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

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

Source: macedoniaonline.eu...

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

While I think that $370,000 is way too low, I agree with the concept that Jean-Luc Mélenchon is proposing.

Healthy and well-balanced communities require a high degree of proudctivity, both collectively and individually. If certain individuals are "sitting on" excess wealth, then those resources are not being used productively and are simply going to waste.

The cap would force the wealthy to become productive members of the societies they live in and benefit from. They would choose between using their excess resources constructively or having it taken away.

The Pros:

- All excess wealth would be invested, given to charitable organizations, or used to compensate employees.

- Reduces the incentives and vehicles that enable greed and hoarding of resources.

I do think that an annual cap of $2,000,000 for individuals and up to $3,000,000 for people with children or dependents would be more than fair.

Invest, Employ, or Lose It.

reply to post by Germanicus

No, if I understand you correctly, you propose socialism.

And my post explains exactly what the benefits and consequences of socialism are, especially in a world which is dominated by capitalism. The problem is not that we are far apart in our ideologies; it is that you seemingly do not comprehend what a corporation is, how economics work (not under capitalism only, but in general), or what the real problems in the global economy are.

And capitalism has not failed; it has been sabotaged. It would be silly of me to place a Chevy in a car crusher and hold up the results as an example why Chevys are bad cars; thus it is silly of you to make your comment.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Germanicus

No, if I understand you correctly, you propose socialism.

And my post explains exactly what the benefits and consequences of socialism are, especially in a world which is dominated by capitalism. The problem is not that we are far apart in our ideologies; it is that you seemingly do not comprehend what a corporation is, how economics work (not under capitalism only, but in general), or what the real problems in the global economy are.

And capitalism has not failed; it has been sabotaged. It would be silly of me to place a Chevy in a car crusher and hold up the results as an example why Chevys are bad cars; thus it is silly of you to make your comment.

TheRedneck

Wow. You covered the benifits of capitalism and the failings of socialism in that short OP? I missed that. You must be some kind of genius. As I said,I considered your OP to be poor propaganda and to be honest,infantile.

I have destroyed you in this debate. You are defending a failed tired system. A system that is impossible to defend. So dont feel bad hey.

And I suggest nothing of the sort. You are confused again. And reaching.


And in my opinion it is you that has trouble with your comprehension.

reply to post by MaryStillToe

Nothing in the concept of income tax prevents "sitting on excess wealth" in any way. Nor does it provide any choice as to where the money will go.

All income tax does is diminish the return on investment. In this case, it would remove the return on investment, causing less people to be interested in investing. After all, why contribute to society when society has said they are taking any reward you get for doing so?

Back on page 1, slightlyskeptical posted an idea I am finding interesting: a tax not on income, but on estate size. That would better fit your goal of "use it or lose it", as there is no disincentive to producing income, but there is a disincentive to not producing income if one is above a certain wealth level.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

A corporation is not a person; it is a group of people pooling resources. Tax the people, but do not tax the group and the people in the group at the same time. Especially when the group tax becomes a benefit rather than an obligation.

A common misconception which again leads to consolidation of wealth considering the banking cartel - sector already provides an unfair advantage to the investment class with fictitious funds for backing.

The Citizens United ruling would also seem to disagree with your viewpoint. You don't fix the system by removing a tax bracket plus failing to address the criminal element in banking. This would only hasten the pace of the aforementioned.

The ultimate card to play... A resource based economy with infrastructure banking/ flat tax. Everyone shares - everyone contributes to the greater good. You promote firm resolve and core principles. Not some hedge fund manager who's bet against our very way of life.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Mélenchon doesn't have a chance, he won't come out of the first tour. I am betting it will come down to Sarkozy and Hollande... and together at Sunday family lunch today, we pretty much decided we'll leave the country if Hollande wins.

The thing is, the left wing has always clamoured for this kind of nonsense. And from what I understand, they already tried these things and found out it doesn't work. MOST people understand that here. But there is always a part of the population that clings to them- a lot of school teachers and young people influenced by them, to have a revolted opinion of authority in any sense.

