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

Because it was one paragraph from a 20-page report. Perhaps this graph will provide the sort of information you are looking for however. Or perhaps not.

 

People are not taxed. Income is.

Amendment 16
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

That's from the "Laugher" Curve and it's a total joke. Even if tax rates were 100%, many people would continue to work. And the curve itself is of course not some static and well-behaved one. It's a jumbled mess of conflicting and ever-changing currents. Here is a good approximation of what the curve as postulated ought to have looked like...

 

What means do you employ to determine this "worth" level of yours? Let me suggest first that the entire concept is utter nonsense and that the notion of worth plays no significant role in hiring decisions at all.

 

Supply and demand themselves actually explain very little. These are principally terms that people with no command of actual economics at all like to throw around in the false hope that it will make them seem informed. Labor markets are hideoulsy distorted and about as far from free and competitive as one can get. The idea that contests between massively concentrated power centers on one side of the market and completely powerless individuals on the other are going to produce economically optimal results is an irredeemably absurd notion.

 

This morning, I heard another smart person laughing at the crackpot notions of a popinjay. It happens every hour of every day.

 

He would have a debt at our current spending levels. Let me know when you are ready for 25% total GDP spending. I am up for it. If you just want to cover and tear people down because of your class envy no dice.

Names of these places. You don't think 42% from the workers is enough? How much tribute do your rulers demand?

 

Right, you used the term taking money from other people, as if that were somehow different from stealing.

That's selling, not taking.

No, they aren't, and the vast majority of our 29 million small business owners are meanwhile useless, pointless dregs.

Attention non-business persons: The costs of doing business change every day. Anyone fancying him- or herself a "business owner" who is thrown off the track by changes in the costs of doing business has absolutely and positively made a completely wrong career choice. Successfully adapting to change is what separates the wheat from the chaff. Those not willing to confront and deal with change fall short of being even chaff.

 

This statement is categorically false. Marginal propensity to consume declines as income rises. The poor spend their money quickly and completely, thereby boosting the velocity of money. The rich already have everything they either need or want, so they take their sweet old time about things and are apt to pull their money out of the real economy altogether, sending it off to play in the sideshow tent of the financial economy instead. There it promotes no new demand, jobs, or output, but instead simply chases little pieces of paper around all day. These effects are why the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich failed. Transferring wealth to the already wealthy undercuts aggregate demand. It is a recessionary policy.

 

The Edsel, the Apple Newton, New Coke, Qwikster, the Arch Deluxe.

 

If we took the level of federal spending in FY 1960 and let that expand in constant-dollar terms by 3.25% per annum to account for population and productivity gains, the constant-dollar path of spending would track that curve very closely. The same track of for revenues would simply collapse (leading to massive deficits) under Reagan. The Clinton years would patch that damage and then some, only to have Bush come along and blow the whole thing off the r\track again. Not once, but twice. The problems we have had here are on the revenue side. Not on the spending side.

Ever had to fill out a 6251?

France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom. Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates, India, Russia, China, and Poland. [NOTE: This is not the complete list.]

Public sector consumption and investment currently account for less than 19% of GDP.

Right-wingers and their pathetic "class envy" meme. People with actual money are nothing like the phonies and wannabes who clog up these boards. With just a few exceptions here and there, the wealthy realize how fortunate they have been and how much help they have had along the way. This is why so many have such a strong desire to give back to the community that made their success possible to begin with. They know they didn't build that.

 

Did you draw that yourself? No one, in their right mind, will go to work only to have it all taken away from them.

Jeez. Talk about altered reality.

 

No, it was done by the late Martin Gardner. I don't expect that you will know who he was.

Actually, if you would open your eyes and broaden your horizons, you would realize that working for a net pay of $0 goes on all the time.

 

No it doesn't. Even the least among us have some control over how they spend their money. 100% taxation means you have no control whatsoever.

You are free to send 100% of your income to the government. I'd suggest doing so then reporting back to me, but we both know you wouldn't have anything left over for your computer, let alone your ISP.

 

Oh lefty. What was total % GDP spending in that year? Don't dodge. What is it now?

No

All those places have higher living costs as a result. Their money doesn't go nearly as far as ours. Their people here even make more money.

Government spending is at 42% though. Why do you want that higher? Where do they get their money from?

then you should have no problem getting them to volunteer to pay extra. But i am guessing you will want it enforced by armed men.

You mean charity? No one has a problem with charity. If they are so willing to give you the cash why do you have to pass laws against them and lock them up if they disagree?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh lefty. What was total % GDP spending in that year? Don't dodge. What is it now?

