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.
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
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
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...