France is about to raise their top income tax bracket from about 50% to 75%. They have also imposed a host of fees, particularly on capital gains, and they’ve made it almost impossible for entrepreneurs to sell their businesses. No doubt France will be a paradise soon.
Except, France is being betrayed. Some rich people object to this idea of paying over everything they own and they’ve done the most despicable thing imaginable: they’ve fled to Belgium. Yep. Hundreds of the richest people in France including actor Gerard Dépardieu have all fled to Belgium to avoid the taxes. This brought a truly hateful response from the French left:
● A socialist MP called for Dépardieu “to be stripped of his nationality.” Ho ho ho.//sigh
● One minster said this was “anti-patriotic” and represented giving France “the finger”. . . something I would do if France mattered. . . to anyone.
● The left leaning paper Liberation called him “a drunken, obese petit-bourgeois reactionary.” But I question how he can be both obese and petit at the same time?
● France’s Prime Minster said Dépardieu and others like him are only doing this “because they want to get even richer!” The bastards! Then he whined that “We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity.” No doubt said minister lives like a monk. Anyway, I’ll have to remember that 75% of your income is now considered “a bit of generosity.”
You know what the problem is here? LACK. . . OF. . . VISION.
Why are we dancing around this? Rich people are evil. They stole everything they have. So why do we even let them have a single penny? It’s not like they earned it. Why not just take everything Mr. Dépardieu has? He doesn’t need it. All he needs is a nice bunk in a concentration camp where he can make designer shoes while he learns to be happy with less. And why stop with the rich? The middle class has more than they need. Frankly, I’d like to see coal miners be forced to poop scoop my yard. . . they earn too much to be allowed to keep it too. What good is solidarity if we can’t use it to make slaves of people we don’t like?!!
In all seriousness, I am pretty stunned at the hate the left is spewing these days: rich people should be stripped of their assets and their income because they have more than you do. . . better hope no one has less than you do. Doctors should be forced to work for free because they are rich. . . we just know it, they’re probably Jews too. Companies are following the tax rules WE set up so they can avoid taxes. . . those rotten bastards! Kill... kill... kill... what’s yours is mine comrade.
Some government douche in Britain said this weekend that companies like Starbucks are “keeping money from people who need it,” as if people have a right to someone else’s money? He then foamed that they could have used the money Starbuck legally didn’t pay to build a hospital (to fix their horrific medical system) or to train young Britons to work as tech monkeys in this hospital. Apparently, it takes $30 million to beat the binge-drunk out of them and teach them to type in what people tell them when prompted.
This whole attitude just amazes me. Does this mean I can rob Warren Buffett so long as I only take 75% of what the bastard has in his wallet? Can I rough him up in the process too?
We really have entered a dark period of human history again where greed and jealousy and hate have become public policy. Slavery is back in vogue, only now we use nicer words for it -– regulation, taxes, fairness, solidarity -- but the thought is still the same... I have the right to make you work for me.
When I read Atlas Shrugged the first time, I enjoyed it. It made a lot of sense but it seemed unrealistic. Nobody could be as stupid as the spiteful, greedy leftists in her book. . . or so I thought. Yet, within a few years, I could see Rand’s points being made in very subtle ways throughout society. Still, I had no idea these idiots would really run wild and make her book look tame.
What a world.
Oh well, where did I put Warren’s address...
71 comments:
I'm really amazed that what seems common sense and logical to us is just beyond comprehension for lefties. It is apparently not okay for anyone, but themselves, to make money. It is okay to take those who have earned their pay, and tax them by an obscene amount, however, if we propose the same to them, they call us crazy (or unfair). To me, this is an extension to Obama getting reelected (I know this has been talked to death). It seemed so obvious that he is a horrible president and common sense would dictate that you wouldn't vote for someone who doesn't do the job, but because they spewed that it was Bush's fault and promises of free things, we are told that, us sane people, are the crazy ones.
Jocelyn, I could not agree more. I am STUNNED at the hate and hypocrisy coming from the left. They think nothing of stealing from people they don't like and they think they are moral for doing it. Yet, they scream bloody murder when the slightest imposition is placed upon them.
But even leaving the hypocrisy aside, what kind of human being honestly thinks they have the moral right to take 50% or 75% of someone else's stuff?!! It's just stunning to me that people can think like that, and I think we really have entered a dark period of human history when so many can so shamelessly declare such a right and then act like they are the aggrieved party to boot.
I hate Nazi allusions, but this is the kind of thing which really shows you that a vast chunk of the population really are ready to be Nazis if given the slightest encouragement.
