If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Europe)   French President announces 75% tax on companies for salaries above 1 Million...Like that will happen, if only tax havens existed, mhm maybe in some parallel universe, right   (neurope.eu) divider line 52
    More: Silly, French presidents, Francois Hollande, head of states, salary  
•       •       •

3440 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 08:10:44 AM
I thought the way it worked for them was the 1st mil is taxed than after that it's meh.

Unlike the US where you get taxed on the entire amount?
 
2013-03-29 08:11:51 AM

FullMetalPanda: I thought the way it worked for them was the 1st mil is taxed than after that it's meh.

Unlike the US where you get taxed on the entire amount?


I, er

wat?
 
2013-03-29 08:15:41 AM
Total dark liberals apparently know nothing of taxes or basic economics.
 
2013-03-29 08:17:38 AM
What a shiatty article.
 
2013-03-29 08:18:35 AM
I feel like I walked into a wall of stupid
 
2013-03-29 08:18:40 AM
I'd like to point out that they are not taxing the $1m in income at 75%... they are making the employer match 75%.

farking math.. how does it work
 
2013-03-29 08:19:09 AM
Thanks Obama....
 
2013-03-29 08:19:19 AM

Nemo's Brother: Total dark liberals apparently know nothing of taxes or basic economics.


That's racist!
 
2013-03-29 08:19:22 AM
Isn't this old news?  Like, part-of-his-plaform, he-was-elected-May-2012 news?
 
2013-03-29 08:25:52 AM
Tea Party, are you glad you have Obama yet, or is Cyprus and France still looking like good options?  Of course you'll always have Somalia!  :-)
 
2013-03-29 08:29:29 AM
So if someone is caught using a tax haven, seize 100% of their assets, throw them in prison for 20 years, and sell their children to the Mamluks for profit. That'll learn 'em.
 
2013-03-29 08:31:55 AM
So a company will be taxed 75% by the government for having executive salaries over $1,000,000?

Oh...this should work out hilariously.
 
2013-03-29 08:34:20 AM
Remember when the top tax rate in the USA was near 90%? Surely it must have cause a massive recession or slow economic growth.

Wait a minute? You mean to tell me the 1950's and 60's saw explosive economic growth, rapid expansion of the interstate system, greatly improved schooling and our victory in the space race? How could all of that happen without trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich?
 
2013-03-29 08:36:00 AM

Nemo's Brother: Total dark liberals apparently know nothing of taxes or basic economics.


Which is still an improvement over your knowledge.

For newbs. Nemo's Bunghole has never, ever been right about anything. If he says the sun will come up tomorrow, bet that the rapture is nigh.
 
2013-03-29 08:39:59 AM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

was a tax haven
now a tax hell
 
2013-03-29 08:41:37 AM
The article from Storify inside this article is EPIC! "Silvio Berlusconi and the penis from Mars"
 
2013-03-29 08:44:06 AM

SlothB77: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 234x216]

was a tax haven
now a tax hell


I know, right? It's almost like things that are too-good-to-be-true don't last forever, and that smart people should plan for "all good things got to come to an end."
 
2013-03-29 08:44:51 AM
French President announces 75% tax on companies for salaries above 1 Million...Like that will happen, if only tax havens existed, mhm maybe in some parallel universe, right

Potato-like typing detected.
 
2013-03-29 08:45:39 AM

TheEdibleSnuggie: So a company will be taxed 75% by the government for having executive salaries over $1,000,000?

Oh...this should work out hilariously.


Considering that basically nobody makes a  salaryof over a million dollars a year, I'd say it isnt going to affect anybody at all.  If you make that much, its arriving through monetary vehicles other than salary.
 
2013-03-29 08:47:48 AM
Tax on the companies, not the employees. That should be fun.

Let's hope it's not a payroll company.

The IRS bases the taxes owed on the invoices owed to the company.  Within reason.  But, if several clients suddenly decide to not pay and choose a court battle instead.. whoowhee, the company is in the negative instead of having a profit.

