Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

France Plans 75% Tax Rate on the Rich?


Socio

Recommended Posts

George Washington likely never envisioned a nation where so many were willing to do so little towards the betterment of society and were willing to sit back and accept handouts from those who took the time to learn a skill or get an education.

I'm thinking our founding fathers would be quite disgusted at the nation we have become.

Hating on those who have money and wealth because they did their part to achieve the American Dream, all while being bashed and porteyed by the Liberal Left as the evil doers.

I personally would not look to take away their vote, i would take away their welfare checks.

Nothing has worked as hard at keeping the poor, poor as the welfare system.

so we dont like people who get something for nothing ?

i totally agree with that inheritance from hard working parents to feckless brats should be stopped at all costs .why should some brat become rich because his or her parents worked hard .make emm sweep roads or starve like everyone else who has never raised a hand to help society.is that what we are talking about ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smurf0852 you do happen to know when the USA was formed the only people allowed to vote where free white land owning males over the age of 21. So basically the founding fathers did attend to keep poor people from voting. If I remember my USA history well it was Jackson who expanded voting to free white males over the age of 18 and that was done to increase his base to win reelection.

Personally I don't think anyone not paying taxes should be allowed to vote, whether they be poor people who exempt out or the richest who can pay to find loop holes to avoid paying any tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you ARE saying that the low paid shouldnt be allowed to vote.i bet george washington would be so proud of you.what ever happend to all equal under god and all that .you should have just stayed part of the uk the conservative party would have loved you :)

No, what I am saying is those that don't pay taxes because they earn nothing and live off the government should not be allowed to vote. They have lost the opportunity to say how this country should be run because they contribute nothing to it and only take. Elderly and invalids excepted of course. If you do that then those earners that are now exempt from paying taxes, for whatever reason, will slowly be forced back ontio the tax rolls because the leaches will no longer have a say in the matter. The alternative, which is much more palatable, is a consumption tax and to do away with the federal income tax completely. Everyone is then paying their fair share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I am saying is those that don't pay taxes because they earn nothing and live off the government should not be allowed to vote. They have lost the opportunity to say how this country should be run because they contribute nothing to it and only take. Elderly and invalids excepted of course. If you do that then those earners that are now exempt from paying taxes, for whatever reason, will slowly be forced back ontio the tax rolls because the leaches will no longer have a say in the matter. The alternative, which is much more palatable, is a consumption tax and to do away with the federal income tax completely. Everyone is then paying their fair share.

I think you're correct a consumption tax is the solution. I also think that every established westernized nation is moving toward this goal.

What bugs me is what road is used to achieve it. Think about it.... The huge corporations have the majority market share. It doesn't matter how we slice it because far too few who have much too much will always be better off than those who have much too little and not enough. It's a slippery slope whenever an individual trades their freedom for security. Feeding the poor is absolutely no different than the bs were told daily about the War on Terror.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're correct a consumption tax is the solution. I also think that every established westernized nation is moving toward this goal.

What bugs me is what road is used to achieve it. Think about it.... The huge corporations have the majority market share. It doesn't matter how we slice it because far too few who have much too much will always be better off than those who have much too little and not enough. It's a slippery slope whenever an individual trades their freedom for security. Feeding the poor is absolutely no different than the bs were told daily about the War on Terror.

We should never have a starving child in this country but neither should we have a permanent underclass that is completely dependent on government largesse and votes in statistically significant numbers for the party that indulges their neediness. Disgusting waste of so many lives. Liberalism and its uglier brother progressivism are, IMHO, worse than socialism. The race baiters in America should be tried for crimes against humanity (Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson etc. and most of the Congressional Black caucus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I am saying is those that don't pay taxes because they earn nothing and live off the government should not be allowed to vote. They have lost the opportunity to say how this country should be run because they contribute nothing to it and only take.

No. What many of them have lost - is their jobs.

I'm not entirely sure where you think that the unemployed should magic those up from.

If you do that then those earners that are now exempt from paying taxes, for whatever reason, will slowly be forced back ontio the tax rolls because the leaches will no longer have a say in the matter.

