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
“You seemed to acknowledge that fascism emphasizes the collective as being all important and that it is on the opposite end of the spectrum from individualism.”
As already pointed out, you seem to not understand the nature of fascism, David.
It is not toward the collective end of the spectrum. It is in all of its forms oligarchical and usually plutocratic. It’s a syncretic ideology that is far right in practice. Corporatism is a form of fascism based in large part on Italian Fascism is promulgated by Mussolini. The entire premise of fascism is in consolidating power in a small group – usually industry – and having the government serve their desires regardless of the cost to the masses. It is anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian.
It’s about as far removed from liberalism as it gets.
**********
Tony,
In re your 12:03 AM post – Stop reading my mind. 😀
Gene H –
I disagree with your perception of fascism. Your attempt to make it an extreme right wing issue far removed from liberalism is based in your bigotry against right wing ideology and your desire to distance yourself from the label of fascism. Fascism plain and simple has to do with making the collective all important and putting the needs of the collective as a whole above the needs of the individual. It is characterized by nationalism, everyone working for the common good of the collective. It emphasizes individuals making sacrifices, even extreme sacrifices, for the good of the collective. That might take the form of governments ruling nations, or as you point out, it might take the form of corporations with employees. It also is applicable to churches who choose to live in communes, and also applicable to how a Kibbutz is run. Fascism can be left or right, liberal or conservative. Your perspective that the right of no one individual supersedes the rights of the collective moves you far over to the fascist side in my perspective. I am not saying that as a pejorative but rather by way of simple analysis of your philosophical system of politics.
Bron: But the guy that can solve it by hand can solve any beam configuration you give him, the guy that solves using the book may be limited. You dont know until you have them working for you.
I am not sure if you think you are disagreeing, but that is basically what I was saying. My “Applicant Two” is the guy that solves the test six times faster without strain, without a book, and without a mistake, and knows he did.
What I hoped readers would see from that is this: The higher the pay, the less it matters if people “work hard.” Because the higher the pay, the more likely it is to be paying for a quality of work, not a quantity of work. The more likely it is to be paying for an end result, without very little concern over what it took to get there.
Working hard is a concept that really applies to jobs where productivity is dependent upon physical action. If we are moving a pile of manure (which I have done) then work is measured in shovels per hour. If we are answering equipment service calls within a hospital, work is only partially measured in the calls handled per hour; because there is result component to that work as well: The result is whether the call was properly handled, the correct technician was dispatched, and the priority was properly assigned (a malfunctioning gas valve in the surgery suite is more important than a broken pill counter in the pharmacy).
The further up the professional chain one goes, the less we pay for physical action and the more we pay for results. By the time we are hiring degreed professionals, we are primarily paying for results, and the more money they charge, the more important the result and the less important the effort involved.
By analogy, high-pay for professionals is similar to that for highly paid commission only salespeople; albeit with lessened risk and lessened reward. On commission only, we are very explicit that what matters is results, not effort. Result may come with effort, but some people are naturals and close sales with very little effort.
Similarly, we don’t really care if a CEO puts in three hours a day or twelve, our interest is that we want the bottom line he produces to make us think his salary is worth it. We don’t care if Al Pacino works hard or is just a natural. Julia Roberts (I have read) nails more first takes than any other major actor or actress on film. Do producers and directors care that she has to work less? Hell no, she keeps the schedule on track and the production on budget.
In the end, under the presumption of fair play, what people really care about is outcomes, not effort.
OOPS! Godwin’s Law. The first one to invoke Hitler in an argument automatically loses.
Now, if everyone will excuse me, I have to go to the office and make some capitalist dollars so I can pay the socialist utility company to keep the electricity and water turned on.
David,
The system you advocate does not take into account the existence of sociopaths in business and industry. Unfortunately, such people have risen to positions of great power and wealth. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it down through the ages. For all too many, it is about power and control, not about the money itself, although great wealth is its own reward.
Not all people of great wealth are sociopaths, fortunately. Richard Branson and Dean Kaman come to mind, as well as Warren Buffett.
But, people like the Koch brothers, Art Pope and the late unlamented Kenneth Lay outnumber them. There should be a special classification of evil for Bernard Madoff. How much do you think those folks give to help poor brown people in need of medical care?
OS –
How do you know what system I advocate when I consider myself flexible and open to changing my current opinion? LOL. I really don’t think I advocate much for a particular system. I agree with Gene H and Tony C that the balance is in the middle somewhere, but exactly where is debateable.
I agree wholeheartedly that there are criminals and sociopaths who arise in capitalism, but you have them also arising in socialism with the likes of Adolf Hitler, and communism with people like Joseph Stalin. I do appreciate you attaching names to the sociopaths in capitalism because it helps me understand your perspective. You make some good points.
gbk:
quite a lot actually. it goes to mind set. you either believe people have a right to be free or you dont. I believe in political and economic freedom.
Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist and basically fascism is socialism with a nationalist bent. Controlling the means of production [socialism] or leaving the means of production in private hands but under state control [fascism] is a matter of semantics. That is on an economic level, on a political level there are socialist countries which dont go in for the political control which Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany engaged in.
Economically fascism and socialism are pretty much the same. In the US we are a socialist country because we have public schools, a national retirement fund, medicare, etc. In the US we are fascist because we own GM, bail out banks [you could say this was socialism as well], and generally allow government and business to intermingle.
Maybe you are right, I am confused, I cant figure out if we are a socialist or fascist country.
If I “own” a company but I am told what to produce, how much, and restricted in the amount of money I make how is that different from the state owning the factory? I might also point out that I only “own” my property at the pleasure of the dictator so I really dont own it.
With all that being said, I would rather live in Norway or Sweden now than Italy or Germany circa 1936.
David, there is a word for what you advocate. Greed. More for me, less for those who need it. One of the seven deadly sins.
The private sector has proven over and over again that even when it undertakes charity, it is always too little too late, with no checks and balances on enabling bigotry, xenophobia, and regionalism.
OS –
I agree with you that greed has been a problem with capitalism, but on the upside the greed kind of helps the economy while destroying the individual engaged in it. What I think you overlook is that greed also functions in government, and the downside with greed working there is that it hurts the economy, draining resources from those working hard and being the producers in society. The greed there also destroys the individual engaging in it. So if given a choice over greedy people in capitalism and greedy people in government, I would choose greedy people in capitalism. In either case, we should work toward tempering the greed in both spheres whenever we can.
In terms of the private sector, I disagree that it is too little too late anymore than that which occurs through the government sector. I have seen failings on both sides here, not just one side. The downside of the government sector is that the people who administer it usually (not always) do not really care for the people they help. They are just doing their job, pushing paper and following regulations. When the private sector helps, it has a more motivating factor with the individuals receiving the help. Rather than thinking they are receiving what is owed to them from government, they are more appreciative of the help and better motivated to get help on their own.
I find it interesting that in the legal system of the Jews, they had a tax for the poor, but it was cyclical, happening every 3 years. This makes a lot more sense to me. Why do we not implement this in our government? Probably because of animosity against something that has been enshrined in the Bible as being religious. Who cares if it is in the Bible? If it makes sense, we should do it. Imagine if everyone on welfare knew it would last only 1 year and they would be without until the next third year came along? Imagine if they knew that once every 7 years all their debts would be forgiven? This kind of government social welfare program makes a lot of sense to me, but for the most part we ignore it because religious people believe the ideas came from God our Creator, which makes it religious and we can’t mix religion with government, can we?
David
That word does not mean what you think it means. If Gene, or any of the other GBs is a fascist thinker, I am Tinkerbell.
I grew up in a time when real fascists were in power, as well as Communists. They hated each other. The difference between them and what Gene and others here has proposed is as different as night and day. Go back in time and learn what fascism really is. Same for Communism.
The similarities between Communism and Fascism are that both are highly authoritarian types of government despite having wildly different economic philosophies. But both are authoritarian. The closest I see to that these days is New York City and Chicago with their authoritarian mayors.
OS –
I think you conflate socialism and communism in your criticism of my comments. Adolf Hitler was a fascist and a socialist who hated communists as much as he hated Jews.
As I said before. In no way am I trying to stereotype Gene H as a fascist. It is just when you focus on the importance of the collective as being more important than the individual, that is fascism. Gene H agreed with this perspective. Remember his secondary axis? So what I am asking for is comments from him that help me understand how he moderates these extremes in his mind. His contempt for Bron certainly caused him to argue strongly for fascist principles. That may be simply a rhetorical device to bring balance, or it could be an true error by emphasis (which is what fascism is). I won’t know that until I see his response, if he decides to offer one.
An eternity ago, (three weeks in internet time) I lamented here that God was so frustrated with humanity that he created neutron stars just for the diversion.
I suppose after a while, this too became less interesting for Him and He started to create a binary star system consisting of two neutron stars.
But then later in the day God read this thread on JT’s blog, as he usually does with morning coffee, and saw Gene and Nick going at it. There was no point in bothering with the stars, for the two bloggers were already expending yottajoules of energy tearing each other apart, and without all those annoying gamma ray bursts that tend to go with binary neutron stars.
The devil is telling you that. Before the fall of man there were non of those phenomenon in the universe. Had they be before the fall of humanity death would be in God. Satan is death.
Tony,
You can be a capitalist and still believe that government should regulate industry and as you stated, especially those that are critical to citizens lives and well being.