The thing is, their philosophy is that "only the rich can afford to be moral or ethical", therefore they have the responsibility to do so. To be an example of altruism for the lower masses to aspire to.

We americans would say that is done through the process of providing jobs for the people, and in adjusting their prices and quality in a way that benefits the consumer (a natural process of the free market).

But here is where I think they don't see that as possible-
-The jobs are going to places like India and China, not France, because that makes for bigger profits. (capitalism)
-The smaller businesses do not make it in their start because of the big corporations they must compete with, resulting in just a few giant corporations who hog the market. Even in large grocery stores, the check out is being done by computers- in every aspect technology is taking over the employment.

So what they were supposed to be giving to the community in terms of jobs, is null.
The power the consuming public was supposed to be getting through diversity and choice in the markets is null- they have virtually no choices.

This idea of taxing even more the rich is supposed to replace the part in society that they played in the past and now don't.

I do not agree with this, I think as you do, that it would have disasterous consequences in other ways. I've been a business owner here and know what it is like already, which is very very hard on business owners. It is much better to be an employee in this country... but then, there is the shortage of employment happening.

But if one wanted to change their minds on this idea, one would have to acknowledge what their concerns are and offer some alternative solutions to them besides that.

Me, I am without hope, and think the EU is going to blow up and we're all going to sink in an economic f*ckall, no matter what we do. But just for the sake of argument, I guess we could brainstorm.


editted to say- I just had jumped and responded with my thoughts when I read the OP- I apologize if it is out of sync with however the discussion has evolved since that point!

reply to post by Americanist

The Citizens United ruling would also seem to disagree with your viewpoint. You don't fix the system by removing a tax bracket plus failing to address the criminal element in banking. This would only hasten the pace of the aforementioned.

So... let me understand this. My post was in response to the abuse of the corporate tax brackets and their use to benefit the very corporations responsible for the complaints herein... so you support them paying negative tax rates?

I'm sorry; I do not. So I guess we disagree.

The ultimate card to play... A resource based economy with infrastructure banking/ flat tax. Everyone shares - everyone contributes to the greater good. You promote firm resolve and core principles. Not some hedge fund manager who's bet against our very way of life.

Those are pretty words, but I see no specifics. I only see desires without contemplation as to how they will be implemented.

We have quite enough of that from the present US government, I'm afraid.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by onthedownlow

 

The last person that should be explaining how captalism works is a socialist, especially a hardcore marxist!

Why is that? You dont think a Marxist can understand capitalism? Why is that? Karl Marx predicted this.

And I am no marxist let alone a "hardcore Marxist!" And I really do not appreciate your mccarthyism. You are being silly.

You seem to have missed my point! You are a slave to the system, but you desire to increase the servitude in favor of more benifts. You would like to hand any and all controls over to the government because you think that the government can apply them more liberally. You complain about the bloated socialist spending in Europe but you suggest this can be corrected how? By nationalizing industry? Yor new leader will lead what kind of government?

reply to post by TheRedneck

So... let me understand this. My post was in response to the abuse of the corporate tax brackets and their use to benefit the very corporations responsible for the complaints herein... so you support them paying negative tax rates?

Remove the corporate income tax altogether!

Our positions: I support a flat tax - You support removing a tax.

The former would close any loopholes. The latter, well... Free-for-all coupled with a debtor World population.

Those are pretty words, but I see no specifics. I only see desires without contemplation as to how they will be implemented.

Banking is both insolvent and fraudulent. The answer I'm looking for is receivership. It would take roughly 12 months to unravel the usury system in place now.

reply to post by Germanicus

I considered your OP to be poor propaganda and to be honest,infantile.

I am sorry to hear that.

My purpose in presenting this thread was to show how far some will go to redistribute wealth, and make no mistake, right or wrong, that is what we are discussing here. My opinion following the story is based on what I know of history, both from textbooks and from personal experience (I am an old guy), and from my lifetime of observations on human behavior.

