Tape 196 - Commentary on Friedman's income tax ceiling; state and gift taxes; distribution of wealth; President's tax reform

Download
- Rights
- Limited Re-Use
  CC BY-NC 4.0
  More Rights Info
- Files (1)
- MP3
- Please be patient with media downloads. They are often large files.
Share

Embed Code
<iframe src='//idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4k931p3d?embed=true' height='125px' width='100%' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0' scrolling='no' allowfullscreen></iframe>
Permalink

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4k931p3d
Skip to Item Info

Loading the media player...

Files for this Item

Transcript

Transcripts may contain inaccuracies.

-	This is David Francis, Financial Editor	0:02
	of The Christian Science Monitor.	0:04
	I'd like to welcome you on behalf	0:06
	of Instructional Dynamics Incorporated	0:08
	to a visit, once more, with MIT's Nobel Prize winning	0:10
	economist, Paul Samuelson.	0:14
	We are recording this visit in mid-April 1976,	0:17
	which is high tax season for most Americans.	0:21
	Therefore it might be appropriate	0:25
	to discuss taxation.	0:27
	Paul, there's a recent Newsweek article	0:31
	by Professor Milton Friedman, our colleague	0:35
	in this service, which discusses tax reform	0:38
	and there's also a article in The New York Times	0:43
	weekly magazine by Professor Lester Thurow,	0:48
	one of your colleagues at MIT,	0:51
	which looks at tax wealth,	0:54
	which suggests tax wealth not income.	0:58
	Do you agree with Dr. Friedman's proposal	1:02
	for a maximum income tax rate of 25%?	1:05
-	First David, let me welcome you	1:10
	and welcome us to this new format	1:15
	for these recordings.	1:18
	I regard it as a pleasure to be able	1:20
	to sit down and meet with you	1:24
	and try to be responsive to the questions	1:26
	you put to me about current economic problems	1:28
	and I'm looking forward to our collaboration.	1:32
	For many years you've been calling me over	1:36
	the telephone for views about the current situation.	1:38
	It's nice to be face to face.	1:41
	The problem of tax policy is always in season,	1:45
	but it's particularly in season at the present time.	1:48
	I do commend to any of our listeners	1:51
	the very interesting article by Milton Friedman in Newsweek.	1:56
	It has the title Tax Reform, An Impossible Dream.	2:01
	Professor Friedman, it's very well known,	2:06
	is a respected advocate of personal	2:09
	and business freedoms.	2:14
	He believes in a more limited role	2:16
	for the public sector.	2:19
	He has long been an authority in the field of tax reform.	2:22
	His proposal is simplicity itself.	2:27
	It's major thrust is not in the same direction	2:30
	as that of Lester Thurow which we can discuss later.	2:34
	Professor Friedman's proposal is	2:39
	that we go back to the 1929 maximum marginal tax rates	2:41
	of 25%.	2:45
	Nobody ever pay more than 25%.	2:47
	We can keep the same tax formula up to 25%,	2:52
	but at that point instead of sticking	2:55
	with the formula that all of us had	2:56
	to use on April 15, you would have	2:59
	the pleasant news of only being in the 25% bracket	3:01
	at the worst.	3:07
	He points out that people think	3:10
	there will be a loss in revenue.	3:13
	But people do exaggerate the amount	3:15
	of the fractional share of income	3:18
	that's subject to more than 25% taxes.	3:21
	Professor Friedman's point is a more interesting	3:25
	and deeper one.	3:28
	His point is, that precisely because	3:29
	we have higher tax rates than 25%,	3:32
	people engage in all sorts of tax avoidance measures.	3:35
	I want to measure my words very carefully.	3:42
	I'm not speaking tax evasion.	3:44
	I'm not talking about crooks and criminals.	3:46
	I'm talking about good, honest citizens	3:48
	who only take advantage of what Congress put	3:51
	in the law for them to be able to take advantage of,	3:56
	namely to minimize their tax liability	3:59
	within the legal framework.	4:02
	They feed cattle or invest a dollar into oil	4:05
