e inheritance" story you would like to share with us? we would love to hear it. send me an e-mail or go to our web site1:00 p.m. eastern. bulls and bears, the cost of freedom, coming up next. hillary clinton may have another challenger. but for the economy, it's one of these three trying to make things more challenging. bernie sanders suggesting a 90% top tax rate is what america needs. is he right or wrong? hi everyone this is "bulls and bears." here they are, the bulls and bears. gary b. smith, jonas, john lakefield, along with ashley prat and jamut green. welcome, everybody. john returning to the 90% top tax rate is that a point of no return? >> absolutely. france tried what they called the supertax and the economic minister of france says we are now cuba without the sun.

and that is exactly what they turned out to be. bernard, the richest citizen in france moved out right away. an actor famously moved to belgium and then russia. the rich exiting. so now instead of having a 75% tax rate you had zero. businesses in france have said they cannot recruit people to come to work there because of the high tax rate. it's too onerous on their businesses. you're seeing france going back into recession. and president hollande has the lowest approval rating of any president since world war ii. there's two problems with this comparison. first of all, there are massive loopholes. second of all, a railroad tycoon cannot lead the country if you have a tax rate that is so punitive. this income inequality this is garrage with the tax rate. what you're saying is a person who has $100 you're going to take $90 away so the person who has $10?

they have income inequality. it is socialism. it has not worked anywhere in the world. >> i want to get to -- i want to remind viewers that the economy shrank in the first four months of this year. what do you think about this plan? 90% top tax rate? >> well, you know people want to say crazy bernie sanders, but look it is something that has been tried and it worked. so it's not that bad of a thing to actually be talking about. >> you're referring to the 1950s, right? is that correct jehmu? >> yes, when that crazy liberal eisenhower was president. but look what happened we had enough money for highways. we had enough money for the g.i. bill. and we became the undisputed champion of the world. so why not have this conversation about how we can equal the playing field. >> the economy was quite

different than the 1950s. and there was a lot different with the whole tax code. i mean talk about deductions. >> exactly. you can tell by jehmu's expression that deep down she doesn't really believe in the 90% tax rate. she just thinks this is goofy stuff. and it is. you talk about a three martini lunch. if your spouse traveled with you on your business you can deduct that. life and the income tax code was a lot different back then. you see, the money then that you need in today's dollars would be about $2.4 million. there are very few people paying that. those people that were making that had so many loopholes, as john talked about, and deductions that 90%, that was on about the last $5 those people made. that was about it. no one paid 90% back then. so for jehmu on the left and bernie sanders, crazy bernie sanders to argue it worked back then no it didn't. because we actually didn't do

it. right now, if we did it you know guys like elan bill gates, they wouldn't exist right now because they'd say, oh my gosh my fortune is being taxed at 90%, no thank you. i'll move on and do the next thing. >> we just look at the basics and the government takes 9 out of 10 dollars that you earn out of your pocket so it can spend it what does that do to the economy? >> it cripples it. we're going to see jobs lost. as a result we're going to see our nation's richest people leaving. the ones who are supplying a lot of these jobs. i think that's something that, you know bernie doesn't recognize here. and honestly bye-bye bernie instead of bye-bye wealthy people. because we need them to keep our economy going. and right now we can't afford to lose any more jobs. we have one of the highest unemployment rates, even though the president wouldn't tell us that because he's not accounting for all those people who are no longer getting in to those lines anymore because they've just

given up hope. is that an economy we really want to kick back into recession. i mean, these numbers are just startle startling. do we really want to say now those investing at a time like this it's not going to compel them to take any risks. we're going to see jobs lost. we're going to see capital down. i mean it's a terrible terrible idea. i just think it's absolutely crazy. but we're at a point in time now where the president has come out and called for these minimum wage arbitrary hikes to $15 and let's tax the rich. >> hold on i want to get jonas in here. because jonas, you had a really interesting point that hasn't been made yet which is the cost of tax avoidance and the bureaucracy and the waste would all be a drag on the economy. >> look there's a lot of negatives to it. it's not really the drag. because that is what happens. the actual percentage of income the government collected from income tax was as high under clinton towards the end as it was when we had a 94% tax rate. so you don't actually bring in more money.

