France Plans 75% Tax Rate on the Rich?

[Guest]

Let me share a secret with you. There are lots of jobs that require a Degree, but aren't particularly specific about which field that degree is actually in.

True story.

It leads me to suspect that his ignorance of this fact means he doesn't have one. Just a wild guess.

Br Cornelius

[Tiggs]

Noone is blocked. Your ability to comprehend is blocking you from understanding simple statements.

My ability to comprehend is perfectly fine, thanks. Thank you for continuing your standard line of Ad Hominem attacks, however.

Mr. Rightwing said that a low iq is one of several possibilities of how someone cant "make it" in any type of society. He, like I, never said that socialistic ideologist and low iq goes hand in hand.

I don't believe that I've ever accused you of doing such. I believe, however, that that's exactly what he did.

Since quoting the paragraph in context has possibly confused you - let me narrow this down for you to the paragraph in question:

The biggest lie of Socialism is that people are equals. Unable to accept that people out there are more intelligent than them the lowly individual thinks he is their equal. Therefore he arrives at the conclusion that his low social status must be because the rich are keeping him down. In his little fantasy world it has nothing to do with him being thick.

I don't follow your every post but how many times has someone replied to you with "I never said that" or "I didn't say that"? I would guess a whole lot since I've witnessed and said it a ton of times in just a couple of recent threads.

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that you'd base your accusations on a guess.

We say "I'll help you but you got to help yourself eventually". You turn that into "here's a nickel, now go jump off a bridge".

Someone once told me "Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you have to put words in their mouth and create your own narrative of what opposing views are like."

[F3SS]

My ability to comprehend is perfectly fine, thanks. Thank you for continuing your standard line of Ad Hominem attacks, however.

I don't believe that I've ever accused you of doing such. I believe, however, that that's exactly what he did.

Since quoting the paragraph in context has possibly confused you - let me narrow this down for you to the paragraph in question:

The biggest lie of Socialism is that people are equals. Unable to accept that people out there are more intelligent than them the lowly individual thinks he is their equal. Therefore he arrives at the conclusion that his low social status must be because the rich are keeping him down. In his little fantasy world it has nothing to do with him being thick.

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that you'd base your accusations on a guess.

Someone once told me "Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you have to put words in their mouth and create your own narrative of what opposing views are like."

You attack my character every time you accuse me of wanting or not caring wether someone dies when I never say that.

Well you've said on many occasions here every time you quote me you turn it into me wanting people to die. Your bullheaded arrogance is impossible to reason with. You constantly aggregate and inflame the conversation. As for your last sentence, see my first one again.

[smurf0852]

Firstly, in a Democracy the EU does not dictate Government policy.

Secondly, in a capitalist state the state benefits are replaced with private insurance policies which are cheaper.

Now I am not so harsh as to say the unemployed, old, young or those not capable of working should go without. Covering just these instead of the entire population would decimate our budget spending. In addition if we -

1. Gave out capital and corporal punishment instead of locking criminals up.

2. Cut education places at College and University to match the availability of professions.

We could save £100's of billions a year. This money is currently being wasted on needless and pointless socialism.

so what punishment would they give out for tax evasion .i think 5 years with 200 lashes of the cat a year would be about right.glass houses and stones .do you ever really think before you post this stuff or do you do it for effect. my 14 year old moody son has more social sense then you do .

[Tiggs]

You attack my character every time you accuse me of wanting or not caring wether someone dies when I never say that.

Actions have consequences.

If you don't want people to die, then perhaps you should rethink your plan of taking away the only source of money and food that the poor have if they're unable to provide for themselves fast enough for your liking.

You're very fuzzy on the consequences of that particular action. I'm not, and nor are other people on both sides of the aisle.

Your bullheaded arrogance is impossible to reason with.

You, on the other hand, are a pure joy to converse with.

You constantly aggregate and inflame the conversation. As for your last sentence, see my first one again.

From my viewpoint - you're the one who's doing that.

