Court Uphold’s France’s 75% "Millionaires’ Tax".

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#1 Edited by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

Will levy companies on incomes exceeding $1.38 million

Should the US adopt a similar tax?

Avatar image for Master_Live
#2 Posted by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

No.

Avatar image for Trender_man
#3 Edited by Trender_man (143 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

No.

Avatar image for JustBeYourself
#4 Posted by JustBeYourself (686 posts) -

That's way too extreme.

Avatar image for one_plum
#5 Posted by one_plum (6500 posts) -

I'm far from a fan of the increasing income inequality trend, but taxing this much on the rich is gonna be catastrophic for everyone.

Avatar image for Flubbbs
#6 Posted by Flubbbs (4836 posts) -

who will the liberals in France feed off of when the rich people leave?

Avatar image for D00DIES
#7 Edited by D00DIES (31 posts) -

Tax rates during the greatest economic time in US history.

http://imageshack.us/a/img33/5921/n4gi.png

Avatar image for Master_Live
#8 Posted by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

who will the liberals in France feed off of when the rich people leave?

Yep, millionaires just have to hop on their jets and leave. Fvck that 75% tax.

Avatar image for plageus900
#9 Posted by plageus900 (2324 posts) -

Holy Shit.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#10 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15092 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

@Flubbbs said:

who will the liberals in France feed off of when the rich people leave?

Yep, millionaires just have to hop on their jets and leave. Fvck that 75% tax.

As long as you're a citizen you still have to pay taxes regardless of where you live. When I lived in Canada I still had to pay US taxes, for instance.

And you can't renounce your citizenship until you have citizenship elsewhere, and that usually requires a number of years of residency.

Avatar image for GazaAli
#11 Edited by GazaAli (25216 posts) -

It would be interesting if the French could actually implement the law. 75% taxation of someone who makes +1 million isn't all that bad if you look at the big picture. I know how absurd this sounds to a lot of users around here but let's wait and see anyway.

+1 for socialism. Early French socialists would have been proud :3

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#12 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Definitely overboard.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#13 Edited by Perfect_Blue (29919 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit: Monaco.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#14 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15092 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@br0kenrabbit: Monaco.

That's where you can buy citizenship, right?

Avatar image for Jd1680a
#15 Posted by Jd1680a (5958 posts) -

Someone who makes a 1,000 times the income of the average middle class person doesn't buy a thousand refrigerators, couches, cars, pants, computers, etc. The cost of living of someone who makes $50 million a year before taxes isn't going to be in the millions of dollars, it would more the likely stay around $20,000 year assuming if this person have a wife and two kids in the household.

The economy is strongest when the middle class have enough disposable income to spend it on luxury goods. 7 million passenger cars have been sold in 2013, an 6% increase from last year. Be aware people aren't buying just the basic car, they are buying cars are mid trim to luxury level someone would spend $5,000 to $20,000 more of a car then its base price.

Point being the money needs to some how go back to the middle class to help keep the economy strong. You cant have a good economy when the top 1% ends up having 80% of the money. Only way to get that money back to the middle class is by taxing.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#16 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

Still think this rate seems too steep.

Avatar image for airshocker
#17 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

I can't even imagine losing that much of my income to the government.

Avatar image for airshocker
#18 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -
@Jd1680a said:

Someone who makes a 1,000 times the income of the average middle class person doesn't buy a thousand refrigerators, couches, cars, pants, computers, etc. The cost of living of someone who makes $50 million a year before taxes isn't going to be in the millions of dollars, it would more the likely stay around $20,000 year assuming if this person have a wife and two kids in the household.

The economy is strongest when the middle class have enough disposable income to spend it on luxury goods. 7 million passenger cars have been sold in 2013, an 6% increase from last year. Be aware people aren't buying just the basic car, they are buying cars are mid trim to luxury level someone would spend $5,000 to $20,000 more of a car then its base price.

Point being the money needs to some how go back to the middle class to help keep the economy strong. You cant have a good economy when the top 1% ends up having 80% of the money. Only way to get that money back to the middle class is by taxing.

