French Actor Greedy For Wanting To Keep More Of His Money

The French elected a Socialist to the presidency and that person, Francois Hollande, raised the tax rate on the wealthy to 75% for any income over 1 million Euros. The wealthy in France are not taking it lying down as many move out of the country. One such person is French actor Gerard Depardieu who bought a home and established legal residence in Belgium where the highest tax rate is 50%.

It is a shame that an area with a 50% tax rate is considered a haven from high taxes but this is what happens when governments continue to raise taxes. People become accustomed to the higher rates so that they eventually seem fair when the rates get really high.

This is an example of Overton’s Window.

In any event, the move is not sitting well with French politicians who are very upset that Depardieu moved out. They just can’t understand why this guy would want to keep the money he earned. This is a problem with liberal/progressive/socialists, they think the money one earns belongs to government and can’t quite get a handle on why people balk at surrendering it.

The United States is led by such people who tell us very candidly that they believe in redistribution and that they think wealthy people reach a point where they have earned enough.

Amazingly, these people never feel they have earned enough. People like Bill Clinton leave politics and earn millions of dollars speaking and then look for ways to shelter the money. People like Warren Buffett decry low tax rates and scream for high tax rates on income while never advocating a tax on wealth. That would hurt them and they just can’t have that. Hell, Buffett owes the government a lot of money in taxes he has not paid…

Back to France. Keep in mind that Depardieu left to avoid paying 75% of his income (over a million Euros) to a place where he will pay taxes at a 50% rate. He is, in effect, keeping 25% of his money but he is denying all of the taxes he pays to France and that is not sitting well. The Socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, described Depardieu as “…a generous man but in this instance he is not showing that.”

You got that? In order for Depardieu to show he is generous he needs to forfeit 75% of what he earns to the government. I would turn that around and say that the government is showing how greedy it is by confiscating three-fourths of what a person earns.

Once again, this is how these liberal/progressive/socialist leeches think. They think that if you work hard and earn money then you should have most of it confiscated by the government so it can be used to support others. You should earn that money for everyone else.

Or as Obama might say, you didn’t build that so you have no right to it…

The wealthy did not get that way by being foolish. Hell most got wealthy by Obama and his ilk designating 250k a year as being so but the truly wealthy got that way by taking risks and managing their money well. They will certainly be able to thwart government attempts to confiscate it.

The mob extorts money from people by threatening to send goons to harm them.

The government extorts money from people by threatening to send the IRS to harm them.

The only difference is that one of these entities has its extortion legalized but the outcome is the same. People are forced to comply until they can leave.

Depardieu did that in France and I suspect many Americans will do something similar. They might not leave the country but their money will go elsewhere.

Places where it can’t be fondled by the overly greedy government and its insatiable appetite for ever increasing and foolish spending.

But lest we forget folks, Obama owns all of this now. It is not on Bush or anyone else. It is on Obama. Anyone who follows him does so at his own risk (politically) but the onus is on Obama alone.

My only hope is that the pain that is sure to come affects those who voted for him in the most intense ways possible. You asked for it so you deserve what you get.

Au revoir….

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Obama Apple Stays Near The Tree

If Barack Obama is elected president he, with the assistance of a Democratic Congress, will impose huge tax increases upon us. His defenders claim he will roll taxes to what they were under Bill Clinton. Those were bad enough but with all the spending he has proposed, he will have to increase taxes much more in order to push through his agenda. However, Obama hedged on taxes a bit:

Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.” My Way News

Obama will delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts because the economy is in a recession (it is not). Therefore, he is admitting that taxes hurt the economy. If taxes helped then it would not matter when he rescinded them. The reality is, even under the best of times, taxes hurt the economy and when it is not in great shape the pain is even worse.

Obama men

He also admits that he would have to take a look at his tax increases on the wealthy because of the fragile economy. In other words, we have more people out of jobs and high prices so if he raises taxes those who create jobs will stop creating as many and more people will be unemployed. The increased taxes will cause prices to go higher (tax increases are passed on to consumers) and people will pay even more.

The way to solve the problems is to cut federal spending. Eliminate unnecessary and duplicate programs and cut budgets. This will decrease the need for our money and we can keep the taxes low or lower them even more. People who earn the money should keep it and decide how it is spent.

Taking money from those who have more of it and redistributing it to those who have less of it is Socialism. That is what Barry Obama is all about because it is in his blood:

“What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all. This is the government’s obligation.”
~snip~
“Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay. It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.” Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.

The apple certainly does not fall far from the tree. Daddy Hussein was a Harvard educated economist. Amazing what a goat herder can do when he puts his mind to it.

The link to the story about his father is very enlightening. Particularly interesting is this gem:

Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as “scientific socialism — inter alia — communism.” Yes, Obama’s father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by “force.” [emphasis mine]

Big Dog