It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Source: macedoniaonline.eu...
Anti-capitalist firebrand whose ideas include 100% fat cat tax on earnings above $370,000 wins attention and support in the polls.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the hard left, anti-capitalist firebrand who is rising in the presidential election polls, is all over the French papers – billed as the great surprise, main event and key revelation of the campaign.
With crowds spilling into the street at his packed rally in Lille this week, and tens of thousands recently flocking to the Bastille to hear him call for a "civic insurrection", Mélenchon has been credited with 14% in the polls by BVA.
Originally posted by Protostellar
So all that money will go to the governement. What a surprise.
Originally posted by Protostellar
reply to post by Germanicus
You logic is astounding.
If the governement gets all that extra funding to allocate as they wish, the top is shifted to an already corrupt body.edit on 15-4-2012 by Protostellar because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Protostellar
reply to post by Germanicus
I remember having my first beer while I was on the internet, too.
Yeah,I hate the Banksters. Its insane that they have been bailed out with your money.
Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy and other realms of society.They had alot of other conditions imposed on them as well,like they were not allowed to make any political or charitable donations.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Here's the problem: most people who are 'rich' don't think they are. For the vast majority of people, 'rich' refers to someone who makes more than you do and 'poor' refers to someone who makes less money than you do. It's a subjective classification. Spending as a percentage of income does not very widely between different financial classes, save for the indigent and the uber-wealthy. So what this fellow wants to do is to take everything a person makes past a certain point while basing that point on a subjective observation.
The result of such an action would be, obviously, that anyone who continually made more than $370,000 a year would be hard-pressed to remain in the country... no problem if their income is still in the country, right? That income can still be taxed. But it would also make it hard to justify keeping one's business interests in the country. So all tax money from said individual is then lost (along with any jobs supported by those business interests). Repeated across the country, such an action would result in France becoming a country restricted to those making less than this cap (and let us not forget that this cap, being arbitrary, would likely lower under those conditions). Meanwhile, the poor who rely on governmental entitlement programs, would remain, making them represent a larger percentage of the population than before and making them represent a much higher expenditure for those who remain and work.
All this is coming at a time when the cry in the USA is to "tax the rich". This makes me wonder, where is the cap? How much should we tax the rich? What is the point where you personally can say "enough!"? Should we go over 100%?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Germanicus
May I ask: who exactly are the "job creators"? I have never worked for a poor man (except myself).
TheRedneck
"don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."