what it does cause is a lot of garbage and moving money around and expositive stuff to expand and invest in all kinds of garbage just to take writeoffs. oilship partners we had in the '70s. there are a lot of negatives. there are some positives which we should talk about. when you have a 90% margin rate as crazy as that sounds it does let you hire more people. why would you do extra work if you're only going to keep 10 cents on the dollar when you can pay someone a tax deductible expense and they would do the work for you. so there's an element of that. the actor example, look those guys are not like our billionaires. our billionaires have capital gains and untaxed wealth. they're not getting in their jets with the 90% income tax rate. he is not a billionaire who sits on capital gains. it's the guy making $2 million in salary the tom cruise of the

world, that might move to some other country. i'm not saying this is a good policy but let's be realistic about the damage it would cause. >> i want to get to jehmu in a minute but john he was talking about specifically things you said so go ahead. >> yeah look this has been tried in france. it simply did not work. when jonas is talking about people who don't pay it and also gary b. they will not pay it. nobody's going to pay this 90% tax rate. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. the only people who pay that are small businesses. because government officials have been bought off for decades. you cannot trust politicians with money. if you have a 90% tax rate it's like these rich people now. they're going to have some type of double dutch company. the money's going to go through somewhere else and they're not going to end up paying tax on it. so it is a point that is absolutely moot. the rich people are not going to pay it. all we're trying to do is feel better about ourselves by punishing the rich.

i mean come on this is america. you want to bring the poor up. you don't want to bring the rich down. >> jehmu. >> well the way that america became its strongest was by sharing the wealth. we have clearly seen that system has broken down. i'm glad john that you brought up the fact that politicians are bought off. because this is the racket that needs to be addressed. it's the fact that rich people -- >> hillary clinton's being bought off, are you okay with that? >> -- to pay, keep their taxes down. rich people buy out politicians to keep their taxes down and they're successful at it. so bernie sanders -- >> you think everything with hillary clinton is okay the clinton foundation? go ahead, ashley. >> you think everything with the clinton foundation where we're seeing a pay to play on behalf of the state department when she was secretary of state, you think that that was -- >> you want to talk about the clinton foundation? >> we're not going to talk about the foundation right now. what we are talking about is taxing the rich essentially, and they are the job creators. gary b. >> well i want to go back to

something jonas said because i didn't frankly understand it. jonas was saying that people earning the money wouldn't pay it because they would hire other people to do the job? i didn't -- >> when you're taxed at 90% what you wind up doing is expensing as much as you can. you'll take a first class ticket instead of coach -- >> how could tom cruise avoid the 90%? is he going to hire me to be in "mission impossible 5"? i mean i would love that gig, believe me. >> he might use it for travel expenses at a higher level than he already is. he might have five assistants rather than three. people burn through it. >> i want a clarification. the other point i want to make jehmu, the country was not built on income equality. it was built by the rockefellers and the carnegies and the fords becoming filthy rich and thereby creating jobs for millions. >> okay. our next movie star gary b.

we're going to be asking for your autograph. >> "m.i. 5." >> and cav vuto on business in about 20 minutes. >> we have another governor jumping into the race for the white house but only one presidential hopeful with an actual four-year degree. he's scott walker. he's telling me that may help him, not hurt him. plus sick of those airline fees? now they're getting stuck with some of their own. see you soon. >> thanks neil can't wait. up here first, released from gitmo, then caught trying to reconnect with terrorists. and soon they may be able to travelk to "bulls and bears."

i'll see you again at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the travel ban on these five released gitmo detainees from that prisoner swap with sergeant bo bergdahl it's set to expire in hours. even though three out of the five have been caught reaching out to terror networks. ashley you say more proof these guys need a one-way ticket back to gitmo and keep gitmo open for good? >> certainly. i think what we have here is proof that five of the most dangerous taliban pretty much leaders were let go for a trade for a potential desserterter and yet there are no ush 50issues here. this is definitely one of the biggest blunders of his administration by letting them go. i don't understand here how heks that it's okay to put the

american people in the country at threat at national security levels here because of the fact that he chooses to let them go and release them. and i think that that is one of the biggest issues we see right now, given the fact that this president always is happily ready to claim victory for killing osama bin laden. why let five of his dangerous friends go and then, you know potentially cause harm to the american people. >> there's been a lot of talk about closing gitmo. i mean given the fact that these guys were let go who knows what's going to happen. i mean why should we let more detainees go? should we keep gitmo open? >> well given ashley's obama hate she probably doesn't take into account there were 500 prisoners released under the bush administration. and there's a chunk of all of them that have gone back. i think it's around 10%. but here is what president obama

did. he stood by the bedrock principle of our military. we are america. we do not leave anyone behind. even if you are a shmuck, we do not leave you behind. he cannot be held accountable. he can now go to prison. but we do not leave people behind. >> we're not going to talk about bo bergdahl right now. what we're going to talk about is whether or not we should close gitmo or let other detainees go. >> close it. >> okay. >> close it. >> would we have gotten information to kill obama bin laden had it been closed? no. we wouldn't. >> close it. >> i hope they tag them with like trackers under their skin. i assume that there's some way to track them. but keeping gitmo open is not in the best interest of our national security. >> john, close it or keep it open? >> that's absolute ridiculous argument. it's not a recruiting tool.

