75% Tax Rate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19754016

Well, it's gone through. Hollande's vision of a socialist utopia where profit is severely punished. Luckily I'm not in France, so I'm in a position to watch it all go to shit and see Rand proven complete right with a modern day example.

-A new 75% tax on the richest earning more than 1m euros
-A 45% income tax rate on incomes over 150,000 euros a year
-A freeze in government spending, excluding debt repayments and pensions
-The elimination of a ceiling on "l'impot de solidarite sur la fortune", or wealth taxes, so that assets of more than 1.3m euros will be taxed at 1.5%
-The reduction of tax exemptions for loan payments by large corporations
-Capital gains and dividends will now be subject to the income tax regime

I don't really care about passing judgment or throwing out derogatory remarks.  I just want to see what happens.

France tried to pull this on American citizens after the American Revolution. They are insane if they think that we are going to pay for a gift that was offered as free. Our monument still stands. Even the terrorists couldn't touch it.

This is one of those things that have one (maybe two) right ways, and a gazillion wrong ways to do it.

Id say, make the first 10k or so, tax exempt. The next 150k or so gets taxed 25%. The remainder, sub-1M, gets taxed 50%. Anything over 1M gets taxed 75%.

So you make, say, 2M/year? Lucky you. You get to pay
    150,000 ×25% =  37,500,
+   850,000 ×50% = 425,000,
+ 1,000,000 ×75% = 750,000
= total 1,222,500 – i.e. effectively 61.125% tax.
2M - 1,222,500 = 777,500 € post-tax income. (Over a million USD, faggots)
Is that not still enough to live comfortably? You get a brand new mahogany table to put food on, for starters.

>>1
Government is Jewish and these 75% will just be spent on Zionism agenda. Consider U.S. which pours billions of taxpayer money into Israel. I.e. Jews rob you out of your money, using your own government. That is what I call total pwnage!

>>4
And this is, my beauty, the Communism - when one side establishes total monopoly and demands all profit for itself. About 5% of these money will be spent on nigger welfare (so niggers wont riot), akin to soviet commies gave cheap vodka to workers; the rest 70% will be put to enslave entire world - U.S. has the biggest military budget, similarly to Soviet Union, which spent most of it's GDP on military.

>>4
It's not about whether or not the outcome is enough to live on comfortably, it's about what gives anyone the right to take such a disproportionally huge chunk of a person's income in the name of "fairness"?

What incentive to achieve a booming business do you have when HALF to THREE QUARTERS of your profit is just taken away from you with nothing in exchange?

Hollande's France is not the environment that allows a first world nation to form or continue to exist. The first thing that's going to happen, in the next couple of months, you're going to see most of the large companies that provide huge numbers of jobs and tax leave the country as soon as they can. Next you will see new legislation to prevent people from leaving, some kind of tax that makes it impossible to move assets or money out of the country without losing 90% of it. Then the debt will catch up and the food shortages will begin.

If none of this happens I will be very surprised. In fact, I will buy a hat and eat it if none of this has happened before Hollande leaves government.

>>7
what gives anyone the right to take such a disproportionally huge chunk of a person's income in the name of "fairness"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right

>>6
That would say more about the gummint in question than about the system of taxation.
U.S. has the biggest military budget
Not from taxing the rich, I can tell you that much!

>>7
with nothing in exchange
- Who's paying for the roads you drive on getting to work, to school, or going shopping?
- Who's paying for the police to keep order in the streets?
- If your house ever catches fire, who's paying to have firemen put out that fire?
- Assuming the gummint does not want sickness to be the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy; Who's gonna pay for the hospitals and doctors?

And assuming you really buy the «war on terror»;
- Who's paying to have the army do that fighting over there?
- Who's paying for the SWAT teams &stuff over here?

tl;dr: Where's the gummint gonna get the money to ever do stuff?

>>9
Not from taxing the rich, I can tell you that much!
Any tax increases prices and lowers wages, so in the end it's you who qill pay, while the rich kike just doesn't care, because he owns the country.

>>10
Please pay attention. I'm not saying that tax gets you nothing but when you pay a considerably higher rate of tax than other people you personally don't get MORE roads, police, firemen and healthcare.

You're not offering a fair exchange when you take more from someone because "they'll still be comfy." In fact, if you can afford it you're probably not even using public healthcare. So you're paying more for less.

