This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

French Constitutional Court Strikes Down 75% Millionaire Tax, Finds It "Unfair"

Tyler Durden's picture


In a crushing blow to socialism, wealth redistribution and purveyors of the "fairness doctrine" (as defined here first) everywhere, the French Constitutional Council ruled on Saturday that Hollande's brilliant idea to tax millionaires at a 75% tax rate - a move which has since seen numerous millionaires leave France and move to Belgium - is unconstitutional. Per Reuters, the Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) - a flagship measure of Hollande's election campaign - was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households. Which is ironic because just like in the US, so in France, the selective wealth redistribution campaign waged by the government against the "rich" (which have yet to be properly defined: those making over $250K? Over $400K? Over €1MM?) was based on the premise that it is only "fair" that the rich contribute more. Turns out fairness in the eye of the government beholder, was unfair. But the move begs the question: would the court have struck down the law had it been a merely 50% tax hike? And if the income cut off was, say, €500,000? The far bigger question is, and has been in this year of encroaching socialism, just what is the definition of "rich", what is the definition of "fair redistribution", and where do the two coincide. Finally, how soon until the US Supreme Court weighs in as well on any final Fiscal Cliff tax hike proposal which, like in France, will see the "rich" pay an abnormal share, and will that too be ruled unconstitutional?

From Reuters:

While the tax plan was largely symbolic and would only have affected a few thousand people, it has infuriated high earners in France, prompting some such as actor Gerard Depardieu to flee abroad. The message it sent also shocked entrepreneurs and foreign investors, who accuse Hollande of being anti-business.


Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said the rejection of the 75 percent tax and other minor measures could cut up to 500 million euros in forecast tax revenues but would not hurt efforts to slash the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling of 3 percent of economic output next year.


"The rejected measures represent 300 to 500 million euros. Our deficit-cutting path will not be affected," Moscovici told BFM television. He too said the government would resubmit a proposal to raise taxes on high incomes in 2013 and 2014.


The Council, made up of nine judges and three former presidents, is concerned the tax would hit a married couple where one partner earned above a million euros but it would not affect a couple where each earned just under a million euros.


UMP member Gilles Carrez, chairman of the National Assembly's finance commission, told BFM television, however, that the Council's so-called wise men also felt the 75 percent tax was excessive and too much based on ideology.


Ideological issues aside, the Hollande tax hike was supposed to provide cover for even more French government spending - remember: under socialism the government believes it knows how to spend the money best... and most. That this tax hike rejection happened even as France was increasingly under the microscope of various entities warning that the French budget is unsustainable, will only exacerbate fears that the government will drift even more into the red.

Which then begs the question: once the SNB stops recycling the EURs it buys into French sovereign bonds, the only driver of low French yields in the past 2 quarters, how will France preserve the Ponzi-offset illusion that rampant socialism is not on the radar screens of bond vigilantees everywhere.

And will 2013 finally be the year in which the focus finally shifts from the European bailout addicts to the European enablers, who are just as insolvent but who have been using the distraction of the PIIGS quite effectively for the 3rd year running?

* * *

The good news: Obelix can finally return to Gaul.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:23 | 3104538 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

French Toast with Hollande's sauce!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:21 | 3104652 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Just like in Les Misérables, so long as a man can be sent to prison for stealing a $3 loaf of bread in order to feed a hungry sister or brother, while the KronyKomrades of the Banking-Defense-WallStreet-BigPharma/Chem/edu complex can literally do no wrong (since they write the laws, while they literally tax dollars-- made available for the stealing by bought-and-paid for politicians, legislators, regulators and judges --worth trillions of loaves of bread)... long as such impossibly corrupt hypocrisy is allowed to continue, there will be no actual meritocracy or democracy, but just the illusion of such, floated on empty sloganeering and catch phrases, while the graft and concentration of power & wealth by ill-conceived measures continue...

...yet another Empire will fail.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:35 | 3104683 michael_engineer
michael_engineer's picture

I was wondering if Trav777 got in trouble again. I haven't seen any recent comments to articles and topics that he would likely comment upon.

Anybody notice him lurking in these parts or have details they can dish?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:17 | 3104761 Max in St Moritz
Max in St Moritz's picture



trav777 is busy flying to UAE, business class.  He made it a point to inform everyone of this a week ago.  By the way Trav, if you're reading this, if you were truly a "business class" aficionado of commercial air travel, you would have flown Qatar Airways. EK is sooo... last decade.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 18:23 | 3105380 dlmaniac
dlmaniac's picture


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 20:08 | 3105552 Old Earth Chaos
Old Earth Chaos's picture

When England finally gets their due for their QE, it willl be "FIGPIES"

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:44 | 3104684 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

agree with you. nevertheless, the article is full of sentences like "...the Hollande tax hike was supposed to provide cover for even more French government spending..." and so on about the French Budget 2013

nevertheless, we are talking about something that has been called "...the harshest budget in 30 years" (link)

the reactions varied from Marine Le Pen, president of the far-right Front National, describing the budget as "absurd hyper-austerity" to Former agriculture minister Bruno Le Maire saying he was worried and disappointed, adding: "France is going to the wall"

Relevant numbers? A budget deficit target of 3% for 2017 and of 0.3% for until 2017

Socialist? The socialist French finance minister, Pierre Moscovici, said getting the public deficit down to 3% was "vital for the credibility of the country". "We are committed to it and we will meet it," he said.

Care to compare with the UK-US? Is this really a red flag for French sovereign bonds holders? (which I don't peddle anymore or even remotely reccomend)

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:31 | 3104928 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

I am LITERALLY for a 5% to 10% CONSUMPTION tax, in lieu of ALL OTHER income and any other form of taxation, for the record.

Some people claim I'm radically conservative, but I'm one of the rational people, who actually understands that the growth in and of government, and that the growth in dependence on a quite extraordinarily inefficient, wasteful and bloated government (that is Deeply Captured by special interests of the bankster/defense contractor/Wall Street/BigPharma, et al. variety) is the core of the problem of modern society, since KronyKomradeKapitalisism crowds out and otherwise destroys private sector (the true private sector, aka the non-KronyKomrade one) incentives, innovation and productivity.

