NEVER allow Moore back on a panel discussion, he is IGNORANT, he is ANNOYING, and he is RUDE.

Keep your show at a higher level Chris. Follow Melissa and Rachel's leads.

Really, a pretty lame response from Hayes and the panel towards an avowed proponent of trickle down, supply side economics.

After 2008, only someone like Rupert Murdoch could have someone in a senior editorial position who still holds such a discredited view. But the responses to his arguments and dodges was symptomatic of the inability of progressives to marshal emotional indignation when these views are promoted. Does this mean an ad hominem attack on the person espousing them? I think not, nor do I think expressing emotional indignation means that we cannot simultaneously engage in thoughtful social discourse.

MLK was a thoughtful man. His words were thoughtful. As he expressed them to others, he did not express them in a way devoid of emotion.

Really, a pathetically lame response to this man's ideas.

i was stunned watching that man. (steven moore) i really thought someone from WSJ would be more professional but this guy sounded like bill o'reilly. i guess murdock has done what he said he wouldn't but everyone knew he probably would. turn the WSJ into another rag for the right. chris need a "tamron hall" button. the next time one of these shills starts on one of their diatribes push the button and sever the link.

Moore asked why Warren Buffett didn't voluntarily pay more taxes. I believe he did. He promised to match voluntary Congressional Republican payments ( and go 3 to 1 on Sen. McConnell) and one Congressman, Rigell, had already been doing that to the tune of $49k. Rigell seems very impressive - for a Republican - he was also one of only two republicans to vote against holing A.G. Holder in contempt. Seems like some journalist ought to follow up on whether Buffett matched that $49k and inform the rest of us.

Moore was wrong about our Form 1040 providing a space for voluntary payments of additional tax.

First, such a payment wouldn't be a tax anyway, it would be a contribution and fully deductible as such.

I agree with those who believe Moore to be disingenuous or worse.

Thanks

Even if taxes went down, as long as it is more profitable, and safer, to invest into "financial products" (from just useless securities to fraudulent securitiesing, hedgefonds playing with food prices and so on), the guys with the money will not be investing money into "real", possibly innovative businesses. They are not, and will not ever be the sacred "job creators" they like to be viewed as. Small businesses may expand if given a tax incentive - I'll give them that.

Even strengthening this effect is the reality that most of the already-made-men are on the side of incumbent companies (big oil, big walmart, you pick). They are not interested in investing into a new company that might be competition, or skyman forbid, an alternative (green energy) to their already invested money. That's where government should come in, defending the public interest and welfare.

Their holy market is not the pure darwinistic, survival-of-the-fittest (implying fair) system that their propaganda is feeding us that it was. Instead, it is a rigged carousel of a system, where we are all able to see the guy riding the cute pony ahead of us, thinking "when I get the chance I'll go for that cute pony as well". But guess what, this thing will not stop, slow down or change direction. It's mimicking something, so we think it would, but as long as we sit still in our place, nothing is going to change.

dear team - i love you. the posting online of your segments is super horribly confusing. it's impossible to find the beginning of a show, sometimes they're posted out of order, and on the player it's hard to locate all segments of an old show. please please revisit design or posting procedures. thank you!

It is unbelievable that this man want's a flat 19% tax. If you make $10,000 per year which is way above what I personally make taking $2,000 of it away is rediculous. If you make $100,000 per year taking $20,000 may be a lot but does not cause you to starve to death. The idea of a flat tax is just another way to "broaden the tax base" by riding the backs of the poor. Obviously it is easier to take $10 from one million people gaining you $10,000,000, while taking $10,000 from one thousand people obviously is a somewhat limited exercise, as you can only do that so much since there is a limited number of the 100 thousand group of people. So conservatives see it as easier to want to raise revenue from the broad group. This is how we get "fees" instead of "taxes".

It is a moral argument that someone would pay a fortune to an industry to help them save another small percentage on taxes while we have a current national emergency with scores in poverty.

