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
 Share

Recommended Posts

No where in that report was starvation mentioned. You are greatly exaggerating the problem. I'll gladly discuss why the republicans are willing to let the "tax cuts" expire, they are unwilling to allow the debt to keep increasing. Also, they want to make the tax cuts permanent. Regardless, throwing the dems out of office will solve that little problem.

Can you explain to me why the Senate has not presented a budget, their constitutional duty, in nearly 1,100 days?

So 47% not paying taxes is fine by you. How about 70%? Is that fine by you? 80%? How much debt should the republicans allow? How about 100% of GDP because Obama has us at nearly 80% now. 120%?

let me see if i understand this right because im english and we dont have fedral taxes.are you saying that the people who dont earn enough to be eligable to pay federal tax shouldnt be allowed to vote ?

if that is what you are saying then you should get a grip of yourself and think about what democracy really is if it isnt then i apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me see if i understand this right because im english and we dont have fedral taxes.are you saying that the people who dont earn enough to be eligable to pay federal tax shouldnt be allowed to vote ?

if that is what you are saying then you should get a grip of yourself and think about what democracy really is if it isnt then i apologise.

What do you mean by "doesn't make enough to pay taxes"? I want to be sure before I respond because the statement is an oxymoron. BTW, in the US we, supposedly, pay federal taxes on everything we earn. In the last few decades, however, the government has exempted more and more people to the point that 47% now pay nothing yet derive all benefits. If you think that is a sustainable system then I'd love an explanation.

Would you agree with a form of government that allows one group to vote to take what another group produces because the first group believes they deserve it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

No where in that report was starvation mentioned.

And nowhere in my posts is starvation mentioned, either.

Let me make this perfectly clear for you:

A child that experiences food insecurity will have a shorter life expectancy than a child that does not.

I'll gladly discuss why the republicans are willing to let the "tax cuts" expire, they are unwilling to allow the debt to keep increasing. Also, they want to make the tax cuts permanent.

You appear to be confused. Which is it? Are the Republicans going to:

1. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, reduce the debt and increase the number of people who pay federal taxes.

or

2. Make the Bush Tax cuts permanent, increase the debt and leave the number of people who don't pay Federal taxes where it is.

It's either one or the other, so choose. (Hint: It's 2).

Can you explain to me why the Senate has not presented a budget, their constitutional duty, in nearly 1,100 days?

The Senate has a Constitutional duty to present a budget?

I disagree. Evidence, please.

So 47% not paying taxes is fine by you.

47% of Taxpayers not paying Federal income taxes during a recession is perfectly fine with me.

How about 70%? Is that fine by you? 80%?

In order to increase that figure, you'd have to give away additional Federal tax cuts. I think you'll find that's Republican territory.

How much debt should the republicans allow? How about 100% of GDP because Obama has us at nearly 80% now. 120%?

I'm sure that if the Republicans return to any sort of power that they will incur as much debt as they possibly can - since it's their stated political goal to defund the Federal Government through manufacturing financial crises by giving away unsustainable tax cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And nowhere in my posts is starvation mentioned, either.

Let me make this perfectly clear for you:

A child that experiences food insecurity will have a shorter life expectancy than a child that does not.

Define food insecurity and show me the stats on life expectancy based on that definition. Baseless argument. Neither has anything to do with the argument at hand but you choose to derail as liberals tend to do when they are losing a debate. They don't have the courage to admit they are wrong, hence Obama.

You appear to be confused. Which is it? Are the Republicans going to:

1. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, reduce the debt and increase the number of people who pay federal taxes.

or

2. Make the Bush Tax cuts permanent, increase the debt and leave the number of people who don't pay Federal taxes where it is.

It's either one or the other, so choose. (Hint: It's 2).

Probably is 2,sadly. They don't want the press to run away with the story as they did a few years ago. If I had my way I would shove it up Reid and OBama's ass and let the people decide but Boehner will back down.

The Senate has a Constitutional duty to present a budget?

I disagree. Evidence, please.

Article 1 but you can define as you please. I find it reprehensible that the Senate has not even brought forth a budget proposal. Do you defend this behavior? Would you agree if it was a republican Senate and house? I guarantee the answer is no. Why hasn't Reid put out a budget? Because you folks would be destroyed in the next election (2010 would be minor) if the country knew what you were doing.

47% of Taxpayers not paying Federal income taxes during a recession is perfectly fine with me.

Finally an answer. Now we are getting somewhere.

In order to increase that figure, you'd have to give away additional Federal tax cuts. I think you'll find that's Republican territory.

