Leading French presidential candidate's 75 percent tax

[BigBallinStalin]

real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).

Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.

psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...

Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

It's a progressive in his finest hour!

[Symmetry]

real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).

Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.

psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...

Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

It's a progressive in his finest hour!

Now even taxing people who earn over a million, let's say US dollars, is a progressive thing? Dude, yeah of course I support taxing them. At what point would you say that no taxes should be paid?

[thegreekdog]

I want to see what happens, so I hope this person wins. I'm completely ignorant to the French political process... so I wonder how lobbying will play into this (if at all). Alternatively, is this just political posturing to get votes? Is this like how everyone says Ron Paul can't do anything he proposes if he becomes president because no one in Congress will vote for something crazy like not invading Iran?

[BigBallinStalin]

real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).

Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.

psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...

Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

It's a progressive in his finest hour!

Now even taxing people who earn over a million, let's say US dollars, is a progressive thing? Dude, yeah of course I support taxing them. At what point would you say that no taxes should be paid?

To put it simply, progressivism refers to the general appeal to state intervention in order to impose one's desires on others. (Classical) liberalism on the extreme opposite side of this spectrum would be an adherence to limited government, e.g. state-provided defense, police, and courts. At the extreme end of liberalism, it's probably safe to say that it's anarcho-capitalism.


So, this is how the framework functions:

You're shifting toward the progressive side of the spectrum by supporting increases in taxes on whoever. However, by advocating for extremely high taxes (75%) on incomes over a million Euros, pounds, or dollars, you've shifting very closely toward the progressivism end of the spectrum and very far away from liberalism. If you supported a 5% flat tax, you're very close to the far end of liberalism.


Anyway, based on your response, you're still ignoring the consequences. How do you justify heavily taxing people's incomes of over one million Euros?


"At what point would you say that no taxes should be paid?"

Please start a new thread and ask me there.

[Symmetry]

BBS, if you're just doing the trolling thing again, don't bother. If you're genuinely trying to say that once you hit the million mark in any currency, then you shouldn't be taxed and anyone who argues for taxation of people earning above that nice round figure are progressives, then you're being a bit silly. Even within the boundaries of pounds, US dollars and Euros, surely you can agree that millionaires should be taxed?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, if you're just doing the trolling thing again, don't bother. If you're genuinely trying to say that once you hit the million mark in any currency, then you shouldn't be taxed and anyone who argues for taxation of people earning above that nice round figure are progressives, then you're being a bit silly. Even within the boundaries of pounds, US dollars and Euros, surely you can agree that millionaires should be taxed?

I'm not trolling. I explained the progressive-liberalism spectrum in order for you to understand that you've been taking a progressive stance ITT.

I didn't say the underlined.

Regarding the bolded part:
to repeat:

show

Here's an example. +10 is total liberalism; -10 is total progressivism.


"I want 5% flat tax!"

Okay, sir, you're about a +9 for tax policy.


"I want 75% tax on over one million Euros!"

Okay, sir, you're about a -7 for tax policy.



I probably rank about +9 or +8. I'm >9000 when I get my anarcho-capitalist on.

[Symmetry]

real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).

Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.

psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...

Unfortunately,it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

It's a progressive in his finest hour!

Sigh, back to square one. So what did you mean to say BBS?

[BigBallinStalin]

I didn't change my stance.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165937#p3624628

To summarize:

Basically, you say, "hey that tax policy would work; look at this past data, john!"

I say, "Nope, that's dumb data to use because X, Y, and Z"

[Symmetry]

I didn't change my stance.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165937#p3624628

To summarize:

Basically, you say, "hey that tax policy would work; look at this past data, john!"

I say, "Nope, that's dumb data to use because X, Y, and Z"

And to summarise, you said (apologies for quoting you directly):

Unfortunately,it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

It's a progressive in his finest hour!

Which is a pretty odd statement.

To be fair though, that's not a summary, that's the entire statement.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, I'll somehow type very slowly for you.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165937#p3624628

lol wow guys.

you should feel a little bad about being completely clueless about the french currency.

regarding the topic: 75% marginal tax rate is kind of ridiculous at any level of income.

Not sure it's ridiculous for any level of income, but perhaps for the 1 million Euro threshold. The US has run similar, and even larger levels of income taxation in the past and still prospered, albeit at higher threshold levels.

Link

real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).

Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.

The above dialogue is the almost full version. Remember that summary? That's what it mostly summarized. The above.


Then there's this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165937&start=15#p3624718

real v. nominal value matters. And even after adjusting for inflation, real prices aren't shown (e.g. how much one can buy per labor-hour).