Warren Buffett
5505 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68132
here's a picture
Jocelyn, I concur.
The title of this one pissed me off today when I heard it (again, because I've heard it out of my brother's mouth before).
LINK
I'd like to see these @sswipes be the producers, and see how long it takes before they cry unfair.
Why thank you, kind accessory-before-the-fact! :)
I wonder if the jury will believe my "Obama told me it was ok" defense?
I figure if lefty blogs can post erroneous addresses of people they don't like, the least we can do is post the correct address of someone we don't care for. Besides, it isn't hard to find. Warren loves to brag that he lives in a "modest" home. (In one of the most prestigious and expensive neighborhoods in the city.)
I'm not complaining. Nor am I trying to stop anyone who wants to go rough Warren up... just send us a cut.
Seriously, Buffett is an enabler. He's an SOB who got rich milking the taxpayers and now whines that he wants "his" taxes raised as he hides his money where it can't be reached, so that the government whacks the people who are actually productive so the government has more money for Warren to steal. He is a POS and I wish him nothing but ill.
Jen, The left has gone into "why shouldn't we get everything free" mode. That's called communism and it's back in vogue, only under different management.
Andrew, I'm beginning to think the "Two Americas" idea isn't so bad after all. We'll live on our side, and the POS lefties can live in theirs. They can keep their communism, and I'm all for killing the trend.
As young as my brother was at the time, he can still remember "Disco Demolition"--the day Disco died. I say we apply the same method to the left, and their commie ideas.
Why stop at the money?
Disney has made plenty of money from Mickey and friends, how about the government take them(without telling Disney, let alone pay them), and trick and lie...I mean educate children all about the wonders of a socialist government. Oh wait, I think Disney is doing a bit of that on it's own(While Walt spins in his grave).
Here is another one, Coke doesn't need it's logo. They have made plenty of money...
Andrew:what kind of human being honestly thinks they have the moral right to take 50% or 75% of someone else's stuff?!!
People who watch too many episodes of "Million Dollar Rooms" on HGTV?
Seriously though, one characteristic those people would mostly like have would be no reverence for Commandments 8 and 10.
=ACLU
That's called communism and it's back in vogue, only under different management.
I prefer "Neo-Communist" or "Cyrpto Communist"* myself.
Of course, strictly speaking, they're democratic fascists. Communists want to nationalize everything in sight. Fascists prefer to work within the corporatist structure and babble a lot about "patriotism" and "Homeland".
*hat tip to Gore Vidal.
Andrew....I heard this on the radio yesterday and immediately thought 'this is it!'
Conservatives should start calling all new taxes " Success Tax" or "a Tax on Success" The lib/dems have co-opted the term "Tax the Rich' so we need our own rebuttal. If you have worked hard and made something for yourself and your family, the gov't will tax it onerously and confiscate it because you are succesful.
whaddya think?
back in the sixties, the hippies thought it was absolutely cool to "rip stuff off" from capitalist pigs. And let's not forget, our own POTUS has encouraged exactly this kind of thinking when he asked people to exact their "revenge" when they voted.
Andrew
Didn't the French do this same thing about getting the rich to pay their due around 1790 to 1800.
I don't think it worked out for them at that time. What is the term the refer to it at the time. A T word. Terra... Terro... I dunno it;ll come to me I guess.
Maybe they Howard Zinned that time period out their History books....I think a mistake if they did.
"Equality, Liberty or Death, the last being the easiest to deliver O Guillotine!" Charles Dickens
"Let Them Eat Cake" Marie Antoinette"
Max, Maybe they don't understand the value in intangible property? Give them time.
Actually, I'm surprised they haven't considered an asset tax here. The French DO have an asset tax, which is another reason these people are leaving. Wanna bet Warren won't be calling for that one?
K, There is certainly a real lack of morality this whole idea.
What I find funny is that these same people scream bloody murder when they get ripped off for a dollar at McDonalds because some clerk forgets to put a burger in their bag, and they freak out about "criminals" breaking into homes and taking people's stuff... yet they're deliriously spitefully happy to have the government taken basically everything from people they don't like.
K, True. I've felt for along time that modern socialists are basically fascists in ideology only without the uniform fetish.
Patriot, I agree we need to rename the tax, because "the rich" sounds like "idle rich"... like people who sit on Scrooge McDuck piles of money. I don't think success works either though. We need to find a way to make it clear that this tax is aimed at people who earn income. I'm not sure what the right word would be for that though.
Jed, I agree, and honestly, I put a lot of this in the laps of the babyboomers. They've been a real disaster for the world. They've brought the worst kind of values throughout their lives, and their sheer size meant that they have been able to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
But right now, what I'm seeing doesn't go back to the 1960s rhetoric, it goes back to the 1930s rhetoric. It really is that hateful.
