Home > Uncategorized > Vive la France: Govt taxes high incomes at high rates to reduce deficit

Vive la France: Govt taxes high incomes at high rates to reduce deficit

In France, he’d owe the middle class $15 million on his $21 million in “earnings.” Here, he owes less than $3 million.

“This is a serious budget, it’s a leftist budget and it’s fighting budget,” Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici told French radio station Europe-1 Friday morning.

Because Hollande promised that he would slash the country’s deficit to 3 percent next year — a limit required by European rules — the government must find €30 billion in savings. One-third will come in spending cuts, with the rest in new or higher taxes on the wealthy and big companies, including a 75 percent tax on incomes over €1 million (about $1.3 million –Mitch).

Among the other measures included are: a new income tax level at 45 percent for those making more than €150,000 (about $200,000 –Mitch), an increase of capital gains taxes to bring them more in line with how salaries are taxed, and a cap on certain deductions for large companies on their income taxes.


  1. Pesky Fact
    September 28, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Just a reminder, if we taxed all millionaires in America at 100%, it would raise about 600 billion (the first year, declining thereafter) which would not close the budget deficit.

    The government in America, and California, spends too much. In addition, the inefficiencies in this government are staggering and are creating economic drag.

    Sorry, it’s not all bush’s fault. Tine to stop blaming people you don’t like for societies problems.

  2. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 8:32 am

    This is the most bizarre justification for not taxing millionaires at reasonable rates that I’ve ever heard, yet it seems to be a favorite of the million dollar earners.

    Under a sane taxation scheme, you allocate the tax load FAIRLY across all people. So you say everyone, including billionaires, gets no taxation — or extremely low taxation — on what it costs to earn basic food and shelter, then people pay a bit of tax when they have a bit of free cash flow, and people pay a high rate on money that, if taxed, would cause them essentially no change in their lifestyle. This is exactly what France is doing. It’s what the United States did during the post World War II period, until we were sold out by our billionaires and their friendly, aw-shucks front-man Reagan.

    Taxing millionaires fairly would make a major dent in the deficit. The fact that it would not close the deficit doesn’t mean you don’t want to tax millionaires fairly; it means that you need to raise taxes across the board on very high income people, but make the raise highest on millionaires so everyone can see there is some fairness to the taxation system, and don’t resent the fact that millionaires right now pay a lower rate than most people in the middle class.

  3. September 28, 2012 at 8:36 am

    No mention of controlling spending from Mitch, of course.

  4. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 8:38 am

    The United States government sector does not spend as much as the government sector in many western European democracies.

    Is the government wasteful? Yes. Am I against government waste? Yes. Have you ever met anyone, especially anyone in politics, who isn’t completely aware that standing against unspecified government waste is a great talking point?

    In my opinion, every government subsidy to the oil industry should stop yesterday. The giveaway of government mineral rights should stop and extraction companies should be forced to pay market rates for their use of government lands. In fact, I think the government should basically suck up all but a tightly limited and tightly regulated profit from the use of government lands. The subsidy of agriculture should stop, yesterday. The use of cost plus contracts in the military industrial complex should end, yesterday.

    All those subsidies cost money we don’t have any longer. Does that eliminate enough spending for you, Fred?

    Want more? The home mortgage tax deduction, which is a subsidy to the banksters masquerading as a middle-class deduction, should be phased out and replaced with a tax CREDIT on the purchase of a first home. You could move a lot of people into homes by directly reducing their mortgages by 25% of the median home price rather than artificially reducing the effective cost of mortgages on McMansions through tax deductions that matter most to people in high brackets. That would have even better savings for the government when inflation goes up again, and banks charge higher interest on mortgages. Why is it that a tax benefit suppposedly meant to help homeowners has to involve debt to the banksters?

  5. A pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Mitch, the logical fallacy you committed is called “begging the question” by presuming what you seek to prove. You also committed a “tu quoque”, which amounts to “other people do other things, so, potato!”.

    You then engaged in a “red herring” by trying to totally change the topic (the topic you raised) to one of “oil!!” which is about 1 degree shy of “bush!!!” finally you compared to unlike things as if they were alike.

    This, Mitch, is why the country is in such dire trouble. At long last, admit that your rhetoric and childish ideas have failed. It’s time to return to critical thinking and stop abusing logic and reason without mercy.

  6. Anonymous
    September 28, 2012 at 9:06 am

    unemployment rate in France = 10.1%

  7. SNaFU
    September 28, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Here’s most of Ca’s problems, amazing >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_state_agencies

  8. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Anonymous #5,

    Unemployment in the US, 8%; underemployment in the US, 16.5%. Gallup 9/26

  9. HUUFC
    September 28, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Simple, there are two ways to solve the budget problem, reduce spending and raise taxes. I will oppose any raise in taxes because if you give an extra dollar to a politicans they will spend three or more. Day after day wastefull spending locally is reported in the T-S and our representatives are thanked for it. One million dollars for a indian park in Klamath, stop it please.

  10. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 9:38 am

    First stop the trillion to Boeing, Lockheed, etc…: that’s a million times a million. Then worry about a million to an indian park in Klamath.

  11. Anonymous
    September 28, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Self-destructive myth-making, HUUFC.

  12. norcal guy, 202
    September 28, 2012 at 9:42 am

    hey mitch, what’s the U6 unemployment figure? you don’t know what the U6 figure includes? it includes in addition to the people in your 8% figure (it’s 10.6% in California as of August, 2012) the people who have exhaused their benefits or have given up looking. last time I checked the National U6 unemployment was at 20.3 percent!

    it’s truly pathetic that a person who controls the media such as you has such an overwhelming bias towards socialisim. romney’s 47 percent figure is more like 87 percent in Humboldt County

  13. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 9:48 am

    “it’s truly pathetic that a person who controls the media such as you has such an overwhelming bias towards socialisim.”