I have observed in that lifetime that humans act in their own self-interest, and moreso when they are impoverished. This does not prohibit acts of kindness, however, since those themselves can be seen as in self-interest when they give the donor a feeling of pleasure. Some receive more pleasure from helping others than others do, and the degree of aid to others always rises in proportion to the individual feeling of personal sufficiency.

Without that dynamic, your plans might be considerably more realistic; you choose however to ignore them. So be it. It is interesting that although you claim you have 'won' the debate (when in actuality is those who read our retorts who have the honor of making that decision), yet resort to phrases such as 'infantile'.

Good luck with your plans of world domination. I have a feeling you may need all of it you can get.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Americanist

Fair enough. Flat tax versus removal of Corporate tax.

I have one major problem with the flat tax, and that is that it is more biased to the benefit of those with great wealth and less for those impoverished. Let me explain:

If I am making $10,000 a year and the flat tax rate is, say, 10% (I have heard reports it would need to be 20% to balance the US budget, but let's be generous), I pay $1000 in tax. That leaves me a mere $9000, when even the full $10,000 was not enough to feed my family.

Someone making $1,000,000 a year will pay substantially more than I will, $100,000, but they will still have $900,000 left... plenty to sustain a very comfortable lifestyle in most areas of the world.

Now that is a fair percentage, but it still has the disadvantage I mentioned in the earlier debate: those in desperate need are given no assistance to move back into a position of being assets instead of detriments to society. The uber-wealthy as well have no restrictions placed on their continued growth, and thus we have runaway capitalism.

Our present system, loopholes excluded, does do something to help those in need and restrain those in continual growth. The standard deduction allows those with meager incomes to escape the tax penalty on income, while the progressive rate brackets place some restraint on those who are experiencing unbridled success. In short, it acts as an accelerator to those in poverty and a brake to those in extreme wealth. The problem lies with the loopholes, not with the structure.

To reuse my example above, under our present system (loopholes excluded), the poor man making $10,000 pays nothing while the wealthy man making $1,000,000 pays $280,000 (assuming a 28% tax bracket).

Now, to my idea of removing the corporate tax structure entirely: it has nothing to do with equalizing tax rates among citizens. It has everything to do with removing olne of those loopholes I mentioned above. If there is no income tax for corporations, there are also no income tax credits for corporations, and the income is still taxed when it is realized by the owners.

That allows corporations to grow, the smaller moreso than the larger (allowing for more competition), and in the process creates jobs in a more open marketplace. Jobs decrease the number of individuals who require government assistance and allow them to begin paying taxes as well. All this then fills government coffers and actually reduces the deficit while allowing more people to have a higher standard of living.

Now none of this is going to do any real good unless we also curb out-of-control government spending. To parrot Ron Paul, we need to stop trying to police the planet and stop supporting every third-world dictatorship disguised as a democracy that smiles at us the right way. We need to enforce the border laws to prevent our internal security from becoming heinous on the citizenship rather than spending orders of magnitude more on internal security. We need to stop the extreme waste and duplicity that all governmental offices have in such excess. And most of all, we need to start holding our politicians feet to the fire and looking at situations in the light of what's good for the country as a whole instead of what's good for me right now.

So there is no flat tax versus removal of the corporate tax; they are separate issues.

TheRedneck

This French Presidential election is turning out to be rather interesting. I recall reading somewhere that two European countries would be expected to turn towards the far-left and far-right if this economic crisis persisted for long, those two nations were France and Greece. Such a scenario seems likely at this point as the French far-right, Marine Le Pen (Front National), and far-left, Jean-Luc Melenchon (Left Party), are more popular than is usually expected.