Kind of a weird time-stamp on this one, Andrew. Did you write it on a lark? :-)
Anyway, as I mentioned last week (I think), Britain has just had to lower its top tax rate because so many millionaires were either leaving the country or just no longer producing income at all. I guess now it's France turn to learn. Again.
Incidentally, Hayek wrote about this, sort of. Faced with the necessity of trying to keep things under control in their own country, socialists will inevitably resort to patriotic/nationalistic language to keep the population from rebelling. Can anyone think of a socialist ruler (aside from Lenin, maybe) who hasn't done this? (Because I can't.)
Indi, History has an hilarious way of repeating itself over and over and over... especially the hate and the failures.
Jed, The modern version is "let them eat Marie Antoinette."
Andrew, I don't know if there is a right word. The left have successfully made pejoratives out of anything synonymous: success, achievement, profit, prosperity, even "earning" b/c they've made the case that no one should earn more than what they need. (Folks don't appreciate just how little they actually need.)
T-Rav, I moved it up because we got to talking about the issue in a prior article.
Britain is imposing a tax nightmare, by the way, just as they are going for a triple dip recession. Good luck with that.
Anyone whose policy is based on taking from others needs to resort to an us versus them mentality because otherwise they will spot the immorality in their actions. So you demonize you opponents and then everyone feels quite smug about stripping them of things you have no right taking.
P.S. I was right about Starbucks. They agreed to pay a token amount -- $30 million (after billions in profits for the past 10 years). The British government is pounding its chest, Starbucks is laughing their butts off, and the locals are happy that they made those rich bastards pay. What a joke.
tryanmax, I think we need to find something because we need to find a way to let people understand that these are not the rich they are looking for... these are people who are working... not sitting around living on trust funds.
Actually, now that I think about it, what words does the left use? We should call the "capital gains tax" the "investment tax." And we should call the income tax the "labor tax."
T-RAV
"Paying taxes is patriotic"
Joe Biden....
uh ... nope...drawing a blank as to your question.
If past is prologue, here we are. As was stated up-thread, this is more like democratic fascism, and like post WWI will not end well, I fear. This was all dreamt up in the ‘60s, “sticking it to the man.” As the great Pogo once pontificated, “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.” This is what the liberals call “The Third Way,” wherein these wizards of wise will create a new wonderful socialism, that use capitalism to fund it. The only reason it hasn’t worked thus far, the right people haven’t been in charge, hint…’60s radicals, the peace, love crowd, be afraid, be very afraid.
Jed it was committed to paper, Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal this Book.” A how to manual on how to scam the man.
Indi, Paying taxes is patriotic... so is working for free so that others may live in leisure.
So I know this is off topic, but right after Obama threw American support to the Syrian Rebels, the Syrian Rebels threw their support to Al Qaeda. Is that some kind of sick joke or is Obama actually just that stupid? How did all of the collective upper level brainiacs that we pay handsomely NOT know this was going to happen? Are they actually doing it on purpose?
Stan, It's interesting that we've reached this point, but it makes sense if you watch both the psychology and the damage done by the 1960s generation throughout their lives. They wanted spent like crazy during their working years took a huge risk with their savings when they realized they didn't have enough to retire because they hadn't saved (tech/housing bubbles) and now they are desperate to get much of their needs taken care of by daddy (read: Uncle Sam).
That's what's going on. So now they are desperate to take from everyone else to try to plug the holes they are creating. And the angry rhetoric is the result of them being selfish, emotional creatures who always worried about their own pleasure first and demonized anyone who stood in their way.
Andrew - In my view NOT paying taxes is more patriotic. It keeps the government from spending more than we take in...oh, wait, that's not true, is it?
Bev, I saw that and I have to laugh about that. It's like a cartoon almost.
Bev, I'm with you... and so is Obama's cabinet and Warren Buffett and GE -- they don't pay taxes either.
Andrew, perhaps they do not go after intangible property, because they believe it's an image of capitalism.
Just to have a little fun with hypocrisy.
That sure doesn't stop them going after the almighty greenback(as if they care what anything really costs).
Max, I am always reminded of Pink Floyd whenever liberals go on their profits are evil but we want your money binges:
Money is the root of all evil, they say,
But if you ask for a raise,
it's no surprise
they aren't giving any away.
what words does the left use?
Very smart. There is a language divide b/w liberals and conservatives that the former has no need to bridge and the latter refuses to (on principle!) And politicians of all stripes are quick to exploit the divide.
