Will Smith Lectures France About Paying Taxes Until Learning Of Their 75% R [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Will Smith Lectures France About Paying Taxes Until Learning Of Their 75% R


snerd
05-14-2012, 21:18
Video catches his priceless expression upon learning of France's tax rate..............

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/05/14/Will-Smith-Extolls-Virtues-Of-PayingTaxes-Until-Learning-Of-Their-75-Percent

Berto
05-14-2012, 21:39
God Bless America.:supergrin:

JK-linux
05-14-2012, 22:17
.....

Just1More
05-14-2012, 23:11
I would LOVE to see Will Smith pay 75% in taxes. Help a brother out, Will.

4TS&W
05-14-2012, 23:37
I think they were talking about Holland's tax rate, in French.

He probably sees no correlation to his own wealth, and the fact that he could obtain it only in America, because of a free market, and limited government. All the while he fights against it. Aye Dios Mio, the irony!

chickenwing
05-15-2012, 00:56
I think they were talking about Holland's tax rate, in French.

He probably sees no correlation to his own wealth, and the fact that he could obtain it only in America, because of a free market, and limited government. All the while he fights against it. Aye Dios Mio, the irony!

:rofl:Free market, limited government. :rofl:


No rich music/movie stars exist outside of America?

4TS&W
05-15-2012, 01:07
:rofl:Free market, limited government. :rofl:


No rich music/movie stars exist outside of America?

Yes they do, but Hollywood was made possible by the economic powerhouse that is America, because of the reasons I previously stated. Quantum leaps in entertainment, first with moving pictures and sound, special effects, animation, and CGI are all directly attributable to the competition fostered by a free market.

I'm glad that you were amused. :upeyes:

chickenwing
05-15-2012, 01:29
Yes they do, but Hollywood was made possible by the economic powerhouse that is America, because of the reasons I previously stated. Quantum leaps in entertainment, first with moving pictures and sound, special effects, animation, and CGI are all directly attributable to the competition fostered by a free market.

I'm glad that you were amused. :upeyes:

Not really, you made a specific argument. That he could only obtain his wealth in America, which is false.

I agree, but America has not been a free market in over a hundred years. Sure it's been better then most places, and despite fedzilla states have been able to provide a market place that welcomes certain businesses, through subsidies and taxes, but a free market it is not, nor is America the only place to make money, especially in Will Smith's lifetime.



Yes I was amused. Sorry if that offends you.

4TS&W
05-15-2012, 01:34
A free market is a relative thing.

It has been more free than say, France.

chickenwing
05-15-2012, 01:40
A free market is a relative thing.

It has been more free than say, France.

A free market is a free market, you either have one or you don't. I get what you are saying though.

Brucev
05-15-2012, 05:28
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.

treeline
05-15-2012, 09:49
Yes they do, but Hollywood was made possible by the economic powerhouse that is America, because of the reasons I previously stated. Quantum leaps in entertainment, first with moving pictures and sound ...

Many of the early advances in movie technology happened in Europe and the US only took the lead when European cinema largely disappeared during the first world war. After that the studio system dominated Hollywood until it was broken by the 1948 antitrust case. In the following years hollywood benefit from artists leaving a Europe that was bankrupted by war, not taxes.

The technological advances that helped Hollywood in the digital age relied on computing technology that benefited from huge state subsidy.

Hollywood never was a triumph of the free market. The closest it came was the 70s, when Europe was experimenting with taxing themselves to death.

Atomic Punk
05-15-2012, 09:57
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.


keep, not get. higher tax's will only give the government more money to waste.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 10:11
75 looked to be a bit too high for Will. Enough is enough, but too much is possible. You could see the calculations going through his head when he realized in their system he would keep less than he was willing to pay in our system. "75! Wow, yeah, that's different".

Guess the details matter.

The Machinist
05-15-2012, 10:40
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.
You're totally right Bruce. Our federal government needs more money. Look how good they are with what little they do have! Two Trillion dollars a years just doesn't go as far as it did back in the heyday. :rofl:

G29Reload
05-15-2012, 10:52
Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class

You don't shrink the middle class by letting them keep more of what they earn.

and damaging the nation.

Spending and high taxation damages the nation. You don't restore a nation by taxing it to death.

