French 'Millionaire's Tax' Gets Constitutional Go-Ahead

No. You are thoroughly uninformed. A number of causes underlies most things, and while cheap money had more than one, the key in the US was the Fed's decision in the light of the failed Tax Cuts for the Rich to maintain the post-9/11 interest rate target of 1% over the long-run -- i.e., until economic activity picked up. That began the chain of events previously outlined HERE. To summarize, the crisis was caused by the knowing and deliberate actions of greedy cowboy capitalists on Wall Street and the god-awful fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies of a braindead business-favoring administration that not only allowed but encouraged the calamity in its evolution.

Consumption is what creates demand. No demand, no production, no jobs, no investment. Your economics are simply abysmal.

That's an identity. I don't guess that you'd understand the implications. Any idea why savings rates would fall when real wages are declining? No? I'm not really surprised.

No, you don't understand the debt either. Relevant US Treasury securities have a fixed interest rate determined at the time of auction. That same rate applies over the life of a note. If the rate is 2.625% at issue and it is a ten-year note, the rate payable will be 2.625% over all of those ten years regardless of what subsequent auctions or the secondary markets might say or do.

There was no housing crisis until there was a financial crisis. The financial; crisis grew up between 2002 and 2006 as a bunch of unregulated private brokers and wildcat bank affiliates wrote more and more bad mortgage paper into newly developing credit markets, relying on no-standards Wall Street securitizers, crooked appraisers, and overwhelmed ratings agencies to earn huge profits and bonuses by marketing worse and worse crap into secondary markets as if it were AAA. When interest rates began to rise in mid-2004, the notes based on those loans began to fail. By the Spring of 2006, interest rates and the housing market had peaked, accelerating the rate of note failures. The horses were out of the barn. Mounting note failures were amplified by systemic risk that led to systemic distrust and a credit crisis in the Summer of 2007 that then bled out from Wall Street to Main Street, resulting in asset market collapses (there's your housing crisis), the Great Recession of 2007-09, and slow, Republican-plagued, recovery since.

 

Yes, rightists have a habit of insulting people when they run out of answers.

I am glad that is not your focus because percentage-wise of their income that is not true.

Yes, as a percentage of their income but you actually had the gall to say that was not true.

What deceitful people these rightists are.

How deceitful. The rich got the most from these tax cuts, invested it in Ponzi schemes and the House of Cards. The rest of Americans have been paying for that ever since. Did the tax cuts give us full employment and better wealth distribution? No. Did the tax cuts give more profits to the wealthy? Yes.

We have shown charts for the last 30 years showing this "transfer". Only clown rightists deny that.

I understand that. The last thing that you want to happen is for the truth to get out.


Now, can you get back on topic of the thread. The topic is that there may be a way to discourage high compensation by taxing companies that do it.

Of course it is not about taxing millionaires more on their income. That is a rightist's lie to avoid the real purpose of the tax. Companies who want to continue to pay more to their executives can still do it. The tax is to discourage companies from doing that or, at least, thinking about whether the executives are really worth the compensation.

You should talk the facts in the OP instead of always trying to ignore it.

 

For some reason, the right doesn't get this. Demand drives the need for more jobs, creating more demand. Strategic investment in infrastructure creates more jobs, more demand and better competitiveness. Investment in schemes does nothing for Americans. Investment in other countries does nothing for Americans.

The right claims that "uncertainty" has slowed the investment in jobs at the same time that they obstruct any effort to increase demand.

 

Your graph also shows the rightist's argument about the tax cuts increase tax revenue has no relevancy. Tax revenues did not increase enough to meet the expenditures, thus still increasing the debt.

 

My mistake, the usage of the quote: "Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure" had me thinking you were opposed to government trampling the rights of individuals, but you meant that you are opposed to government transgressing the rights of the majority [ins democracy here].

We have differing opinions of what constitutes liberty, that's neat

 

FACT: Marginal propensity to consume DECLINES as income rises. Shifting money upward along the income scale reduces its velocity. This again is why the Bushie Tax Cuts for the Rich failed.
　

The stupid will do as they will. I can lead these donkeys to water, but I can't make them drink.
　

Hahahahaha!!! First of all, business investment is principally funded from either debt or retained earnings, not rich people. Second of all, and particularly in a down economy, the wealthy are apt to remove their filthy lucre from the real economy entirely, sending it off instead to the coffe-can, summer camp, sideshow tent of the financial economy. There, money just chases little pieces of paper around all day. It creates no new demand, no new jobs, no new output, and no new growth.
　

