France's 'Rich' Say: Tax us more

[JS80]

If I were a billionaire I could care less what my future income was taxed at.

 

[TheSlamma]

This just in.

America's rich will pay for airfare to send America's poor to France. Happiness for all!

Problem is France has an immigration system just like pretty much EVERY other country in the world does.

Honestly the whole "love it or leave it" thing had to have been invented in the south by some of their finest 2nd grade graduates, cause it is definitely not a well thought out saying.

 

[BoberFett]

The Bush tax cuts were a response to a slumping economy. As a Keynesian, I thought government spending (and as we know Democrats call tax cuts "spending") was exactly what is called for? Why would Bush have to hide them?

You people need to get your stories straight.

 

[JSt0rm]

The Bush tax cuts were a response to a slumping economy. As a Keynesian, I thought government spending (and as we know Democrats call tax cuts "spending") was exactly what is called for? Why would Bush have to hide them?

You people need to get your stories straight.

Read the article.

 

[Bowfinger]

Difference between tax and soak.

Also, the country has come up with a way to control it's budget.

Notice that Obama never issued any directive to the agencies too cut until after the fiasco.

That directive could have been issued 2 years ago and sliced 10% off our bill by now.
Saved the political football that caused the downgrade and also through the stock markets into turmoil.

It doesn't work that way. Agencies may have it within their power to cut discretionary spending (though even that works better in theory than in practice). Unfortunately, most of our spending is not discretionary spending, and therefore cannot be cut at the whim of agency heads. Your 10% cut would, at best, not touch the majority of the federal budget. That requires legislative changes, which puts us back in the same circus we just experienced.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Republican mantra. You should put that in the scripture of trickle down for all of the believers.

If you review my previous posts, you will find that I am a Democrat and that I have repeatedly called for the end of all Bush tax cuts (not just on the rich) and increased taxation across all income brackets.

I'm not familiar with the situation in France, but the rich already pay a massive share of the tax burden in the US, with the top 5% paying 57% of the taxes, even after the Bush Tax Cuts.
Source:
http://www.american.com/archive/200...zine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

It is time for the other brackets to help pay more for the services that they demand.

 

[cubby1223]

Because the height of a recession is not the time to cut federal spending. Indeed, it's all the cuts on the state and local level that are dragging the jobs recovery right now. Every month we have positive private sector job growth, offset by public sector job loss. When you have a jobs problem and a deficit problem, you take care of the jobs problem first, not least because getting people employed increases the revenue base.

And when the deficit problem becomes so large that it is the cause of the jobs problem, then what do you do?

 

[cubby1223]

And to the rich of France, if you truly feel you are not being taxed enough, then go ahead and make a gift donation to your government. No one is stopping you besides yourselves.

I'd say this is more of a P.R. stunt than actual seriousness about forcing changed tax policy.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14646975

France's rich have 'volunteered' to be taxed more, a letter signed by 16 of their top corporate executives including the heir to the L'Oreal cosmetics fortunes have said "TAX US MORE". Oh by the way, as a part of this proposal France has ACTUALLY come up with a coherent plan to cut it's public deficit by over 5% this year, and 4.6% NEXT year.

Wait, this isn't supposed to work, right? Taxing the rich kills jobs. Hm. This is the best part:

They said they had benefited from the French system and that: "When the public finances deficit and the prospects of a worsening state debt threaten the future of France and Europe and when the government is asking everybody for solidarity, it seems necessary for us to contribute."

Here's the rest of the article:

[ ... ]

Boggles the mind how such a bureaucratic country like France can make the tough decisions when Amerikah can't.

Indeed. And that they seem to get what so many American right-wingers don't, that while the wealthy are (often) so successful because of their own initiative, intelligence, risk-taking, etc., their success is still built upon the "system." The "system" being the exceptional physical, financial, and educational infrastructure -- largely funded by tax dollars -- that makes countries like the U.S. and France such a wealth of opportunities compared to those low-tax utopias like Guatemala.

 

[momeNt]

He was implying that Greenspan would need to create a housing bubble to hide the bush tax cuts. Very prophetic actually.

I suppose you could be right. Usually a keynesian would recommend debt fueled government spending to replace private spending in a recession. But assuming that the private sector has the discretionary income to spend, and they are just simply choosing not to, the government can take that money via taxes and spend it to get them out of spending without incurring deficits.

To make it about just about the bush tax cuts is typical when you look at everything as a left or right issue though, so I suppose I should be expecting that from people. If that is what he meant, why not just say Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to hide the bush tax cuts? Why even bring up the Nasdaq bubble if it was immaterial to the recession which you apparently feel is a direct cause of the bush tax cuts?

 

[BoberFett]

Read the article.

I've read the article in the past, and agree that he's not arguing for a housing bubble. However he's not putting forth any other solutions, merely saying that the economy was heading down.

And as a Keynesian, the answer to a sliding economy is government spending.

Are you disagreeing?

 

[Bowfinger]

If you review my previous posts, you will find that I am a Democrat and that I have repeatedly called for the end of all Bush tax cuts (not just on the rich) and increased taxation across all income brackets.

I'm not familiar with the situation in France, but the rich already pay a massive share of the tax burden in the US, with the top 5% paying 57% of the taxes, even after the Bush Tax Cuts.
Source:
http://www.american.com/archive/200...zine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

It is time for the other brackets to help pay more for the services that they demand.

Sorry, but you seem to have been duped by deliberately misleading statistics. While the top 5% do indeed pay a lot, it's because they have even more. Everyone needs to pay a bit more, but that very much includes the wealthy who've actually seen their effective tax rates drop.