“The government should support SS with taxes, but in the last resort, it really can just print money to cover the checks, and no private industry will ever be THAT secure.” (Tony C.)
🙂
DavidM: To clarify, I have never had to keep my mother out of jail. I have a sister that has half her body covered with deep burn scars as the result of a practical joke by some teens in the neighborhood we grew up in; she almost died. She was a child at the time, and as she grew the scar tissue ripped, and these rips healed over with more scar tissue but still cause her pain; and she has been a drug addict since she was a teen. That isn’t going to change, she is self medicating for pain that cannot be resolved. I have a niece and a nephew that have had individual incidents with drug possession, and my attorney found criminal defense attorneys that I paid, and kept them out of jail. On probation, but out.
What I have done for my mother is buy her a car; a new Honda, and I kept her on my insurance. Good thing, when my niece borrowed that car and totaled it, I was able to get her a replacement.
davidm: …but sometimes the line between helping and enabling can be difficult to distinguish.
As can the line between helping and just supporting. I don’t try to draw that line. I am a social liberal. I do not drink or smoke our use psychoactive drugs in any way, but I think they should be legal and the choice of the people that use them; as long as they aren’t endangering others or coercing others.
As for other help, I have made no interest loans to help, I have helped cover bills in times of unemployment, but the main thing I offer to do is cover the cost of education or books. Trade school to college. Frivolous or not; I paid for a niece to take acting lessons, I paid for a nephew to go to a professional billiards tutor. I don’t care, just learn something.
davidm: In your perspective, would monetary fairness mean everyone makes the same amount of money,
No. Some skills are worth more than others, the market sorts that out and price what skills are worth through competition. Communism doesn’t work; people need to strive to advance, and the market has to provide a path of advancement. That path needs to include some wild aspirations, but it doesn’t have to be infinite.
I am not jealous of billionaires, I really am not. I would entertain any number of schemes that allow unlimited wealth, except for one thing: Money subverting politics. The wealth isn’t the problem, it is that the wealthy will corrupt politics and subvert the will of the people to their own ends; like the endless wars that provide countless paths to profit.
davidm: Or do you envision a society where there is disparity in wealth, with some being very wealthy, some wealthy, some middle class, and some poor?
Relatively speaking that has to be the case; the relativity is in what one defines as “very wealthy” and “poor.” I do not believe people should be so poor that they want for shelter, or quality education, or health care, or proper nutrition, or safety in their neighborhood. I was a night janitor in high school: The world needs night janitors, and the old soldier I worked with was nice but not really mentally capable of being anything else. I believe you can be “very wealthy” by being richer than 99.99% of others.
Gene mentions a bell curve; some people just aren’t going to earn much money in their life. Being born on the left end shouldn’t subject them to existential hardship. If they are medically fit enough to work they should work, even if the work is picking up road trash or painting hand rails. But I think we can provide (as Norway has long done without serious economic consequence) a minimalist existence with food, shelter, health care, heat in the winter, et cetera.
What I think is fair is eliminating desperation, and providing the tool (singular, THE tool) that allows advancement, which is education for those that can take it. I believe all education should be free.
davidm: Do you consider yourself a socialist or communist, or are you a moderated capitalist, or something else entirely?
I am an independent thinker. I think capitalism and regulated markets work very well, I favor social liberties, I am an absolute atheist but believe in religious freedom, I am pro-choice within the first two trimesters, I oppose the war on drugs and think recreational drugs should be legal for adults.
I am not a communist, communism is psychologically a non-starter. I only believe in limited socialism; I think competition and diversity work better for most products. But I think socialism is the answer for many products and services, in particular those that a “customer” cannot rightly walk away from, or those that can have life changing effect. You can walk away from a deal on a big screen TV, or even on a house, refusing to cut the deal isn’t going to end your life. You can’t walk way from the deal on treating your heart attack in the ER. “Walking away” means refusing treatment and dying.
The stakes are too high. For the same reason I believe in socializing pensions (social security) because the stakes are too high. Private pensions and IRAs can go south on a market crash or depression. The government should support SS with taxes, but in the last resort, it really can just print money to cover the checks, and no private industry will ever be THAT secure.
Tony C –
Thank you for the lengthy response. I understand much better. We are probably not that far apart, except on a few issues:
1) I think atheism is an abhorrent and illogical position for anyone to take. I actually think the law should embrace theism, not with any punishment for not believing, but simply through a declarative position that the authority for law and order is the Creator. I would not want a theocracy in the normal sense of the word, but just an acknowledgement in law similar to what we find in the Ten Commandments. I think that a lot of bad positions and ideas stem from the premise that there was and is no Creator.