It is like 2 people spending an estimated $2,800,000,000 on an election when people are being placed in jail for not paying their $200.00 bill on their credit card which they ran up when they had a job. The amount of money we have set aside for "job creators" when they are not obviously "job creators" is sickening. People are starving and getting sicker by the day while these people "twiddle their thumbs while America burns".

Absolutely it is a moral issue!

IT'S TIME TO YELL "FIRE!!!!" IN A CROWDED THEATER

Chris,

As I've come to respect, if not crave, is your clear-headedness around what is really happening in the REAL world, and have the good sense to surround yourself with exceptionally well informed and honored guests who could just as well cast cold water on your perspectives, but from their hard-won, venerable posts at esteemed institutions, not only confirm but expand your assessment of world/US events! And you just confirm what so many of us feel in our guts, but the reality of merely persisting let alone existing in our current world demands so much of our time and attention that your scalpel that cuts through the morass of disinformation and zeroes in on the hearts of all these apocalyptic events and not only puts blame where blame is deserved but posits solutions as well is lost on those who need to hear it most. Any way to make viewing your show the "homework" for high school students and being prepared to discuss it the following Monday a Mandatory Requirement for not only passing from one grade to another, but graduating at all?

Ok, ok, pipedreams aside. You, Rachel, Ed, Melissa, and Lawrence (I'd include chris, but more often than not I find his positions, attitude and behavior really disgusting) are a real breath of fresh air, I just hope it's in time before the canary dies. Please tell the smart folks at MSNBC that they deserve serious kudos for giving all of you airtime to elevate all of us and widen our very narrow vision of the world as it is doled out by the InfoGods and Karl, Koch, Saul and Trump, and that disgusting clump of flesh that governs NJ.

sorry-I'm off subject but I object strenuously to Chris plugging his book on his show! Announcing that he has written a book and that it is in the stores-fine; but plugging it EVERY week and even citing passages during his show should be out of bounds. I know other talk folks do it ( see ike and IKE) but I hoped that Chris would be above this blantant attempt to sell the most books,i.e. make alot of money! Certainly no longer my "HERO"!

The thing I do not understand about this off shore tax situation is that it seems to me very odd that a place like the Camen Islands needs so much money to run their little country. I thought taxes were collected for the purpose of paying for the running of the government, and care of the infra-structure. In this case it seems like the entire network is set up to extract monies from other countries, for the good of those lucky few born in a position to be in charge of such a network. Why do we accept being robbed of our national treasure in this manner? This seems criminal and reminds me of internet scammers who set up a bot to bilk the less informed public. Why do we as a nation succumb to such a transparent scheme? To answer that question we need to consider, are the people we put in positions of trust to protect us from this type of abuse using that position of trust to feather their own nests. This is my biggest problem with Romney. I feel the world is under a major transformation, wealth used to be based on gold, wampum, beads, sea shells, etcetera. Now it seems to be based on human misery, determined by meaningless numbers. More and more your value to society is determined by luck in birth due to the consentration of wealth in smaller and smaller groups.

Chris — how could you let him get away with that? You could have easily stopped him, simply by saying, "No, man, Warren Buffett is willing to see the tax raised on people of his bracket."

And you should glare at him when he tries to break in, and say, "Don't — interrupt me." and then glare again till he sees you glaring. Then continue:

"It's just more typical Right-wing evasion bob & weave tactics to suggest he should do it alone. It's like as if a Liberal said, 'If you don't like abortions don't have one', or a slave owner saying, 'If you don't like slavery, don't own any.' "

But you let him get away. You should have taken him apart joint by joint with a pocket knife.

PLEEEEZE don't ever do that again.

Granted, they've got their wrestling moves down to a T, but we have to learn how to throw them, because that was a blatant shell game. That is like the sharpie that confuses the cashier into giving them more change than they have coming.

It's a trick — it's not a point, or an ideology, or a philosophy — it's a card shark's trick, and it's theft.

