French kick Sarkozy to the curb - Hollande to tax rich at 75%

[ShawnD1]

I hope it happens.

I'm intellectually curious to see it enacted, and if it blows up in his face, perhaps we can put an end to the call for a return to the 95% Eisenhower tax rates.

I love how optimistic you are. People are still claiming we should return to the gold standard even though there's a very good reason nobody uses that anymore. "this time it will work!!" they say

 

[cybrsage]

To be fair, if another nation enacted the Gold Standard again, we could easily say "lets watch it and see what happenes", since it would provide a real world example. It would be far better to watch another nation destroy itself than to be the one doing the experiment and destroying ourselves.

 

[Atreus21]

Let's hope for the French that Hollande doesn't institute another Great Leap Forward.

 

[JTsyo]

Wait, did he already win or does he still need to win the runoff?

 

[dmcowen674]

Wait, did he already win or does he still need to win the runoff?

The runoff was a couple of weeks ago.

 

[ccbadd]

Sounds like you have no business keeping that business in business.

It is done and apparently you don't know it yet.

This is exactly what the conservatives are talking about! Envy has so polluted you that you prefer others to fail and stay at your level rather than you wanting raise yourself to a better place. Liberals = "Bring them all DOWN to the same level of prosperity", conservative = "Encourage them all to RAISE themselves to level of prosperity they would like".

 

[Juddog]

The response of millionaires who will just retire when it's no longer worth the time and effort to make so much money:

Millionaires retiring because it's no longer worth the effort?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*tears*

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh wait - you were serious? Moneymakers aren't going to just stop making money. Those with power always want more power. When have you ever heard of a company that didn't want to keep growing, or a rich person that didn't want to keep getting richer?

Even when the tax rate was at 95% back in mid-century, the rich were still rich. There just wasn't as huge as a divide as there is now, and the country was in better shape.

 

[yllus]

I think this will be interesting and potentially great for France. According to the economists I've read, a medium to high income tax and a low corporate tax is the least turbulent means of revenue gathering a government can do. Corporations can be "moved" much easier than individuals can be, and I doubt there will really be that many Frenchmen who are willing to give up living in what by most accounts is a terrific country for the sake of more money.

 

[Ynog]

Hollande said many things on the campaign trail. The real question will be how much was to appeal to his base and how much will he actually attempt to follow through with.

To be fair, this election was Hollande's to lose. The French people have been unhappy with the current state of the economy in Europe and they felt it was time for a change. The anti-incumbent atmosphere is spread across Europe regardless of political side.

If he does attempt to follow through on everything he said, it will be very interesting to see how some of the other European countries (Germany/UK) react.

 

[ShawnD1]

To be fair, if another nation enacted the Gold Standard again, we could easily say "lets watch it and see what happenes", since it would provide a real world example. It would be far better to watch another nation destroy itself than to be the one doing the experiment and destroying ourselves.

Still wouldn't work.

Canada has watched the US start the War on Drug in the 1960s and we've seen how badly it has failed. What's the current strategy of the government we have? Let's start a War on Drugs! Sure it didn't work when the Americans tried, but we're not American, and that's why it will work this time!

 

[fskimospy]

Let's hope for the French that Hollande doesn't institute another Great Leap Forward.

You aren't serious, are you?

 

[werepossum]

Millionaires retiring because it's no longer worth the effort?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*tears*

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh wait - you were serious? Moneymakers aren't going to just stop making money. Those with power always want more power. When have you ever heard of a company that didn't want to keep growing, or a rich person that didn't want to keep getting richer?

Even when the tax rate was at 95% back in mid-century, the rich were still rich. There just wasn't as huge as a divide as there is now, and the country was in better shape.

Again, nobody ever paid 95%. There used to be tax breaks for everything; now the vast majority of those are gone.

I always wonder if proggies are really that dense, or if they are merely unwilling or even unable to confront the fact that you can break the business cycle. Certainly you guys never outgrow the small child stage of believing that everyone exists for your own benefit. But to make it simple, it's rate of return. If a corporation's after tax ROI is less than what could be earned investing the capital it ties up, there's no reason to keep that company going even if it's still making a small profit. The owners and/or management will either drastically alter the conditions - i.e. offshore parts of it, or close down less profitable parts of it, or replace some employees with automation - or they will sell it or close it down. If a company makes an after-tax profit of $100 million but ties up capital which could be loaned out to earn $110 million after taxes, the owners are not going to continue operating that company even though you think feel that a profit of $100 million is obscene. Businesses exist to make money, not to support your dead ass in the manner to which you'd like to become accustomed.

 

[fskimospy]

His polices to increase tax, and reduce deficit to 0% GDP by 2017 will hurt France in this economic climate.

