France plans to implement 75% tax bracket on the rich

[CBWx2]

If there was even an indication that spending was being brought under minimal control I suspect few would complain about taxes.  But to offer higher taxes on 1-5% highest earners as a solution without some spending control is ludicrous - worse than pissing into the wind

The time to balance budgets is during the boom times, not the lean times.  Europe is learning this the hard way, that austerity is not the way to recover from a recession. 

And in case you didn't know, only 3% of small business owners have more than $250K in take-home income.

Solid post.

Also, before the Reagan Revolution the US's marginal tax rate was at 70%, so what France is proposing isn't all that radical.

[Dolorous Jason]

The time to balance budgets is during the boom times, not the lean times.  Europe is learning this the hard way, that austerity is not the way to recover from a recession. 

What a moronic post.  Europe is learning the hard way because they believe it's the government's job to micro-manage the entire economy . It's not. The only reason we have so many booms and busts is because we are creating false bubbles through fiat currency , subsidies , temporary and/or unnecessary jobs , etc. If you ever give government the liscense to spend all it wants , it won't seize to spend that money in the boom times , it will claim that money as essential as proved by recovery , and continue to spend it. We are 16 trillion in debt largely due to "good intentions" of nitwit liberals like yourself , and it will never end. No matter the times. Get a clue.

The market will correct itself if government gets out of the way , and it would be a true recovery built on solid ground, not a bubble built on subsidies to pet corporations and printed money. Imagine that. This myth that "it's governments job to create jobs for us " is the kind of idiocy that creates the cycle of dependecy you nanny staters are dragging us down with.

[BucNY]

All the tax the rich stuff just seems like envious people whining that someone else is smarter, harder working, or just got plain lucky. What I don't get is why everyone is yelling tax the rich, tax the rich but no one is yelling tax the people who don't claim their income.

I do not think more tax revenue is anything but a short term fix but it would seem logical to have every pay the same percentage of tax. Wouldn't that then be considered a fair share? Rather than tax the honest people to death and oh by the way almost 50% of the population pays zero tax.

Nope, he's got a bigger house than me, no fair, tax him, he's greedy.

You should research your "beliefs" more thoroughly.  Theres a condition called "Stockholm Syndrome" that you are obviously suffering from.

I know what stockholm syndrome is. I also know that almost 50% of people pay zero federal income taxes. I also know a fair share is the same tax bracket for everyone, you make more money you are taxed more money but not at a higher rate. I also know that given the government more money will result in them spending more money, not paying down debt.

Am I missing something?

[Dolorous Jason]

All the tax the rich stuff just seems like envious people whining that someone else is smarter, harder working, or just got plain lucky. What I don't get is why everyone is yelling tax the rich, tax the rich but no one is yelling tax the people who don't claim their income.

I do not think more tax revenue is anything but a short term fix but it would seem logical to have every pay the same percentage of tax. Wouldn't that then be considered a fair share? Rather than tax the honest people to death and oh by the way almost 50% of the population pays zero tax.

Nope, he's got a bigger house than me, no fair, tax him, he's greedy.

You should research your "beliefs" more thoroughly.  Theres a condition called "Stockholm Syndrome" that you are obviously suffering from.

I know what stockholm syndrome is. I also know that almost 50% of people pay zero federal income taxes. I also know a fair share is the same tax bracket for everyone, you make more money you are taxed more money but not at a higher rate. I also know that given the government more money will result in them spending more money, not paying down debt.

Am I missing something?

Nope , you pretty much nailed it.

[dbucfan]

If there was even an indication that spending was being brought under minimal control I suspect few would complain about taxes.  But to offer higher taxes on 1-5% highest earners as a solution without some spending control is ludicrous - worse than pissing into the wind

The time to balance budgets is during the boom times, not the lean times.  Europe is learning this the hard way, that austerity is not the way to recover from a recession. 

And in case you didn't know, only 3% of small business owners have more than $250K in take-home income.