Nope, you live in a zero sum gain world. Decrease taxes and increase revenue. Plus K economics has been proved a massive failure over the last three plus years. I guarantee when we take over the executive and legislative in November the economy will take a huge upswing. If it doesn't I will leave, will you do the same if I am right?

I'm sure that if the Republicans return to any sort of power that they will incur as much debt as they possibly can - since it's their stated political goal to defund the Federal Government through manufacturing financial crises by giving away unsustainable tax cuts.

You'll be proved wrong just as you were in 1980. A 75% tax rate in France will gut the country and just as the poster above said, it is absolute BS since any rational person realizes that taxes at that level destroy an economy.

I am willing to bet, are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Define food insecurity and show me the stats on life expectancy based on that definition. Baseless argument. Neither has anything to do with the argument at hand but you choose to derail as liberals tend to do when they are losing a debate. They don't have the courage to admit they are wrong, hence Obama.

Which argument do you think that we're having exactly?

You're trying to say that the poor have no skin in the game. I'm telling you that that's exactly what they have in the game.

Food insecurity is a well-defined concept, as are the stats on life expectancy by socioeconomic group. For example:

0323-nat-HEALTH-web.jpg

Source: New York Times

Probably is 2,sadly. They don't want the press to run away with the story as they did a few years ago. If I had my way I would shove it up Reid and OBama's ass and let the people decide but Boehner will back down.

Are you even aware that Option 2 is preferred Republican policy?

Article 1 but you can define as you please.

Please show the wording within Article 1 that you believe compels the Senate to propose a new budget annually.

I don't believe it remotely exists. You want to know what is in the Constitution, though? A person's right to vote - as extended in the 14th, 15th, 24th and 26th amendment to cover every American Adult.

Y'know. That thing that you don't think that the poor should be allowed to have.

I find it reprehensible that the Senate has not even brought forth a budget proposal. Do you defend this behavior? Would you agree if it was a republican Senate and house? I guarantee the answer is no. Why hasn't Reid put out a budget? Because you folks would be destroyed in the next election (2010 would be minor) if the country knew what you were doing.

You folks?

Firstly - I'm not a Democrat.

Secondly - if a new budget isn't proposed, then the budget from the previous year continues. The fact is that the Republicans are currently so intent on destroying the Federal Government that it's pointless for the Democrats to even try to make a new budgetary deal between the two houses.

Nope, you live in a zero sum gain world. Decrease taxes and increase revenue. Plus K economics has been proved a massive failure over the last three plus years. I guarantee when we take over the executive and legislative in November the economy will take a huge upswing.

Then you've really not been paying attention. Due to the automatic budgetary cuts that are on the horizon, the US is highly likely to fall into a second recession regardless of who is elected. The only real question is how long and how deep. Try Googling "Fiscal Cliff".

Decreasing Taxes will not increase revenue - but it's not particularly meant to.

As I've already said - there is a stated Republican goal to deliberately create a series of funding crises in order to defund the Federal Government.

If it doesn't I will leave, will you do the same if I am right?

No, as firstly - I'm unable to for various legal reasons and secondly - I don't decide which country I'm going to live in on the basis of a bet.

You'll be proved wrong just as you were in 1980.

Because the US doesn't currently have a massive national debt?

A 75% tax rate in France will gut the country and just as the poster above said, it is absolute BS since any rational person realizes that taxes at that level destroy an economy.

You know which country had higher Top Tax Rates?

I am willing to bet, are you?

I'm not the gambling type. I prefer making my decisions on the basis of solid information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I thought I was on a link talking about pigglet's wish to tax the rich people of France .... my bad!

Just in case it was the rich people of this country don't live there anymore

Yannick Noah lives in Spain

Johny Halliday, Dany Boone, Jean Luc Besson live in LA

Johny Deep is moving of Provence atthough he didn't pay is revenue taxes in France

Most entrepreneurs are moving to UK Belgium; Switzerland,

Jo Wilfried Tsonga also moved to Switzerland

Most of the player of the French soccer team moved to Spain also

The people who actually get taxed are low or medium earning class which is actually disappearing.

More and more people are doing work on the black market to keep up with half way decent way of life.

If any country really wants the rich to pay taxes; their government should eliminates the loopholes.

Oh and by the way, too bad there isn't any article in English about it (actuallyt there are only very few in French as they get quickly censured) when pigglet and his goones designed the law they made sure they were all slightly below the limit so they didn't have to pay. The entire thing is a socialists parody of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which argument do you think that we're having exactly?

You're trying to say that the poor have no skin in the game. I'm telling you that that's exactly what they have in the game.

