Conquer Club

Source

The leading French president candidate, Socialist Party candidate, François Hollande has proposed a 75 percent tax on anybody making 1 million dollars or more.

Interesting. I wonder how that'll affect the polls.

-rd

Aren't most, or all, of the French labor unions exempt from antitrust laws?

Your quick reminder that this refers to marginal income over euro sign 1,000,000. Nobody will be taxed at a 75% effective rate. Also, he's going to get rid of most loopholes. And he's cutting corporate taxes pretty hard. So there's that.

Just as a heads up, France uses Euros, rather than Dollars. Carry on.

Symmetry wrote:Just as a heads up, France uses Euros, rather than Dollars. Carry on.

Good call. Though how much that will truly matter remains to be seen as I doubt international money fluctuations will be considered going forward if the tax hike is approved.

$1 Million Euros = $1,331,500.00

spurgistan wrote:Your quick reminder that this refers to marginal income over euro sign 1,000,000. Nobody will be taxed at a 75% effective rate. Also, he's going to get rid of most loopholes. And he's cutting corporate taxes pretty hard. So there's that.

I'm glad you clarify that. Personally I'd still stop at my first million though. Most people would (especially entrepreneurs as opposed to executives who can often find easy money.)

I guess I'm being pedantic at this point, but $ is the sign for dollars. € is the sign for Euros. Or you can just say 1 million Euros if you don't have a key on your keyboard for it.

Symmetry wrote:I guess I'm being pedantic at this point, but $ is the sign for dollars. € is the sign for Euros. Or you can just say 1 million Euros if you don't have a key on your keyboard for it.

Woah, I just realised I don't have a euro or pound key on this keyboard.
Feels, weird.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I guess I'm being pedantic at this point, but $ is the sign for dollars. € is the sign for Euros. Or you can just say 1 million Euros if you don't have a key on your keyboard for it.

Woah, I just realised I don't have a euro or pound key on this keyboard.
Feels, weird.

Socialism in action right there on your keyboard. You should remove it, and burn it.

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.

I can see the Onion headline now: Socialist Party in Foreign Country Implements Socialist Policy, Non-Socialists Bothered

john9blue wrote: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

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote: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.

Symmetry wrote:
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

those were during times of war. you're sure the same thing could work in a peaceful economic climate?

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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...

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
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

those were during times of war. you're sure the same thing could work in a peaceful economic climate?

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.

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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?

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?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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.

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?

Symmetry wrote: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.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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?

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"

BigBallinStalin wrote: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):

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

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


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

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote: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

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
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.