	or into timber growing and they may actually	4:12
	put in $1.50 into timber growing	4:16
	and only earn on that timber 75 cents.	4:21
	You say oh they've lost half their money, 75 cents.	4:25
	But things are not as they seem	4:29
	because if they can deduct from their taxes	4:31
	at say the maximum rate which is 70%,	4:35
	the expenditures for the timber,	4:38
	then they would really be breaking even	4:41
	and the government is making the loss.	4:44
	They hope to do a little bit better than that.	4:46
	Professor Friedman's point, which is a very striking one,	4:47
	is that so many of us in the upper income bracket	4:50
	have become adjusted to the loopholes	4:54
	in the tax law, so-called loopholes,	4:56
	that the amount of taxable income	4:59
	in those higher brackets is much less	5:02
	than would otherwise be the case.	5:05
-	As I understand it, isn't it work out	5:06
	to about 32 or 33% for even the richest of people	5:08
	that the actual tax load on their income?	5:13
-	Yes and it's even the fact that as	5:15
	you get higher up in income brackets	5:20
	you can afford to have more expensive	5:24
	and more elaborate accountants and lawyers	5:25
	and so your percentage load may actually decline.	5:27
	Let me just mention the very dramatic point	5:34
	which is that the population has grown since 1929.	5:37
	The level of real income has grown since 1929, per family.	5:42
	We've had inflation since 1929.	5:48
	In 1929 the number of people who were	5:51
	in the upper 25% bracket paid only $4 billion of taxes,	5:55
	but that's a long time ago.	6:00
	If you now correct for the degree of inflation	6:02
	for the increase in population, you have	6:06
	a 72% increase in population, you have a 540% increase	6:09
	in average money income, so if you just take	6:15
	that four billion and increase that	6:21
	by the same amount you would think	6:22
	that there was $48 billion of tax liability	6:24
	in the upper brackets, over 25%.	6:27
	Of course it's a different level of income.	6:31
	You now have to have half a million dollars of income	6:33
	to be in the comparable bracket	6:35
	to the people who in 1929 paid 25%.	6:38
	Professor Friedman points out that	6:42
	the government actually collects only about	6:44
	a little more than 1929, a little over $4 billion.	6:46
	It's kind of a 12 fold failure here	6:49
	which he takes to be a measure	6:53
	of adjustments to the higher tax rates	6:56
	and much of that adjustment is wasteful	6:59
	because you're growing trees and cattle	7:02
	and searching for oil where there's no real pecuniary,	7:06
	social interest, but only to put the load	7:11
	on Uncle Sam.	7:15
	Undoubtedly, qualitatively he's correct.	7:16
	It stands to reason that people will adjust	7:20
	to high taxes rates when there are tax loopholes.	7:22
	I'm not sure that the 12 fold shortfall	7:28
	needs to be explained by adjustment to taxes.	7:35
	It may be, and I myself think there is something to this,	7:37
	that the distribution of income	7:40
	is actually getting to be a little more equal,	7:42
	in a typical year like 1972 than	7:44
	it was in the peak boom year of 1929.	7:47
	Therefore part of it is not something	7:51
	to be concerned about, but for those	7:53
	who want a fair share society so called,	7:56
	a more egalitarian society, this is something	7:59
	very much to be desired.	8:00
	I think it would be possible in any case	8:03
	to check up on the factual difference of opinion	8:06
	between myself and anybody else who holds the other view	8:09
	by going in depth as Dr. Joseph Pechman	8:14
	has often done in the treasury IRS returns	8:19
	to see how much tax avoidance income there is,	8:23
	to see how much for example citrus tree write-offs,	8:27
	how much oil write-offs and so forth.	8:32
	It could well be that the factual truth	8:35
	is somewhere between the limits	8:39
	that we've been speaking of.	8:41
	I don't need to try to decide where within	8:43
	those limits it might fall.	8:47
	However, if analytically you examine	8:49
