France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism

[daveman]

What's JOEY gonna DO when employers shut their doors and FIRE everyone?

Whine impotently on the internet about how the world owes him a living.

In other words, nothing will change.

Again, you work on the assumption that employers create jobs. They don't. Consumer Demand does.

Let's go back to the original example. A rich guy can try to sell Shitburgers, could invest huge amounts of money making them and a expensive campaign selling them.

But at the end of the day, there's no demand for shitburgers. The annals of business are full of failures that someone with money thought we really just wanted and didn't.

Nope, what creates jobs are demand.

Now, we do have a few problems, because we allow the rich and their bad behavior. We let them talk us into bad trade treaties that moved good jobs overseas instead of demanding the jobs be kept here.

And we've allowed automation even in areas where automation, while cheaper, isn't better.

In short, the rich keep promising prosperity if we keep bending over, but they never deliver...

Time to stop bending over for them.

Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.

Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?

Consumers can demand. But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.

You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And these people that are getting taxed 100% plus are still living in France?
I would be gone in a heartbeat if that was the tax burden here.
Why work if all you did was hand your money over to the government.
This will start a massive underground market.

"In an article from 1965 entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Barack Obama’s father stated:

Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings."
Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty

 

[JoeB131]

[
Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.

Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?

Consumers can demand. But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.

You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.

By that logic, someone should have developed that car.

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car. They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...

So argument fail, again.

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.

 

[daveman]

[
Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.

Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?

Consumers can demand. But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.

You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.

By that logic, someone should have developed that car.

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car. They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...

So argument fail, again.

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

 

[JoeB131]

[
So, you either had grounds, but didn't sue...or was fired for cause and couldn't sue.

Either way, it's your own damn fault, isn't it?

So stop whining about it.

Or I had grounds, but didn't think suing was worth the effort. I mean, yeah, I could have done years and years of court proceedings, but frankly, I just moved on.

It doesn't mean that I think that it was a good thing, or that we won't be better off the sooner we get the private sector the fuck out of health care.

[

When you use your own bigotry to prove a point, all you prove is that you're a bigot.

No, it's just reality. If you really believe in talking snakes and burning bushes, you have a child-like ability to reason, and therefore can't be trusted. If it weren't for the stupid fucks voting for guys who are "right with Jesus", we'd have fixed this country's problem by now.

[
The link showed proof of my claim. Your claims are bullshit. Dismissed.

Guy, your link came from TownHall. you might as well have posted from StormFront.

[
Just because you can't support his policies with facts and logic doesn't mean the rest of us who object to those policies are racist. That spurious charge stems from your own failings and lack of critical thought.

Guy, we are better off than we were in 2008. Obama won re-election. Facts and Logic are that you guys made your best case, and couldn't.

Yeah. Meanwhile, back in reality, there are more patients -- but there aren't any more doctors.

Do the math.

I have. the problem with your theory is that you assume that the poor and undeserving are going to compliantly die if a big corporation can't make money off of them. Well, some do. But most just go to an emergency room and skip out on the bill.

The number of doctors are completely irrelevent to the issue. We have enough doctors. We just aren't using them efficiently.

[
Further, I can't help but notice that you utterly failed to address my point about Syria.

Coward.

Were we at war with Syria? Last time I checked, we weren't.

[

True, it's not single payer and getting the employers and insurance companies out of the picture, yet.

Did I ever tell you Communists are stupid? True story!

Guy, the UK, Canada, Germany, Japan, France, and Italy all do it that way.

They aren't "Communist".

They all have higher life expectencies.
They all have lower infant mortality rates.
They all spend less per capita than we do.
Medical Crises do not cause bankruptcies.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Consumers demand a safe new car with good mileage that retails for 5 thousand dollars.

Where are the 5 thousand dollar car factories full of employees building 5 thousand dollar cars?

Consumers can demand. But until someone puts up the capital to develop, build, and market a product, there will be no product.

You, of course, simply cannot understand this basic fact.

By that logic, someone should have developed that car.

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car. They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...

So argument fail, again.

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

 

[Toro]

By that logic, someone should have developed that car.

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car. They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...

So argument fail, again.

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.

Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

 

[JoeB131]

[

We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.

Yeah, but not because of communism, and Communist China is going strong with a command economy. So there's that.

Incidently, Communism doesn't work for the same reason Capitalism doesn't. Human Nature.