Then again.  There isn't a single payroll company that has a salary worker above 100,000 if they're lucky.  Including the owners.  Unless they've done something sneaky and are now being investigated by the IRS, FBI, and a few other agencies. Such as one an hour away from me.  My company is enjoying picking up their clients right now.

Free payroll doesn't exist.  As that company proved. I'm surprised none of their clients had any reportable injuries among their employees seeing as how the company pocketed the workers comp payouts resulting in zero workers comp coverage.

Welcome to today's rant.  For tomorrow's, you'll have to wait until I'm dosed up on benadryl again.
 
2013-03-29 09:03:21 AM

ghare: SlothB77: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 234x216]

was a tax haven
now a tax hell

I know, right? It's almost like things that are too-good-to-be-true don't last forever, and that smart people should plan for "all good things got to come to an end."


They should have listen to a certain someone accross the channel when they said "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"
 
2013-03-29 09:17:37 AM
Hmmmmm, let's see:

1. Economy bad, tax hell out of the rich;

2. Rich don't like being robbed, they go elsewhere;

3. Economy gets worse because rich people create most of the jobs;

4. Government blames selfish rich people for its own stupidity.

That about get it?
 
2013-03-29 09:33:25 AM

olddinosaur: Hmmmmm, let's see:

1. Economy bad, tax hell out of the rich;

2. Rich don't like being robbed, they go elsewhere;

3. Economy gets worse because rich people create most of the jobs;

4. Government blames selfish rich people for its own stupidity.

That about get it?


Except that isnt how the world really works.  Demand will always be fed.  The Rich guys keep claiming they'll take their ball and go home, but in reality if someone moved/closed their business, it would just be replaced by other companies willing to meet demand.

Its like the fallacy about higher taxes causing lay offs.  Business owners say "Raise my taxes and i cant afford to pay people!"  In reality, you're only taxed on profits anyhow, so income tax adjustments would have no effect on your operating revenue.  Furthermore, a company only pays employees what it absolutely needs to in order to profit.  Those employees are  what makes the company its money, and are required.  You cant just fire 20% of your staff, because then your company will make less money. Nobody pays for employees they dont need.

/business owner
 
2013-03-29 09:44:53 AM

MrSteve007: Remember when the top tax rate in the USA was near 90%? Surely it must have cause a massive recession or slow economic growth.

Wait a minute? You mean to tell me the 1950's and 60's saw explosive economic growth, rapid expansion of the interstate system, greatly improved schooling and our victory in the space race? How could all of that happen without trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich?


When will liberals stop with this retarded talking point. Virtually nobody paid the listed rate due to loopholes. Stop the idiocy. Use normalized comparisons such as effective tax rate. Comparing unadjusted rates shows how ignorant you are.
 
2013-03-29 09:50:34 AM
This is the reason that Paris St. Germain and other football clubs are using to claim that no high quality footballer will want to play in France anymore because they will lose so much money in taxes.

/I'm not saying they are right, as I haven't read up enough on the situation, but it is what is being claimed.
 
2013-03-29 10:06:47 AM

MyRandomName: MrSteve007: Remember when the top tax rate in the USA was near 90%? Surely it must have cause a massive recession or slow economic growth.

Wait a minute? You mean to tell me the 1950's and 60's saw explosive economic growth, rapid expansion of the interstate system, greatly improved schooling and our victory in the space race? How could all of that happen without trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich?

When will liberals stop with this retarded talking point. Virtually nobody paid the listed rate due to loopholes. Stop the idiocy. Use normalized comparisons such as effective tax rate. Comparing unadjusted rates shows how ignorant you are.


I suspect they'd stop when collected tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is again sufficient to start paying off the egregious debt burden this nation is saddled with, without gutting the already meager American social safety net.

www.deptofnumbers.com
 
2013-03-29 10:15:35 AM
Provide for the weak with a strong regressive tax. Make them feel useful and helpful to society. Then take all of their money. Provide Food, Clothing, Shelter, Education, and Healthcare. It'll incentivize them to work harder.