	the problem from the standpoint of those	8:52
	who think that there is some desirability	8:56
	in having a higher tax burden on the higher income	8:58
	because they have higher capacity to afford it	9:05
	and you work out taking into account	9:09
	the opportunities for so-called tax loopholes.	9:12
	What would be the optimum solution?	9:15
	It would not be the one which minimizes	9:17
	the loss to the government.	9:20
	It would be too technical for me	9:22
	to go in to the mathematical details	9:24
	of the optimal solution.	9:27
	Let me simply register the point.	9:32
	I want to go on to say that there's	9:34
	another way, rather than giving up	9:36
	the attempt to share the cost of government	9:39
	in a way to reduce the inequality of distribution	9:43
	of income, as Professor Friedman recommends,	9:46
	and that other way, if people really desire	9:49
	some greater tendency towards equality,	9:52
	they don't have to be complete egalitarians.	9:55
	Obviously the electorate is in a tension.	9:57
	They want to have greater equality	9:59
	but some of the voters themselves	10:01
	and the influential one's themselves	10:04
	are in a favored position and they	10:06
	only to a degree wish to legislate in that direction.	10:07
	Much of the argument would simply disappear	10:14
	if we did what is politically feasible to do,	10:17
	certainly administratively feasible.	10:20
	All that is required is the will.	10:22
	That is, we were to introduce the reforms	10:25
	which tax lawyers have always advocated.	10:29
	I'm thinking of people like Professor Stanley Surrey	10:33
	of the Harvard Business School who was	10:36
	a tax legislative council back	10:38
	in the late 1940s for the treasury	10:41
	and was assistant secretary in charge of taxation	10:44
	in the Johnson, Kennedy years.	10:48
	Namely, let's close the tax loopholes.	10:51
	Let's make it not possible to put $1.10	10:57
	in to a cow and get a return of 90 cents only	11:02
	and be able to make money on it.	11:07
	In that case, the avoidance which	11:09
	is legally possible for everybody	11:13
	would be greatly reduced and I think	11:15
	that in the course of my lifetime	11:19
	I have seen gradually, with glacial slowness,	11:22
	a movement towards reducing one loophole or another.	11:27
	The principle loopholes from this point of view	11:31
	would be the variety of devices.	11:34
	Any experienced person knows them	11:37
	for turning ordinary income into capital gains.	11:39
	Let's move on to the Thurow article.	11:44
-	Before you go on, your discussion reminds me	11:51
	of a little poem composed by Senator Long	11:54
	who was chairman of the Senate finance committee.	11:57
	His poem points to the objections raised	12:00
	by so many people about closing tax loopholes.	12:05
	He says, "Don't tax you, don't tax me,	12:08
	tax the fellow behind the tree".	12:11
-	Yes (laughing)	12:13
	Senator Long is on record as favoring loopholes.	12:16
	I might quote the late Ludwig von Mises	12:22
	who once said, when somebody complained	12:24
	in his presence about the tax loopholes,	12:28
	"Capitalism breathes through those loopholes".	12:31
	The suggestion being that if the loopholes	12:35
	were closed then effort would be diminished	12:37
	and risk taking would be diminished.	12:42
	That would take us in to a whole new territory.	12:45
	It certainly is true that, in some measure,	12:49
	effort would be affected.	12:53
	There are methods of averaging	12:56
	which could make the tax system more neutral	12:59
	with respect to risk taking.	13:02
	Professor Thurow has the provocative suggestion	13:06
	that what most people really object to	13:11
	about inequality is the vast inequality of wealth	13:15
	and not so much income.	13:19
	Every statistician knows that	13:21
	the percentage of the highest wealth holders	13:24
	is very small, but the percentage	13:29
	of the total wealth which they own,	13:31
	their net worth's, is very large.	13:34
	The statistics are much more glaringly away	13:38
	from perfect equality than are	13:41
