The 2013 French Budget

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Apr 8, 2011
6,025
1,298
48
San Antonio, TX
Here ya go - a recipe for disaster. The new budget calls for a 2-year 75% tax rate on incomes over a million euros. Doesn't say so in this article, but I think they are also going to raise the minimum wage there too. And expect to get less unemployment and more economic growth. Don't think so, but what's cool is we get to see somebody else do this crap and witness the results. I'll go on record right now and say this cannot end well for them. What's really interesting is the snippet below, they are also going to raise taxes on the middle income folks too.

snippet:

Among the other measures included are: a new income tax level at 45 percent for those making more than €150,000, an increase of capital gains taxes to bring them more in line with how salaries are taxed, and a cap on certain deductions for large companies on their income taxes.

France unveils a budget heavy on taxes - Yahoo! News
 
Welcome to this preview of the Obama agenda if he gets re-elected.

The only question is are there enough IDIOTS in this country who will re-elect Obama, and thus seal their fate?
 
During the period of our prolonged economic boom in the post-WWII years, the highest marginal tax rate was between 70-85%. Ours was the most stable and productive economy in the history of the world back then.

How does modern-day, trickle-down Republican economic theory explain that?
 

Attachments

  • $Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg
    $Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 66
Welcome to this preview of the Obama agenda if he gets re-elected.

The only question is are there enough IDIOTS in this country who will re-elect Obama, and thus seal their fate?


Obama wants to raise taxes but not quite that much. Not right away, I wouldn't be surprised if he would love to see our marginal rate up to 75%, but he'd never say so as president. He'd boost it by 5% and then another 5% until he got there surrepticiously.

The cool part of this is that we get to see the consequences of raising taxes in a down economy without having to deal with the results. We'll be talking about this example for decades to come I think.

As far as the election goes, I don't think an Obama victory means the end of the world as we know it, but it could mean 4 more years of the same shit we've had since he took office. Chances are another recession before 2016 will hit too, which maybe spurs the public and both parties to beocme more business friendly.
 
During the period of our prolonged economic boom in the post-WWII years, the highest marginal tax rate was between 70-85%. Ours was the most stable and productive economy in the history of the world back then.

How does modern-day, trickle-down Republican economic theory explain that?


Actually the marginal tax rates were over 90% a lot of the time then. Your answer is that from the end of the war until the 1960s we were the only game in town, there really wasn't anyplace else to go to invest and make money. The mood of the country was different, comparing then to now is almost apples and oranges.
 
Actually the marginal tax rates were over 90% a lot of the time then. Your answer is that from the end of the war until the 1960s we were the only game in town, there really wasn't anyplace else to go to invest and make money. The mood of the country was different, comparing then to now is almost apples and oranges.

It's true that ours was just about the only country not physically wrecked by WWII, which gave us a huge advantage at the outset, but by the time marginal rates began to fall in the 1960's, both western Europe and Japan were economic powerhouses too. In fact, our boom went on, in spite of high tax rates (or, maybe because of them) until the oil crisis of the mid-70's.

Even today, our biggest competitor, China, has tax rates similar to ours (or higher) and though their economy is retrenching right now, it's still quite hot compared to ours.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/china_tax.asp\


If taxes are the only the issue, why is that?
 
During the period of our prolonged economic boom in the post-WWII years, the highest marginal tax rate was between 70-85%. Ours was the most stable and productive economy in the history of the world back then.

How does modern-day, trickle-down Republican economic theory explain that?
Actually it was 91% in the years 1950-1963 and that was only on incomes OVER $400,000. A US Dollar wasn't a devalued Federal Reserve Note back then so it went a lot farther.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

The "Trickle Down" Economics that you LibTards like to make fun of went like this:

Reagan: "I want tax cuts and spending cuts!"
Congress: "Ok, we'll give you the tax cuts now, and we promise to cut spending later."
Reagan: "Deal!"

Well they didn't cut spending later. What a shock huh?
 
Last edited:
Staggering! This is going to get worse for France.
I suspect many will take their businesses and pleasures to London
or else where.
I guess this is what the President's 'shared sacrifice' will eventually look like.
 
During the period of our prolonged economic boom in the post-WWII years, the highest marginal tax rate was between 70-85%. Ours was the most stable and productive economy in the history of the world back then.

How does modern-day, trickle-down Republican economic theory explain that?

We were also NOT a entitlement and welfare nanny state at the time either.
 
Actually it was 91% in the years 1950-1963 and that was only on incomes OVER $400,000. A US Dollar wasn't a devalued Federal Reserve Note back then so it went a lot farther.
National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

The "Trickle Down" Economics that you LibTards like to make fun of went like this:

Reagan: "I want tax cuts and spending cuts!"
Congress: "Ok, we'll give you the tax cuts now, and we promise to cut spending later."
Reagan: "Deal!"

Well they didn't cut spending later. What a shock huh?


