Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[lilpixieofterror]

Finland.

Hey, you guys did a number to the Soviets when they attempted to invade your country. Unlike Starlight here, who likely would of hid under his bed and claimed 'they were no threat'.

[Jesse]

It doesn't even make sense. How do you run out of other people's money? In the sense of running out of tax money? In which case you simply need to raise taxes. Or are we implying that those people simply run out of money entirely? Which is completely absurd...

Your answer:

Source: RT

French President Francois Hollande’s 75 percent “supertax” on well-off earners is to be abandoned in February. The policy caused major controversy and triggered outrage among some of the country’s richest people, who moved to become tax exiles abroad.

The tax is to expire February 1, and will not be renewed as Hollande’s Socialist government stated months ago. Introduced in 2013, it was from the beginning viewed as a temporary, two-year measure.

The policy was introduced as an “exceptional contribution to solidarity,” but due to anger it provoked in elite circles, it was gradually alleviated.

The gist of the policy is that the tax might have been imposed on all those earning 1 million euros ($1.2 million) or more.

At the end of 2012, France’s top court branded the policy unconstitutional. However, the authorities came up with another option: companies were to pay 75 percent in taxes for those employees whose salaries were above 1 million euros.

Many of France’s rich and famous spoke out passionately against the legislation. For instance, actor Gerard Depardieu left the country and took Russian citizenship in December 2013. And France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, took Belgian citizenship.

"I am leaving because you consider that success, creation, talent – anything different – must be punished," Depardieu wrote at the time.

French football clubs were outraged, too, complaining that the tax made it hard to attract top international players. They were even planning to walk out over the policy, but canceled the strike.

French media claims that the tax has largely proven unsuccessful, failing to bring in much revenue and to deal with the yawning income gap between rich and poor. All in all, the policy gathered 420 million euro, equivalent to some 0.5 percent of the country’s budget deficit, Business Insider reported.

The supertax was dubbed “anti-business” by critics of the Hollande government, and prompted UK Prime Minister David Cameron to say in mid-2012 that he would "roll out the red carpet" for senior French executives who attempted to escape the policy.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[lilpixieofterror]

Your answer:

Source: RT

French President Francois Hollande’s 75 percent “supertax” on well-off earners is to be abandoned in February. The policy caused major controversy and triggered outrage among some of the country’s richest people, who moved to become tax exiles abroad.

The tax is to expire February 1, and will not be renewed as Hollande’s Socialist government stated months ago. Introduced in 2013, it was from the beginning viewed as a temporary, two-year measure.

The policy was introduced as an “exceptional contribution to solidarity,” but due to anger it provoked in elite circles, it was gradually alleviated.

The gist of the policy is that the tax might have been imposed on all those earning 1 million euros ($1.2 million) or more.

At the end of 2012, France’s top court branded the policy unconstitutional. However, the authorities came up with another option: companies were to pay 75 percent in taxes for those employees whose salaries were above 1 million euros.

Many of France’s rich and famous spoke out passionately against the legislation. For instance, actor Gerard Depardieu left the country and took Russian citizenship in December 2013. And France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, took Belgian citizenship.

"I am leaving because you consider that success, creation, talent – anything different – must be punished," Depardieu wrote at the time.

French football clubs were outraged, too, complaining that the tax made it hard to attract top international players. They were even planning to walk out over the policy, but canceled the strike.

French media claims that the tax has largely proven unsuccessful, failing to bring in much revenue and to deal with the yawning income gap between rich and poor. All in all, the policy gathered 420 million euro, equivalent to some 0.5 percent of the country’s budget deficit, Business Insider reported.

The supertax was dubbed “anti-business” by critics of the Hollande government, and prompted UK Prime Minister David Cameron to say in mid-2012 that he would "roll out the red carpet" for senior French executives who attempted to escape the policy.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

You mean people change up their behavior, based upon the laws you pass? Gosh, who would of thought that could happen?

[Jesse]

You mean people change up their behavior, based upon the laws you pass? Gosh, who would of thought that could happen?

I find it odd that left-wingers think situations are static. People just don't sit around and let themselves get taxed unfairly.

[Cow Poke]

I find it odd that left-wingers think situations are static. People just don't sit around and let themselves get taxed unfairly.

They have NO CONCEPT of the law of unintended consequences. Their blatant arrogance keeps from them from considering that.

[lilpixieofterror]

I find it odd that left-wingers think situations are static. People just don't sit around and let themselves get taxed unfairly.

Of course they don't, but nobody said starlight has a clue what he's talking about. Since he clearly thinks the government know how to spend your money better than you do, why doesn't he start advocating a 100% tax on everybody and just let the government provide you with everything. Of course, this has lead to horrible abuses of government power, but hey... ignoring the logical conclusions of your own logic is something far left wingers (such as Starlight) are quite good at.

