75% tax in France- ruled 'unfair' by Constitutional Court.

  • 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#101 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] You can't give someone a right. If "rights" can be given/taken at will then that means they are privileges, not rights. Also, if everyone in France consented to taxation then France wouldn't have tax evasion laws. France taxes by force. Do you actually believe the things you post?Laihendi
Do you? I mean damn you say crazy sh*t but I think your screws are starting to come loose.

Pretty much everything I say is an outgrowth of the idea that it is only justifiable to use force against someone as an act of defense. I don't see what's crazy about that.

Some pretty crazy line of thought that "force is only justifiable as an act of self defense" somehow leads you to "France taxes by force" and "Children are property just like animals and as such the property owner can do as they please with them".
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
The french government claims the authority to imprison people who don't pay taxes. Please explain how that is not force. I said that about babies, not children. Babies have no reasoning capabilities, and their desires/feelings are merely instinct and reaction to stimulus. They are incapable of conceiving the concept of rights, and therefore have no rights. Please explain how I am wrong.
Avatar image for Ncsoftlover
Ncsoftlover

2152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#103 Ncsoftlover
Member since 2007 • 2152 Posts

The french government claims the authority to imprison people who don't pay taxes. Please explain how that is not force. I said that about babies, not children. Babies have no reasoning capabilities, and their desires/feelings are merely instinct and reaction to stimulus. They are incapable of conceiving the concept of rights, and therefore have no rights. Please explain how I am wrong.Laihendi

to be fair, and I'm not American so I'm not too sure about the details, but US government does not have the ability to jail those who don't pay tax?

I know this though, one of my favorite statistic

Incarcerate rate in the world by country.

US: 730/100000 France: 102/100000

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#104 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The french government claims the authority to imprison people who don't pay taxes. Please explain how that is not force. I said that about babies, not children. Babies have no reasoning capabilities, and their desires/feelings are merely instinct and reaction to stimulus. They are incapable of conceiving the concept of rights, and therefore have no rights. Please explain how I am wrong.

I don't think you can be incorrect in the sense that you're mistaken. However I'm glad we don't have people like you calling the shots. Things may not be perfect the way they are but my god am I glad you have zero say in things. Fortunately we can conceive the concept of rights and as such give them to those who need them. If you don't think the government should have the power to enforce the law on the constituents who give it power then I suppose you advocate a state of lawless anarchy? After all if the government who is voted in by the people can't enforce the law then why should anyone else? You think society will function on the honour system? You've admitted those who commit crimes don't do so rationally and don't consider the consequences.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#105 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
to be fair, and I'm not American so I'm not too sure about the details, but US government does not have the ability to jail those who don't pay tax?Ncsoftlover
I believe it's maximum of 1 year in prison for each missed tax return. So, yes it does have the ability.
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]The french government claims the authority to imprison people who don't pay taxes. Please explain how that is not force. I said that about babies, not children. Babies have no reasoning capabilities, and their desires/feelings are merely instinct and reaction to stimulus. They are incapable of conceiving the concept of rights, and therefore have no rights. Please explain how I am wrong.

I don't think you can be incorrect in the sense that you're mistaken. However I'm glad we don't have people like you calling the shots. Things may not be perfect the way they are but my god am I glad you have zero say in things. Fortunately we can conceive the concept of rights and as such give them to those who need them. If you don't think the government should have the power to enforce the law on the constituents who give it power then I suppose you advocate a state of lawless anarchy? After all if the government who is voted in by the people can't enforce the law then why should anyone else? You think society will function on the honour system? You've admitted those who commit crimes don't do so rationally and don't consider the consequences.

You clearly do not understand my position on the role of government. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Obviously anarchy has nothing to do with that. Obviously there must be a set of laws to protect people from coercion, and a court system and police force to enforce those laws. There must also be a military. None of this has anything to do with the "honour system". A law can either protect one's rights, or violate them. A law stating that people must give the government however much money it demands with the threat of imprisonment for anyone who refuses violates a person's rights. I am not saying that the concept of having laws is bad. I am saying that there are specific laws which are bad.
Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
Kell_the_Gamer

885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 Kell_the_Gamer
Member since 2012 • 885 Posts
Greedy rich people are evil and should pay everyone else's way through life! Zeviander
The general idea of socialism is that the people who can afford more pay a little more and it goes to those who need it, who then better themselves to get up to middle class and etc. In reality even the rich don't want to pay taxes that are high enough for them to feel, even if they're still going to be rich after taxes.
Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
Kell_the_Gamer

885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 Kell_the_Gamer
Member since 2012 • 885 Posts

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

Where?

