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
Bron,
We have less regulation now that we did in the period after the Great Depression which led to the greatest boon in American history in the 50’s and early 60’s. It’s a comparative. The reason we’ve never even seen a pure laissez-faire economy is because – just like Communism – its an idea that only works on paper. The more we move away from reasonable and fair regulation (the difference between good laws and bad laws again), the more corporatism encroaches on democracy and damages our economy. Or do you choose to not acknowledge it was the breakdown of the barrier between commercial and financial banking that happened after the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the direct cause of the CDS debacle?
“Surely by now you realize that I am well aware of dictionary definitions and encyclopedic entries regarding fascism before you even present them here in this forum.”
I’m aware of no such thing as your previous statements indicate that you have no idea what fascism is under any proper poli sci definition.
“I do not lightly say that I disagree with someone as knowledgeable as you.”
Apparently you do.
“I say that I disagree to point out that I am one of those who disagrees with the dictionary and common viewpoint held by most of society.”
Then you are arguing from ignorance.
“To be quite frank, your failure to recognize the debate about fascism and where I am in that debate makes me question exactly who you are and your ability to understand the diversity of opinions that exist in this world.”
I could give a f*ck what you think about my ability. There is no debate that fascism is far right in application. None. Zero. Nada.
“Mussolini defined fascism through various writings that certainly attempted to move people away from what we think of as the left and toward the right. No doubt about it. However, he also tempered this with comments that fascism does not necessarily have to go toward the right. The fact also still remains that both Mussolini and Hitler were socialists before they moved toward fascism.”
Hitler was a socialist in name only because it was politically expedient for his gaining power. Once in power he killed or drove off all of the socialists within the Nazi Party who had joined solely for the promise of socialism during the Night of the Long Knives.
“These men were left leaning individuals who tired of how democracy put the focus on the individual and they experimented with the idea of making the good of the State the supreme goal.”
Nonsense. They were megalomaniacs with a vested interest in self-aggrandizement at any cost.
“It is self evident that democracy weakens a State by the nature of so many competing voices. They wanted a strong State, so they departed from democracy and embraced fascism, and the language of Mussolini to define the doctrine of fascism was particularly strong toward moving people away from the liberalism, socialism, and democracy of the 18th century. Mussolini made fascism a religion more than a political system. At its core is the idea that the State trumps all rights of the individual. The individual rights exist only by virtue of how they help the State.”
Which simply makes it authoritarian – one of several salient defining features of fascism.
“Mussolini wanted people to have a religious fervor of nationalism for their country and be willing to sacrifice life itself for it.”
So did Hitler. Nationalism is a hallmark of fascism just as authoritarianism is.
“A broad perspective of fascism is not just the Italian Mussolini concept of it, but it incorporates the core idea of fascism which is the collective being the goal and purpose rather than the individual.”
“As such, fascism is not at all right leaning or left leaning. It depends upon the context.”
Apparently you still don’t understand the words “syncretic” or “in application”.
“I understand that you see it different,”
No. I see it correctly as a matter of political science. Fascism is syncretic – this means it is an ideology built on ideas traditionally both left and right – but it is far right in execution it is always far right in practice because it is oligarchical, usually plutocratic, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian which are all far right characteristics when implemented.
Your made up definition is gibberish that mistakes the ideological theory for the actual outcome in application.
“and that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot and just plain wrong.
No. I see people who make up their own definitions as wrong. Disagreeing with me doesn’t make you an idiot. Mespo disagrees with me on several subjects, but he is no idiot. Being an idiot makes you an idiot. I’m not responsible for that. However, and to the point, factually wrong is factually wrong.
You, David, are simply wrong about the nature of fascism.
It’s not about the collective.
It’s about the oligarchy.
Fascism is about concentrating power into an elite regardless of the damage done to the communal whole.
Nothing collective about that at all.
In economic terms, the only thing the disparate ideologies of socialism and fascism have in common are a utilization of a mixed form economy, but in fascism it is geared toward private profits of the oligarchs where in socalized systems the command segments of the economy are geared toward maximized social benefit over private profits, i.e. held in public trust for the benefit of all.
Ideologically though, fascism and socialism couldn’t be more different.
Fascism espouses the wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Socialism espouses the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few or the one.
They are diametrically opposed.
Try again.
Gene H wrote: “Fascism espouses the wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many.”
What fascist ever said this? Your definition here is completely warped by your unexplained need to connect oligarchy with fascism.
