too long list, and in particular, and this is something that I know a lot of conservatives economists are in favor of a carbon tax, which would Jen. Haredi huge amount of revenue. Most of which it's commonly proposed is used to hand out to people equally per capita to handle the increased costs they'll be living with but some of it can be used for these factors. And whether we do or not in terms of disastrous costs down the road addressing climate change is right at the top of my list of things we need to do. I wonder what? Brian, thanks, Brian. Go ahead. Well, a carbon tax is definitely a, you know, something to look at and what I put out a budget report a couple of weeks ago on a thirty year plan to fix the budget. And I did take a look at a carbon tax one of the challenges is according to the Congressional Budget Office, the most common carbon tax rates about one hundred billion dollars a year, except we're going to wanna give rebates to the low income families who are going to be paying a lot of it through higher energy costs..

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Brian Peter diamond Congressional Budget Office Justice Medicare Anderson Cooper Abraham LINCOLN congressman Keynes court Cossio Cortez Joe protest Jen seventy percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:30 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"How often do people lie on dating apps in a robots taking over our jobs? I'm Cardiff Garcia co host a planet. Money's the indicator. Where everyday we tell you a short story about the economy get it on NPR one or wherever you get your podcasts. This is on point I Magnin Tucker bardy, we're talking this hour about the idea floated by congresswoman Alexandria, Cossio Cortez of raising the top marginal tax rates in this country to seventy percent she'd like to do that to help fund. What's being called a green new deal? Now this idea received a lot of pushback from different corners of the United States. Here is former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan on CNBC yesterday. Here's what he thinks of the idea rolling through Turco's never gonna drop economic activity Irish suggested, I think we're terrible mistake. That's Alan Greenspan on the other hand, former housing and urban development secretary and democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro said he agrees with the proposal. He was on ABC's this week on Sunday. Jim support folks at the top paying their fair share as you know, George there was a time in this country where the top marginal tax rate was over ninety percent. Even during Reagan's era in the nineteen eighties. It was around fifty percent. So do I support in order to have something like Medicare for all that we ask folks that are in the top point zero five percent or point five percent or the top one percent to pay more. I support that. That's former housing and urban development secretary, Julian Castro wanna know what you think. So let's go to the phones and Jan is calling from Bellingham, Massachusetts. Jan you're on the air. Thank you, actually, Castro just made one of my points. I grew up. I'm in my seventies. You know, there were high taxes with is in Hauer and Kennedy, and we look back at those years as a great growth of the middle class of innovation. And so I'm not convinced by trickle down a con economic. But my more important point is that if we don't deal with the climate crisis, and that's going to cost us a bunch of money. But if we don't deal with that, even these very wealthy very innovative people who have started all these wonderful businesses will not be able to continue to do the things where doing because most people don't wanna look at the fact that fifty years from now even access to clean water is going to be a lot more limited than it is now, and I think we need to really figure out what we can do to a. Address the climate problem. And if it cost a whole bunch of money, it's money. Well spent right? Other side of it. You know, whatever your tax rate is and however wealthy the wealthy are isn't gonna make much difference. We'll Jan thank you so much for your call Brian Riedel with the Manhattan institute. Let me turn to you about that. Because Jan does bring up a point that thus far our conversation. Here has been largely about what the straight of costs would be in terms of the deficits perhaps that would be grown if the tow those top tax rates were increased or green new deal were created. But what John is saying, I think is very important. What happens when we account for the cost of doing nothing, for example, or the potential economic benefit of restructuring the economy to be prepared for climate change. I mean, are those more complex factors ones that we need to be accounting for when talking about whether or not raising tax rates is a good idea a lot of economic challenges in this country. There's a lot of things that we want to we want to spend money on improve. But we have to be we have to be. Realistic right now, we're headed to a budget deficits under current policy. That's heading to two trillion dollars within the next ten years, and you and it's gonna go even further after like, I said, we're gonna have a national debt that's gonna approach two hundred percent of GDP within thirty years that is a recipe for fiscal calamity. If something is worth doing it's worth paying for. And with that let me transition to the fact that. What congresswoman Alexandra Keijo Cortez's proposing and other democratic socialists proposing I added up and the cost of fifty two trillion dollars in new spending over ten years on top of the twelve trillion dollar budget deficit. So that's sixty four trillion.

