Welcome To Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals

Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals is the LARGEST online community & discussion forum for professional sign-makers and graphic designers.

 


  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Apparently France hates investments and innovation

Discussion in 'General Chit-Chat' started by Move In Media, Sep 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Move In Media

    Move In Media Member

    170
    0
    0
    Mar 13, 2012
    Well, the idea is that to create something new and innovative you need people to invest into research and production.... and why would you invest in a country that will tax you 75% on any profit you make over 1 mil euro?
     
  2. cajun312

    cajun312 Active Member

    591
    3
    18
    Jun 26, 2005
    Louisiana
    I saw a news clip the other day about how the richest man in France may be heading to Belgium.
     
  3. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona
    While the IDEA sounds great, the FACTS dont bear that out.

    If that were the case the US would be FLOODED with investments as the tax rates have been lowered from over 90% in the 1950s, when investment here was incredible, to the current 35% where more and more investments are OVERSEAS (taking US jobs), and much of the money is being hoarded in banks around the world.
    http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/corporations-hoarding-trillions


    "If you go to the tax policy center there is a clear chart showing that income tax rates for the upper bracket were lowest during 4 different periods, of these periods only one produced a significant spike in the GDP, which was during mid 1990s.
    Of the remaining three lowest income tax rates for the upper bracket, 1925, 1980 and 2008, there were 2 severe crashes of the market and one significant crash. When the tax rates were slashed fir the so called "job creators" in 1925 the market lost it's growth in 1929, same as 2008, not as much in 1980, grew in the 1990s.
    ... why? Because cutting capital gains and upper income rates, does not result in money going to equity markets, instead this available money goes to large empty homes, depreciating assets like expensive cars and mobile homes as well as wasted in fatty deposits on our bodies due to lavish life styles. Being forced to put money back in the economy produces a better result."
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/09/do-lower-taxes-goose-growth.html


    Money is better for the majority when in circulation.

    The whole idea that tax breaks for the uber wealthy US citizens makes them US job creators is a MYTH and counter productive.

    When tax rates were high, people put THAT money BACK into their companies to avoid those high tax rates.

    Now that money goes overseas, into banks and out of US circulation.
     
  4. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,257
    147
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN
    What you aren't taking into account is that last time I checked, that 35% is the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Japan used to be higher, but they lowered theirs.
     
  5. Move In Media

    Move In Media Member

    170
    0
    0
    Mar 13, 2012
    I'll see if I can formulate a more detailed response to that when I have some free time, but for now I'd like to point out that over 1 mil euro is not exactly uber wealthy.... My dad used to make that much a year, and I wouldn't say he's exactly a fat cat..... if he had to pay 75% of that back in taxes, he definitely could not have hired the extra workers for office and workshop, and without those extra workers he could not have even achieved the same level of income.... so I see your point regarding large corporations, but when it comes to small business owners it works differently...
     
  6. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona
    It it relevant?

    What was the rest of the world when we were at 90%?
     
  7. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona
    1.285 million a year?
    Not that much money?

    Show me HOW it works differently.

    Point is that people INVESTED in the own company RATHER than pay the higher tax. They DID hire more workers, upgraded equipment, etc.

    Now, that money is REMOVED from the business by those who pay lower taxes on it.
     
  8. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,257
    147
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN

    Can't compare that situation with now. A whole lot more players in the game now then there were back in the 50s. What we did was also different back then, not only did we innovate, but we built. We might still innovate, but we outsource the being built part. Couple that with higher standard of living, work place regulations etc, it all adds up. That higher corporate tax rate is just the icing on the cake.
     
  9. signswi

    signswi Very Active Member

    2,136
    1
    0
    Oct 29, 2009
    a) Yes, that makes him a fat cat.

    b) By investing in the business he'd have lower taxable income. A higher tax rate INCREASES investment back into businesses, not lowers it. I don't think you understand how taxes or economics work.

    c) As Randya pointed out, during much of the boom years of the United States we had a 90% tax rate on incomes earned by the top percentiles. It did a lot to fuel the system which enabled more people to become successful. As we started cutting back on those rates we got into deeper and deeper systemic economic trouble.
     
  10. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona

    I dont know that there are a 'whole lot more players' now than then, in numbers or proportions or if that is relevant.
    I can look at the propaganda that says lower tax rates creates employment and compare that to employment and see that they dont have a direct correlation.


    Yes, we built back then, because of the tax rate structure I have stated.
    NOW there is a tax break to send manufacturing offshore.
    NOW there is a tax break to take the money OUT of the company and invest it offshore.
     
  11. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona
    What this changed was the concentration of POWER as wealth.
    To the same kind of proportions that existed during and prior to the market crash in the 20's.
     