Mussolini’s “Doctrine of Fascism” never mentions oligarchy or the ruling of government by a few. He speaks of the importance of the STATE. Fascism emphasizes the needs of the STATE, which is EVERYONE, the collective. It does not emphasize rule by a few, such as in an oligarchy, which is what you keep trying to do.
Mussolini was a flaming atheist who basically attempted to make the State the object of people’s religious inclinations. The State took over the role of God. He was making the State the god of the people.
The “Fascist Manifesto” does not put emphasis on oligarchy either. It promotes universal suffrage, lowering the voting age to 18, the woman’s right to vote, lowering working time to being an 8 hour day, the creation of a minimum wage, reorganizing public transportation, reducing the retirement age from 65 to 55, support for labor unions, a strong progressive tax on capital, the seizure of all the possessions of religious congregations and the abolition of bishops, and the revision of military contracts with a seizure of 85% of the profits from them. The Fascist Manifesto talks about a lot of things, but rule by an oligarchy is not one of them.
The closest you can come to connecting fascism with oligarchy is from the writings of the fascist Robert Michels with his Iron Law of Oligarchy in which he says all political systems, whether left or right, conservative or liberal, they all will evolve into an oligarchy because it is just the nature of political organization that power will reside in the hands of a few. Once that power is in their hands, they do what they will to keep it there.
You might consider that at the same time the fascist rulers had evolved into an authoritarian and oligarchy type structure of government, the same authoritarian and oligarchy structure developed in Russia with communism. The fascist rulers waged war against communists and capitalists, so why restrict oligarchy to being a characteristic of fascism? It makes no sense and serves to promote false stereotypes and feed bigotry.
And now you want to juxtapose fascism with socialism? Socialism is an economic theory while fascism is a promotion of the State above the needs or wants of the individual. You are comparing apples and oranges and thereby creating utter confusion. When you are done with it, fascism has no meaning at all so people will stop using the term, inventing rules like Godwin’s law so that nobody ever will feel safe to apply the term to you or anyone else, effectively censoring speech and shutting down the democratic process of dialogue.
The term fascism when stripped down to its simplest definition is the idea that the State is supreme. All individuals should direct their efforts and attention, not on their own individual life, but on the needs of the collective. Nationalism, not oligarchy, is the defining characteristic of fascism. If you add more than this to its definition, you make the term useless.
The fact remains that the two most renowned fascists, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, were progressive, liberal, socialist ideologues. You want to claim that their fascist views and authoritarian governments made them right wing, but authoritarianism and oligarchy are not peculiar to right wing ideology. Neither is the idea of making the State supreme and far more important than the wants and needs of the individual. You seem to want to stereotype right wing individuals as anti-democratic and anti-individual; therefore, fascist. They are not. They are for order in government, but a lot of leftists want order in government too. Can’t restrict this to just the right. You want to claim that these fascists forsook their left leaning roots, and either changed their views or intentionally never really were socialists to being with, but I’m not buying what you are selling. The Fascist Manifesto looks more like the talking points of a leftist democrat than a right wing republican.
What is really going on here is that the left want to distance themselves as far as possible from the horrors caused by these left leaning individuals, so they mangle the English language to claim that fascism is a far right ideology. Such is a lie, propaganda to which all of you have bowed your minds. Those of us who can read and who go to the original sources rather than relying on what the elite tell us, well, we know better.
DavidM: Would you be open to the idea that if he gave that $10,000 to a charity,
No, I would not. First, I am highly suspicious of any “charity” that does not have transparently open books, which is most of them.
Here is an early exposure I had to a charity: A friend of mine from college became a computer programmer (before the PC, back when small companies had mini-computers), and he got a job at a non-profit: A blood bank. Among his duties were the financial books; where he learned the blood bank collected blood for next to free, with the help of free public service ads on television and radio, with the help of volunteer nurses and technicians; it coordinated blood drives. Then it processed and sold the blood to hospitals, and the money was used to pay the two “directors” about $400K a year each, with benefits like private cars, a three week paid skiing retreat for them and their wives, parties paid for by the blood bank to thank the officers of companies that contributed. There you go, real public servants. But, it was true the blood bank was a non-profit operation.
I presume if the books aren’t open, most charities are run by sociopaths as well. Look at the Red Cross paying Elizabeth Dole six figures to be a “spokesperson” or “ambassador” or whatever her title was; I remember she had no official duties to perform for that money.
