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

I'm sorry you're uncomfortable posting where people who make more money than you respond. So you have no doubt, this is my house:



...any questions, bomac?

No, it isn't nonsense merely because you don't understand. Read my post to sixpack.

 

Sure Joe. You accuse me of having a reading comprehension problem, and then you go ahead and reiterate word-for-word what I said; what I found ridiculous.

I am worth what someone is willing to pay me. I regret that you cannot afford that. You'll have to do with someone with inferior skills.

Good luck with that.

 

Nobody is worth more than $50 an hour. Nobody! taptaptap Hello is this thing on?

No back tracking, same position from the get go. And the position they think they are lambasting has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You all look utterly ridiculous, trying to argue a point I never made. But what ever works for you I guess.

Ditto. The best government corporate money can buy and the two party system are the problem.

I have no problem with a flat tax, if it is actually a flat tax. The idiocy that is continuously proposed as a flat tax, is a joke. And the reason no flat tax will ever see the light of day is because they one we have now is most profitable and exploitable for the richest of the rich, who keep the government in check, to do their bidding.

Most of the crap they are doing is immoral and unethical, and illegal under most circumstances, but like I said and you seem to agree with, with the best government corporate money can buy and the two party scam at the helm, the owners of the government will never be held accountable because it would implicate all criminal politicians and the parties they hold allegiance too.

Not the rich, many of them, even under the current conditions of the plutocracy, get by without purchasing government officials, it's the uber rich, and the rich/elites that have pooled their wealth and have owned the government since the early 70's that are the problem and since it is their government we are talking about, why wouldn't they be 'blamed', using your word. I find them equally responsible and just as reprehensible as the two parties that have enabled them their domination.

Oh I agree Obama is just as guilty as the next sock puppet, but this problem started in 1970 with a republican in office, and the baton has been handed off to every president since him. Both parties are at fault, and in cahoots with the rich/elites. They own the economy.

Who do you think is using the government to manipulate such situations to be exploited and taken advantage of? Good lord?

Talking points and rationalization to protect the guilty. Noted.

Again you marginalize, and deflect from the actual predators and manipulators, that "USE" the government as a tool. The government does nothing their masters don't approve of. Both parties are and have been bought and paid for since the early 70's, and they are the opposite side of the same coin. The sooner people realize this the better it will be for the country as a whole. If we continue to allow the parties to divide and conquer for the rich/elites, communism is just around the corner. Not my choice, but I didn't choose the plutocracy or the cronyism capitalism that has destroyed the economy for the majority of the nation either.

 

What good does it do to repeat it you didn't catch it the other times, I explained my position very clearly in earlier posts and you chose to ignore them too.

Getting and worth/value are two completely different things. The fact that you can convince somebody to pay you more than you are worth, doesn't change the fact that you are obviously overpaid.

 

Repeating it will not make it more true - and I'll note that I ridiculed that position from the start, and you claimed I had a reading comprehension problem.

You said that no one is worth more than $50, and I said people are worth what they're paid. I'll now add to that: what people are paid is often inflated by necessity as a result of manipulation of the economy. People are paid what other people are willing to pay them - and that's what they're worth.

I like a multi-party system, but this is mostly on the voters.

And people with a high taxable income take it on the chin the most. Like me.

All true, but the solution is to vote to shrink Government and institute 3 party voting. Meanwhile, however, you can succeed. The market is just more volatile is all.

Think about this. "The rich" have been purchasing government officials since there has been a Government. It's the SIZE of the Government that has resulted in your attention being drawn to it only since the 70's. Shrink the Government. It is doing about 10x more than it should be doing. At least.

Too general to comment on.

Name names. You're not getting anywhere because you haven't identified a target which can be focused in upon. "The rich" is not specific enough.

How does that protect the guilty? It is a RESULT of the guilty! These are not talking points regardless. These are my beliefs, and I see nothing in there that isn't accurate.

I am an individual. I am already doing my part. Your target isn't me, and I'm not marginalizing. I'm here primarily to educate people on the dangers of Government and the flaws in our system. Meanwhile, however, I pursue my happiness as well as imperfect circumstances allow.

You too often make comments, however, that are so far off in left field as to marginalize your position.

$50/hr is a ridiculous standard to claim is the 'maximum', and this "if there is profit left over, that can be distributed" idealism is equally ridiculous, because it demonstrates that you don't understand that if a hire doesn't create enough profit to result in being paid more regardless, they won't make it with which to begin.