[Starlight]

Since he clearly thinks the government know how to spend your money better than you do

You keep saying that sentence as if it's meaningful. The majority of their rich have their money invested in various portfolios. They're not spending it. So you statement that I think the government knows how to spend it better is bizarre.

Perhaps in your imaginary world the rich are spending a huge proportion of their money on the poor and homeless ( ), and the government comes along and seizes that money and then does a worse job of doing exactly the same thing...?

Your other long rant of a post appears to say nothing else meaningful either.

Source: American Thinker

Using 2009 data, the IRS says that 8,274 tax returns were filed with incomes over $10 million. The total amount of income on those returns was $240.1 billion.

Our federal government alone is spending more than $10 billion a day. Thus, a 100% confiscation of all income of those making more than $10 million would amount to less than 24 days of federal spending.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic..._spending.html

© Copyright Original Source

$10 million income per year seems a ridiculously high amount... I would want to levy pretty high taxes on anyone earning more than $200,000. And I presume those figures are merely for salary, not capital gains, so there's all the taxes of people earning capital gains to be factored in.

I also support countries instituting a wealth tax on the rich, similar to what France currently does, where very rich people are taxed a small percentage of their total wealth each year, not simply their income.

Your pretending that there's just not enough money to go around is pretty amusing though.

Your answer:

Source: RT

French President Francois Hollande’s 75 percent “supertax” on well-off earners is to be abandoned in February. The policy caused major controversy and triggered outrage among some of the country’s richest people, who moved to become tax exiles abroad.

The tax is to expire February 1, and will not be renewed as Hollande’s Socialist government stated months ago. Introduced in 2013, it was from the beginning viewed as a temporary, two-year measure.

The policy was introduced as an “exceptional contribution to solidarity,” but due to anger it provoked in elite circles, it was gradually alleviated.

The gist of the policy is that the tax might have been imposed on all those earning 1 million euros ($1.2 million) or more.

At the end of 2012, France’s top court branded the policy unconstitutional. However, the authorities came up with another option: companies were to pay 75 percent in taxes for those employees whose salaries were above 1 million euros.

Many of France’s rich and famous spoke out passionately against the legislation. For instance, actor Gerard Depardieu left the country and took Russian citizenship in December 2013. And France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, took Belgian citizenship.

"I am leaving because you consider that success, creation, talent – anything different – must be punished," Depardieu wrote at the time.

French football clubs were outraged, too, complaining that the tax made it hard to attract top international players. They were even planning to walk out over the policy, but canceled the strike.

French media claims that the tax has largely proven unsuccessful, failing to bring in much revenue and to deal with the yawning income gap between rich and poor. All in all, the policy gathered 420 million euro, equivalent to some 0.5 percent of the country’s budget deficit, Business Insider reported.

The supertax was dubbed “anti-business” by critics of the Hollande government, and prompted UK Prime Minister David Cameron to say in mid-2012 that he would "roll out the red carpet" for senior French executives who attempted to escape the policy.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

I totally agree that the practicalities of implementing such taxes in the current global environment bear thinking about. Countries have to work together to crack down on tax havens and to agree on tax rates. Otherwise the super-rich just move their money elsewhere where the pesky governments can't get at it.

For example, the EU has been working on systematically cracking down on tax havens for a number of years, and I was reading just last week that Swiss Bank accounts have now finally been opened to EU governments for wealth and tax assessment.

But yes, one country alone putting their taxes very high while at the same time freely allowing rich people to take their money away to other countries seems pretty unlikely to work.

[Cow Poke]

You keep saying that sentence as if it's meaningful. The majority of their rich have their money invested in various portfolios. They're not spending it.

Yeah, cause they don't live in houses, or use electricity, or need lawn maintenance or drink wine or eat food or own airplanes that need fuel or drive cars or take trips or ... yeah, they made big bucks just to keep it in banks.

REALLY starlight... are you just a ???? You can't POSSIBLY be this dumb!

[rogue06]

Yeah, cause they don't live in houses, or use electricity, or need lawn maintenance or drink wine or eat food or own airplanes that need fuel or drive cars or take trips or ... yeah, they made big bucks just to keep it in banks.

REALLY starlight... are you just a ???? You can't POSSIBLY be this dumb!

They keep it in vaults so that they can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck

0000000000$bin.gif

[Starlight]

Yeah, cause they don't live in houses, or use electricity, or need lawn maintenance or drink wine or eat food or own airplanes that need fuel or drive cars or take trips or ... yeah, they made big bucks just to keep it in banks.

REALLY starlight... are you just a ???? You can't POSSIBLY be this dumb!

Apparently you are off-the-charts dumb.

Rich people tend to invest the majority money in stock portfolios. and other similar investments. Sure, they buy more expensive wine and food and live in a large house, and possibly fly around in a private jet or helicopter. But as a total percentage of their money, they spend a lot less than the average person and save a lot more. By contrast, very poor people typically can't afford to save anything, having to spend 100% of their income every week on expenses to get by.

