It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.


Yet, you would allow crony capatilistic corporation get away for free? There is no free market when government and business colludes to set regulations favorable to maintain the staus quo! While I understand you belief in relieving corporations of taxes which they already don't pay I fail to see your logic that would actually benefit the people or government? If anything this would free resources to buy up more government and corrupt the system even more.

The problem is that the country moved away from limiting corporations in scope and time as the founding fathers did. Remember, the colonialists not only fought the British Empire but their corporate syndicate as well......

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by Americanist

Jobs will alter to mirror machines with an efficiency and touch ratio measured against milliseconds as we've seen inside larger hubs. Say I drink green tea and urinate more frequently. How about I save myself a firing, and start with a... Hell no.

How about you make a point in words I can understand. I have no earthly idea what you are trying to say here, and I simply don't have two hours to watch a video. If I did, I can think of a couple dozen movies I would prefer to see.

"Touch ratio"? "Green tea"? Rephrase, please?


posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by JBA2848

First of all, there is a huge difference between a C-corp like GE or Monsanto or WalMart and an S-corp. S-corps cannot be publicly traded and are privately held, and as such pay no taxes. They are essentially liability restrictions for the owners, as opposed to C-corps which can be publicly traded and conduct business completely independent of the owners. C-corps pay income taxes.

Secondly, not everyone pays those payroll taxes. Those who make their income from investments pay no FICA tax, just as Buffet pays no FICA tax on his investment income.

Third, the statement that Buffet pays himself a salary is misleading. He, as principle stockholder of an S-corp, had the company hire himself and set his own salary. The company pays him a salary of $100,000 which he was able to authorize because of his stock holdings in the company. According to that Forbes article, Warren Buffet pays himself a salary, which does mean he and his company pay payroll taxes on that salary.


posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

OK, gonna try this one more time...

Let's suppose I decide to open a business making a cheaper, more ecologically-friendly form of freon. I test my product out and it works. Now I find enough investors to open a small business making the stuff for sale. I will form a C-corp, for two reasons: one, I need a way to assure my investors that they will have some claim in the business; I do this by issuing them stock. Two, I need to make sure that if some blithering idiot drinks the freon, I don't lose everything I have in a court case. As a corporation, my personal assets are safe from such; the most anyone can get from a lawsuit is the value of the company.

Now everything is set. But I am going up against the mighty DuPont! DuPont has hundreds of times as many investors, and therefore enough money to hire some of the best business accountants in the country. I can't; I have one accountant who just graduated from college. So DuPont is able to pay zero taxes, while I pay the full 35% on everything I sell. So not only do I have higher production costs than DuPont would have for the same product, I also get to give 35% of everything I sell to the government while DuPont gives nothing to the government.

Everyone who receives dividends from either my company or DuPont is going to be required to pay personal income taxes on that money, so it will still get taxed. But I can barely eek out enough sales to make a reasonable living, while DuPont is enjoying record sales... all because I can't invest in more labor (jobs), better equipment, or advertising like DuPont does, because I pay that money to the government and they don't.

Drop that 35% tax, and suddenly I pay the same as DuPont. Yeah, I still have less equipment than DuPont does, but I can drop my prices and increase sales. Now I have a fighting chance t actually compete against a multinational corporation using my corporation. Now I can hire people because I have more income and my sales are going up. Now, maybe DuPont will drop their prices to compete with me.

And I still pay taxes every quarter, because I have to file personal income taxes, just like the DuPont investors do. Every penny made is still taxed. So the government still gets their income, more actually since everyone I hire also pays taxes, people get cheaper freon and more jobs, I get a better income from company profits... everyone wins except DuPont, who now has to deal with a competitor on a leveler playing field.

I don't know how to say it any simpler...


posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:42 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Bluesma

Actually, it is about France, but also about the attitude that allows such a proposition to be accepted. We have tended to focus on American politics, I'm afraid, but I am very interested in how this will affect France.


Well the fact that one of the many presidential candidates proposed it will not have any effect.
Because he is not likely get into the second tour at all, (him and his proposals have not gotten acceptance by the masses) there will most likely not be any effect at all.

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:51 AM
Here we go...

Originally posted by Ghost375
370k cap? That seems a little low.

10 million would be a pretty fair cap.

There's not a single damn reason why anyone needs multiple porsches, multiple mansions, and much more.

If I had a nickle for every time I've heard this worn out, illogical argument...well you'd probably have to cap my income.

First off, I'll address the issue of the seemingly arbitrary numbers being thrown around here. Why 10 million? Why not 15 million? And why 370k for that matter? Why don't we have our omniscient Federal government just calculate exactly how much is needed for you to survive, and tax anything above that - which is actually what they do in North Korea (and I hear it's working out great for them). That's your first problem. You assume that the central authority (or any singular authority, including the omniscient 'majority' in a pure Democracy) that collects taxes can somehow have all the knowledge in the world, and determine (objectively) what is 'fair' for someone to keep.

Secondly, on the whole issue of the Porsches/mansions/etc. I love how some people simply assume that every millionaire blows all their money on luxury goods. Every hear of investing? It's this neat trick where you give your money to someone else, so that they can use it to create/provide goods and services for a profit, and in return pay you for helping to fund their operations (which, as a side-effect, tends to create the demand for labor - jobs). You can also store your money in a bank, and provide more assets for that bank, which can in turn loan more money out to - say - someone who need to buy a home (I won't go in to the monstrosity of a 'big bank' system that we currently have, thanks in no small part to the Federal Reserve - that's a whole different animal).

Even if they did blow all their money on mansions and cars - a stupid move on their part - so what? Do you think that money just disappears into a black hole of caviar and cigar smoke? I'll give you a hint: somebody had to build that car - and that mansion - and they probably weren't a millionaire. But they wouldn't even have a job in the first place if that 'greedy millionaire' didn't have such extravagant tastes.

And there's not a single damn person who did so much work that he actually deserves those things.

And who exactly are you to decide what people 'deserve'? Tell me, oh mighty and all-knowing master, what is it that I deserve?

I think one of my favorite quotes from anyone is by Milton Friedman: "Look how people vote with their feet." It describes - very eloquently - how you can very easily see what kind of society people want to live in by where they go. For example, I attend a private university (no loans, and I didn't come 'from money'; I got here by my own hard work), and we have a relatively large portion of European/Asian foreign students who came to study here.

Let's take for example some students I know from Denmark - where higher education is free to any citizen. Why would they come here and pay for school when they could get it for free? Because the private university system in the United States is, by far, the best in the world and provides them the greatest opportunity for success.

As bad a shape as the US is in now, the immigration/visa waiting list - which is in part due to the incompetency of the Federal Government - is still on the order of millions. That data speaks volumes as well.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
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.

Pardon my French - no pun intended - but what the heck does "sitting on excess wealth" mean? Is it so bad that people are stuffing money into their mattresses again? See my above explanation on how banking and investment works.

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.

You don't have to force investors to become productive members of society - just remove the capital gains tax if you want more investment. And nothing 'enables' greed - you can't disable greed with taxes any more than you can create a moral obligation within someone with a law

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.

Ugh...again with the arbitrary numbers. Please see my above explanation on that.
edit on 19-4-2012 by CaptainIraq because: forgot the quotes

edit on 19-4-2012 by CaptainIraq because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Xeven
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.

Now, THAT is a true statement if I have EVER heard one!!!

Everyone screaming about "tax the rich" should read what you said, because you are exactly right. We could tax 100% of the money from everyone who makes above a certain amount and all that would happen is the government would find ways to waste it or pay it to themselves or their cronies somehow.

What we need is for them to take less from everyone. Period.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in