>> john's next pick will be netscape so i think we can all kind of move on. >> i love you both dearly. thanks for joining "the cost of freedom" continues right now. cavuto on business. donald trump starting to outline a tax plan, cuts for everyone but some more than others. >> at a minimum we have to simplify our system and i would like to see a reduction in taxes, a reduction in all taxes but especially corporate and especially for the middle class. >> hello, everyone. i'm charles payne in for neil cavuto. the donald proposing lower tax rates targeting companies that promote jobs. love him or hate him, is this the right plan to get the economy back on track? farry says absolutely. also here, ben stein, gerri willis, and charlie gasparino. why do you this one so much? >> it's a darn good start.

the middle class has been crushed with taxes, how much they have to spend just to file their taxes, 75,000 pages of tax code. something's got to be done. there are people in this country that work for the month of july just to pay their first dollar. more money in people's pockets means more savings, more spendings and a better economy. corporations are not competitive because of how much they pay in taxes. >> we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. >> 39.1%. that's where the money is. if you're going to do anything, cut corporate taxes. there will be more jobs, better paying jobs. we have fewer people working in full-time jobs today than we did at the high point before the recession. that's job one. >> i love that, too, because it's diametrically opposed, opposite of what hillary clinton is saying, we need to snatch the money from the corporate balance sheet, tax them more, get their income and redistribute it. >> but when i listen to donald

trump, who, once again, i really like and admire as a businessman, and i listen to us, i'm wondering why we are being more specific than he is. there is no plan. especially for the middle class. that's not a plan. a plan is what paul ryan says, a very detailed plan, closing loopholes and bringing down rates and things of that nature. this is not a plan. that's one of the problems with donald's policy, that you can kind of drive a mack truck through -- >> well, we should say that donald trump is meeting with a hole lot of people. he promises within a couple weeks he'll narrow that down. he will narrow that down. i think all candidates ultima ultimately are going to come out with something more concrete. ben stein, the broader strokes are lower taxes. that's the theme. it might be a winning theme. >> it might be a winning theme politically although he's already doing incredibly well politically, but we have never seen any clear correlation of lower taxes with higher employment or higher corporate

profits. corporate profits are extremely good, the economy is extremely strong, in many parts of the country there's a labor shortage. i'm not quite sure what this would accomplish except adding to the fetd ral deficit, which is already cruelly and dangerously large. unless there's a specific in here that we don't know about that would have some magical effect, i don't see it. i can't see where the benefit of it comes in except as a political bribe. >> i don't know, ben. i know you go to walmart a lot. next time you're there ask some of the people if their wages are down and if they would like lower taxes. >> they're not paying taxes. >> let's bring in adam on this. we have some kinship going on out there. >> i actually am going to amplify things that ben and charlie said. first of all, you have to look at the macro numbers. unemployment is lower than it's been in years and we're in a

multiyear expansion. these are good things. >> the slowest expansion in 75 years. >> no argument, but to charlie's point, trump doesn't have a policy here. this is one of most -- >> what about lower taxes helping the economy? do you disagrier or agree with ben? >> i disagree in the sense that president obama has focused his tax increases on higher wage earners, on the richest people in society. >> but he thinks a family of four making $200,000 a year on long island is rolling in the dough. >> back to gary for a moment. adam is talking about the unemployment rate. we have to put that in perspective when the participation late raitt is at a low. you add people back for the job market, it's double digits. let's be clear about that, gary. >> first off, there was this dude named ronald reagan that

took 26 tax rates down to a few and the high tax rate from 78% down to 28% and unlocked and unleashed the greatness of this country. >> amen and amen. >> let me finish. this country is being crushed by taxes, mandates, regulations, fines, you namt, and it has fed a bloated government. the last year of bill clinton's government they expect $1.8 trillion. we're going to do almost $4 trillion this year. that's coming out of the economy and killing us. >> the problem with saying lit's lower taxes it is going to hurt the deficit. here's the thing. you have to do it in the context of tax reform. you have to understand the notion of closing loopholes. i'm for a flatter tax. i think this economy is not doing as well as it should do, but if you sit there and say let's lower taxes, i think you'll make a bad situation worse. we need tax reform. this is my problem with donald. he thinks it's easy. sit there and snap your finger, take a couple rates down, give middle class a tax break and