And yet - the number of Republican President's and congresses who have managed to achieve anything even close to zero unemployment, let alone solving poverty, so far, is absolutely zero. The lowest unemployment rate ever recorded, in the entire of US history - is 2.5%.

Also - "Leeches" was one of the very first words that Hitler used to describe the Jews.

The poor are not parasites. They are living, breathing humans with hopes and dreams who experience love and fear, and there but for the grace of God, go you or I.

The alternative, which is much more palatable, is a consumption tax and to do away with the federal income tax completely. Everyone is then paying their fair share.

Consumption taxes are regressive. The very last thing they are, is fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet - the number of Republican President's and congresses who have managed to achieve anything even close to zero unemployment, let alone solving poverty, so far, is absolutely zero. The lowest unemployment rate ever recorded, in the entire of US history - is 2.5%.

Also - "Leeches" was one of the very first words that Hitler used to describe the Jews.

The poor are not parasites. They are living, breathing humans with hopes and dreams who experience love and fear, and there but for the grace of God, go you or I.

Consumption taxes are regressive. The very last thing they are, is fair.

Zero unemployment??? Is that your measure? WTF?? You have now reached the silly level and are becoming boring. Regressive? Please explain WTF that means in this context. I am probably not going to answer as your arguments have driffted so far into absurdity that it is a waste of my time answering them. Zero unemployment. LMFAO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zero unemployment??? Is that your measure? WTF?? You have now reached the silly level and are becoming boring.

You seem to have trouble following the argument, so let me put this into the form of a queston for you:

How do you believe that the unemployed are going to be forced back onto the tax rolls, when it's obvious that no-one has ever achieved full employment?

Regressive? Please explain WTF that means in this context.

It means what it always means in the context of taxation - a tax which the poor pay more than the rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have trouble following the argument, so let me put this into the form of a queston for you:

How do you believe that the unemployed are going to be forced back onto the tax rolls, when it's obvious that no-one has ever achieved full employment?

They get a job. One supposes that people are not out of work for years at a time unless they want to be or the democrats are in charge of the economy. Do you seriously believe that the 2.5% mentioned are always the same people? People lose jobs and then find new ones ad infinitum, or at least they used to.

It means what it always means in the context of taxation - a tax which the poor pay more than the rich.

I understand what regressive means but why does it punish the poor any more than any other tax? Also, exemptions could be made for essentials and such but not a big screen TV when you are on welfare. -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get a job. One supposes that people are not out of work for years at a time unless they want to be or the democrats are in charge of the economy.

Then you suppose wrong.

ted_20101117.png

Do you seriously believe that the 2.5% mentioned are always the same people?

40% of the unemployed are currently experiencing long-term unemployment. Let alone those that no longer qualify for the time-restricted unemployment benefits anymore.

I understand what regressive means but why does it punish the poor any more than any other tax?

Because the rich are able to save more of their income, and move both their money and their purchases overseas. See Mitt's Swiss Bank account for details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the rich are able to save more of their income, and move both their money and their purchases overseas. See Mitt's Swiss Bank account for details.

Those damn rich. What do you suggest, confiscate all their wealth and distribute it to the needy? How about a little "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Who'd you vote for in 2008?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those damn rich. What do you suggest, confiscate all their wealth and distribute it to the needy? How about a little "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Who'd you vote for in 2008?

None of the above. Being British, and all.

What I suggest is progressive taxation on income. You'll note that this method of taxation is the one that you've been experiencing for the entirety of your lifetime.

What I also suggest is closing all of the various taxation loopholes. Since the Rich tend to have Houdini-like Accountants, I'd suggest implementing something along the lines of the Buffet rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I also suggest is closing all of the various taxation loopholes. Since the Rich tend to have Houdini-like Accountants, I'd suggest implementing something along the lines of the Buffet rule.

No need for Houdinis since it is the rich who make the rules for taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you believe only a certain class of people should vote .how do we decide have an army of thought police going around and taking people in for questioning .who decides the agenda for this? the ruling elite who would only allow those who fit into there mindset to vote

so they can never be defeated.

sounds to me you would like to live in nazi germany what has rattled your cage so much to make you feel like this ?

every democracy has stupid people voting ,that is sort of the point it is imperfect it has to be because what stupid people vote for is what is best for them and it dulls the blade of the eliteists who would turn the world into some sort of forced labour camp to make them money.

