100% tax rate in the polls as we speak (France).

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Well, well, well... this is interesting news...


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.
Source: macedoniaonline.eu...

Now, I know this guy is running in third place, and I know this is in France, but I also know that many of the things we tend to take as 'proper' were just as unthinkable not so very long ago. So maybe this story, while not of the same importance as, say, asteroids doing flybys or earthquake trends, does need to be exposed.

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%?

Now, I realize we must all pay taxes in some form or another. Taxation is necessary for a structured society, and it goes without saying that taxation should be apportioned according to some concept of fairness and equity. But how far is too far? Is 100% capable of being considered fair or equitable under any possible circumstances? In 1773, the Boston Tea Party was staged over an "excessive" luxury tax of 10%.

Any successful business owner knows the best method to get people to come to your business is to make doing so easy, comfortable, and convenient. Businesses spend long hours and extensive resources deciding where to place a business to attract the most customers. They tailor their stores to customers tastes to entice them to enter. They reduce prices when an item is not selling, preferring to get something out of their investment rather than nothing.

But all this seems to go out of the window when government gets involved. We try to punish those who succeed through higher taxes, class warfare, and restrictions. At the same time we reward those who choose to fail through entitlements and give-away programs. What are we trying to accomplish? It would appear we are trying as a society to force the wealthy to be poor, but once the wealthy are poor as well who will then fund the programs the poor rely on?

Sometimes humans confuse me...

TheRedneck




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I have lineral views most of the time. The rediculas thing about these tax hikes on the rich are they don't get money to the working poor they just get more money to the government... Without cuts and laws to improve paying people who work a decent wage all these tax hikes do is give the government more money to waste.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Hell yeah!

Im waiting for the next great leader to emerge.

He will come from Europe.

Its time to make the apple drop.

Conditions are perfect.

Edit- HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)


"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall" (Che Guevara)
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)


You corporatist cheerleaders must be getting scared hey.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
So all that money will go to the governement. What a surprise.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus

"corporatist cheerleaders"?

You do realize what a corporation is, right? It's nothing more than a group of people who do something together to make income. Some do bad things, just as some people do bad things. Should we outlaw all businesses?

You do realize that corporations in the US pay tax twice, right? Once when they make the money, and once when they give it to the people who own it in the first place. A good parallel would be if everyone, after paying withholding taxes all year long, were told that was a different tax and they now have to pay it again on April 15th. Are you in favor of that?

You do realize that, unlike government, corporations do not force you to pay them anything, right? Everything you buy from a business is bought because you chose to buy it. No one gets to choose whether or not to pay taxes.

You do realize that a huge number of people in this country live on retirement savings, right? Those savings are invested in corporations, and this fixed income that so many people depend on depends on how well the corporations they are partial owners of are doing.

Methinks you should perhaps do a little research into exactly what it is you advocate. I doubt seriously you intend to advocate the lack of even more jobs, the lack of all the social conveniences we enjoy, the lack of anyone to pay for these social programs we seem to demand, and the lack of any income for those who have worked and sacrificed their entire lives to eek out a meager retirement.

At least, I hope you do not advocate those things.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Protostellar
So all that money will go to the governement. What a surprise.


We should just continue to funnel it to the top hey


They need to do something drastic in France. They are tied in heavily with the debt of of Greece,Spain,Portugal. they also got a credit downgrade recently.They also dont have the luxury of being avle to adjust their currency.

But I guess they could just sit back and wait for the IMF to force crippling Austerity on the people of France,lose all sovereignty and bow down before their IMF Bankster overlords.


Its no game.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
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)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Here you go buddy. A solution for America. A recent post of mine from another thread.

Yeah,I hate the Banksters. Its insane that they have been bailed out with your money. They steal from the taxpayer to give to the elite. Its welfare for the rich. And the bonus's,golden shandshakes.

Then the corporatism.When the Founding Fathers freed themselves from the British government,they were freeing themselves from the banks and corporations just as much.They knew corporations had to be kept in check.Incorperation is a privilege. Initially all corporations were selected to enable activities that benifited the public.Shareholders were only enabled to profit as a means to an end.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.

Right now,the US Federal Government could preempt all 'state corporate law' under the courts current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.You could get around the Tenth Amendment and get them all out of Delaware.Corporate Personhood mocks the Bill of Rights and could also be removed.The Founding Fathers would remove it. Its not like your leaders couldnt fix things if they tried. And it could be done within your constitution.


And in my opinion you are a poor propagandist or you are very confused..

You should concentrate on America. Your Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they could read this thread of yours.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

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)


I think you are an alarmist McCarthyist. Have you not seen Greece,Spain,Portugal on the news? What the IMF is doing to them? You want France to sit back and allow that to happen?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


I remember having my first beer while I was on the internet, too.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Protostellar
reply to post by Germanicus
 


I remember having my first beer while I was on the internet, too.

Great comeback. Good points too


On topic- These people are not 'job creators'. We dont need them,they need us. Stop listening to MSM and look harder.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


And there are millions just like me. We are better informed because we have to be. This worship of corporatism is in its last throes. If you think people will read a thread like this and start cheering for their own demise you are sadly mistaken.

Its the dawn of a new age. A Great Leader will emerge from the tradgedy that is Europe.It will snowball. We are coming.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


100 percent tax rate. Isn't that called Communism?
Honestly, I have to run to Church, but will read your post in awhile.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
We should tax wealth and not income and then only at the point where wealth exceeds a 'prudent man" standard. I would put that amount at about $2.5 million. Tax would also apply to corporations.

