For you "tax the evil rich" libs......

[DJ_Critterus]

..... let's see how well this works.

DJ's prediction: The rich will stop being productive enough to make a shit ton of money because they are now government slaves and keep only 25% of what they earn or they will move over seas with their money. And those they employ will most likely become unemployed.

Now.... where I have seen that before with tax rates in the 35% range?

France plans to up tax on rich | Fox News

French citizens, those whose income is over one million euros, or just over one and a quarter million dollars, will soon be taxed at a rate of 75 percent.

Many economists have said the rich tax will not do much to boost depressed state coffers because only 3,000 of France's 66 million citizens make over a million (euros), and that the move is just symbolic.

In fact, the tax hike was the campaign promise many believe won the election for President Francois Hollande who has said he doesn't like the rich.

The move seems to have garnered massive public support. At the Peugeot-Citroen plant just outside of Paris, workers said they favored the rich paying more. Union Leader Jean-Pierre Mercier told Fox News, “It’s not all, AT ALL, sufficient,” he said. “We should take more of their wealth.”

Even among residents around the posh Place Vendome area it is hard to find anyone against the tax.

"It's a good idea. If you have money, you can pay taxes," one woman said, echoing the sentiments of several others.

A comment on the new super tax from a member of the socialist policy was immediately available.

But Gilbert Cette, a professor of economy, said, “I think it’s a good thing. In France we have to do a lot of very strong and very huge fiscal efforts to be able to respect our commitments, our European commitments to a 3 percent of GDP deficit.”

Opposition lawmakers said the tax has sent a signal to the rich and the aspirational.

Former Budget Minister Valerie Pecresse told Fox News in a meeting at the Assemblee Nationale that the tax sends a bad signal to the youth of France.

"If you want to succeed, if you want to be an entrepreneur, and work very hard, then go away," Pecresse said.

She and others have said the move stigmatizes the rich, and that its almost more the attitude towards wealth that hurts than the extra tax itself.

At the height of the controversy surrounding the super tax on the rich, news broke out that Bernard Arnault, France's wealthiest man and founder of the luxury goods empire that includes Louis Vuitton, had applied for Belgian citizenship. Arnault has denied it's a tax dodge, nevertheless the move prompted some to accuse him of treachery.

Jerome Barre, who advises the wealthy on tax matters, called the new tax the end of democracy, and said half of his clients were thinking of fleeing France.

"It's an insult. They consider they are good taxpayers. They have companies, businesses and they are working hard. The context is difficult, but they are not the source of the crisis," Barre said.

The rich are already getting hit at over 50 percent when all the various levies in the system are folded in.

Hollande said the new rich tax should only be in place for a couple of years -- until France’s budget gets back on its feet.

While most French citizens' taxes are about to go up, those hit with the biggest increase want to know why the government doesn't spend less rather than tax its citizens more.

Read more: France plans to up tax on rich | Fox News

See bolded part. I have the same question about government spending here in the states.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

..... let's see how well this works.

DJ's prediction: The rich will stop being productive enough to make a shit ton of money because they are now government slaves and keep only 25% of what they earn or they will move over seas with their money. And those they employ will most likely become unemployed.

Now.... where I have seen that before with tax rates in the 35% range?

France plans to up tax on rich | Fox News



See bolded part. I have the same question about government spending here in the states.

Because then the left would lose their voting block.

[kingpin]

What's the tax rate in the U.S. for someone making 100k a year.

[DropTheTop]

Originally Posted by kingpin

What's the tax rate in the U.S. for someone making 100k a year.

Oh shit, is Google broken?

[DAB]

Originally Posted by kingpin

What's the tax rate in the U.S. for someone making 100k a year.

when i was looking into starting a woodworking biz last year, found the following, as i have other income from other sources:

FICA - 15.3%
fed tax - 25%
state tax - 5%
county tax - 8.2%

total: 53.5%

and that's assuming i just do okey dokey. get a large commission, and the fed rate increases.

pass.

[Craig]

Historically, raising tax rates on the highest brackets has not increased tax revenue. Which means, in addition to economics, Liberals also don't know history.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Craig

Historically, raising tax rates on the highest brackets has not increased tax revenue. Which means, in addition to economics, Liberals also don't know history.

And lowering tax rates has increased revenue, which liberals prefer to ignore.

[RetiredSFC 97]

You know what happens when they up taxes on someone like this? One of a couple of things.

They take their money and run, or they make even more by not employing people, streamlining, and using more technology, which hurts the economy even more and keeps the cycle going.


I don't know who hear believes in religion or not, but if it continues around the world as it is, we just may see it all come to a head and have that World War that we need in order to make a market correction.

nature has a way of sorting things out.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Craig

Historically, raising tax rates on the highest brackets has not increased tax revenue. Which means, in addition to economics, Liberals also don't know history.

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

And lowering tax rates has increased revenue, which liberals prefer to ignore.

Seems nobody know what the Laffer Curve is.

[Will]

Originally Posted by DAB

when i was looking into starting a woodworking biz last year, found the following, as i have other income from other sources:

FICA - 15.3%
fed tax - 25%
state tax - 5%
county tax - 8.2%

total: 53.5%

and that's assuming i just do okey dokey. get a large commission, and the fed rate increases.

pass.

[Will]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

For you "tax the evil rich" libs......

..... let's see how well this works.

I can tell you it wouldn't work here in the U.S.

The hard truth Liberals want to ignore:


Reality Check: The Left's "Tax the Rich" Solution to Deficits Simply Won't Work

Without question, the greatest challenges faced by the United States today are the current troubling trends of trillion dollar deficits and exploding national debt. The American left's uniform response to this conundrum has been to blame low tax rates, and accuse some Americans of not paying their "fair share." Unfortunately, they offer only one "solution"—raising taxes. Specifically, on the "rich" or the "wealthiest Americans," however those groups are defined and delineated.

