We have been discussing the tax policies of President Francois Hollande’s Socialist government — a record that I have criticized as ruinous from an economic standpoint. A recent report indicates that for some high-earning families — more than 8,000 — the Hollande policies impose a 100% tax. It is the ultimate “eat the rich” policy. Even for those families facing a 75% rate, it is unclear why they would continue to work in the country. Many are not. France is experiencing a flight of both high earners and companies.
The bizarre 100% tax is the result of a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million). The surcharge was imposed shortly after Hollande took office on a promise to hit the rich with high taxes. The Hollande 75% direct tax was so unfair that the Constitutional Council struck it down. However, this report states that the one-off levy effectively pushed some families to a 100% tax.
The newspaper Les Echos found that nearly 12,000 households paid taxes last year worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 revenues due to the exceptional levy. ($1 = 0.7798 euros).
Putting aside how many families are impacted by taxes above 75%, it is in my view an insane, self-destructive economic policy for France. I just spent an evening with a friend and his parents discussing the situation in France. This is a moderate family politically that has long fished in French waters. My friend is now an American citizen but his parents and family remain in France. They recounted how they had to destroy half of their ships because of taxes. They are seeing other businesses doing the same or simply moving out of France. These a patriotic and proud French people but they are watching their government cannibalize off the economy. The government is getting instant revenue while killing revenue producing businesses. It is like eating the grapes and roots of the vineyards of Bordeaux for food and leaving the fields barren.
As someone who truly loves visiting France, it is disheartening to watch Hollande’s cultural war on the wealthy. I favor higher taxes as part of a comprehensive package of reforms in this country and other countries. However, Hollande’s expressed hatred of the rich resulted in a political success and now an economic disaster. It is also grossly unfair to wealth French who love their country and are not opposed to making sacrifices. Hollande played the class card and told the French that their problems were due to a sinister upper class rather than France’s high labor costs and burgeoning budgets. Even if one dismisses this study and the one-year levy, there are still many thousands of families and businesses who face a government demanding 75 percent tax rates.
These policies however will only lengthen the economic crisis. Indeed, France is already viewed as a hostile country for business and that is likely to continue under Hollande who is fighting the French judges to impose taxes higher than what is viewed as constitutional or fair by the courts.
Source: Reuters
To illustrate the difference, I can bet that a coin flip will come up heads. If I hope it comes up heads, but I am realistic, I will only bet what I can afford to not miss.
If I were to act as though it is certain to come up heads, I should bet everything I own.
DavidM: You are saying that someone with optimism and hope is irresponsible if he does not make provision for all possible disasters that might happen to him.
I did not say that. But I will say that somebody that is delusional can act irresponsibly by allowing his delusion to convince him he has nothing to worry about. I have optimism and hope, but my actions are grounded in reality which I know can be capriciously brutal.
There is a gulf of difference between hoping you never get in a serious accident, and acting as though it is certain you will never get in a serious accident.
Bron: You can have a monopoly but it isnt going to last very long because other products and services will drive out price predators.
That is wishful thinking. If a sociopath has a monopoly, they will be price predators, and if competition arises they will under-price them no matter what it costs, even if they lose money, as long as they bankrupt the new competition. Then they will make up that loss by returning to their predatory pricing.
Do that a few times, throw in a small flood of frivolous lawsuits the startup cannot afford, and nobody in their right mind will try to compete with them because the result is certain bankruptcy in a war of attrition that they cannot win.
Your presumption of an endless stream of innovations and better products is more wishful thinking. Product improvement always reaches a point of diminishing returns and most of the routine products we buy (like foods and snacks) are balanced on a pinpoint pinnacle from which they have not deviated in decades and will probably never deviate. That is how Ruffles can be produced by a hundred million dollar robot factory that dumps dirty potatoes and tankers of oil in one end and extrudes cartons of bagged chips at the other, automatically loaded into 18 wheelers. Which in thirty years will probably be driven cross country by robots, too!
The idea that every product can be improved is a myth; the idea that without regulation to restrain Goliath some David can come along and kill the giant is also a myth. As they say, the race does not always go to the swiftest and the fight does not always go to the strongest, but that’s the way to bet.