Gee, I hate to be negative, too much anyway, but this guest was Moore or Less useless. He is able to talk out of both sides of his mouth, so that's interesting to observe, but at some point, even the totally coffeeless Chris Hayes UP watcher says enough. It is important to make sense, which Mr. Moore proved incapable of doing. I really have no idea what he was saying. Men have this thing, I'm a man, so I should know, that when it is apparent they are facing disagreement they get out of that boat and in to another, as quick as possible. After doing this for a while, and never taking a stand, it starts to like a Laurel and Hardy show. Chris, get a hat like Stan or Ollie and do the hat thing, while blowing on your finger. It would make so much sense when your guest falls off their flat earth. Oh, great show, never the less.

O/T -- Maybe it's me,...maybe my computer and my personal lack of computer acumen, but could you guys at UP do us a favor? On any given day, go out in front of 30 Rock, grab yourself what appears to be a fairly intelligent 12 yr/old, and let them build you a web-site that is logical, follows a consistent format week to week, and shows even the dumbest of us who love this show, which segment follows which. It's called chronological progression. You guys obviously have either never heard of it, or fail to recognize its utilitarian advantage for those of us who would like to watch the program as it was broadcast. I know I may be speaking for a minority, (since I don't have a TV and depend on my computer to watch the show), but even those who do own a TV and possibly missed the show and need to catch up, could use a more user friendly format. And why is it that the entire show does not show up at the same time? By noon the entire show used to be available, now,...not so much. And would it be too much to ask to either arrange the segments in order, or at least number or letter them??? You know, 1,2,3,4, or A,B,C,D, get the gist??????

Signed; Disgruntled,but still watching.

You say a lot in a short amount of time. You talk fast.

In the conversation with Stephan Moore, he tried to say that a person can voluntary pay more taxes to reduce the national debt. That is not the point.

I think the point is or should be fair taxation. After a fair tax policy is in place then we can talk of voluntarily paying more taxes. After a fair tax policy is in place then we can talk of reducing the national debt. But it has to start with a fair tax policy.

The proper idea on taxes, is or should be that if you legislate to make the middle class prosperous, that prosperity will find its way through every class. There is no other idea that will work.

I find myself agreeing with most of what you say.

As far a people like Stephen Moore go we all need to listen to people we disagree with. We need to follow Millers Law and listen as if what they are saying is correct.

If we do this we may learn something. After we do this if we still disagree there will be stronger ground to support our point.

So yes it would be good if you can include those people on your show that have a different point of view. Who knows maybe you will make one of them change their mind on an important issue.

It's obvious that Romney has used the economic system in every way that he could to enrich himself. Now we find out Romney is a tax dodger who has overseas accounts to avoid paying taxes. Then Romney won't even reveal ALL of his tax returns for the last twenty five years so that we Americans can get a clear view of what kind of person he is. Romney is nothing more than a capitalist who uses the system to make the rich richer and the rest of us no better off. Is that the kind of president you want?

I'm confused. If a corporation paid taxes on its business profits, how would that compute as taxes paid on winnings "earned" by individuals (investors)? If a casino pays its business taxes and taxes on its profits, why would the individual gamblers not have to pay taxes on their winnings (income)?

And why the hell is there ANY functioning industry in tax avoidance? A Thieves' Guild wouldn't be officially tolerated, so why ...oh wait...

Stephen Moore is a liar by omission and commission. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. I hate it when everyone on the left is all earnest, respectful and honest and there's one guest from the right side of the spectrum who's a lying piece of sh*t. You let him walk all over you. He didn't respect the norms of the show and you did. Moore is entitled to his opinions, but not his facts. And when he admitted that his goal is zero taxes, you should all have laughed long and hard and asked him if he pictured the US under Romney as a North American Somalia.

I've calmed down. It was a really good show. I'm so glad you had Bill McKibben on. It seems so weird that people are not allowed to say that climate change is real (which it is). But they can say it's a "hoax" or lie as often as they want. It makes me realize that it's not just the propaganda you have to worry about, it's also the suppression of the truth. I really hope Julian Assange doesn't get extradited to Sweden. And shame on Sweden.