That's not how I remember it. Reagan asked for, and got, what he wanted from Congress. He wanted a tax cut and increased defense spending. He got both and delivered the largest deficit up until that time in our history.
 
Not to the extent we have now.


Prove it. And, take into account that the demand for government services and help increases during times of economy trouble (such as now) and decreases in times of a healthy economy (such as then).
 
Here ya go - a recipe for disaster. The new budget calls for a 2-year 75% tax rate on incomes over a million euros. Doesn't say so in this article, but I think they are also going to raise the minimum wage there too. And expect to get less unemployment and more economic growth. Don't think so, but what's cool is we get to see somebody else do this crap and witness the results. I'll go on record right now and say this cannot end well for them. What's really interesting is the snippet below, they are also going to raise taxes on the middle income folks too.

snippet:

Among the other measures included are: a new income tax level at 45 percent for those making more than €150,000, an increase of capital gains taxes to bring them more in line with how salaries are taxed, and a cap on certain deductions for large companies on their income taxes.

France unveils a budget heavy on taxes - Yahoo! News


France is trying to front run any doubts about its economic stabilty. The dominoes are falling. Greece, Italy, Spain...France is the next domino. If investors think France is going to fall, they will demand lower bond prices just like all the others are experiencing.

When investors start losing confidence in a country, they begin demanding "austerity measures" before they go back to accepting higher bond prices. As part of the Euro, these countries cannot use external devaluation as a means to get out from under their debts. And so Greece, Italy, and Spain all enacted internal devaluation measures after the shit hit the fan for this very reason.

France is trying to do it before the shit hits their fan in the hope this will actually pre-empt a loss of confidence and keep their domino from falling.

I've been telling you guys to watch France, that their time was coming. The global derivatives bubble is far from deleveraged to sane levels.

Well, here we are.

.
 
Last edited:
Actually the marginal tax rates were over 90% a lot of the time then. Your answer is that from the end of the war until the 1960s we were the only game in town, there really wasn't anyplace else to go to invest and make money. The mood of the country was different, comparing then to now is almost apples and oranges.

It's true that ours was just about the only country not physically wrecked by WWII, which gave us a huge advantage at the outset, but by the time marginal rates began to fall in the 1960's, both western Europe and Japan were economic powerhouses too. In fact, our boom went on, in spite of high tax rates (or, maybe because of them) until the oil crisis of the mid-70's.

Even today, our biggest competitor, China, has tax rates similar to ours (or higher) and though their economy is retrenching right now, it's still quite hot compared to ours.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/china_tax.asp\


If taxes are the only the issue, why is that?

These people do not understand facts, FACT tax cuts to NOT pay for them selves. Also our country DOES flurish under high taxes on the top earners. The way you get around taxing the top earners at a high percent is.......deficit spending, but these people say we are to far in debt, and yet fail to understand you cant have it both ways.
 
During the period of our prolonged economic boom in the post-WWII years, the highest marginal tax rate was between 70-85%. Ours was the most stable and productive economy in the history of the world back then.

How does modern-day, trickle-down Republican economic theory explain that?


Actually the marginal tax rates were over 90% a lot of the time then. Your answer is that from the end of the war until the 1960s we were the only game in town, there really wasn't anyplace else to go to invest and make money. The mood of the country was different, comparing then to now is almost apples and oranges.

Also how many people did that 90% rate actually affect? Was it 50? 100? 1000?
 
Actually the marginal tax rates were over 90% a lot of the time then. Your answer is that from the end of the war until the 1960s we were the only game in town, there really wasn't anyplace else to go to invest and make money. The mood of the country was different, comparing then to now is almost apples and oranges.

It's true that ours was just about the only country not physically wrecked by WWII, which gave us a huge advantage at the outset, but by the time marginal rates began to fall in the 1960's, both western Europe and Japan were economic powerhouses too. In fact, our boom went on, in spite of high tax rates (or, maybe because of them) until the oil crisis of the mid-70's.

Even today, our biggest competitor, China, has tax rates similar to ours (or higher) and though their economy is retrenching right now, it's still quite hot compared to ours.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/china/china_tax.asp\


If taxes are the only the issue, why is that?


I think you know why China is doing so well economically, we could too if we paid our employees 50 cents an hour. BTW, your link didn't work.

Taxes are not the only issue, but it is a major one. When you raise taxes as much as the french are doing, you better already be in a period of strong economic growth. And even then, these guys are going way overboard. It ain't going to work, you gotta have capital to grow, and these days the people with the most capital are leaving the country.
 
Not to the extent we have now.


Prove it. And, take into account that the demand for government services and help increases during times of economy trouble (such as now) and decreases in times of a healthy economy (such as then).

The problem is we never decrease the scope of government when the economy gets better. All the programs remain in place, all the burecrats hired remain employed, and the 2nd half of Keysian economics, paying off the debt you accumulate during downturns, never occurs.

You never get a reduction in government intervention, just a plateau, waiting for the next time a downturn happens, and the first half of keysian theory gets applied.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top