Even among those required to report, about 15% of charities have presidents earning over $500K, some earn millions. That isn’t a charity, it is a scam. If a charity cannot find a director willing to run the place for about $150K, it is a scam. Presumably one could find an ideologically sympathetic lawyer, former CEO, college professor, or even M.D. to run it for that plus the emotional satisfaction of doing the world some good. It is completely hypocritical to ask donors to dig deep and contribute to a cause while demanding to be lucratively incentivized to do your own job.
No, I would not agree. The government is composed of civil servants that earn a modest wage, it is published. There are no bonuses, or stock options, and relatively few perks (although travel and conferences are often one).
I do not believe the myth of government inefficiency, but even if I did, I prefer the government perform the services we demand, and let charity do its own thing around the edges. If you want to be scammed, donate to a national charity. If you want to donate to charity, I suggest you find a local cause you can see doing good, with a “director” you can see getting her hands dirty every day.
As I said before, the tax should be enough to cover the expenses incurred by the services we collectively demand. If I allow you to choose to fund some religious organization or charity instead, then I am forced to increase the taxes in order to still receive enough to cover the expenses. I don’t want the government to fund religious organizations or random charities vaccinating kids in India or whatever. The point of the taxes is not to just generally “do good,” the point of the taxes is to fund the programs demanded by the citizens.
As for whether taxes are coercion or not, I misspoke in saying it sounded like coercion; but it certainly is not a “privilege,” that is just Orwellian. Taxes are a fee, the price you pay for the benefit you gain from our infrastructure. If you are poor, you are not gaining much at all from our infrastructure, and demanding you pay anything at all is a cruel imposition that results in deprivation, precisely the opposite of what government should be doing. If you believe it is better to give than to receive, then give them a break, do not demand payment from them for something that is obviously not working out very well for them.
As for whether taxes are “coerced,” is rent on an office “coerced?” In most businesses, no office means no business. So presuming you have to have one, is the cost of that being coerced out of you?
Taxes are an obligation between you and a partner, which is us, represented by the government. If you earn a certain amount of money, you owe us a share. If you do not make that much, you owe nothing.
You owe us because we provide the roads that bring your customers, supplies, and employees to you. We provide the police that protect your property, the courts that enforce your contracts, and on and on. You can’t do business without us, and all we demand is that you pay your fair share, as determined by us and as will apply equally to us, for the environment in we provide in which you thrive.
There is some threshold of earnings beneath which you do not have to pay any income taxes, in the USA. You are welcome to stop earning there, and pay nothing. You get the use of our infrastructure for free. If you want, I have a few cool books on sustainable subsistence farming by the French Method which I highly recommend; within about $25K you can buy a few acres on unincorporated land, drill a well, and live the rest of your life in a trailer without paying taxes on chickens and vegetables, and even sell some organic produce for pocket money. No taxes. I’ve read Texas has some suitable tracts for that operation (with well water) selling for a few thousand dollars!
You earn more than that threshold by choice. When you do, you owe your partners a share.
DavidM: Can he work miracles or not? If he can, how is that specifically distinguished from magic? Just because you don’t want to call it “magic?”
Gene H:
“Laiseez-faire capitalism is failing right now and will always fail because it fails to take into account human nature, . . .”
How is laissez faire failing? You and many others have said we have never had laissez faire. Certainly a federal reserve controlling interest rates is not laissez faire, neither is bailing out corporations such as GM and the many Wall St. investment houses and the banks. Heavy regulations are certainly not laissez faire either. I can go on, the list is quite long.
Laissez faire is the only system which takes into account human nature, people thrive in freedom. It is like sunshine for our souls. Maybe sick souls dont like freedom but a healthy human being enjoys being alive, being free and pursuing his hearts desire. [of course as long as it doesnt infringe another’s rights]
And that prevents or remedies the damage done by the socio- psychopathic minority how exactly?
Gene H:
“You want to operate under the assumption in laissez-faire economics that all players are good actors when this is simply not the case.”
No I dont but I would say most people, 80-90%, are decent people.
Davidm:
My sincere apologies for giving you carp on the gay marriage thread.
No. I keep saying laissez-faire economics are especially attractive to sociopaths and that it is an inherently bad idea.
Big difference.
Marx wasn’t a sociopath, but he was a fool when it comes to human nature.
The same can be said of Rand and von Mises.
Communism and laissez-faire systems are both wonderful theories that fail miserably in execution. Communism failed because it denied a very critical part of human nature, namely motivation. Laiseez-faire capitalism is failing right now and will always fail because it fails to take into account human nature, namely that a certain percentage of humans are sociopaths and psychopaths who will abuse being removed from control systems to do horrible things if it makes them money.