A large amount of idiots vote for who seems good in the media and what is portrayed as popular.

It doesnt dull the blade of the elitists it dulls the blades of the whole state. If they dont know about politics or the ins and outs of various topics they shouldnt be voting.

You do not vote Obama in because he speaks good and you dont vote for the parties the media tells you too. You vote for the best policies and if someone is too dumb to find out the ins and outs of the policies, politics and the different parties then quite frankly they deserve the state they live in.

A perfect example are the idiots who think the population growth should be limited because the media tells them we are running out of resources. Yet the vast majority of scientists and engineers will tell you thats rubbish.

Good luck to the French. The working class obviously think its all about them with the 75% tax rate. When it destroys their economy (because they only thought about the impact on their own life) they have only themselves to blame.

Edited by Mr Right Wing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the vast majority of scientists and engineers will tell you thats rubbish.

None of the engineers or scientists I know. Care to provide some supporting evidence for that claim ??

Is it going to be another NHS debacle ??

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those damn rich. What do you suggest, confiscate all their wealth and distribute it to the needy? How about a little "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Who'd you vote for in 2008?

sounds like a good idea to me considering that it has mostly being gained off the backs of normal hard working people by redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich.failing that the countrys that are in dept although no one seems to know who too should say ,you know that money we owe you nameless idiots you can stick it up your backside cos you aint getting it back.either way it is a whole lot better than having a you have to be wealthy to vote rule .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the engineers or scientists I know. Care to provide some supporting evidence for that claim ??

Is it going to be another NHS debacle ??

Br Cornelius

What limit do you think is real and cant be overcome?

Name me your top one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like a good idea to me considering that it has mostly being gained off the backs of normal hard working people by redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich.failing that the countrys that are in dept although no one seems to know who too should say ,you know that money we owe you nameless idiots you can stick it up your backside cos you aint getting it back.either way it is a whole lot better than having a you have to be wealthy to vote rule .

So you are a marxist! Who'd a thunk it. LMAO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What limit do you think is real and cant be overcome?

Name me your top one.

Peak oil is already happening and since we have built a civilisation based on cheap oil - we will soon find it extremely difficult to feed the people we have. All food currently consumed in the West is heavily dependent on cheap oil at every stage. Current food price increases are a direct consequence of the increased price of oil and have placed food out of the reach of many third world citizens. Unless you advocate a socialist style redistribution of food then this will directly limit population growth. Peak oil doesn't mean that oil production will significantly decline for a while - simply that it will remain expensive to extract - with knock on effects for all oil dependent activities (that means everything).

Water is a limiting resource which is been overexploited in many parts of the world. The only way to overcome this is either conservation of water or the use of large amounts of fossil fuels to manufacture fresh water from salt water - this would make the staple crop wheat unviable in its main growth areas.

Both of these place significant checks on our ability to support the people we have let alone more.

This is my specialist areas (by training) so you better tread very carefully with your claims. Now maybe your'd liked to answer my question.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peak oil is already happening and since we have built a civilisation based on cheap oil - we will soon find it extremely difficult to feed the people we have. All food currently consumed in the West is heavily dependent on cheap oil at every stage. Current food price increases are a direct consequence of the increased price of oil and have placed food out of the reach of many third world citizens. Unless you advocate a socialist style redistribution of food then this will directly limit population growth. Peak oil doesn't mean that oil production will significantly decline for a while - simply that it will remain expensive to extract - with knock on effects for all oil dependent activities (that means everything).

Water is a limiting resource which is been overexploited in many parts of the world. The only way to overcome this is either conservation of water or the use of large amounts of fossil fuels to manufacture fresh water from salt water - this would make the staple crop wheat unviable in its main growth areas.

Both of these place significant checks on our ability to support the people we have let alone more.

This is my specialist areas (by training) so you better tread very carefully with your claims. Now maybe your'd liked to answer my question.

Br Cornelius

That is three not one but here we go

Peak Oil - This shouldnt be used as an excuse to limit population growth because oil isnt the only means of generating electricity or producing vehicle fuel. The cheapest type of electricty generation is nuclear power, cars can be made which run on electricity and there is always the option of using Ethanol instead of petrol. Ethanol is already in use in several countries, is made in the same way they make your beer and has been used as a vehicle fuel for decades.