No

All those places have higher living costs as a result. Their money doesn't go nearly as far as ours. Their people here even make more money.

Government spending is at 42% though. Why do you want that higher? Where do they get their money from?

then you should have no problem getting them to volunteer to pay extra. But i am guessing you will want it enforced by armed men.

You mean charity? No one has a problem with charity. If they are so willing to give you the cash why do you have to pass laws against them and lock them up if they disagree?

 

That recession ended and we got back to speed much faster then now. Until the dens got power again in congress. Things have been horrible ever since.

What makes a nation richer? Investment or temporary consumption?

 

In the US, I believe we should only burden artificial persons with any unemployment related taxes.

 

You failed to open your eyes or broaden your horizons as instructed. Take the first step toward understanding by considering the well-known-by-most-folks matter of volunteerism.

 

Having the facts apparently makes one a "lefty". In that case, you are certainly no "lefty".

The green line below is federal expenditures from FY 1960 expressed in 2005 constant-dollars and then expanded by 3.25% annually to account for population and productivity growth. The red line is actual federal expenditures since 1960 expressed in 2005 dollars. The blue line is actual federal receipts since 1960 in constant 2005 dollars.



We have a Republican problem. Not a spending or debt problem.

 

Your signature seems to disagree with you.

 

Brilliant. Because in your mind, there were no differences between the first and second Bush Recessions, or in the politics of recovery. That idea may leave you a few stamps short of first-class postage.

LOL! Things were terrible when they got there. Read up on disasters such as Iraq and the financial crisis. You have so much to learn.

The purpose of investment is to enable consumption. You don't seem to have a grasp of how any of this works. Should I suppose as well that you are alarmed over 70% or so of GDP being personal consumption expenditures?

 

You think I'm worried about you obsessively checking my bonafides, bomac? I think you figured out that I'm not bullshtting you at all.

Didn't you?

Everything. Thanks for playing, liberal.

 

The 2007 recession was caused by bad government housing policy pushing cheap money into the housing market and inflating a bubble. Do we agree that much?

What is your point on consumption? It is investment that grows economies. Big consumption is caused y a low savings rate. Again tied to the low interest rate we can't get away from because of high debt spending. Do we agree there?

The financial crisis hit after the Dems took office. It started with their government housing policies.

 

No it isn't, but because you haven't spent one second of your life in the private sector or running a business, no one here with a moment's experience outside of a Government tenement listens to you.

I'll post it so you can make more of a fool of yourself denying it. The wealthy not only spend more on luxury items - and more per expenditure - but that isn't even the amount upon which I was focusing.

They invest in the economy, which is the force multiplier of money velocity. They don't simply consume, which is a 1st degree level of staples consumption, they build the other layers. They're the innovators; the builders of luxury homes, the manufacturers of Teslas; the creators of Twitters. They create commerce, and additional layers of it through the employment of those who are by necessity involved in their entrepreneurship.

DUH.

Cite? You actually had the gall to say that as people have more money, they spend less. The bat-(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy of that assertion is so off the liberal loonybin map as to simply merit nothing more than a head shake and a firing squad. Playing with words and trying to slip in the word 'marginal' will not help you here, either - because it's bullsht. You know it; I know it - a piece of roadkill knows it. I assume that the pathetic attempt to add the word is acknowledgement of the correctness of my assertion regardless; you're just hoping that people aren't smart enough to understand what you meant.

Of course anyone who spends boosts the velocity of money. That wasn't the point - but you're used to playing games with semantics, aren't you? K Street is a professional when it comes to that.

Ah yes. The Nancy Pelosi school of economics: we should give away more welfare, because it's the best economic stimulus!

What morons these liberals are.

How nubile of you. So cute. People on K Street have ignorance about the wealthy. Who's shocked <show of hands>. The financial economy, you say? How exactly do you separate the 'financial economy' from the 'real' economy? Do you not understand where the money placed in 'the financial economy' goes, or how it is used?

Yes...those annoying little pieces of paper which aren't tied into the economy at all. As if 'the rich' as you're attempting to claim are only those people regardless.

The Bush Tax Cuts were across the board, liar. And they resulted in higher treasury collections than at any point in history.

There is no 'transfer'; only clown liberals believe that. The money in question was earned by the people who were taxed.

I hate Krugman acolytes more than any other type of liberal.

 

Don't know what you are reading but my signature talks specifically about government that is corrupt, bought and/or paid for. Poor people do not own/control the government. Rich/elitists, makers and shakers, country club dwellers, and the richest of the rich, have infiltrated and neutered the government for and by the people. The signatures I posted reflect that.