    Thank you very much. I love hearing about my power, not to mention my fundamental decency. Both are equally vast.

  14. retired guy
    September 28, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Say, why don’t we just go back to the Reagan tax rates. That way we won’t have to listen to the conservative gang belly-ache about the liberals setting higher tax rates. Problem solved!

  15. September 28, 2012 at 10:39 am

    I like it, retired guy.

    Along with that, we could reinstate all the financial laws like Glass-Steagall which keep the banking system from being used as a casino.

  16. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 10:51 am


    Apologies for the time it took to recover your comment from moderation. It’s a mystery to me how the wordpress moderation system works, and I have no control over it, so things emerge from moderation when I check my email, or when someone else with access to the queue notices them.

    I don’t know what you’re talking about vis a vis logical fallacies. If I’m guilty of them, so be it.

    It just seems to me that saying that taxing millionaires will not close the deficit is a total non sequitur, as no one I know claims it will. Running a fire department will not prevent all fires, but no one suggests that the solution to the problem of fires is to eliminate the fire department. Running a fire department helps stop some fires; raising taxes on millionaires helps reduce the deficit at a minimum cost in human suffering.

    For many people who consider progressive taxation to be a fair approach, one that has a long and honorable history in American democracy, raising the rate of taxation on the most fortunate among us also contributes to a sense of fairness.

  17. September 28, 2012 at 10:52 am

    I support most raises in taxes as I prefer to live in a society that has a high standard of living for the majority of people.

  18. September 28, 2012 at 11:01 am

    bolithio, and that’s exactly how the French feel about it: Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

    Theyre human and not perfect about it either, not to mention the original falling heads, but they do choose to remember.

  19. p'folk
    September 28, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Read up on how high US taxes on the wealthiest were towards the end of the 30’s depression. Never happen again here.

  20. Anonymous
    September 28, 2012 at 11:29 am

    GDP growth rate in France = 0

  21. September 28, 2012 at 11:30 am

    The Looters have nearly rendered the dollar worthless and you’re worrying about taxes? Someone needs a reality check.

    As a person subjected to Mitch’s “fundamental decency” from time to time, I got to wonder how he defines “decency”?
    Mitch :
    “*** I love hearing about my power, not to mention my fundamental decency. Both are equally vast.

  22. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 11:43 am


    Yes, as a gatekeeper to local media, my power is vast. And I wield it with even greater charm than suzy blah blah, so Mitch must blushingly acknowledge his fundamental decency. It’s not that I’m full of myself, it’s just that I’m so fucking wonderful. Some things can’t be helped.

  23. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Perhaps The Heraldoistas could consider a seperate section for idiotic self-promoters like the vaccuous Joe Blow or the inapropriate Mark Sailors types so threads can remain on topic.

  24. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    So tempting, What Now, but so unworkable. So sad.

  25. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Well, I do appreciate you responding to the situation.
    Perhaps Joe Blow can lend a section of hid “fluxus review” for hi-tech panhandlers and fellow “I don’t get enough attention” syndrome sufferers.

  26. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    PageDown is your friend. And let’s not forget the joy of unintentional humor.

  27. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Noted, Mitch.

  28. A pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm


    The matter of logic, reason, and fallacies is at the very heart of this matter.

    Fairness does not appear in the federal constitution. The purpose and goal of the income tax (which required a Con. Amendment) is also not fairness or redistribution of wealth.

    Laws and taxes are not there to force people to agree with you, or to feel your emotions.

    From the standpoint of basic economics, things like 75% tax on “the rich” are terrible ideas. Further, and I know this might be a stretch, there is a connection between taxes and what the government does with said monies.

    Yes, it’s possible to list various pork barrel things. What might just shock you is that, in principle, many conservatives might even agree with eliminating them (the process of how to do so is a different debate– some may say “chop and forget” others, like me, would advocate a 10 year phase out, phasing in block grants to states, others still other things).

    But, your disingenuousness shows strong when you list politically favorite programs and wage personal attacks. You seem only interested in shrinking government in ways that hurt a certain segment if society– the segment that you are irrationally bigoted against, which also is the segment that is trying to employ reason and logic to fix the problems created by 50+ years of the selfish emotivism that you espouse.

    So, let me be clear, when taxes become punitive and trillions are borrowed in an act of generational theft, and you advocate more of the same, you are the one being selfish. Because you are the one demanding others and society conform to your ever-changing-undefinable notion of fairness.

    Mitch, if you want fairness in society, you must firstly advocate for the wholesale shrinking of the federal government. And yes, you will find many a conservative that is supportive of even scaling back the military. By empowering government so greatly, you only sucres in making everyone equally unfree.

    However, Mitch, since the appeals of right reason seem to have little regard on thus blog, I hope you will permit me an emotional appeal and an appeal to the self interest of the blog. Heraldo is an advocate for a multitude of social rights, freedoms, and recognitions for homosexual persons, and I presume you share those positions as a co-blogger.

    Mitch, what large, massive, centralized government has ever been kind in any way to homosexuals? Ever? The S.O.P always goes the same way, and homosexuals are among the first people who become “undesirables.”. The only place and nation in the world where homosexuals have been free to 1) speak 2) believe 3) gather 4) be armed 5) vote 6) and hold public office is in the America that was created and forged through constitutional values.