Nice numbers. Now do you actually know what you're talking about? It doesn't seem like it.

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

Avatar image for StrifeDelivery
#19 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1901 posts) -

75 percent is a little extreme, but there is something to be said for having additional tax brackets for the incredibly high income ranges.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#20 Posted by foxhound_fox (96690 posts) -

I always have found it interesting that some people in this world think they can determine just how much money another person "deserves" to make.

Avatar image for deeliman
#21 Posted by deeliman (3742 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@Jd1680a said:

Someone who makes a 1,000 times the income of the average middle class person doesn't buy a thousand refrigerators, couches, cars, pants, computers, etc. The cost of living of someone who makes $50 million a year before taxes isn't going to be in the millions of dollars, it would more the likely stay around $20,000 year assuming if this person have a wife and two kids in the household.

The economy is strongest when the middle class have enough disposable income to spend it on luxury goods. 7 million passenger cars have been sold in 2013, an 6% increase from last year. Be aware people aren't buying just the basic car, they are buying cars are mid trim to luxury level someone would spend $5,000 to $20,000 more of a car then its base price.

Point being the money needs to some how go back to the middle class to help keep the economy strong. You cant have a good economy when the top 1% ends up having 80% of the money. Only way to get that money back to the middle class is by taxing.

Nice numbers. Now do you actually know what you're talking about? It doesn't seem like it.

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

So, your idea is to just do nothing and hope the free market will somehow fix it?

Avatar image for Master_Live
#22 Posted by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

I always have found it interesting that some people in this world think they can determine just how much money another person "deserves" to make.

Agree, the hubris.

Avatar image for airshocker
#23 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@airshocker said:
@Jd1680a said:

Someone who makes a 1,000 times the income of the average middle class person doesn't buy a thousand refrigerators, couches, cars, pants, computers, etc. The cost of living of someone who makes $50 million a year before taxes isn't going to be in the millions of dollars, it would more the likely stay around $20,000 year assuming if this person have a wife and two kids in the household.

The economy is strongest when the middle class have enough disposable income to spend it on luxury goods. 7 million passenger cars have been sold in 2013, an 6% increase from last year. Be aware people aren't buying just the basic car, they are buying cars are mid trim to luxury level someone would spend $5,000 to $20,000 more of a car then its base price.

Point being the money needs to some how go back to the middle class to help keep the economy strong. You cant have a good economy when the top 1% ends up having 80% of the money. Only way to get that money back to the middle class is by taxing.

Nice numbers. Now do you actually know what you're talking about? It doesn't seem like it.

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

So, your idea is to just do nothing and hope the free market will somehow fix it?

The free market has essentially corrected itself. But you can't expect it to do so much when it's got an arm tied behind its back, so to speak.

Avatar image for Ace6301
#24 Edited by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

I always have found it interesting that some people in this world think they can determine just how much money another person "deserves" to make.

So you hate anyone who decides wages? Last I checked taxes weren't about deciding who deserves to make what and was instead about taking a portion of what they've made as decided by others.

However I agree on the sentiment that those who declare who deserves what are generally pretty tapped out on hubris but I think most people agree that you kind of have to be an asshole to do that sort of position competently. I just think what you said was pretty daft if you support anything other than straight up anarchy, and I'm not talking about anarcho-capitalist BS either.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#25 Posted by lamprey263 (34415 posts) -

the top rate in the United States used to be up around 91% until the 1960s, where it dropped to 77%

Avatar image for Barbariser
#26 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

Capital flight and emigration means that France is going to lose more government revenue than it gains from this, existing taxes have already had that effect on France's economy.

@airshocker said:

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

The government already lets the "private industry" create jobs, and the job market IS improving. O.o

@airshocker said:

The free market has essentially corrected itself. But you can't expect it to do so much when it's got an arm tied behind its back, so to speak.

If by "arm tied behind its back" you mean the government laying off workers and reducing spending, you'd be right.