My concern highlighted above speaks to the incredibly criminal double standards allowed to be perpetuated by the Corzines of this world.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:55 | 3105007 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

50% inheritance tax can fix a lot of problems.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 16:21 | 3105072 max2205
max2205's picture

Over $20 mill.  Save the farmer's families

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 20:02 | 3105132 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Yes, because all the taxes paid at every level (batshit crazy number of levels; property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, utility taxes, sur-taxes, etc, etc. doo daa laa laa) aren't enough.

Once a person manages to actually save something of value, even after paying the multitudes of taxes upon layers upon taxes on it, over a lifetime - the government should come along again and tax it YET ONE MORE TIME when he/she dies, and tax it HEAVILY, as a final kick in the balls to that person.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 18:13 | 3105351 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

for the record

miswrote, here corrected "A budget deficit target of 3% for 2013 and of 0.3% for until 2017"

here we already have a consumption tax that is four times higher than your reccomendation

fact is too many different kind of taxes eat each other's effectiveness, and consumption taxes are regressive, i.e. they bite more the poorer you are

earn more than a million a year and consumption taxes don't even register, try to eke a living out of less than a median income and consumption taxes squeeze the max out of you

sorry, you know I'm a fan of yours but with a regressive tax scheme only you would take your place in the ranks of those who carry double standards, in my eyes

nope, whatever tax scheme the fact is that balancing budgets is more important than "fairness of taxation", in the long run

and the 30% tremendously unlikely "globalist scheme" worldwide tax on returns of capital that horrifies so much the Tyler/writer of this article looks more and more like something I could support

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 18:55 | 3105435 nmewn
nmewn's picture

We have a VAT in the US now, its just not calld a VAT. All the way through the chain of production, the item is taxed.

From the nailmaker who makes the nails for the box maker, who sells the boxes to the orchard, for the apples to be picked and sent to the packing house to be washed, to be repackaged and sold to the grocery store, so the grocer can sell them to you.

All the way through that, taxes and fees were applied.

To be sure, the tax code has been massaged, noodled, tweaked and fiddled with to allow for writeoffs so a profit can still be made on an apple but a simpler federal tax mechanism is what TIS is saying. There's no reason for it to be this complicated unless it is being used to bestow favoritism, with the expectation that funds (allowed to the favored) will flow back to he favor giver...the politician.

I submit that it is the "progressive" income tax that is in fact regressive. The more wage income you make, the more you are penalized/taxed, is as regressive and punitive as it can get.

I know this for a fact because I've done it, when I reached a certain tax threshold, I stopped producing because to continue meant what I just did yesterday would yield less income for me today per unit...due to the tax code. Its like working for less per hour/unit. For me it was keep it under $1,400 a week back then, by October I didn't have to work for the rest of the year because I had "bankrolled" (not billed) for all that labor. I stopped being productive because of the tax code...less taxes going to government.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 19:06 | 3105449 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 complicated tax code = corrupt tax code

The one exit out of this dilemma: flat tax and a small lump refund per head

It's not regrssive in any form

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 19:31 | 3105489 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The regressive vs progressive tax bullshit is just a ruse to divide & conquer those who will be taxed and to claim more such taxes for government, to grow and feed the bloat.

A consumption tax is the same %, across the board, and is based on consumption, which people having much free will over the levels of consuming that they do on an individual basis (last time I checked).

Maybe basic foods & necessary medicine should be exempted (I am not saying it should be, but offering up one of many possibilities to appease those who are smitten with the "regressive tax" meme).

Also, a consumption tax eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, the IRS and tens of millions of other useless & unecessary parasites upon the economy, and would allow the 60,000 page Internal Revenue Code to be used as toilet paper or kindling for the fireplace (the average business-- even small ones-- spends so much time on tax matters that it's asinine).

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 21:05 | 3105677 nmewn
nmewn's picture

+1040 EZ

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 08:42 | 3106194 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 though I disagree. a consumption tax looks only like more "freedom" because the argument "you can choose to consume or not" does not apply to the weakest

if I make $5 per hour I won't be able to enjoy the freedom of save them much, I have to mostly consume them

it's another "sin of central planning", or a "sin tax" favouring one behaviour (saving) over another (consuming)

taxing income OR wealth are the only "least invasive" taxes yet found

even Heinlein's Land Tax (dis-)favours one form of wealth (though elegantly one part of the productive input necessary for all goods and services) over the others

alas, how to get rid of all the tax code parasites? they like their niche and fight hard for it

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:52 | 3104700 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

further, about "The far bigger question is, and has been in this year of encroaching socialism, just what is the definition of "rich", what is the definition of "fair redistribution", and where do the two coincide."

yes, the US had a year of "encroaching socialism". and legion of US pundits propagate worldwide this "we are under a socialist attack"

with high scorn dubbed on countries like France having the gall of electing a President that openly calls himself a socialist

and yet, this "socialist" country has a constitutional court that checks on taxes targeting a minority and this socialist French government has an "austerity" fiscal agenda that only the most fiscal conservatives in the US would even contemplate

balancing the budget in the near future (not 2025)

I'd say this should give you (French) food for thought

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:59 | 3104721 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture


TruthInSunshine, "there will be no actual meritocracy or democracy"

perhaps they will continue to exist.... in France?

You know, "collectivist", "socialist", eurosystem-using France?

just poking ;-/


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 18:22 | 3105377 GCT
GCT's picture

I actually salute the French supreme court.  They handed out a decision that pissed the politicians off.  The SCOTUS would never make this decision to be honest.  Of course the politicians in France are now re-writing the law so it will pass the next time the taxation will be challenged. 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:50 | 3104845 Snakeeyes
Snakeeyes's picture

Rest assured, Barzini and Tattaliga (Reid and McConnell) will do their best to perpetuate gov't spending and the debt superstore. And tax increases on the rich, whoever they may be.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:53 | 3105003 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Since long I believed in capitalistic society once you are in the rich club, they would not let you go poor.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 17:23 | 3105255 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

You must believe in the tooth fairy.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 19:04 | 3105447 ball-and-chain
ball-and-chain's picture

75 percent top tax rate sounds about right to me.

Somebody's got to pay for my food stamps. 

Perhaps I'm a socialist.

I don't think so.