	the statistics of income distribution.	13:44
	A recent tabulation has been made,	13:49
	an estimate of the national wealth by families,	13:53
	and let's just take the families who are millionaires.	13:57
-	Okay	14:01
-	It doesn't mean much these days.	14:02
	All it means is that you have net worth	14:03
	of a million dollars.	14:05
	That doesn't mean that you make a million dollars a year.	14:07
	Actually the amount which is earned per year	14:11
	by those families might be considered	14:17
	by a professional audience a fairly modest amount.	14:19
	It would be comfortable, but it would not	14:23
	be out of this world.	14:25
	It's something which any college graduate	14:28
	might aspire to get by the time	14:30
	his 25th class reunion came about.	14:32
	Let's look at the numbers there.	14:36
	They are very striking.	14:38
	There are about 70 million families.	14:40
	Of course the population.	14:44
-	That are millionaires?	14:45
-	No, no there's 70 million families in all	14:47
	in the United States.	14:48
	By no means are all of them or most of them	14:52
	or many of them millionaire families.	14:55
	Less than 200,000, 194,000 by estimate	14:58
	have a million dollars of net worth.	15:02
	That's after their gross assets	15:05
	have subtracted from them the debt,	15:06
	the house mortgage and so forth.	15:08
	194,000 is quite a lot perhaps you may think,	15:11
	but it's only 3/10 of 1% of those 60 million families.	15:15
	But of course this 3/10 of 1%	15:22
	of the families do not have 3/10 of 1%	15:25
	of the total wealth of society.	15:28
	That's not what makes them millionaires.	15:30
	They have 15% of the total net worth of society.	15:32
	Which means that each of them has,	15:37
	on the average, about 50 times as much	15:40
	as just somebody selected at random	15:44
	from the population, including a chance	15:46
	of getting some millionaires in that random selection.	15:48
	That distribution for somebody who hankers	15:54
	after any kind of a tolerable approximation	15:57
	towards equality, looks like a glaring number.	16:00
	Of course if you look at different assets	16:05
	you find that they're not all	16:07
	as unequally held.	16:08
	The millionaires are very canny	16:12
	in the way they handle cash.	16:13
	Cash doesn't earn any interest.	16:15
	They hold down their cash.	16:17
	They only hold about 3% of all the cash that's held.	16:19
	They're only 3/10 of 1% in numbers.	16:24
	It's not surprising that they own state	16:29
	and local bonds, 73%.	16:33
-	These are tax exempt.	16:35
-	These are tax exempt.	16:37
	That's not surprising.	16:38
	I was surprised when I looked at the table	16:39
	and I think my listeners would probably be surprised,	16:40
	to discover that federal bonds,	16:43
	these are primarily marketable federal bonds,	16:48
	are held 68% of all them are owned	16:51
	by these individuals.	16:53
	That is of all the bonds that are held	16:55
	by individuals, 68% of them are held	16:57
	by the millionaire families.	17:02
	On reflection I suppose it's because people	17:04
	with very modest amounts of wealth, $20,000 and below,	17:07
	they may be indirectly holding federal bonds	17:13
	through their savings accounts	17:15
	at the friendly local S & L,	17:17
	Savings & Loan association or a mutual savings bank	17:20
	or a commercial bank, but they don't tend	17:23
	to hold them directly.	17:25
	The fact that so much of the state and local bonds	17:28
	is held by them of course is a reflection	17:31
	of what Professor Friedman was talking about,	17:33
	that people do adjust to the tax avoidance loopholes	17:35
	that are in the existing law.	17:42
	As you know there are recommendations	17:45
	that are made to change the exemption	17:46
	from all federal income tax of state and local bonds,	17:52
	replacing it by some kind of revenue sharing	17:56
	or subsidy from the federal government.	17:59
	I don't think that you ought to hold your breath	18:02
	waiting for that reform to take place.	18:04