WhiteKnight77

75% of 20,000 is 15,000. 75% of 1m is 750k.

That isn't what you said.

He doesn't get it. Nor can he answer a simple question with the yes or no required of it.

Its funny how everyone thinks they would be less greedy if they're were wish. The real question is if he would pay a 75% tax even though he makes over 1.32 a year, and he won't answer because he doesn't want to lie.
Avatar image for Solemnaa
Solemnaa

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 Solemnaa
Member since 2012 • 33 Posts
The main problem of french people is that they don't like the success. State is a little too paternalist
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

75% of 20,000 is 15,000. 75% of 1m is 750k.

That isn't what you said.

Kell_the_Gamer

He doesn't get it. Nor can he answer a simple question with the yes or no required of it.

Its funny how everyone thinks they would be less greedy if they're were wish. The real question is if he would pay a 75% tax even though he makes over 1.32 a year, and he won't answer because he doesn't want to lie.

You may wish to consider reading the rest of the thread, before responding to it.
Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
Kell_the_Gamer

885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 Kell_the_Gamer
Member since 2012 • 885 Posts
[QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

He doesn't get it. Nor can he answer a simple question with the yes or no required of it.

Inconsistancy
Its funny how everyone thinks they would be less greedy if they're were wish. The real question is if he would pay a 75% tax even though he makes over 1.32 a year, and he won't answer because he doesn't want to lie.

You may wish to consider reading the rest of the thread, before responding to it.

I did after I posted and you still didn't answer; if you made 10 million a year, would you be okay with 8.68 of it being taxed 75%?
Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

7059

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 7059 Posts

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

You are a Frenchman who earns 1.32 million dollars a year. From now on, of every extra dollar you earn you only receive 25 cents. In Belgium, which is literally right next door to you and has an extremely familiar culture in addition to very lax worker migration rules, every extra dollar you earn will give you 50 cents. Where would you rather work and where you would work more productively?

Barbariser

It won't matter, assuming you are an employee of a company. There are only so many jobs that pay $1.32 MM+ per year. The frenchman moving does not magically create new jobs. Either he won't get a similar job, or he will get a Belgian's job which will then deny that person that job.

With free mobility of labour the net effect is zero. No new jobs are created. The position that pays $1.32 MM+ in France will be filled by the next qualified candidate as will the position in Belgium. The only thing that will change is the name of the person occupying the position.

Again, I am making an assumption of employment with a company, not self employment or moving your sole proprietorship, or some weirdo rare situation where only 10 people in the world are qualified, etc.

Yeah, and the latter aren't exactly a small and insignificant group. Does France want to lose athletes and other celebrities who have a relatively easy time earning those income levels in nearly any country they pick?

If the Frenchman moves to Belgium or Luxembourg or whatever, there's no guarantee that his replacement will be as productive as him, or that there will be a replacement. After all, a wage level like that would indicate that the number of people qualified for the job is not high in supply.

I find it funny that your two examples are in fact in endless supply.

We don't want to lose athletes!!! OMG, there aren't thousands of replacements for them? OMG, the billionaire team owners will lose their one or two or three stars because they won't pay to account for after tax dispartities in different places of the world. They already do. And everyone else on the team is an interchangeable part.

Whatever will the celebrities do?!!!! Who cares?

The vast majority of people earning $1.32 MM+ are in senior to executive corporate positions. They aren't going anywhere and the overwhelming vast majority of them are interchangeable parts with vast numbers of anonymous middle to senior people just chomping at the bit to replace them.

If you believe that the salaries of senior to executive corporate positions is actually driven by supply of labour you are naive. You can deduce this by examining any large company organization chart. Pick any senior to executive position and examine how many people work for them. Do you think none of them are capable of being promoted? If so, doesn't that mean that their boss is in fact incompetent for failing to develop his/her staff?

I make more than $1.32 M. I am surrounded by people that also make more than $1.32 M. Many of them suck. Indeed, I wouldn't hire 50% or more of my peers to clean the floors, let alone have them fill the positions they do fill. I like to think that I do a better job of leadership as many of my subordinates have been promoted...but I could be delusional on that too. One thing I do know for sure: we are all replaceable. It is extremely rare in business to find someone who isn't.