But what do I know?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:25 | 3104544 nmewn
nmewn's picture

And somewhere in Belgium, Gerard Depardieu smiles and says...toldja

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:37 | 3104568 walküre
walküre's picture

"SuddenDebt" is Gerard's new bitch

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:25 | 3104914 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

I regret having to junk you (as I rarely junk), but I find Sudden Debt to offer many useful observations on the state of Europe and his country (Belgium).  We get rather little news out of Europe, he is in business, and I find great humor (and helpful observations) in his comments.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:28 | 3104548 Eireann go Brach
Eireann go Brach's picture

Fuck the French!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:38 | 3104691 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

Eireann .... I've seen a few French I'd like to .... Oh! sorry I thought I was in the "adults only" forum !

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:09 | 3104551 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

I thought the Constitution called for all Taxes and levies be equally apportioned among all the People.

Have to remember there was a time when there was no Income Tax.

Plus, if you are Taxed on the Income from your lifes work, then you should be able to Depreciate yourself.  As your ability to create income is limited by the amount of years you have as a productive worker. 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:25 | 3104798 CynicLaureate
CynicLaureate's picture

And you should be able to amortize your education and deduct the cost of food, housing and "maintenance".


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:11 | 3104872 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Absolutely,  how else could you survive to work.

Maybe that is why at one time there was no Income Tax. 

Because once you Depreciated yourself and deducted the cost for your Housing, Car, Food, Clothes, Health Care Costs and "maintenance" you would either owe no Tax or the Government would have to pay you.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:28 | 3104909 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

I think that there could be a Legal precident in this.  Because if someone is wrongfully killed there is a value that is placed on that persons life for a one time payout to the Family.  Just like with the 911 attacks.

The person is considered an asset based on their life income.

Think about Divorse.  In many cases the higher income spouse is considered an asset in the division of future income of the higher income spouse.

Mal Practice Law Suits places a value on the wrongfull death of a Loved One based on their income for a financial payout.  Basically saying that the Person that died was an asset to those left behind.

So, the Law is clear that a Person is considered an asset and if a Person is an asset why cannot they Depreciate themselves for taxes?


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:30 | 3104552 Jayda1850
Jayda1850's picture

Ironic that the American and French revolutions had such opposite near term effects, liberty in America and tyranny in France. And yet we both ended up in relatively the same place.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:47 | 3104585 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The vast majority of the people in the world can't conceive of a world with little or no government. They're not wired to.

Many of them emigrated to America and America slowly became France.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:08 | 3104630 SheepleLOVEched...
SheepleLOVEcheddarbaybiscuits's picture

We are living in a time of mass delusion and deceit. We have establishment puppets who have the highest level of public forum to preach propaganda. The masses hear this and have become conditioned to it, the same as Pavlov's dogs. Independent thought and way of life is more or less dead, in relation to the population, and the very few who go against the establishment will end up in the best shape. Ignorance is NOT bliss here people. If you choose to ignore what is happening, you will suffer. Prime example is right here, France. This whole issue is nothing more than the usurping of wealth, to keep a ponzi scheme going, and they expect other people to keep footing the bill. Well, those people are running out of money, and the well is almost dry. They are playing a game, and their game is pretending that they are not playing a game. I say fuck their game. We see you.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:18 | 3104898 The Shootist
The Shootist's picture

Well, the French revolution quickly devolved into hell and atrocity. Napoleon for his part brought about a sense of order, stability, and fairness. There are few people the Fr. had faith in, especially with all the Kings of Europe bearing down upon revolutionary France to subjugate and install a puppet. Napoleon gave them hope and Glory, and ended up whipping all those who were divinely seated. I'm a bit of a Bonapartiste. ;)

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:47 | 3104708 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

All governments creep gradually toward totalitarianism. We are seeing the natural outcome of force, which always results in the exact opposite of the stated intent. We used force to kick the British tyrants out. We used force to establish a "free" State.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:11 | 3104756 Pseudo Anonym
Pseudo Anonym's picture

in a world run by hofjuden printing  fiat at will, it is not

Ironic that the American and French revolutions had such opposite near term effects, liberty in America and tyranny in France. And yet we both ended up in relatively the same place.

the common denominator is hofjuden and their confetti

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:29 | 3104809 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The founders of America created a unique entity that was not based on primogeniture. A classless system were opportunity existed for all people.  These conditions were so unique the World looked to us for emulation.   But we allowed the Marxists to march thru our institutions and now the orthodoxy in schools is left wing.  If the conditions our founders gave us are not appreciated, how can they be defended, we need to take back the institutions.  I find it ironic that modern commies like China and Russia have a flat tax and no inheretance or wealth tax

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:31 | 3104553 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

It isn't a fair redistribution unless it is voluntary.

Other people are not your property, other people's property is not your property.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:37 | 3104565 Water Is Wet
Water Is Wet's picture

"other people's property is not your property."

LOL, DAFUQ!  You described every tax ever.  The Messiah and his obamaphonees have a majority and a mandate to vote that your shit is now their shit.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:39 | 3104573 walküre
walküre's picture

If you don't hide it, the world knows about it. If you hide it, you truly own it.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:01 | 3104615 Salon
Salon's picture

Half ounce gold rounds and coins.

Ten ounces up the ass is no problem for the average guy.

Women can carry double. Make sure you always have a good loyal woman by your side

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:14 | 3104641 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Or Bawney Fwank, who does a lot of stretching exercises.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:43 | 3104698 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

Please stop picking on Jon Corazine, he's got a big job there bundling for the Hopie Changie One ...

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:11 | 3104636 SheepleLOVEched...
SheepleLOVEcheddarbaybiscuits's picture

There is no such thing as a fair distribution. There will always be winners and losers in an economy. Trying to prevent this causes a greater and more unintended distribution.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:32 | 3104554 chubbar
chubbar's picture

The fact that justice Roberts completely reversed his earlier decision to rule Obama Care as unconstitutional just one month away from the announcement tells you all you need to know about our "Just us" system. The supreme court will rule the way they are told to rule.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:02 | 3104617 seek
seek's picture

Sadly true. This was the first time in a very long while I recall hearing about other justices raging about a decision.

The other issue is that the Supremes are a branch of the federal government, and it's unlikely any branch of the federal government will decide the feds have too much power. It's nice that there's checks and balances within the government, but there aren't nearly enough over the government. If we had a do-over the highest court should be managed and controlled at the state level as a judicial check on the feds, just as amendments are a legislative check on the feds.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:05 | 3104678 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

There is a check on the Supreme court. It's called the militia, that is, the armed citizenry.

I agree, though, it might be nice to have a check of a more peaceful nature.