Julian Castro Jan Alexandra Keijo Cortez Alan Greenspan Money secretary Brian Riedel Magnin Tucker bardy NPR Cardiff Garcia United States chairman of the Federal Reserv Turco ABC CNBC Massachusetts
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

03:12 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"The realities of raising the tax rates on America's top earners are think that the there is a response this no question, and they're two ways to points to make about one is. Mobility across different taxes is an issue. We've had within the US without the problem of leaving your home leaving your family, leaving perhaps the language you grew up with and the amount of mobility within the US or recent study in Spain across regions with different tax rates. This some of it there. It's not a big deal in terms of the movement around of money and hiding it. This is something where international corporation can make a big change because revenue needs are not a US only problem, and it's not easy to get organized around it, but it's on the table, and the particular tax havens that highs this money, these are often very small places where I'm not talking anything military or anything, but the kind of economic leverage US. In the EU could put in place. We're seeing right now a struggle between the EU and Ireland over whether they're low taxes were unfair to everybody else. Brian riedel? What do you think? The challenges. I think what professor diamond is envisioning is there's a lot of if we do this. You know, we could raise their taxes high. They can easily move the money to capital gains. Okay. Well, then let's raise capital gains rates through the roof, which by the way are extremely tech sensitive because you can decide when to take capital gains, and then you can say they can use the duck shins. Well, let's close deductions. They can move the money off sees let's create a better global system of making it difficult to move money overseas. There's a lot of ifs here that are given. And I think the danger in putting in a policy that assumes that you're going to be able to twenty or thirty other reforms in order to keep chasing this money that frankly, I think just just looking at it politically is probably not going to happen. And so you end up being very disappointed in the results because it's just very hard to keep chasing this money. I don't I don't think we can assume we'll be successful there. So let's get down to some funding. Question that actually Peter diamond brought to us at the beginning of this hour. And that is you know, if there is agreement, and maybe I should ask you Brian de do do, do you agree that that perhaps that the United States does need to more significantly make major investments in say things like infrastructure, and if so and taxes aren't the way to to generate that revenue. What would you do? I think right now the big problem is take a look at the thirty year federal budget projection. According to CBO, we're going to run an eighty four trillion dollar budget deficit over the next thirty years. The source of that the social security and Medicare systems are going to run a one hundred trillion dollar cash deficits, including interest and the rest of.

US EU Brian riedel CBO Spain America Peter diamond professor Brian de Ireland eighty four trillion dollar one hundred trillion dollar thirty years thirty year
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

03:12 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"The realities of raising the tax rates on America's top earners are think that the there is a response this no question, and they're two ways to points to make about one is. Mobility across different taxes is an issue. We've had within the US without the problem of leaving your home leaving your family, leaving perhaps the language you grew up with and the amount of mobility within the US or recent study in Spain across regions with different tax rates. This some of it there. It's not a big deal in terms of the movement around of money and hiding it. This is something where international corporation can make a big change because revenue needs are not a US only problem, and it's not easy to get organized around it, but it's on the table, and the particular tax havens that highs this money, these are often very small places where I'm not talking anything military or anything, but the kind of economic leverage US. In the EU could put in place. We're seeing right now a struggle between the EU and Ireland over whether they're low taxes were unfair to everybody else. Brian riedel? What do you think? The challenges. I think what professor diamond is envisioning is there's a lot of if we do this. You know, we could raise their taxes high. They can easily move the money to capital gains. Okay. Well, then let's raise capital gains rates through the roof, which by the way are extremely tech sensitive because you can decide when to take capital gains, and then you can say they can use the duck shins. Well, let's close deductions. They can move the money off sees let's create a better global system of making it difficult to move money overseas. There's a lot of ifs here that are given. And I think the danger in putting in a policy that assumes that you're going to be able to twenty or thirty other reforms in order to keep chasing this money that frankly, I think just just looking at it politically is probably not going to happen. And so you end up being very disappointed in the results because it's just very hard to keep chasing this money. I don't I don't think we can assume we'll be successful there. So let's get down to some funding. Question that actually Peter diamond brought to us at the beginning of this hour. And that is you know, if there is agreement, and maybe I should ask you Brian de do do, do you agree that that perhaps that the United States does need to more significantly make major investments in say things like infrastructure, and if so and taxes aren't the way to to generate that revenue. What would you do? I think right now the big problem is take a look at the thirty year federal budget projection. According to CBO, we're going to run an eighty four trillion dollar budget deficit over the next thirty years. The source of that the social security and Medicare systems are going to run a one hundred trillion dollar cash deficits, including interest and the rest of.