The government can avoid that conflict of interest. It is the only institution that can truly operate at zero-profit, because it can make up any shortfall in one year with adjusted pricing in the next. What that enables is a fundamental change in motivation; namely their goal is to do the most good with the budget they are given. So unlike their for-profit counterpart, their priorities are not profit driven, but outcome driven. For a hospital, to preserve the most life hours, within the budget we are given.
A government organization does not have that problem or conflict of interest. It is the only institution that can truly operate at zero-profit, because it has infinite credit and can make up any shortfall in one year with adjusted pricing in the next. What that means is their motivation can be changed in a fundamental way; namely the goal of the government run organization is to accomplish the most good with the budget it is given. So unlike the for-profit counterpart, priority is not given to the most profitable, or the rich. Instead, we can essentially triage and treat the most severe and prevent the worst catastrophes. The more budget we get the more good we can do, but in my view that would be up to the public to decide.
If we provided health care at cost, even though individual employees may be well paid the costs would plummet. The issue in health care costs are we are beset by vampires in the insurance industry and for-profit health care industry and pharmaceutical industry that all profit from human misery and existential desperation. And ANY for-profit establishment that profits from human misery and desperation is faced with in irreconcilable conflict of interest: Their profit margin reduces the amount of care we can collectively get for our money, and that reduced care translates into dead and disabled bodies.
If we socialized medicine these gouging practices could stop. Doctors could still make money; we can pay what the market will bear; and their average income now is only in the $200K range per year.
If we socialized medicine these gouging practices could stop. Doctors could still make money; we can pay what the market will bear; and their average income now is only in the $200K range per year.
If we provided health care at cost, even though individual employees may be well paid the costs would plummet. The issue in health care costs are we are beset by vampires in the insurance industry and for-profit health care industry and pharmaceutical industry that all profit from human misery and existential desperation. And ANY for-profit establishment that profits from human misery and desperation is faced with in irreconcilable conflict of interest: Their profit margin reduces the amount of care we can collectively get for our money, and that reduced care translates into dead and disabled bodies.
A government organization does not have that problem or conflict of interest. It is the only institution that can truly operate at zero-profit, because it has infinite credit and can make up any shortfall in one year with adjusted pricing in the next. What that means is their motivation can be changed in a fundamental way; namely the goal of the government run organization is to accomplish the most good with the budget it is given. So unlike the for-profit counterpart, priority is not given to the most profitable, or the rich. Instead, we can essentially triage and treat the most severe and prevent the worst catastrophes. The more budget we get the more good we can do, but in my view that would be up to the public to decide.
I did not say the insurance or medical or pharmaceuticals were just hunky dory as they stand; I would overhaul them if I could. They have also been corrupted by sociopaths and act against the common good, always in the name of yet another dollar.
DavidM: you say this and you do not see anything wrong with a $200K medical bill being forced upon someone?
On the contrary, I see a great deal wrong with that, which is one reason I am in favor of socialized medicine, which is successful in several countries AND in this one, in the form of the Veterans Administration Hospitals, which are consistently highly rated on 45 metrics by the Joint Commission responsible for hospital accreditation and periodic, detailed inspections.
DavidM: you say this and you do not see anything wrong with a $200K medical bill being forced upon someone?
On the contrary, I see a great deal wrong with that, which is one reason I am in favor of socialized medicine, which is successful in several countries AND in this one, in the form of the Veterans Administration Hospitals, which are consistently highly rated on 45 metrics by the Joint Commission responsible for hospital accreditation and periodic, detailed inspections.
If we socialized medicine these gouging practices could stop. Doctors could still make money; we can pay what the market will bear; and their average income now is only in the $200K range per year.
If we provided health care at cost, even though individual employees may be well paid the costs would plummet. The issue in health care costs are we are beset by vampires in the insurance industry and for-profit health care industry and pharmaceutical industry that all profit from human misery and existential desperation. And ANY for-profit establishment that profits from human misery and desperation is faced with in irreconcilable conflict of interest: Their profit margin reduces the amount of care we can collectively get for our money, and that reduced care translates into dead and disabled bodies.