Avatar image for airshocker
#27 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Capital flight and emigration means that France is going to lose more government revenue than it gains from this, existing taxes have already had that effect on France's economy.

@airshocker said:

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

The government already lets the "private industry" create jobs, and the job market IS improving. O.o

@airshocker said:

The free market has essentially corrected itself. But you can't expect it to do so much when it's got an arm tied behind its back, so to speak.

If by "arm tied behind its back" you mean the government laying off workers and reducing spending, you'd be right.

The job market is barely improving. The government is the reason it isn't improving as much as it could be.

No, I wasn't talking about the government when I used the word it. Thought that was pretty clear.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#28 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@airshocker said:

The job market is barely improving. The government is the reason it isn't improving as much as it could be.

No, I wasn't talking about the government when I used the word it. Thought that was pretty clear.

So what else could "arm tied behind its back" refer to? And how is the government keeping the job market from improving faster?

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#29 Edited by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

The job market is barely improving. The government is the reason it isn't improving as much as it could be.

No, I wasn't talking about the government when I used the word it. Thought that was pretty clear.

So what else could "arm tied behind its back" refer to? And how is the government keeping the job market from improving faster?

Well, I thought it referred to reducing taxes and/or regulations, not laying off gov't workers. Not really sure what else one could infer.

Avatar image for airshocker
#30 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Barbariser said:
@airshocker said:

The job market is barely improving. The government is the reason it isn't improving as much as it could be.

No, I wasn't talking about the government when I used the word it. Thought that was pretty clear.

So what else could "arm tied behind its back" refer to? And how is the government keeping the job market from improving faster?

The market, obviously. If you reread that part you quoted you will notice that sentence was about the free market.

By implementing policies and regulations that are detrimental to the economy, by fear-mongering, etc.

Avatar image for Makhaidos
#31 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

Hell yes. U.S. used to tax up to 90% of millionaire income.

Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#32 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

the top rate in the United States used to be up around 91% until the 1960s, where it dropped to 77%

Except no one paid that amount. Facts suck.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#33 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

@SpartanMSU said:

@lamprey263 said:

the top rate in the United States used to be up around 91% until the 1960s, where it dropped to 77%

Except no one paid that amount. Facts suck.

mhmm

people should really compare effective tax rates

Avatar image for airshocker
#34 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@coolbeans90 said:

@SpartanMSU said:

@lamprey263 said:

the top rate in the United States used to be up around 91% until the 1960s, where it dropped to 77%

Except no one paid that amount. Facts suck.

mhmm

people should really compare effective tax rates

Where did you guys read that? Would be interested in reading it myself.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#35 Edited by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@coolbeans90 said:
Well, I thought it referred to reducing taxes, not laying off workers. Not really sure what else one could infer.

Taxes aren't really "tying the free market's arm behind its back", though, and is still government related.

@airshocker said:
The market, obviously. If you reread that part you quoted you will notice that sentence was about the free market.

By implementing policies and regulations that are detrimental to the economy, by fear-mongering, etc.

Okay, there's a fair amount of confusion here and I should rephrase my question. What is tying the free market's arm behind its back?

What policies and regulations are detrimental to the economy and how is the government fear-mongering? I can't really think of any except austerity measures in general.

Avatar image for redstorm72
#36 Posted by redstorm72 (4646 posts) -

A tad extreme, but really, who gives a f*** if some rich people will become richer at a slightly slower rate. At least France is trying to do something about the widening gab between the wealthy and everyone else rather than just saying "f*** it, let the market figure this out".

Avatar image for Jd1680a
#37 Posted by Jd1680a (5958 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@deeliman said:

@airshocker said:
@Jd1680a said:

Someone who makes a 1,000 times the income of the average middle class person doesn't buy a thousand refrigerators, couches, cars, pants, computers, etc. The cost of living of someone who makes $50 million a year before taxes isn't going to be in the millions of dollars, it would more the likely stay around $20,000 year assuming if this person have a wife and two kids in the household.