Tax 100% of income up to the poverty level, 50% to the level of 2x the poverty level, 25% to 4x, 13% to 8x, and so on halving the percent and doubling the multiplier on the poverty level.

I'm sure that will work.
 
2013-03-29 10:30:39 AM

Munqaxus: Tea Party, are you glad you have Obama yet, or is Cyprus and France still looking like good options?  Of course you'll always have Somalia!  :-)


I'm visiting my in-laws in Iowa for Easter, and I was perusing the Sioux City Journal during breakfast. On the front page there was a "mini" that some guy wrote. It went something like this: "Would you like it if the government seized a portion of your bank deposits to pay its debts? That's what is happening in Cyprus, due to ZOMGSOCIALIZM!!!911, which is the same disastrous path that we have been put on. It's time to take off the blinders, people!"
 
2013-03-29 10:41:19 AM
Alonjar: Except that isnt how the world really works.  Demand will always be fed.  The Rich guys keep claiming they'll take their ball and go home, but in reality if someone moved/closed their business, it would just be replaced by other companies willing to meet demand.

You're assuming that A) demand exists in a vacuum, and B) that the barriers to entry (legal, financial, or otherwise) of a given industry do not change when you make a sweeping change to taxes. As I'll explain in a little bit, increasing taxes increases the financial barrier to entry since investors will require a higher rate of return in order to make a given investment. Kind of hard for an unemployed guy whose benefits have run out to have the same purchasing power as someone with a good, steady paycheck.


Its like the fallacy about higher taxes causing lay offs.  Business owners say "Raise my taxes and i cant afford to pay people!"  In reality, you're only taxed on profits anyhow, so income tax adjustments would have no effect on your operating revenue.
So increasing those taxes on profits will only increase the required return on those investments for them to be taken in the first place - meaning fewer investments are made than otherwise would had the tax burden been lower. Meaning fewer new businesses are started and fewer new investment projects are taken by old businesses. Meaning fewer people are hired.

You're forgetting the role that risk plays in investment decisions. Every investment decision has two possible outcomes: success and failure. If it fails, the investor loses not only 100% of his initial investment but also 100% of all possible returns expected from the investment; if it succeeds, though, he does NOT receive 100% of the gains from the investment due to the existence of taxes. Not only is income to the venture taxed as a separate entity but the investor's return is taxed as well - that's the "double taxation" that progressives like to pretend plays no role in the economy (if they even acknowledge that it exists).

Ceteris paribus, if the total taxes on an investment increase from 30% to 40%, an investor's risk premium will increase since the possible return to the investor from the investment just went down while the risk of failure remained the same.


Furthermore, a company only pays employees what it absolutely needs to in order to profit.  Those employees are  what makes the company its money, and are required.  You cant just fire 20% of your staff, because then your company will make less money. Nobody pays for employees they dont need.

/business owner


It's not just the employees but the combination of employees and capital that make money. If a company can replace 20% of its workforce with equivalent capital and make a savings on labor costs (as is often the case with increased minimum wages), it will.

/you must be a shiatty business owner
 
2013-03-29 10:48:31 AM

MyRandomName: When will liberals stop with this retarded talking point. Virtually nobody paid the listed rate due to loopholes. Stop the idiocy. Use normalized comparisons such as effective tax rate. Comparing unadjusted rates shows how ignorant you are.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Sure looks like from the mid 1940s through the late 1970's, the top effective tax rates were quite a bit higher . . . about 30% vs. 20%.

So, unless we're in bizzaro-math world, rich folks paid about 50% more to the feds than they do now.
 
2013-03-29 10:49:57 AM

X-boxershorts: I suspect they'd stop when collected tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is again sufficient to start paying off the egregious debt burden this nation is saddled with, without gutting the already meager American social safety net.


As your chart points out, the top marginal tax rate has had very little to do with the "collected tax revenue as a percentage of GDP" since collections never even touched 20% when the top rate was in the 90s since there were so many loopholes.

