after the election, the money lesson. help the struggling middle class. some of you say, slashing tax rates for everybody is the best way to do it. are they right? hi, everybody. i'm david asman. welcome to "forbes on fox." go infocus to find out what steve forbes, michael ozanian, along with john and rick unger, the middle class spoke loud and clear, steve, want help for themselves. slashing tax rates, the best way to do it. >> absolutely. worked in american history do it across the board. i'd like to ge all the way and have the flat tax. going across the board tax now would be good.

get the economy moving. a top recovery. rich have done well the rest of the american have not because of the democrats believe in trickle down economics. along with the federal reserve. so slashing tax rates across the board with a sound dollar, america will come roaring back. >> rick, i heard you laughing, but think of what the rich got. actually, this stuck in the craw of the middle class in america. they got first the financial stimulus. then got all of that money from all of the stimulus money that came down the line, and, of course, getting trillions in free money from the fed. >> look, the reason i laughed, i really like that line, because if you look at how the republicans did so well in this election, they basically took the democratic platform, which is always geared towards the middle class. that's where the votes are. so there was a bit of a switcheroo here. i actually agree with steve. >> emac, across the board tax cut the way to do it. >> the way to do it. looks like willy sutton said. the bank is where the money is. money is where the middle class

is. give the middle class a tax cut. only the pa yoyongying class, t thinking. the tax cuts that worked in the past. get this. 60% of spending in this country is done by the middle to lower class. give them the break. >> and john it is the median income folks, the folks smack in the middle getting hit the hardest. getting hit for savings, money isn't worth what it used to be. getting hit because they're paying more in taxes and all of their costs going up and they're after-tax income going down? >> yeah. the only way to do that, though, is across the board tax cuts. that's where i maybe disagree with emac. face it. the rich have all the money precisely because they're rich and reduce the government burden on them they don't sit on the money. the money flows into new businesses through loans and investments. the only way to get the economy to reduce the burden i would just add, i think, voters in

rebuking obama also called for gridlock. don't trust either political party in the scenario, for republicans can't be about fixing all the problems. it's got to be reducing the burden of government including republican government. >> mike, if you target tax cuts as opposed to across the board, it depends how various people define the middle class. president obama might say it's up to 40,000. there are a lot of people making 200,000, live in new york stay saying their middle class, too. >> across the board tax cuts, david. you're right. takes a lot of the politics out of it's. what i really like about across the board tax cuts, it helps small businesses. from 2010, excuse me from 1980 to 2010, the number of small businesses where income was not taxed at the business level but taxed at the individual level tripled. those businesses generated 50% of all pass-through income affected by the top two rates.

if you cut all tax rates you'll have business creation. >> steve, we have done it before. rick is tired of seeing this. reagan tax cuts went into effect the median rose, a rising tide lifted all boats. >> seen it throughout america history. once known as low-tax nation. after world war i, taxes to finance the war, slashed rates in the '20s, go the decade of the '20s. substantially raised tax rates starting in 1930 and saw that with the depression. saw it in the '6 ors. saw it in the '80s, when bill clinton got around to cutting taxes in the mid-1990s with the republican congress, we got a good rest of that decade. >> rick, you say we're following the democrats here. i say you're following ronald reagan. >> how about this? politics is the art of trading. i think we can all agree on that. how about if -- g. trading. good trading. >> how about if we do that across the board tax cut, but at the same time, business agrees to take that money and raise

what they pay their many employees, which is so lacking so bad. >> emac, one of the problems, with the reagan tax cuts was it didn't kick in until three years after he became president because he made deals with democrat and the economy didn't nothing. if you make a deal on this, there should be no deals on this. >> no deals on it. >> straight out across the board tax cuts? >> you saw the impact of a payroll cut and how immediate it was for the economy. went right into people's pockets. talk about tax cuts, key here, the president can been about corporate tax reform and not help out the small businesses. i agree with john and mike oh yanian. y you need this. they need the help, too. which when we talk about minimum wage hikes, you know, david, boy, doesen that feel like a lousy economic recovery when we're talking about poverty wages? that's all we can talk about. really? >> and different states are trying that. so we'll see how it, woulds for