Your gods would have to trade up in order to have feet of clay. About 98% of small businesses contribute a net nothing to the economy at all. In large numbers, they simply fail and then suck off the generous teat of corporate welfare called business bankruptcy. The fruits of big business are meanwhile not accomplished by either CEO's or stockholders, but rather by designers, engineers, and factory workers, the bulk of whom may well reside in some foreign country. Want to be an iPhone design engineer? Move to Sao Paulo.
　

So you don't actually understand what either "marginal" or "propensity" mean. That's great, Einstein. The only shooting being done here has been directed into your own feet. Take out some insurance. Look stuff up before you post and make yourself look like a complete idiot.
　

Anyone who knew the first thing about economics would recognize "marginal propensity to consume" as a standard macro metric. Your complaint here only underscores your lack of exposure to and understanding of the subject.
　

No, that isn't correct either. The background velocity is not zero. If a person spends more slowly than the existing background -- say he was rich or something -- then velocity would decline.

Correct. There is high stimulative bang-for-the-buck in programs like SNAP and UI benefits because the recipients both spend them quickly, and spend them by turning them over to others who will also spend them quickly. This is pretty basic stuff not to know.
　

Hmmm. A lot of us actually ARE on the wealthy side. You don't seem to have a very firm grip on the reality here either.
　

It's fairly simple. Why don't you google it or something? That would be more productive than advertising your ignorance yet again. To help get you started, the real economy deals with things like jobs, raw materials, and outputs. The financial economy deals with things like stock indexes, bank interest, and exchange rates.
　

Dude, it just flies around in there all day doing nothing constructive at all. There are no real world effects until money is withdrawn from the financial economy again.
　

They were heavily tilted tioward the rich. That's why they were called Tax Cuts for the Rich from the outset. On a normal course, Treasury receipts hit a new historical high every year. Unfortunately even in nominal terms, receipts declined in 2001, 2002, and 2003. In real terms, the receipts curve was shifted to the right by about four years. That is, receipts that should have been realized in 2001 didn't show up until 2005. The Bush tax cuts were an unmitigated disaster.
　

What word then would you like to apply to a persistent decline in income and wealth going to levels outside of the top tiers of income and wealth?
　

Many irrational people can make that claim. Nothing to back it up though. Fish out of water when it comes to that.

 

There is quite a long list of things that these people don't get. Baseless rant, they seem to have figured out, but things break down rather quickly after that.

Exactly. A decision-maker would not hire new workers or ramp up production schedules unless he believed that a market existed somewhere with demand sufficent to assure that the marginal product to be produced could be sold at a profit. Demand is the key to everything. Finding it is one of the chief reasons why market research is done.

Those who need certainty in order to run a business should be prohibited from running one. It will NOT turn out well. Running a business is a game of dealing with uncertainty. This is the central characteristic of the job.

 

Yet another frequent but entirely bone-headed and empty right-wing claim. Tax cuts always result in lower revenues than what would have been realized if the tax cut had not been enacted. There are no contrary examples. Under the best possible circumstances. the national income effects of an income tax cut might offset as much as 30% the first order losses. The remaining 70% still sits there, staring you in the face. There is no actual debate of this point. Only disinformed fools contest it.

 

I am glad a government recognizes the value to taxing their citizenry according to thier worth, under any form of Capitalism.

 

So was Adam Smith.

 

Which do you like, working or resting?

 

Any particular reason for your potential, false dichotomy?

 

Finding another way?

 

I guess it could mean anything you want it to mean. Simply put, I look at the government (professional corporate sock puppets) in its present state as the fox slyly convincing the majority (gullible citizens) that it has all the answers and will protect the chickens (the nations wealth, credit, and future) for them. When the chickens begin to disappear, the fox never admits to wrong doing, only attempts to get more chickens to replace the ones he (and his masters, banking system, wall street, and mega corporate interests) has already consumed, so there will be more, ripe for the pickings. The fox never worries about having to work hard again to obtain a chicken because he has an endless supply, handed to him, on a proverbial silver platter.

The best government corporate money can buy, isn't a solution, but the problem. Government is a tool of the rich/elites, and the people are the marks in the con.