The very rich don't typically tend to put very much of their money in bank accounts, per se, simply because savings accounts don't typically give a great rate of return. Instead, the very rich typically invest their money in investment portfolios and real estate. But, for most intents and purposes, those two forms of investment are pretty much equivalent to just 'putting it in the bank' in the sense that they are saving their money and recouping interest & capital gains on their investments.

[Jesse]

I totally agree that the practicalities of implementing such taxes in the current global environment bear thinking about. Countries have to work together to crack down on tax havens and to agree on tax rates. Otherwise the super-rich just move their money elsewhere where the pesky governments can't get at it.

For example, the EU has been working on systematically cracking down on tax havens for a number of years, and I was reading just last week that Swiss Bank accounts have now finally been opened to EU governments for wealth and tax assessment.

But yes, one country alone putting their taxes very high while at the same time freely allowing rich people to take their money away to other countries seems pretty unlikely to work.

I find it interesting how you answered this. Instead of wanting governments to live within their means and crack down on corruption so they don't have to raise taxes to an unsustainable amount, you instead are wanting them to close down tax shelters (which they will never be able to do completely). I don't understand this fetish of needing to take other people's money. I know greed is the biggest part of it. Sociopathy has to be the other.

[Cow Poke]

Apparently you are off-the-charts dumb.

Whatever you say dimlit.

Rich people tend to invest the majority money in stock portfolios. and other similar investments.

As I have noted throughout this thread, AND they employ lawyers and accountants to protect their wealth. However, to say that "they're not spending it", which is EXACTLY what you said, is either a blatant lie or total ignorance on your part.

Sure, they buy more expensive wine and food and live in a large house, and possibly fly around in a private jet or helicopter.

For which they spend MONEY! OBSCENE amounts of money!

But as a total percentage of their money, they spend a lot less than the average person and save a lot more.

Well, YEAH, that's how they got RICH, as opposed to people who spend everything they make before they even make it.

By contrast, very poor people typically can't afford to save anything, having to spend 100% of their income every week on expenses to get by.

But SOMEHOW they manage to have color TV, cable, cell phones..... it's about priorities.

The very rich don't typically tend to put very much of their money in bank accounts, per se, simply because savings accounts don't typically give a great rate of return.

All perfectly legal and admirable.

Instead, the very rich typically invest their money in investment portfolios and real estate. But, for most intents and purposes, those two forms of investment are pretty much equivalent to just 'putting it in the bank' in the sense that they are saving their money and recouping interest & capital gains on their investments.

So, you were just a bozo when you said "They're not spending it."

The invest AND they spend - and jackwagons like YOU who are incredibly jealous and don't know HOW to get rich think YOU should be allowed to tell them how MUCH they can keep and how much they can spend.

I am SO GLAD idiots like you don't have any power to do anything about your idiot ideas.

[lilpixieofterror]

You keep saying that sentence as if it's meaningful. The majority of their rich have their money invested in various portfolios. They're not spending it. So you statement that I think the government knows how to spend it better is bizarre.

And where do you think this money, from their portfolios is going? Do you think it is sitting in a Scrooge McDuck type money vault, that nobody else has access to? If so, I have beach front property to sell you on the moon. It's right next to the Sea of Tranquility, should be some nice views there.

Perhaps in your imaginary world the rich are spending a huge proportion of their money on the poor and homeless ( ), and the government comes along and seizes that money and then does a worse job of doing exactly the same thing...?

I never said they did that either, but Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated billions to charity organizations. What, you never heard of The Giving Pledge? Wow... you are quite out of touch and just keep showing why a laugh track should be playing every time you speak.

Your other long rant of a post appears to say nothing else meaningful either.

AKA you are unable to refute it because I brought up facts you can't refute. I guess the fact that the US non intervention policies, pre WWII, was a total failure escaped your notice, eh? So are you going to give an answer to when somebody is enough of a threat to do something about it? Do they need to invade countries, kill lots of people, and orchestrate genocide before you think somebody should get involved or do you just prefer to wait till they are invading your country before you decide to do a thing about it? Hiding under your bed, will not make the ISIS go away.

[lilpixieofterror]

As I have noted throughout this thread, AND they employ lawyers and accountants to protect their wealth. However, to say that "they're not spending it", which is EXACTLY what you said, is either a blatant lie or total ignorance on your part.

Starlight is in a competition, with JimL, to be considered for the stupidest person on tWeb. He still has a long way to go though; although thinking investments are not a way of spending money, is a pretty good start.

[Cow Poke]

Starlight is in a competition, with JimL, to be considered for the stupidest person on tWeb. He still has a long way to go though; although thinking investments are not a way of spending money, is a pretty good start.

Starlight is, admittedly, much more.. um... literate and writes much better than Jimmy, but seems to be drinking from the same well of financial idiocy.