Increase taxes on higher incomes, and larger dead weight losses will occur (i.e. losses in the volume of trade). So, there's the "seen and unseen" issue. You can't witness trade that couldn't occur due to higher taxes.

psshaw, unseen losses are just "unintended consequences", and we both know how unimportant those are...

Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

It's a progressive in his finest hour!

That's the rest of the summary. See what john said? See "unintended consequences"? Yes, we're talking about your position.



Then, you say something of the effect: "WAT, how is supporting taxation being a progressive?!"

I explain. (If you have problems recalling that dialogue, please locate the scroll wheel on your mouse, and roll it forward. If you lack a mouse, please contact Customer Service for detailed instructions).

Now, here we are. You're being stubborn, just like you were in the free markets public services thread. You're just digging your heels in the ground and shouting, "NO!" Maybe you're playing dumb, i.e. trolling. I don't know, but I can be a gentleman while you can be a child. That's fine with me, Sym.

[Symmetry]

Or ya know, I might have asked why your claim that taxing people who earn over a million makes me a progressive.

Now even taxing people who earn over a million, let's say US dollars, is a progressive thing? Dude, yeah of course I support taxing them. At what point would you say that no taxes should be paid?

But that bit gets rephrased to "WAT, how is supporting taxation being a progressive?!", I suppose. And by suppose, I mean that's actually how you edited out my argument and rephrased it.

Stubborn me with my exact quotes and suggestions that you clarify your arguments. Tis pure childishness, of course, to ask for a reasonable and coherent argument.

[Haggis_McMutton]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.jpg

I really can't tell who's trolling who here.

[maxfaraday]

Alternatively, is this just political posturing to get votes?

Yes it is. I'm French and I can tell you that this is the kind of bullshit they want us to swallow.
The only problem we've seen so far is that Football players would leave our teams to go abroad.
The right-wing has been attacking him on his looks as well... Like I said, bullshit...

This election (like any other) is just a popularity contest.

[john9blue]

I suppose it depends what you mean by times of war. The figure for top rates above 75% were from 1936 to 1964. In 1936, the US was not at war, and the tax reductions post 1964 came in the middle of the Vietnam war. Currently the US is at war. I'm not sure I see the direct link.

hmm. i read the section you linked to but i didn't see the graph below it. the graph does show high tax rates after WWII. i'll have to see why that is.

[Symmetry]

I suppose it depends what you mean by times of war. The figure for top rates above 75% were from 1936 to 1964. In 1936, the US was not at war, and the tax reductions post 1964 came in the middle of the Vietnam war. Currently the US is at war. I'm not sure I see the direct link.

hmm. i read the section you linked to but i didn't see the graph below it. the graph does show high tax rates after WWII. i'll have to see why that is.

And also before WW2.

[Lootifer]

stop being a pussy sym, us leftys are sweet, and those greddy pseudo-libs (liberal is actually a synonym for tolerant, not taking a dump on the stupid) cansuck my hairy kiwi nuts!

[Lootifer]

ps i may or may not have had a wine or two

[BigBallinStalin]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.jpg

I really can't tell who's trolling who here.

<leans back in chair, places right foot on left leg>

Well, Haggis, I've been pretty sincere ITT. It's apparent that Symmetry isn't interested in critical thinking or in assessing his worldview. I know that many people find it difficult to evaluate their own stance in light of new information, but with a heavy heart, I must resign myself from this dialogue with Symmetry. Once again, he said something that might seem correct, but alas, it was not.

As we've seen in his free market public services thread, Symmetry sometimes makes claims outside of his credentials. By refusing to evaluate his facts or acknowledge his own failures, he is doomed to repeat them. Doubly worse, he refuses to even understand the subject matter of his own position. Such is life, my dear friend, Haggis; such is life.

[BigBallinStalin]

stop being a pussy sym, us leftys are sweet, and those greddy pseudo-libs (liberal is actually a synonym for tolerant, not taking a dump on the stupid) cansuck my hairy kiwi nuts!

Finally, a worthy challenger.


I understand your position, but have you considered RAH RHAR HD HR KD GERG EG G EG HARH DHGG H DERRRRRRR YRHHAHAHAHH B FACSITS RACIST FLEA_RIDDEN INFERIOR TO THE MANGO?

[Timminz]

Unfortunately, it seems that Symmetry doesn't really care because he's determined on supporting very very high taxes on people who earn over million [insert your favourite currency here], regardless of the consequences.

I added a few words to this quote, in order to remove the ridiculous bath-and-forth of the last page or so. I believe it still conveys the point that BBS intended, and should hopefully alleviate Symm's confusion.