them. emac brings out a great point. if there is just a corporate tax rate cut won't the middle chance say against the rich gets all the benefits. we're stuck with nothing? >> why a lot of advocates of cutting the corporate tax rate want it applied to individuals if they're using what they call s core. the rate if they cut the rates say from 35 to 25, all businesses should be eligible for that 25%. absolutely right. >> mike, that's a great point. the fact is a lot of businesses are unincorporated. they take money as regular income. if it's just a corporate tax rate they get squat? >> that's the point of what i said initially. the number of c corporations david actually declined from 1980 to 2010. but at the same time, that we have across the board tax cuts, we can't do the same mistake that george bush did, which was increase government spending. because that in effect is a tax increase. so weeb got to hold the line on spending what clinton did.

actually cut spending as a percentage of gdp and implemented across the board tax cuts. >> i'm sure john agrees. since you're in d.c., enough democrats that believe in an across the board tax cut that would come onboard with republicans to pass a veto-proof bill on this? >> i think that's going to be hard to achieve, but along those lines i would like to address what rick said about corporations passing on earnings to individuals so they can get higher pay nap is the point of pax cuts. when you reduce the burden on people they again, don't sit onment. the money is invested. it's loaned to businesses. the only way to get higher pay is through higher investment, and so if you want to do that, you must reduce the burden on those who have the money to invest it and you'll get those higher wages. >> i would so like to believe that's true and absolutely get in theory it's supposed to work that way. >> history proves it. >> i don't think it does. look at the last big round the tax cuts with president bush.

it did not. earnings continued to decline. that's my problem. >> not true. it's not. >> sure it is. >> it's not. take into account 401(k) and hil benefits went up and wages didn't moosh as fast as they could have, but a boom economy every time we've had a tax cut. >> steve? >> the economy would have done even better after those 2003 tax cuts, if the bush administration and the fed hadn't started to trash the dollar with distorting the economy. >> absolutely. >> the other reason we need across the board tax cuts include state and city taxes, you get individual tax rates and many states well above 40%. that's why the federal government must cut margin's tax rates. >> mine is above 50% now. one group of stocks surging since election day, some say the reason why could lead to a surge in jobs, and a plunge in heating bills. that would be nice. they'll explain, coming up.

fox news alert. freedom for two americans held in captivity in north korea, pyongyang released keth inbay and matthew todd miller. the u.s. intelligence confirms the release moments ago. bey kwishgted of unspecified crimed held two years. miller charged with ernlgt the country illegally, held for seven months. the men are on their way back to the u.s. right now. and president obama getting set to announce his nomination for the next attorney general in about 15 minutes from now. the president will name loretta lynch as a white house ceremony as the head of the justice department. she would replace eric holder. if confirmed lynch would become the first african-american woman to hold the post, currently in her second stint as a u.s. prosecutor for new york. we will bring you the event live. i'm kelly wright. now back to "forbes on fox."

we have a huge downturn in our coal industry, lost a lot of jobs answer it's directly attributable to tpolicies of th president. >> i think it is possible we can reject from of the president's regulating power under the epa. >> well, they ran on it, and they won. and that's why coal stocks are winning after the midterm elections. investors betting the gop majority will help plane that the epa's costly regulations against that industry, and sabrina you say that could be more jobs and lower energy costs all over america? >> yeah. i absolutely think this is good news for the country. look, david, you know i'm a mom, ice have three little kids, oversee the family budget and well aware when energy costs go up. feel it at the grocery store and gas pump. the reality, the president's war on coal will be devastating for this country if we don't manage to sort of rein in the epa's regulations. the near economic consulting firm put out a study saying 43

states could expect double digit rise in energy prices. the chamber of commerce, more than 200,000 jobs they said will be lost every year between now and 2013 and going to have an almost, immeasurable impact on the environment. >> rick, look at wall industries and think there are smarts, they're betting on coal doing well. >> who can blame them? can't go unnoticed you'll have a majority leader in the senate that comes from kentucky, one of the leading coal-producing states. obviously, better represented. good or bad? sabrina could be right. could create jobs. i like to think about the environment. i don't know how good it is noor and the question i would put into the mix is what does this do for the future of natural gas? which is in line to really take over a lot of that home heating and other energy needs that coal was providing. >> steve, it's clear that natural gas can taking oeshger for a lot of coal proirs, but coal still produces 37% of all of our electricity.