>>12
This guy explains it better than I could: http://zompist.com/richtax.htm

tl;dr: Rich people actually get more from the system than poor people do.

If I own a factory, then that's not just me that's got to get to work on time, it's my ~1000 workers as well. Or else it's my income going down.
And I'll need them educated, so they can go straight to work without first needing months of on-the-job training.
And without public health care, guess who's gonna have to pick up the tab if one of my workers gets sick or has an accident?

>>13
Of course the argument falls apart if you didn't make your wealth employing other people and realize that even if you did you can't baby sit everyone around you because they can't be trusted to make good decisions.

>>13
Exactly! Workers are just a kind of capital.

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel" -- the famous Rabbi

>>14
If you don't make wealth employing people, then what good are you doing for the people?

Inb4 TrickleDown: If reagonomics really is so good for the poor, would that be the reason there's so many of them in the US now?

>>16
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? There's no reason a successful and profitable career should be measured against how much it helped other people, it isn't at all relevant.

http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/o/8538

pick your president like you pick a florist
pick your president like you pick a photo editing suite
pick your president like you pick your nose

>>17
Selfishness culture shill much?

You're effectively saying that rich people should be allowed to leech uncontrollably on the work of others, and to not contribute anything whatsoever.
There's a word for that: Parasite.

I'm not saying we should all slave for each other or anything, just that the idea of "contribute according to ability" has some merit.

>>20
He's not saying that, he's saying you instantly assume people who are wealthier than you are wealthy because they somehow stole the product of your labor.

Are you one of these people who say shit like "why do we have to learn math, when will we ever use it" and who look at people working in offices and think "they're not doing anything productive, not like my job flipping burgers in a paper hat"?

>>20
Mindless rhetoric much?

That's not what I said or implied, so please quit trying to suggest (or rather, overtly say) that I'm in favour of scorched earth capitalism because I don't think we should eat the rich.

What I said is measuring the worth of someone's effort based purely on how much it helped society is pointless. That kind of reasoning also demeans those who are employees and work for themselves.

>>20
There's a word for that: Parasite.
Funny fact: most entrepreneurs are parasites, because they are Jewish (like Larry Page and Zuckerberg), and all Jews are parasites.

>>23
What about upstanding aryan entrepreneurs like Edison and Ford?

>>21
Was I too subtle or someshit? I actually do separate between those who employ people and those who simply hoard wealth. Both types exist.

Are you one of these people who say shit like "why do we have to learn math, when will we ever use it"
Nope. I ain't quite that dumb.

>>25
As much as I'd love to picks holes in your argument, we're getting off track. You've yet to adequately explain why a 75% tax is justified.

>>23
Fun fact: Blind, pig-headed anti-Semitism only really serves to reinforce the martyr stamp on the Jews.
Fun fact: Us goyim really don't need that. Srsly.
Fun fact: Stamping another "shalom" on this post only makes you an even more retarded dumbfuck than you already were.

>>26
Depends on what we're gonna be taxing by that 75%.
If it's every single penny from that first €0.01, then there's no way I'm defending that. It's also not what I was outlining in >>4.

If it's the surplus exceeding a «luxury limit» way beyond what normal folk will ever make, then we're getting there.

>>28
Go on, you're not done yet. Why is that tax rate justified?

>>29
I can agree that 75% is a bit on the harsh side (continuing the example in >>4, I'd personally just as soon go with continuing the 50% chunk indefinitely), but let's face it; taxing the «luxury part» as such, is one step in the direction of everyone being actually equal to the law.

One of the core points in Socialism, that made the whole idea so appealing to so many, was the idea of «contribute according to ability». This does include taxation on income. And no, this does not demean the common worker, as they don't have a whole lot to contribute with.
Just to show that even Socialism can get things right every once in a while.


Btw, wasn't there this hearing thingy in the US at the start of the latest crisis thingy? The one where some of the biggest (failing) corporations had their leaders go to Washington – by corporate jet, no less! – to beg Washington for alms? The one where one of the senators asked if anyone of those leaders would be willing to give up (or at least share) their corporate jets, as one step towards saving on expenses? The one where the most repeated phrase was «Let the record show that no hands went up»?

What I'm driving at here, is that in the long run, you can only get so many people willing to keep pulling their own weight, when the richest people around, keep coming of as a bunch of greedy pricks.