Case in point: the word "capitalism" means something completely different to the right vs. the left. Conservatives hear it as "free markets" while liberals hear "cronyism." Stupidly, conservatives want to teach people what the words "really" mean (a shifty concept) and then try to persuade them. That's taking a one-step and doubling it.
The better approach is to understand what the people you mean to persuade think things mean and tailor your message thus. That's not pandering, that's effective communication! (Again, more conservatives need to study comm.)
Frankly, that's part of the reason why I think the term "conservative" needs to go. To the left, it just means "stick-in-the-mud and proud of it" at best. So it's a non-starter. They don't get any connotation about protecting federalism or the Constitution b/c they don't see those things as being in danger. And they certainly aren't going to be told otherwise by someone who, in their mind, thinks the Constitution only means status quo circa 1790. (And that brings me to why we shouldn't wear tri-corner hats.)
tryanmax, Thanks! I couldn't agree more. It's frankly stupid to try to change people's minds about the meanings of words. You just end up sounding like you are lying or trying to sneak an argument through by misleading them. It is much better to speak on their terms.
Unfortunately, few conservatives get that because conservatives have a tin-ear when it comes to rhetoric.
I agree about the term conservative. I know a lot of moderates and when I ask them what conservative means, I get back "racists", "religious nuts" and "rich people." I think the word is un-salvageable at this point, particularly as conservatives insist on feeding this perception.
Totally agree about the tri-corn hats. That screams "dangerously out of touch."
P.S. What do you think of "investment tax" and "labor tax"?
I like "labor tax" as a substitute for income tax. I'm still mulling over "investment" tax, since that word magically becomes good when the gov't wants to "invest" in things like education. However, there is something of a connection there that could be made more concrete, something that could be turned into "we need to redirect their private investments into investments for the public" or some such nonsense.
I like labor tax because it sounds like "working in a mine" tax. It is something everyone feels and it gets away from this idea of sitting in an office watching money come in as you do nothing.
I like "investment tax" because everyone agree that investment is good, so taxing it is bad. Maybe the way to handle it is "tax on investment."
The libs love to twist the meanings of words.
Under the traditional definitions of the words we would be the liberals. We are the ones which are advocating a truly new form of government.
While the truly conservative form of government would be the state/monarch, which is the oldest form of government in human history.
Not unlike what is a true Republican?
It wasn't a rich guy, but a belief in the representative form of government.
One of the problems of being concerned about changing what we are called. The left will only use the same definitions no matter what word we use. I see it as a pointless exercise.
Max, I don't see it as pointless for two reasons.
1. Most conservatives won't change for several reasons. This lets us separate ourselves from the prior name because we can basically say we're something new. This is the same way Hollywood conservatives call themselves "more Libertarian" instead of conservative or Republican because Libertarian hasn't been sullied in the same way.
It allows us to present fairly similar views as something new and more mainstream. And with conservatives still out there whining that they are more extreme than the next guy, the MSM will be hard-pressed to say we are the same thing they are... even if the ideology is nearly identical.
2. Secondly, I'm not really talking about adopting a new name so much as a total change in rhetoric. As you'll see in my Agenda 2016 series, I'm talking about a lot of things.
And I think breaking away from the idea of "we are conservatives" is essential to that because conservatism has been saddled with too much baggage -- especially from our own side -- which just comes with the name. Those things will be pulled into the new platform whether we disclaim them or not simply by association with the name. To give an extreme example, it would like saying you are for racial equality but then naming yourself the New KKK... people just won't believe it.
I'm almost tempted to put out this rather lengthy conversation I had recently by e-mail with someone about how we got to where we are because I think some of the conclusions we reached are really pretty stunning. In particular, we noticed that conservatives really have caused their own problems when it comes to being seen as scary and extreme because unlike every other political ideology in history, conservatives rhetorically attack words like moderate and center. Essentially, for the past three decades, conservatism has been on a "we so extreme" contest. And the public has paid attention and no longer sees conservatism as mainstream.
Indi, I said "socialist ruler." A socialist Biden may be, but a ruler he (thankfully) is not. I'm sure Obama agrees with him, though.
T-Rav, Haven't you heard that Biden will be President in 2016? The public loves him.
Andrew, the rest of this thread was bad enough (depressing-wise) and then you have to go and toss out a POS line like "Biden will be President in 2016". I'm going back to the petitions thread! Or maybe CommetaramFilms! :P
President Biden??? I hate you, Andrew...oh, no, wait...I meant to write "I heart you", but my fingers slipped as I was reading your comment. That darn spellcheck!
rlaWTX & Bev, Come on, who doesn't like the idea of President Biden?
any sane human?
rlaWTX and Andrew - And most animals, minerals, and plants...