[F3SS]

Actions have consequences.

If you don't want people to die, then perhaps you should rethink your plan of taking away the only source of money and food that the poor have if they're unable to provide for themselves fast enough for your liking.

Maybe you should rethink yours too if you ever want [certain]people to fend for themselves you would teach them to fish and instead of feeding them fish. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. You keep giving to those who don't really need it and they'll have their hand in your pocket forever. Your actions have consequences too. Keeping a man dependent will kill him the second you tell him no. People here will survive. You want to fight poverty, do it right and donate to starving African kids. A poor person here is a rich man there. You're far too dramatic about everyone dying if we actually had a cut off point for entitlements.

You, on the other hand, are a pure joy to converse with.

Why thank you! Now tell me something I don't know!

Edited August 19, 2012 by Is it for real

[Tiggs]

Maybe you should rethink yours too if you ever want [certain]people to fend for themselves you would teach them to fish and instead of feeding them fish. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. You keep giving to those who don't really need it and they'll have their hand in your pocket forever. People here will survive.

Y'know - it's not that I don't understand the lovely, folksy sentiment that you're trying to push. It's the kind of thing that may well work in a very small community, where everyone knows everyone, and everyone looks out for one another.

What I'm telling you is that for the United States as a whole, with the current population and job demographics - even with optimal matching of people to jobs - it's mathematically impossible to take everyone out of poverty.

You're far too dramatic about everyone dying if we actually had a cut off point for entitlements.

What is the acceptable death rate for that?

[keithisco]

Y'know - it's not that I don't understand the lovely, folksy sentiment that you're trying to push. It's the kind of thing that may well work in a very small community, where everyone knows everyone, and everyone looks out for one another.

What I'm telling you is that for the United States as a whole, with the current population and job demographics - even with optimal matching of people to jobs - it's mathematically impossible to take everyone out of poverty.

What is the acceptable death rate for that?

.. and just what the heck has your comments to do with the OP?? NOTHING!! (yes it was rhetorical)

[Tiggs]

If you're not able to see how the OP and this argument both relate to budgetary class warfare, then I'm not entirely sure what to tell you.

Perhaps it'd help if I put it into a fully French Context for you:

Y'know - it's not that I don't understand the lovely, folksy sentiment that you're trying to push. It's the kind of thing that may well work in a very small community, where everyone knows everyone, and everyone looks out for one another.

What I'm telling you is that for France as a whole, with the current population and job demographics - even with optimal matching of people to jobs - it's mathematically impossible to take everyone out of poverty.

Because exactly the same argument also applies to France, which is also a welfare state with high income inequality and high unemployment, albeit with roughly half the poverty rate of the United States.

[Mr Right Wing]

1. Then - as they were Democratically elected - what is it exactly that you're complaining about?

2. What you've written isn't at all clear. Hence my attempt at clarification. If you don't have a clear premise then there's really no argument to be won, is there?

3. Only religious beliefs deal in absolutes.

4. There are several examples where exactly the opposite of your claim is true - where privatization has increased the costs of something previously run by the state. For example, the UK railway industry has seen a permanent increase in costs of between 20 to 30% due to fragmentation.

5. Matthew 5

6. Y'know - if you're not willing to be shot in the head for a crime you didn't commit - why do you think anyone else will be?

7. I'm sure that waiting the 8 or so years it'd take for someone to get a Ph D. when those job openings start to appear will be entirely optimal.

8. How about you let the free market decide what the future holds in terms of demand rather than you limiting the country's future potential with your finger-in-the-air statist planning techniques?

9. Let me share a secret with you. There are lots of jobs that require a Degree, but aren't particularly specific about which field that degree is actually in.

1. If they actually represented what the people want then nothing.

2. Everything is clear except to people like yourself.

3. When you have to resort to that kind of argument you've lost the debate.

4. How does privatising an under-invested in railway system invalidate the argument. Take the Marxism elsewhere.

5. Selecting the verses which support your argument while ignoring those that dont isnt evidence.

6. Thats right just think about yourself. Nevermind that a death penalty is the lessor of the two evils as it significantly reduces crime rates. Nevermind that more people lose their lives in response to the weak attitude towards crime and punishment that you advocate. So long as you're alright sod the rest of society.