US EU Brian riedel CBO Spain America Peter diamond professor Brian de Ireland eighty four trillion dollar one hundred trillion dollar thirty years thirty year
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

01:52 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"But he only paid himself a salary of eighty thousand dollars last year. Rich people who make that much money can decide what for. To have their compensation in when the take it and how to take it. They're not just going to leave the money sitting there in salary income to pay a seventy or eighty percent tax. Brian Riedel zoo is the Manhattan institute saying we should have an overall wealth tax and not just a an income housing. I'm not saying that either. But I'm saying if you just in a vacuum re you know, up put a seventy percent federal marginal rate on salary income over ten million, which people aren't just going to sit there and take twenty million dollars in salary in order to pay that tax. Let me get Peter diamonds response here. I think you've raised a really important point which is together with the increase in tax rates to get more revenue. We could be changing all sorts of other aspects of the tax structure capital gains are taxed too little relative to dividends and interesting. Come. We could you got the deferral in there. We could make a whole bunch of other changes which would make the revenue more responsive to the rate, and we could go at it in a series of steps. We don't have to leap all the way. At once. We could phase it in and watch. What happens? Well, let's get some calls here because we got a lot of callers who want to join us once again, we're talking about this idea. It's a proposal right now to what would happen. If we raised if the United States raised the top marginal tax rate to seventy percent for folks earning over ten million dollars a year what that could possibly pay for how. How much revenue it would generate if any meaningful amount at all, and maybe perhaps even fundamentally philosophically? It's the right thing to do to tax superwealthy even more joined.

Manhattan institute United States Peter seventy percent eighty thousand dollars twenty million dollars ten million dollars eighty percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

01:52 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"But he only paid himself a salary of eighty thousand dollars last year. Rich people who make that much money can decide what for. To have their compensation in when the take it and how to take it. They're not just going to leave the money sitting there in salary income to pay a seventy or eighty percent tax. Brian Riedel zoo is the Manhattan institute saying we should have an overall wealth tax and not just a an income housing. I'm not saying that either. But I'm saying if you just in a vacuum re you know, up put a seventy percent federal marginal rate on salary income over ten million, which people aren't just going to sit there and take twenty million dollars in salary in order to pay that tax. Let me get Peter diamonds response here. I think you've raised a really important point which is together with the increase in tax rates to get more revenue. We could be changing all sorts of other aspects of the tax structure capital gains are taxed too little relative to dividends and interesting. Come. We could you got the deferral in there. We could make a whole bunch of other changes which would make the revenue more responsive to the rate, and we could go at it in a series of steps. We don't have to leap all the way. At once. We could phase it in and watch. What happens? Well, let's get some calls here because we got a lot of callers who want to join us once again, we're talking about this idea. It's a proposal right now to what would happen. If we raised if the United States raised the top marginal tax rate to seventy percent for folks earning over ten million dollars a year what that could possibly pay for how. How much revenue it would generate if any meaningful amount at all, and maybe perhaps even fundamentally philosophically? It's the right thing to do to tax superwealthy even more joined.