  12. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,257
    147
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN
    Compare the world players from the 50s to now. In terms of manufacturing, in terms of being able to harvest resources etc Countries that didn't have the ability or know how to do things back then, do now and are able to do so efficiently. Especially if they have lax regulations on labor and environmental laws. I would say those impacted our ability to efficiently manufacture as well. At least at the level that we did.

    I'm not saying going back to that time as far as regulation, some of it was/is good, but there were more variables that went on back then compared to now.

    Not just tax structure, but there were different rules and regulations on businesses that were different back then compared to now. Especially when you consider what goes on in manufacturing world.

    There are more variables that are going on then just tax structure.
     
  13. rjssigns

    rjssigns Major Contributor

    4,261
    200
    63
    Jun 4, 2007
    Home Office
    So instead of paying myself a decent wage for my efforts I should be forced to either invest in my business of give it to the government?

    How big of a sign shop do you think you can build with constant forced investment?

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
     
  14. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona
    Granted.

    But the propaganda that decreasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans creates American jobs flys in the face of the facts.

    Freeing up money and giving tax breaks to move manufactuing and technlogy offshore has hurt OUR economy.
    I want MY representatives to represent and protect ME and MY COUNTRY, not manufacturing jobs off shore for multinational corporations who have no other interest in this country than monetarily.
     
  15. CES020

    CES020 Very Active Member

    2,875
    2
    38
    Oct 16, 2008
    VA
    I've got a simpler test for you randya. If you take all of people's money, what's left then?

    The argument is lost. Once you take 75% and that doesn't solve the problem (because there's no historical evidence where anyone has taxed themselves into prosperity), what's next? 85%? Then guess what? There's no money left. What's the solution then, when you've "taken" all the money you can from the rich?

    I don't know what your life travels have been, but in mine, I've never ever seen where the top tier people were lost anything. If you take money from them, they cut peoples wages. If you took money from them, they cut vendor pricing. The idea that a business owner is going to just take the hit and not do anything but make less money is crazy. That never happens. Someone will pay and 99% of the time, it's the people who can't afford to have that cut.

    If you took ALL the people's money over $1,000,000, every single penny, it funds the government for 8 days. Now that all the money is gone, what's next? Where will the money for the other 367 days come from?
     
  16. Move In Media

    Move In Media Member

    170
    0
    0
    Mar 13, 2012
    I guess our definition of a fat cat is different, I fail to see how someone with 1 mil a year earnings is on the same level as a corporation like Microsoft.... My dad has spent much of his income investing into his business, using that money to hire more people and getting better equipment, giving people jobs and making sure their job is easier. He has also helped out a lot in his hometown community. None of that would have been possible if he had to give most of his earning to government to upkeep the overgrown beuracracy and inneficient spending.
     
  17. cajun312

    cajun312 Active Member

    591
    3
    18
    Jun 26, 2005
    Louisiana
    What happens to American international companies when American taxes are too high? They keep and spend the money elsewhere.

    Apple is planning to spend an estimated $45 billion of its cash reserves in the next three years, as part of a program the company announced Monday that includes the first dividend for shareholders since 1995.

    But not one penny of that is slated to come from the roughly $64 billion the company has stashed overseas. That’s because Apple, like other corporations, is loath to pay the heavy tax hit for repatriating that money.

    “We do not want to incur the tax cost to repatriate the foreign cash at this time,” Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer told investors and analysts during a conference call Monday.
     
  18. randya

    randya Very Active Member

    2,060
    3
    38
    Apr 6, 2007
    Arizona
    First, let me say that I oppose income taxes.
    I support competition and therefore trust busting, and an even playing field.

    The REAL question is:
    IS the propaganda that reducing taxes at the top end make them job creators, true?
    The FACTS say NO.


    So to answer your question:

    "The argument is lost. Once you take 75% and that doesn't solve the problem (because there's no historical evidence where anyone has taxed themselves into prosperity), what's next? 85%? Then guess what? There's no money left. What's the solution then, when you've "taken" all the money you can from the rich?"

    Let's look at the best predictor of future behavior - HISTORY
    Compare the 90% rate of the 1950s with the 35% rate now.
    Which had more benefit to AMERICA itself?

    The people who DRIVE healthy economies are the MIDDLE CLASS, who spend.
    It is the MIDDLE CLASS who are being taxed out of existance.
    A healthy and spending middle class creates DEMAND.

    Too many are still stuck in SUPPLY SIDE economics (Keynesianism)
    You can supply widgets and gadets and build factories, but if you have no middle class to buy and consume these items then there can be no 'trickle' down.

    Supply side economics is reducing taxes at the upper end.
    Where are the promised results?
    What we have is TREMENDOUS DEBT from this Keynesian approach, that places the burden on the middle class and strained out ability for growth.

    We need to move back to DEMAND side economics (Free Market and Competition).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

 


Loading...