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

It's the old saw.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

 

They simply do not understand basic economics. You could tax a man 0% or 100%. You'd get the same in taxes. France is guaranteeing that the rich move away. The rich will move elsewhere and visit France.

- - - Updated - - -

No one was paying anything near 90%. It looks good to liberals on paper, but it's a realistic pipedream.

 

Why not $60?

 

Oh BS.

That may happen in places where employees have the smallest labor market value, but in the rest of the market place, people are paid based on their worth.

Once again, we are to base policy on the lowest common denominator? People that make minimum wage have no market value. That is not the fault of the employer.

Once again, the entitled mentality is destroying this country. If somebody wants to earn more money, increase their market value through experience and education in professions that are demanded.

It's that simple.

 

The laws of supply and demand work in the labor market just as well as in the valuation of commodities if people would stop manipulating them to try and equalize outcomes.

 

Great post.

Add a licensed architect, which took me 10 years of higher education to obtain, this is precisely the point.

I earn more than $50 an hour, and if anybody tells me that's unacceptable, then I am done designing buildings. Let somebody else without that effort do it and sign off on it.

 

They should give up 1/3 of their income because your jealous of their wealth?

What tax rate do you pay Bomac?

 

This stuff is just so silly, but even more so in the context of the French. The French are all about luxury items, and western socialists want luxury items to be cheap. Problem is, you can't have a cheap luxury item, the whole point is that it is overpriced, that is what makes it a luxury item!

At least real socialists back in the day had some negative things to say about luxuries. Western market socialists are going to be a joke for history majors someday.

 

I know. I am so glad that this country survived the horrendous socialism of the 50's. I mean, the 50's were a period when everything in American was terrible, the economy stopped, innovation stopped, the rest of the world grew more than the USA as we became a country of lazy sloths who sat around and waited for the government to wipe our behinds.... What, that did not happen in the 50's. How could that be since we had a 90% tax rate?

No, I am not advocating a 90% tax rate, but pointing out that a high tax rate is not the evil "stealing from the few to appease the masses never worked" the right wing claim. While at the same time they seem to be nostalgic for the period in our country's history with the highest tax rates. We had tax rates over the french 50% from 1940 - 1980



Yet now, advocating to go to the tax rates of the 90's in this country is called socialism and all sorts of names, by the republicans. When in reality, those would still be historically low rates and help pay for the massive debt incurred incurred by republicans as well democrats.

 

Your "truth" was removed as flamebait you might want to use that mighty IQ of yours and learn from it.

 

Not at all. You used the word 'steal', not me. It's what businesses must do; roll their costs into the price of their goods and services.

It's not a new and different theory, it's what businesses do. The vast majority of the rich are business owners. If you increase their cost of doing business, they must increase the price of their goods and services to compensate (or cut costs elsewhere, often through reductions in workforce), but they don't just 'dig a little deeper because they can afford to do so' as our president wants us to believe.

 

No, do you? But, if I had 42% of the wealth, I would be bother that I only was paying 33% in taxes.

I am a 2%er and still have no problem with paying taxes to help the government do its job. I have not hired a lawyer to find me ways to dodge paying my share.

Why is it important to you to defend the 1%ers not paying their share?

 

Yes, I do. I'm way over the threshold for maximum rate of taxation - and I can assure you: the only reason you're not bothered by it is because you don't have it. You are simply viewing the additional income as a bonus, and aren't unhappy to give up that which wasn't yours.

What's a 2%er?

Because the money of the 1% (and anyone else at the top) is used to increase money velocity in the country. The 1% is not like Scrooge McDuck, who throws his money in a vault and sits on it. They are paying their share; how could it be otherwise! The top 1% pay the majority of our tax burden!

I'm telling you this: if you want a thriving economy, put the money in the hands of the people who know best what to do with it. That's successful business people and people not afraid to take a risk.

Your notion of what is fair has been infected with liberal propaganda.

 

Why would any company fire people so that it could pay its executives more? The stockholders wouldn't put up with it. Such actions would hurt their profits. The only people interested in paying executives more are executives and board members.

But we are not talking about a ratio of CEO to worker in this instance so your argument falls flat just on that. The issue is penalizing a company for its stupidity in paying too much in salary compensation.

You guys pick up talking points and use them when it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Sorry, you do if your government taxes stupidity.

 

You guys seem envious of their wealth and think that you will be there at some point in your life. It will not happen.

The top has given more than 32.7% of their income in the past and we were all better off because of it.

This argument of defending that all the wealth should go to the top and that the top should pay less than they did before makes no sense to me at all. You can think that, if they pay less, then we will have less government spending. It hasn't happened in the last 30 years and the other 99% ends up paying a higher ratio in taxes.