I am very concerned about Global Warming.  But, what bothers me the most is the constant pressure to believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  It is not.  Greenhouse gasses are only those gasses that can be seen with the naked eye.  If you can't see it, it isn't a greenhouse gas.  CO2 can't be seen, it isn't a greenhouse gas.  

The biggest problem with this is that it causes people to miss the real causes of warming.  Deforestation is a much bigger problem.  Jet airplane contrails reduce the amount of rain in Africa.  There are so many real problems, why do we keep talking about the phantom. 

If you are a person who wants to talk about real problems send me a text. 

i am a huge fan of chris hayes and i realize that anyone can have an "off" day, but i regret to have to say that it appears that chris came totally unprepared for his debate with stephen moore.

and yet, moore said nothing surprising and used the same old clichés that take us back to the republican primary. i was cringing through the whole thing while chris stuttered, searching for a retort that never came.

in the first place, it is appalling that anyone could sit on the editorial board of a large circulation economic newspaper and with a straight face make the claim that we should have a flat tax rate, or that we shouldn't pay tax on a loaf of bread because the farmer paid tax on the gas for his tractor.

these are imbecilic arguments that can be swatted down like an annoying fly by most kids with a high school education. you don't have to be a nuclear scientist to figure out that 19% of a billion is a hell of a lot less, proportionally, than 19% of 50 thousand. anyway, this is a ruse because i'm sure that most republicans are quite happy with their 13% tax rate and wouldn't think of raising it to 19%

maybe chris was aghast at moore's feigned casualness when he made the grammatically brilliant statement that he was "a flat tax guy." for a moment i thought they were both going to do a hi-five and start chanting, "9-9-9", like a couple of pizza parlor magnates from the bronx. moore obviously thought he was in the company of uneducated lefties and he might as well sound patronizing while he was at it.

i don't know, but maybe chris could have started by asking him to explain why there isn't a single industrial nation in the world that has a flat tax rate?

as for warren buffet making voluntary contributions to the IRS, that was a perfect moment to evoke philanthropy in the gilded age, because that is really what conservatives want to take us back to. this pseudo-patriotic gibberish about america's lost greatness is just to cover up the fact that it is the deregulated financial industry that got us into this economic mess and not your grandmother's medicaid.

in reality, america's most prosperous and creative period was during the "socialist" era of the new deal and the great society, when zillionaires were taxed at 75% and executive pay was only 20 to 30 times the average emplyee's, when government programs invested in infrastructure, public schools and public safety and the marshall plan reconstructed europe because we understood that prosperous europeans would buy american products. oh! and the filibuster was only used on occasion.

all of that came undone in 1981. after 30 years, the results are clear: the largest disparity between rich and poor since the gilded age, stagnated middle class income, increased numbers of the working poor, repeated financial scandals and crises. how bad do things have to get?

liberals should keep hammering home these points, at the risk of sounding repetitive, because a lot of people still don't seem to get it. government spending was not what got us into this mess.

actually, when you think about it, wasn't reagan's 28% tax rate already as close to a flat tax as you can get? and we all remember the result of that, right? read my lips!

In 1925, andrew mellon lowered the highest tax bracket to 25%. and we all remember how that worked out, right? the funny thing about the crash of 1929; it was rich people jumping out of windows on wall street. think about that.

maybe the reason that good government should break up monopolies and, yes, redistribute wealth, is because it creates a better economy for everyone, rich and poor. henry ford understood that and wanted his employees to be well paid so they could buy his cars... duh!!!

mkmcfr you are so absolutely correct. I would have said the same if I havd the ability to express as well as you do. Bravo

Steve Moore handed chris his own azz..

Moore to the point that Steve made about liberals not wanting to pay any more tax than the rest of us.

Look if you think the tax rate is to low, then when you do your taxes, take no deductions and pay the full rate, then toss in a few more bucks for good luck.