SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
the2real4mafol said:
It just shows how pathetic the rich, can't even handle a simple tax increase. I agree 75% is a bit much, but it's what you have to do, if you are in debt. I think 50 to 60% tax on the rich is fairer. Even the 45% tax on those who earn above £150,000 I think is fair, better than the ridiculously low taxes of America. Maybe, Hollande is a bit nuts on this.
But either way, a bad economy usually caused by moderates (liberals and conservatives) normally leads to the far left (communists) or far right (fascists) getting power, nearly always. If people aren't happy with Hollande, they just vote in the fascist Le Pen next time, who were 3rd in this year's election!
|
Why should they be expected to pay a tax increase? They've already had to go through countless loops, and perform thousands of tricks, at the state's will, to become successful. In doing so, they've created jobs, and provided goods and services that people want. These people are beneficators to humankind, and should not be punished for being so.
45% on people earning over 150,000k? I tell you something, my parents are over that bracket, and they're paying WAY over 45%. You forgot to include the fact that the personal allowance is removed at 100,000. Also, national insurance, sales taxes, import taxes, capital gains, fuel duty, alcohol duty, air travel taxes, property taxes, road taxes, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that the price of everything you buy is increased by all the taxes that the producer had to pay. I'd say that the amount that goes to the taxman is closer to 100%, than 45% (one of my dad's friends worked it out once, he said that around 87% of his income went to the taxman... but, hey, it's fine, he's a millionaire.)
Also, you said that "it's what you have to do, if you're in debt". That's bollocks. It makes sense if this guy was responsible for the debt... but, judging by his actions here, he's probably not a big Government guy... why should he have to beholden to the burden of other people's wants? Nothing more than theft.
Bad economies are caused by monetary policy. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
Panic of 1837, in a pre-monetary policy world
|
"In summation, Temin was right to notice that the inflation of the 1830s began in 1830 not in
1833. However, he is wrong to absolve President Jackson and the state banks of all blame for the
monetary and credit inflation of the decade. The incorporated, fractional-reserve banks of the
states were the chief cause of the inflation previous to the panic, and Jackson's state-bank
depository system was a secondary cause. Temin is also wrong to blame the Panic of 1837
merely on changing market conditions abroad. Had the United States had a sound banking and
monetary system founded on 100 percent specie reserves, the fall in cotton prices and the drying
up of British credit would have been a mere temporary inconvenience and certainly would not
have led to a calamitous panic, followed by a brief recovery and then a second panic and a four
year business contraction. "
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/trask1.pdf
|