we really need t. so does the rest of the world and the marketplace should decide whether we use coal, natural gas, oil or a mix of them. nuclear power or a mix rather than bureaucratic decrease and the epa waging a jihad against coal based on not science but ideology. they don't like coal and also not oil and gas. stop the nonsense. by the way, start by approving the xl. iline, keystone pipeline good for the environment instead of shipping coal in freight cars. >> keeping it on coal, the epa, new regs in the epa stopped projects that before the epa had actually approved. arch coal a huge project in west virginia. spent $200 million getting it, everything ready to cross the ts, dotted the is of the epa, thought they were going to approve it, had 250 more jobs then had the rug pulled out from under them by the obama administration. >> something. try planning your budget or business plan out of these, with these seat warmers in

washington, d.c. here's the thing. i mean, yeah, we don't like pollution. we can agree. we hate pollution, but there's free market plays and strategies now where you do carbon capture, methane capture. the free market is fixing the pollution problem on its own. electricity is poubered by coal. watch what's going on in california. seeing price flags going up by 50% by 2030 with what they're doing anti-coal and risen 30% since 2000. i think, get it for you. 2006, bui bills shot up because green push without adequate alternatives. >> overwhelming election, the president still might try to do stuff without approval of congress and the edgea pa is un his control. what can congress do to plane that the epa? >> not appropriate funding for one thing. >> power of the purse. >> power of the purse, strongest bet. and what bothers me the most about this so-called clean power

plan, this new push by the epa, when they first pushed it out, they didn't even want any dialogue with the coal industry. they finally have started to have some so-called town hall meeting to find out exactly how this plan would be implement pd and how the coal manufacturers and electricity producers can adapt to it. it's that -- that attitude, that contempt that obama has filtered to the epa. >> true. >> it's all his way or the highway. >> sabrina, like global warming. you know? i'm sorry. the argument's over. there's a scientific argument over. no discussing with people like that? >> and a lot of the issues we're talking about today. mike's right. we don't want to see -- we all want a clean environment, and coal is becoming cleaner, becoming more sustainable. and all of these efforts to sort of invest in wind and thermal and all of this sound nice but the reality is it's costing energy prices to go up even higher, if we want something clean, steve said, natural gas. fracking saved people almost

$250 billion last year. so let's not -- >> after the press conference from the president we heard whether or not he is going to be negotiating at all on any deal. whether he'll play hardball or not. >> it's no the word for it. my way or the highway. that way six years, going to be the next two years. visit germany, whole hog on alternatives. their prices are two to three times higher than here in the united states. >> rick, last word. >> i don't think any of them will do much in terms of negotiating anything. not just the president, but the new majority leader. the speaker of the house. nothing's going to change. >> a tough two years. thank you, gang. other big midterm winners, these free market, but not all women and minorities are happy about that. the reason why may outrage you, on "cashin' in." first right here, any wonder taxpayers are outraged. find out what the irs just said it can't do for you in the upcoming tax season. before you write that check

you'll want to listen to this one. we asked people a question how much money do you think you'll need when you retire? then we gave each person a ribbon to show how many years that amount might last. i was trying to like, pull it a little further got me to 70 years old i'm going to have to rethink this thing it's hard to imagine how much we'll need for a retirement that could last 30 years or more. so maybe we need to approach things differently, if we want to be ready for a longer retirement. ♪

ever heard of a business only answering half of its customer calls? you're paying the irs to do that. time to change that. plus, t

[ phone ringing ] got a tax question? don't expect the irs to answer your call. that's not me saying it. it's the irs commissioner saying it. literally telling taxpayers nearly half of their calls will just go unanswered this season. gets worse. another report this week shows the irs didn't even try to find lois learner's lost e-mails. time to abolish this government

monstrosity? right? >> the irs is an affront to a free society. not about reforming it. it's about abolishing that which we have to carry on an annual basis. the only way to work this. >> rick it is monstrous and you wrote a piece how unconstitutional they are. you're guilty until proven innocent with them. >> that's true. wrote a piece in the past week, was very angry and continue to be angry at some irs practices but have the to ask this question. you can go a little too extreme here. you can't have an honor system when it comes to people paying taxes and whether it's higher or lower, people have to pay taxes. how else will you do it? >> steve, this close to getting rick onboard. this close! didn't make it. time to get rid of the irs? >> you can abolish most of it except for clerks to process simple returns, and for irs agents, we can be humanitarian, job retraining. the fact of the matter is, it's not answering phone calls, the washington monument thing, need more money, more money, they not