Also, I remember hearing about a time when the right to vote depended on whether or not one had paid one's tax. Even if we're not going quite there, this will at least give rich folks the moral right to be bitching over where «my tax money» is going… ;-)


As for the dry stuff: I won't speculate what it says that nobody else noticed the mistake in the math (in >>4). With the first 10,000 exempt, the sub-1M taxable chunks become 10,000×0%=0; 150,000×25%=37,500; 840,000×50%×420,000; total 462,500 tax from that first million. That leaves you with 535,500.
An income of 2M then leaves one 1M×75%=750,000 to the 462,500 = 1,207,500; total 60.375%, leaving 792,500.
3M gives 2M×75%=1,500,000 + 462,500 = 1,962,500; total 65.42%, leaving 1,037,500.

>>30
You haven't really answered the question. You need to explain why demanding one group of people pay more than another because they're able to is justified, especially if you want to claim it helps equality... treating people differently.

>>31
Can the average street sweeper place a million Euros in a foreign tax haven at the drop of a hat?

If taken to court on trumped-up charges (I'm oh-so-not looking at you, MAFIAA), can the ordinary checkout girl ever afford a 100$/hour lawyer on a case that could draw out for weeks, even months? Where the opponent's lawyer can fast-talk the jury into fucking up? (Last I heard, the gummint only provides free lawyers in penal cases)


There's a bunch of cases like this, where «equality», and «equal» opportunity, actually really means «might (read: money) makes right». Like it or not, the deck is actually stacked rather solidly against the poor.

This would stack the deck just a little the other way, to balance the scores a bit. It's an equaliser of sorts.

>>32
What you've described is a problem of a broken legal system. Suggesting that it be corrected by ridiculously high taxation for all earning over a certain amount, regardless of whether they've ever been in a court room, is down right retarded because you're not actually fixing anything, you're just prescribing a system of blanket revenge.

>>33
Ok then, your turn: How exactly do you "unbreak" the system to not need such a counter-balance in the first place?

>>24
What about upstanding aryan entrepreneurs like Edison and Ford?
All ended in 20th century. Individuals, however smart they are, cant control economy on a global scale, their lives are limited and their children ain't guaranteed to pursue the same goals. International ethnic mafia, on the other hand, can.

>>27
Shalom! Why would we care about martyrs of foreign nation? The whole concept of martyrdom is mostly for internal consumption. So just kick the Jew in balls, next time he comes with his Jesus Christ whining.

>>36
The whole concept of martyrdom is mostly for internal consumption
Yeah, like making a whole new nation, displacing its original inhabitants, and then using more of that martyrdom for silencing the critics of said nation? Sure that's "internal". Riiight.

>>37
That is money, not martyrdom. Zionists control world finance and the strongest army (U.S. army), so they can displace any nation and silence anyone. Might is right.

>>38
That's some mighty detour you just took around my point. You been smoking again?

>>39
Shalom!

>>40
What are you smoking?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19996351

>Google has threatened to exclude French media sites from search results if France goes ahead with plans to make search engines pay for content.

Here come the looters! Google makes money, so let's find thinly veiled ways to grab it for the good of everyone! I hope they do go ahead so Google stops showing French media results and those media companies shit the bed.

>>42
French media are worthless propaganda. Half of their income is from state subsidies(!) Let Google kill them.

Reagan summed up the benefits thusly:

Back in the days of a strong US economy, there was a 90% tax on earnings over $100,000.  Reagan carefully kept an eye on his earnings and when they got close to the 100k mark, he'd take he rest of the year off and play golf. 

Since Ronnie had stopped working, that meant other actors took those roles and made money o buy things and pay taxes and so on -- which benefitted the economy and all Americans. 

So, it's a win-win scenario for all of us.

What!  How DARE French reporters want pay for their work! 

Viva la googel!

>>45
Did you even read the article?

Google gets advertising revenue from searches for news, this is not lost profits for French media in any way.

>>44
If someone is earning $100000 wouldn't you want to maximize their productivity?

>>47
You assume that the other actors are significantly less productive than Regan. I don't think this assumption can be justified.

>>48
Most actors are generic straight from drama school stock character fake bullshit, good actors are far and few between. We will never find true talent if people are cut off before they achieve stardom.