    You may cite “Europe!!!!” and we both know that is a joke, esp. since Europe– after implementing the very policies you advocate– is on the brink of financial Armageddon. And even then, the socialist paradise was only made possible by America footing the bill for defense since the end of WW2.

    And what do you think will happen to gay eights in Europe when nations start breaking apart and the money runs out?

    Mitch, consider the reality of what is– and not your own emotional desire to use central government to impose control over others– and the positions you should be holding will become clear.

  29. Fact Checker
    September 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Sorry to burst your illusions with facts, but remember how economically healthy America was in the 50’s, look at the 70% Income Tax rate for the wealthy? And then consider how well America has been doing since the era of Reagan and the wealthy American have become virtual tax-scofflaws.

  30. Fact Checker
    September 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    dang it, the question mark was to be after “50’s”

  31. Pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Fact checker, you win. You manage to provide a partial tidbit, free of any historical context or relevant information. Clearly you must be right, since, you know, “potato!!!!”

    Can you work with me here? And I know breaking away from talking points is hard, but can you help me think of any large event in the 1940s that helped our export situation in the 1950s? Since we had factories and, well, the rest of planet earth was largely in ruins?

    But yeah, 1950s, and potato!! So your side must be totally right.

    PS, please take the time to watch the Andrew Klavin video “Shut up, he explained.”. We’re going full speed towards a cliff as a society, and you want to shut people up with ignorant talking points. If only the republic had fewer people dedicated to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

  32. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Here’s the preamble to the United States Constitution:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Yes, you’re right. The word fairness does not appear in the preamble or elsewhere in the document. But we do find “establish Justice” and “promote the general Welfare.”

    We probably disagree about how these tasks can best be accomplished.

    The United States was founded on a recognition that people did not need, always and everywhere, to bow before kings. The statesmen behind our independence and constitution had a wide range of opinions, but what finally made it into the declaration of independence was not “life, liberty, and property” but “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    From some points of view, redistribution is a horrible thing. I’d urge such people to become active in a movement to return the continental United States to its prior owners, against whom, I agree, a horrible redistributive injustice has taken place. But if you’re not prepared to support such a movement, you are implicitly recognizing that “redistribution happens.” Personally, I’d like to see redistribution happen in a way that maximizes total happiness across the population, while respecting every individual’s right to earn a lot of money through hard work. The mechanism that I believe supports that is the progressive income tax.

    I’m not a fan of big government. You can believe that or not, but it’s true: I’m not a fan of big anything. But I do recognize that there is a need — some people might call it a Christian need, but not me — to support those in trouble.

    Over the past few decades, a mean-spirited offshoot of libertarianism has taken root in many wealthy communities. It doesn’t even have the virtue of being sustainable — no democratic society can create huge disparities in income and expect to continue as a democracy. Either the government will be taken over by those with wealth, and the government forces will be used to prevent the vast majority from taking the wealth away from the wealthiest, or the government will act to redistribute the wealth to remove some of the pressure from below. It’s practically physics. Our government has, in large part, been taken over by the wealthiest, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Democrats realize that the wealthiest will do better if those at the bottom are given a few more crumbs; the Republicans are too blinded by this new libertarian ideology to recognize that a few more crumbs would be in their own self interest.

    You may think that a 75% tax on the rich is wrong, but that does not make it so, any more than my personal opinions make me right. We simply have different opinions, which makes life interesting.

    The main flaw of a 75% tax is that wealth will flee to areas that do not have such a tax. That’s why there needs to be coordinated worldwide action, to prevent the race to the bottom that we’ve seen so often. You might be comforted to know that I have zero expectations that such coordinated action can take place. Still, I feel that taxes on the wealthiest among us can be restored to the rates of a few decades ago, so that our shredded safety net for the poorest among us can be offered a few more threads.

  33. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    As for a large, massive, central government that’s kind to homosexuals? Well, color me shocked, but I’d have to point to the United States federal government under President Obama. There’s a ways to go, of course, but… wow!

  34. Karl Marx
    September 28, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Redistribute the wealth from the hard working sacrifice making rich who planned ahead and give it to the lazy and undeserving.

  35. a pesky fact (corrected)
    September 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Again, Mitch, how sustainar is our current fiscal course? I’m trying to be sincere with my attempt at dialog. I’d be glad to provide charts/graphs if you’d like.

    We have 16 trillion in debt. Our unfunded liabilities are in the neighborhood of 75 trillion. Real unemployment is in the range of 15-18%. We’ve added more persons to social security disability in 4 years than jobs.

    How long can this continue? Tax the rich at 100%, you still don’t close the yearly deficit. And, of course, none of this addresses matters on the state level.

    How long can this fiscal course continue? And what happens when it can’t continue anymore? Bad things happen, Mitch. Very. Bad. Things.

  36. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm


    That’s the current system, except the lazy one isn’t poor. Who’s lazier: an heir to a fortune or a hotel maid working two shifts to feed her kids?

  37. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Total hyperbole, #34 and disgusting abuse of a great thinker’s name.

  38. A pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    May have accidentally submitting my reply under the name “Mitch”. Sry. Iphoning it in

  39. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    #35, NOONE on this blog or in the american political arena is or has advocated 100% taxation of anyone, including the “deserving” rich.

  40. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Pesky Fact,

    We agree that we cannot continue on our current course. But I’d say the problem is that we’ve reduced tax rates on the wealthiest while buying guns instead of butter. Future generations will look at the money we poured into the military when it was the last one standing and wonder at how insane we were.