2) I disagree with socialized medicine. I do not believe like you do that a person should not be allowed to walk away from medicine even if it means death. I have framed my own living will in this fashion because over the years I simply do not have as much confidence in the medical profession as I do in praying to my God. If he wants to take me out of this world now, I should have the freedom to let him do that and not turn to the medical community to keep me here in this earth longer. I realize that from your atheistic perspective such a view is hard to comprehend and outright stupid perhaps, but it is the way I have lived my life and I do not appreciate government coming in and trying to force me to trust the medical community as knowing what is best for my health. I truly think the medical community has a license to kill with impunity, and whether that is right or wrong, why should I be prevented from having that view if it does not hurt anybody else? Why should I be fined for having this view? Makes no sense to me.
3) Socialized pensions – nope, I can’t agree with this either. Maybe a safety net, okay, but what if I never want to retire? What about allowing people to take care of their own family as they get older? I watched my father-in-law literally ripped from family members who loved him very much and wanted to care for him simply because his wife got legal advice that caused her to use Medicare and other government resources to move him to a nursing home before he really needed a nursing home. And he had his own private pension through the railroad. I recognize that some dysfunctional families and other situations will create the need for some kind of socialized pension, but I don’t think it should be assumed that everyone should be forced into this kind of system. I think a safety net approach is better, where the question in court is first, “is there any family member willing to assist and care for this person?” When the courts force taxpayers to foot the bill when family members want to foot the bill, something is very wrong.
So we are close, but we draw the line in different places concerning what is absolutely necessary from government and what is not.
Bron,
“Gene H is a socialist by his own admission who likes the free market for some things.”
I think it’s the other way around from what I’ve read of Gene’s postings over the years.
“[to David] I would think, based on your being against gay marriage you are somewhere between a free market and a centrally planned one.”
What a confusion of thought.
What does gay marriage have to do with whether one believes in a “free market” or a “centrally planned one?” Also note, Bron, as is your wont, there is nothing in between your two extremes of definitions of “market.”
“I notice you use fascist and socialist interchangeably or am I wrong?”
Pot, meet kettle.
I’m so disturbed by your manufactured outrage. Awwww. Po’ lil’ ol’ youz. 🙄
You reap what you sow, nick.
You seem to want to be able to insult others all you like but whine when you get back what you give.
None of those lessons about the Ethic of Reciprocity ever sink in?
Gene,
Have you noticed the whiner gets more macho and scatalogical as he becomes frustrated with lack of praise. He has forgotten that his first comment on the blog came in with guns blazing and his pretend Alpha Male personality. He is the quintessential big mouth at the bar, expounding ignorantly on all subjects. What is funniest, or most pathetic, is his belief that this is a competition and a popularity contest. Also ironic is his calling debate a discussion mainly because his is incapable of launching a logical argument. In short a dishonest, blowhard needing people to bolster his self esteem and feeling victimized when his idle blather doesn’t get him stroked.
My dead sister and now my daughter. You win!
Bron,
Correction: I like a free market for most things. The list of markets I think should be socialized is fairly small and all geared toward maximizing social benefit over private profits.
Gene H –
” I like a free market for most things. The list of markets I think should be socialized is fairly small and all geared toward maximizing social benefit over private profits.”
This seems like a very balanced approach to me. I like it.
DAVIDM:
Gene H is a socialist by his own admission who likes the free market for some things.
I like free markets for everything.
I would think, based on your being against gay marriage you are somewhere between a free market and a centrally planned one.
I notice you use fascist and socialist interchangeably or am I wrong?
Bron –
No, fascist and socialist are not interchangeable terms. I personally like many of the ideals of socialism, but I just do not think it works because man at his core is too selfish. Those in power never work for the good of the collective, and in the end, socialism removes incentives for people to work hard and be productive. Socialism makes people lazy. The ideal is that they work because they like it, that they have enough time for recreation and enjoyment of life. These are all good things, but in the end, people become rather lazy and somehow those noble goals always seem to turn to envy of the wealth of others. I think the key is for individuals in their hearts to embrace the ideals of socialism, which is basically very much like the teachings of Christ. However, the difference is that the individual is motivated out of true love in his heart for his fellow man. When forced into the position by government, where government does all the giving instead of the individual, it just does not work. That’s what the empirical evidence seems to show. Nevertheless, I always keep an open mind for new breakthroughs in understanding because thus far, nobody has created the utopian society that we all really want.
Actually I chose the word flaccid after discussing you with your daughter.
As for the capacity to insult? You aren’t my match there either.
However, what is manifestly apparent is that you’ve completely ignored all warning about your propensity to go ad hominem in this forum.
How’d that work out for you last time?
You’ll only get so many of those warnings, nick.
You don’t want to play dozens w/ me.
I’m sure you have flaccid on your mind. Tell her it’s just whiskey dick, you’re really a man.
You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares what you look upon this as, nick.