How does starving in the richest country on earth, with federal aid available in the form of welfare and foodstamps give you skin in the game? I would say that if you and your children are starving on this country while people in Mexico are getting US foodtsamps you are an absolute idiot or are so insane that you should be institutionalized but in either case shouldn't be voting as you are an incompetent.

I realize what the weak republicans policy is which is why I agreed with option 2. We are in the process of tossing the RINOs out as fast as we can so that the new crop will hold your democrats feet to the fire.

Hopefully the new crop of republicans do gut the present government. Isn't that what elections are about? Are you thinking the present government is working???

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I thought I was on a link talking about pigglet's wish to tax the rich people of France .... my bad!

Just in case it was the rich people of this country don't live there anymore

Yannick Noah lives in Spain

Johny Halliday, Dany Boone, Jean Luc Besson live in LA

Johny Deep is moving of Provence atthough he didn't pay is revenue taxes in France

Most entrepreneurs are moving to UK Belgium; Switzerland,

Jo Wilfried Tsonga also moved to Switzerland

Most of the player of the French soccer team moved to Spain also

The people who actually get taxed are low or medium earning class which is actually disappearing.

More and more people are doing work on the black market to keep up with half way decent way of life.

If any country really wants the rich to pay taxes; their government should eliminates the loopholes.

Oh and by the way, too bad there isn't any article in English about it (actuallyt there are only very few in French as they get quickly censured) when pigglet and his goones designed the law they made sure they were all slightly below the limit so they didn't have to pay. The entire thing is a socialists parody of law

You are correct and I apologize, the progressive mod has dragged us wildly off topic thereby hijacking the thread. Great facts proving that confiscatory tax policies drive the capital out. Punish the rich is now the rallying cry of the progressive left and it is self destructive.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me see if i understand this right because im english and we dont have fedral taxes.are you saying that the people who dont earn enough to be eligable to pay federal tax shouldnt be allowed to vote ?

if that is what you are saying then you should get a grip of yourself and think about what democracy really is if it isnt then i apologise.

I dont believe in Democracy as every idiot has a vote. It should be qualified experts making decisions i.e. the psychologists decide the social policies, the accountants decide the financial policies, etc.

When you give the vote to people who are ignorant of the topics they're voting on its a disaster. Most people dont even know that much about the political parties to make an informed choice let alone know what day it is.

I would make it so that your qualifiations determine what you can vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont believe in Democracy as every idiot has a vote. It should be qualified experts making decisions i.e. the psychologists decide the social policies, the accountants decide the financial policies, etc.

When you give the vote to people who are ignorant of the topics they're voting on its a disaster. Most people dont even know that much about the political parties to make an informed choice let alone know what day it is.

I would make it so that your qualifiations determine what you can vote on.

Thomas More was beheaded for saying that .... be careful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont believe in Democracy as every idiot has a vote. It should be qualified experts making decisions i.e. the psychologists decide the social policies, the accountants decide the financial policies, etc.

When you give the vote to people who are ignorant of the topics they're voting on its a disaster. Most people dont even know that much about the political parties to make an informed choice let alone know what day it is.

I would make it so that your qualifiations determine what you can vote on.

If we allowed the qualified experts, educated in liberal universities by socialist professors, to make all teh decisions we'd be Greece. LOL.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

How does starving in the richest country on earth, with federal aid available in the form of welfare and foodstamps give you skin in the game? I would say that if you and your children are starving on this country while people in Mexico are getting US foodtsamps you are an absolute idiot or are so insane that you should be institutionalized but in either case shouldn't be voting as you are an incompetent.

People who have children who experience food insecurity are idiots and/or insane? As opposed to, say, poor?

Having skin in the game is whether or not you die younger. As I've shown, there is an unsurprising and marked correlation between poverty and life expectancy.

I realize what the weak republicans policy is which is why I agreed with option 2. We are in the process of tossing the RINOs out as fast as we can so that the new crop will hold your democrats feet to the fire.

By adopting 1 - the Democratic policy? Also - again. Not my Democrats.

Hopefully the new crop of republicans do gut the present government. Isn't that what elections are about? Are you thinking the present government is working???

I wouldn't vote for either of the two main parties, but out of the two, a Republican government would be much, much worse.

You are correct and I apologize, the progressive mod has dragged us wildly off topic thereby hijacking the thread.

Because I was the one that said that the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish you chaps from the USA would argue your own petty politics in the right forum. Let us Eurotrash argue the politics that affect Europe. I couldnt give a rats a**** about your ridiculous Dem / Rep arguments - just take them to the right thread... :tsu:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I was the one that said that the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Which led to food insecurity etc. etc. blah blah, whine.