Manhattan institute United States Peter seventy percent eighty thousand dollars twenty million dollars ten million dollars eighty percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:07 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"But then one day a stranger called their home phone is in my ear. And he saying your father's acrylic. Did you know that the story of a fallen hero? And the mysterious obsession that drove him for decades this week on hidden brain, this is on point magnetized party. We're talking this hour about the mathematical realities economic realities behind congressman Alexandria, Cossio Cortez's, call to increase the top marginal tax rates in this country. For those folks earning ten million dollars or more to perhaps seventy percent. She said that this weekend on sixty minutes when she was interviewed by Anderson Cooper. And here's a little bit more of what she said. She was talking about Cooper asks her basically, how you gonna pay for all the programs that you want include in what's being largely called a green new deal. How are you going to pay for all this? No one asks how we're going to pay for this space force. No one asked how we paid for a two trillion dollar tax cut. We only ask how we pay for it on issues of housing, healthcare and education. How do we pay for it with the same? Exact mechanisms that we pay for military increases for the space force for all of these ambitious policies congresswoman Alexandria, Cossio Cortez now the interview garnered a lot of response from different quarters of Washington. Here's Louisiana Republican and house minority whip Steve Scalise vocal critic saying, basically, the t totally disagrees with what will cost you Cortez is proposing and he was on FOX and friends yesterday are strongly disagree with this idea that you should just confiscate all the money or most of the money that people make and try to get into this class warfare debate. I said, look let's have an economy that works for everybody, by the way, our tax rates. The fact that we cut taxes is creating jobs, it's helping rebuild our middle class those very hard work and families. That's congressman. Steve scalise. Brian Riedel, let me turn back to you here. Because there's something that Peter diamond said before the break, I wanted to get your thoughts on professor diamond was basically talking about wh- what we really need is empirically evidence of what might happen if we raise those top tax rates, and there's we don't yet have it. So I just wanted your response to that. Because we could theoretically talk about outcomes and possibilities. But do we really know exactly? What would happen? I could see that we have had high tax rates in the fifties. Sixties and seventies. And that was referred to earlier people use that as an example saying well ninety one percent tax free. Tenderizer Howard didn't kill the economy. Well, that's because ritually nobody paid those tax rates because the thresholds were so high and there were so many loopholes in nineteen sixty only eight tax payers in the country actually paid the ninety one percent rate overall in the fifties. There were so many deductions, etc. That the top one percent act. Actually paid lower tax rates on average in the nineteen fifties then today and tax revenues on the individual side were lower in the nineteen fifties at the percentage of the economy than today. So we don't really have empirical evidence in America of of how seventy and eighty and ninety percent tax rates would work. People just want to respond to what you're saying. What you're saying right now because know take your point about the the diminishing small number of people who paid that rate decades ago. But I'm seeing that if we if the United States did something now, we'd be talking about some sixteen thousand tax payers out of three hundred and thirty million Americans. So so also a small number in two thousand nineteen terms of a lot more. You're talking about a lot more economic investment affected a lot more individuals affected. And let's face it today. It's a lot easier to move in come away from being taxed it's a lot easier to shift, you know, shift your wealth in the capital gains. It's a lot easier to move money overseas. Let me give the example of Jeff Bezos. He makes a hundred his net worth is one hundred and sixty billion dollars..