I want a better wealth distribution. Higher taxes on those who can afford to be taxed and lower wages for those at the top are both tools to correct the distribution. Minimum wage increase is another tool.

That is not your business and has nothing to do with the OP. Can we get back to the OP instead of you defending the top 1%?

 

That's interesting, since you haven't put yourself in a position to do surgery for $400/hr, which has been possible for you to do up until this point.

...so why would we believe you'd do the work and internships necessary to put yourself in the position to do it for $50/hr?

 

Not if there are no profits to secure such a burden. AND for the last time, basic pay is what I am talking about. If profits are accumulated then more money comes into play to cover that invested time ya'll are harping about.

Costs of university studies has been so inflated thanks to government manipulation it isn't even funny. Costs could and would easily be half if it wasn't for the best government corporate money can buy and that ludicrous tax code we as a nation are hamstrung with and rich/elites have created for themselves.

 

I didn't say anything about dictating how stupid should or should not be, or anything else even remotely associated with forcing people to do something through legislation. If you wish to argue an actual point I made please feel free to do so.

 

Well, I could have been DISHONEST and said "I'm way over the threshold for maximum rate of taxation".

The rest of your post is nonsense too. I have heard the same old STUFF for 30 years and it has not help 80% of Americans.

 

Reading comprehension problem? So sad.

Nobody, and I mean nobody is worth more than $50 an hour. With your reading skills you are probably worth less.

- - - Updated - - -

You are not worth $200.00 an hour and neither is anybody else. Is that too fast for you?

 

It's excessive.

 

Take that minimum wage employee and remove them from the equation, and see how much money is lost when they are no longer present, then tell me how much money they are actually worth.

 

It has helped Americans. 30 Years ago, there was no internet as we know it (I'm not talking about arpanet which was meant for scientist). Also, the life span of Americans have also increased. Food is so abundant that one of the biggest problems facing poor people is too much food. Also, visiting relatives across the country -- not to mention across the globe is cheaper, more accessible, and safer.





Capitalism and competition has brought a lot of stuff to the American people. Socialism..... not too much...

 

Not sure who you are directing that towards, but I never said anything about approving of what the French are doing. All I said was the rich/elites most likely already have mechanisms in place to get around the tax. Every time "any" government starts meddling with the legislation it is to inflict pain on the majority and benefit a chosen few, socialist, communist, or plutocracy, it's all about protecting the deserving class.

 

Ah! Well...then let me extend an olive branch.

No Government worker is worth more than $50.

I consider this a backtrack, because I did not see anything like this appearing in your earlier post, and everybody - and I mean everybody - lambasted your position as utterly ridiculous.

So has the labor market - but I agree with you.

Flat tax - but you won't like that. The wealthy will always attempt to gain every competitive advantage. If it is legal to curry favor with Government officials, they will do. More specifically, if it isn't illegal to do so, they will.

But you seem to be blaming the rich for that, even though that description of their behaviour is perfectly normal and expected. Our Government simply needs to be shrunk back to its original intent, and a very narrow - Constitutional - definition of its roles.

There are a couple of factors which create this perceived inequity:

1) Constant inflation of the money supply. This creates an automatic inequity elevator (and one of the primary reasons why the wealth of the top 1% has exploded during Obama. This is simple math: in the past, there wasn't enough money in the economy to allow for multiple billionaires. Now there is: but the rank commonality of people who don't possess any of the needed skills to self-improve as created plenty to share the lowest levels of income. That's on them.

In addition, market manipulation creates imbalances (housing bubble, a notable one), which the wealthy view as opportunities. So: they buy real estate when it is depressed, and ride that inequity elevator to the top. That's just one of myriad examples.

2) As technology and knowledge improves (there's more of both), there will be increased polarization between those that have it, want to learn it, and use it - and those who don't, won't, or can't. Technology and knowledge increases bring about increases in opportunity, both in size and in number. That is simply a talent magnifier, and compensation will follow. If I am a great salesman (and I am ), then my abilities are going to be magnified, using technology to market my skills to more clients. If I am an unskilled/stupid/uneducated/lazy/drug addicted individual, I will not participate in this expanding market, and I will languish at the bottom.

#1 magnifies #2. Tremendously. But even these 'inequities' are meaningless when it comes to quality of life, because even the lowest levels of class in our society live in a manner commensurate with the middle class from only 15-20 years ago: and those who can't even manage that suffer from personal demons which cannot be helped by ANY socio-economic climate.

The problem is that expanding Government to account for every ill is misguided, and creates a massive metastasized magnification of the very problems that well meaning - but stupid - people were looking to solve.

Because these stupid people do not understand human nature, and look to legislate against it.