🚨 PLEASE PREPARE! Peter Schiff's Bold Predictions For The US Economy

요약 보기

결론: 영상은 자산 가격 전망보다 SEC 규제, 과세 위헌성, 학자금 대출 정책을 비판하는 내용으로, 대상 자산에 대한 1~3개월 가격 예측 발언은 없음. SEC 규제 비판: SEC는 시장 폭락을 막지 못했고 오히려 투자자 손실을 키웠다는 주장. Justin Keener 사건: 장외(핑크시트) 소형주에 전환사채 방식으로 자금을 빌려준 Keener가 SEC로부터 미등록 브로커딜러 활동으로 제소되었고, 하급심에서 SEC 승소 판결(약 1천만 달러 이상 배상 명령)이 났다고 설명. 쟁점: 자기 계정 매매자를 딜러로 보는 것은 SEC 공개 입장과 다르며, 향후 로빈후드 개인투자자까지 규제 대상이 될 수 있다는 우려. 과세 위헌성: 미실현 이익이나 부(wealth)에 대한 과세는 헌법상 소득이 아니므로 위헌이며, 트럼프 감세법의 이연 송금세(deemed repatriation tax)에 대한 소송이 대법원에 계류 중이라고 주장. 학자금 대출: 바이든 행정부의 소득연동 상환 및 잔액 탕감 정책이 대출 증가와 등록금 인상을 부추긴다고 비판하며 학자금 부채가 3조 달러로 늘어날 것이라 전망. 출연자 전망: 자산 가격에 대한 구체적 전망은 없고, 정책·법원 판결이 시장 구조에 미칠 영향에 대한 경고 위주.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. the SEC didn't stop market crashes the SEC didn't stop people from losing money in fact I'm sure a lot more people have lost a lot more money because of the SEC [here are these legal cases that have been going through the courts and I want to make people aware of them I actually know several of the people that are involved here one in particular this guy Justin Keener who's uh recently lost this case was sued by the SEC and the SEC is now with the help of the lower course dramatically expanding it's it's its role the SEC was started about 90 years ago it was an overreaction to the Great Depression we would be much better off today if we didn't have an SEC but we do thanks to the what the government did right because the government never lets the crisis go to waste so the stock market crashes and so the government uses that crash to get more power uh over uh the the markets and so the original intent of the SEC and in fact the law today it's still there to protect the public to protect a small investor from from Wall Street right because small investors got hurt during the crash and so the government said oh okay so we need government to protect people so they don't get hurt of course the best protection for the public is a free market it's not because we didn't have enough regulation that people lost money during uh the not in 2000 1929 crash we've had many crashes since then with the SEC and people have lost a lot of money so the SEC didn't stop market crashes the SEC didn't stop people from losing money in fact I'm sure a lot more people have lost a lot more money because of the SEC uh uh and so we shouldn't have it but what's going on now is Justin Keener and some other people he was funding uh small cap companies companies that trade over the counter on the pink sheets he was providing them with capital capital that they had no other way to get they were very risky companies they couldn't tap into traditional financing to get money so they went for guys like Keener and a lot of other guys who would loan them money at a reasonable term maybe eight ten percent but there was you know the rates were actually a little higher but they were the best rates these companies can get but it was generally done in the form of a convertible note where uh the lender at his discretion could convert the note into stock and then sell the stock enter the market now if that happened the company wouldn't have to repay the money because once you converted from uh debt to equity you now had stock in the company and you could just sell the stock into the market assuming there was a market uh to buy the stock and you can make money and some of these guys were making a lot of money net I mean they didn't bat a thousand uh they lost a lot of money on some of these deals but you know they were able to make up for it uh with the deals that were profitable but anyway the SEC came after him and some other people and they said you need you're you're uh buying and selling stocks for a living you need to be registered or you should have been registered as a broker dealer but you weren't a broker dealer and so we're suing you for buying and selling stocks and not being a broker dealer but they were buying and selling stocks for their own account they had no customers brokered dealers are supposed to deal with customers not for themselves and so he makes this point and he actually lost his SEC won a summary judgment in the lower court and the court actually ruled that Keener met the definition of a dealer quote because he operated a regular business of buying and selling securities for his own account but that's not the definition if you go to the sec's website today they exempt people trading for their own account it's meant to protect customers so if you are buying and selling stocks on behalf of other people and you're charging those other people a commission then you need to be registered as a dealer if you're just making Investments for yourself doesn't matter if that's your source of living if you do that and you don't have another job if that's the only thing you do is buy and sell Securities for yourself you're not a dealer but now according to the lower court you are a dealer now the SEC wants Keener to discourage all the profits he made doing this plus interest plus penalties it's more than a 10 million dollar judgment you know initially they wanted to ignore the losers and cherry pick the winners they were able to at least get them to give credit for the money he lost right so he'll he didn't just pay taxes they don't just want back the gains it's the net but still you pay income taxes on the gains you don't get the income tax back so the government actually ends up making a lot more uh than the individual investor because he has to pay back all of his profits but he's already paid taxes on the profits to the IRS you can't get those back you can't write off the fine then the SEC wants pre-judgment interest they want over a million dollars in penalties and you have a lot of other people in the security industry that are interested in this case that have filed you know amica's briefs on behalf Akin or others because what the government is doing here is they're trying to get the camel's nose Under the Tent right now they're focusing on a narrow subset of Traders these are people who are trading in convertible debt but if they can say that these Traders are dealers and need to register then everybody not just a mutual fund an insurance company a hedge fund a pension fund but everybody who just trades stock on a Robinhood app if that's your primary source of income maybe you're retired or all you are is a day trader and you're just trading for yourself according to this you now need to be registered as a broker dealer this is how the government usurps power it's up to the courts to rein in uh government when they're going beyond their statutory or constitutional Authority and that is clearly what the SEC is doing uh by going after these guys but you know there's other examples of this you know there's a there's a case in court that is before The Supreme Court now that everybody should be looking at and I I talked a lot about this in in the past as well about direct versus indirect taxes and how the 16th Amendment doesn't give the government unlimited taxing power to tax whatever it wants uh directly without apportionment it can only tax income without apportionment and it can't redefine income in fact