It might be nice if congress actually impeached a judge every now and then for malfesance. Impeachment for the Kelo dicision granting takings of private property without due process and transferance of same to private individuals and entities who promise to give more money to the government is one instance impeachment would have been called for. In my view, every justice voting in the majority in Kelo should have been impeached. Another is the ACA decision that is a twist of all logic and words.

Once Justices are removed and replaced, they may get the message and pay attention to public sentiment. When the offending law is challenged anew, perhaps then they will do the right thing.

Impeachment is akin to no-confidence votes in individual justices. It is a political act. Impeachment can be for any offense, criminal or not.

Congress should respect the judicial branch, but when the court errs egregiously, it should act. Impeachment in such cases will be no small matter. If there is enough political support to remove a justice for a decision, it will be justified. If the court cannot command enough political support to sustain itself against the representatives of the people, then perhaps it does not deserve its autonomy.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:42 | 3104961 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture

dup, sorry


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:52 | 3104713 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

The US Constitution - ignored and dead, I know - actually does make Congress quite supreme over the Supreme Court

It gives the US Congress unlimited power to remove any and all federal judges, including the Supreme Court, for mere lack of 'good behaviour' ... which Congress alone decides.

Such bad 'behaviour' can be simply not honouring the Constitution or basic human rights or common sense. US Constitution says impeachment accusation of house, and trial by Senate.

Impeachment of the US Supreme Court judges would start in the House Judiciary Committee, headed by John Conyers of Detroit ... whose wife was promptly arrested and jailed at the start of Obama's term in office in 2009, when the foolish Mr Conyers thought he would start saying things about some of the corrupt judges who were jailing all the innocent black people ... Conyers was yet another American duped by the criminal Obama.

And regarding the US states as a 'check and balance' on the US Supreme Court ... seems that was tried in 1861, and 600,000 Americans were then killed to establish US nationalist imperialist 'No You Can't' policy

In the EU, European countries have the explicit written right to secede from it ... a shame they forgot that in the US Constitution

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:27 | 3104807 CynicLaureate
CynicLaureate's picture

In 1861, Texas didn't have nuclear weapons.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:58 | 3105020 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

No Justice No peace.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:32 | 3104555 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Well, at least the makers in the USA now have a place to expatriate to. I hear that both the cheese and wine there are excellent.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:35 | 3104556 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

With regard to the US Supreme Court, before we define 'Rich' let us first define 'Empire', 'PetroDollar' and 'Reserve Currency', because in reality, everything else is just masterbation

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:33 | 3104557 djsmps
djsmps's picture

Can we strike down Obama's executive order giving Congress a raise?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:34 | 3104559 Water Is Wet
Water Is Wet's picture

LOL.  The "That's Not Fair" defense of rich people by a national court?!  I'm shocked.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:35 | 3104561 surf0766
surf0766's picture

When does the French Constitutional Court get removed?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:38 | 3104571 Jayda1850
Jayda1850's picture

the next German invasion

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:38 | 3104569 foxmuldar
foxmuldar's picture

Our Problem here in the US is now that Obama has four more years to force feed his Socialist programs down our throats, he also gets to stuff a few more marxists on the Supreme court who will do what he commands. We ain't seen nothing yet. Our goose is cooked. 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:09 | 3104632 Landrew
Landrew's picture

You seem to be TAX stupid. The rich of America do NOT pay standard INCOME tax! The rich pay LONG term CAPITAL GAINS taxes at 15%! 99% of us pay INCOME tax! The truly rich pay very little with respect to total income. With that said I would IF we are not to eliminate the loopholes gladly pay a flat tax via Steve Forbes plan. The rich gain the most in benefit from the backs of working people. It's time to treat companies that move and pay 13% in Ireland Microsoft as an example as FOREIGN companies and tax them accordingly! Let's see how property rights are treated in China companies that turn their backs on America! WE are soft on these ALIEN companies like CATERPILLAR! 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:15 | 3104646 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

I agree that we should Tax Overseas profits.  That loop hole needs to be closed.  That alone could balance the Budget.

If they want to be a US Company then all revenue, no matter where it is earned needs to be Taxed in the US.  If they wish to move off shore then they should not be allowed to Register and have their Stock Traded on the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:18 | 3104779 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

Yes, let's delist all foreign companies. While we are at it, we can deny all foreign entities from doing business in the US. Then, we will not need to worry about taxing foreign earnings of US companies because there will not be any, as the foreigners will have taken it all, or the US companies will just spin off their foreign holdings to avoid being closed down or seized by either the foreigners of our own rapcious government. 

BTW, even taxing 100% of all overseas earnings by dometic corporations will come nowhere close to closing the budget deficit.

Please think and do some homework for Pete's sake.

Why have people suddenly become so hostile to profit? Without profit, everything collapses. The problem is not profits, but rather the heavy hand of a facist or corporatist government rigging the system to pick winners and losers to reward obidience to the state and self-dealing at the expense of everyone else. Such profits are not naturally earned and are immoral, but let's not paint all profits and those seeking profit as immoral or lacking in virtue. Let's focus on the problem.

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 13:37 | 3106497 Archduke
Archduke's picture

or conversely, tax flights of capital overseas.  it really shouldn't matter at all if any business makes a profit.

good for them if they do.  but profit or loss, any transfer of capital out of the economy needs to be taxed.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:53 | 3104715 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

"You seem to be TAX stupid."

Me thinks you be the one inflicted with tax stupidity.

To earn capital gains you must have first earned, saved and invested ordinary income, which was taxed in the first instance. Capital gains taxes are, therefore, a form of seondary or re-taxation of already taxed income.

As far as foreign earnings, these companies produce income in other countries and pay taxes in the jurisdictions as imposed. Why should additional taxes be paid to jurisdictions with no hand in the production of those earnings? Perhaps if we did not have a punitive tax system it would make sense for companies to repatriate earnings. If imposing taxes on capital flight is destructive(no one wants to invest in a roach motel where you can put capital in, but you can't take capital out), then imposiiton of taxes on bringing capital in is even stupider. As is, the potential return on investment does not justify the tax loss imposed by our system.