    Cut our military so that it remains the largest in the world, eliminate all subsidies to any industry, and cap government as a percent of GDP at the average of Western Europe. You’d still come out ahead.

    Our problem is not that we are giving away too much to the poor. Our problem is that we are giving away too much to the rich — what used to be collected as taxes now becomes the debt, and we end up paying the wealthy interest on it, when it would previously have been collected as taxes.

    When you put money into helping poor people get health care and education, your costs for the next generation’s social welfare go down. When you put money into military and prisons, you more or less guarantee you are setting yourself up for big charges later.

    The Bush administration and the Obama administration both gave free government guarantees and money to a bunch of self-satisfied greedy monsters, because the greedy monsters had both by the balls. The first step to recovering the Treasury is to cut the greedy monsters down to size. They belong in prison, not on Wall Street.

  41. A pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Mitch, you finally do the right thing and turn to the Constitution for guidance.

    I applaude this. The next step is to start reading key works related to the founding fathers. This will be hard, because you will be persuaded to see that views you have long held are in error.

    The only way to save the Republic is by returning to the rule of law. Returning to Constitutional values in our nation and legislature and judiciary. This means returning power to the states.

    Failure to do so will bring us to to fiscal Armageddon. And then we have Very. Bad. Things.

    I recommend two books. Thomas Payne’s “Common Sense” and Alexis d. Toucquiville’s “Democracy in America.”

    In terms of a common sense and friendly appeal, I understand your desire for some sort of redistributive fairness. Wouldn’t it be a better path, instead of trying to get a bunch of jerkfaces in DC to deign to give you what you wish, to do the following:

    1) have DC only collect what is needed for it’s constitutionally mandated activities
    2) let California have all that extra funding that currently gets sent to DC
    3) establish redistributive fairness as best you see fit within our own state
    4) have more power and money then also shifted to the county level, for more of the above.

    Doesn’t that just make more sense? This whole idea of a massive centralized government in DC is just a mind bogglingly bad idea.

  42. A pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Congrats, Mitch.

    You just made the argument for strict originalism and state’s rights.

    Welcome to conservstive/tea-party town. Population you.

    Once you really read and understand the constitution, you will likely also find it terrifying what is going on in DC. The status quo there knows that they’re pushing it all towards collapse.

    Pro-tip: that’s not a bug. It’s a feature. They too know what happens, a la the Weimar Republic. The political elites combine with the elites of mass media, industry, and finance to monopolize power and control.

  43. September 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Fairness does not appear in the federal constitution.

    Neither is breathing.

  44. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Pesky Fact,

    I have read Common Sense. I am the last person standing who has not read and does not pretend to have read Democracy in America.

    You probably won’t be surprised that I don’t think I’ll be rushing over to “your side” very quickly. On the other hand, the Tea Party would be very welcome on my side as soon as it recognizes the nature of the theft that, yes, the federal government has been facilitating.

    We do disagree about the nature of the solutions. It’s much easier to agree about the nature of the problems. To the extent that you think the government must “just leave people alone,” we disagree. We’d agree if the federal government was the only large and ominous power people have to deal with — as was mostly the case in the eighteenth century. But times have changed and there are many additional large threats to people’s peace, welfare and security.

    When the federal government stepped in and told the white people of Mississippi that they had to provide equal accommodations to black people, the federal government was doing something that the state of Mississippi was unable and unwilling to do. When the federal government regulates industries, it is doing something that capitalism, on its own, is unable and unwilling to do. I’m glad the federal government does those things, and I feel fairly certain that what would fill any vacuum it were to leave behind would not resemble New Hampshire town meetings as much as it would resemble “Potterville” from It’s a Wonderful Life.

  45. September 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Thanks Pesky, for raising the issues of Constitutionalism and States Rights.

    Your Constitutional Right to Cannabis

    You and I have a Constitutional Right to grow, to possess, and to consume cannabis sativa and its variants.

    Really you do.

    I have pointed out to people in debates for years that it says right in the Constitution that you have a right to grow, possess, and yes! smoke cannabis sativa if you so choose. These people (some of them are well meaning but just ignorant) challenge me to point out the words in the Constitution that guarantee me the right to use cannabis sativa.

    I tell them it is right there, right next to the words that guarantee them the right to manufacture, possess and consume alcohol. It’s right there, can’t you see it? Of course you can.

    Because when the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights was ratified the cultivation and processing and yes! the smoking of India hemp (cannabis sativa and its cultivars) was perfectly legal in the newborn United States of America. As a matter of fact, so was the production and use of alcohol. That is why a century later that miserable exercise in prohibition against alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol.

    It is time for the government to give up the war on hemp and move on. The War on Cannabis is Unconstitutional!

    This fraudulent “war” has no moral basis.

    We the People have the Constitutional Right to use cannabis in any one of its four uses: spiritual, medicinal, recreational and nutritional-industrial.

    have a peaceful day,


  46. September 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Civilized nations have over the last five centuries developed systems of progressive taxation and inheritance taxes in order to avoid the cataclysmic results of social stagnation.

    We need to keep taxes progressive or we will find ourselves back in the 12th or 13th centuries. You know the Dark Ages.

    That won’t be good for the peasants or the nobles, in the long run.

    So this argument goes way beyond “conservative or liberal” it is more like modern democracy vs. feudal society. Yep I know 20% of you like feudalism.

    have a peaceful day,

  47. September 28, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Mitch wrote on September 28, 2012 at 9:48 am | #13

    “Thank you very much. I love hearing about my power, not to mention my fundamental decency. Both are equally vast.”