And I might well agree in "normal" times - but with the amount of literally unbridled spending taking the country to the brink of 16 trillion in debt these are not normal times.  As to the small business comment - I don't see any difference between the Small Business owner and any other person in the top 1-5% at the top of income. 

I would offer the largess provided by European countries is the cause of their discomfort.  The idea of not working but being compensated was certainly appealing - but that is a lot of what has led to their current situation.  A similar but slightly different situation is currently found in the US - and that is a factor in many of the issues the Country faces. 

[deadzone]

There's also a condition called the "Beltway Syndrome"........once elected and inside the infected zone, everything changes. Campaign promises go into the Potomac during a strong outgoing tide....

[CBWx2]

The time to balance budgets is during the boom times, not the lean times.  Europe is learning this the hard way, that austerity is not the way to recover from a recession. 

What a moronic post.  Europe is learning the hard way because they believe it's the government's job to micro-manage the entire economy . It's not.

What they learned was that it was a mistake to be so heavily reliant on the performance of our economy. The global financial crisis wasn't caused by government intervention, it was caused by a lack of it, more specifically, our lack of it.

The only reason we have so many booms and busts is because we are creating false bubbles through fiat currency , subsidies , temporary and/or unnecessary jobs , etc.

No it isn't. There are many factors that can cause boom/bust cycles. You are oversimplifying to suit your political agenda. Certainly, if used improperly, those things can cause false bubbles, but they can also be tools to mitigate or eliminate naturally occurring boom/bust cycles and stabilize the economy.

If you ever give government the liscense to spend all it wants , it won't seize to spend that money in the boom times , it will claim that money as essential as proved by recovery , and continue to spend it.

Actually, US history has proven the opposite. After accumulating a great deal of public debt during the great depression, real debt and debt as a percentage of GDP was in a steady decline in the US from the late 1940's to 1980. It wasn't until the 1980's that public debt began to steadily increase.

We are 16 trillion in debt largely due to "good intentions" of nitwit liberals like yourself , and it will never end. No matter the times. Get a clue.

As stated above, we didn't begin on this debt track until the 1980's. It wasn't a nitwit liberal that nearly tripled the national debt over an 8 year period, it was Reaganomics, or what GHW Bush accurately defined as "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential election. It was the insistence on tax cuts after tax cuts that cause the deficit to balloon. You cannot continuously cut revenues without cutting spending and expect that it will not create a gaping deficit. Perhaps it's you who needs to get a clue, and a history book.

The market will correct itself if government gets out of the way , and it would be a true recovery built on solid ground, not a bubble built on subsidies to pet corporations and printed money. Imagine that. This myth that "it's governments job to create jobs for us " is the kind of idiocy that creates the cycle of dependecy you nanny staters are dragging us down with.

Who thinks it's the government's job to create jobs for us?

[spartan]

Who thinks it's the government's job to create jobs for us?

Obama.

[dbucfan]

The time to balance budgets is during the boom times, not the lean times.  Europe is learning this the hard way, that austerity is not the way to recover from a recession. 

What a moronic post.  Europe is learning the hard way because they believe it's the government's job to micro-manage the entire economy . It's not.

What they learned was that it was a mistake to be so heavily reliant on the performance of our economy. The global financial crisis wasn't caused by government intervention, it was caused by a lack of it, more specifically, our lack of it.

Damn us for forcing them to retire in their early 50's and depend on those younger to pay for their elders until they passed.  Damn us for forcing their unions to run wild.  Damn us for forcing them towards a socialistic society where others will take care of them and there is no need to feel responsible for oneself.  And damn us for forcing their dependence upon another country's actions which they have no control over.  I see your point.  Someone should have taken care of them.   

[CBWx2]

The time to balance budgets is during the boom times, not the lean times.  Europe is learning this the hard way, that austerity is not the way to recover from a recession. 

What a moronic post.  Europe is learning the hard way because they believe it's the government's job to micro-manage the entire economy . It's not.