everything will be hunky-dory. >> it's not. >> one at a time, guys. go ahead, gary. finish. >> he's not saying anything particularly controversial. tax reform is something a lot of people would like. lowering kormt taxes while, you know,ing to something with repatriating foreign earnings. these are subs we've been discussing for years. >> we got nowhere with him. if they're no big deal, why. >> in its schismest form it's 2% measly growth right now goes up to 4%, the deficits will come down and government will have plenty to spend. >> gary, you're not going to get that just by saying let's do a middle-class tax cut. you need tax reform. >> there's a lot that could be done starting with 75,000 pages of tax code. that would be nice also. i'm with you. >> let me go back out to ben. ben, you're the historian here, you're very accomplished and you know these things inside and out. gary just brought up some pretty

good points. it felt like ronald reagan, maybe it was anecdotal, maybe it was coincidence, but when ronald reagan started to cut those taxes it was a new morning in america. we did come to life after those miserable years. even bill clinton was smart enough to go through the middle, lower taxes and those are great periods for our economy. >> yeah, and there was this dude named franklin delano roosevelt who greatly raised taxes and we had the largest growth in productivity and personal income that we've ever had. got a lot of spend noug too. the question is do we want more deficit spending or do we want to cut taxes. we're stimulating the economy like crazy with deficit spending right now. by the way, let me get this 75,000 tax code pages, the ordinary citizen deals with seven pages of tax code. the 75,000 pages affects very few people indeed.

i don't think the correlation has ever been made between cutting middle class taxes and national growth. >> the reagan thing was -- >> we could debate whether reagan or the military buildup -- >> we know that world war ii -- >> out of the great depression. >> coming off a tremendous recession. when reagan cut tacks we were coming off a tremendous recession and we had very, very good monetary policy. the real -- >> that made the recession even worse. it made it worse. >> it made the recession worse because he cut the inflation and -- >> we're never going to agree on whether reagan's tax cuts or the military buildup or the fact that we just in an economic cycle caused the great '80s boom. my point is do you think there should be significant tax reform? you're an economist. should we be plugging those loopholes and lowering those rates? a lot of people say it will make

businesses hire more. >> i think we're already in a situation where business is finding it hard to find qualified workers. >> talking about the middle and we can't get truck drivers because they can't pass a drug test. adam, i'll give you the last word on this. here's the thing, to charmie's point, businesses have been crying. we do have the highest taxes out there. we can't repatriate money and the average person watching this show who does shop at walmart would like some relief. >> i would be very interested in a candidate talking about comprehensive tax reform. >> but what does it mean? at least he's saying something. we know the direction. >> what does it mean? >> it means lower taxes. yes, i would like to pay lower taxes. give me that one choice, would i like to pay lower tax ts, yes.

but it's not that simple. we need leadership. >> good answer. >> someone said what does tax reform mean? talk to paul ryan, talk to erskine bowles, senator simpson, they provided tax reform and it was rejected by president obama. >> we know one thing, the american public -- >> trump is a joke. >> ben, i said the same thing. >> let's leave it right there. trump's steamrolling continue os go on and he's adding more and more layers to it. folks still outraged over the planned parenthood videos planning hundreds of protests today. now the embattled group is fighting back with its own controversial video. a family making half a

million bucks a year and gettib"

get ready for the protests. more than 300 rallies against planned parenthood expected across the country today all calling to defund it. but the organization is fighting back against some republican senators trying to do it. ben stein says those a adds are more of a waste of money and

show why we need to stop giving tax dollars to this organization. ben? >> there are an awful lot of american who is believe abortion is murder. it's insanely wrong to take tax money from people who believe that, and i'm one of them, and use it to support planned parenthood so they can then shift money to do abortions. >> gary k., it is an outrage that taxpayer money would be used in such a controversial way. this is a large organization with a whole lot of very wealthy supporters. >> very wealthy. >> i don't know why the taxpayers have to be sut in this position. >> yeah. i say get private dollars. you have $1.5 billion in assets and are clearing more a year. enough is enough. >> my view on this, i think there are ten times the number of community health centers out here and if you talk to anybody on the street here right now, particularly women, they would tell you, get rid of planned parenthood, women will never get

care. that's just not true. the numbers don't support that. >> 20 seconds. >> i would just say as someone who's pro-choice, i am for defunding them for the simple reason that they're a political arm of the democratic party. >> absolutely. >> it's one thing giving out contraceptives and they weren't as political, but they fund candidates that go against republicans. that's fot to be a violation of -- >> they're providing care, though. mammograms. where is the care for women? >> i'm not a tax expert. >> that was the reason the irs went after supposedly some of those not-for-profit organizes. adam, to charlie's point, on thursday they actually went to bobby jindal's governor's mansion to protest at his home. this is not some organization that's being attacked and they can't fight back. go ahead, adam, what do you think? >> this is a good example of