JFrame
05-15-2012, 10:56
I love how the most phenomenally ignorant people on earth (Will Smith, Rosie O'Donnell, Joy Behar, Barbra Streisand, Janeane Garofalo, Harry Belanfonte, Martin Sheen, etc., etc., take your pick) always like to lecture others on the "reality" of things... :upeyes:


.

tahco gunworks
05-15-2012, 11:03
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.
Not true. Not sure where you get your tax information, but you are not correct with your 90% figure.

pugman
05-15-2012, 11:07
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.

Because 39.6% isn't enough?

If you think the only cause of the shrinking middle class and damage to this nation is the fact the wealthy of this country aren't taxed enough you haven't been paying attention..

BTW: what does it take to be a 1%'er? $334,000 a year. While this is more money than I make it shocks most people when I tell them and they then realize how low this is. When I ask people who don't know to guess most guess between $1-$10 million a year.

Sure, $334K generally includes most professional atheletes, many A list movie stars and the like.

It also includes most specialist doctors who spent upwards of 12 years in medical school. It also includes my parent's neighbor who after working 35 years as a nonunion electrician bought his employer and turned it into a huge company.

Not all 1%'ers are the devil

treeline
05-15-2012, 11:22
Not true. Not sure where you get your tax information, but you are not correct with your 90% figure.

He's right. In 1944 it was 94% and dropped to a meager 91% during 1946 - 1954. If you look at the adjusted income bracket, it's shocking how many people would have been taxed at the highest rate. By the time Reagan came to power, you only had to earn about $500,000 to be taxed at the highest rate of 70%.

Reading that chart makes me want to roll around on the floor foaming at the mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

concretefuzzynuts
05-15-2012, 11:27
I don't think people realize that if you taxed the top earners 100% it still wouldn't touch the amount spent or the debt. Spending is the problem.

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon your talking real money.

beforeobamabans
05-15-2012, 11:46
Because 39.6% isn't enough?

If you think the only cause of the shrinking middle class and damage to this nation is the fact the wealthy of this country aren't taxed enough you haven't been paying attention..

BTW: what does it take to be a 1%'er? $334,000 a year. While this is more money than I make it shocks most people when I tell them and they then realize how low this is. When I ask people who don't know to guess most guess between $1-$10 million a year.

Sure, $334K generally includes most professional atheletes, many A list movie stars and the like.

It also includes most specialist doctors who spent upwards of 12 years in medical school. It also includes my parent's neighbor who after working 35 years as a nonunion electrician bought his employer and turned it into a huge company.

Not all 1%'ers are the devil

And herein lies the problem with defining and isolating "the rich". Class warfare is a slippery slope. If you go along with targeting a segment of society for punitive treatment just because it's not currently YOU, beware, once that tree is cleaned of fruit a voracious government just might put you in the crosshairs:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/28217.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TaxPolicyBlog+(Tax+Foundation+-+Tax+Foundation's+%22Tax+Policy+Blog%22)

CAcop
05-15-2012, 13:24
You know what is interesting is that Johnny Depp lives in Paris. That might be why he keeps pumping out Pirate movies.

JFrame
05-15-2012, 13:47
You know what is interesting is that Johnny Depp lives in Paris. That might be why he keeps pumping out Pirate movies.

I have to say one thing -- I at least appreciate the honesty of Depp's conviction. If he thinks another country is better than the U.S., at least he went there. That's more than one can say for other Hollywood types who lambast this nation no end, but still find it a preferable residence to all the other socialist paradises which we're supposed to emulate.


.

concretefuzzynuts
05-15-2012, 14:07
I have to say one thing -- I at least appreciate the honesty of Depp's conviction. If he thinks another country is better than the U.S., at least he went there. That's more than one can say for other Hollywood types who lambast this nation no end, but still find it a preferable residence to all the other socialist paradises which we're supposed to emulate.


.

It would be nice if more of them went with him.

JFrame
05-15-2012, 14:26
It would be nice if more of them went with him.


Amen.


.

Brucev
05-15-2012, 15:58
keep, not get. higher tax's will only give the government more money to waste.

Taxes are a tool as much as a mechanism of financing those services, etc. which the public requires of govt. The assumption that tax money is always wasted is only an assumption no different than others who assume that only the rich pay taxes or the poor consume, etc., etc.