Why don't we all start thinking in terms of less government and more freedom? 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:20 | 3104786 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

Anyone who thinks it's a revenue problem needs to go to the Beltway for a week.  Walk around the areas where major departments are; watch the mandarins preen and enjoy long cafe lunches, coming to work at 9 and leaving at 3 to avoid the beltway traffic's worst times, and generally acting as if they're the lords of the manor.  Places like McClean, Reston, Herndon, Bethesda, Georgetown, Independence to K-Street area, Pentagon City, Potomac, Rockville, etc. Watch them take their annual luxury cruise, travel to Europe, and just enjoy their month of paid vacations while the foolish private sector serfs are lucky to get two-weeks.   

Once you actually do that trip, not as a tourist, but in investigative journalist mode, you'll know the bitter level of taxation can satisfy the desire to fund the mandarins, not too mention all of the "freebies" Americans have been bred to expect as their natural rights, or even more tragically, the actual critical functions of a just government. 

In other words, we're fucked the minute the world gets the joke and dumps the Dollar-standard and U.S. bond auctions become even more a farce. 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:34 | 3104939 RKDS
RKDS's picture

And yet, if I buy and later resell anything, I get to pay income tax all over again and that's just peachy keen with the poor victimized rich assholes who control the very government that they cry is unfair to them...

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 13:36 | 3106505 Archduke
Archduke's picture

with the caveat that most institutional funds are injected tax-exempt throught 401Ks, RRSPs, etc.

unless you're a mattress stuffing mobster, there's very little double taxation at that level.



Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:44 | 3104969 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture



The Elite themselves own NOTHING taxable, no car, no real estate, no stocks, not even the coat on their back, it is all in trusts in Belize or Liechtenstein. It is the middle class that is going to get taxed into oblivion (Lindsey Williams).

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:43 | 3104577 Racer
Racer's picture

The rich already pay an abnormal share... as in they use all the tax loopholes they can to pay as little as possible

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:46 | 3104583 Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

The real answer is to change the tax laws and formulas so that the more you make the less the TAX RATE is.

You would still end up paying more in tax the more you made, but the rate would be less.

It would actually inspire people to claim more income and pay less of a tax rate on it.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:58 | 3104606 linrom
linrom's picture

They should stop pretending that rich pay any taxes at all.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:51 | 3104586 Insideher Trading
Insideher Trading's picture

Some millionaires are just plain ignorant. Take for example Katt Williams...owes $4 million back taxes to the I.R.S he can't pay. Yet he supported Obama who promised to raise his taxes even more than what he's paying. What kind of sense does that make? And it's not like he's an anomaly, almost every celebrity with tax problems supported Obama. Let me know when someone has figured that one out.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:08 | 3104631 StandardDeviant
StandardDeviant's picture

I think you answered your own question, back in the first sentence there.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:17 | 3104649 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Warren Buffets Company also owes a substancial amount of taxes to the IRS that he refuses to pay.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:32 | 3104935 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 1  

Beat me to it!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:52 | 3104593 linrom
linrom's picture

All economies are about re-distributing wealth from the poor to the rich. I guess that's fair?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:58 | 3104609 Salon
Salon's picture


Obama? Is that you?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:00 | 3104612 Insideher Trading
Insideher Trading's picture

Yes it is fair.

Do you think it's realistic that everyone can be rich?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:08 | 3104628 linrom
linrom's picture

No! That's why they should pay taxes, and you and I should not!

That's what fair means.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:21 | 3104658 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Fair means you get what you deserve. No more, no less.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 12:56 | 3104604 Segestan
Segestan's picture

The latest gig to make the government look ... Fair

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:01 | 3104614 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Big Global Picture from the Insane Asylum: If you proles would just work for free, we’ll stop raising taxes and promise to offer you free government necessities.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:49 | 3104710 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

Wow ! Now I don't have to immigrate to North Korea !

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:38 | 3104949 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

North Korea is and has been a globalist laboratory. Think MK Ultra but with much larger numbers.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:04 | 3104618 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

People need to understand that the income tax in America was instituted as soon as the FED was created. Why? To insure that any debt that was created could be confiscated. This is the true purpose of the income tax- it is a wealth transfer mechanism. 

Consequently, there is NO good reason for an income tax unless you are one of the Elite. They have merely done a great job convincing everyone of the opposite. 

Want to attack the foundation of Elite control? Easy, re-order your life to minimize taxes, FED currency and War. Stop being soldiers- we can't defend our country from home? Black markets deprive governments and banks of money and taxes. Fight for the end of legal tender laws. Stop supporting the legal system. 

Make it your New Year resolution.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:33 | 3104664 Max in St Moritz
Max in St Moritz's picture



This is completely incorrect.  Just another example of libertarians living in a utopian bubble of disinformation and unrealistic ideologies.

The nations first federal income tax was in 1862, and was enacted to help pay for the cost of the civil war.  If you'd like the TRUTH, please Google: The Act of 1862.  

Typical libertarian.  


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:33 | 3104681 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture


Just give me one more stimulus injection. I promise to reform my spending habits & repay all my debt obligations thru our new modeled slant in creating jobs in the US.



Edit: This was the link I meant. The ending explains all

“Major crisis still ahead, past one was minor”

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:44 | 3104695 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Actually Max, it was in 1861, but it was repealed. However, The tax of 1862 was not an income tax as we know it today. See Supreme Court decisions, especially Pollack, that effectively elimnated personal income taxes. The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), was passed by the United States Congress to help fund the American Civil War. The Act was signed into law by PresidentAbraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive rate income tax to the country.

The office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established,[1] with the Act specifying that Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six"). Notice the temporary part?

It was not until the sixteenth amendment, which followed the establishment of the FED charter, that we see a serious and consistent personal income tax in America. Nice try Max. 

Typical disinformation troll.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:58 | 3104726 Freddie
Freddie's picture

A tax to fund Americans killing other Americans in 1861.   The libs in sh*t Hollywood love making a film about Abe because he helped kick off the police state and tyranny.  F Hollywood and F TV.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:05 | 3104739 Max in St Moritz
Max in St Moritz's picture




Your entire rebuttal proves MY point, and negates YOURS.  Perhaps I should have called it the REVENUE Act of 1862, rather than just the Act of 1862???

Federal income taxes did NOT start with the Federal Reserve, which proves your original point WRONG.

And the spirit of the taxes was NOT to confiscate debt; it was to pay for the cost of the civil war.

How can you possibly claim that I was wrong?

The truth is the truth, despite what you want it to be.  You're like Karl Rove, bro! 



Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:15 | 3104767 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Because I never said it was the first income tax, nor referenced the history of taxation in America. I merely stated that the personal income tax followed the establishment of the FED. Which it did. While there have been many taxes established over the years, for example, head taxes, usually on personal property, the sixteenth amendment was the beginning of the present era of personal income tax. 

Nor do you question the relationship between this tax and the FED. Please read the Creature from Jekyll Island. You can even consult the questionable status of whether this tax amendment was ever actually enacted. 

So, you have done nothing to negate my point. Your point was immaterial to my post. Typical of all your posts- Max Fischer. 


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:13 | 3104874 Max in St Moritz
Max in St Moritz's picture


When you begin to squabble over semantics, that's the first sign of losing the bigger argument.

Anyone who would have read your post without my rebuttal would have believed the Fed "instituted" federal income taxes and that it was used to "confiscate debt." Those are your words and it's pure libertarian disinformation. No one would have understood that "debt" was actually another word for taxes. The truth is, income taxes had been levied several times before 1913 but without a centralized currency and a centralized bank it was virtually impossible to govern. 

The true reason why the Fed was able to make income taxes permanent is because, for the very first time in American history, we had a central bank that was in total control of a universal, national currency and could dictate that taxes be paid in that specific currency. Before this time, America was full of various regional currencies issued by regional banks which created financial chaos when trying payoff long distance debts.  So long as the Fed is in control, your labor will always be converted into US dollars so that you can pay your taxes/debt to the government.  Before the Fed, it was difficult to levy taxes with hundreds of competing currencies, most of which were not trusted by citizens who lived in different regions.  How much is one hour of your labor worth in one region's currency versus another regional currency?

Having one currency in one nation, governed by one bank is - despite all the libertarian carnival barking - the most efficient system to have.  In the spirit of Churchill, central banking is the worst sort of banking except for all the others that have been tried.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:50 | 3104991 ZeroAvatar
ZeroAvatar's picture

Wow!   Those are some well-scripted talking points!   Troll much?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 16:01 | 3105030 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The US has had three central banks. The First National Bank, which was an excuse to fleece the people, where nine elites were to provide one tenth of the capital and the government (the People) the final tenth. Only the final tenth by the government was ever contributed. The Bank went on to expand currency beyond its' value and its' charter was revoked. 

The Second National Bank, a creature of the War of 1812 and excessive government debt, did exactly the same thing, being responsible for the Panic of 1919- our first depression. Its' charter was revoked under Jackson's presidency and was the last time the US had ZERO federal debt. 

The Current FED is the third incarnation of the Central bank. This time, through the use of the income tax and the creation of massive debts through Fiat currency and given a hundred year reign of terror, we are where we are today- in possession of more debt than can be paid or even taxed to cover. 

The transfer of wealth has been almost complete. 

Why you think this is all worthwhile when all we need is a central clearing system- something that was quite successful in New England banking, without the tyranny of the the FED is beyond belief. To ignore the debasement of currency, debt accumulation and capture of interest rates- all placed in the hands of international bankers makes you what I said in the first place- disinformation troll. Looks like most of the readers agree.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 17:35 | 3105278 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

In the spirit of Churchill, central banking is the worst sort of banking except for all the others that have been tried.


A completely free market in banking has never been tried. Central planning, like all collectivist ideas, is not required to accomplish a strong economy and more prosperous society. In fact it accomplishes the exact opposite.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:35 | 3104942 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

And you 'bro' are like MSNBC.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:16 | 3104777 Optimusprime
Optimusprime's picture

It was also unconstitutional, and eventually was ruled as such.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:05 | 3104622 VonSalza
VonSalza's picture

A great day for the 1%

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:26 | 3104661 JonNadler
JonNadler's picture

aux armes citoyens!!!


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:35 | 3104944 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Oui, oui ,mon amis!

Good seeing ya around!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:26 | 3104666 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

The French are pikers. The US has had income taxes as high as 94% (1944-1945). The top tax rate was 70% or higher from 1936 to 1981.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:43 | 3104699 Insideher Trading
Insideher Trading's picture

Tell us about the deductions too

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:33 | 3104936 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

And did you know that Unicorns are actually real creatures as well? It's true, but rich people just won't let you see them:)

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:26 | 3104668 Martin T
Martin T's picture

France grand illusion...

"Europe will become united through its money or not at all."
Jacques Rueff.

It was in 1950 that French economist Jacques Rueff, made this prophecy. In 1958, he was financial counselor to President De Gaulle and was instrumental in designing France's successful 1958 reforms. We think his prophecy is about to be put to the test, given the urgent need of structural reforms for France. Our reference to Rueff and 1958 is by no means "innocent", France's current economic situation is a reminder of the dire situation France was in 1958 which saw the return of Charles de Gaulle to power.
The 1958 plan:
"Fiscal policies were focused on revenue and spending in order to bring about budgetary equilibrium. On the revenue side, so-called “sin” taxes were increased, tax loopholes were closed, and tax evaders were punished. On the spending side, social security benefits were abolished, universal handouts were minimized, and industry subsidies were reduced or eliminated."

How to play the upcoming widening of French spreads...

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:30 | 3104673 Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

..Et si la Cour Supreme des Etas-Unis en avait?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:34 | 3104680 LMAO
LMAO's picture
French Constitutional Court Strikes Down 75% Millionaire Tax, Finds It "Unfair"

That's what you get when you have millionaires decide what's fair for them.

Sheer logic dictates the outcome.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:22 | 3104793 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

If that were the case, the legislation would have never been proposed in the first place. I reccommend you leaving us here and you grabbing a nice torch with you and your buddies and going down to a rich neighborhood and hate on rich people and achievement there in person. You should get some nice attention. 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:38 | 3104690 Tekrunner
Tekrunner's picture

I shouldn't be surprised that ZH would try to paint a decision about taxes as negatively as possible, but it's still disappointing. The court didn't rule that the tax was unfair because it's a 75% tax, but because it would have applied to individuals, instead of households (like all other income taxes in France). Hence the badly worded comment in the Reuters report : a household where someone makes 1.1 million a year and no one else has any income would have had to pay 75% on the top 100k euros, whereas in a household where both partners each made 999k a year the 75% bracket would not have applied. The court ruled that the first household would have been unfairly penalized compared to the second one.

