General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHollande favors a 75% tax on the wealthy!
VIVA HOLLANDE!
And I pray that he has dedicated and alert body guards. Plus a food taster.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)On every dollar above a billion? A hundred million? Ten million? What is the progression?
aquart
(69,014 posts)And I got excited! Me, I want 85% over the first ten million, all income any source. But I am an agreeable, flexible person who is open to compromise.
Billionaires are a parasitical cancer on the economy and there are two cures: surgical removal or taxation.
We should have economic screenings to prevent billionaires exactly the same way we go after breast cancer. Look for suspicious lumps.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
And America did fine. Much better than today.
TedBronson
(52 posts)Under Eisenhower, there were far fewer options to pick up and leave to a less taxing environment.
The modern worldwide economic system makes it much simpler.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)*lots and lots of hand-wringing*
wait...
You know, fuck 'em.
They aren't investing today - what the hell do we CARE what they do?
They are just acting as the beneficiaries of we sharecroppers at best, and that's the most generous spin I can think of. They offer nothing we can't figure out otherwise. Not enough investment in the country now, and propping up their assets for some unlikely future promise while screwing everyone else in the country by focusing on debt instead of jobs is creating more damage, more tragedy and lives lost than Bin Laden ever dreamed of. Those 6 million homes that are out there in some stage of foreclosure are inhabited by people who we can PROVE will suffer shorter lives, higher needs for medical care, more poverty, and worst of all will not be able to contribute to the security and wealth of this country. Over 50 million people who are not working today would be at work tomorrow if there were jobs, but as long as they cannot consume they cannot contribute to our economy. Which IS our security.
Let 'em go - like they aren't already trading out of China and Thailand and Vietna,...a dozen other countries... anyway - we will be better off, those of us that stay will and can figure it out. Invest in training around science, math, engineering, energy, agriculture, writing, philosophy and business for as many as want to go, put an additional 15 million people to work at a decent wage for 2-3 years while we put together the base for the next future.
Or keep paying blood money to the banks while they continue to perpetrate their fraud, knowing full well that 20 years from now they will have even more of the money, and we will be less secure.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Somalia?
If they leave, someone else will pick up what they leave. Maybe we'll be better off.
TedBronson
(52 posts)It's a broad brush, as tax code is extremely complex.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)would love to go to one of those countries.
Nothing like being an outsider with your money for the rest of your life.
But, hey, if that's what you love, please go.
completely shows no loyalty to the United States either, so I could do without those people.
Besides which, I pay 30%. You're saying those MFers shouldn't?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If we had a government that wanted to go after them, isn't our military big enough to find them?
If we had a government that wanted to follow the 100% penalty model (26 USC 6672, for example), a 100% penalty could be imposed upon all transfers of wealth out of this country. We don't.
aquart
(69,014 posts)RICO if they have used the money to subvert our laws and elections. Or treason, sedition...whatever works. I can be quite unpleasant in this regard.
Evidence of foreign accounts...
Billionaires are a parasitical disease on our economy and body politic.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Since US citizens are taxed on income they make, even if they don't live in the US.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)possible. Shutting down (or better said, opening up for scrutiny?) the hiding of income in tax havens has been discussed for years now.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)In a nod to fiscal prudence, Hollande has promised to balance France's books by the end of 2017, a feat that has not happened in 30 years. To that end, he is insistent that the budget deficit target of 3% of gross domestic product for next year must be reached.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-president-election-20120507,0,1868345.story
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)People have read too much into that outcome.
Greece, on the other hand, now has a real chance at change.
Prometheus Bound
(3,489 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)Citi is a criminal organization.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)nxylas
(6,440 posts)We need to invade France immediately. All those nucular power stations, they must be up to no good.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Citizens of any European Union country have the right to live and work in any other EU country. Won't many French people who are subject to this tax simply move to London and be taxed at 45% instead? Especially since London is a fairly short train ride from Paris these days?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)since I believe the Swiss banks won't do banking with US citizens any longer.
aquart
(69,014 posts)I'd wait a bit before cruising the internet for London real estate.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I applaud the attitude to finally tax the rich but I think 75% is a bit too high.
The main effect of high marginal tax rates isn't the levy itself but in changing the economic landscape about what decisions are prudent to avoid paying that high rate.
Longer-term stability and reinvesting in the business becomes more favorable than maximizing what you get in the latest quarter, because after a point Uncle Francois (or Sam) gets the lion's share. And it certainly takes some of the charm out of some of the big derivatives gambling, or the sort of buy-up-and-liquidate that Romney's put back in the news.
It's actually a market solution to that sort of extractive practice. It changes the incentives. We're not under any obligation to make it easier for people who are already wealthy to get even more wealthy as fast as possible, especially when they do so by squeezing everyone else.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)But I worry that a tax rate set so high will encourage the rich of France to simply move their assets to other territories.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Think carefully before you answer.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Our government is in the process of slashing the tax burden on the super-rich.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)they live, the French could move to Tomboucktou but still be responsible to pay taxes to the French state.
aquart
(69,014 posts)75% is actually too low for that.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Seems to me there will be a lot of opposition. I wouldn't be surprised if some compromise happens.