7. Who pays for this education wastage? That could be lower taxes instead.

8. Precisely, if there is no demand for 500 geologists we dont educate 500. You're the statist.

9. Then they dont need the degree to do the job then do they. More education wastage.

Are you another Marxist?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Guest]

9. Then they dont need the degree to do the job then do they. More education wastage.

You don't understand the purpose of a degree do you ?

Heres a clue - no modern company trains its own executives. There is no apprentice scheme for experts and managers.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 20, 2012 by Guest

[F3SS]

Y'know - it's not that I don't understand the lovely, folksy sentiment that you're trying to push. It's the kind of thing that may well work in a very small community, where everyone knows everyone, and everyone looks out for one another.

What I'm telling you is that for the United States as a whole, with the current population and job demographics - even with optimal matching of people to jobs - it's mathematically impossible to take everyone out of poverty.

What is the acceptable death rate for that?

And I agree with that. The difference is you have no problem with fraud and abuse and I do. All these programs take money from us and give it to people who don't need it as much as they give to people that do. You say more taxes will help the poor. I disagree. They can't spend my taxes properly in the first place. Why shouldn't I have a problem giving more? As for an acceptable death rate...That's a terrible question but that's also life. What am I suppose to do about it besides ask that they cut the waste and give to more people in need as opposed to those that don't? One person said earlier that there is a big difference between the needy and the lazy and you refuse to acknowledge that without calling us deathmongers and selfish. I know you never said those exact words, you don't need to go ten pages back to pull a quote and prove it. Remember, "context".

[Mr Right Wing]

You don't understand the purpose of a degree do you ?

Heres a clue - no modern company trains its own executives. There is no apprentice scheme for experts and managers.

Br Cornelius

Yes, and you do understand that putting 100,000 per year through University is a waste of tax payers money?

If only 2000 new degree jobs will be available throught the entire country then those wasted billions would be better coming off the tax rates. Everyone would have more money in their pockets.

The Labour Party is a joke.

[Guest]

Yes, and you do understand that putting 100,000 per year through University is a waste of tax payers money?

If only 2000 new degree jobs will be available throught the entire country then those wasted billions would be better coming off the tax rates. Everyone would have more money in their pockets.

The Labour Party is a joke.

England doesn't do manual jobs anymore (apart from the ones filled by immigrants) so almost all jobs now require a degree level eduction. Its the modern world we live in.

In fact stroke that one - just substitute England doesn't work anymore.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

England doesn't do manual jobs anymore (apart from the ones filled by immigrants) so almost all jobs now require a degree level eduction. Its the modern world we live in.

In fact stroke that one - just substitute England doesn't work anymore.

Br Cornelius

besides the little factoid that facilities for vocational training and places to do an apprenticeship have been discontinued/closed over the last 30 years. Even if one tried to reignite production in the UK it would be a process over many decades.

[F3SS]

England doesn't do manual jobs anymore (apart from the ones filled by immigrants) so almost all jobs now require a degree level eduction. Its the modern world we live in.

Is England now a future land filled with aoutmated labor robots? So every roofer, landscaper, auto mechanic, construction crew, electrician, plumber, mason and farmer are all immigrants or robots? Every manal labor job is beneath every single englishman? No brit gets their hands dirty? Everyone has an office job? That's seems ludacris to me...

[questionmark]

Is England now a future land filled with aoutmated labor robots? So every roofer, landscaper, auto mechanic, construction crew, electrician, plumber, mason and farmer are all immigrants or robots? Every manal labor job is beneath every single englishman? No brit gets their hands dirty? Everyone has an office job? That's seems ludacris to me...

The people who mostly do those jobs have to be hired in Poland, Hungary or Romania. The Brits rather live off the dole, and because they have so much time doing that they complain about the emigrants.