Wealth under $2.5 million - no taxation
$2.5 million - $7.5 million - 1% annual wealth tax
$7.5 million - $17.5 million - 2% annual wealth tax
$17.5 million- $47.5 million - 3% annual wealth tax
$47.5 million- $100 million - 4% annual wealth tax
$100 million - $500 million - 5% annual wealth tax
$500 million - $1 trillion - 7.5% annual wealth tax
$1 trillion and above - 10% annual wealth tax

Such a plan would fund all the governemnts in the world.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus

Yeah,I hate the Banksters. Its insane that they have been bailed out with your money.

Agreed, completely! I have never been a supporter of the bailouts; on the contrary, I believe my posting history will state quite the opposite. I actually cast a vote for Obama last election (to my eternal shame) because of McCain's statement before the election that the bailouts could be done simply by Executive Order.


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.

As they should be. The problem there is one of practicality. Because corporations are owned by people, the prohibition against corporate financial influence was skirted by simply using corporate stockholders to make the contributions. Thus I consider this to be a moot point.

What is not a moot point is that the anti-trust laws we had for so long, the same laws used to breakup Standard Oil, Ma Bell, and a host of other monopolies are no longer enforced. This leads to unrestricted growth beyond what is favorable for any save the uber-wealthy, as well as to the concept of "too big to fail" (which I see as "too big to exist"). Thus, it is not the existence of corporations that is the problem, but the existence of corporations large enough to exert improper public influence.

The same phenomenon can be seen in the government; when a government becomes too big, too intrusive, too greedy, that government is not "too big to fail", but "too big to exist". And the whole problem then boils down to a government that is willing to allow corporate interests to influence them against the will of the people and the principles they were founded upon.

100% tax... who receives this tax? The government who is large enough and intrusive enough to even suggest this. This does not stop corporatism; this transfers it to the government outside of any semblance of economic responsibility.

The problem is not corporatism; corporatism is a necessary evil to be restrained. The problem is with government, another necessary evil which is to be restrained, and is the tool used to restrain corporatism. To simply scream generally about corporations does no good; we need to reinstate the controls which have worked in the past. In my vernacular, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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%?



It's a numbers game. If there were 100 people and you wanted 50% or greater of their vote what is the best way to get it? If we say 35% are poor/lower middle class, 40% are middle class, 20% are upper middle class, and 5% are rich then all we need to do is say we want to take money from the top "evil" 25% and give it to the lower 75%, and oh the richer you are the more we take and the poorer you are the more we will give....just a numbers game.

We could play this too with the poor...

Let's make the poor work 60 hours per week and tax 75% of their pay checks. A part of that tax will provide them with a 500 sq ft living apartment, transportation to work, a very healthy mix of mush 3 meals per day...not to exceed the perfect daily calorie intake. What more could they possibly need in life, hell we might as well tax them 90% since they really would not need it.....

Be kind of hard to get votes with that platform, but might as well be the same logic being applied to the 'evil rich".


edit on 15-4-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The trouble with tax is that we are all over taxed, if I remember rightly someone once worked out that out of every £ you earned here in the UK 90%+ ends back in the government coffers, what with income tax, national insurance, council rates, super high taxes on Petrol, cigs, alcohol and value added tax and all the other stealth taxes, it really is an outrage,

I don't really think the rich should be taxed extra, even though I am fairly poor. I just think they need to pay the same percentage as everyone else and deal with tax avoidance. You can't nail someone to the floor just for being successful, they would only get around it anyway, pay themselves the $370, 000 or what ever it is and then filter the money through shares in the company, paying dividends which the French cant tax.,

The only thing that will change the system is killing off the central banks and the stock exchange. That is where the damage is really done. The solution is not in the pockets of a few rich people, it with the people that control the money



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

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


Well the thing is corpoarations are parasitic. They destroy economies. Not save them. Look at America. The host has almost been sucked dry. There is no way your Founding Fathers would have allowed this to happen to your once great country. The reason you have high unemployment is the multi-national corporation's have no sovereignty. They do not care about your country. They delight in outsourcing jobs oversea's.In exploiting cheap foreign labour.They care not about the misery that they inflict upon your nation. Profit is their god.

This is why the Founding Father's made sure they were kept in check. It is not their right to incorporation, it should be a priviledge. We should not be beholden to them but them to us. They need our markets. We do not need them. All they do is monopolise markets and desroy opportunity. Its not just the low paid worker that suffers it is everyone. Small Business cannot compete. Fewer jobs mean's less at the top which is why you have so many college educated people working in the services industry and as janitors. This is why you have Tent Cities.

We need to take back control of the marketplace. We need to ensure that corporations have a social conscience and benifit the public interest.

And I know nationalization is a bit too scary for you American's but imagine nationalizion of the oil industry just for a start. And I dont mean phoney corporatist nationalizion like Obama care. I mean real nationalization. American's are coming closer to this option.Even Bill OReilly suggested something similar as a way of keeping fuel prices down.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





"don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."


What is going to happen is we burn the whole thing down. Burn it to the ground and salt the earth. Then we will rise like a pheonix. (peacfully of course/figuratively)

And I could not disagree more. The reason people like you can point to government and scare scared American's with words like 'socialism' and communiism' is because your governments are the corporations. Who do you think funds the duopoly? Corporations. They work for corporation's. Not for the people. That will end. And soon.

Fear Austerity. Not some ism
edit on 15-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join