Millionaire tax ruled unconstitutional

[_bcspace]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/29/us-france-tax-idUSBRE8BS05M20121229

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

[_lulu]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/29/us-france-tax-idUSBRE8BS05M20121229

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

Gee, I wonder what Scalia and Thomas would say about reading a foreign court ruling and then saying something about the US?

[_Droopy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/29/us-france-tax-idUSBRE8BS05M20121229

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

That this happened in France, of all places, is actually a reason for some degree of optimism in otherwise dark times. That an actual limit and rule of law was imposed on the otherwise desperate, lawless plundering of the citizenry to fund a collapsing welfare/sinecure state (which is, for all intents, the central organizing principle that animates the Obama administration, the Democratic party, the California legislature, both private and public sector unionism etc.) is cause to think that at least some of the sandbags are still holding back the rising waters.

[_Droopy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/29/us-france-tax-idUSBRE8BS05M20121229

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

Gee, I wonder what Scalia and Thomas would say about reading a foreign court ruling and then saying something about the US?

Bc is not a sitting federal or Supreme Court judge ruling on an actual case before a court, so what does it matter?

I think a larger point to be made here is that, if the constitution were ever to actually be taken seriously again, a startling (for many people) portion of what the U.S. government does in both the levying, collecting, and utilization of the fruits of the labor of its citizens would be declared constitutionally suspect.

Bc is correct about such taxes on "the rich." They (like the death tax) collect very little revenue, but have a strong symbolic value for the Left, and are a red bone of class envy score-settling thrown to the Democratic party's constituents in the general population (which is now, apparently, quite substantial).

[_Kevin Graham]

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

Actually the opposite is true on both counts. But proving it has been rather easy for those who place truth over dogma, since we have years of economic history supporting it. Let me guess, you're going to go with the contrived, "job creators" theory that's so popular on your propaganda networks like FOX and EIB.

It is worth noting that America has thrived while implementing a progressive tax system. Always has. And it is no coincidence that our outrageous deficits coincide with outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy.

[_lulu]

I think a larger point to be made here is that, if the constitution were ever to actually be taken seriously again, a startling (for many people) portion of what the U.S. government does in both the levying, collecting, and utilization of the fruits of the labor of its citizens would be declared constitutionally suspect.

All of which has nothing to do with French constitutional law, per Scalia and Thomas.

[_bcspace]

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

Actually the opposite is true on both counts

Not at all. For a nearly 4 trillion dollar Obama budget (2013) where about 1.3 trillion in revenue comes from income taxes and where the proposed "tax the rich" policies just might, and I stress might, add 80 billion, it's a drop in the bucket revenue-wise that causes the rich to send their money overseas and not invest it here.

It's not about taxing the rich, it's about controlling an out of control government by starving it of funds. Obama's re-election has not validated his policies as evidenced by the economy, but it has exposed the abject ignorance of the Democrats and those whom they've duped.

by the way, yearly revenue [non SS] doesn't even reach 2 trillion. No need to spend more than that and yet Obama continues to outstrip all other presidents combined on deficit spending.

by the way, Social Security has just begun to run it's first deficits which is critical if you assume the program should bring in at least as much as it puts out. The Obama economy, with much less in SS than it could have had with an actual policy, has sunk us again.

[_bcspace]

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

Gee, I wonder what Scalia and Thomas would say about reading a foreign court ruling and then saying something about the US?

Probably nothing at all since since "saying something about the US" does not necessarily mean using foriegn rulings as precedent. We don't need such precedent. We just need a smarter electorate (we don't have that as evidenced by Obama's re-election) and judges that actually respect the Constitution (we are teetering on the edge in that respect with any Obama appointment replacing any conservative judge set to tip us over the edge into the abyss and the continuing Democrat protection of the Ninth Circuit).

[Guest]

The key here being that these type of taxes, there or in the US, are largely symbolic for the Left and do relatively little to bring in revenue but do a lot to weigh down the economy.

Actually the opposite is true on both counts. But proving it has been rather easy for those who place truth over dogma, since we have years of economic history supporting it. Let me guess, you're going to go with the contrived, "job creators" theory that's so popular on your propaganda networks like FOX and EIB.

Oh for crying out loud stop your Goebbelsesque lying for the cause! Your cult leader is laughing at you, Graham. You and those like you are the butt of his great, cosmic joke. Good grief anyone with a modicum of education and who is marginally computer literate, or can read above 7th or 8th grade levels can send you packing with this twaddle in about 30 seconds.

Graham is an excellent example of the maxim that if you're going to lie, lie big and lie often. The more brazen and audacious, the better. Fly directly in the face of all existing empirical facts, evidence, history, and sound theory. Eventually, low information citizens (the base of the Democratic party and all too many citizens per se) will start to think that you must know something that they don't.

It is worth noting that America has thrived while implementing a progressive tax system.

That' s a half truth, at best, and "thrive" is a relative concept, like "health."

Give it all up, Graham. You're over your head, over your head, over your head, again and again and again, on virtually every issue.

You have a long, sad history as the least read, least educated, least knowledgeable, and least intellectually honest or fair interlocutor in any room, and yet you stride into every room as if you are the smartest and brightest. You also appear to have no desire whatever to moderate or have second thoughts about your relentless flight from both head and heart.

Always has. And it is no coincidence that our outrageous deficits coincide with outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is pure piffle. A reasonably intelligent chimp could sort this out with a bit of serious reading and a modicum of intellectual effort. If every penny and particle of personal income was simply confiscated from the "wealthy" (now its "the wealthy," not just "the rich." The totalitarian temptation knows no bounds) in toto, the entire take would fund the running of the government for roughly three months (this includes all personal liquid assets, from personal income, savings, stocks, bonds, homes, yachts, aircraft etc.)

This wouldn't come close to satisfying present executive and congressional spending appetites, and its not even pocket change relative to the $16 trillion in debt our children and grandchildren now owe (nearly $6 trillion of which was created in just 2 - 4 years) and which will soon be well over 26 trillion at the end of the decade.

No conceivable tax hike could even put a small dent in the present federal debt, nor pay of all the vote buying schemes, pork, and dependency-generating gratuities the present political class has addicted itself to. The present debt is greater now than the size of the entire American economy, and it will be far larger than that by the end of the decade.

The fundamental problem is with government spending, which long, long ago went well beyond any rational, moral, or constitutional boundaries. Bottom line: violate the laws of economics long enough, and they will snap back and bite you. And when they do, depending upon the depth at which those principles have been violated, the consequences can be grim indeed.

[_lulu]

First you read a short passage from a French Constitutional Court decision, next a US Democratic party flier, this leads to a daily reading of the New York Times, then the monthly, Mother Jones, next thing you know you can't put down Das Kapital.

Seal your brains brethern, seal your brains before its too late!