get some bang for the buck. >> not maybe in my lifetime, maybe in adam's. >> neil: adam? >> i can't criticize it all. people have to understand that diversification is not the same as removing risk. there's risk here, but the way that people should go. >> neil: thanks, david asman is next, we're done. >> hike or we take a hike. democrats warning they'll let the fiscal cliff hit raising everybody's taxes if republicans don't agree to raise taxes on the rich now. are american people telling they're wrong. new fox poll more than 70% of americans thinks that raising taxes in an economic down turn is a bad idea. who is right? i'm david asman, welcome to forbes on fox. steve forbes, victoria, morgan brennan, rick unger and

elizabeth macdonald and thanks to e-mack for hosting the show. >> thank you. >> and steve, what do you think, democrats pushing us further towards that fiscal cliff? >> yeah, they want us to imitate france, raising taxes except in war time is a bad idea. especially if you have a weak economy, hurts risk taking, hurts success and slows the economy down. in the name of healthiness, they're hurting us. it happens every time. >> it goes against the grain, even young people, by the way, a poll of 18 to 29 year olds, 69% of whom said raising any taxes in this economic environment is a bad idea. >> yeah, but you know, you really have to wonder how americans are going to react when they begin to understand the actual data. fascinating thing available this week from the tax foundation. you can find it at their website, it's a calculator that shows you how much in taxes you'll be paying. >> they're kind of fun to work on. >> it's fascinating and let me tell you what we discover, it's remarkable. the actual increase in taxes

earning 250,000 to 300,000, those we're told are job creators, you won't believe this. $199 more a year. and $16 a month, it won't even cost you one mocha java latte a week. this is according to the tax foundation. look it up. >> e-mack, why is it so many people i talk to are very concerned about taxes going up and some are putting off investment decisions and hiring as a result of that? >> well, i hear what rick is saying, the numbers at that rick are talking about are the people who sell chachkis on ebay, the real job creators, million plus class and subject to higher taxes. look the idea that taxes create jobs is at issue. margaret thatcher's aide has it right. how do you make the poor richer taxing money and taking money from the job creators in this country. they did not cause the financial crisis, the

entrepreneurials did not cause the crisis. air not going to get magic beanies that are going to sew jobs somehow. >> i think that e-mack hit it on the head. how is raising taxes going to create jobs? that's the issue here, how would raising taxes create jocks. we've got a list of taxes going up go ahead. >> i think the bigger thing here is tax cuts extended out or tax cuts being-- or taxes being raised. whatever the case may be. i think we need to get to some sort of agreement. i think a lot of companies are holding back on hiring, they don't know what the end of the year is bringing. going back to e-mac's point. i agree, i think that small businesses could be hurt. i think the wealthy can afford to pay more taxes, but i think we need to redefine wealth. i think the cap is $250,000 and i think the cap needs to be raised and tax hikes for the wealthiest, but not as extreme as now. >> even if they can afford to pay more in taxes, the

question, how would raising taxes help us create jobs? wouldn't they pull back a little? >> david, all we have to do is go to george bush's presidency, facing headwinds of the crash of the internet bubble and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he implemented a series of tax cuts, the last of which was signed into law in may of 2003. from that point to the end of january, 2009, the end of his presidency, his administration created 3.7 million new jobs. seven times more than have been created under president obama's reign of tax terror. >> welcome, and victor yeah, the fact is that not only were more jobs created, but the rich actually paid more as a result of those tax decreases, from 2003 to 2006, it went from 136 billion that they paid in taxes to 274 billion dollars, so, more money came in than revenues than job were created. >> that's a key point. i think if we hike taxes on the so-called rich, you end up

just hitting small business owners lawyers and doctors, who are making above that threshold, but probably don't feel very rich, certainly if they live in the coastal cities like san francisco. 250,000 if you've got a family of four does not make you feel rich unfortunately. and what you'll have is the super mega millionaires are going to figure out ways to evade the taxes. >> always do. >> certainly are going to-- they always do. they've got clever people who help them did it and you're going to see an overall compression in entrepreneurial activity and also, therefore, in job growth. the real problem here is that entitlement spending and interest expense in this country is set to exceed revenue within the next 15 years. we need to focus on the spending part of this, rather than trying to take money out of the private sector to fund entitlement spending out of control for decades. >> steve, while jobs should be number one. everybody says that jobs is the number one concern of all americans, it should be the concern and i don't see how raising taxes helps.