Regardless: if you wish to impose silly 'rules' like requiring a business to only pay more than $50/hr if the company profits more than the baseline payroll, you are making exact same kind of rules that you have arbitrarily complained that 'the rich' have made in backrooms with the Government.

Let people earn what their prospective employers wish to pay them; and if they're self-employed, allow them to make what they create.

- - - Updated - - -

I reject your position. Do you not understand that?

And whose role is it to correct that? The person who chose to overpay. There are plenty of examples of people who are underpaid as well, right? Whose job is it to correct that?

Individuals. Stay out of it.

 

Because I am opposed to theft of Ferraris is not based upon my presumption that I may have one some day.

It has to do with what I find morally correct.

So stop dismissing our perspective using your nasty envy as an attempted justification.

That isn't what I asked.

I asked if you find it acceptable that a person must give up over 1/3 of their earnings?

What doesn't make sense to me is your dishonesty.

At the time that tax rates were significantly higher on the top 1%, there was many more opportunities to reduce tax liabilities. Nobody every paid 90% tax. Ever.

But don't let that cloud your foaming at the mouth perspective based on Jealousy.

Thats the way it SHOULD work.

The problem is, progressives NEVER stop with their centralized power schemes.

Lucky for us, that isn't how it works.

Quit trying to figure out how to steal other peoples money and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing learn how to create your own wealth.

God... what absolutely disgusting perspectives.

Your entire premise is off.

Somebody making 90 Trillion dollars a year does not cause a single person to be "poorer". This isn't a game of monopoly. There isn't a set amount of wealth in this country. It is impossible to "hoard" the wealth. This is the greatest lie ever told in the class warfare propoganda machine. This lie is nothing more than a scheme to justify stealing because one is too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to gain wealth.

Ugly.

Plain ugly.

LOL.

Meaning.

No.

You don't pay over 30% in income tax.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL

Because you say so?

You can't simply pull a value out of thin air as to what is an acceptable maximum wage.

If you are telling me I have to do my job for $50 an hour max. I quit. As well as most doctors, attorneys, engineers, scientists... and a host of other professions. It just isn't worth it.

 

You really think pulling somebody from the Walmart check out line, dragging bar codes across a laser, is going to wreck havoc on our economy?

LOL

Look... if you pulled 1 million minimum wage workers out of the economy, the wages of the others would climb because of a supply problem for cheap labor.

The problem now is, we have TOO MANY people with little to no skills. They have undervalued themselves by sheer numbers.

What is astounding is your desire to punish those who are worth more, thinking that will somehow increase the wages of those at the bottom. I have to wonder why you don't simply demand that people on the bottom gain skills to increase their worth.

Did you know we have a supply problem for young science and math focused entry level positions in this country? We don't have enough graduates with science based degrees to fill demand. THAT is why those people with those basic science degrees earn great money.

Why would you not encourage those minimum wage workers to get an education to fill those positions?

 

This is why we don't live in a direct democracy.

If we did, anybody with more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population would be subject to legislative theft like Bomac advocates in favor of. In a direct democracy, the minority is always oppressed.

You all complain about the rich "buying" their politicians? They have to in order to prevent oppression and theft from an envious majority.

The system works... the thieves should flock to France. Their system seems better suited to the lifestyle they have choosen.

 

I never said anything about legislating $50 an hour as a maximum anything. That is your straw man.

I also very clearly stated that nobody is worth more than $50 'an hour' for their time or labor, and nothing you have added has changed that opinion. What that labor creates from that invested time and invested labor is a completely different issue, which I also explained. No back peddling or moving of the goal post necessary. The fact you disagree doesn't change my opinion on the matter in the least. The fact that you try and distort what I said into something you think I said obviously shows that you didn't understand what I said or you refuse to accept the reality of my statement for the sake of arguing with yourself evidently.

It's all about incentive. If you are worth $50 an hour, and someone chooses to pay you that amount, the only incentive is to do what is necessary to maintain that wage, just as if you are a minimum wage employee. But when there is an actual incentive to do better, anyone with any initiative at all will pursue the matter further, reaching for a maximum goal.

So if an employer sets a goal and offers a vested interest (bonuses) to achieve that goal, their workers will work harder, better and be more productive since it is in everybody's interest for them to do so, including themselves.