A government organization does not have that problem or conflict of interest. It is the only institution that can truly operate at zero-profit, because it has infinite credit and can make up any shortfall in one year with adjusted pricing in the next. What that means is their motivation can be changed in a fundamental way; namely the goal of the government run organization is to accomplish the most good with the budget it is given. So unlike the for-profit counterpart, priority is not given to the most profitable, or the rich. Instead, we can essentially triage and treat the most severe and prevent the worst catastrophes. The more budget we get the more good we can do, but in my view that would be up to the public to decide.
I did not say the insurance or medical or pharmaceuticals were just hunky dory as they stand; I would overhaul them if I could. They have also been corrupted by sociopaths and act against the common good, always in the name of yet another dollar.
Blouise, Very intersting. I want to read more so any direction would be appreciated. But, based on what you said, Al Gore wasted a lot of money on Naomi Wolf.
tony c:
“Bron: Obviously if either is too large the part fails too quickly; but if you want to snark by taking an analogy literally, I understand that you would rather not understand, or prefer to divert the discussion into irrelevancies rather than address the inherent fragility of your proposed solution.
As far as monopolies go, they concentrate power into the hands of one person or a few persons and (by definition) have eliminated any credible competition.
That’s funny, I thought you believed in competition as a means of introducing efficiency, innovation, better quality and lower prices. Am I to understand you now abandon that position and eschew competition? Do you now believe centralized control of a resource is the superior solution, as long as the person in charge happens to be a benevolent king?”
The problem is that using fatigue failure for an economic system is not a good one.
I am all for competition, that is how Rockefeller and Vanderbilt came to dominate their industry and provide inexpensive goods and services. It is also why Edison and Tesla put home lighting using kerosene out of business. You can have a monopoly but it isnt going to last very long because other products and services will drive out price predators. The history of the 19th and 20th century is full of those happenings.
Tony, You obviously know little to nothing about getting people to talk and open up, and assess their veracity. Run your statement about telephone interviews to any investigator. They’ll laugh @ it. Hell, ask any shrink. I know the best way to get people to open up is w/ a smile and empathy. You get more w/ honey than vinegar. Working civil cases I had no hammer. People could tell me to go f@ck myself. I got them to cooperate w/ grace, humor, empathy, etc. And the reason I could do that is they were honest expressions of how I felt..usually. I can put it on if needed. I’m really not sure what your specialty is..something technical. I know you hate it when somebody who doesn’t know what they’re talking about tells you how to do, or how you did, your job. Your buddy called himself “the bear.” Well, I am bear like..but teddy bear. Unless I get poked. I can see your anger rising. You’re defending your buddy. I get it. Let’s just keep it civil. I won’t tell you how to do, or how you did, your job, and you afford me the same. On the soul of my dead mother, I don’t want a pissing match w/ you. The substantive discussion you guys are having is a good one. Please just go back to that.
DavidM: What I hear you saying here is that everybody like me who is without health insurance is NOT responsible. I really do not appreciate slurs like that against me.
It is not a slur, it is the truth. People without health insurance, or car liability insurance, cannot possibly know for certain what accidents may lie in their future, and therefore take the risk of incurring debts they cannot pay. I consider that irresponsible and selfish because it allows you to avoid responsibility for the consequences of your actions, for selfish gain (the premiums you save). You do not know the future, and as I said, next week or next year or ten years from now your lack of health insurance may well result in your cost of treatment from a car accident or stroke or terrorist incident adding to the unpaid debt of the similarly irresponsible and selfish people just like you.
A statement of fact is not a slur.
Tony, do you hear yourself? You are saying that someone with optimism and hope is irresponsible if he does not make provision for all possible disasters that might happen to him. On what basis do you conclude that it is my duty and obligation to prepare for any possible disaster?
It is almost like you are arguing that worry is a virtue. I am having a lot of trouble following you on this. I am open to a legal theory or philosophy that might provide some foundation for you saying these things. As of now, it is foreign to me. Maybe you can point me to some reading material.
“He came in trying to play Alpha male and thus rise to prominence.” (Mike S.)
What follows is not a comment on any one individual’s behavior but on the overall argument and the male view in general when the phrase “alpha male” enters the conversation.