	It's constitutional according to a best authority.	18:06
	It will not affect the status of old municipal bonds,	18:09
	so don't tremble for your holdings.	18:13
	It's been around as a proposal for a long time	18:17
	and there is a significant opposition to it.	18:20
	The time may come, but I don't think	18:24
	that time will come very soon.	18:26
	Now on to the argument which Professor Thurow gives	18:28
	and which is representative of a body	18:34
	of opinion that goes back really	18:37
	to the beginning of the century.	18:38
	Back to the old Lloyd George government.	18:40
	Lloyd George is chancellor of the exchequer	18:44
	in the liberal party, not the conservative party,	18:45
	not the growing labor party, back in 1911.	18:48
	There was the notion, and it's a very American notion,	18:52
	Thurow traces it back to the American history,	18:56
	I think correctly, that what a chap earns	18:58
	in his own lifetime, that may be properly his.	19:02
	A lot of the great wealth, by the way,	19:06
	Thurow points out improperly, has to	19:09
	be the result of luck.	19:12
	You don't by saving one fineg and three ducats	19:13
	and five dollars pile up and have	19:16
	a fortune of $200 million.	19:21
	You do it as the great grandfather	19:24
	of Patty Hearst did it, not by running	19:27
	a newspaper business, it was his son	19:30
	who ran the newspaper business,	19:33
	by finding a mountain of silver and gold.	19:35
	The Getty's, the Mellon's, the Rockefeller's,	19:42
	the Harkness's, the names that you see	19:46
	on the Ivy league buildings of	19:48
	our prestige institutions, tend to be	19:51
	these good luck, natural resource fortunes.	19:55
	In addition of course, we have a new set of fortunes.	20:00
	You discover a polaroid, it's patentable	20:04
	and depending upon the happenstance	20:07
	of the stock market you either	20:09
	own $500 million or $200 million.	20:10
	My listeners and I will be interested	20:14
	with the case of Howard Hughes who died recently.	20:16
	Does he have $2 billion in his personal holding company?	20:20
	Did he make a will leaving it all	20:25
	to a charitable foundation, in which case	20:27
	it will largely escape death taxation	20:29
	or perchance did he leave no will,	20:32
	in which case his relatives will share,	20:35
	but the federal government will get most	20:37
	of that $2 billion, if it exists.	20:40
	The notion is that wealth accumulated	20:43
	within one lifetime, perhaps John Rockefeller Sr.,	20:47
	is to be lightly taxed perhaps,	20:51
	but as soon as its transferred	20:55
	from one person to another, from a person	20:57
	to his children, to his grandchildren,	21:02
	that it should then be taxed.	21:05
	This was the great dream all over Europe	21:07
	and in the earlier years of this century,	21:11
	that capitalism could be made humane	21:17
	by breaking up the fortunes at the time of death taxation.	21:20
	It's sad to report from the standpoint	21:25
	of holder's of that dream,	21:27
	that almost nobody pays estate taxes by number.	21:29
-	6.7% of those who die actually pay taxes.	21:33
-	Yes and they don't pay full taxes	21:36
	without adjustments to the situation.	21:41
	They have for years and years systematically	21:44
	been creating trusts.	21:48
	Sometimes not very long ago you could create	21:50
	as many as 50 different trusts	21:53
	for the same child, splitting up tax liability 50 ways.	21:55
	Any couple can give their children,	22:01
	each child $6,000 every year, completely free	22:05
	of any tax obligation.	22:08
	All that's required is a tax return.	22:10
	Doing this systematically over a period of time	22:12
	will take care of any tax liability	22:16
	of people of modest affluence.	22:18
	The estate tax doesn't begin until $120,000.	22:22
	That's an overstatement, because you have	22:25
	a marital deduction.	22:28
	Really 60,000.	22:30
	President Ford has proposed, because of inflation	22:35
	things don't mean what they used to mean.	22:39
	By the way I stated badly, the 60,000 is doubled	22:43