Brucev
05-15-2012, 16:01
You're totally right Bruce. Our federal government needs more money. Look how good they are with what little they do have! Two Trillion dollars a years just doesn't go as far as it did back in the heyday. :rofl:

A buck just isn't what it used to be. Neither is 100, 1 million or even a ... trillion. Nothing gets done for free. You don't donate your labor, skill, etc. to your employer or customers. They pay. It is the same with the fed./st./local govt. services that so many take for granted. It isn't free. It has to be paid for with taxes.

holesinpaper
05-15-2012, 16:03
What a bad actor. He can't even hide a reaction.

holesinpaper
05-15-2012, 16:05
Taxes are a tool as much as a mechanism of financing those services, etc. which the public requires of govt.

We 'require' a WoD? An over-reaching BATFE? Domestic use of spy drones? Et cetera.

Bull Hockey.

Gov takes, gov grows, gov takes more. And in that mix is the ever constant gov wastes.

Brucev
05-15-2012, 16:05
You don't shrink the middle class by letting them keep more of what they earn.

Spending and high taxation damages the nation. You don't restore a nation by taxing it to death.

You shrink the middle class by cutting taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. The spending that was paid for from that tax money is then financed with borrowed money. So... everyone keeps seeing the same level of services while the upper income folks get a tax cut. Then, when the cost of debt gets high enough for whiners to whine, the matra is... cut spending. No. Raise taxes back to the prior level... and continue to provide the services that people want. If the ones who pay don't like it, let them go somewhere else. This does not damage a nation. During the 50's U.S. income tax rates ranged up over 90%. Our economy was in outstanding condition. And the middle class was in the best condition than at any other time in history.

Brucev
05-15-2012, 16:13
Not true. Not sure where you get your tax information, but you are not correct with your 90% figure.

"The highest marginal income tax rate (the tax rate that applies to the top income tax bracket) was 91 percent in the late 1950s and early 1960s and as high as 70 percent as recently as 1980." (CBO).

Brucev
05-15-2012, 16:38
[QUOTE=pugman;18969539]Because 39.6% isn't enough? In the hand of either the right or the left, taxes are not simply a means of financing govt. operations but a tool by which to shape the nation... to encourage or discourage. So... unbelievable amounts of money are spent to support (encourage) the military industrial complex.

If you think the only cause of the shrinking middle class and damage to this nation is the fact the wealthy of this country aren't taxed enough you haven't been paying attention.. The right are not taxed enough... Correct. The middle class is shrinking as multinational corporations are allowed to off-shore production and then treat the U.S. as a colony into which they import their foreign produced products to compete with domestic producers, all the time paying little or not tax while the domestic producer pays... tax. Easy answer. Apply punitive tariffs sufficient to disadvantage foreign production to the point that it no longer can compete with domestic producers.

BTW: what does it take to be a 1%'er? $334,000 a year. While this is more money than I make it shocks most people when I tell them and they then realize how low this is. When I ask people who don't know to guess most guess between $1-$10 million a year. Shocked? Why should anyone be shocked? The vast majority of men and women in the U.S. do not make... $334,000/annually. "The annual median wage fell in 2010 for the second year ina row to $26,364." (Reuters). "Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell to $49,909." (WSJ)

Sure, $334K generally includes most professional atheletes, many A list movie stars and the like. And... like anyone else, they can pay tax... right on up to say 95%.

It also includes most specialist doctors who spent upwards of 12 years in medical school. It also includes my parent's neighbor who after working 35 years as a nonunion electrician bought his employer and turned it into a huge company. And, just like the professional athletes and movie stars... they can pay tax... right on up to say 95%. Of course if they want to invest that income, then give them a credit. But if they just make the money... let them pay tax. Neat way to deal with ceo's making piles of bonuses. Just tax it away.

Not all 1%'ers are the devil. That is very much a matter of debate.

concretefuzzynuts
05-15-2012, 19:52
[QUOTE=pugman;18969539]Because 39.6% isn't enough? In the hand of either the right or the left, taxes are not simply a means of financing govt. operations but a tool by which to shape the nation... to encourage or discourage. So... unbelievable amounts of money are spent to support (encourage) the military industrial complex.

If you think the only cause of the shrinking middle class and damage to this nation is the fact the wealthy of this country aren't taxed enough you haven't been paying attention.. The right are not taxed enough... Correct. The middle class is shrinking as multinational corporations are allowed to off-shore production and then treat the U.S. as a colony into which they import their foreign produced products to compete with domestic producers, all the time paying little or not tax while the domestic producer pays... tax. Easy answer. Apply punitive tariffs sufficient to disadvantage foreign production to the point that it no longer can compete with domestic producers.