    Nice Mitch. Did anyone ever tell you that self-aggrandizement is a certain sign of narcissim?

    Mitch, like the bumper sticker so profoundly proclamins: “Don’t believe everything you think”.

    Tell you what. I won’t believe anything you write. Call it a draw, OK?

  48. norcal guy, 202
    September 28, 2012 at 5:15 pm


    20 percent favoring feudalism is incorrect. Romney has the correct figure, well, nationally at least: 47 percent. In Califonria it’s more like 87 percent.

  49. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Fair enough, norcal. And thank you for the humor. It’s always appreciated. Your narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, vastly powerful yet fundamentally decent friend, moi.

  50. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Norcal, tyo paraphrase JJ Cale:
    “You got Koolaid, runnin’ ’round your brain.”

    The fuedalism you identify is the response to the petty fiefdoms of company towns, sweatshops, and the miserable little potentates set-up by local dictators.
    The dictators banded to gether to go national and transnational so it’s time to take ’em out AGAIN.
    NOT pull out all the stops and allow them to reign roughshod over people all over again.
    Or do you have a stalking horse in THAT mongol horde of abusive inyetlecctually vapid and morally bankrupt mongol horde?

  51. A pesky fact
    September 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    Okay Mitch, I’ll agree with you. The last remaining justification that stands for the huge centralized government is regulation.

    And here is the master stroke:

    How has that been working out? Wall Street? SEC? Transsexual midget pr0nz? While the world burned?

    Mitch your final defense is self refuting. Give it up.

    I challenge you– Stop and figure out in general what the federal government SHOULD be doing. Pick a value you think appropriate for the military, and other legit federal agencies. Add in required payment on the debt and previous entitlements. And tell me what your number is.

    Then realize how much we are actually spending.

    7 of the 10 wealthiest counties are now collar counties of DC. Something must be going on there where so much money is flowing the people by the countyfull are getting drunkenly wealthy.

    Mitch, it’s on your tax dollars that they get fat. The corruption, the money, and the power go together always. The founding fathers saw this, so they decided to chain the beast and starve it, forcing people to deal with their problems and issues locally and through private organizations.

  52. Mitch
    September 28, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Pesky Fact,

    Yes, it hasn’t been working out well at all, I take your point. I’m not ready to think that local politics is so much sweeter-smelling that we should rush to give up on DC, but I can’t defend DC. There need to be laws to swat down the lobbyists, and I haven’t got a clue as to how those happen.

  53. Plain Jane
    September 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    When taxes steeply increase the higher the income, those with the power to set their own salaries have incentive to be less greedy, give more to charity and pay better wages and / or lower their prices. That, in turn, improves the economy which creates jobs which increases consumer spending and tax revenues. It’s not all or nothing. If most of the people currently unemployed were working and paying taxes again, the deficit would be much smaller. The problem seems to be people who, no matter how much wealth they accumulate, can never be satisfied. We can’t tell them how much they can hoard, but we can make it a very expensive illness.

  54. September 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    OMG! I don’t know how Mitch can continue to respond to most of you!
    “stop abusing logic and reason without mercy” someone accused – but that’s what virtually every response here is doing!
    I can’t stand it!
    PJ has part of it: “The problem seems to be people who, no matter how much wealth they accumulate, can never be satisfied.” But the important missing piece is: AND THEIR SUPPORTERS! Those of you so deluded you vote against your own interests and defend those who are riding you. Asking for spurs you’re gonna get too.

  55. norcal guy202
    September 28, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Plain Jane states:

    ” those with the power to set their own salaries have incentive to be less greedy,”

    You really shouldn’t project your own perceptions on a society that manifests wealth completely ignoring the means with which it was acquired. There are a lot of locals who relish the wealthiest excusing their having shafted other locals to get what they’ve got. I’ve got news for you, the pathology is not isolated to Humboldt County. Afluenza is at epidemic proportions throughout this country.

    Those of you who have never taken basic college courses in macro economics and micro economics should go learn something about both subjects before you sound off on your taxation policies. You have no comprehension with respect to the subjects you speak.

  56. Ponder z
    September 28, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Only stupid fucks would think a 75% tax is a good thing. PJ, your thinking is so out of reality that you have to be high to dream up such fantasy.

  57. What Now
    September 28, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    Once again, the kool-aid brigade (Ponder Z and Norcal)staggers and lurches into the fray.
    #55, only in the field of economics (orignially dubbed “politcal theory”)are pontifrcators and “leaders” heaped with awards accolades while consistenlty being proven wrong in their assumptions, proposals, theorems, and projections (Greenspan, Huyeck, and Laffer all fit that bill.)
    Pondre, “stupid fucks” like Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman proposed and lobbied for higher rates than the maximum 75% that your precious Faux noise source and “Klarwasser Channel” shills rail against.
    Economics fails miserably (as “the dismal” science) because those immersed in the field refuse to assign ANY value to human beings beyond that of “units of consumption”, “units of labor” or “useless eaters”-all terms assigned by economists.
    Both of you should try reading a few things yourselves, for instance “The Two Trillion Dollar Meltdown” by Reagan economic advisor as well as “The Smaertest Guys In The Room”.”Naomis Kleimn’s “Future Shock” shows a clear and progressive blueprint for diempowering producers on behalf of speculators, hoarders and other parasites.
    The United States is now ground zero for a new social order-a pontocracy.A system run by and for the benefit of sociopaths.
    One need only look at the museings of bald faced liars and corporate huns like Romney,Ryan, the gang fromGoldman Sachs, The Hoover Institute On War And Peace, The Chicago Scool of Economics, the Berkley school of Business, et al to see the fall-out of Ayn Rand’s deranged aethical belief system.
    You can whip up all of the smoke and bullshit you want but try working with substantiated facts instead of knee-jerk jingoisms and patently false contentions.
    You’ll most likely need heavy sedation and counseling to get yourselves weaned off of the crap you’ve accepted as fact for so long.

