French court rejects 75% millionaires’ tax. “The Council, made up of nine judges and three former presidents, is concerned the tax would hit a married couple where one partner earned above a million euros but it would not affect a couple where each earned just under a million euros.” Well, to paraphrase the old adage, two can be soaked as cheaply as one. No doubt John Roberts would’ve found a way to approve it: “Hey, it’s not a tax, it’s an individual mandate!”

Leave a Reply

23 Comments on "French court rejects 75 percent millionaires’ tax"

Notify of

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
January 3, 2013 9:36 am

Why should I work if all my money is going to go to someone wlse? I mean a certain amount of tax is ok. Gotta pay the military, and the real working folk in government. That is the price of HAVING a government. But 75%? What is the idea? Again, why work at all? This is why socialism never works. No one wants to work themselves to death to give it away to someone else, other that certain religious and spiritual people that are called for that. And they generally don’t make a million bucks a year anyway.

6 November 2012
Member
6 November 2012
January 4, 2013 12:56 pm

25% of 1 million euros = 250,000.00 Euros = 326,418.75 Us dollars, significantly more than Obama´s 250 000 dollars tax ceiling.

There is also a war being fought right now, except it is waged by the governement against the people of France and France itself, to make it into a bunch of provinces of the EU mega-state.

jcrowley1985
Member
jcrowley1985
January 3, 2013 9:50 am

You say we gotta pay the military but it’s the military’s out of control spending that caused the crash over the last decade. All to please Corporate Greed’s need to control the worlds oil supply for their greedy needs.

Like Ron Paul says, military would be the EASIEST thing to cut if it wasn’t for corporate intervention.

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
January 3, 2013 9:58 am

You are too young and stupid to remember WWII. We declared war with no prepared army or navy. The troops that volunteered or were drafted were training without weapons, and had to be physically built up during training. Many were malnourished, had severe dental problems, etc. THe entire country was instructed on using soy to increase their protein intake as cheaply as possible. We definitely could have LOST that war, if not for Britain holding out so long. I for one, am not at all interested in being in that position again. If you had any sense,you would not either. Cut the waste, yes. But a strong milirary is the best defense we could have. That and thewillingness to stand fast when we are being attacked not folding to politically correct bullshit.

6 November 2012
Member
6 November 2012
January 4, 2013 12:53 pm

ICBMs and cruise missiles with multiple, cobalt-jacketed warheads, drones and thermobaric bombs against illegal immigration wouldn´t cost that much.

jcrowley1985
Member
jcrowley1985
January 3, 2013 10:17 am

Except that our military today is no longer for mere defense but as a tool for Corporate Greed to spread their globalization agenda and to gain control of the worlds resources to enrich the few at the top and screw over everyone else. All operations in the middle east in the past decade were unnecessary and were perpetuated by Corporate Greed’s fear mongering to gain the people’s support of what otherwise would have been an unconstitutional use of America’s military.

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
January 3, 2013 2:47 pm

Thirds~!

jcrowley1985
Member
jcrowley1985
January 3, 2013 3:01 pm

You have nothing else to say in response? Maybe because you know that I (and Ron Paul) are right.

Not so silent
Member
Not so silent
January 3, 2013 5:05 pm

TD and Mo and Turds..now thats right.

flashingscotsman
Member
January 4, 2013 5:45 pm

If I respond at all, it is to talk ABOUT the idiot, not to him.

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
January 3, 2013 3:24 pm

Yeah. TD…………………MO

KimmyQueen
Guest
KimmyQueen
December 29, 2012 4:48 pm

The court is filled with millionaires obviously.

Now their reasoning is crazy to me. It seems to me that they have no objections to actual taxation or that the taxation amount was whack, but they have a problem that not ALL people were being taxed equally. So if the law said that A COMBINED net worth of married pairs was a million plus were to be affected by the tax (in addition to individuals NOT MARRIED earning that), the court would have been okay with it? That to me is crazy.

It would have made sense to me if they had said that the AMOUNT of percentage was whack and punitive and just leave it at that. Crazy.

6 November 2012
Member
6 November 2012
January 4, 2013 12:22 pm

Tax loophole (or rather the lack of one), that is the most likely explanation.

deepthinker
Member
deepthinker
December 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Wow the French Court actually got one right.

JPTravis
Member
December 29, 2012 2:34 pm

This tax was proposed by a socialist president, so the court ruling will be ignored. Socialists don’t care about the law. He’ll disband the court, impose the tax by fiat, set himself up as a dictator, something. That’s how they work.

GhostntheMachine
Member
GhostntheMachine
December 29, 2012 5:47 pm
KimmyQueen
Guest
KimmyQueen
December 29, 2012 5:50 pm

This is not unusual for a socialist country. In Pma they would do that AND also shut off the water during the overnight hours and sometimes into the early morning hours so if you work nights or early mornings you had to fill the buckets up to wash up. If it was so hot and the AC or fan didnt work too bad for you.

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
January 3, 2013 9:32 am

Why did Kimmy get a DT? Is TRUTH that scary now?

KimmyQueen
Guest
KimmyQueen
January 3, 2013 9:52 am

Stalker put a TD when I wished everyone a Happy New Year in tips page. It is hilarious. It is probably a guy that was spamming the site last week and misunderstood what I was telling him or it could be another idiot. Who knows?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
December 29, 2012 12:19 pm

The Depardieu Ruling. Has a nice ring to it.

Joe Redfield
Member
Joe Redfield
December 29, 2012 9:44 am

Any chance of trading Roberts and the SCOTUS Progs to France for these guys and an ex-President to be named later?

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
December 29, 2012 5:05 pm

You could name him now, he’ll be available in 4 years.

flashingscotsman
Member
January 4, 2013 5:42 pm

I hope he’s available much sooner.

If the Republicans in Congress had a single testicle between them, they’d be introducing a number of impeachment proceedings.

wpDiscuz