[Guest]

The people who mostly do those jobs have to be hired in Poland, Hungary or Romania. The Brits rather live off the dole, and because they have so much time doing that they complain about the emigrants.

By encouraging immigrants to come and do the manual jobs, who save and return home to cheaper countries, there is a whole class of work which no longer pays enough to meet basic living costs in England. Housing is extremely expensive and many immigrant labourers do bed hopping in cheap shared flats to reduce their outgoings.

There are literally many jobs which only youths living at home or immigrants can afford to perform.

As to the other point - many seemingly menial manufacturing jobs require degree level engineers as the situation is heavily mechanized and the it involves fault finding.

My brother is a telecommunications engineer who fault finds exchanges. He was one of the last generations of apprentices and took 20 years of ongoing on the job training to learn his skills. Nowdays the company would just employ a degree level telecoms engineer to do the same job.

As I said - these are the modern realities of a globalized economy where only people who are truly indespensible can command living wages.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 20, 2012 by Guest

[F3SS]

By encouraging immigrants to come and do the manual jobs, who save and return home to cheaper countries, there is a whole class of work which no longer pays enough to meet basic living costs in England. Housing is extremely expensive and many immigrant labourers do bed hopping in cheap shared flats to reduce their outgoings.

There are literally many jobs which only youths living at home or immigrants can afford to perform.

As to the other point - many seemingly menial manufacturing jobs require degree level engineers as the situation is heavily mechanized and the it involves fault finding.

My brother is a telecommunications engineer who fault finds exchanges. He was one of the last generations of apprentices and took 20 years of ongoing on the job training to learn his skills. Nowdays the company would just employ a degree level telecoms engineer to do the same job.

As I said - these are the modern realities of a globalized economy where only people who are truly indespensible can command living wages.

Br Cornelius

Well in that case you get what you pay for. Engineers for basic manufacturing jobs= highly overpriced products that your average American could do just as well for half the price and I know a bit about manual labor and hiring the cheapest guys, you get shoddy work that you end up paying for twice because your brand new roof won't stop leaking and you end up calling the guy you should've called in the first place. In both cases, it's an economic wreck because everything ends up costing twice as much as it needs to. Unless, your engineers are getting paid according to their use and not their degree. As for cheap manual labor, that is what it is. Cheap and probably crap.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Is it for real

[Tiggs]

1. If they actually represented what the people want then nothing.

Either they do, or the people will vote in someone that does. The UN Human Right's declaration is over 50 years old, and no political party seems to be in any particular hurry to unratify it.

2. Everything is clear except to people like yourself.

I'm sure that makes perfect sense in your head.

3. When you have to resort to that kind of argument you've lost the debate.

Less of an argument and more of a statement, I think you'll find.

4. How does privatising an under-invested in railway system invalidate the argument.

Because it's an example that privatization doesn't always work, counter to your claim that I'm "the only person on Earth who thinks private isnt cheaper than state".

Take the Marxism elsewhere.

Newsflash. Privatization isn't some sort of silver-bullet cure-all to replace the entirety of Government. Government-run systems are in many cases cheaper than the privatized alternative.

5. Selecting the verses which support your argument while ignoring those that dont isnt evidence.

Do feel free to show any verses where you think Jesus is supporting the whole "eye for an eye " concept.

6. Thats right just think about yourself. Nevermind that a death penalty is the lessor of the two evils as it significantly reduces crime rates. Nevermind that more people lose their lives in response to the weak attitude towards crime and punishment that you advocate.

Y'know - if you can get the National Academy of Sciences to believe that, then we'll talk.

Until then - I'm going to file your plan for killing people that are sometimes innocent in order to reduce the killing of innocent people along with all of your other grand ideas in the big circular file.

So long as you're alright sod the rest of society.

Says the man happy to kill a few innocent people, now and then, for the sake of expedience, just as long as it's not him.