[
Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?

Except that our safety net has been cut to tatters, and we allow wealth disparity that other countries don't allow. WHich is the whole point of this thread. The wealthy in France are paying 75% income tax. Our wealthy whine like little bitches when they have to pay 39%.

And that's the thing. We already cover 100 million with government programs. 150 million get it through their jobs (subsidized by government) or Unions (again, subsidized by government.) About 10 million self-insure, and 50 million don't have coverage. We spend more than any country on earth, we get the worst results.

 

[Sallow]

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.

Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Japan is a 'westerrn' country? Since when?

 

[NightFox]

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund) from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

U.S. TREASURY DATA

FY - National Debt - Deficit
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By that logic, someone should have developed that car.

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car. They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...

So argument fail, again.

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

 

[zeke]

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Yea you tell em bigrebbie. How is it that SOME people in France evidently have to borrow money or dig into savings to pay in excess of 100% of their income to the taxman.

Why, that sounds so unbelievable that, well I don't believe you big rebbie.

 

[JoeB131]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.

Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Japan is a 'westerrn' country? Since when?

To be fair to Toro, Japan has been considered an advanced industrialized nation since the Meiji Restoration. Even though not part of "The West", politically, economically, etc. It is in that group.

See, I can be fair to Toro.

 

[JoeB131]

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

 

[Toro]

[

We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.

Yeah, but not because of communism, and Communist China is going strong with a command economy. So there's that.

Er, no. There are only two countries that follow the old USSR communist model - Cuba and North Korea. All the rest have reformed towards mixed economies. Government spending to GDP is half that in China than it is in the US.

Except that our safety net has been cut to tatters, and we allow wealth disparity that other countries don't allow. WHich is the whole point of this thread. The wealthy in France are paying 75% income tax. Our wealthy whine like little bitches when they have to pay 39%.

Well, actually they aren't in France because the court ruled it unconstitutional.

And our safety net has not been shredded. It's the opposite in fact. The government pays nearly half of all medical expenses in this country, up from less than 10% 50 years ago. FTR Canada's governments spend 75%.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

What if they are young and aren't from the past?

 

[NightFox]

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

The over 100% is immaterial, the interesting part of the story is what they did that caused it to happen, the French Government in effect enacted what amounts to a taxation Bill of Attainder, whereby in CY 2012 they added an additional one-time levy to income in CY 2011 on certain people and then added the levy to their CY 2012 income tax bill.

Fortunately the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder and thus prevents our completely immoral, government worshiping statists from pulling the same sort of egregious nonsense here, Although I suspect there's a whole bunch of "progressive" think tank creatures sitting around trying to figure out how they can formulate some plausible statist apologias for proposing something similar to go back in time and re-write the past tax rates on "rich people".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

The over 100% is immaterial, the interesting part of the story is what they did that caused it to happen, the French Government in effect enacted what amounts to a taxation Bill of Attainder, whereby in CY 2012 they added an additional one-time levy to income in CY 2011 on certain people and then added the levy to their CY 2012 income tax bill.

Fortunately the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder and thus prevents our completely immoral, government worshiping statists from pulling the same sort of egregious nonsense here, Although I suspect there's a whole bunch of "progressive" think tank creatures sitting around trying to figure out how they can formulate some plausible statist apologias for proposing something similar to go back in time and re-write the past tax rates on "rich people".

France already paid an extravagant amount in taxes, now they have this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund) from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

U.S. TREASURY DATA

FY - National Debt - Deficit
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

Yup...

Almost as big a Clinton myth as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

During the Clinton term, the national debt increased 41%....

...and with no wars to blame it on.

 

[Toro]

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund) from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

U.S. TREASURY DATA

FY - National Debt - Deficit
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition.

That happened to the US Treasury for 4 years in the 1990s. It has nothing to do with any accounting standards.

Do you know how we know there was more money coming into the Treasury than going out? I mean, besides checking for ourselves? The total outstanding publicly traded debt of the United States Treasury fell during that time.

There was no "raiding" of the SS trusts. There can't be because the assets of the trusts are non-marketable liabilities that can't be sold.

What is correct is that the operating budget was not in surplus. But we don't reference the operating budget in our political or economic discourse.

This "there was no surplus" argument is not an argument made by economists or financiers, conservative or otherwise.