BTW: what does it take to be a 1%'er? $334,000 a year. While this is more money than I make it shocks most people when I tell them and they then realize how low this is. When I ask people who don't know to guess most guess between $1-$10 million a year. Shocked? Why should anyone be shocked? The vast majority of men and women in the U.S. do not make... $334,000/annually. "The annual median wage fell in 2010 for the second year ina row to $26,364." (Reuters). "Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell to $49,909." (WSJ)

Sure, $334K generally includes most professional atheletes, many A list movie stars and the like. And... like anyone else, they can pay tax... right on up to say 95%.

It also includes most specialist doctors who spent upwards of 12 years in medical school. It also includes my parent's neighbor who after working 35 years as a nonunion electrician bought his employer and turned it into a huge company. And, just like the professional athletes and movie stars... they can pay tax... right on up to say 95%. Of course if they want to invest that income, then give them a credit. But if they just make the money... let them pay tax. Neat way to deal with ceo's making piles of bonuses. Just tax it away.

Not all 1%'ers are the devil. That is very much a matter of debate.

Just an observation, no trolling or wanting to start a fight...are you that elusive middle of the road? Are you libertarian? I'm just curious from reading your posts. I'm not sure where you stand. Please don't think I'm trying to start something. What are you politically?

cowboy1964
05-15-2012, 19:59
The rich's exodus from France is going to be monumental. They can live anywhere they want, they ain't going to stay there. Britain just cut taxes and I hear many banker types are moving to London.

Woofie
05-15-2012, 20:00
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

juggy4711
05-15-2012, 20:33
You shrink the middle class by cutting taxes on the wealthy and on corporations...

Corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do. To a corporation taxes are an expense on there ledgers. Raise corporate taxes and they do not eat that cost. They pass it on to consumers most of which are middle/lower class earners. Depending on the commodity and it's elasticity corporations pass tax savings on to consumers in the same fashion.

Chronos
05-16-2012, 00:18
75%? So what. The U.S. had rates above 90% during the 50's, etc. It was an era when the middle class was expanding at historic rates. So... raise U.S. rates back to those that prevailed during the very best era for the middle class. If the will smiths of this world don't like it, let them go... wherever. Because cutting the rates on the will smiths down to historic lows has only served to help the 1% get more and more money, etc. while shrinking the middle class and damaging the nation.

The US economy grew faster than at any time before or since and standards of living improved dramatically to levels never before seen on the planet in the 1880's. The economy literally doubled in a decade. So if we want to see the same dramatic improvement in living standards, I suggest that we take your advice and abolish the income tax completely, and replace it with nothing.

Incidentally, the 1950 example also proves the opposite of the point you'd like to make. There were so few people paying the ridiculous rates that it was almost meaningless in terms of government revenue and spending -- if you want the real picture, look at the total government spending and not the top tax rate (which applied to almost nobody):

http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3e8c49f31c4c26c7dcf2e45df5302eca

Interested in cutting the size of government in half starting tomorrow?

pugman
05-16-2012, 05:51
Just an observation, no trolling or wanting to start a fight...are you that elusive middle of the road? Are you libertarian? I'm just curious from reading your posts. I'm not sure where you stand. Please don't think I'm trying to start something. What are you politically?

I can see the political landscape as it currently resides today in the United States has run its course; I frequently tell people the experiment known as the United States of America will soon be over.

I am not a Conservative or Liberal, I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I vote issue and results. I don't hate the rich (envy yes) or pity the poor

I'm not sure if elusive middle of the road is accurate. Many of my hard right or left friends and family try to "side me" - which frankly is part of the problem. Politicians, the two main parties and whomever have done a fantastic job of firing up one half of the country to hate the other for some reason.

If anything I'm a free market, limited government Libertarian with a touch of Anarchism. My slightly anarchistic views aren't towards a political philosophy which believes a state or government in undesirable, unnecessary or harmful; its aimed at the fact some areas of society should be "governed" by non-hierarchical voluntary associations. I'm sick and tired of a government structure who spends more time trying to protect me from myself than from other people. I firmly believe "poor" should be a moment in time not a class of society.

Some of my views are considered "right" while others are "left." I'm pro-gun but don't think a 2 day wait period on a handgun is a bad thing. I'm not in favor of same sex partner medical benefits many companies offer; Not because I'm offended by the fact Bob and Joe or Jane and Jill want to shack up together its the fact these benefits aren't offered to nonmarried man-woman couples. In other words if a woman/woman relationship is marked as a "partnership" why isn't a woman/man? You offer it to both or neither.