7. Who pays for this education wastage? That could be lower taxes instead.

The question, actually, should be who's going to replace the £227,000 that every University Student boosts the UK economy by, if you stop them from getting degrees?

8. Precisely, if there is no demand for 500 geologists we dont educate 500. You're the statist.

Because I'm the one that wants the government to be able to dictate who and what can be taught, rather than allowing the free market to decide?

What do you think that Statist means, exactly?

9. Then they dont need the degree to do the job then do they. More education wastage.

Best of luck with arguing that at the job interview.

From an employer's perspective - a degree shows a level of ability to learn, regardless of which subject it's in.

Are you another Marxist?

Because everyone that disagrees with you must be one?

[Stellar]

What is even more insane is that they have the same vote as a person paying taxes.

Should your right to vote be dependent on the amount which you contribute to the government?

[Render]

French 75% income tax struck down by constitutional council

France's constitutional council has struck down a top income tax rate of 75% introduced by Socialist President Francois Hollande.

Raising taxes for those earning more than 1m euros (£817,400) has been a flagship policy for Mr Hollande.

The policy angered France's business community and prompted some wealthy citizens to say they would emigrate.

Mr Hollande's government said it would rework the tax, due to take effect in 2013, to meet the council's complaints.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20864114

[stevewinn]

well, if they eventually do pass this tax. it might benefit us,

London Mayor says 'bonjour' to banks fleeing French tax Britain should welcome with "open arms" French banks that want to move business from Paris to London to escape France's new financial transaction tax, according to the Mayor of London.

Boris Johnson and David Cameron today urged French bankers to quit Paris and move to London in a dramatic escalation of a row with the French president.

The Mayor joined the Prime Minister in calling for traders to escape Nicolas Sarkozy's plans for a financial tax by setting up business in the Square Mile.

Mr Johnson said: "Bienvenue à Londres. This is the global capital of finance. It's on your doorstep and if your own president does not want the jobs, the opportunities and the economic growth that you generate, we do." Hours earlier Mr Cameron condemned Mr Sarkozy's plans for a new financial transaction levy. Speaking at an EU summit in Brussels, he stressed that the new tax could cost the EU half a million jobs. He added: "If France goes for a financial transactions tax, then the door will be open and we will be able to welcome many French banks to the United Kingdom.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/move-to-london-boris-tells-paris-banks-7313292.html

[Yamato]

Almost half the people in the US do not pay federal income tax. That is insane. What is even more insane is that they have the same vote as a person paying taxes. How is that fair and of course, the freeloaders will then vote for a party that guarantees they will never have to pay taxes. The end result is laughably obvious.

Income taxes need to be done away with and a consumption tax, like the fair tax, installed instead. Everybody pays. If that isn't possible then I wouldn't allow the freeloaders tio vote. F-em, you need to have skin in the game to play. Want a vote, get off your overweight fodstamp consuming, welfare lounging ass and work.

Invalids and elderly excepted of course.

Almost half the people in the US do not pay federal income tax. That is insane. What is even more insane is that they have the same vote as a person paying taxes. How is that fair and of course, the freeloaders will then vote for a party that guarantees they will never have to pay taxes. The end result is laughably obvious.

Income taxes need to be done away with and a consumption tax, like the fair tax, installed instead. Everybody pays. If that isn't possible then I wouldn't allow the freeloaders tio vote. F-em, you need to have skin in the game to play. Want a vote, get off your overweight fodstamp consuming, welfare lounging ass and work.

Invalids and elderly excepted of course.

Everybody already pays a federal employment tax that's fair and not based on income, which seems to be just what you're asking for. It's called FICA. You seem to be asking for more of the same, except this time naming it explicitly to income, even though it's "fair" and thus independent of income. Having this tax, and that tax, and the other tax, might justify collecting it at least rhetorically; but it's all revenue, and it all gets spent as soon as it's collected. Dollars are fungible. So how is asking for more revenue a path to leaner government?

If half our workers don't pay income taxes, we're half way there.