As long as the people are convinced they need the government, and continue to over look its corrupt nature, always giving it the benefit of the doubt, the disease (corruption) will never be isolated and/or removed.

 

Your further comments suggest otherwise.

 

Prediction: it will have no effect on "fixing" the finances of the French government. The politicians will simply spend more.

 

What objecion can there be to taxing persons according to their worth, under any form of Capitalism but not necessarily any form of Socialism?

 

This whole thread is not about taxing a person more or less. It is about taxing a company that pays high compensations.

I notice how hard it has been for the right to understand what the topic really is. Is it because they can't argue about that topic? They want to talk about how much real money that the top 1% pays in taxes. But they constantly avoid and ignore talking about the percentage of income versus their actual wealth.

The right must be really upset about an attempt to correct wealth distribution that they are willing to lie about the topic.

 

I believe articial persons should bear any unemployment taxes.

 

Me asking you for specifics about your logic "suggests otherwise"?

Man up and defend your positions rather than being a dismissive putz

 

The so-called market you keep referring too is artificially stimulated by over 40 years of government manipulation, and deliberate interfering, to the point it has become destructive.

Taking advantage of the situation (monopolized industries, the illegal alien invasion, outsourcing, free trade with economies that are in no way comparable with our own for the express purpose of gaining cheap labor that adds nothing to our own economy but creates unrealistic maximization of profits for a selective few, and over regulating to keep the competitive level hamstrung) doesn't help anything, and those profiteering from the destruction at everyone else and the nation itself expense, clearly shows who is is involved and taking advantage, and/or being given preferential treatment to survive.

Disregarding the effects of this "artificially stimulated market" as something other than what it is by politically motivated nimrods, will be the eventual downfall of this nation as a whole. Since you are pretty much a cheerleader for it's further demise, I can only assume you are either one of the profiteers, or an ignorant pawn/enabler, or more to the point, a blithering idiot, that continues to vote for one of the corporate owned parties, expecting different results than they have responsible for in the past several decades. I'll let you decide who/what you are, not my call.

Nit wits who assume the stance of it's just the "market" (snicker, snicker), and the hey "(*)(*)(*)(*) happens" mentality only perpetuates the lunacy of a stagnated/injured, and crippled economy that may never truly recover simply because of obstinate greed of those too large to fail, controlling the government. This pretty much explains why wealth for the richest of the rich has continued to rise over 30% since Obama, the best republicans democrats ever elected, took office, while the rest of the nation is continuing to falter.

This pretty much reenforces the fact that both parties are working for a small minority of rich/elitists, and they jointly, are the problem.

 

Agreed

Agreed. Except the manipulation of government for self serving benefits isn't exclusive to "monopolized industries" (more on that later), and the same exact racket exists in the voting populace. Whoever offers to give the most free (*)(*)(*)(*) wins. Whether thats to people, companies, or unions makes no difference. The end result is always the same, an unsustainable system.

Hmmm... I didn't realize that simply asking you for examples would lead you to a rampage of name calling and insinuations against me. Then again, following my request for examples, your first attempt was just to dismiss my inquiry.

Seems to me that anybody who asks you to back up your position becomes the focus of your cross hairs.

May want to calm the (*)(*)(*)(*) down a little and attempt to have a conversation about positions I am pretty sure the two of us align on .

So... because the market has been manipulated and all out assaulted, that is validation to make the claim that the market is insignificant?

One can not hold onto the ideals of the concept of a market, because it has been manipulated?

The market is pure in my mind and should be the basis of our economic system. Your points only further expound on my reasoning that we NEED to get back to a more pure market place and get politics out of it.

Ok, agreed.

However... you still haven't answered my question.

What companies are colluding to reduce market labor wages?

 

Which major corporate entities with all the advantages isn't? That should be your question. Wages are stagnating and becoming fixed because the employers have all the leverage, little competition, and the best government corporate money can buy in their pocket. Why wouldn't they use that advantage to pad their pockets?

 

Still didn't answer the question.

You claim that companies set the labor rate, not the market.

Give me a company. Just one example.

 

It won't matter because you will just insist it is the market, even though you know the market isn't real and agree it is artificially manipulated. You will just claim victory due to intellectual dishonesty.

It's like playing Monopoly with somebody who controls the bank, and you know they are cheating, even watching them do it, but you still insist they are winning because they are a better player. Seems awfully naive.