Good News! "French court rejects 75 percent millionaires' tax" - New England Patriots Forums

PatriotsReign · 12-29-2012, 09:14 AM

Thought this was a surprise for a country like France. Although the article does mention some citizens leaving France if the measure was passed.

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires' tax

Quote:

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Constitutional Council on Saturday rejected a 75 percent upper income tax rate to be introduced in 2013 in a setback to Socialist President Francois Hollande's push to make the rich contribute more to cutting the public deficit.

The Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) - a flagship measure of Hollande's election campaign - was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households.

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires' tax - Yahoo! Finance

Real World · 12-29-2012, 10:36 AM

Apparently this may only be a temporary setback for the loons in office. They've said they're going to rewrite the legislation so that it conforms to the courts objections, and eventually passes.

On a sane note, can you imagine the ignorance, and outright lunacy, of implementing a 75% tax rate on income? If anyone involved is "shocked, stunned, or surprised" by the mass exodus of high income earners, they're complete and utter fools. I'd leave in a nano second if I made millions per year. If I were an actor, athlete, or whatever, I'd never, ever do work there. Unless there are some kind of quirks to who pays, can you imagine being a soccer player for example, like Zoltan Ibrahimovich playing for PSG (Paris pro team), making say $10 million euros per, and having to give 75% of everything over $1 million euros to the French government? That's outright insane. I'd never, ever play there. 75%!!!!!!!

***Patters*** · 12-29-2012, 10:53 AM

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Ilikehappyppl · 12-29-2012, 11:06 AM

Good News? lol glad your happy PR, maybe they'll let you pick up some of their crumbs...

Its too bad it didn't pass, like Patters said, we did this in the US in the 1940's-1950's and it got us out of debt and we became the greatest economic powerhouse every created....

I guess you don't like History do you PR? Because you and others are bound to repeat it....When the blind lead the blind they both fall into a ditch...

Ilikehappyppl · 12-29-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Apparently this may only be a temporary setback for the loons in office. They've said they're going to rewrite the legislation so that it conforms to the courts objections, and eventually passes.

On a sane note, can you imagine the ignorance, and outright lunacy, of implementing a 75% tax rate on income? If anyone involved is "shocked, stunned, or surprised" by the mass exodus of high income earners, they're complete and utter fools. I'd leave in a nano second if I made millions per year. If I were an actor, athlete, or whatever, I'd never, ever do work there. Unless there are some kind of quirks to who pays, can you imagine being a soccer player for example, like Zoltan Ibrahimovich playing for PSG (Paris pro team), making say $10 million euros per, and having to give 75% of everything over $1 million euros to the French government? That's outright insane. I'd never, ever play there. 75%!!!!!!!

Anyone is replaceable, don't let the door hit you on the way out....Cry cry cry cry, *****,*****,*****, moan,moan,moan....Poor rich people....I feel so bad for them!

PatriotsReign · 12-29-2012, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

I think most of us worship FAIRNESS. No gov't should every get more of someone's income than the person earning it.

To believe otherwise is nuts to me.

You can't compare Roosevelt (depression days) or the golden age of American economy (Eisenhower) to today.

Today, people will easily re-locate to a lower tax nation in heart-beat if we tax them at very high levels. And one can't blame them either.

I think we have 2 issues going on simultaneously.

1. What is a fair tax for each income level?

2. People on government assistance often live at the same standards as an average American family earning the average income.

So yes, wealthy Americans need to pay more taxes, I agree. But no family on gov't assistance should be living at the same standards as a working family.

Otherwise, why put much effort into WORK?

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State | ZeroHedge

Quote:

the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."

Also, from a 2 year study by the Heritage Foundation;

Quote:

- The typical “poor” household in America has a car

- 78% of “poor” households in America have air conditioning

- 64% of “poor” households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and VCR

- Most “poor” households in America with children have a gaming system such as an Xbox or PlayStation

- 38% of “poor” households in America have a personal computer

- Most “poor” households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

- The typical “poor” American has more living space than the average European.

- The typical “poor” American family is able to obtain medical care when needed.

- The average “poor” household in America claims to have sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.

No wonder why so many Americans want our wealthy to pay more! So Americans in poverty can live at the average standard of working Americans! Very, very sad....

moan,moan,moan....Poor poor people....I feel so bad for them!

Ilikehappyppl · 12-29-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I think most of us worship FAIRNESS. No gov't should every get more of someone's income than the person earning it.

To believe otherwise is nuts to me.

You can't compare Roosevelt (depression days) or the golden age of American economy (Eisenhower) to today.

Today, people will easily re-locate to a lower tax nation in heart-beat if we tax them at very high levels. And one can't blame them either.

I think we have 2 issues going on simultaneously.

1. What is a fair tax for each income level?

2. People on government assistance often live at the same standards as an average American family earning the average income.

So yes, wealthy Americans need to pay more taxes, I agree. But no family on gov't assistance should be living at the same standards as a working family.

Otherwise, why put much effort into WORK?

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State | ZeroHedge

Also, from a 2 year study by the Heritage Foundation;

No wonder why so many Americans want our wealthy to pay more! So Americans in poverty can live at the average standard of working Americans! Very, very sad....

moan,moan,moan....Poor poor people....I feel so bad for them!

Quote:

I think most of us worship FAIRNESS

Life isn't fair, get over it and move on....If the world was fair people would get paid a fair wage, right?

PatriotsReign · 12-29-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilikehappyppl

Life isn't fair, get over it and move on....If the world was fair people would get paid a fair wage, right?

No, if life was actually fair, people doing lowly jobs would make lowly wages.

***IcyPatriot*** · 12-29-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

That 90% thing is all myth Patters.

that was the tax rate for earnings over $200,000 back then which today = @ 2.5 million.

Also taxes were paid on taxable income and not earned income.
You could deduct everything back then ... even your spouses lunch.

Overall without getting into boring statistics they paid around 40% back in the 40's.

Historically we have paid @ 19.5% of GDP for taxes ... Hauser's Law.

Hauser's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

From fiscal year 1946 to fiscal year 2007, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9%. 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's law suggests.

Our long recession has pushed that number to a very low 15% in 2009.
some disagree with Hauser but I think they are mostly saying the same thing as to the problem.

Quote:

Economist Mike Kimel, writing for the Angry Bear website, has stated that Hauser's Law is misleading as it sweeps large differences under the table. He wrote that tax revenue is higher in the years following a tax increase and lower in the years following a tax cut.

He defined the time periods 1951-1953, 1967-1968, and 1991-2001 as "tax hike eras",

and

1953-1967, 1969-1991, 2001-2010 as "tax cut eras", and points out that tax revenues increase in "tax hike eras" and that tax cuts lead to lower revenues.

So the tax cuts really have not paid off due to a variety of factors. IMO we need to get to at least the 21% level by increasing taxes on everyone earning over $50,000 for singles and $75,000 for married couples. make the increase progressive adding say .5% increase on the low end and raising up to a top tier of the + $500,000 people.

All should pay more and we need to eliminate loopholes and tax havens as much as possible. We need to move away from a federalist system and start a national sales tax on everything except for food, clothing and medical expenses. That would include houses, cars, boats, planes and even services and vacations and golf and everything including peanuts on airplanes ... every dollar spent should be taxed and the high spenders (rich) would truly pay more.

Also we need to move away from the tax cut myth which is all political ... it does not help in the long run.

RI Patriots fan · 12-29-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Um.....the economy suffered drastically during the FDR years with high taxes. Just ask FDR's Secretary of the Treasury....he was beyond worried that business growth was very very poor.