	for a married person, so he in fact	22:47
	can have $120,000 in his estate before	22:50
	he incurs any obligation, provided he makes	22:55
	full use of the marital deduction.	22:58
	It's even been proposed, I think at one time	23:00
	by President Ford, but perhaps not in legislation,	23:02
	that all intra-marital transactions due to death transfers,	23:06
	not be taxed.	23:13
	That would slow down the process,	23:14
	because of course if an elderly husband dies	23:16
	and not very long afterwards his elderly wife dies	23:19
	and the estate gets a double whammy.	23:22
	That's exactly what Lloyd George	23:25
	and the early believers in egalitarianism	23:27
	thought ought to happen.	23:30
	Of course it doesn't happen.	23:33
	I may say, by the way, in Britain,	23:34
	which was the pioneer in this regard,	23:36
	the estate tax is a joke.	23:39
	Any good solicitor knows 13 different ways	23:42
	of arranging one's affairs so that	23:46
	you pay no tax.	23:50
	It's essentially a voluntary tax	23:51
	on people who don't like their spouses and children,	23:53
	don't trust them and unwilling	23:57
	to use any of the 13 different ways.	23:59
	We talk big about using the estate	24:03
	and gift tax for rectifying glaring inequalities	24:06
	in the distribution of income,	24:10
	inequalities not due primarily to working 16 hours a day	24:11
	as against working eight hours a day,	24:16
	but due to the happenstance of fortune.	24:18
	I would simply say that it really shows	24:26
	a failure of will on the part of the electorate	24:28
	because the actual incidence of these taxes upon incentives	24:32
	and on risk, and venturesomeness and all the rest,	24:39
	an estate tax, a wealth tax, could be devised	24:45
	which would be fairly neutral.	24:50
	Every tax has to have some effects.	24:52
	Certain effects are irreducible.	24:54
	The extraneous dead weight loss effects	24:56
	from wealth taxation could be made quite small.	24:59
	I should also say that in countries like Sweden	25:04
	where they've gone a long way,	25:07
	the combination of the wealth tax	25:08
	that a person might have to pay plus	25:12
	his high marginal bracket personal income tax,	25:14
	might mean that people are taxed 130%	25:17
	of their current income.	25:21
	That makes it very hard to leave in tact	25:23
	throughout the ages, which is of course	25:28
	the dream of every Bourgeau family,	25:30
	that his remote descendants will still	25:33
	have his sizable nest egg and their advantage	25:35
	in the income distribution.	25:40
	That makes it very difficult	25:42
	if there is a will at the democratic level	25:44
	to close the tax loopholes.	25:49
-	As it is right now, President Ford	25:55
	is proposing enlarging the estate tax deductions	25:57
	from 60,000 to 150,000.	26:03
	He is moving in the opposite direction.	26:05
-	Right, for example he points out	26:08
	the case of an Iowa family farm.	26:11
	An Iowa family farm is not a marginal activity,	26:16
	it's a highly capitalized activity.	26:21
	Perhaps what used to be a 100 acre farm	26:24
	is now a 1,500 acre farm.	26:27
	It has a lot of machinery so that one man	26:31
	and his son are handling $500,000 worth of machinery.	26:35
	Suppose the father dies, then the estate tax comes in	26:40
	at $120,000.	26:45
	The son doesn't have the liquid cash to pay that.	26:49
	The government is actually quite lenient now	26:52
	at a rate of interest which I think used	26:54
	to be 7% but will soon be 9% if it's not already 9%.	26:56
	There is a certain amount of delay possible.	27:02
	President Ford has suggested that for anyone	27:04
	who has a small business, the first half a million dollars	27:09
	of net worth of that should be payable	27:14
	only after 10 years with only a 4% interest rate.	27:18
	That certainly would help affluent family farmers	27:23
	or owners of supermarkets.	27:29
	4% interest rate is a give away interest rate	27:32
	under present market conditions.	27:36
	The price level rises about 5, 6% per year	27:38
	and according to the optimists	27:43