only don't answer phone calls, they don't answer letters. half get tossed in a trash can according to a study. >> emac, spent half your life covering this dysfunctional agency. what do you think? >> we don't have a voluntary system. withholding, guilty until proven innocent. a poisonous mind-set of liz weth warren, hillary clinton and president obama, when it operates, there to serve us. the irs is there to work on our behalf. we pay it. so you know, would i say scrap it? you need a tax cleshollector ine way. a consumption tax, i'm for. i don't lie government incruisiveness into our income. they now get to know about hoar household income. >> and paying over $11 billion. they have 97,000 employees. could save a lot of money dumping this agency. >> absolutely can and these reports are important because it

jolts the american people into realizing how bad big government can be. how corrupt it is. why we need to streamline or tax system and change things because it breeds corruption and impropriety. i'm with rick on this. i don't like being thought of as a criminal because i've done anything. i just went through an addis. it's hue mail yating when in fact you haven't done anything wrong. this is not a healthy way for society to move forward. >> john, i wonder what they're doing with those 97,000 employees? we know for example if they were doing things totally inappropriate with the tea party. they do what they're not supposed to do and don't do things they are supposed to do, like answer calls? >> it's just so anti-american. we are the first country in the world's history founded on skepticism about politicians. we allow them to appoint people unelected to move around in our lives and sabrina said, humiliate us. >> time to dump the irs. all basically in agreement.

told you about coal stocks getting a postelection bounce. now get the mid-term winners about to bounce even higher, coming up next. (trader vo) i search. i research. i dig. and dig some more. because, for me, the challenge of the search... is almost as exciting as the thrill of the find. (announcer) at scottrade, we share your passion for trading. that's why we rebuilt scottrade elite from the ground up - including a proprietary momentum indicator that makes researching sectors and industries even easier. because at scottrade, our passion is to power yours.

a fox news i lert. breaking news from the white house now. president obama is about to announce his nomination for the next attorney general names loretta lynch as the next top law enforcement officer replacing eric holder. if confirmed, becoming the first african-american woman to hold the post. we'll return to "cashin' in" following the president's announcement. let's listen to the president right now. >> as our nation's chief law enforcement officer, the person in this position is responsible for enforcing our federal laws,

including protecting our civil rights. working with the remarkable men and women of the justice department, the attorney general oversees the vast portfolio of is kas including counterterrorism and voting rights, public corruption and white collar crime, judicial recommendations and policy reviews. all of which impact on the lives of every american and shape the life of our nation. as i said back in september when he decided to step down, i am enormously grateful to eric holder for his outstanding service in this position. he is one of the longest serving attorney generals in american history, and one of our finest. eric brought to this joob belief that justice isn't just an abstract theory but a living, breathing principle. it's about how laws interact with the daily lives of our people. whether we can make an honest living, whether we can provide for our families. whether we feel safe in our own

communities and welcome in our own country. whether the words that the founders said to paper 238 years ago apply to every one of us in our time. so thanks to eric, our nation is safer, and freer, and more americans regardless of race or religion or gender or creed, or sexual orientation, or disability, receive fair and wale treatment under the law. i couldn't be prouder of eric. and i couldn't be prouder that today i can announce somebody who shares that fierce commitment to equal justice under the law as my nominee for the next attorney general. u.s. attorney loretta lynch. [ applause ]

>> i also by the way want to thank the chair of the senate judiciary committee, pat tris leahy for being here on a saturday to show his support. so -- it's pretty hard to be more qualified for this job than loretta. throughout her 30-year career she has distinguished herself as tough, as fair, an independent lawyer who has twice headed one of the most prominent u.s. attorneys offices in the country. she has spent years in the tremp trenches as prosecutors fighting fraud, cyber crime all vigorously defending civil rights. a graduate of harvard college and harvard law school, loretta rose from assistant u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york to chief of long