Simple, really. People get the benefits of government. They get state of the art infrastructure, affordable health care, a safety net to catch them when they fall, corporations that have to treat their workers with respect, a mandatory month of vacation time and various other government programs that these hard working citizens can rely on. And finally, the Franch people probably don't mind their country offering humanitarian aid to refugees. I certainly don't mind my tax dollars going to help people of other countries.

My question for Americans would be why they aren't outraged with a health care system that punishes people for being sick and charges people exorbatant rates for inefficient care, a corporate system that allows companies to treat workers like dirt and give them the least number of vacation days of any 1st world country (unpaid, mind you. In most countries, mandatory vacation is paid vacation), and support candidates that seem out to do nothing but SHRED the safety net that the poor and working class rely on, in the middle of a RECESSION no less were millions of people are out of work through no fault of their own.

No system is perfect. France's isn't, and ours certainly isn't.

1 month of paid vacation is insane. You get what you pay for I suppose. I would rather have my money and my freedom. Governments should keep the peace. That is all.

Woah 75% is insane. No-one is gonna pay that, it'll just vastly increase the already high levels of tax evasion amongst the rich, and total tax raised by govt will probably fall

Yeah, you do get what you paid for. A month of FREEDOM away from the boss to take it easy in other parts of Europe and actually enjoy your hard earned money. France isn't the unusual case here: most 1st world nations offer some form of paid vacation time.

i like it.

75% has been done before, in America, during some of our strongest economic booms.

"I don't know, worked pretty well in America through the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s when our top marginal tax rate sat between 94-70%. In the past high marginal tax rates would merely force CEOs to reinvest and grow their own companies rather then take the money for themselves. I know my grandpa had no problems growing and maintaining his personal wealth under these kinds of tax rates."

We're effectively having two different arguments here. Homer is arguing against welfare period, which i'm arguing against through a description of the standards of human dignity which should be maintained.

France, now, there's a peculiar problem, and one being misrepresented. The new tax rate is not going to go without cuts (which, ironically, Hollande is taking a beating in public opinion polls because he's still moving forward with certain cuts which the French are opposed to). Hollande's kick was that he was not going to implement discompassionate austerity.

I wouldn't be so vociferous if people weren't all up in here making such hyperbolic arguments.

lol I did take that as sarcasm.
To clarify using an example of fate:zero:

There are two things that must work together:
1. There is the type that must live for the rest of the people. It is a successful persons duty to provide and protect for their people. This kind of person would be like Buffet.
2. The second is the type that must be as greedy as possible, and as successful as possible because it provides people with the example to do the same.

One provides a portion of the people with the faith and strength to carry on, and make it through the hardships.
The other provides the people who have opportunity with the strength to seize it.

In the case of the lvmh pres, he is the latter. His brand is strengthened by his ability to spend money, because the other people who have money and spend it on luxury, want to emulate the kind of person who has tons of money to spend as well. It's an image thing.

However, I do believe that a person with tons of money is better served in the image department by paying the taxes and working around it rather than making it seem like he doesn't have enough. A rich man would laugh at the tax hike and pay even more than requested.

People didn't pay those taxes, brah. Capital gains was only 25%.

Their wealth is handed to them or they have a very well supported upbringing? Prove it. That's quite a bold claim, and it may be true (doesn't change what's right or wrong), but I know a lot of self-made millionaires, and none of them had either of the things you say.

... Should they be exempt from these taxes? If your qualifier is the quality of their upbringing, should people who made it on their own be exempt?

But the fortunate do pay more. Even in a flat rate of tax, 20% of 20,000 is a hell of a lot less than 20% of 150,000.