All that said, I still don't agree with French policy but not because I think that an exodus of people will leave. That won't happen for both economic reasons and personal reasons...despite what a few celebrities say...and to them good riddance.

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts
[QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"][QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"] Its funny how everyone thinks they would be less greedy if they're were wish. The real question is if he would pay a 75% tax even though he makes over 1.32 a year, and he won't answer because he doesn't want to lie.

You may wish to consider reading the rest of the thread, before responding to it.

I did after I posted and you still didn't answer; if you made 10 million a year, would you be okay with 8.68 of it being taxed 75%?

Apparently not very thoroughly, try again.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#114 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]to be fair, and I'm not American so I'm not too sure about the details, but US government does not have the ability to jail those who don't pay tax?Ace6301
I believe it's maximum of 1 year in prison for each missed tax return. So, yes it does have the ability.

I believe Al Capone was jailed for income tax evasion.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#115 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

But honestly, I dont have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher percentage. But at some point, if you take home less than you pay in taxes, it's just not worth investing into the economy. I'd rather just take my money out of the economy, shrink my company, and not risk the money. Sorry if that hurts the economy, but that's just how things are.

Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
Kell_the_Gamer

885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#116 Kell_the_Gamer
Member since 2012 • 885 Posts

[QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"][QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] I did after I posted and you still didn't answer; if you made 10 million a year, would you be okay with 8.68 of it being taxed 75%?Inconsistancy
Apparently not very thoroughly, try again.

Just skimmed through the thread, this is the only thing I found that seems like you were trying to answer the question:

Trying to relate 'my' paycheck to a millionares, to show the "fairness" of his argument.Inconsistancy

From what I'm getting the answer is

"Yes I'll still be just as greedy, but the point is I'm NOT and they can afford it."

Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
Kell_the_Gamer

885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#117 Kell_the_Gamer
Member since 2012 • 885 Posts

But honestly, I dont have a problem with wealthier people paying a higher percentage. But at some point, if you take home less than you pay in taxes, it's just not worth investing into the economy. I'd rather just take my money out of the economy, shrink my company, and not risk the money. Sorry if that hurts the economy, but that's just how things are.

sonicare
I could agree to a 75% tax, but not for just being a borderline millionaire, try for people in the hundreds of millions.
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#118 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

From what I'm getting the answer is

"Yes I'll still be just as greedy, but the point is I'm NOT and they can afford it."

Kell_the_Gamer

Try again even harder

And that's a false comparison, but you'll find out why when you read the thread.

Avatar image for Kell_the_Gamer
Kell_the_Gamer

885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 Kell_the_Gamer
Member since 2012 • 885 Posts

[QUOTE="Kell_the_Gamer"]

From what I'm getting the answer is

"Yes I'll still be just as greedy, but the point is I'm NOT and they can afford it."

Inconsistancy

Try again even harder

And that's a false comparison, but you'll find out why when you read the thread.

I'm sleep deprived and I'm having trouble reading. :( What do you want me to see; SUD explaining that it won't make the important people leave? That the sensible people ITT believe in tax brackets but not upwards to 75%? What?
Avatar image for gamerguru100
gamerguru100

12718

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#120 gamerguru100
Member since 2009 • 12718 Posts

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Liberte, Egalitie, Fraternite.

Pirate700

About this type of "fairness". It's not able to be compared so directly.

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5k, at 1m it's 250k. As a % of total income, a poorer person pays more of their total spendable income than a rich person. Let's say at 20k you spend ~100% of your income just to live, while at 250k you'll need maybe 8% of that.

Reward vs Performance, from what I've read/seen(that I can't find...), only in manual tasks did a rewards work 1:1, in cognitive tasks excessive reward either had diminishing or negative returns.

Happiness vs income starts to plateau between 50-100k $

Dude, I'm sorry, if you really support someone losing 75% of their pay, that's beyond idiotic.

This. What a douche.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]to be fair, and I'm not American so I'm not too sure about the details, but US government does not have the ability to jail those who don't pay tax?sonicare
I believe it's maximum of 1 year in prison for each missed tax return. So, yes it does have the ability.

I believe Al Capone was jailed for income tax evasion.

As was Leona Helmsley and she was given 16 years for it. She was quoted by a housekeeper as "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..." She was also convicted of mail fraud and other offenses.