The economy is strongest when the middle class have enough disposable income to spend it on luxury goods. 7 million passenger cars have been sold in 2013, an 6% increase from last year. Be aware people aren't buying just the basic car, they are buying cars are mid trim to luxury level someone would spend $5,000 to $20,000 more of a car then its base price.

Point being the money needs to some how go back to the middle class to help keep the economy strong. You cant have a good economy when the top 1% ends up having 80% of the money. Only way to get that money back to the middle class is by taxing.

Nice numbers. Now do you actually know what you're talking about? It doesn't seem like it.

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

So, your idea is to just do nothing and hope the free market will somehow fix it?

The free market has essentially corrected itself. But you can't expect it to do so much when it's got an arm tied behind its back, so to speak.

It seems you dont know anything yourself.

The largest employer in the United States is the federal government and they help with even more jobs through private contractors. The federal government spends $3.4 trillion some of that money goes to the states and local governments for grant money, like maintaining roads, education, environmental, health etc. Free market in our country cant survive without government spending, if the government were to stop spending it would end up causing huge layoffs nation wide.

It wasn't free market that corrected itself. If you been reading, the federal reserve have a 2% interest rate on money plus they got $4 trillion in treasury bonds since early 2009. Interest rates are low so that way consumers and companies could borrow more money to help stimulate the economy with cash. It took sometime for the economy to recover from the recession, this didnt happen on its own without government help. If free market was allowed to remain in free fall, we would have gone into a depression.

Avatar image for airshocker
#38 Edited by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Barbariser said:


Okay, there's a fair amount of confusion here and I should rephrase my question. What is tying the free market's arm behind its back?

What policies and regulations are detrimental to the economy and how is the government fear-mongering? I can't really think of any except austerity measures in general.

I would disagree. Taxes that only big corporations can find ways around directly affect the free market because it makes it harder for small businesses to compete.

Aside from taxes you have regulations, government permits(at the local, state and federal level), and laws(the new gun control laws across the country have forced gun shops and manufacturers to either close or move elsewhere).

Fear-mongering is simple. Turn on MSNBC and listen to a politician scare people about the evils of big business.

All of this affects the free market.

Avatar image for airshocker
#39 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Jd1680a said:

@airshocker said:

@deeliman said:

@airshocker said:
@Jd1680a said:

Someone who makes a 1,000 times the income of the average middle class person doesn't buy a thousand refrigerators, couches, cars, pants, computers, etc. The cost of living of someone who makes $50 million a year before taxes isn't going to be in the millions of dollars, it would more the likely stay around $20,000 year assuming if this person have a wife and two kids in the household.

The economy is strongest when the middle class have enough disposable income to spend it on luxury goods. 7 million passenger cars have been sold in 2013, an 6% increase from last year. Be aware people aren't buying just the basic car, they are buying cars are mid trim to luxury level someone would spend $5,000 to $20,000 more of a car then its base price.

Point being the money needs to some how go back to the middle class to help keep the economy strong. You cant have a good economy when the top 1% ends up having 80% of the money. Only way to get that money back to the middle class is by taxing.

Nice numbers. Now do you actually know what you're talking about? It doesn't seem like it.

The only way to help people is to get them employed. I don't see the job market improving unless the government starts to realize it's much more cost-efficient for them to let the private industry create jobs.

So, your idea is to just do nothing and hope the free market will somehow fix it?

The free market has essentially corrected itself. But you can't expect it to do so much when it's got an arm tied behind its back, so to speak.

It seems you dont know anything yourself.

The largest employer in the United States is the federal government and they help with even more jobs through private contractors. The federal government spends $3.4 trillion some of that money goes to the states and local governments for grant money, like maintaining roads, education, environmental, health etc. Free market in our country cant survive without government spending, if the government were to stop spending it would end up causing huge layoffs nation wide.

It wasn't free market that corrected itself. If you been reading, the federal reserve have a 2% interest rate on money plus they got $4 trillion in treasury bonds since early 2009. Interest rates are low so that way consumers and companies could borrow more money to help stimulate the economy with cash. It took sometime for the economy to recover from the recession, this didnt happen on its own without government help. If free market was allowed to remain in free fall, we would have gone into a depression.