Remember, this is not saying that either will become President or even make it to the second round of voting. But rather the combined total share of their votes, the enthusiasm towards these candidates, and the hostility directed at France’s two main parties could spell a future of growing political tension and radicalization. I do not particularly object to this radicalization, for we in the West have been dealing with a center-left and center-right which are completely interchangeable and a threat to our civilization. Anything to shake up the current situation should be encouraged. All who know my views though understood which radicalized side I prefer – by far.

Now while this Jean-Luc Melenchon guy may be gaining in the polls, it will likely surprise people that he is in fourth place among voters age 18-24. According to the latest CSA poll published by Le Monde it shows Marine Le Pen with 26%, Francois Hollande with 25%, Nicolas Sarkozy with 17%, and Jean-Luc Melenchon with 16%. The youth in many European countries are turning out in favor of more nationalistic parties. It happened in Hungary with Jobbik, Austria has the Freedom Party reaching almost 50% among youth and surely in other nations as well.

As for my opinion of Melenchon’s economic proposal, I obviously disagree with it because I object to ocholocracy and such expansion of the state’s power. People are upset with the financial crisis and the perceived instigators of it (the rich) but we must keep our heads on straight. Taking 100% of money earned over $370,000 is not going to help anyone except for the state. People want to keep arguing over socialism this and capitalism that, both are aimed at the same ends – excess profit and power for a select few at the expense of the many. Both do it in the name of freedom, both do it in the name of equality (equal opportunity/equal outcome), and both will bring about the same results.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MaryStillToe

Nothing in the concept of income tax prevents "sitting on excess wealth" in any way. Nor does it provide any choice as to where the money will go.

Actually it would provide a choice to where the money will go because charitable contributions and expenses are deductions from income. If there was a $2M cap and a person reached $3M. They woud rather give the excess $1M to charity or reward their employees in bonuses for jobs well done. Also they could use the money to reinvest in the business to buy new equipment or create more jobs. All of these things would help stimulate the economy and give control to the person who made the money and not the government. If the person would rather leave it up to the government, then they write a check. If people would simply do the right thing, it reduces the need for government oversight and control.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MaryStillToe

All income tax does is diminish the return on investment. In this case, it would remove the return on investment, causing less people to be interested in investing. After all, why contribute to society when society has said they are taking any reward you get for doing so?

Back on page 1, slightlyskeptical posted an idea I am finding interesting: a tax not on income, but on estate size. That would better fit your goal of "use it or lose it", as there is no disincentive to producing income, but there is a disincentive to not producing income if one is above a certain wealth level.

TheRedneck

While an income tax can not retrospectively go back and remove wealth already amassed, it would help crorrcect the problem going forward.

If we tax wealth and not income, what is to stop someone from making millions or billions and then renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country that does not tax wealth?

Instead, it's better to address the problem upfront at the start. Taxing income would force those pursuing great amounts of wealth to be more productive in their communities over longer periods of time. You are not going to be rich for your whole life by having a one time annual income of $2M. A person who wants to be wealthy would need to amass income consistently over a number of years. This would benefit society because the people who run businesses would need to adopt policies and practices that are aimed at creating long-term success. It would result in greater economic stability.

At a $2M cap, a single person would have to earn the cap max for 40 years to gross $80M. After taxes and living expenses, it could be a lot or a little left over depending on lifestyle choices. If necessary, inheritance and estate taxes can be adjusted to stop any one individual from inheriting more than $10 million in their lifetime.

reply to post by MaryStillToe

Actually it would provide a choice to where the money will go because charitable contributions and expenses are deductions from income.

Is there not a cap on the amount of deductions one can take for charity, like there is in the US? Also, in the US, many people use the charity loophole to cheat the tax system anyway, by donating to charities they themselves set up and control (sometimes through use of family members and sometimes through paid associates). So there is a loophole that already exists to allow those who "work the system" to get away with hiding more wealth.

If we tax wealth and not income, what is to stop someone from making millions or billions and then renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country that does not tax wealth?

What is to prevent them from doing just that to skirt the income tax? It is already being done; it is one big reason why so many corporations in the US have moved overseas (and took their jobs with them).