misdirection and misusing language. this is not about defunding. planned parenthood performs medical procedures and me kate pays for them. if we want to have a conversation sh should medicaid stop paying for abortion at every health care institution that provides them, let's have that conversation. >> how about health care institutions -- by the way, how about health care institutions de facto arms of the democratic party? because that's what this is. >> you're changing the subject. >> i'm not changing the subject. we aren't funding -- >> it's exactly the same subject. planned parenthood -- >> let me finish. we're not writing a check for planned parenthood. we are allowing them to take advantage of medicaid law. >> we are funding an organization that is part and parcel of the democratic party and that is unfair. >> let me jump in one second. adam -- >> -- not eligible to provide a -- >> adam, should they have access to taxpayer money in their

present form? planned parenthood. >> obviously i've already said if they qualify as a health care provider that can bill to medica medicaid, then yes. that is not the same as saying -- >> what other organizations are marching to the mansion, rallying for democratic candidates? i don't get how they can play both roles. >> talk about misdirection, alleged am, how about causing -- calling a medical procedure -- a murder a medical procedure? how is that for misdirection? >> that's not my definition. that's not my definition. >> i'm curious about your testify in addition. we're having that debate. >> hold on. let's leave it there. that's a whole different debate. i think the bottom line is even people who are pro-choice to charlie gasparino's point feel that there's something not right about this particular organization having this much access to taxpayer money. we'll definitely have the other

debates later. don't want to get bogged down with student loan debt? how about promising to give up some of your future income?

a plan to avoid taking out college loans. instead, students would give their college part of their income after they get a job. that's what purdue university is row posing. does it make sense to you? you are the maven on this kind of stuff. >> they've tried this already. it doesn't work. the reason it doesn't work is

because investors. this is how it's been tried before where they're asked do you want to invest in kids' earnings after they graduate, and nobody wants to do it. it's not really a viable idea. i think the best consideration here is that you cut tuition, and that's what mitch daniels has done at purdue. everybody needs to do that. that would be the right solution. >> adam, what do you think? >> well, i like the idea even if you have to run it at a loss because a lot of times these kids aren't paying back their loans anyway. >> what investor will want to operate at a loss? >> uber because they expect a huge valuation. >> a better way to do it would be for the university to fund it. i mean, it is like a tuition break, actually. i think it would instill some responsibility in these students. >> responsibility in the students? you know, i like the idea that adam just brought up. why don't these universities, harvard has $40 billion. why do kids have to take out loans? if your education is so great, you back it up.

you fund it. >> i think this might be a good deal. >> $40 billion. that's a lot of cake. look, i don't mind this idea. i just don't think it's going to really fly. the idea that the way this is set up is if you come out of college and you make a lot of money, you can pay back your loans easier to the investor versus if you don't have the wherewithal, you can stretch it out a little more. that's okay. it almost privatizes thing. i'm just not so sure it's going to fly. >> what do you think, charlie? >> you are saying the endowment would fund this thing, right? i just don't quite understand how it works. listen, it would be nice to privatize student debt, but the private sector, i don't think, will get involved because the endowments have a fiduciary. you're just paying a different piper. >> delinquency advisory fwaun through the roof. they're over 11% right now and getting higher and higher all the time. you know, maybe the tuition is the area, but what do you say

from purdue's point of this thing? maybe is it novel? >> no, it's not novel at all. students take out a loan, here doing the exact same thing as my friend charlie just said. they're doing the exact same thing. they're promising a portion of future income to repay the loan. i think there's a moral hazard involved in lending to college, and i think you would want to drug test them before giving them a loan. >> they won't fail. >> that's not going to work. >> i mean, golly, ben. no wonder we have a worker shortage. >> all right. thanks a lot, guys. special thanks to charlie and jerry.

>> see you on fox business. that's every week night. >> adam, what do you like here? >> hcwi. that's a global stock atf. the world is cheap, so buy the world.

sflo it's an index >> it turns out there may abe good reason why those secret side deals in the iran yan nuclear deal were secret. a new report claims iran. >> are they right? hi, everybody. thanks for joining us. i'm david. this is forbes on fox. let's go in focus with steve forbes himself. mike, swron, along with carrie sheffield and bruce jackson. steve, isn't this a deal breaker? >> it should be a deal braker if it wasn't for a misplaced party loyalty it would be. this is like having animal house