Just for the record, this mind-f**k was NOT my fault. I said nothing about Biden being--President....gaah, I can't stand even to type it.
Thanks, Andrew. I hope Rick Santorum haunts your dreams tonight.
rlaWTX, Sanity is overrated.
T-Rav, Gee, thanks. Maybe I'll sleep with my gun and shoot anything in a sweater vest.
if you kill someone else in your dream, do they really die...?
and yes, sanity is tenuous and mostly unnecessary. I am proof after the last month. (see note at end of Petitions)
Hasta luego.
rlaWTX, I'll let you know about the dream thing.
Sorry to hear about your loss. Best wishes. :)
OT: Good news! The Death Star Petition got enough signatures that Obama needs to respond to it. It's a great day for democracy. :)
YAY for the Death Star! Now can we move on to Star Wars: SDI?
(and thank you)
rla, if you kill someone in your dream, your image of them falls into limbo and it loses its memory and grows old until someone else shows up to spin a top and....something. I don't know.
rlaWTX, Star Wars SDI or Star Wars CSI?
T-Rav, I believe that is correct.
No wonder why talking to some of these people about economics, etc. doesn't work.
LINK
I've been reflecting on this article. I have to say the rich are very wise to leave the country. France has a history heads on pikes whenever the proletariat gets ornery.
tryanmax, They don't do that anymore... they just seize all your stuff and lock you up in prison under trumped up charges.
One thing is for sure, look at the rhetoric difference between Obama and the Frogs. The Frogs are openly demanding these people be enslaved. Obama sounds like he's begging when he talks about "those who are well off paying just a tiny bit more."
That tells me there is still a huge difference in the public here and there.
Jen, I honestly don't think this has anything to do with education, it's about emotion versus logic.
Andrew, you've got a point. Where on earth would you find a pike these days?
tryanmax, I think it's something that should be noted. For all we hear from the angry left, the fact is that the American public still is nowhere near the socialist Euros when it comes to things like this.
As for finding a pike in France... le Chateau Depo.
Andrew, They're not taught any logic, only emotion.
If you say, for example, "You do the math", they can't. They also have no idea of where the money comes from, and why businesses that don't make any profit whatsoever (as in "everything should be free"), can't stay in business.
Seriously, I have witnessed many times how even some adults can't count--like in giving back change to someone who paid in cash, or knowing what the person gave to them to start with. I don't know how many times I gave someone a few pennies, or other coins so that I wouldn't get a bunch of them back, and they were totally confused. Like damn, the register figures it for them anyhow, all they have to do is enter the amount.
I have other examples, but I best not go there.
Andrew:This lets us separate ourselves from the prior name because we can basically say we're something new.
I think I get your gist. The left has long attacked the "conservative" movement as unmodern and associated with past discredited institutions like slavery and real cocaine in Coca Cola. The left, OTOH are responsible for mass genocides, imperialism and horrific abuses of civil liberties while not actually being associated with those institutions.
The solution to this can be found in Marx - the progressive's pole star by which they stear towards "Progress land". Marxist theory gives us the assurance that the state will whither away once true Communism is reached.
Our manifesto should declare that with the election of Obama, the victory of communism over capitalism is now complete, and it is time to implement the requirements of true communism as the "One True Communist Party of the USA" or OTCPUSA - because Communism, like Obama, is cool, futuristic and great for getting laid by naive starlets.
Unlike the phoney Commies who presently endorse Obama, the job of true communists is to constantly work to reduce the size and scope of the state. Also to winkle out corruption and wreckers like Warren Buffet and Jeffey Immelt - who seek to perpetuate the state for their bourgeoisie purposes.
True communist business-comrades will no longer be permitted to generate "profits". Wealth generated over costs will be taken by these businessmen and will be used in any manner they see fit - unless that manner increases the power and influence of the state. This policy will be strictly enforced.
Further dispatches and recommendations from the ITCPUSA steering committee will be forthcoming.
K, I sense a little tongue-in-cheek, but the notion is actually not half bad.
K, LOL! That would cause them all kinds of confusion if you could get recognized leftists to adopt it.
Seriously though, the left is very good at avoiding responsibility for their prior acts because they are brazen about disowning the bad guys and tossing them onto our side. They also keep changing their labels, which lets them pretend they are someone different than the last time. "What? We're not progressives... we're liberals. What? We're not liberals... we're moderates. We're not communists... we're socialists. We're not socialists... we're Democratic socialists." etc.
Post a Comment