Food - A quick look at Google Earth shows most of the worlds green regions are wilderness not farmland. Countries with vast expanses of wilderness can turn more of that usable land into farmland. Nations wth limited usable land could grow GM crops to increase crop yields, import food or if they are feeling trully adventurous combine sky scraper technology with farms.

Water - Most of the planet is water and this is the most abundant resource on earth. Its easy and cheap to take sea water and turn it into drinking water. When the reseviour is low where I live in the UK they pump in sea water and purify it. Electricity is cheap.

Any others? There seems to be a lack of forward thinking with a lot of people. Its like they think how society is at the moment is how its always going to be. They have no concept of development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are a marxist! Who'd a thunk it. LMAO.

He wil often deny he is a Communist but ome of his posts say otherwise.

He wants Britain to be like North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is three not one but here we go

Peak Oil - This shouldnt be used as an excuse to limit population growth because oil isnt the only means of generating electricity or producing vehicle fuel. The cheapest type of electricty generation is nuclear power, cars can be made which run on electricity and there is always the option of using Ethanol instead of petrol. Ethanol is already in use in several countries, is made in the same way they make your beer and has been used as a vehicle fuel for decades.

Food - A quick look at Google Earth shows most of the worlds green regions are wilderness not farmland. Countries with vast expanses of wilderness can turn more of that usable land into farmland. Nations wth limited usable land could grow GM crops to increase crop yields, import food or if they are feeling trully adventurous combine sky scraper technology with farms.

Water - Most of the planet is water and this is the most abundant resource on earth. Its easy and cheap to take sea water and turn it into drinking water. When the reseviour is low where I live in the UK they pump in sea water and purify it. Electricity is cheap.

Any others? There seems to be a lack of forward thinking with a lot of people. Its like they think how society is at the moment is how its always going to be. They have no concept of development.

Your analysis is shallow and poor. Oil is cheap, nuclear and other forms are not. It is the process of conversion to other forms of energy which is expensive (at least in the short term). The resources are not there.

Most of the good arable land which can be farmed is already farmed. Most additional arable land is produced by cutting down trees in tropical forests. the agricultural land produced is poor and subject to rapid erosion. Current rates of agricultural land loss due to erosion are running at about 1million acres a year. Eventually we just run out of new suitable land to bring into production. That is not even mentioning the progressive loss of biodiversity which such a policy will cause. a 50% loss of biodiversity causes a 10% loss of agricultural productivity - we have already experienced the first 50% loss of biodiversity across most of the agricultural land.

As for you comments on water - laughably ignorant.

You have not addressed a single one of my points in any meaningful way.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your analysis is shallow and poor. Oil is cheap, nuclear and other forms are not. It is the process of conversion to other forms of energy which is expensive (at least in the short term). The resources are not there.

Most of the good arable land which can be farmed is already farmed. Most additional arable land is produced by cutting down trees in tropical forests. the agricultural land produced is poor and subject to rapid erosion. Current rates of agricultural land loss due to erosion are running at about 1million acres a year. Eventually we just run out of new suitable land to bring into production. That is not even mentioning the progressive loss of biodiversity which such a policy will cause. a 50% loss of biodiversity causes a 10% loss of agricultural productivity - we have already experienced the first 50% loss of biodiversity across most of the agricultural land.

As for you comments on water - laughably ignorant.

You have not addressed a single one of my points in any meaningful way.

Br Cornelius

You have lost touch with reality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have lost touch with reality!

That's the best you can do. No evidence no nothing - just your've lost touch with reality.

I love your type - you deny the conclusions of science with one breath and then invoke science/engineering to claim that there are no problems in the world which cannot be solved through science. You probably can't see the irony.

I would take the time and trouble to supply supporting evidence for every one of my claims, but you would ignore them and do nothing to counter their legitamacy. You would continue to make unsupported rhetorical claims. As such I would be wasting both of our times. If you want to continue to debate please repeat your statement and support it with legitimate scientific evidence.

Again, you show that your view of reality is distant from whats real.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.