The problem is the “alpha male” idea, from a sociological perspective, is ideological. That is, it is not an innocent idea. It is a justification. It is an archetype that justifies the abuse of others, typically for personal gain. Science is beginning to understand that there is nothing genetic, evolutionary, or divine in the alpha male concept. It’s a justification for bad behavior … on all sides.
(Many of the original studies conducted were on wolves who had been taken from their original packs and thrown together for the purposes of a controlled study … a situation totally at odds with actual pack life and thus actual pack behavior. The alpha male concept concluded from these studies is now being debunked on all sides.)
For example:
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, mathematicians from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville developed a model to explain why humans first began living in monogamous pairs.
The “sexual revolution” happened when women began to choose men who were good, dependable providers over their stronger (alpha/promiscuous) rivals, forcing others to change their behaviour.
One of the most interesting paths these new studies are following is the “so if the alpha male concept is flawed then what about the alpha male deity belief of many religions” question … hard-wired into the DNA or total myth supported by those who subscribe to the now questionable alpha male theory.
BTW, insurance would have covered my tree. But I trimmed the scar and left it as a testament to the power of Aphrodite, aka Michelle H, the 16 year old whose rejection of an earnest suitor was the proximate cause of me being nearly run over while inside my home.
“No, not at all. I am just explaining my perception, that their evil actions were empowered from their entanglement with civil government. I find it abhorrent that men were burned at the stake for not believing in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or for not believing in the Doctrine of the Trinity. I think rightly practiced religion should focus on the heart of man, to do what is right by example, and to seek to persuade men to do what is right voluntarily.”
David M,
No doubt that would be nice, but the facts belie it. In the US and elsewhere religious leaders have consistently not only dabbled in government affairs, but have become political kingmakers. This also is historically true. In the US it is true about Catholics, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals and even Jews. Maybe you personally belong to a denomination that does not involve itself in politics, but if that is the case it is hardly a mainstream one.
Mike, I think you misunderstand me a little. I agree that religious people have dabbled in government affairs, and often with disastrous consequences.
My point is that it is the governmental authority of force that makes it disastrous. There is a spectrum of knowledge whereby some things require punishment, but other things do not and only require instruction. When someone mixes them up, especially when they try to use force to cause someone to agree, it creates even more disorder. For example, if a man knows he is going to die if he does not recant what he believes to be true, the threat may cause him to recant. However, the truth is that his mind does not actually agree, so what we have now is a lie and hypocrisy develops. Such is a corruption of both government and religion.
I think the Christian philosophy of separating church and state powers has it right and leads to greater societal harmony. In that view, the religious element deals with persuasion and free thinking, whereas the government deals with force and punishment for violations of law.
In regards to my denomination, I am not religious and so I do not belong to any religious institution whatsoever. Logic leads me to believe in a Creator, but I don’t care much for what I have seen in most churches, synagogues, or mosques.
DavidM: I am talking about those who NEVER go into the ER to seek medical attention.
“Never” is not determined until after a person is dead. For the record, I am not in favor of requiring dead people to pay for medical insurance.
In the meantime, you can be hit by a car while sitting in your house (which quite nearly happened to me, my home office looks onto the front yard and fortunately one of my trees jumped in the path of a runaway car, sacrificing a good chunk of bark).
If you are unconscious you will not have a choice in whether you take the ambulance ride or go to the ER, and by this time next week you can be liable for $200K in medical bills. Even if you are conscious, an assessment of shock or imminent danger may end up with you being treated against your will as a safety precaution.
Tony C wrote: “If you are unconscious you will not have a choice in whether you take the ambulance ride or go to the ER, and by this time next week you can be liable for $200K in medical bills.”
After all I have heard you say about overpaid CEO’s, you say this and you do not see anything wrong with a $200K medical bill being forced upon someone? What could they possibly do to my body that would warrant charging me that much money? Why do you give these medical practitioners a free pass to treat someone against their will and then give them a $200K bill? I shake my head in disbelief. It makes no sense to me.
DavidM: Are you seriously making the allegation that on average, the people without insurance create a higher cost of medical service than those who have insurance?