The federal government creates job by TAXATION. The free market create jobs with profit. The point is we need more jobs created by the private industry. Not government jobs that require taxes to fund them.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#40 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:

Okay, there's a fair amount of confusion here and I should rephrase my question. What is tying the free market's arm behind its back?

What policies and regulations are detrimental to the economy and how is the government fear-mongering? I can't really think of any except austerity measures in general.

I would disagree. Taxes that only big corporations can find ways around directly affect the free market because it makes it harder for small businesses to compete.

Aside from taxes you have regulations, government permits(at the local, state and federal level), and laws(the new gun control laws across the country have forced gun shops and manufacturers to either close or move elsewhere).

Fear-mongering is simple. Turn on MSNBC and listen to a politician scare people about the evils of big business.

All of this affects the free market.

These kinds of problems existed (arguably more extensively, in the case of big companies having more tax breaks) in Bush's administration, yet he was enjoying full employment and managed to recover from his recession in a relatively short period. What you are describing are known as distortions in the market, but that doesn't necessarily lead to high unemployment. "Regulations and permits" is rather vague, and those things often contribute helpfully to the economy by reducing/eliminating the effect of externalities and social costs.

As for the gun industry. In the U.S., most figures I can find for its revenue range from $11 billion to 32 billion and it employs about 220, 000 people. I doubt that gun control laws have forced that many shops to close that wouldn't have closed otherwise, and even if the entire gun industry disappeared overnight that would only equate to 0.07-0.2% of GDP and 0.15% of the labour force. This basically shows that gun control laws have had an utterly negligible effect on the recovery.

A politician on MSNBC (I don't watch partisan news shows) =/= the government, and everyone fear mongers about the economy, not just the government. Calling big businesses evil on MSNBC is basically ideological prattling and investors and business owners aren't going to give two shits about things like that. Things like credit rating downgrades on the U.S. and Fox News anchorpeople raising a big fuss about the national debt are far stronger forms of fear mongering and the free market tends to ignore those as well.

Avatar image for airshocker
#41 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

@airshocker said:

@Barbariser said:

Okay, there's a fair amount of confusion here and I should rephrase my question. What is tying the free market's arm behind its back?

What policies and regulations are detrimental to the economy and how is the government fear-mongering? I can't really think of any except austerity measures in general.

I would disagree. Taxes that only big corporations can find ways around directly affect the free market because it makes it harder for small businesses to compete.

Aside from taxes you have regulations, government permits(at the local, state and federal level), and laws(the new gun control laws across the country have forced gun shops and manufacturers to either close or move elsewhere).

Fear-mongering is simple. Turn on MSNBC and listen to a politician scare people about the evils of big business.

All of this affects the free market.

These kinds of problems existed (arguably more extensively, in the case of big companies having more tax breaks) in Bush's administration, yet he was enjoying full employment and managed to recover from his recession in a relatively short period. What you are describing are known as distortions in the market, but that doesn't necessarily lead to high unemployment. "Regulations and permits" is rather vague, and those things often contribute helpfully to the economy by reducing/eliminating the effect of externalities and social costs.

As for the gun industry. In the U.S., most figures I can find for its revenue range from $11 billion to 32 billion and it employs about 220, 000 people. I doubt that gun control laws have forced that many shops to close that wouldn't have closed otherwise, and even if the entire gun industry disappeared overnight that would only equate to 0.07-0.2% of GDP and 0.15% of the labour force. This basically shows that gun control laws have had an utterly negligible effect on the recovery.

A politician on MSNBC (I don't watch partisan news shows) =/= the government, and everyone fear mongers about the economy, not just the government. Calling big businesses evil on MSNBC is basically ideological prattling and investors and business owners aren't going to give two shits about things like that. Things like credit rating downgrades on the U.S. and Fox News anchorpeople raising a big fuss about the national debt are far stronger forms of fear mongering and the free market tends to ignore those as well.