  58. Plain Jane
    September 29, 2012 at 4:16 am

    Did I say something that gave the impression that I thought “afluenza” was limited to Humboldt County? WTF is that about? I thought this thread was about federal tax policy.

    In fact PonderZZZZ, when CEOs’ salaries were merely double digits times their workers and they paid a tax rate over twice as high as today, they were still rich; but the workers had the jobs and pay to keep the economy booming. With their bogus peer benchmarks and golden parachutes, salaries hundreds of times higher than their workers and lowest tax rates since WWII, they tanked the global economy with their greed and still want more. Tax policy should be based on what works, not some arbitrary definition of “fairness.” Tax policy which encourages low wages for workers, offshoring of jobs, more money for the already rich and the inevitable economic slump and increased deficits which results doesn’t work; but apparently you haven’t noticed.

  59. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 7:17 am


    Sometimes intelligent conservatives show up, like “a pesky fact” and the old 713. I always find it helpful to engage with these people until I feel they’re just echoing bull, as I thought 713 started to do after some months. There are an enormous number of so-called “right-wing” arguments that I, personally, find very appealing.

    As for responding to the fools, that’s always for anyone else who might be reading, not in any expectation that the fools will learn. The fools don’t bother me at all — just words on the screen.

    One strange fact about my life — when it’s not clear to others that I’m in a religious minority and a sexual minority, I’ve always found conservatives to treat me with more kindness and mutual respect than liberals (or “progressives,” if you wish). The meanness with which progressives often treat those who don’t agree with them is comparable to the meanness with which many conservatives treat minorities. I don’t understand it, but that’s a fact of my life.

    I think one fundamental complaint of many conservatives — that liberals are only too happy to give away other people’s money — is basically true. The problem is, I ALSO recognize that a civilization has to maintain a floor for all people, meaning that I don’t buy into the conservative arguments that they owe nothing to anyone.

    (My father always made my eyes roll with a joke about communists — I think he’d been a commie during the depression, and I know he worked as a cook at a WPA camp, meaning FDR may have saved his life: Person 1: “The way communism works, comrade, is like this: if I have two houses and you have none, I give you a house; if you have two horses and I have none, you give me a horse.” Person 2: “Ah, I understand. So comrade, you’re saying if I have no coat, and you have two, you give me one. ” Person 1: “NO!” Person 2: “???” Person 1: “I HAVE two coats.”)

    I’ve said here repeatedly that I think the liberal conservative divide is artificial. That’s because I consider myself a liberal conservative. I’ve been hissed at in rooms of “progressives” when speaking out for people’s rights to be independent in various ways.

  60. Ponder z
    September 29, 2012 at 7:45 am

    When you libtards start talking tax history, you don’t understand that when there was a 90%+ income tax rate, there was also an enormous amount of write off. So the 90%+ got worked down to about 25%+/-. About where we are today. It all works itself out with the politicians negotiating tax law, so they are all happy, and can claim that they did something for their constituents.

    So, if some asshole collage boy earns 20mil a year, you want to take 3/4 of it? This sounds like you are a greedy communist. He did earn it. The market pays him for his work. What did you earn last year PJ and whatnow? Did you sign the back of an IRS refund check?

  61. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 8:14 am

    Artists rarely make $20 million, ponder, particularly avant-garde artists like you describe.

  62. Ponder z
    September 29, 2012 at 8:28 am

    are you saying PJ is an artist? That is your problem right there. You are concerned with what someone else is earning. Just worry about what you can earn, and leave the rest alone. Dont try to take what someone else has eared. Then you wont be labeled a commie. You, the 99%, and the Brother, are on a big wealth redistribution program. Just like that asshole FDR.

  63. Ponder This
    September 29, 2012 at 8:50 am

    who are the commie weatlh redistributors? progressive taxation.

    Revenue Act of 1862

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), was passed by the United States Congress to help fund the American Civil War. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive rate income tax to the country.

    The office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established,[1] with the Act specifying that Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in “the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six”).

    Annual income of U.S. residents, to the extent it exceeded $600, was taxed at a 3% rate; those earning over $10,000 per year were taxed at a 5% rate.[2] With respect to the income tax liability generated by the salaries of “officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress”, the law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[3]

    This Act repealed the flat rate income tax that had been established by the Revenue Act of 1861.

    To assure timely collection, income tax was “withheld at the source” by the employer.[1]

  64. Ponder This
    September 29, 2012 at 9:09 am

    The higher one’s income, the greater the fraction of it that tends to consist of economic rent rather than rewards for any commensurate contribution to production. By definition, economic rent is a factor payment exceeding that required to place a factor in its most productive use, so it can be taxed away entirely without impairing wealth production. Consequently, in the absence of taxes specifically levied on economic rent, a steeply progressive tax on the highest incomes can be expected to fall almost exclusively on economic rent, minimizing the excess burden of such taxation.

    In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, free market democracies should support progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.[citation needed]

    from wikipedia


  65. A pesky fact
    September 29, 2012 at 11:35 am

    It’s been fun.

    Since this has been fruitful, etc, I’d like to pass on some facts/opinions.