And in case you didn't know, America's "meager" social safety net is the CAUSE of the "egregious debt burden" we face, whose present value number in the  10s to 100s of trillions - we can't fix the debt WITHOUT "gutting" them since it is the primary driver of future spending.

/not sure when progressives will finally realize that their god has failed
 
2013-03-29 11:28:12 AM
So now they tax the companies, making sure all those big companies will move the bosses' offices to London, Berlin, anywhere except France...

Seriously, it's no wonder their movie and singing stars are moving out. Depardieu and Hallyday are the most famous examples over there, when they moved out both were already paying around 75% tax.

Laffer curve, learn it, preach it.
 
2013-03-29 11:33:20 AM

kronicfeld: Tax heaven is a place on Earth. It's in the Cayman Islands.


I was thinking Cyprus, but then again, maybe your idea is better. ;)
 
2013-03-29 12:06:59 PM
Hey, everyone's gotta pay their "fair share," right?   For some--that's nothing, for others--most of what you make.

youngpatriots.com
 
2013-03-29 12:08:36 PM

LDM90: Nemo's Brother: Total dark liberals apparently know nothing of taxes or basic economics.

That's racist!


My iphone's autocorrect is very racist, apparently.
 
2013-03-29 12:20:09 PM

Hydra: in case you didn't know, America's "meager" social safety net is the CAUSE of the "egregious debt burden" we face


Ronald Regan would like to point out just how retarded you are.

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or growing the deficit.

Since both parties just worked together to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich a permanent feature of our tax code (instead of letting them finally expire) gutting the social safety net programs weeks later isn't going to fly.

How about we make the obscenely wealthy pay the same tax percentage everyone else pays on their income? Why were they allowed to pay a lower rate on Capital Gains than the working poor making only about 36K makes on their income?

Oh, wait... I think I've discovered the cause of our enormous debt burden. We allowed the obscenely wealthy to buy whatever tax laws they like and avoid paying their share of the tax burden.

Corporations are allowed to use a legal fiction to pretend their profits happen in places like Bermuda which have no Corporate tax and dodge their share of Federal taxes. Then they dodge their State taxes by opening offices in Nevada where there are no Corporate taxes and pretend to be headquartered there for tax purposes.

The problem isn't the pittance we pay the poor. The problem is corporate welfare and allowing the obscenely wealthy to tax dodge.
 
2013-03-29 12:53:21 PM
Why not just skip to:

boisdejustice.com
 
2013-03-29 01:09:29 PM

MrSteve007: Remember when the top tax rate in the USA was near 90%? Surely it must have cause a massive recession or slow economic growth.

Wait a minute? You mean to tell me the 1950's and 60's saw explosive economic growth, rapid expansion of the interstate system, greatly improved schooling and our victory in the space race? How could all of that happen without trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich?


And it snowed every winter, and Jesus was still alive, and he was with Santa. And once, June 22 1952 my dad was affectionate toward me.  And we almost blew up the Moon, and it was much better than now.

/It could also be argued that rasing the tax rates during the depression kept us in it until WWII.
 
2013-03-29 01:40:38 PM

pedobearapproved: /It could also be argued that rasing the tax rates during the depression kept us in it until WWII.


I guess when the facts don't match with your reality, it's a simple as making shiat up. Care to point out on that graph what top marginal tax rates during the 1930's were? Then compare that to the top tax rates during and after the war.

Also, US GDP rose well above pre-depression levels years before we got into the war.
 
2013-03-29 01:56:34 PM
BullBearMS: Ronald Regan would like to point out just how retarded you are.

And Al Gore would like to point out just how retarded YOU are.

The social security "trust fund" has been raided rountinely ever since LBJ stuck his hand in it to pay for the Vietnam war. The government wrote itself a check and spent the money in the account that was backing the check up - what's gonna happen if those checks are cashed?

Like he said in the Bloomberg article I linked to, "closing the gap using taxes requires an immediate and permanent 64 percent increase in ALL federal taxes."

Not sure what's so hard to understand about this particular issue.


Since both parties just worked together to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich a permanent feature of our tax code (instead of letting them finally expire) gutting the social safety net programs weeks later isn't going to fly.