but there's also the fairness issues, 94%, according to the cbo. says in 2009, 90% of all income taxes came from the top 20%, how can you squeeze more, how can you squeeze more out of these people. >> look at the top 10% they pay 70% of the income taxes in this country. higher than any other developed country in the world, worse off than france in that respect. what is the purpose of raising taxes, face to reduce the deficit. you raise taxes hurt the economy and that blows out the deficit and that's what's happening in spain, italy and elsewhere and why don't we learn the lessons of europe, relearn the lessons of ronald reagan, and lower, and win-win. >> rick, what do you say. >> guys, look at the numbers and let's not talk about the ideology, as much fun as that may be, you have to get into households earning multi-millions, before we start talking about enough taxes that you could even think about it, you raise--

>> the thing is, the margin, that hurts economic activity and that's the key thing. >> hold on a second. e-mac doesn't take ideology, she talks figures and used to cover for the wall street journal. >> and victoria hit the nail on the head. talking about the covering the ballooning costs on debt. and when president obama took office, 5 trillion bucks, we collect 2.3 trillion in taxes, and clinton had it right, the road to prosperity is through regulatory stability, tax stability and a strong dollar. i don't think that president john f. kennedy could get nominated via this democratic party the way it's behaving. >> he did lower the capital gains tax and led to a boost in the market, right? >> i agree, which is why i think there's room to raise taxes, but not to the 40% as steve mention $. >> would you want to do it at all. >> i think it should be higher. >> exactly. >> let me focus on it for a second.

is it wise to do it at all if there's any chance that it do hurt the job creation, why raise taxes? >> i think, i think it is wise to do it because increase revenues and we also need to take a look the at spending and everybody is talking about cutting spending, the truth of the matter, there are a number of reports looking at the fact that cutting and spending has been happening and hindering job growth as well. >> the best revenue raiser is a vibrant economy, you don't get a vibrant economy by taxes those who invest in business $. >> i agree, but you can tax billionaires. >> victoria, final word. >> rick fair saying that this is going to hit that 250 to 300,000 earner only $200 a year, why are we doing this? that isn't going to do anything, symbolically it sends the signal that the government is trying to take money out of your wallet. >> that's the dirty little secret the white house doesn't want you it know because it will upset the progressives, and it's-- >> it doesn't-- >> it's got to be the last word, guys, got to wrap this

up. the rallies at the political conventions may not be where the action is. it maybe a union rally to push a new bill of rights. have you heard about this? they're going to do it at the conventions coming up. >> the five planks of the bill of rights are the right to full employment and a living wage. with the fidelity stock screener, you can try strategies from independent experts and see wh criteria they use. such as a 5% yield on dividend-paying stocks. then you can customize the strategies and narrow down to exactly those stocks you want to follow. i'm mark allen of fidelity investments. the expert strategies feature is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account.

>> and a fox news alert for you. i'm jamie colby at fox headquarters in new york. the bomb squad and the fbi agents have swarmed the apartment of the man suspected in the movie theater massacre. it's a difficult job. take a live look at james holmes' colorado apartment. police say that it's completely rigged with trip wires and other possible explosives, that they can't even identify at this point and they may need to detonate some of those wires within the next hour, which could cause an explosion and fire, we are warped. 12 victims were killed in the shooting, 58 others were

wounded. our mike tobin is standing by live in aurora with the latest. mike, everyone on alert. >> reporter: everyone is on alert and what we're understanding from the bomb squad and aurora p.d., the first step going into that apartment is remove a trip wire as you were talking about and it looks like what police may very well do or the bomb squad may do is blow up that trip wire and that's why they're talking about a controlled detonation once they go inside. now, they've cautioned people that that controlled detonation will produce sound and may also produce a fire and that's why the fire crews are on the scene ready to act. and a shell of intersi-- incendiary devices will be moved and examination of evidence of the apartment. and then we may get some answers as to what was in the mind of james holmes, what