If you pay some executive $300,000,000.00 ($500,000,000.00 with perks regardless of the profits), and a huge severance pay, with a ridiculous retirement plan whether they work 20 years or a month to obtain it, they really don't have to worry about the position since they already have obtained a fortune at your expense.

My "opinion " is everybody needs that incentive, to encourage excellence. EVERYBODY! If every major corporation pays their head executive $180,000.00 a year in salary ($50 an hour 14 hrs a day 5 days a week), and offered them the opportunity to make as much as $300,000,000.00 or more depending on how much of an effort they apply, as an invested interest, the company benefits, and doesn't become a slave to one or a hand full of individuals. Of course if the product/service isn't viable or the management is completely incompetent, nothing anybody can do will save the idea. Most executives are simply a strain on the company, that bottle necks progress, and creates an unnecessary bureaucracy, that costs the business, the stockholders, and the work force. Most modern companies (that are allowed to exist in this corrupt cronyism capitalism environment) will be moving into a holacracy business model in the future anyway. (Basically what I am talking about just not to the extreme I think it needs to go.)

It's not so much the size of the government but the vast amount of corruption that is relevant, although I agree the plutocracy is too big for it's own good.

Most of the Pandora's box that was opened came after the depression when the rich/elites accepted certain stipulations (90% tax burden just to mention one) and started working with the government to keep the country from falling into communism, as many within the population leaned towards.

Nixon started the EPA with an Executive order, and the democrats ratified it, and over regulating the small business owner, the average farming community, and main street America out of existence began. Then he poked a hole in the nations economy by financing communism in China, and the first hit of systematically destroying the middle class began. Later on Bush 1 further wounded the middle working class with the creation of NAFTA, passed his baby on to Clinton who put the nails in the coffin and signed it into law. But I am getting ahead of myself. Carter accepted the baton of over regulating medium sized factories (as well as some of the larger one's that had to be removed for the good of the cause), the small business owner, and the mom and pops, and carried that virus on into deregulating the banks, and every president after him carried and passed the deregulation, and the designers of the plan on all the way up to and including into the Obama administration. Just follow the money trail, and it will lead you to every snake in the grass.

The rich elites of the day (the early 1970's) pooled their money and purchased both parties, and people who used to be liberal conservatives abandoned the democrats and became republicans (non-conservative stooges), and mass confusion was born in the political arena. Nobody knew who they were actual supposed to be following or criticizing. The chosen few (government darlings) with little to no competition to speak of became the heads of industries with the best government corporate money could buy blazing the trail with nothing to stand in their way, maximized profits, and billionaires became the millionaires of yesteryear. With the little guys gone or critically injured the sky was the limit, until of course as things do when they are neglected and not watched over responsibly, the bottom fell out. Panic set in and now we have Obama, same BS, different day. A corporatist in sheep's clothing here to help the little guy, and make change . All you have to do is follow the money, and the names are irrelevant since nobody in this bought and paid for government is going to do anything about it in the first place.

A third party would be just as corrupt before you cast your next vote and until the 40 years of SOP of the two party scam is halted and individuals are held accountable, responsible, and bagged tagged and jailed, nothing will change.

Now I got a little side tracked but again for the record, I never said anything about legislating mandatory maximums or minimums for that matter. That is your straw man. I reject your implications as my position because I never said any such thing, or even implied such nonsense. KAY?

 

If they serve no purpose why are they there in the first place? Send them all home, they are obviously useless, and a burden on the companies existence.

 

Ill note you ignored this entire portion of my post:

To answer your question. They do serve a purpose, and that purpose is worth minimum wage.​

 

I didn't ignore it, I read it carefully laughed and got back on track. Since you said they weren't necessary to the profits of the company, they should just be sent home. Why have a bunch of useless employees standing around doing anything, but taking up space.

Minimum wage is for useless slugs that add no real value to the bigger picture, the profits. Nobody should get minimum wage if they are as useless as you devalue their existence. Just get rid of them and let the manager run the register. I'm sure they could run an entire store with their hands tied behind their back. Better yet let the CEO run the place he has actual experience running every aspect of the company. He should be able to run a whole region of stores with his eyes shut for what he gets paid. Hell he should be able to move large objects with his mind like a GOD for the salary he is raking in. ​

 

You like to ignore reality for soundbites.