Geez, you are dense. On average, the people without insurance create a higher cost of medical services FOR THE REST OF US, because they do not PAY the $20K a night it costs to stay in intensive care when they get hurt in an accident or have a heart attack or stroke. That cost is passed on to us RESPONSIBLE people in the form of higher hospital charges and higher insurance costs. Any fool should be able to see that by inspection; but YES, the statistics do exist, I have consulted for both hospitals and insurance companies in my career, and both kept track of everything. As I said, they are required by law to treat, with or without insurance.
Tony C –
I understand the basic theory that has been part of the propaganda for ObamaCare, but you based your statement upon average cost and statistics which do not exist. Maybe you just poorly worded your statement.
Tony C wrote:
“That cost is passed on to us RESPONSIBLE people in the form of higher hospital charges and higher insurance costs.”
What I hear you saying here is that everybody like me who is without health insurance is NOT responsible. I really do not appreciate slurs like that against me. It is not right that I am considered irresponsible and that I have government penalties placed upon me because of my health care choices.
Your real argument is that because some people do not pay their bills, then we ought to force everyone to pay, even those who never go to a hospital for healthcare. Some people do not pay their mortgage. Why not force everyone to pay in so everyone can have housing? Why not create a fine or penalty for those responsible people who pay their mortgage to make up for the irresponsible ones? Where exactly does this forcing people to pay the bill that others cannot pay stop?
I really do not see what the problem is with hospitals factoring in the charity services they give or the unpaid bills into their business model. Every business does this. What makes the insurance industry and the medical profession so special that they get special government bailouts?
DavidM: I see insurance as a bet against myself.
Then you look at it wrong. Insurance is a recognition of reality, that random crap can happen that is not under your control. A driver distracted by a cell phone call can run a red light and cause you severe injury that requires operations to save your life and restore you to your family. Lightning can strike your house and burn it down. Your reckless teen can try a back flip off a diving board and crack open their skull or break their neck and become paralyzed.
The central premise of insurance is that such events are rare enough that the average cost to a person is far lower than the incident cost, so if everybody paid the average, nobody would have to pay for an incident. (and for most insured items, nobody wants the incident if they can help it.)
It isn’t a bet against yourself, even with profit in the picture. It is an exercise in humility and responsibility, being smart enough to recognize you are not immune to random damage, and should it occur, you want the resources to deal with it. As I said before, the point is to avoid catastrophic cascade, and having such an incident destroy any more than it already has. It is a recognition that the average cost is something you can afford, but the incident cost would be financially devastating.
Before you tell me that you trust in God to protect you from such incidents, I will point out that God lets the devout suffer such tragedies all the time, and perhaps God’s way of protecting you was to inspire somebody else to invent insurance for you.
I am also surprised you claim to be a businessman but resent the idea of somebody making a profit from insurance. Are you a businessman ideologically opposed to the idea of making a profit for providing a service?
Tony C –
“I am also surprised you claim to be a businessman but resent the idea of somebody making a profit from insurance.”
I don’t know where you got the idea that I resent the insurance industry making a profit. What I resent is the bozo’s in Washington, including some Supreme Court Justices, who think that the insurance industry makes healthcare more affordable, and therefore making everyone buy insurance will magically make healthcare more affordable for everyone. There is a huge con game going on, and nobody sees that the emperor has no clothes on.
Insurance companies do provide a desired service, and I have sometimes taken that bet when I deemed it prudent. When I felt my life was in danger from certain activities I was involved in during which time I received death threats, I was concerned about what my family would do if I died. So I took out a life insurance policy to pay off the mortgage and pay for a year or two while my family adjusted to life without me should that event happen. However, when it comes to the medical profession, I simply do not trust them with my healthcare. I prefer to workout at the gym and eat right rather than take drugs to deal with high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, or whatever. I watched my dad run to the doctors for everything and they were more than glad to do all manner of procedures on him because of his insurance. They led him to his grave at the young age of 65. I have decided to take a different path in life when it comes to healthcare.
It really doesn’t matter what my reasons are for not trusting the medical community, or why I do not seek out their services. You and my government should be able to respect my right to make my own choices about what is best for me and my family. Your infringement upon my inalienable right here is based upon your greed for my money to subsidize your choices.
Tony C wrote: “the point is to avoid catastrophic cascade”
If this is really what it is about, then why not make it about catastrophic insurance?
Answer: Catastrophic cascades are not what it is about.