Cossio Cortez Steve scalise Anderson Cooper congressman Alexandria Jeff Bezos America Peter diamond Louisiana Brian Riedel Washington United States Howard FOX professor
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:33 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"I mean, I guess what Brian is saying that he doesn't even feel like it's worth it in terms of revenue raising that that could happen. I would ask them simple question. Is there? Some other taxi thinks would be a better start to raising more revenue since he didn't disagree with my view that we need more revenue. All I think you're going to solve the long term deficit problem, you likely you're going to need some additional revenue in addition to significant spending restrain as for other revenues out there. Broad-based policies could probably have smaller distortions on the economy. I'm not sure seventy percent income would be seventy three percent income tax would would be very good for the economy. I think there's a lot of economic damage that has to be dealt with. I'm not saying it can't be on the table. But I'm saying look at what happened in France when they tried a seventy five percent income tax. And it was a disaster. And it got repealed a couple years later, the Brank. So tell me specifically, the what do you think would happen, theoretically, if if these top tax rates were increased, well, I think the what can happen is. You a bath at best for these individuals. They just shift money overseas. It doesn't get tacked money leaves the instead of staying in getting taxed the money goes overseas and leave the United States completely worst case scenario is people just stop investing. They stop expanding their business at a certain point they stopped being productive at a certain point. Because if you're paying an eighty five percent marginal tax rate when you include Medicare and state taxes. You're simply going to slow down innovation, and if you move this tax down, lower lower, incomes, you start to have long-term effects. You know, someone may not decide to go into a certain profession or certain Major Rick spanned a certain business because the tax rates going to be too high. Well, let me give Peter diamonds response to that though. Because Piggott's Peter I mean, what Brian just said is something that I think we very frequently here. I mean, it's kind of almost a an an economics orthodoxy saying that if you if you tax the super wealthy too much, you you take the sort of velocity out of the economy, but but there are economists out there, and I presume that you're one of them who say, well, if we look back in time to when you know in decades past when those marginal top marginal rates were high. We didn't see that suppression of economic growth. I think we want to start with we have a list of things, and I've I've heard this list and others, no people won't pursue education. Because if they make huge amounts of money, then they'd be taxed heavily. I mean, some of this stuff strikes me as bizarre. But yes, there will be affected. There's no question about that. The two questions are how big are the effects and for that. There is no substitute for empirical work rolling up anecdotes won't. And do it. And the second thing is it's not you can't think about efficiency overall, who are the people who were being hurt when you collect the taxes, and there were some changes. Well, it gets it gets spread around. If there's less demand for labor that affects workers too. But the primary effects will be on the people who can afford it. And that's the critical element. That's missing in this discussion when you start talking about the economy as a whole the cash somebody here's quickly because what Brian Riedel one of the things he said was that that these peop- the folks who can't afford it? The super wealthy are also I mean, you know, implying what you're saying here by but they're key to providing the the means for investment that then have positive effect on everyone else. And if you're if you're acting them too much, you're reducing their incentive to make those investments. There are lots of sources of investment funds and the idea. Idea that the central element is the people with huge amounts of money. I believe is misplaced. I haven't seen detailed studies of the ability to raise money for innovation that gives them such a major all they get a lot of newspaper coverage, but historically we've had innovation for decades without having the same income inequality. We'll talk more about this. When we come back. We have to take a quick break. This is on point..

Brian Riedel France Brank United States Medicare Peter Rick Piggott seventy three percent seventy five percent eighty five percent seventy percent
"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

04:56 min | 2 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts

"Yes, he is. So tell me more. Well, I wanna start actually throw you off what your plan was we have had a severe shortage of investment in the future of this country for decades. It shows up in infrastructure, which we all complain about it shows up in finance for basic research, which is so important for the economy. It shows up in the lack of evolution in our financing education. When education becomes more and more important. We've got a real investment shorthand short full and we've had it for decades. That is a mistake for the growth of the country. In order to address that we need more revenue would raising the tax rate, and let me be clear the work that Paul was citing with Emmanuel Sayas of Berkeley talks about the marginal rate reflecting all of the taxes. So seventy percent is not the federal income tax rate. But you take the federal income tax rate, plus the Medicare supplement, plus state and local taxes, and that should be seventy three percent was the number poll site, and what do you knock off those other things. Well, they're not very big. You not go for a five percentage points just to be clear talking about a seventy three percent marginal tax rate when taken in marginal, though, when taking into account all taxes that people say, oh, that's exactly right now that will raise a lot of money that we could address some of our shortfalls and that will help us. Us prepare for the large cost coming from climate change by itself. Is it enough to do what I n vision this country needs. No, we're going to need more than that. But that is the right place to start. Okay. So Brian Riedel I'm gonna come to you in just a second here. But but Peter diamond how much money do you think that seventy plus percent marginal rate again at to take your point on all taxes at the super wealthy might pay. How much would that revenue would that raise? I don't have an exact number for you. I saw a bunch of sites in the press. This is not an area, I'm working on. Currently the article poll cited was from two thousand eleven right. I had to go back and read it to remind myself. I said, okay. Great. Well, so so Brian Riedel though, you have done the math recently. I let me let me echo, our professor diamond said that with if you take seventy percent federal rates, and you. Ad in Medicare taxes and state taxes, which are highest ten and eleven percent some states you're really talking about an eighty five percent marginal tax rate, which is I think far beyond what most economists would support in terms of running the numbers. I went through the IRS data. And let's imagine we do congresswoman. Okay, Joe Cortez said and apply. Seventy percent income tax rate on all income over ten million dollars a year the entire universe of currently untaxed salary income over ten million is about two hundred fifty billion dollars total about eighty billion of that goes away from tax deductions and half of it is capital gains, which is not subject to the regular income tax for the most part. So really you're talking about a universe of forty three billion dollars. That is unpack st- salary income over ten. Million dollars. A seventy percent rate would cover about half of the remaining untaxed money. So you're talking twenty billion dollars a year, which sounds like a lot. But that would only close about six percent of the budget deficit and the the green new deal has been costed out by Jill Jill Stein of the green party at seven hundred billion to a trillion per year. So raising twenty billion dollars, and even that doesn't take into account tax avoidance or people shifting their income. You're looking at at financing, you know, less than five percents of the spending. And so even if you could do this policy, and even if it did technically raise more money, there's just not that much wage and salary income over ten million dollars because a lot of the people who make that much money don't cash out a salary income as capital gains. They keep it his assets. We're. Talking pennies compared to the deficit and the spending proposals that were hearing. Okay. So I'm going to come back to you in a couple of minutes about the deficit issue here. But let me get a response from Peter diamond..

