A surging French candidate wants a 100% tax on the rich

100% tax is insane, but high marginal rates on the uber rich is a welcome idea.

The American ultra rich have only themselves to blame for the opinions of most young people in the world. Didn't know when to stop, beginning in 1981. Trump isn't even going to get a tax package out of Congress in 2017...his ideas are totally at odds with what people want. This isn't 1980. Massive increases to military spending here and a massive tax cut for the rich ain't going to fly, Drumpf.

Stupid leftists never learn. Reality and history indicates that any attempt to tax the rich will be a dismal failure and lead to reduced revenue. You don't think 'the rich' know how to get their money out of the taxman's hands?

What 'people', especially the ignorant young and commie burnouts, think is not what needs to be done.

Surely, a Republican controlled Congress can get stuff like this through. Then again, most politicians are leftards too, dedicated to expensive vote-buying cockups.

From 1932 through 1981, top marginal tax rate in USA was above 62% There were numerous years in USA during that era when top marginal tax rate was over 80%. The top marginal tax rate now is 35%. The empirical evidence does not state cutting top marginal tax rate increases annual GDP growth. Cutting income taxes for the lowest third earners is stimulative. Cutting taxes for the lowest earners will result in an increase in consumption. Cutting taxes for the highest income earners is unpredictable. Highest earners do not necessarily increase consumption due to lower marginal tax rate.

politique wrote:

Jean-Luc Melenchon, says he would introduce a 100% tax on income above €400,000 ($425,000).

The keyword is 'income'. The richest people have so many write-offs that drive their 'income' down that a 100% tax is a pittance. Those would be slammed face first into the 'trottoir' (pavement) are the nouveau riche.

I don't think he's going to make it to the second round...but it's certainly more likely now than a month ago.

The worst possible outcome would be Le Pen vs. Melanchon for round 2. It's hard to say who would be worse.

So let's get this right (not in the political sense of the word), Hollande introduced a 70% tax, their economy became a laughing stock with all their talented athletes, professionals, even actors, and entrepreneurs all fleeing France. In terms of safety the country is basically Baghdad. So this guy wants to double-down on something that is clearly failing. There was a time 50 years ago when Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore's standard of living was 1/30th of the French and they put in place policies that are the opposite Melenchon, now they are all richer. The funny thing is Macron, who is a member of the Socialist government is being labeled a centrist (by CNN & BBC etc), bulls__t.

What if you have an idea and start your own company which is successful?

Time to knock the rust off the National Razor.

gonchar wrote:

100% tax is insane, but high marginal rates on the uber rich is a welcome idea.

The American ultra rich have only themselves to blame for the opinions of most young people in the world. Didn't know when to stop, beginning in 1981. Trump isn't even going to get a tax package out of Congress in 2017...his ideas are totally at odds with what people want. This isn't 1980. Massive increases to military spending here and a massive tax cut for the rich ain't going to fly, Drumpf.

Earning $425k qualifies you as being uber rich? Where do you work, the dollar store in Littlefvck, AK?

Key Word wrote:

politique wrote:

Jean-Luc Melenchon, says he would introduce a 100% tax on income above €400,000 ($425,000).

The keyword is 'income'. The richest people have so many write-offs that drive their 'income' down that a 100% tax is a pittance. Those would be slammed face first into the 'trottoir' (pavement) are the nouveau riche.

It's not that rich people have write-offs, it's simply that they don't make ordinary income as with a W-2. These very high marginal tax rates only hurt the productive people and incentivize them to do something else (see France). What really needs to be done is something to ensure that very rich people who don't have ordinary income actually pay taxes. That has nothing to do with the marginal tax rate.

gonchar wrote:

100% tax is insane, but high marginal rates on the uber rich is a welcome idea.

The American ultra rich have only themselves to blame for the opinions of most young people in the world. Didn't know when to stop, beginning in 1981. Trump isn't even going to get a tax package out of Congress in 2017...his ideas are totally at odds with what people want. This isn't 1980. Massive increases to military spending here and a massive tax cut for the rich ain't going to fly, Drumpf.

You said it: "totally at odds with what people want"

Did it ever occur to you that there are wanters and doers in this world. Look around and listen to conversations... People want what other people have. That is fine if that desire drives people to get educated, develope skills, work hard, take risk for reward, save for a rainy day, volunteer etc.

This platform of condemning and wanting from others is so counterproductive for any society.