This simply is not a viable solution, nor is it a position backed by research, reason, or reality.

For 2009 (the most recent year of data available from the IRS), if the 15% Capital Gains Tax Rate, 25% Capital Gains Tax Rate, 33% Individual Income Tax Rate, and 35% Individual Income Tax Rate were all raised to 100%, in a static analysis the IRS would have collected an additional $668 Billion in tax revenue, or merely enough to cover 48% of the $1.4 Trillion deficit for 2009.

Raise the 28% Individual Income Tax Rate to 100% as well, and the numbers increase to $857 Billion in additional revenue, enough to cover only 61% of the deficit.

In fact, under a static analysis, only by also increasing the 25% Individual Income Tax Rate to 100% in addition to all of the above could the IRS have collected enough additional revenue to cover the federal budget deficit. Or, in other words, only by limiting every single American to an income of around $35,000 (hardly a reasonable line of demarcation for being considered "rich" or one of the "wealthiest Americans"), and confiscating every cent of income above that amount from every American, could the budget have been balanced. Again, all of this under static analysis, i.e. assuming no economic impact whatsoever from raising these tax rates to 100%.

Of course, a static analysis doesn't accurately portray the real-world effect that would be felt by the IRS. In reality, raising those tax rates to 100% would have an enormous negative impact on the U.S. economy and Gross Domestic Product, and the pool of income subject to collection would drastically shrink under such a punitive tax regime, a fact that not even the most left-leaning of economists would dispute.

Of course, viewing our deficit and debt problems as a function of tax rates and tax revenues is misguided in the first place. The United States' exploding deficits and national debt are entirely a function of spending. Consider the following hypothetical, in which the United States Federal Government maintained FY 2000 Spending levels, adjusted for inflation and population growth, for the decade between 2001 and 2010:



Again, using static analysis, for the decade between 2001 through 2010, the United States Federal Government would have amassed a net budget surplus of nearly $2.2 Trillion, rather than the net budget deficit of nearly $4.7 Trillion we tallied. This with the Bush Tax Cuts in place, as well as a brief period of economic expansion, book-ended by the collapse of the 2000 "Dot-Com Bubble" and the 2008 "Housing Bubble" and the resulting recessions:



Reality Check: Higher taxes simply won't solve our deficit and debt problems, because they weren't and aren't being caused by tax revenue in the first place. They are solely a result of out-of-control spending.

Reality Check: The Left's "Tax the Rich" Solution to Deficits Simply Won't Work.

[Will]

Originally Posted by TxAg

[Liberal Poster] You're not qualified to make charts and graphs! [/Liberal Poster]

CHERRY-PICKING!!!!!!!

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Seems nobody know what the Laffer Curve is.

Speaking historically, where typical top margin taxes have been above the approximately 33% mark where the Laffer Curve puts the cutoff.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by TxAg

[Liberal Poster] You're not qualified to make charts and graphs! [/Liberal Poster]

It's gotten so bad here you guys have to make up your own rebuttal posts.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

You're more than welcome to point out where the OP is wrong.

I know I am.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Speaking historically, where typical top margin taxes have been above the approximately 33% mark where the Laffer Curve puts the cutoff.

I know the theory behind the curve from economics 101 in high school. If I understand your comment correctly, I'll ahve to do some reading to find the mark. Can you try putting your question in the form of "non-Mrvette" english please?

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

I know the theory behind the curve from economics 101 in high school. If I understand your comment correctly, I'll ahve to do some reading to find the mark. Can you try putting your question in the form of "non-Mrvette" english please?

The Laffer Curve doesn't specifically say where that line is, but Art Laffer typically states that it's somewhere around 33%.

When top margin taxes are above this line and lowered the economy benefits and tax receipts increase. When taxes are above this line and raised the economy is harmed and tax receipts decrease.

Conversely, when top margin taxes are below this line and lowered, while the economy may still benefit it is not as significant, and tax receipts go down.

And when top margin taxes are below this line and raised, while the economy may still be harmed it is also not as significant, and tax receipts go up.

That said, there is somewhat of an interesting argument to be made right now. The latest tax numbers I've seen from the CBO put the top 1% tax rate at around 30%. Pretty close to the number Art Laffer uses as the cutoff. Which means that we may not benefit economically much from another cut in taxes, but we may end up with lower tax receipts. And raising taxes slightly may not hurt the economy much, but would raise tax receipts...depending on where, exactly, that line actually is.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

The Laffer Curve doesn't specifically say where that line is, but Art Laffer typically states that it's somewhere around 33%.

When top margin taxes are above this line and lowered the economy benefits and tax receipts increase. When taxes are above this line and raised the economy is harmed and tax receipts decrease.

Conversely, when top margin taxes are below this line and lowered, while the economy may still benefit it is not as significant, and tax receipts go down.

And when top margin taxes are below this line and raised, while the economy may still be harmed it is also not as significant, and tax receipts go up.

That said, there is somewhat of an interesting argument to be made right now. The latest tax numbers I've seen from the CBO put the top 1% tax rate at around 30%. Pretty close to the number Art Laffer uses as the cutoff. Which means that we may not benefit economically much from another cut in taxes, but we may end up with lower tax receipts. And raising taxes slightly may not hurt the economy much, but would raise tax receipts...depending on where, exactly, that line actually is.

The comic is, that it's the way I learned econ/fin/.gov back in B skool....decades ago....damn close for a 1/2 century old recollection....

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by mrvette

The comic is, that it's the way I learned econ/fin/.gov back in B skool....decades ago....damn close for a 1/2 century old recollection....

In all honestly, at your age, I'm surprised you have a recollection