But of course, that's just my belief and I welcome the chance for leftist to test their theory on Frech people

Hollande's plan is to delay deficit reduction and instead implement pro-growth policies. We will see how much of this he can actually implement, considering France's place in the Euro. I did notice how no one actually tried to articulate what this OMGSOCIALIST catastrophe would be.

This is probably because they can't.

 

[nehalem256]

Hollande's plan is to delay deficit reduction and instead implement pro-growth policies. We will see how much of this he can actually implement, considering France's place in the Euro. I did notice how no one actually tried to articulate what this OMGSOCIALIST catastrophe would be.

This is probably because they can't.

I dont think anyone here is claiming to be a prophet.

But I seem to recall Obama (or someone in his administration) predicting unemployment would not exceed 8% if his stimulus plan was implemented...

 

[fskimospy]

I dont think anyone here is claiming to be a prophet.

But I seem to recall Obama (or someone in his administration) predicting unemployment would not exceed 8% if his stimulus plan was implemented...

I'm not asking for exact numbers, I'm asking for a general range. Clearly conservatives here believe Hollande's policies will be bad for France. In what way? What would be a sign of failure, and what would be a sign of success? If you can't define that, you don't really have an argument.

As for Obama's stimulus plan, I have no idea what that has to do with this other than as a desperate attempt to change the subject.

 

[Braznor]

.....shakes head....

 

[cybrsage]

Still wouldn't work.

Canada has watched the US start the War on Drug in the 1960s and we've seen how badly it has failed. What's the current strategy of the government we have? Let's start a War on Drugs! Sure it didn't work when the Americans tried, but we're not American, and that's why it will work this time!

It is the French influence in your government that is your bane. When they see something that does not work, they demand to fail also.

 

[dank69]

...
And would someone explain why taxing the rich will create jobs?

When your choice is between

A) Give 75% of your income to the government
or
B) Reinvest it into companies (give your workers raises/better bennies, update equipment, start more new businesses, etc.)

which option do you choose?

 

[rchiu]

When your choice is between

A) Give 75% of your income to the government
or
B) Reinvest it into companies (give your workers raises/better bennies, update equipment, start more new businesses, etc.)

which option do you choose?

And why would you want to reinvest into the company when the dividend get taxed, capital gain gets taxed, corporate profit gets taxed? all the good money you invest in business, taking big time risk in this uncertain economy, if you are unlucky, you lost your investment, if you are lucky, government takes it away. Why not just put money under your mattress? And by the way, most re-investment doesn't help you reduce your tax anyway. So no incentive at all for reinvest when any profit/return from the investment government is likely gonna be taken away.

 

[cybrsage]

When your choice is between

A) Give 75% of your income to the government
or
B) Reinvest it into companies (give your workers raises/better bennies, update equipment, start more new businesses, etc.)

which option do you choose?

Is that choice an option when talking about income taxes? Don't you have to pay taxes on the income before you spend it on other things (at which point you are often taxed again)?

 

[cybrsage]

And why would you want to reinvest into the company when the dividend get taxed, capital gain gets taxed, corporate profit gets taxed? all the good money you invest in business, taking big time risk in this uncertain economy, if you are unlucky, you lost your investment, if you are lucky, government takes it away. Why not just put money under your mattress?

You can invest it in companies based in other, less oppressive, countries.

 

[dank69]

And why would you want to reinvest into the company when the dividend get taxed, capital gain gets taxed, corporate profit gets taxed? all the good money you invest in business, taking big time risk in this uncertain economy, if you are unlucky, you lost your investment, if you are lucky, government takes it away. Why not just put money under your mattress?

Is that choice an option when talking about income taxes? Don't you have to pay taxes on the income before you spend it on other things (at which point you are often taxed again)?

Corporations are people, too, my friends.

 

[hal2kilo]

When your choice is between

A) Give 75% of your income to the government
or
B) Reinvest it into companies (give your workers raises/better bennies, update equipment, start more new businesses, etc.)

which option do you choose?

Which is essentially what happened in this country when the tax rates were 91% (which again brings up another point i.e. 91% for the top bracket but let's not let facts get in the way).

Bussinesses reinvested their profits, expanding their businesses and hiring more people.

 

[cybrsage]

Corporations are people, too, my friends.

Corps are US Persons, just like Unions.

 

[momeNt]

This won't help anything.

The cycle will only be complete once there is a confiscation of WEALTH from the rich. Taxing earnings is only confiscating their income, they still have a pile of wealth that earns at least something. You must take away the wealth to eliminate all potential for earnings, then we can have equality of opportunity, and progressive liberty.

The libertarian revolution will have to wait until the socialist's arms are tired from lifting all those heads of the rich onto spikes.