We live in a capitalistic democratic system. For all its flaws, it is superior at creating wealth for the majority of people who embrace it. It is more desirable to live within. It is more free to voice opinion and live freely. It has a progressive tax system that redistributes wealth. It has insentive and many avenues to prosper. It is designed to be safe from dictatorial rule.

People can get on with life or point fingers and want from others. Some aspects of the media and politics are increasingly to blame for this entitlement attitude.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

So let's get this right (not in the political sense of the word), Hollande introduced a 70% tax, their economy became a laughing stock with all their talented athletes, professionals, even actors, and entrepreneurs all fleeing France. In terms of safety the country is basically Baghdad. So this guy wants to double-down on something that is clearly failing. There was a time 50 years ago when Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore's standard of living was 1/30th of the French and they put in place policies that are the opposite Melenchon, now they are all richer. The funny thing is Macron, who is a member of the Socialist government is being labeled a centrist (by CNN & BBC etc), bulls__t.

What if you have an idea and start your own company which is successful?

Yes. If I were in France and attempting to start what I thought might be a very successful business, I would be very tempted to move my residence to Monaco.

A maximum income is needed.

Nobody needs to make more than $1 million per year.

former student of economics wrote:

From 1932 through 1981, top marginal tax rate in USA was above 62% There were numerous years in USA during that era when top marginal tax rate was over 80%. The top marginal tax rate now is 35%. The empirical evidence does not state cutting top marginal tax rate increases annual GDP growth..

Stop bringing facts to the table.

Everyone knows that any country with a marginal tax rate above 25% is a socialist hellhole.

We're gonna make America great again-- but not by introducing 1950's-era type taxation...

former student of economics wrote:

From 1932 through 1981, top marginal tax rate in USA was above 62% There were numerous years in USA during that era when top marginal tax rate was over 80%. The top marginal tax rate now is 35%. The empirical evidence does not state cutting top marginal tax rate increases annual GDP growth. Cutting income taxes for the lowest third earners is stimulative. Cutting taxes for the lowest earners will result in an increase in consumption. Cutting taxes for the highest income earners is unpredictable. Highest earners do not necessarily increase consumption due to lower marginal tax rate.

This continues to be the most disingenuous argument regarding taxation that is commonly made. The tax code was such that NO ONE actually paid the top marginal tax rates when they were at the levels you cite.

Redo your analysis using actual effective tax rates and get back to us.

[quote]disingenuous wrote:

[quote]former student of economics wrote:

This continues to be the most disingenuous argument regarding taxation that is commonly made. The tax code was such that NO ONE actually paid the top marginal tax rates when they were at the levels you cite.

Nobody? Can you cite your sources showing this was the case?

Because I do not provide perfect answers, you want to throw out everything I state? Ridiculous! You want me to go through tax returns of everyone who paid the top marginal rate greater than 90% in the 1950s, review all their deductions, etc. We can all agree, an individual who earned $1,000,000 paid roughly twice the income tax in the 1950s compared to today. We can double the top marginal tax rate in USA to 70% and we know said increase in top marginal rate will not ruin the USA economy. Wouldn't you love the GDP growth rate we had in the 1950s? Talented, highly motivated individuals in the aggregate work harder when their taxes are increased. Doctors, lawyers, mutual fund managers who earn $375,000 a year work harder when their taxes are increased. This is not want people who earn $375,000 want to hear. Tax cuts for those who earn $37,500 are stimulative to the economy. The economy shouldn't be run based on the taste and desires of the wealthiest. Economists make analysis which are best for the economy and what helps the most people while hurting the fewest number of people.

+1 POM

Come on Peeps wrote:

A maximum income is needed.

Nobody needs to make more than $1 million per year.

Imagine if this were implemented in the US. What effect might it have on, say, Major League Baseball? I would think that many players would leave the US for Japan, Taiwan, and perhaps even the Dominican Republic. They wouldn't make as much as in the USA without a $1,000,000 cap, but they would do better than if they stayed in the USA with such a cap. Think of the ripple, if not the wave, this would send through the USA economy: reduced advertising expenditures, reduced restaurant and bar business, reduced business for all the ballpark vendors,....

Do you think entrepreneurs such as a wannabe-Elon Musk or wannabe-Jeff Bezos would stay in the USA with such a cap? Such wannabes would probably leave the USA and hope that with their much greater than $1,000,000 incomes, they could fund their subsequent businesses. The real Elon Musk might be more hesitant to leave as he's always shaking the US taxpayer down for some subsidy.

Yup, the tax rates during Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration were downright radically socialist! /s

I agree with everything in your post.