    1) one of the key things contributing to these various problems has been the congressional budget act of 74. The federal government uses accounting standards that no one else is legally allowed to use (except a few states, like Cali). Some of techniques are literally enron style accounting.

    2) the practice of baseline budgeting is included in the above.

    3) we’ll often hear that a great many of our pension/social insurance/ health care funding problems are related to X, Y, or Z. The reality is threefold : A) for better or worse, the government continues to use defined benefit retirement planning for itself, even though nearly all of society has switched to defined contribution. This must change. B) the decoupling of the dollar from gold, and a great many failures in federal reseve monetary policy have exasperated these problems greatly, and C) we are trying to fix the problems of 2012 by using some of the rather lamer ideas of 1932.

    4) a hard look needs to be taken at space. Besides all the technology and scientific benefits, there is potential for economic benefit. Newt Gingrich did a fine job of explaining some of these things in the primaries. There are a few key technologies within reach that can transform human society in the same way that internal combustion and the microchip did. Once we can achieve a single functional space elevator, for example, everything changes forever.

    Important captains of industry are investing privately into things like astroid mining. It may very well be possible for us to “have it all” in regards to mineral mining and ecological preservation.

  66. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Oh, lordy, I hope you haven’t left yet. I just want to know how you reconcile your few key technologies with your opposition of the federal government and high taxes. Do you expect private industry to build your space elevator? Without gubmint guarantees? Are you aware that essentially all the research that led to the internet and related technologies was funded by the federal government?

  67. suzy blah blah
    September 29, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    – so PJ is supposedly an avant-garde artist? ROFHSLOL! –that totally makes my day.

  68. September 29, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Mitch, that’s absolutely spot on, before one even gets to the subject of fair sharing of benefit by those who believe they ‘built that’ by themselves. Spoken by someone who participated rather directly in a bit of it.

    I was thinking this morning, how the deepest flaw in the argument for those who write their thought about how the world is simple and just for them, is the narrowness.

    Such a deep narrowness.

    It’s a pit anyone also can climb out of, but first you have to be willing to open your eyes.

    The interesting thing is that I didn’t find that narrowness, in many of the real leaders in their small or larger ways who I consulted with. Full human beings enough, instead, and that’s how they gained quite good situations for themselves and those who built with them, not by any thinking that you could just take from persons, according to some sort of misunderstood or actually nefarious rules.

  69. Thorstein Veblen
    September 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    Bill got it right. Tax policy is about revenues, sure, but also about democracy. Confiscate assets in excess of, say, $100,000,000, If the heirs cant make it on that, then they probably arent really superior by genetics or religion or whatever to the rest of us.

    Then you can fiddle with rates and deductions.

  70. Plain Jane
    September 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    When a few people hoard vast sums of money, it hurts the economy and everyone who depends on it being stable, 99% of us. When that wealth is turned against democracy to further concentrate wealth (huge campaign donations and the deals that follow) the hoarders and buyers of our government are a danger. Steeply progressive tax rates reduce some of that advantage and fund the government the people want at the same time. NO ONE is worth tens of millions of dollars a year under any circumstance, especially not when there are people doing important work who are paid minimum wage, and that begrudgingly. People who need the “prestige” of earning millions don’t lose it because they pay a lot of taxes.

    I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an artist of any sort. Where do people get such crazy ideas?

  71. Plain Jane
    September 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    No PonderZZZZ, I always have to sign the front of the checks to the IRS.

  72. Plain Jane
    September 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    That’s what blows my mind. That so many people make so little that they owe nothing. My tax bills are far from nothing on a very modest income, but I have very few deductions and can’t afford fancy tax lawyers to find me some.

  73. September 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Must have touched a sore spot. Mitch’s decency is as abundant as his rules for who has the right to speak, what to speak and how to speak on these blogs – Really defines who is the biggest ass kisser and hypocrite. Everything for everyone BUT that select few that has NO rights. Who are Mark Sailor and Joe Blow? The ones with no right?

  74. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm


    I made a lame joke about a typo, and someone jumped to the conclusion I was referring to you.

  75. Plain Jane
    September 29, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Instead of rich people bragging about their $25,000 sunglasses that are no better than a $250 pair, the new chic can be grousing about how much they paid in taxes as a way to brag.

  76. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm


    I’m really curious about how I’ve been violating your rights. Is it that I haven’t added your blog to the list of blogs that I have no control over? Or that I disagree with you at times? A list would be really helpful, and I promise I will reply to each concern. If you’re concerned about how I’ve been violating Mark Sailors’ rights, please do up a list of the ways I’ve done that, too. Thank you.

  77. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 5:38 pm


    Thanks for the praise. I’ve also found that various people in leadership positions are well aware of the problems and would really like to find solutions, but everyone is very constrained (or at least feels very constrained) by the larger, badly broken system we’re all trapped within. That system is probably best summed up as “the human condition.”

    It’s pretty common, and extremely understandable, to give up on seeking societal change, and to focus on making oneself a comfortable life. I guess there needs to be a balance, and each person has to find that balance for themself at every moment of their life.

  78. Mitch (a different Mitch)
    September 29, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    Mitch :
    As for a large, massive, central government that’s kind to homosexuals? Well, color me shocked, but I’d have to point to the United States federal government under President Obama. There’s a ways to go, of course, but… wow!

    Who cares about the queers? It’s a lemming lifestyle that ends after one generation and is supported by corporate media as a means of population control.

    There have been no elections in ZOG for some time now. America died when the masons took over under washington, any coin collector can see the star of david on the gold coins from the past- clearly a symbol of occupation and deception.