You are opposed to the concept of supply and demand.

You are dismissive of labor markets.

You ignore simple expectations that people increase their own marketability.


Whatever.

Its a quite simple concept. Experience more, learn more, become more valuable EARN more. Wages are not arbitrary. They are not for you or me to decide. Quit looking for the angle. The markets always self correct. Your desire for manipulation is an exercise in insanity.

 

I would call them stupid buzzwords that you don't understand. US citizens are taxed globally. Individuals cannot offshore or outsource.

18% would have been his AVERAGE rate. Do you know the difference between average and marginal rates? Hmmm? I'm not at all thinking that you do.

 

I understand the theories of economics, and in a perfect world where competition was alive and well, all would be well, but if cronyism capitalists had their way the government would pay them to give the peasants something to do so they could maximize profits there too.

Modern business mentality dismisses logic and common sense to devalue an employees worth so somebody else who deserve no more than they already get can take more. It's absolutely disgusting the way workers are treated, and how companies take advantage of them through government subsidies programs to line their pockets at the tax payer expense. They pay them (*)(*)(*)(*) wages because they can.

When over regulating and the best government corporate money can buy reduces the competitive environment so only a handful of businesses can even exist while raking in record profits, economics 101 and theories like supply and demand is an excuse for abuse, and the further decline of of the nations economy, not a rational concept.

 

Bravo, Sir . Well said.

 

What are the tax rates on imports into the Cayman Islands? What is the excise tax paid for creating a so-called base company there? Meanwhile, standard US tax rates apply to every dime of income earned from Cayman Islands holding companies that is ever transferred into the US.

40% huh. Who's paying 40% again? While the US has NOMINAL corporate tax rates that may seem high, there are so many exclusions, credits, and deductions that actual EFFECTIVE corporate rates put the US at an advantage among other industrialized economies. Furthermore, effective rates vary widely by industry. Insurance, retail, and energy companies typically face higher rates. Utilities and IT firms tend to pay lower rates. About 15% of Fortune 500 companies pay effective corporate tax rates of less than 10%. Chew on those facts for a while.

There are mnay different reasons. As you should have known

That depends on whether you count LLC's and 501(c)(3)s. But no involvement in any of those would have been necessary to know that your statements here have been a disjointed mish-mash of nonsense. Small businesses (aka tax cheats) are not the engines of anything. The bulk of them are little more than hobbyists pretending to be buinesses. Virtually all of the value-added that comes from the small buiness sector comes from the teeny tiny handful that actually do have new or breakthrough idea. The rest barely tread water and then typically disappear.

 

I'm worth exactly what someone will pay for me to a do a job. If it happens to be $200 and hour, then that is what my worth is.

I'm sorry you can't see past your own worthlessness.

 

Ok, I can follow that logic.

Let's talk specifics.

What companies are colluding to pay reduced labor rates less than market value? And why don't their employees simply find employment at a company that isn't in on the game?

 

Well, isn't that special. I am talking about income and buying power. You dodge the comment with progress in technology.

 

Michael, that is a stupid posting.

Please explain what is not nonsense in your previous post.

 

So stop dismissing my perspective using envy as an attempted to smear me.

Maybe you can figure out the answer yourself. I believe that the top 1% of households should pay an effective tax rate over 35%. Now can you do a little math?

I never claimed that anyone paid 90%. That is your red herring. I even gave you a link where you could put in any income and see what was the actual effective rate in any year. In the last 30 years, we have had record low effective rates for the 1% and I believe that should be changed back to effective rates for the 50s and 60s.

Try using the link yourself: http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/

 

LOL!!! Speaking of greed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTj9AcwkaKM

And while income is what is taxed, income tax burden actually falls fairly closely along wealth distribution lines. Fair is fair, after all.

 

Very few people got to the 91% marginal bracket in 1963, the highest of what were 24 brackets at the time. That top bracket began at $400,000. $400K in 1963 would be about $3M today. Plenty of people today make that kind of money thanks to the income and wealth redistribution racket that right-wingers so hypocritically both denounce and promote.

 

Eisenhower had three budget surpluses in eight years, and the same number of recessions. There have been five such surpluses since Eisenhower left office -- one under LBJ and four under Bill Clinton.

The US sends less of its GDP through the public sector than virtually any other prosperous economy. Typically far less. What do they know that we don't?