patrick.net

The question is: why France's 75% tax on the rich didn't cause the wonders described above?

Good Question

What do you think the optimal tax rate is indigenous? Do you think that there is an optimum, or that lower is better or what?

I really don't know. The above is a parody.

Historically a government can take around 18% of income, after that the creators/producers go Gault.

The most onerous tax of all is inflation.

indigenous says

I really don't know. The above is a parody.

Historically a government can take around 18% of income, after that the creators/producers go Gault.

The most onerous tax of all is inflation.

When have they "gone Gault"? The wealthy are lying sacks of shit.

The wealthy are going to take all their apartment complexes and shopping centers with them when they leave for Hong Kong. That'll teach 'em!

CL says

When have they "gone Gault"?

Many have now, an argument could be made that the lower middle class have by going on permanent disability, or other types of government transfers and working under the table as a supplement, or just plain working for the government directly as actual effort is dissuaded in the government work place.

I suppose a more accurate way to do this would be a graph on investment by business. This would be in gross output found in the BEA. This indicated how much is being invested in business as it is a bigger part of the economy than consumer spending and a indicator of how much business are sitting it out.

thunderlips11 says

The wealthy are going to take all their apartment complexes and shopping centers with them when they leave for Hong Kong. That'll teach 'em!

Very insightful... into how economically illiterate you are...

They are a little late...amazons already done it for them.

thunderlips11 says

and shopping centers with them when they leave for Hong Kong. That'll teach 'em!

indigenous says

I really don't know. The above is a parody.

Parody is usually used to make a point. You have parodied a weak argument (straw man) and laughed at it. Now, you shy away from any discussion regarding what would be best. Well, you said you don't know and offered no opinion on the topic that you brought up.

The parody is that it indicates that high taxes are good for the economy.

For sure the budget should not exceed the amount of revenue the country can collect.

For sure the budget should include set asides for future liabilities.

As I have indicated about 18% is the terminal velocity of taxes. Anything beyond that should be cut from the budget. But this is every type of tax not just federal tax.

Basic Economics.

Its the innovation and manufacturing as a percent of funds spend by private/public.

If you have high taxes, and you outsource and malinvest, pay Lawyers $400/hour, and pay Engineers $40/hour you get flight from the ROI jobs to non ROI jobs.

Look at China - their communist and have issues with human rights / corruption. But to be fair they are addressing corruption to some extent.

The US needs Affordable Legal Reform as much if not more than Affordable Health Care.

Straw Man says

The question is: why France's 75% tax on the rich didn't cause the wonders described above?

Because France is not US. EU does stranglehold a lot of countries in the union to keep others supplied. When I was there, it's quite obvious, just not really understood by the locals.

Personally I think taxes are too damn high already on working class.

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

The wealthy are going to take all their apartment complexes and shopping centers with them when they leave for Hong Kong. That'll teach 'em!

Very insightful... into how economically illiterate you are...

Of course, how could I forget that you can fold up Chicken Franchises and place them in checked baggage for only $50 on American Airlines if you're a Platinum Member.

A real John Galt could squeeze his "Buy Term and Invest the Difference" $5M insurance office into his roll on and reopen it in Singapore, and be right back in business.

Don't let the plane door hit your ass on the flight out, oh Randian ones.

thunderlips11 says

Of course, how could I forget that you can fold up Chicken Franchises and place them in checked baggage for only $50 on American Airlines if you're a Platinum Member.

A real John Galt could squeeze his "Buy Term and Invest the Difference" $5M insurance office into his roll on and reopen it in Singapore, and be right back in business.

Don't let the plane door hit your ass on the flight out, oh Randian ones.

More blather to hide your ignorance

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

Of course, how could I forget that you can fold up Chicken Franchises and place them in checked baggage for only $50 on American Airlines if you're a Platinum Member.

A real John Galt could squeeze his "Buy Term and Invest the Difference" $5M insurance office into his roll on and reopen it in Singapore, and be right back in business.

Don't let the plane door hit your ass on the flight out, oh Randian ones.

More blather to hide your ignorance

More unbacked assertions to cover your lack of knowledge.

indigenous says

CL says

When have they "gone Gault"?

Many have now, an argument could be made that the lower middle class have by going on permanent disability, or other types of government transfers and working under the table as a supplement, or just plain working for the government directly as actual effort is dissuaded in the government work place.

I suppose a more accurate way to do this would be a graph on investment by business. This would be in gross output found in the BEA. This indicated how much is being invested in business as it is a bigger part of the economy than consumer spending and a indicator of how much business are sitting it out.

Did you even read "Atlas Shrugged?" Or are you guessing at terms and meanings? Galt was the character who retreated to a remote enclave in Colorado to organize a bunch of millionaires into moving their businesses there. The subject of who would work for these rich folks or who would buy their products was never brought up. Just that these business owners would move their businesses to this place where they coulsnt we interfered with by government.
Which is a ridiculous premise. No government means no protection from bandits or robbers or other crime. Everything you have can be taken by someone or a group that is stronger or more violent. Governments provide safety. Or at least that's their first role.
Without that, you're just hanging in the wind, a ripe fruit for anyone with a sword to cut.

Do you believe that 18% is optimum or a maximum, or both? Does the optimum tax depend on the current wealth and income distribution, or is it fixed? Is there some reason for this, or are you just going on a hunch, or what?

I believe that there is an optimum, and it is generally a higher percentage than we see right now. However, the optimum income tax depends on the current income distribution and state of the economy. A progressive tax makes the most sense for income tax, because the benefits of the government favor the rich.

The 18% is the max that a government can take, any more and there is no incentive to work.

I don't know what is optimum, if were up to me it would be flat tax on consumption only. There would be no other taxes, there would be no need for CPAs, there would be NO loopholes. Saving would not be taxed only consumption. And yes it would be regressive.