You can rest assured that Hollande will submit a new version of that law.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:00 | 3104731 BraveSirRobin
BraveSirRobin's picture

This is true. All that needs to be done id to modify the law. However, it gives oppenents another chance to block the change and thus scrap the whole thing. Given its negative economic effect, perhaps reason will prevail.

As background, I think income taxes a inherently evil and make us all a slave to the state. It is amazing that after fighting a civil war in this country to eliminate the practice of private slavery, we turned around an imposed a system of public slavery.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:07 | 3104748 foxmuldar
foxmuldar's picture

When all the Millionares leave France, you can bet they will lower the tax threshold to 750,00 or maybe even 500,000. Socialist only know one thing. Stealing from those who earn and giving to those who sit on their lazy asses providing nothing to the economy or society. Were seeing this today here In America. 47 Million on food stamps. How many of those voted against Obama. I'll bet less then 1 percent. 

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:26 | 3104800 I am on to you
I am on to you's picture

How does that Paradigme, comply, with all the Hedgefunds, living in tax haven on Cayman,i remember a number of 35.000,and million of sister companys,spread all over the globe,in taxloopholes.


So forget all this crap,when the rich leaves,they already left,in terms of tax,so it dont work.

47 million,how many Chineese got their jobs?????And thats only US,any where you cant swap unemployed to Chineese,i dont like Obama,but he didnt move the jobs.

Give the rich a Kindergarden???At the southpole,their the can cool it!On the rocks!

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 05:06 | 3106136 godzila
godzila's picture

Absolutely - Tyler completely missed the point on this one. The law was not deemed unconstitutional because of the taxation rate but because of the way it would be applied. BIG difference. I really hope to see some update on the matter.

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 12:26 | 3106521 Archduke
Archduke's picture

uh, can you not read?  Tyler quoted that bit verbatim.

you're projecting other's lack of discernment on the author.

Mon, 12/31/2012 - 06:30 | 3108389 godzila
godzila's picture

Well I woud have expected a little more research in the matter (which, turns out, is interresting). I'm convienced that ZH doesn't quote verbatim any bogus piece of propaganda that heppens to hit the newswire...

At the very least an update to the post is warranted - I have tried (as many others, presumably) to reach out to ZH but I guess nobody's home.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:39 | 3104692 Jeepers Creepers
Jeepers Creepers's picture

The excuse I get so tired of hearing to justify these excessive and immoral taxes are "the rich have loopholes, so we need to make the number as high as possible!". 

Then close these mystical loopholes, don't keep raising the tax rate. 

FYI, as someone who is "rich", the loophole argument is absurd. With an AMT, I don't even qualify for normal deductions like a child tax credit.  My available "loopholes" are basically charity and a mortgage deduction.  I pay more to Uncle Sam than I spend on my house, children, food, clothing, retirement, car, fuel etc.  I'm sure that's what our Founding Father's envisioned for our Country when they fought the British.  That we'd all be slaves to the State.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:41 | 3104693 robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

The govt should take 10% tax at most. Of course then there will be 5 levels of govt each taking 10%.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:16 | 3104770 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

There already are.  When you consider Property Tax, Corporation Property Tax, Sales Tax, paid to the State.  Gas Tax, Phone Tax,  Energy Tax on Gas and Electric bills, Vehicle registration Tax, etc.  Then you have all of the fees.  Driver Liscense renewal, emmissions fee, permit fees, vehicle tags, Corporation registration fees, etc.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 16:08 | 3105048 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

You forgot the $3,400 a year I pay in HOA fees.

Oh wait, that's a cost of livng in an area where services rendered are outside of governmental scope.

I still have to pay the other taxes you mentioned, so I got that going for me.

Where's my bailout...

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:45 | 3104703 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

I guess Hollande wasn't able to replace the members of the Court with Socialists quickly enough. Give him time.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:46 | 3104704 Pharming
Pharming's picture

I have faith that this "ruling" will not just "go away".  France is still helping hold up the Euro.  It won't be too long when those that feed off the government start burning France to the ground.  I'm sure the big world govt guys/gals would love to see a little more split in the classes.  That's the way to keep the wealthy running and the poor throwing rocks at the Mercedes.  There is a big population of immigrants that do NOT adopt France's culture.  They bring their own culture with them.  They will see to it that the streets will be burning.  Smell that?  Burning tires and the sweet smell of Sharia Law.  Ugh.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 17:48 | 3105303 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

You can't celebrate diversity without a fire and a sing-a-long.

Pass the s'mores.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:47 | 3104707 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

The reality is that the accumulated debt of nations and many individuals is unsustainable.

The bigger reality is that even if the excess debt was burnt off, many economies are still unsustainable because of the unfunded nature of their politicians'promises and their citizens' expectations.

All of this is the result of governments rather than markets deciding on solutions. So as long as ignorant, greedy and incompetent politicians persist with the assistance of clueless central banks, there will be no solution, just a bigger and bigger societal explosion down the track.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:07 | 3104719 Pharming
Pharming's picture

The quadrillion dollar question is WHEN is the bigger societal explosion down the track coming?  Will we want to be as far away as possible from "organized" society?  

I'm not worried about asking a paranoid question like this...I'm already on watch lists.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:08 | 3104751 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

I agree that we would want to be as far away as possible from "organized" society when the societal explosion takes place, but I fear that "organized" society and less prepared neighbours will come looking for us anyway.

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 12:32 | 3106535 Archduke
Archduke's picture

if or when chaos comes, you will only survive by virtue of an organized society.

the question is what level of organization is appropriate with resource density?

how local should should it be?  a family clan? a kibbutz?, a village? a city-state?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 13:53 | 3104714 cosmyccowboy
cosmyccowboy's picture

wee wee wwweeeeeeeeeeeee

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:01 | 3104732 IridiumRebel
IridiumRebel's picture

Laffer Curve anyone?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:15 | 3104769 I am on to you
I am on to you's picture

I had a dream,i dreamt,France, was Cayman Islands,then i woke, and realised, its still English!


Who in their wildest nightmare,would have thought, the Rich would pay tax,thats what they have the imbecils to do!

They crawl into, any taxloophole availble,even, if its the Arse ,of the pope,or Rumpy or Lastrate!

Strange, it hasnt come to the point yet,that to eradicate poverty,just kill the poor!