Sociopaths thrive only where they are not subject to controls.
You underestimate the charm and guile sociopaths and psychopaths can bring to bear as well. Unless you know what to look for, most of them seem quite charming and gregarious on the surface. If you’ve never watched “Dexter” or read one of the books? You should. They get the nature of socio- and psychopaths quite well. Most of them you’d like. Right up to the point they stick the knife metaphorical or actual in your back.
You want to operate under the assumption in laissez-faire economics that all players are good actors when this is simply not the case.
tony c:
fabricate:
Verb
1.Invent or concoct (something), typically with deceitful intent.
2.Construct or manufacture (something, esp. an industrial product), esp. from prepared components.
engineered:
3. To plan, manage, and put through by skillful acts or contrivance; maneuver.
con·triv·ance
/kənˈtrīvəns/
Noun
1.A thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose.
2.The use of skill to bring something about or create something.
fabricate is probably the better word to use or maybe a “malignant contrivance”?
Gene H:
you keep saying people who believe in laissez faire are sociopaths, I know many who arent. And I know a few sociopaths who are socialists.
Personally, I would say Marx was a sociopath, I mean who else but a socipath would come up with an idea that says people get to steal from each other and it is all perfectly legal. Communism has certainly shown that many sociopaths were indeed communists and vice versa.
Thinking more about this it comes to my mind that a sociopath would not like a person who wanted to keep his money in his own pocket. That person is an obstruction to a sociopath. A sociopath would do much better in a communist society than in a society in which people think they have a right to what they earn. So really, if we want to control sociopaths we need to be able to limit the amount of money they have access to.
A society where everyone believes the money they make is theirs by natural right would be a society in which it would be very hard for a sociopath to operate. People would smack them down pretty quickly when they came calling or tried to get elected.
Imagine, for example, if Monica Lewinsky had been hand-picked and coached by Newt as a honey pot for Bill, and he had called in some discreet favors to get her an internship that provided proximity to Bill.
I don’t think any of that happened, but that would be an engineered blackmail.
So the blackmail is real, not fabricated evidence, but the bait is selected and arranged by the sociopath to be difficult to resist.
Bron: Well, engineered is different than fabricated. I am specifically thinking of incidents in which weak-willed politicians or corporate officers are tempted by chance “opportunities” (financial or otherwise) that, unbeknownst to them, are not chance at all; the bait has a hook in it.
Bron,
Bush went to Yale and Harvard. An education is only half of the battle.
Sowell has credentials, sure, but what kills him is his insistence on non-scientific economics. His support of the Austrian School undermines any credibility that might have given him. Laissez-faire economics has about as much credibility as Communism among those who understand economics as a science instead of a political polemic. It’s a perfect breeding environment for sociopaths.
Barely an economist was hyperbole.
I’ll stipulate he’s an economist, but he’s not a very good one unless one just enjoys the prospect of the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
tony c:
how about saying fabricated blackmail? 🙂
Bron: What Gene said. Sociopathy provides an edge because people with morals refrain from actions that people without morals will engage in.
It goes back to law; we have laws because some people will not behave fairly unless they are threatened with severe consequences for behaving otherwise.
An advantage in a game does not mean an automatic win, it is just an advantage. If I can adjust odds in poker based on cards shown, I have an edge over somebody that can’t. That doesn’t mean I get the cards I need to win. A sociopath can win in business, and in politics, in situations where dirty tricks, lies, deception, subterfuge, sandbagging or even blackmail (or engineered blackmail) can win the day.
Gene H:
Dr. Sowell has an economics degrees from:
“admission to Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics. He received a Master of Arts from Columbia University the following year, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968.”
He has written many, many books, taught at the univeristy level. I would say he is more than barely an economist. You can disagree with him but to say he is barely an economist? No, I dont think you can honestly do that.
He is a brilliant man, his intelligence and ability as an economist is undeniable to all but the most partisan.
Even I, as Aynish as I am, am willing to acknowledge the intelligence and competence [in their chosen fields] of people like Alinsky and Chomsky.
To do otherwise would be to deny reality.
Not false either, Bron.
One who does not follow the rules of society always has an edge on those who do because those who do abide by restrictions on behavior. Just because some decent people “do well in life” does not negate that competitive edge created by sociopathy nor does it mitigate the damage sociopaths do.
Tony:
“Sociopathy rises; without restraint it is a sharp competitive edge against those weighed down by empathy, sympathy, caring or morals.”
Not necessarily true. There are plenty of moral, caring people who do well in life.