  79. Mitch
    September 29, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    As with an earlier racist/nationalist comment on another thread, I’ll leave this vile and despicable comment up, as people have a right to know what attitudes exist in our community. It’s courtesy of someone using the fake email address 1fake14u@fastmail.com at IP address

  80. September 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    @ Mitch (the stupid one)”Who cares about the queers? It’s a lemming lifestyle that ends after one generation and is supported by corporate media as a means of population control.”

    You dumb fuck! “A lemming lifestyle”? Right, children trying to figure themselves out, with almost nothing but negative stereotypes to model themselves after, are LEMMINGS? You may wish we’d all run off a cliff, but that’s as far as you’re gonna get with that comparison ……”ends after one generation” – Oh, right again! That’s why there have always been (across the world and throughout history) roughly 10 percent homosexuals; my favorite theory being we’re evolution’s built in foster parent system. But who gives a damn? Oh right – the closet cases…. And, IF ONLY, THE CORPORATE MEDIA HAD THE SENSE TO SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY AS A MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL! That would be brilliant!
    Sigh – I been sayin’ it AIN’T ‘all good’ here for a while – though this cretin’s comment is in writing and not just something I claim is true. And this, on a tax thread……

  81. What Now
    September 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    The other Mitch definitely has suffered from a severe case of having the cheese slip off of his cracker.
    ZOG (Zionist Occupation Governemnt has been around in skinhead, neo Nazi, and KKK circles since the 60’s.
    The masonic hysteria arrived as soon British settlers displaced the Dutch in new Amsterdam and has antecedents in Europe, Eurasia, and the middle east.Current “mainstream” news sources in some middle eastern countries devote regular program slots to this idiocy and is often found in the company of people who have invisible friends and believe they’ve been abducted by UFO’s or shape-shifting reprtilians from the 4th dimension.
    Sad, another piece of collateral damage from reagan dumping the mentally ill on the streets without appropriate community services being made avaialble.

  82. suzy blah blah
    September 30, 2012 at 4:37 am

    -okay i see it now Mitch, Not bad, suzy’s got a collage degree myself. i glued it together.

  83. Ponder This
    September 30, 2012 at 7:13 am

    There has been a “redistribution of wealth” for sure for the last 30 years. Reaganomics has redistributed wealth from the middle and working classes into the hands of the parasitic idle rich.

    The Reduction of Minimum Wage Value Has Cratered the Middle Class

    “In 2010, our nation’s economy was growing, but most Americans didn’t feel it because 93 percent of the income growth went to the richest 1 percent. The bottom 90 percent of Americans got none. It sure wasn’t always like that. Between 1938, when the federal minimum wage was first enacted, and 1968, when it peaked in value, the bottom 90 percent of households shared 69 percent of the nation’s income growth. The middle class was able to grow.”


  84. September 30, 2012 at 9:41 am

    It would be entertaining if it wasn’t so sad; watching these “House-slaves” get all emotional defending the palaces and castles of their rich masters. The uber-rich of this country are criminals. Well, that’s only if you consider bribery, corruption, fraud, and stealing to be crimes. which obviously a house-slave defending the ill-gotten gains of his master does not.
    I used to think there was a “civil” war coming again to America. But I now realize it’s already happening.

  85. September 30, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Maybe you should repeat that statement, (“I used to think there was a “civil” war coming again to America. But I now realize it’s already happening.”) to Eric Kirk, moviedad. He doesn’t believe me.

  86. September 30, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Mitch’s solution to equal rights to free speech on Heraldo’s blog: “Take your best shot and hope for the best.”

    Mitch :
    As with an earlier racist/nationalist comment on another thread, I’ll leave this vile and despicable comment up, as people have a right to know what attitudes exist in our community. It’s courtesy of someone using the fake email address 1fake14u@fastmail.com at IP address

    You take lessons from the District Attorney?

  87. Mitch
    September 30, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Once again, Joe, I’d appreciate your list of the way I’ve been violating your rights, and I promise to reply to each item you put on the list. Thanks.

  88. What Now
    September 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Poor Joe.
    Struggling to be relevent while shackled with an irrelevent outlook.

  89. October 1, 2012 at 10:22 am

    I just did, Mitch, and you still don’t get it. What can I say? By the way, I’m not interested in your “replies.” It’s what you do that’s relevant. Read what I SAY, then ask your damned disingenuous questions – questions apparently asked in a vacuum. It’s not my fault that you can’t connect the dots or follow the logic of the subject. Where do I accuse you of violating MY rights in the last post (2:49)?

  90. October 1, 2012 at 10:28 am

    I must have misinterpreted your comment #73 on this thread, Joe. I’m glad you’re not accusing me of violating your rights, if I’m correct in understanding your #89.

  91. October 1, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Mitch, you’re correct.

  92. firesidechet
    October 1, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Viva la class warfare. Viva la blame game. Viva la 16 trillion debt that all the billionaires money put together couldn’t put a tiny dent in.

  93. What Now
    October 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Joe Blow:
    “Who are Mark Sailor and Joe Blow? The ones with no right?”
    Evidently, Joe Blow is in favor of tacky panhandling on private blogs (wasn’t removed, was it?) and is incensed that his drivel isn;t a featured sidebar of SOMEONE ELSE’S website.
    Joe, a tour of your blog shows you spending an inordinate amount of time and energy monitoring the state of The Eureka Times Standard.That’s akin to returning to a gravesite to check for vital signs on a corpse that has long since begun the process of decomposition.
    It’s YOUR obsession and you have a whole lot of the internet avaialable for YOUR site.
    Knock yourself out, compadre.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s