Obama just got done raising taxes on rich people who make more than $400,000 (there was also a decent  Fox News article on this, but I'm sure you would've cried foul at linking to "Feaux News"). You're acting like it's a farking tragedy that they didn't get the $250,000 threshold they were asking for at first.


How about we make the obscenely wealthy pay the same tax percentage everyone else pays on their income? Why were they allowed to pay a lower rate on Capital Gains than the working poor making only about 36K makes on their income?

You won't get an argument from me about making sure the wealthy aren't given special tax breaks, but you MUST understand that this is a byproduct of the government increasing its intervention in the economy - if the government is going to be increasing its control over the economy through regulation and taxation, then wealthy special interests have an incentive to steer the government-granted cash their way while minimizing their tax burden through special treatment like credits and different rates, and politicians/bureaucrats have an incentives to grant favors to those special interests. This is textbook public choice theory.


Oh, wait... I think I've discovered the cause of our enormous debt burden. We allowed the obscenely wealthy to buy whatever tax laws they like and avoid paying their share of the tax burden.

Wrong. You've discovered an effect. The cause of a debt burden of any size, whether enormous or otherwise, borne by any entity (e.g. an individual, a corporation, or a government) is the cumulative result of deficit spending (defined as spending more money than what is collected from revenue - or rather, in the government's case, taxation) over a period of time/multiple revenue cycles. In order to make up for the revenue shortfalls needed to pay for the extra spending, the entity financed that spending with debt.

It is not the revenue that begets the debt but the extra spending above revenues. The existence of debt of BY DEFINITION results from spending.


Corporations are allowed to use a legal fiction to pretend their profits happen in places like Bermuda which have no Corporate tax and dodge their share of Federal taxes.

Only if they keep those profits offshore - when they repatriate them, they pay taxes on them (which many other countries don't force their corporations to do). To avoid these taxes, those companies leave those profits offshore and allow them to be reinvested in the economies in which they were generated.

Wonderful logic on Congress's part, isn't it?


Then they dodge their State taxes by opening offices in Nevada where there are no Corporate taxes and pretend to be headquartered there for tax purposes.

What's wrong with allowing states to have competing tax codes? Those with less onerous tax codes and lower compliance costs will naturally attract more businesses - allowing for economic growth.


The problem isn't the pittance we pay the poor. The problem is corporate welfare and allowing the obscenely wealthy to tax dodge.

Like I said before, you won't get an argument from me about ending subsidies to certain wealthy special interests, but we aren't exactly paying a "pittance" to the poor, either.

Many of the problems you're complaining about are the direct results of various and arbitrary government intrusions in the economy where it doesn't belong. In reality, we want many of the same things - an end to poverty, peace, our own unicorn to ride on, etc. The problem is that the path we've taken, while paved with good intentions, has taken us to Hell instead of Nirvana. That's because we've all too often chosen to use the heavy, forceful hand of the state rather than the voluntary actions of a free people. As state power grows, individual liberty shrinks by definition, so it's only natural that people try to influence how the state chooses to wield that power in ways that benefit themselves. That is why reforms that only serve to increase the power of the state will only exacerbate the problem and NEVER solve anything even if their interventions are taken to the ultimate extreme. That's why the problem doesn't lie with those consequences you decry; the problem lies at the origin with the very entity many people view as a panacea - the state.
 
2013-03-29 02:30:46 PM
Suddenly, all the executives will be getting a 999,999.99 salary and the rest in not-so-easily-taxed benefits.
 
2013-03-29 02:52:44 PM

Hydra: BullBearMS: Ronald Regan would like to point out just how retarded you are.

And Al Gore would like to point out just how retarded YOU are.

The social security "trust fund" has been raided rountinely ever since LBJ stuck his hand in it to pay for the Vietnam war. The government wrote itself a check and spent the money in the account that was backing the check up - what's gonna happen if those checks are cashed?

Like he said in the Bloomberg article I linked to, "closing the gap using taxes requires an immediate and permanent 64 percent increase in ALL federal taxes."