Are we all, in it together, or yes!200.000 dollars for a facelift with a Branson Virgin,gota hurt to be rich!!Capitalism or socialism,same club owners!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:18 | 3104782 Mad Muppet
Mad Muppet's picture

Note from the Frog Govt: Pleeze, evil riche people...we take it back. Pleeze come back and let us tax you at a lower rate! We didn't mean it! If you bring back your nice money, we'll let you keep some, for now at least. We love you and your dear, sweet money!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:34 | 3104822 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Damn pesky constitutions!  What were they thinking when they made those things!!! Mommy!!!!!

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 14:50 | 3104846 pcrs
pcrs's picture

It's all just arbitrary plunder, wether 1% or 75%, starting from 100k or 100M. It is handing over the fruits of your labour, not for a good product or service, but because of the threat of force by the elites. This while you had to strictly adhere to voluntary relationships when you were making the money. It would not be accepted if you went around taxing people, or euphemistically:asking them for fair share contributions.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:07 | 3104866 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Unconstitutional?  Is that some 20th century word?  Can rich people still use that word?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:04 | 3104867 Dre4dwolf
Dre4dwolf's picture

75%? Hahaha thats not a TAX thats just kicking the rich people out of the country with their money.

If I was going to be taxed 75% I would honestly just packup and leave, in-fact I would leave just for them suggesting it.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:21 | 3104904 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Oh.... The horror! This must be the final straw then! These corrupt and incompetent courts clearly do not serve social justice and so must be reformed. Gaze aghast at the injustice rendered by these few upon the masses, these robed representatives of the rich and privileged.

Such an outrage of defiance against the people must be met with a firm and truly resounding response.....




Sat, 12/29/2012 - 17:28 | 3105269 Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

After some tries the Income Tax was permanently established in 1913. The greatest motivation was to get a revenue stream that was not dependent on alcohol tax. A PBS series on Prohibition clearly demonstrated that. Once the income tax was in then the Prohibitionist began their work.

France levies income tax on household not individual.  I don't understand the nuance. Is it like married filing jointly.


Sat, 12/29/2012 - 17:45 | 3105297 Royal Wulff
Royal Wulff's picture

The rich pay more even if the tax rate is flat.

Face it, the statist definition of fairness is not based on how much you pay, it's based on how much you're left with.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 18:09 | 3105319 MFLTucson
MFLTucson's picture

Here is one that is unfair. Millions of lazy blacks and low life whites have lived off this government for decades and contribute nothing to maintain the infrastructure they use. That is where this needs to be directed. Get these fucking bums back paying into the system and get rid of the drain on society and the country will return to fiscal health.  No work should equal no food, no healthcare. End of discussion unless you are dealing with children under 18, severe disability, illness or old age. And if you do not file taxes, you should not be allowed to vote.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 20:05 | 3105543 smiler03
smiler03's picture

Will those who die from starvation (while their kids eat??) qualify for hygienic disposal of their bodies or will they be left to rot in the streets?

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 20:11 | 3105563 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Well who are the enablers?  Problem is they created a mess so huge we're in real trouble now.

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 19:29 | 3105487 smacker
smacker's picture

It's noteworthy that the cancerous socialists across the English-speaking world are in lockstep using the same phony rhetoric to steal from any group they don't like (usually defined as anybody who doesn't vote for them).

Sat, 12/29/2012 - 20:30 | 3105596 jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

Don't listen to them, it's a trap!  Don't go back!


Really though, if enough countries start driving for the same thing and tax havens are being broken down by foreign influence then the rich will start to run out of places to hide.

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 05:36 | 3106143 falak pema
falak pema's picture

froth and bubbles; they will change the rules of its application, its only a mirage this tax measure. 

The 75% tax measure is symbolic. Its socialist demagogy at its worst and Hollande needs his butt kicked for his false smoke n mirrors play to please his left electorate who put him there.

THe real program of France is to break down its government spending currently in leviathan mode. Painful for a country that has been living off that teat since Napoleon; both left and right. But that's the legacy of Globalisation and there is no going back; its march with time or die. 

In the next five years we will see big changes to Eurozone integration, to fiscal harmonisation, to productivity rise and longer work hours in France to align itself with Germany. They have this obsession; Merkel's world; and all CLub Med now has to tighten belt, suffer in silence as the race of European survival is on. No energy, hi-costs, no way out but from innovation and paradigm change.

We are in tipping times and this is a global race. 

First world blues as  the financialised world now gapes at the gaping hole they have made  in land of fiat hopium: "Did WE really do that?"

You bet! Guess whose going to fall into it? 

Sun, 12/30/2012 - 12:49 | 3106569 Archduke
Archduke's picture

perhaps instead of 75% tax, it should be 75% mandatory investment in industry, infrastructure, health and ecuation.

but who are we to replace the invisible hand?  in an ideal orderly market those riches are already parked in productive assets.


then again maybe not.  the world is not ideal.  so redistribution's role is to coax back on the right track.


I would say the best we can do is insist on local development funds, and prohibit rentier type assets that offer no value-added.

that is if we should have any tax on profit at all. it seems unfair to confiscate such a massive chunk, and we should trust the

market to be a more efficient re-allocator of the monies than govt.  we only need to gently steer it in the right areas.

long term, this should be a win-win.



Sun, 12/30/2012 - 13:44 | 3106649 Archduke
Archduke's picture

or even something in between, a bit less radical.  it seems to me a lot of corruption, nepotism,

and shameles pork in govt comes from the fact that officials allocate funds where they see fit. 


maybe if govt's principal role is to draft projects, proposals, and solutions for different sectors,

and serve as a double auction house to match bid tenders from suppliers and funding offers

from investors, by which I mean we the tax paying stakeholders and our tax dollars.


each of us in turn gets to choose where we want those tax dollars allocated, to which projects.

dead end losing projects get quickly defunded. good projects either pay for themselves or have

enough philanthropic goodwill and democratic support backing them.  a danger is it does appear

to break with 1 person == 1 vote, being more akin to 1 dollar = 1 vote.  we need to focus on

a way to grade priorities by weight that don't encourage the tyranny of affluent majorities...


perhaps sectorial quotas, but we have to avoid 5-year style central planning. maybe sectorial

auctions in collective priority weighed by 1-person=1vote ballot. where choice reduces if you

stray too much...


in short, something between liquid democracy and participative markets.

something that makes each of us a stakeholder and holds officials to account.


check out:









Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!