You have it wrong, I never said the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote, I said anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes because they are on the public dole should not be allowed to vote. If the poor pay taxes then they absolutely should be allowed to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which led to food insecurity etc. etc. blah blah, whine.

You have it wrong, I never said the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote, I said anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes because they are on the public dole should not be allowed to vote. If the poor pay taxes then they absolutely should be allowed to vote.

But everybody pays taxes in form of State taxes when they go to the store or Federal taxes when they go to the pump!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everybody pays taxes in form of State taxes when they go to the store or Federal taxes when they go to the pump!

But tat is not the point. I don't know of you remember the Hunt bothers, infamous for manipulating the silver market in the 80s. They were advocating this scheme that every person's vote was to be valued proportionally to the taxes they paid.

To underlay their political idea they kept writing articles about how the US was not a democracy and that it did not matter if the representatives were elected by suffrage.

That thingy is evidently raising its ugly head again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But tat is not the point. I don't know of you remember the Hunt bothers, infamous for manipulating the silver market in the 80s. They were advocating this scheme that every person's vote was to be valued proportionally to the taxes they paid.

To underlay their political idea they kept writing articles about how the US was not a democracy and that it did not matter if the representatives were elected by suffrage.

That thingy is evidently raising its ugly head again.

You answered the wrong person :whistle: :whistle: . I know you and I don't see eyes to eyes on the left right thingy but I was saying in my post every one pays one form or another in taxes and therefore if should be able to vote 'xcept felons that is but that would be a different reason.

I really wish you chaps from the USA would argue your own petty politics in the right forum. Let us Eurotrash argue the politics that affect Europe. I couldnt give a rats a**** about your ridiculous Dem / Rep arguments - just take them to the right thread... :tsu:

Try to point that out earlier but it doesn't had any effect. Me being an ugly American living in France I understand how easely our US world could be the only one that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a country where Food insecurity effects 14.5% of the population. Where do you live?

I've suffered from food insecurity. I was in a band in my twenties and sometimes had to make the choice, food or bourban.....hmmmmm. Food insecurity it is! :yes:

But back to the topic...75% ?!?!?!? Talk about motivation to be mediocre.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've suffered from food insecurity. I was in a band in my twenties and sometimes had to make the choice, food or bourban.....hmmmmm. Food insecurity it is! :yes:

But back to the topic...75% ?!?!?!? Talk about motivation to be mediocre.

Not really, the country with most billionaires per inhabitant is Sweden and they have similar taxes. If your only drive is to be rich you might want to go to some other place though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) · (edited)

I've suffered from food insecurity. I was in a band in my twenties and sometimes had to make the choice, food or bourban.....hmmmmm. Food insecurity it is! :yes:

Bourbon is Food for Musicians™. As is Coffee and Cigarettes.

You have it wrong, I never said the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote, I said anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes because they are on the public dole should not be allowed to vote. If the poor pay taxes then they absolutely should be allowed to vote.

I'm not entirely sure why you think that limiting your position to just the absolute poorest in society makes it any better.

Edited by Tiggs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

The only question at hand is "Which party will have positioned itself to be in power at the time of the Dictatorship switch"?

Its at hand....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still not official. I'm kinda waiting for Hollande to bend. It's just not a full proof plan to impose, surely ppl must bring this to his attention.

Funny fact:

Zinedine Zidane, the French former World Cup winner, has waded into the row over François Hollande's plan to tax millionaires 75 per cent, saying it was "logical" the rich paid more.

Zidane_2255018b.jpg

The only problem is he pays his taxes in Spain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/francois-hollande/9346843/Zinedine-Zidane-defends-Francois-Hollandes-75-per-cent-tax-plan.html

:lol:

Edited by Render
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "doesn't make enough to pay taxes"? I want to be sure before I respond because the statement is an oxymoron. BTW, in the US we, supposedly, pay federal taxes on everything we earn. In the last few decades, however, the government has exempted more and more people to the point that 47% now pay nothing yet derive all benefits. If you think that is a sustainable system then I'd love an explanation.

Would you agree with a form of government that allows one group to vote to take what another group produces because the first group believes they deserve it?

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont believe in Democracy as every idiot has a vote. It should be qualified experts making decisions i.e. the psychologists decide the social policies, the accountants decide the financial policies, etc.

When you give the vote to people who are ignorant of the topics they're voting on its a disaster. Most people dont even know that much about the political parties to make an informed choice let alone know what day it is.

I would make it so that your qualifiations determine what you can vote on.

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.

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 :)

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.

  • Like 1
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.