Not sure what's so hard to understand about this particular issue.


Since both parties just worked together to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich a permanent feature of our tax code (instead of letting them finally expire) gutting the social safety net programs weeks later isn't going to fly.

Obama just got done raising taxes on rich people who make more than $400,000 (there was also a decent  Fox News article on this, but I'm sure you would've cried foul at linking to "Feaux News"). You're acting like it's a farking tragedy that they didn't get the $250,000 threshold they were asking for at first.


How about we make the obscenely wealthy pay the same tax percentage everyone else pays on their income? Why were they allowed to pay a lower rate on Capital Gains than the working poor making only about 36K makes on their income?

You won't get an argument from me about making sure the wealthy aren't given special tax breaks, but you MUST understand that this is a byproduct of the government increasing its intervention in the economy - if the government is going to be increasing its control over the economy through regulation and taxation, then wealthy special interests have an incentive to steer the government-granted cash their way while minimizing their tax burden through special treatment like credits and different rates, and politicians/bureaucrats have an incentives to grant favors to those spec ...


Intriguing rebuttals.  What do you think of a consumption/sales tax instead of our current labyrinthian code?
 
2013-03-29 03:41:09 PM

Hydra: The social security "trust fund" has been raided rountinely ever since LBJ stuck his hand in it to pay for the Vietnam war. The government wrote itself a check and spent the money in the account that was backing the check up - what's gonna happen if those checks are cashed?


Yes, and cutting Social Security's payouts has nothing to do with anything but making sure the Government can continue raiding the cookie jar. Like it or not, both parties spent the Social Security trust fund's money and claimed it was an "investment" because they replaced the money coming in with treasury bonds.

Contracts are sacred. (Or is that only the contracts that specify payouts to the filthy rich?) There is no pretending that those bonds don't count.

Cutting Social Security, which both parties are currently advocating, is not the way to save the general fund a dime, unless your real objective is to continue transferring Social Security's surplus into the general fund so you can keep on spending it.

Hydra: Obama just got done raising taxes on rich people who make more than $400,000


The tax on Capital Gains for Billionaires went up from 15% to 20%.

Billionaires still pay less on their major form of income than regular working stiffs who only make about 35K a year after that increase you're derping about. Why? Because the filthy rich own both parties.

The "temporary" Bush tax cuts were retained with a token increase so the Republicans could biatch and moan about these horrible higher taxes and so the Democrats could pretend they had done something about those Bush tax cuts they always pretended to oppose.

We also kept the vast majority of the retarded "temporary" inheritance tax cuts with small modifications.

However, we did get rid of those tax breaks for the working poor and middle class that we put into effect for a couple of years.

Hydra: You won't get an argument from me about making sure the wealthy aren't given special tax breaks, but you MUST understand that this is a byproduct of the government increasing its intervention in the economy


Horseshiat. We live in a Plutocracy where the obscenely wealthy own our Government and are allowed to break the law without fear of prosecution and are allowed to buy any changes to the tax code that they want.

Rampant fraud just destroyed our economy and those guilty were not only not punished for their felony level fraud,, they were bailed out on the public dime.

Meanwhile, the number of working poor barely managing to keep their head above water plummeted and the number of people needing food stamps skyrocketed.

Wall Street's fraud made them richer than ever and farked everyone else. Where are the criminal prosecutions?

Hydra: when they repatriate them, they pay taxes on them


You seem to be consistently ignoring the fact that the obscenely wealthy get whatever changes to the tax code they like. Remember the last "one time" tax holiday they were given on that overseas money? Noticed Congress talking up doing it again, despite them going on and on about that being a one time thing last time?

They sneak this shiat through by claiming it's "temporary" or "one time" then suddenly, it's the way things stay, like the Capital Gains tax for Billionaires being much, much lower than the tax rate on income from a normal job.

Hydra: What's wrong with allowing states to have competing tax codes?


Setting your state tax rate to zero isn't competing. It's being bought and paid for. Microsoft is a Washington State company. Why should they be allowed to dodge their share of taxes in Washington because they opened an office in Nevada?