What they learned was that it was a mistake to be so heavily reliant on the performance of our economy. The global financial crisis wasn't caused by government intervention, it was caused by a lack of it, more specifically, our lack of it.

Damn us for forcing them to retire in their early 50's and depend on those younger to pay for their elders until they passed.  Damn us for forcing their unions to run wild.  Damn us for forcing them towards a socialistic society where others will take care of them and there is no need to feel responsible for oneself.  And damn us for forcing their dependence upon another country's actions which they have no control over.  I see your point.  Someone should have taken care of them.   

The highlighted portion is the only thing that contributed to the global financial crisis, and I don't believe I said that we forced them into anything. I said it was their mistake.

[dbucfan]

Exactly - and they made their decisions based upon their banks and governmental structure - which are damned near one and the same.  Not too clear how more of their government would have benefited them. 

[Dolorous Jason]

Who thinks it's the government's job to create jobs for us?

Obama.

...and Romney also. In fact, the majority of Americans seem to believe this insanity . That's why when a candidate tells us , " I'm going to create jobs , and I have a plan to do it", we accept it like it the mind-numbed dependent zombies we've become.

[Dolorous Jason]

As stated above, we didn't begin on this debt track until the 1980's. It wasn't a nitwit liberal that nearly tripled the national debt over an 8 year period, it was Reaganomics

The Cold War is what caused a sky-rocketing debt during the 80's , not Reagan's belief in limited government. But that's a nice attempt to twist history.

Not to mention Reagan was not a king , so 90% of the things he really wanted to do were never even tried - like the elimination of the Dept. of Education for example.

[CBWx2]

As stated above, we didn't begin on this debt track until the 1980's. It wasn't a nitwit liberal that nearly tripled the national debt over an 8 year period, it was Reaganomics

The Cold War is what caused a sky-rocketing debt during the 80's , not Reagan's belief in limited government. But that's a nice attempt to twist history.

I'm not twisting anything. You are. Let's analyze. It wasn't Reagan's belief in limited government that skyrocketed the debt, it was the Cold War? How is tripling down on the defense budget limiting government, exactly? Also, how exactly did the Cold War lead to skyrocketed debt? Perhaps because spending was increased under Reagan while taxes were simultaneously cut?

Not to mention Reagan was not a king , so 90% of the things he really wanted to do were never even tried - like the elimination of the Dept. of Education for example.

I see, so it's not Reagan's fault, it's congresses. So is the same true for Obama?

[Dolorous Jason]

As stated above, we didn't begin on this debt track until the 1980's. It wasn't a nitwit liberal that nearly tripled the national debt over an 8 year period, it was Reaganomics

The Cold War is what caused a sky-rocketing debt during the 80's , not Reagan's belief in limited government. But that's a nice attempt to twist history.

I'm not twisting anything. You are. Let's analyze. It wasn't Reagan's belief in limited government that skyrocketed the debt, it was the Cold War? How is tripling down on the defense budget limiting government, exactly? Also, how exactly did the Cold War lead to skyrocketed debt? Perhaps because spending was increased under Reagan while taxes were simultaneously cut?

Not to mention Reagan was not a king , so 90% of the things he really wanted to do were never even tried - like the elimination of the Dept. of Education for example.

I see, so it's not Reagan's fault, it's congresses. So is the same true for Obama?

Why does defense spending fall in line with a belief in limited government?
Because defense is one of the few enumerated powers of the federal goverernment ( try reading the constitution sometime ) , and spending in that area will tend to skyrocket in a war-time situation, unfortunately.

Is it Congresses fault and not Obama ?
It's both. Reagan should bear some of the blame, although he had a Democratic Congress for the majority of his presidency , and nothing came easy .  Obama's bonehead spending policies have all had enough Democratic and RINO support to pass ; Obama care , the joke of a stimulis plan , you name it.  It's a lot easier to increase the size of government than to try and drastically cut it . The resistance to cutting is always greater , because governement by it's very nature always wants to increase it's size and importance.