triggered him to spend two months amassing the arsenal that he had. more than 6,000 rounds, 300 rounds for the shotgun alone, all of the body armor, what made him execute his deadly plan here, jamie. >> reporter: all right, mike, thank you so much. i'm jamie colby, back to fox, but all of our reporters, jon scott anchoring live 12 noon from aurora. keep it on fox. >> well, it's what helped make america great. the united states bill of rights, a wonderful documents from freedom of religion to private property rights. now, unions are pushing both democrats and republicans to sign on to a second bill of rights. this one includes what they call, our rights to full employment and to a healthy future. are these goals that uncle sam should guarantee, steve? >> well, the original bill of rights is to protect us from an overweaning and over powerful government. this guarantees more

government where that's done in europe. and we need freedom, is how as lincoln put it improve your lot in life not guarantees they can't deliver on especially at the expense of young people. look at youth unemployment in france and spain, over 20%. they have wonderful guarantees, but recognizance wreck the economy in doing so. >> and the more you load this bill of rights, the weaker it becomes. >> it's an intellectual exercise, it would never have, you would need constitutional amendments to make it so. one thing, would like, health care become a right-- >> mr. trumka. >> and we're a nation where only a gun is a right and health care a privilege. >> owning a gun is protected by the second amendment. what about adding on to the bill of rights, like the right to full employment. the right to health care? >> you know, i have to agree with steve on that one. france is a wonderful

experiment when you guarantee rights, the outcome you see high unemployment. don't see real job growth. you don't see entrepreneurialism and that's what makes america unique and we should be doing things to guarantee that instead of things to protect jobs even though it doesn't protect anything except lawyers who will enjoy lawsuits out of this. >> david: that's a good point. morgan, when i first heard about it, one thing i can't understand, you can guarantee the right to practice your religion. how can you guarantee the right of a job to somebody who's a lousy worker? we all know lousy workers that are out there. do they deserve by financialal right a job? >> no, not necessarily. that's the thing i like about this bill of rights. going back to rich's point this is more of an intellectual exercise than a push to add amendments to the constitution. it's interesting, because the way they're worded is ambiguous, you can take them many different ways, which is why i think the unions, it's not the about the unions, it's about trying to get both democrats and republicans to think about these issues in a

different way instead of all of their grandstand-- >>, but it is the unions that are pushing these issues and they're going to be loud and up front and center. >> yeah, it's all about the union. trumka doesn't mention his right for his members to go on junkets. the issue inside, who enforces the rights. the attitude, it takes a government village to provide a cradle to grave protection is so wrong. the middle class wants opportunities. they want jobs, they don't want a life line. they don't want this kind of mucking around with the-- between the unions and government and now, i totally respect morgan, but i have to respect-- >> and michael, we have the right to pursue happiness, but we don't necessarily have the right to happiness. they're confusing that issue. >> well, the entire obama administration is an intellectual exercise, it sounds good in theory, but failed in the real world. the federal reserve has two mandates, one of which is maximum employment. it hasn't been able to get the unemployment rate below 8%, if

they can't succeed, how is this piece of paper supposed to do that. >> david: that's it for this segment. we haven't seen t homes built since 2008, that's terrible news for the housing market? the flip side is next.

>> new home construction jumping to the highest level since 2008. that's bad news?