My sensibilities aren't offended by gay couples, rednecks, the new black panthers or any one particular group of people. I am only offended by stupidity, fraud, and theft. Government case in point: My local school district pushed through a $38 million dollar referendum two years ago to modernize and repair the local middle school. I just received a mailer asking if I would support a $18 million dollar referendum to build a new middle school. Why would you spend $38 million on a school you plan on replacing two years later? The school board's response was they plan on taking the old middle school and make it into a community center. New flash: my town has 5,000 people in it - WTH do we need with a $40-$50 million dollar community center.

I believe in what I call ultimate responsibility and accountability. When I hear stuff on the news about Aaron and Elizabeth Ramsey who starved their 11 year son to death or Faleh Hassan Almaleki who runs his daughter over because she was becoming too Westernized I always look at my wife and say the same thing..."why are these people still alive?" We don't use the death penalty quick enough or at all in many cases (there is that hard right/anarchism pov)

Middle of the road? Politically I fly above said road - not because my views are "better" but they allow for more than two directions of thought...and of course it allows me to spit on both sides :supergrin:

DonGlock26
05-16-2012, 06:44
You know what is interesting is that Johnny Depp lives in Paris. That might be why he keeps pumping out Pirate movies.

I'd love to know Depp's tax shelters. That would be a hoot.


_

robertoh
05-16-2012, 06:47
Kalifornia is 16 Billion in the red,so maybe Gov.Moonbeam could impose a 75% surtax on Hollyweird since the Celebs.,seem to have plenty of money to give to Obama. But I bet the Celebs.,have most of their money hidden outside Kalifornia,so Moonbeam will just have to wring out the pockets of the Middle-class folks for more funds for the Illegals and welfare people.

DonGlock26
05-16-2012, 07:15
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/DonGlock26/clooney-obama.jpg

snerd
05-16-2012, 08:01
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/DonGlock26/clooney-obama.jpg
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

RC-RAMIE
05-16-2012, 09:10
Corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do. To a corporation taxes are an expense on there ledgers. Raise corporate taxes and they do not eat that cost. They pass it on to consumers most of which are middle/lower class earners. Depending on the commodity and it's elasticity corporations pass tax savings on to consumers in the same fashion.

Can I add they also pass that cost to stock holders, and employees in the form of less pay.

Woofie
05-16-2012, 11:46
Corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do. To a corporation taxes are an expense on there ledgers. Raise corporate taxes and they do not eat that cost. They pass it on to consumers most of which are middle/lower class earners. Depending on the commodity and it's elasticity corporations pass tax savings on to consumers in the same fashion.

Elasticity also affects how much of the tax burden can be pushed on to the consumer. Some, maybe even most, of the tax increase can be passed on, but not all of it in most cases.

callihan_44
05-16-2012, 17:56
And, just like the professional athletes and movie stars... they can pay tax... right on up to say 95%. Of course if they want to invest that income, then give them a credit. But if they just make the money... let them pay tax. Neat way to deal with ceo's making piles of bonuses. Just tax it away

wow, Im not sure obama would go this far(could be wrong)..so someone pulling down $400,000 you think it's ok that they keep $20,000 ? But if they invest it how much of a credit do they get under your plan? lol this is complete lunacy if that's what you mean.?

series1811
05-17-2012, 06:07
I don't think people realize that if you taxed the top earners 100% it still wouldn't touch the amount spent or the debt. Spending is the problem.

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon your talking real money.

You have nailed the problem. People have a hard time wrapping their head around just how big our deficit and debt is.

They get all wrapped up talking about how much money should be taken from the rich, not realizing, that even the rich don't have nearly enough money to fix this problem, even if we took everything they had.

It's a spending problem because the deficit and national debt have become too big to be fixed by any feasible revenue enhancement scheme.

And, it only gets much, much worse, down the road.

Greece, and California are soon going to be showing us a mini-version of our national future if we don't get our spending under control.

I'm 54. I've paid into Social Security since I was 15 years old. But, I've got enough sense to know that I am not going to get what was promised to me. But, that's okay. Saving the country for my kids is more important to me. We have got to get serious about reducing medicare and social security or Greece is going to look like nirvana next to what happens here down the road.