	it won't do much worse than that.	27:44
	That means that you're getting	27:46
	a real rate of interest which is a negative.	27:47
	Your friendly insurance company, a banker,	27:52
	if you went down to get the fair rate	27:56
	of interest for a person of that degree	27:58
	of credit worthiness, it could hardly	28:00
	be less these days than 8 or 9%.	28:03
	Let me close the discussion by saying	28:08
	we have here something which people	28:13
	tend to overlook.	28:19
	Our party system is by and large	28:21
	built around income class lives.	28:26
	This is true in every mixed economy.	28:30
	You have the party of property.	28:31
	In Sweden it may be called the Conservative Party,	28:35
	in England it may be the Tories,	28:39
	in the United States it may be the Republican Party	28:42
	and you have the party of the preponderant median	28:46
	income numbers.	28:54
	There's a constant tension between them.	28:56
	Remember, these are not closed ranks.	28:58
	As Joseph Schumpeter used to say,	29:02
	"Capitalism is a hotel which is always filled	29:04
	at the top but it's not always filled	29:07
	with the same occupants".	29:09
	There is some circulation of the income elite.	29:10
	Those of us nearer the median have	29:13
	a hope of being above.	29:15
	By and large if you voted just according	29:18
	to your economic interest, and most people	29:22
	don't all the time, and many people don't ever,	29:24
	you would know which party to vote for	29:29
	depending upon where you were in the income bracket.	29:33
	Let me illustrate by that.	29:35
	A lot of people say oh Richard Nixon	29:36
	was no different from President Johnson.	29:38
	It was in Nixon's administration	29:41
	that for earned income the rate was never made	29:43
	more than 50%.	29:46
	This happened, so to speak, in the dead of night	29:48
	and most of the populous still doesn't realize	29:52
	that this has happened.	29:54
	From the standpoint of the interests	29:55
	of property, because high earned incomes become property,	29:58
	this has been a very significant factor.	30:03
	What I've done, except indirectly,	30:06
	indicated my own value judgements in the matter.	30:10
	I think they do show.	30:12
	I've tried to canvas the very important economic issues	30:15
	which won't be here just on April 15	30:19
	but we'll be discussing them June 15,	30:21
	September 15 and I'm afraid for	30:23
	the rest of our lives.	30:25
-	Thank you very much.	30:26
	If you subscribers would like to ask questions	30:28
	of Professor Paul Samuelson or suggest subjects	30:30
	for him to discussion, please write	30:33
	to Instructional Dynamics Incorporated,	30:34
	450 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.	30:38

Item Info

Title:

Tape 196 - Commentary on Friedman's income tax ceiling; state and gift taxes; distribution of wealth; President's tax reform

Date:

April 1976

Contributor:

Samuelson, Paul A. (Paul Anthony), 1915-2009

Subject:

Format:

audiocassettes

Language:

English

Digital Collection:

Paul A. Samuelson papers, 1933-2010 and undated

Source Collection:

Paul A. Samuelson papers, 1933-2010

Series:

Economics Cassette Series: Paul Samuelson

Rights:

Limited Re-Use

CC BY-NC 4.0

Rights Note:

This material is made available for research, scholarship, and private study. Copyright in this material has not been transferred to Duke University. For reuses of this material beyond those permitted by fair use or otherwise allowed under the Copyright Act, please see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions.

Identifier:

RL10082-CS-0176
ref2493_7zb
samuelsonpaul
duke:325200
pstau001177
ark:/87924/r4k931p3d
5388d886-38ad-4714-9e17-e06fd36ade00

Permalink:

https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4k931p3d

Sponsor:

Sponsor this Digital Collection

Tape 196 - Commentary on Friedman's income tax ceiling; state and gift taxes; distribution of wealth; President's tax reform

Transcript

Item Info

Economists' Papers Archive

More Info & Options