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

Name Withheld wrote:

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.

The result would be long-term annuity style contracts. Fully funded with the money out of the owner's hands and in a 30+ year payout. Sort of like winning a lottery and taking the yearly payments rather than a lump sum payout.

This guy better be ready to build Berlin Wall 2.0 to keep people in. France already has uber high tax rates on the rich, which is why so many of the rich have left, leaving the middle class with a lot heavier tax burden than they would have in somewhere like the US. But it's all good because "egalité!" right?

HardLoper wrote:

This guy better be ready to build Berlin Wall 2.0 to keep people in. France already has uber high tax rates on the rich, which is why so many of the rich have left, leaving the middle class with a lot heavier tax burden than they would have in somewhere like the US. But it's all good because "egalité!" right?

No need, Melenchon is out of it. Didn't make the cut.

THey advanced the centrist and the ultra conservative. Macron and Le Pen. First time in a long time France won't have a left or right centrist.

So the next French Premier is Macron. He'll get all of Fillon's voters. LePen might score a few Melenchon deplorables, but she'll lose big.

In the 1950's I think there were more people per capita that "we're highly motivated individuals." Since that time we have more social welfare safety-net programs that don't seem to provide the bridge that they were intended to. Rather, they can lead to a minimally sustainable standard of living that more aspire to and manipulate to stay in. There are some people that want to improve and then there are not. Habits separate the doers and the wanters, the givers and the takers. Attitudes and work habits translate from one area of life to another. Everyone who got where they are had to begin where they were. We all have the ability to improve. We don't need to point blame at people who make lots of money, we each have to find a way to get better. Identify what must be done, and make sure it gets done every day. Don't spend life trying to blame, people need to build their lives around what is necessary. The 1950's were an easier time. After WW 2, America created its own market place by having babies, weath from providing the materials of war to the Allies, and not having to rebuild from ruin. Expansion and jobs were plentiful. People willing to get up each morning and work could get ahead. I think there were more people that built from routine that matched their vision - it was called the American Dream. That dream hasn't gone away and remains accessible in the USA better than most, if not, every other country on the planet. To be really good and successful you have to do it every day and not want from others. Do what is necessary, then what is possible and soon you will be doing the impossible.

Life Contracts wrote:

Name Withheld wrote:

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.

The result would be long-term annuity style contracts. Fully funded with the money out of the owner's hands and in a 30+ year payout. Sort of like winning a lottery and taking the yearly payments rather than a lump sum payout.

Interesting, but I think that would not work for the highest-paid players. How could you annuitize the earnings of someone making more than $10,000,000 annually for ten years with a $1,000,000 annual income cap?

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.

then you would be all for the fair tax? If lower taxes imcreases consumption than no taxes on anything till you spend it would increase it at a greater rate

Mélenchon rentre chez soi , dévasté .

You strung a lot of words together. What error did you find in my statements? You are just giving me your feelings. As I stated in earlier, the top marginal tax rate currently in USA is 35%. I stated based on data, USA can double top marginal tax rate to 70% without harming the economy. Show me historical data which proves me wrong. Your feels about 1950s are not the most important.

former student of economics wrote:

You strung a lot of words together. What error did you find in my statements? You are just giving me your feelings. As I stated in earlier, the top marginal tax rate currently in USA is 35%. I stated based on data, USA can double top marginal tax rate to 70% without harming the economy. Show me historical data which proves me wrong. Your feels about 1950s are not the most important.

What's your historical data again? During the period marginal tax rates were the highest, i.e. 1951 to 1963, average GPD per capita growth was only 1.6% per year. We have averaged much higher than that since they were greatly reduced in 1983.

In the 1950s, top marginal rate was over 90%. I stated 70%

former student of economics wrote:

In the 1950s, top marginal rate was over 90%. I stated 70%

You said "wouldn't you love the growth rate we had in the 1950's?" I guess not. The per capita growth rate was not good.

US Bureau of Economic Analysis: Your time period, 1951 to 1963, I got 3.61% annual aggregate GDP growth. The growth rate isn't higher since top marginal rate has been 35%.

former student of economics wrote:

US Bureau of Economic Analysis: Your time period, 1951 to 1963, I got 3.61% annual aggregate GDP growth. The growth rate isn't higher since top marginal rate has been 35%.

Look up GDP per capita growth. If the GDP grows but the work force population is also growing quickly that means everyone's income is not.

Please do not counter my numbers with words with no data. Give me your data and numbers since top marginal tax rate has been 35% please.

I specified which data I was talking about with words. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA

Politique wrote:

THey advanced the centrist and the ultra conservative. Macron and Le Pen. First time in a long time France won't have a left or right centrist.

Macron is not a centrist, he is a socialist. He was part of the Socialist government. International media spin, trying save the EU. Macron will probably win, the EU will live to fight another day but France is long past salvaging.

Reasons why tax cuts for individuals in top 2% are not necessarily stimulative to domestic GDP growth:

1) Hard to predict how much top 2% will save versus spend.

2) Hard to predict how much top 2% will pay down debt versus spend.

3) Hard to predict how much top 2% will spend on overseas vacations versus spend domestically.

4) When top 2% place tax cut money in debt and equity markets, no harm usually.

5) When top 2% pour billions into real estate it creates winners & losers. Losers are young new real estate buyers.

6) Hard to predict how much top 2% will work less hard due to tax cut.

7) Some top 2% will take tax cut and buy real estate overseas. How many, not known.

8) Some top 2% will take tax cut and open foreign bank accounts. How many, not known.