Why should Microsoft get to dodge their Federal taxes because they opened an office in Bermuda?

Hydra: Many of the problems you're complaining about are the direct results of various and arbitrary government intrusions in the economy where it doesn't belong.


The things I am complaining about are a result of the filthy rich owning both political parties and getting all the Corporate welfare they like, while being allowed to dodge paying their share of the tax burden.

However, I'm also willing to complain about the filthy rich being allowed to move all the manufacturing jobs to nations where they can pay slave labor wages and ignore environmental regulations, yet being exempt from any sort of tarrif when they bring those goods back into the US.

While I'm at it, I'm perfectly willing to complain about our two tiered "justice" system where the poor and working class are stomped on over trivial offenses while the filthy rich can't even manage to face prosecution for their crimes.

We are living in the second coming of America's gilded age, and just like the last time, only a populist uprising of normal people no longer willing to accept injustice can save us. The last time the rich owned the Government, it took people abandoning all the traditional political parties to force change.
 
2013-03-29 04:34:34 PM

floggingworks: Intriguing rebuttals.  What do you think of a consumption/sales tax instead of our current labyrinthian code?


Almost ANYTHING would be better than the current code, but I would prefer a consumption tax with a prebate allowance up to the poverty level (in order to eliminate with the natural regressivity of a consumption tax) similar to the FairTax rather than a flat income tax over the current system (I reference them specifically since the flat tax and the FairTax are probably the two most-cited reforms to the current system). It wouldn't be perfect, nor would it be a panacea, but it would be DRASTICALLY more efficient than the current system while completely eliminating any and all loopholes for any wealthy special interests whatsoever.

The sole purpose of any tax is to do one thing: raise revenue for the government. While obvious, this is a fact that is often completely overlooked in the whole debate about taxation. People are often chained to an "us" vs. "them" mentality with respect to taxation because they're caught up in this artificial class warfare game that too many politicians have created to get elected. They conflate honest, hardworking entrepreneurs who earned their fortunes with rent seekers who got rich by manipulating a distorted system - a system distorted by government. Naturally, they feel enmity and jealousy towards these people, so they clamor for an ever-higher tax burden on them as some sort of a "Gotcha!" against that group rather than as a way to raise revenue for a legitimate use of funds by the government. The way to fix the problem of rent seeking isn't to tax the hell out of rich people; it's to eliminate the distortions that allowed those ill-gotten rents to be extracted in the first place and punish specifically those who benefitted - but that's a whole other issue.

Next to inflation (yes, inflation is really a tax in reality), the income tax is one of the most economically distortionary taxes a government can impose (though, I guess when you get right down to it, ALL taxes are really a tax on income). What I like about a consumption tax like the FairTax vs. an income tax is that it frees up capital to be invested and eliminates the need for businesses to make decisions like creating complex accounting and legal structures and hiring a team of lawyers simply to minimize their tax burden. Those are very real costs in terms of dollars and time that affect sole proprietors and small businesses much more heavily than big businesses that have the economies of scale necessary to afford the lawyers and compliance costs. These are costs that are not obvious in the top marginal tax rate and are, indeed, earned by a whole different subset of rent seekers - tax lawyers, accountants, and K-street lobbyists. You won't hear Obama criticizing these folks, though, because they help sustain the huge income tax apparatus that he loves so much.

Laurence Kotlikoff, the author of the Bloomberg article I cited earlier, wrote an interesting piece in favor of the FairTax a while ago and has generally been in favor of it for some time. The most common criticism levelled against it has come in the form of a Nirvana fallacy that usually ignores A) the distortionary effects of the various taxes in the code as it exists now, and B) the only legitimate goal of a tax in the first place, which as I just explained is to raise revenue (and also C) the role that inflation plays as the most regressive form of taxation all as well as the most economically distortionary, but inflation is a much larger subject than would make this post even longer).