[Lootifer]

stop being a pussy sym, us leftys are sweet, and those greddy pseudo-libs (liberal is actually a synonym for tolerant, not taking a dump on the stupid) cansuck my hairy kiwi nuts!

Finally, a worthy challenger.


I understand your position, but have you considered RAH RHAR HD HR KD GERG EG G EG HARH DHGG H DERRRRRRR YRHHAHAHAHH B FACSITS RACIST FLEA_RIDDEN INFERIOR TO THE MANGO?

i did and now i have a headache, but us kiwis can time travel so its the weekend here so its ok

[Symmetry]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.jpg

I really can't tell who's trolling who here.

<leans back in chair, places right foot on left leg>

Well, Haggis, I've been pretty sincere ITT. It's apparent that Symmetry isn't interested in critical thinking or in assessing his worldview. I know that many people find it difficult to evaluate their own stance in light of new information, but with a heavy heart, I must resign myself from this dialogue with Symmetry. Once again, he said something that might seem correct, but alas, it was not.

As we've seen in his free market public services thread, Symmetry sometimes makes claims outside of his credentials. By refusing to evaluate his facts or acknowledge his own failures, he is doomed to repeat them. Doubly worse, he refuses to even understand the subject matter of his own position. Such is life, my dear friend, Haggis; such is life.

Ouch, did I just get flamed? Or was it meant as a perfectly reasonable response to the facts I pointed out, referenced and all. Perhaps, and I say this gently, you should allow that you sometimes make mistakes, or that the phrasing of your arguments isn't always a perfect embodiment of your thoughts.

Or maybe I'm just not interested in critical thinking.

'tis a puzzler.

[BigBallinStalin]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.jpg

I really can't tell who's trolling who here.

<leans back in chair, places right foot on left leg>

Well, Haggis, I've been pretty sincere ITT. It's apparent that Symmetry isn't interested in critical thinking or in assessing his worldview. I know that many people find it difficult to evaluate their own stance in light of new information, but with a heavy heart, I must resign myself from this dialogue with Symmetry. Once again, he said something that might seem correct, but alas, it was not.

As we've seen in his free market public services thread, Symmetry sometimes makes claims outside of his credentials. By refusing to evaluate his facts or acknowledge his own failures, he is doomed to repeat them. Doubly worse, he refuses to even understand the subject matter of his own position. Such is life, my dear friend, Haggis; such is life.

Ouch, did I just get flamed? Or was it meant as a perfectly reasonable response to the facts I pointed out, referenced and all. Perhaps, and I say this gently, you should allow that you sometimes make mistakes, or that the phrasing of your arguments isn't always a perfect embodiment of your thoughts.

Or maybe I'm just not interested in critical thinking.

'tis a puzzler.

How do/did you succeed in grad school? Your field seems pretty simple.

[Symmetry]

michaeljacksonpopcorn.jpg

I really can't tell who's trolling who here.

<leans back in chair, places right foot on left leg>

Well, Haggis, I've been pretty sincere ITT. It's apparent that Symmetry isn't interested in critical thinking or in assessing his worldview. I know that many people find it difficult to evaluate their own stance in light of new information, but with a heavy heart, I must resign myself from this dialogue with Symmetry. Once again, he said something that might seem correct, but alas, it was not.

As we've seen in his free market public services thread, Symmetry sometimes makes claims outside of his credentials. By refusing to evaluate his facts or acknowledge his own failures, he is doomed to repeat them. Doubly worse, he refuses to even understand the subject matter of his own position. Such is life, my dear friend, Haggis; such is life.

Ouch, did I just get flamed? Or was it meant as a perfectly reasonable response to the facts I pointed out, referenced and all. Perhaps, and I say this gently, you should allow that you sometimes make mistakes, or that the phrasing of your arguments isn't always a perfect embodiment of your thoughts.

Or maybe I'm just not interested in critical thinking.

'tis a puzzler.

How do/did you succeed in grad school? Your field seems pretty simple.

And another flame, BBS, is it so hard for you to admit a mistake? To apologise and say you got something wrong?

[BigBallinStalin]

They're not flames. It's an observation based on truth. If you catch yourself from the emotional knee-jerk reaction, you might be able to clearly understand the following explanation:

Apparently, you're upset about something trivial in this thread or from being wrong in your free markets thread, so now you're trying to exercise your supposed prowess of the English language in order to "score points" or capture value by playing this silly little game.

Unfortunately, you're failing, which is why I asked how you can succeed in your grad school--considering your weak skills in manipulating the English language to your benefit.

If you're their acceptable standard, then I must admit that it's a shame that the field has become so simple.