come on. you release the dream team back to the terror zones. you close the prison in southern iraq in about 2011. that is the leadership of isis right now. so what does it cost to keep those guys here? a lot less than it costs to go back and these guys become the leadership of isis. whether it's gitmo or somewhere else. you can blame bush you can blame the sun being in your eyes and your shoes being untied. these guys going back and putting harm to americans is a shame. our president unfortunately is a five foot guy in ten foot of water when it comes to foreign policy. >> all right, john. >> i think we're not characterizing -- look a lot mistakes for the administration. the main difference is bush put them in prison presumably for life i guess we're going to keep them at 2 million a year per person. obama's been flying drones and blowing them up in the fields. that's the main difference. i think that policy is better than imprisonment for life at

taxpayer cause. blow them up in the field with drones. that is what obama's been doing. not putting them in prison for life. close gitmo. more raptors in the air. that's what i would say. >> look jonas makes some good points but unless we institute a policy and obama's not come out and said look we're just going to outright kill all our, you know, enemyies with drones we need to keep gitmo open. john alluded to it. what is the cost benefit of this? yes, it's incredibly high. $2 million a prisoner. what was the cost of 9/11? trillions of dollars when you take into account the damage the impact to the economy, the stock market and all that. i think that's a pretty good tradeoff. >> we're going to have to let that be the last word. thanks guys. "cashin' in" just over an hour from now. >> big labor. for 15 bucks an hour in l.a. they got it. now fighting to exempt union allies from having to pay it. fox on top of union hypocrites

over the top. cash for terror recruits. isis offering marriage bonuses. do we need to do more to cut off its money supply? "cashin' in" at 12:30. >> up here first, as texans are still out fighting floods some folkings are out blaming it on climate change. are they using this disaster to push their green agenda and spend more of your green?

rescuers still out searching flooded towns in texas. but already, some are blaming this disaster on climate change. gary. >> it's like in the late 1800s when they were selling snake oil. the fact is the temperature change from 1998 to now in the world were one degree cooler. there's been no perceptible shift in the climate. in fact though the government bills us $22 billion a year to fight a problem, a, we don't have and b, they don't know how to solve. it is the snake oil salesmen of 2015. >> jehmu. >> we he said snake oil salesman. think these are scientists. i'm not sure where gary got his

climate change degree. we can't keep our head in the sand. climate has been disrupted. we're seeing that impact. i april blocks away from where serious flooding happened in austin texas. and we keep seeing these issues and if we want to say we're afraid of the truth, that's one thing, but denying it not effective. >> john. >> look 1935 there was a much worse flood in the state of texas. 1931. millions died. 1900 you had a hurricane hit galveston. one of the worst natural disasters. the disasters have been going on. what kills the climate change movement is the fact they use them for political motives. i agree, we're putting stuff on the air we shouldn't do. we should have an alternative to fossil fuel future but if you're use this for political reasons, and your frontman, al gore,

anything he says people want to disagree with. they hurt their own cause. >> in the 1500s, it was drier than what it is now. all i know is there's no solution to man made causes. we were not going to stop them from burning stuff in china. the insurance industry in america is very worried about this change and wants to do something about it. we have to get ahead of it and not just argue about it. you have to get ahead of it. so you don't have billions of dollars in damage every year. >> ashley. >> my heart goes out to those in texas and dealing with this right now. but i also don't think this is a policy window for anyone to use destruction and tragedy to be able to bring about climate change initiatives right now, especially as gary had mentioned science right now is not on the climate change side. and it's a natural disaster. that's exactly what it is. nature. >> thank you, guys for joining us. we appreciate it. remember playing with card board boxes as a kid. we google just made it cool

again. it could mean real returns for you.

it is getting warmer because it's the summer. drink coke buy coke i like the stock, up 30% in a year. >> john your prediction. >> it looked like game stop was headed to the tar pits. game stop turned it around. the stock's up 20% in a year. >> jonas. >> pulp fiction.

google is the sign they're not going to do these expensive glasses, they're doing card board things. good for the paper industry. ip inter up 15% on the year. >> we spent big bucks. neil take it away. great scott, forget this democrat jumping in the race today. this republican telling me just because he didn't finish college doesn't mean he still can't, well finish the race. pretty powerful democratic donor john morgan who said of you that you're a dumb --. he went on to say walker would be the first president with a ged. he said we just cannot have a dumb bit as president and he is a total dumb bit. what did you think of that? >> well i hope that's the left's attack should we get in should we ultimately be fortunate enough to be the nominee. not only does it