>> well, new home construction jumping, nearly 7% last month. now, back to levels that haven't been seen since 2008. but that's bad news for the

you housing market? that's the flip side. e-mac, explain this one. >> yes, it's bad because look, about 11 to 12 million homes are in negative equity. meaning that's 25% of all mortgages out there that are tipping, and there's he a-- basically a big fat inventory of homes set to be defaulting or delinquent. i propose a new green job program, rehab and refurbish dilapidated old homes and that's how air going to get job creation in this country because we have a problem of suburban poverty right now from these derelict homes that are not being taken care of. >> morgan, are we supposed to get depressed about good numbers. >> no, i don't think we are. going back to e-mac's point, good news it's happening in the private sector the one fueling that, but i actually feel we need to put the construction numbers into perspective for a second. even though they've come up and the highest that we've seen since 2008, they're still 70% off the 2006 peak and they're still almost 60% down from healthy levels we saw in

early 2000's and late 1990's, we're got a long way to go before construction becomes an overbuilding issue. >> we've got it tell you, existing home sales are not looking good, but new homes sales the fact that they're up. isn't that good news? >> that's the point, two year low this week. i agree with e-mac, the reason that home builders are building new homes because the housing markets are subsidized by taxpayers. for instance, the past three years, fannie mae and freddie mac have burnt over 80 billion dollars of taxpayer money so the home builders know the homes are going to be sold. the question, who fits the bill? many times private investors are going to come in and make profit by buying them on the cheap. cut the big subsidy and you'll cut the overinventory of homes. >> so, victoria, is a clean sweep what is necessary? i think that's what e-mac and mike are getting at. we need a clean sweep of the housing market and the inventory in order to get things moving again. >> well, i deally, yes, that would be the case, but we're not going to see it, you're

going to see demand for homes in new areas where those old foreclosed homes don't exist. this is soft demand, like as morgan was saying, it's not some dramatic upswell of demand and it's healthy demand. yes, the government is still heavily involved in the mortgage market, but it's not the funny money we were seeing back in 2006 and 2007. so, i think that this is moderately good news. >> all right. you wanted to jump in quickly, e-mac. >> it will still be flush to the system what happened with the housing bubble. old industrial cities like detroit, pittsburgh, baltimore, philadelphia, a lot of those daderelict homes are n- is it good news or bad news happening with housing now, steve. >> overall, david, it's slightly bullish and morgan is right from very, very depressed levels if the government hadn't intervened so much and yet the market clear we had have a robust housing revival across the board. government hurt, didn't help

on this one. >> david: steve, we're told in past recessions, really to come out of it you need revival of the housing market. is that true as well? >> no you need revival of the economy, which brings housing with it. and let's focus on the economy instead of the rifle shot approach that ends up mucking up the economy. >> and michael going back to the top of the show, what we need is economic revival in this country to get everything going and that takes fiscal policies, right. >> history has taught us repeatedly housing will not go up until employment goes u like steve said, this administration by constantly attacking success has hurt the recovery. victoria, what do you think? >> i think that's absolutely true. liz, you can make great houses in detroit, but aren't the jobs there to make people move there and want to live there. that's why i think that developers are going in, sensing where demand in and-- >> and say, detroit is one city. i'm also talking about cities

that are near blue chip companies where they have an overhang of inventory and they do have dilapidated homes, i say fix them up before you build more. >> let the private sector do it. >> that's right. >> and need to note where most construction activity is happening, where cities high demand and tightening inventory. >> coming up, a flip side on cashin' in, why their crew says more americans think that college is a bad investment is good news for the job market. but first, nearly seven out of ten americans don't expect their financial picture to improve the next year and they say they can change that picture after this. nars and interactive learning, plus, in-branch seminars at over 500 locations, where our dedicated support teams help you know more so your money can do more. [ rodger ] at scottrade, seven dollar trades are just the start. our teams have the information you want when you need it. it's anothereason more investors are saying...

[ all ] i'm with scottrade. ♪ i want to go ♪ i want to win [ breathes deeply ] ♪ this is where the dream begins ♪ ♪ i want to grow ♪ i want to try ♪ i can almost touch the sky [ male announcer ] even the planet has an olympic dream. dow is proud to support that dream by helping provide greener, more sustainable solutions from the olympic village to the stadium. solutionism. the new optimism.™ ♪ this dream

>> we're back, and what forbes says they'll help better with your future. pit any bowles. >> it pays a hefty dividend and buy low. >> trading e-mac at the 12 month low right now. >> yeah, it's fairly valued and probably going to cut the dividend because growth is on the down side and basically seeing their financial