At least with wealth, a large part of which is typically in real estate, that real estate cannot be moved away.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Germanicus

No, if I understand you correctly, you propose socialism.

And my post explains exactly what the benefits and consequences of socialism are, especially in a world which is dominated by capitalism. The problem is not that we are far apart in our ideologies; it is that you seemingly do not comprehend what a corporation is, how economics work (not under capitalism only, but in general), or what the real problems in the global economy are.

And capitalism has not failed; it has been sabotaged. It would be silly of me to place a Chevy in a car crusher and hold up the results as an example why Chevys are bad cars; thus it is silly of you to make your comment.

TheRedneck

You've failed in stating that we live in a Capitalist system, we don't.

Perhaps we did once, but that period was extremely brief.

The true indicator that Capitalism is dead is the bailing out of a corporation or bank. It is NOT capitalism for the government or the people to bail out any business. That goes directly against the very principle of capitalism!

Every time this is pointed out to a capitalist they ignore it. So what is your response?

Do you or do you not agree that capitalism is defined by people rising and falling on their own successes and failures, or do you believe that capitalism is bailing out business men who fail through greed and corruption?

Is it only capitalism when it suits you?

You're presenting an opinion that is against socialism and for capitalism, but you're neglecting the fact that the tax payers bailing out the banks and corporations is not capitalism and IS socialism!

So which is it? You can't have both depending on who is winning and who is loosing at any given moment.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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?

Orrrrr....they spread their earnings more equally through the people, come in 269K a year and dont pay the tax.
Orr maybe they make so much, the hit isnt that terrible. Orrrr the people say "screw him" and start making the product in true co-operative, sharing the profits and losses equally. Your way is not the only way.

I say, if they want to leave the country with their money, let them. Let them go live in China or Pakistan or some other god forsaken country where you can assault the poor locals...they dont get to stay in my country and use my infrastructure then cheap out on taxes. If you want to abuse workers, go live in their country.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Fair enough. Flat tax versus removal of Corporate tax.

I have one major problem with the flat tax, and that is that it is more biased to the benefit of those with great wealth and less for those impoverished. Let me explain:

I gave you a star for that, but even using your logic, I dont understand why you think corporations paying no tax would be better than corporations paying 10%. They use our roads, fire departments, police departments, national security, air travel, all of our American, subsidized amenities.....and then dont want to pay any tax at all on the wealth they extract from our system? That seems like dirty pool.

reply to post by detachedindividual

You've failed in stating that we live in a Capitalist system, we don't.

I have apparently failed in expressing my opinion on that point.

You are correct. What we live in today is a perverted shadow of what some in this society has turned capitalism into. While the basics remain in place, actions like generational welfare programs, a cornucopia of regulations on every imaginable business model, never-ending taxation and fees, and of course the bailing out of private enterprises by governmental powers attests to the fact that all that are left are the barest of basics. Everything else is a perversion.

I hope that answers your question?

TheRedneck

reply to post by aching_knuckles

I have two reasons behind my stance:

• Fairness: corporate earnings as it is now are taxed twice. Corporations are not people; they are groups of people working together. The present system taxes them once when they make the money and again when they divide it up. I say tax should be charged once, not twice.
  
  
• The post I responded to was a list of the major corporations who payed less than zero tax already under the present system, and it read like a who's who of big business. The advantage big business has right now is that they hire accountants and tax attorneys to show them how to do this while smaller businesses can't afford to do so and have to pay tax. That raises their operating costs and makes it that much harder for them to compete with large corporations.
  
  By removing the corporate tax, we ensure that no business will ever owe negative taxes. We also remove a hindrance to smaller companies competing with larger ones and thus allow the market to more freely regulate itself. It's not as good as enforcing anti-trust laws, but it is a step in the right direction.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

And influence government, law, policies - dominate markets and gain more control over
more and more people. Some of the largest have become above the law and recklessly
destroy people, economies, environment in their conquest for profit.