So like I said, is the FairTax perfect? No. Does it have some problems? Sure. Could it be improved? Probably - always open to suggestions for improvement.
However, is it an improvement over the current system as it exists now? Absolutely.
 
2013-03-29 05:14:50 PM

MyRandomName: When will liberals stop with this retarded talking point. Virtually nobody paid the listed rate due to loopholes. Stop the idiocy. Use normalized comparisons such as effective tax rate. Comparing unadjusted rates shows how ignorant you are.


I'm interested in subscribing to your newsletter. When is the next issue of "imaginary reasons my reality is the only reality"
 
2013-03-29 05:56:33 PM

Hydra: floggingworks: Intriguing rebuttals.  What do you think of a consumption/sales tax instead of our current labyrinthian code?

Almost ANYTHING would be better than the current code, but I would prefer a consumption tax with a prebate allowance up to the poverty level (in order to eliminate with the natural regressivity of a consumption tax) similar to the FairTax rather than a flat income tax over the current system (I reference them specifically since the flat tax and the FairTax are probably the two most-cited reforms to the current system). It wouldn't be perfect, nor would it be a panacea, but it would be DRASTICALLY more efficient than the current system while completely eliminating any and all loopholes for any wealthy special interests whatsoever.

The sole purpose of any tax is to do one thing: raise revenue for the government. While obvious, this is a fact that is often completely overlooked in the whole debate about taxation. People are often chained to an "us" vs. "them" mentality with respect to taxation because they're caught up in this artificial class warfare game that too many politicians have created to get elected. They conflate honest, hardworking entrepreneurs who earned their fortunes with rent seekers who got rich by manipulating a distorted system - a system distorted by government. Naturally, they feel enmity and jealousy towards these people, so they clamor for an ever-higher tax burden on them as some sort of a "Gotcha!" against that group rather than as a way to raise revenue for a legitimate use of funds by the government. The way to fix the problem of rent seeking isn't to tax the hell out of rich people; it's to eliminate the distortions that allowed those ill-gotten rents to be extracted in the first place and punish specifically those who benefitted - but that's a whole other issue.

Next to inflation (yes, inflation is really a tax in reality), the income tax is one of the most economically distortionary taxes a government can impose ...


Well thought out and expressed, without raving.  Nice, and a great way to pass a couple minutes on the phone with someone bloviating about a problem I pointed out a couple weeks ago.  Thanks for the distraction, and by the by, I concur.
 
2013-03-29 06:08:07 PM
ltomberry: (deleted: Sorry, headline's now been fixed)

So now when subby borks up a headline and then fixes it later, FARK goes in and deletes all the posts referring to said borking? I was robbed! There's nothing wrong with a little good-natured needling over a typo.
 
2013-03-29 06:24:49 PM
Meanwhile, Hollande keeps bashing himself on the knees with a claw hammer to punish them for hurting.  He figures if he does it enough, he will become a world class marathon runner.

In other news, toxoplasmosis-induced socialism now infects 80% of the French population, controlling their brains enough to make them do what the protozoa wants.  Which is apparently to embrace a ridiculous, outdated, reactionary 19th Century religion called socialism.
 
2013-03-29 06:48:30 PM

MrSteve007: Remember when the top tax rate in the USA was near 90%? Surely it must have cause a massive recession or slow economic growth.

Wait a minute? You mean to tell me the 1950's and 60's saw explosive economic growth, rapid expansion of the interstate system, greatly improved schooling and our victory in the space race? How could all of that happen without trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich?


Pro tip: Nobody actually paid those rates.
 
2013-03-29 07:58:42 PM

FullMetalPanda: I thought the way it worked for them was the 1st mil is taxed than after that it's meh.

Unlike the US where you get taxed on the entire amount?


Actually in the US tax is based in tiers.  The first X gets taxed at a low rate.  If you make more than that then only the amount over X is taxed at a higher rate, and so on up the ladder.  So even a billionaire gets the first $20,000 or so at the lowest tax rates.

And 75% is still lower than the US tax rate on millionaires back in that 1950s "utopia" that Republicans keep fantasizing about.  Irony?
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report