Edit: Also, don't be mislead by statistics that cite the top 5% or top 2%. The real windfall has been for the top 0.1%.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

A handful of super-wealthy Americans have said something similar. When you have billions of dollars, money loses much of its meaning.

I'm pretty sure that a poll of the top 1% in any country would show little support for such measures though.

yeah, that's like me saying you can up my tax liability from a nickel to a dime next year.

 

[brencat]

A handful of super-wealthy Americans have said something similar. When you have billions of dollars, money loses much of its meaning.

I'm pretty sure that a poll of the top 1% in any country would show little support for such measures though.

Because neither the right, nor the left in this country has come up with anything resembling common sense taxation. Obama thinks we should tax earned income as low as $250k+ in the same category as $75 million. Meanwhile, when have you seen anyone in either party propose a more reasonable threshold of $650-$750k earned income before taxes go up (or even Buffet's recent threshold suggestion of $1mm+) so we exempt the upper middle class in high cost of living states? Living in NJ and working in NYC, I will not support a $250k+ threshold for higher taxes. Change that to $650-750k however, and you'd get my support.

Secondly, BOTH parties seem content with the investor class of society paying a too low 15% capital gains tax, while many middle and upper middle class people with W2 earned income pay a lot more.

You're probably right that the current group of Repubs would not support any tax increases, but it's not helpful that the Dems don't challenge their own "tax everybody more" stigma either.

 

[Infohawk]

Wow they moved quickly, and this is with a conservative party in power (albeit conservative by European standards.)

Ultimately though, this is not going to stop the race to the bottom with third world countries.

 

[soulcougher73]

Good for France. At least they still have a national identity to cling to..for now. Which is probably why the rich french feel the way they do. Which is a good thing.

 

[JSt0rm]

I've read the article in the past, and agree that he's not arguing for a housing bubble. However he's not putting forth any other solutions, merely saying that the economy was heading down.

And as a Keynesian, the answer to a sliding economy is government spending.

Are you disagreeing?

Im not a expert on the subject. I do know we like to create black and white boogiemen here.

 

[momeNt]

Secondly, BOTH parties seem content with the investor class of society paying a too low 15% capital gains tax, while many middle and upper middle class people with W2 earned income pay a lot more.

To say it is too low is oversimplifying the issue. Perhaps the capital gains tax needs to be changed entirely to encompass not just realized gains (ie. when the stock or asset is sold and the difference is pocketed) not sure what would have to be done, or if a sustained tax increase could be held long enough that investors will get impatient waiting for it to fall and sell their asset even at the higher capital gains tax rate.

From 2008 debate.

CHARLIE GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?


OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.


GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.


OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

 

[RbSX]

And to the rich of France, if you truly feel you are not being taxed enough, then go ahead and make a gift donation to your government. No one is stopping you besides yourselves.

I'd say this is more of a P.R. stunt than actual seriousness about forcing changed tax policy.

They have basically offered themselves up, if you actually read the article, their `pledge` was published before Sarkozy announced his reforms.

So many dumbasses in P&N.

 

[RbSX]

Indeed. And that they seem to get what so many American right-wingers don't, that while the wealthy are (often) so successful because of their own initiative, intelligence, risk-taking, etc., their success is still built upon the "system." The "system" being the exceptional physical, financial, and educational infrastructure -- largely funded by tax dollars -- that makes countries like the U.S. and France such a wealth of opportunities compared to those low-tax utopias like Guatemala.

Bingo. Winner.

 

[BoberFett]

Im not a expert on the subject. I do know we like to create black and white boogiemen here.

That we do. That we do.

 

[Genx87]

Will the next bubble please stand up!

The next bubble is obviously govt spending. When it collapses it will make the tech\stock market bubble and housing bubble look like childs play.

 

[momeNt]

We do have a similar pledge for rich americans though. It's the gates/buffet charity pledge.

German Millionaire on the gates/buffet pledge.

SPIEGEL: Forty super wealthy Americans have just announced that they would donate half of their assets, at the very latest after their deaths. As a person who often likes to say that rich people should be asked to contribute more to society, what were your first thoughts?
Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable.
SPIEGEL: But doesn't the money that is donated serve the common good?
Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?
SPIEGEL: It is their money at the end of the day.
Krämer: In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for. That runs counter to the democratically legitimate state. In the end the billionaires are indulging in hobbies that might be in the common good, but are very personal.
SPIEGEL: Do the donations also have to do with the fact that the idea of state and society is such different one in the United States?


Krämer: Yes, one cannot forget that the US has a desolate social system and that alone is reason enough that donations are already a part of everyday life there. But it would have been a greater deed on the part of Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet if they had given the money to small communities in the US so that they can fulfil public duties.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,710972,00.html

 

[EagleKeeper]

Difference between tax and soak.

Also, the country has come up with a way to control it's budget.

Notice that Obama never issued any directive to the agencies too cut until after the fiasco.

That directive could have been issued 2 years ago and sliced 10% off our bill by now.
Saved the political football that caused the downgrade and also through the stock markets into turmoil.

Because the height of a recession is not the time to cut federal spending. Indeed, it's all the cuts on the state and local level that are dragging the jobs recovery right now. Every month we have positive private sector job growth, offset by public sector job loss. When you have a jobs problem and a deficit problem, you take care of the jobs problem first, not least because getting people employed increases the revenue base.

We saw that we were unable to spend our way out.
There is enough government waste that a 5 or 10% cut is expenditures should not result in job losses.

Public sector job loss is because either there is not enough tax base to support the required level or that the desired level (inflated) exceeds the needed level and that the desired level existed previously, or that funding is being adjusted to protect those that control it.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Just like the hurricane Katrina victims could learn from Japan, America's wealthy could learn from France's wealthy.

Wow, who would have though America could learn from overseas countries on how to act like human beings?!