Brian Riedel Peter diamond Jill Jill Stein Joe Cortez IRS Berkeley Paul Emmanuel Sayas professor seventy percent twenty billion dollars seventy three percent ten million dollars two hundred fifty billion doll forty three billion dollars
World steel markets unfazed by Trump's tariff threat

Business Beware

01:25 min | 3 years ago

World steel markets unfazed by Trump's tariff threat

"Or go to novihomeshowcom the european union has announced plans to hit back against new tariffs on steel and aluminum promised by president trump by taxing products like tobacco orange juice and peanut butter from the united states eu trade commissioner cecilia mellstrom said the plan would be taken to the world trade organization and would coordinate with other trade partners if trump's tariffs on foreign steel an aluminum are enacted other products like bedlinen and cranberries are also on a provisional list of items that would be affected by the eu action in response to trump's tariff announcement united states steel corporation has announced plans to reopen a dormant steel plant in illinois and they plan to rehire five hundred employees data collected from emergency department showed that the us opioid over does epidemic continues to worsen john clemens reports the report examines the most complete information available compiled by the cdc from emergency departments from multiple states dr alana devil all kanter as with the cdc across the country we're seeing a thirty percent increase in opioid overdoses emergency department visit she tells us the midwest region reported the largest increase that mid west kasai 70 percent increase over that time period from july twenty thick clean through september.

European Union United States Cecilia Mellstrom Donald Trump Illinois John Clemens CDC Kanter President Trump Commissioner Epidemic Dr Alana Devil Midwest Thirty Percent 70 Percent
"70 percent" Discussed on Money Box

Money Box

02:02 min | 4 years ago

"70 percent" Discussed on Money Box

"S p s two no they'll put into the pp efforts threat again that the pinch protect fund which has worse terms generally for most people than the scheme that they could opt to choose michelle croatheld thanks very much for that now the scottish government is flexing its muscles over tax as we foreshadowed last week the draft budget which was revealed on thursday set out plans to change the present structure of income tax in scotland and introduce five rates from nineteen percent to forty six percent the lowest and highest in the uk and cools they'll be five thresholds where each rate begins the scottish government says 70 percent of scottish taxpayers those earning up to thirty three thousand pounds will actually pay less income tax next year than they do this year and more than half will pay less tax than they would if they moved elsewhere in the uk but of course some higher incomes will pay considerably more live not way to bow to look at some of the details with stephen hey he's head of tax at accountants rsm steve in hey people's have probably spinning already five how will they were yes what were born in retained one banned from the rest of the uk knows we know harvard you see the nineteen percent twenty twenty one two and forty one and forty six and affect the scottish government seat one peavy on the forty p and 45 p and of the one p on the twenty percent so we have no got nineteen new band and yes you write that mean to got five tax rates and scorn and those lowest three that the nineteen percent starter rate the twenty percent basic rate in the twenty one percent intermediate rate ranging over relatively small amounts of income worth it for such small differences to have this complexity idota ido i think the whole point of the exercises to luca progressively attack system in scotland i think the vision hundred and sixty four million pounds by proposing these attacks rates note if they wanted to get much more money than that there was a number of.

scottish government income tax scotland uk harvard peavy tax rates michelle croatheld stephen luca nineteen percent twenty percent thirty three thousand pounds sixty four million pounds twenty one percent forty six percent 70 percent