French declare taxes on rich as "unfair"

Originally posted by JS357
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/world/europe/french-council-strikes-down-75-tax-rate-on-rich.html?_r=0

The basis for the decision is described here.

Apparently no one here has a problem with the French Constitutional Council striking down laws before they are enacted, instead of waiting to rule on an appeal as is the dominant approach in the US. Their ...[text shortened]... by refusing to have SCOTUS "advise" Jefferson on things he was to sign. Talk about activism.

I think it is better if a law is examined during it's framework.

It does not need to be brought into existence in order to test it's constitutionality.

Why make an error only to change it later.

It is better to get it right before the full force of a bad law is imposed upon people.

Hollande will just have to try something else.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-29/french-constitution-court-strikes-down-75-millionaire-tax-finds-it-unfair

"In a crushing blow to socialism, wealth redistribution and purveyors of the "fairness doctrine" everywhere, the French Constitutional Council ruled on Saturday that Holland's brilliant idea to tax millionares at a 75% tax rate - a move which ...[text shortened]... en using the distraction of the PIIGS quite effectively for the 3rd year running?

That's not quite true Whodey. The 75% tax rate will be reduced for the rich in France alright, but your suggestion that "under Socialism government believes it knows how to spend the money the best, and most" is just plain untrue.

Consider the definition of Socialism:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[

Socialism deals with collective ownership of property and market share,
NOT in how tax money is spent. I would suggest you are mixing lies with the truth here....

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
I think it is better if a law is examined during it's framework.

It does not need to be brought into existence in order to test it's constitutionality.

Why make an error only to change it later.

It is better to get it right before the full force of a bad law is imposed upon people.

Hollande will just have to try something else.

Thanks, I was hoping to get some discussion on this, as I have much to learn. My general feeling is that having the Judicial rule on constitutionality before enactment by the Executive places too much poser in the Judicial branch (and having the Legislative or Executive rule on this is unworkable politically as well as unworkable in terms of the Judical branch's post-enactment review responsibility). So some restructuring may be needed.

I wonder how the French deal with post-enactment judicial review, IOW, questions of constitutionality that arise after a law is enacted

Edit: I should add that in the US the President can veto for no reason at all or can veto on a claim of unconstitutionality. The veto can be overridden by a supermajority of the Legislature which enacts the law and makes it subject to Judicial review of cases brought before the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by sh76
While I think that a 75% marginal tax rate is a terrible idea because 75% (before other use taxes) is such a high number that it discourages production and encourages tax flight, I do find it bizarre that the judiciary would take it upon itself to make a decision to overturn duly passed legislation on the grounds that it is unfair to millionaires.

I don't see it as the judiciary's role to save people from their own electoral choices, however stupid.

It is indisputable that the rich get rich by exploiting the poor, that is by hiring them. Truly rich people don't ever need to earn another dime, so discouraging them from earning clearly has to create unemployment among the "exploited" class.

Originally posted by normbenign
It is indisputable that the rich get rich by exploiting the poor, that is by hiring them. Truly rich people don't ever need to earn another dime, so discouraging them from earning clearly has to create unemployment among the "exploited" class.

Using that linguistic spin, the poor exploit the rich by taking back, in taxes, the excess profit that results from the exploitative wages paid by the rich.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
[
Having said all that I do think that 75% is rather high.[/b]

Just asking, Why is 75% "rather high". I suspect that ( without knowing ) that the tax rate up to 1 mill would still leave a substantial amount in income. The 75% only applies to the "in excess of 1 mill" income, so that someone earning 2 mill would still earn an "extra" $250,000. Stop and think about that. Most people would dream of that sort of an income by itself.Why does any individual "NEED" that amount of money. The only reason I can think of not to tax that high is the risk of capital flight. This sort of a move needs international co-operation to be truly effective. Anyway, just asking.

Originally posted by jimmac
Just asking, Why is 75% "rather high". I suspect that ( without knowing ) that the tax rate up to 1 mill would still leave a substantial amount in income. The 75% only applies to the "in excess of 1 mill" income, so that someone earning 2 mill would still earn an "extra" $250,000. Stop and think about that. Most people would dream of that sort of an income by ...[text shortened]... f a move needs international co-operation to be truly effective. Anyway, just asking.

I don't know about you,
but I would not take a job
where I had to pay 75% tax.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
I don't know about you,
but I would not take a job
where I had to pay 75% tax.

Would you not take a job in which you took home "say" $600,000+?. I would, any day. Tell me, Why wouldn't you.? This is not meant to be antagonistic, just asking.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
I don't know about you,
but I would not take a job
where I had to pay 75% tax.

I submit that you have not fully thought out* what you would do if, having a job in which you can earn X dollars (euros, if you wish) you were given the opportunity to earn another 250,000 of them that year, on the condition that an additional 750,000 would go from your income source, directly into your country's tax coffers; but it would be called "income taxes" attached to your name. I submit that your first question, or at least that of any sane person, would be, "What do I have to do?"

*Let's put it this way: most people are not as principled as you seem to be.

Originally posted by JS357
Using that linguistic spin, the poor exploit the rich by taking back, in taxes, the excess profit that results from the exploitative wages paid by the rich.

Unfortunately, there isn't any spin that enables the poor to benefit from taxing the rich. The government gets the money, and the poor get the shaft.

Originally posted by jimmac
Just asking, Why is 75% "rather high". I suspect that ( without knowing ) that the tax rate up to 1 mill would still leave a substantial amount in income. The 75% only applies to the "in excess of 1 mill" income, so that someone earning 2 mill would still earn an "extra" $250,000. Stop and think about that. Most people would dream of that sort of an income by ...[text shortened]... f a move needs international co-operation to be truly effective. Anyway, just asking.

Nobody needs more than most of the poor in America make. Many people have greater ambitions or wants.

The question is whether there is reason to go for the extra, if the majority is taken. Why not just relax and enjoy? Go play some golf, invest overseas, whatever.

I would give it away before letting government steal it.

Originally posted by whodey
But what if a poor person lived with a rich person? Would the poor person be taxed at the rich persons rate?

In the US it would depend on whether or not the couple filed separate or jointly.

Originally posted by normbenign
Nobody needs more than most of the poor in America make. Many people have greater ambitions or wants.

The question is whether there is reason to go for the extra, if the majority is taken. Why not just relax and enjoy? Go play some golf, invest overseas, whatever.

I would give it away before letting government steal it.

Taxation is theft? Or is it only "theft" if the tax system doesn't conform to your ideology?

I would give it away before letting government steal it.[/b]

This assumes,possibly correctly, that the government "steals" it. Giving it away may indeed be the best thing, but most people are inherently a bit too greedy for that.