I'm not seeing where Bush factors into this at all. I have a hard time believing that permits do anything but line the pockets of the government.

You don't live in New York State and haven't seen the effects of the gun laws passed here. You haven't seen the AR-15.com magazine pick up and leave with it's million-dollar showroom. So please don't try and tell me that the government has had no effect on the gun industry. That's clearly bullshit.

You're completely ignoring the fact that people do pay attention to these news channels and it does very much influence the way things go. Either way, you asked me to elaborate and I have. Just because you disagree doesn't mean shit. It doesn't change the fact that it's happening.

Avatar image for FreedomFreeLife
#42 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (3948 posts) -

Yes!!! in my country has highest taxes and yet most happiest place to live, richest country(Scandinavia)

Avatar image for lostrib
#43 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

Then why would anyone want to become millionaires?

Avatar image for lostrib
#44 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife said:

Yes!!! in my country has highest taxes and yet most happiest place to live, richest country(Scandinavia)

source?

Avatar image for Slashless
#45 Posted by Slashless (9525 posts) -

Omelette Du Fromage.

Nah but seriously screw that.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#46 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@airshocker said:

I'm not seeing where Bush factors into this at all. I have a hard time believing that permits do anything but line the pockets of the government.

You don't live in New York State and haven't seen the effects of the gun laws passed here. You haven't seen the AR-15.com magazine pick up and leave with it's million-dollar showroom. So please don't try and tell me that the government has had no effect on the gun industry. That's clearly bullshit.

You're completely ignoring the fact that people do pay attention to these news channels and it does very much influence the way things go. Either way, you asked me to elaborate and I have. Just because you disagree doesn't mean shit. It doesn't change the fact that it's happening.

Calm down and take a chill pill. I'm pointing out out that Bush who had similar regulations and tax structures and a recession didn't have a fucked recovery, so those don't really explain why employment growth hasn't been too rapid. I also didn't argue that the government "didn't do anything" to the gun industry, I said out that the gun industry is tiny and insignificant compared to the economy as a whole, and therefore gun control laws have had basically no effect on the job market. And "people" pay attention to the news channels, that doesn't prove your original assertion that the government is fear mongering or that it's somehow constraining the magic of the market.

Besides, the only reason why I actually quoted you is because I'm an econs student and you made a bunch of really simplistic assertions about macroeconomic policy that don't really mesh with modern mainstream economics. Just because you explained what you meant doesn't mean that I can't refute any of the claims you make afterwards, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it we can stop the discussion here.

Avatar image for FreedomFreeLife
#47 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (3948 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

Yes!!! in my country has highest taxes and yet most happiest place to live, richest country(Scandinavia)

source?

What source??? Scandinavia is best place to live. Best health care, happiest and best education, most free index in world. Looks like you don´t live in Europe at all.

Avatar image for D00DIES
#48 Posted by D00DIES (31 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@coolbeans90 said:

@SpartanMSU said:

@lamprey263 said:

the top rate in the United States used to be up around 91% until the 1960s, where it dropped to 77%

Except no one paid that amount. Facts suck.

mhmm

people should really compare effective tax rates

Where did you guys read that? Would be interested in reading it myself.

Yea, I am also interested in this information.

Technically you could say a lot of wealthy people don't pay the income tax rate now by utilizing loop holes, tax credits and off shore accounts.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#49 Edited by Master_Live (18815 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@lostrib said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

Yes!!! in my country has highest taxes and yet most happiest place to live, richest country(Scandinavia)

source?

What source??? Scandinavia is best place to live. Best health care, happiest and best education, most free index in world. Looks like you don´t live in Europe at all.

I will take your word for it.

Avatar image for nomsayin
#50 Posted by nomsayin (1346 posts) -

Why don't we just cut taxes for all income groups and then simply spend our money more wisely? In other words, less tax money spent on wars, more on social welfare programs. That way, it's a win-win situation all around. Rich are happy, middle class is happy, poor are happy, and the world is happy since we're not fvcking sh*t up.