it can't Define income at all income it has a legal definition that's why the Internal Revenue code doesn't even Define income it defines gross income in section 61 but it never defines income and so you can't Define a word using the word right like you can't Define a big dog by saying it's a dog only bigger well what's a dog I don't know I can't I don't know what a big dog is until I know what a dog is well you can't Define gross income without defining income well where is income defined if it's not defined in the Internal Revenue code it's defined by the Supreme Court because the government can't Define income because then it could change that that Constitution it could amend the definition it can amend the Constitution by changing the definition of income so the courts have to Define income and the courts have and what is not income is unrealized gains a wealth tax is not income if you want to tax wealth well that's a direct tax you have to amend the Constitution it's unconstitutional to call it income now what's going on and why this case has significance for wealth tax or any attempt by the U.S government to tax unrealized depreciation and call it income is this case is going after a provision of the Trump Trump uh you know you know jobs act or tax cut jobs act I forget the title but they had a deemed repatriation tax that helped fund it and it gave the government I don't know hundreds of millions or billions I'm not sure how much the government collected I paid that tax myself I had uh some uh you know Inc not income but I had uh offshore investments in my bank actually it was because I own my bank which I no longer even own and I never got a nickel of dividends and I ultimately lost all my money I ended up having to pay a tax on on some accumulated earnings that the bank had that were never paid out to me that were held as capital by the bank but this case correctly and I read the brief it makes the argument that this is not income that this tax was unconstitutional because by no definition can these undistributed uh gains from the prior five years be deemed income in any given taxable year and so the the um the case is asking the Court to declare this tax unconstitutional but if the court does it they will be reaffirming going forward and sending a clear message to Congress and the White House that any attempt to tax unrealized gains or wealth is unconstitutional unless it's apportioned which it never will be done and I don't want to get into apportionment again on this podcast I don't have that much time I've talked about that on other podcasts and why it's so important remember the U.S government doesn't have uh unlimited taxing power the taxing power is limited by the Constitution specifically when it comes to direct taxes the framers of the Constitution did not want the US government to even Levy direct taxes unless it was an emergency like a war that's why they made it so difficult that's why they subjected it to the rule of apportionment they believe that most government revenue during peace time would come from excise taxes which don't have to be a portion they just have to be uniform throughout the 50 states I mean 50 now 13 back then but it was very difficult to Levy a direct tax the income tax was declared unconstitutional we got the 16th Amendment to allow the government to tax income uh without apportionment but nothing else all other forms of direct taxation if they're not on income are still subject to the Constitutional rule of apportionment and again the meaning of income must be set by the by the courts and it has been set the government cannot change it now we'll see what happens because look uh the courts ruled that uh the student debt relief was unconstitutional yet that hasn't stopped the Biden Administration from now uh tweaking the laws on uh student debt forgiveness they've now changed it on their own again and so you only have to pay if it's an income-based repayment plan you only have to pay five percent of your income in repayments and now after 10 years if your total debt is 12 000 or less the entire thing gets forgiven so what that means is if you borrow 37 000 and you earn fifty thousand dollars a year on average over 10 years after 10 years you're you're fully repaid on your loan after only paying back 67 and a half percent of the principal and no interest so what that means is nobody is going to pay 37 000 if they can borrow 37 000 and just pay back 25 000 with no interest over 10 years so the government encourages people who might otherwise have paid for college to borrow the money instead because they're not going to have to pay it back but what's even more significant is when you have these income qualifications no more than five percent of your income you're kind of indifferent between borrowing thirty seven thousand dollars or borrowing a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand because regardless your your payments your monthly payments are the same the colleges know this they take advantage of this by jacking up tuitions even farther tuition has skyrocketed in essence Obama came in and took over the student loans which is exactly what I predicted you know every time the government makes it easier for people not to repay their student loans to pay back less than they owe the result of that is that student loan debt grows even faster College tuitions rise even higher that's why we have better than 1.81 trillion dollars of student debt is because of what the government is doing and based on what the bottom Administration just did right this is a green light for more debt higher tuition and so we're going to hit 3 trillion in college debt a lot sooner as a result of what the bot Administration is doing hopefully uh we'll get a way to get this thrown out too but it's very difficult uh to get to get stuff up to the Supreme Court which is why I think it's so important that we get a ruling on this Direct Tax case you know the government might try to argue that well you know we we can't have the government rule on attacks that hasn't even been imposed that's true but this particular unconstitutional tax on uh uh on deemed repatriation as income that's there that's a new tax it's never been done before so the Supreme Court could strike it down uh without completely unraveling the income tax which really should be done because pretty much every aspect of the income tax is unconstitutional but the court is not being asked to make that sweeping of a rule ruling it's just on this one uh extreme example of an unconstitutional tax but if the court rules this way it will effectively create a barrier uh to Future taxes of a estate tax which is much better than waiting for the government to actually impose an unconstitutional unapportioned direct tax on wealth and then wait for somebody else to challenge it and make it all the way up to the Supreme Court because that could take years to happen and in the meantime the damage would be substantial having people pay this tax and then having the government refund the money years later it's much better for the Supreme Court to get out in front of it and hopefully uh the the government will will listen to uh to the court