Deviation Actions

BlameThe1st's avatar

Statist And Anarchist: Tax Havens

Nearly three years ago, France decided to raise taxes on the wealthy as much as 90 percent. And of course, the rich complied with this tax increase by remaining in the country and willingly allowing their wealth to be taxed.

Just kidding. After the tax increase was announced, the wealthy started selling their mansions with plans to move out of the country. So many rich people were threatening to leave the country that France decided not to move forward with the tax increase.

Funny thing: people with lots of money tend to want to keep their money and will do so by moving to places where tax rates are low. This isn't just a trend of the rich. In recent years, plenty of lower and middle class individuals have been making the exodus from high tax blue states to low tax red states.

And then there's the fact that America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and yet politicians still scratch their heads and wonder why so many corporations are outsourcing jobs overseas. Clearly, it's because corporate taxes aren't high enough. We need to raise them. That will certainly stop those greedy corporations from outsourcing! /s
Image details
Image size
500x743px 50.34 KB
© 2016 - 2021 BlameThe1st
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
squidwardfan101's avatar
I have an idea. We should give a tax to outsourcing. Like a 25 to 30% tax. Then, for companies that keep jobs in this country, we'd give them a 5 to 10% tax incentive, to encourage companies to keep jobs here.
Zeonista's avatar
"I told you so." - every fiscally conservative American
Graeystone's avatar
Blue needs a 'Turn/Wind Up Key' coming out of his butt. That way when someone needs to hear something stupid, Blue can be wound up, spout his nonsense, then winds down to blissful silence.
AsFoxger's avatar
Then tax evasion would happen eventually. xD
Born-of-Wolves's avatar
Then we need to pass a law making it illegal for rich people to leave or put their money overseas! That'll show those greedy old richies!

That's actually not a bad idea. We should have laws that make sure rich people can't just move their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. 
ShirouZhiwu's avatar
In my opinion, Sales Taxes and Income Taxes are the only Honest Taxes as they are the taxes every human sees directly. All the taxes put on businesses are just passed on to the sticker price, making a price rise of a product look like a greedy business, when in fact it's just a tax passed on by the business. As such I would abolish all taxes except income and sales taxes.
Wertyla's avatar
Raising taxes on the rich = rich people leaving the country and taking their wealth with them

When the government pays Robin Hood, everyone loses.
Zeonista's avatar
More like Prince John-later King John-shaking down the barons who owned everything the Church or Crown did not own. The barons didn't have a Panamanian tax shelter account system at hand, so they rose up in revolt and made King John sign Magna Carta. A lack of perceived alternatives gets people ready to make a stand against a tyrannical government. I wonder if D.C. has re-learned that lesson yet. ;)
Wertyla's avatar
Probably not... and I imagine most people of my generation haven't, either. Young people are being conditioned to think that higher taxes are better because the government is here to help. I doubt they know what the word "tyranny" even means. My school didn't even cover the Magna Carta, although they really should have. I learned about it by researching on my own and talking to my parents, who know quite a bit about history.
Zeonista's avatar
Dammit schools, you had one job... No, I disagree!  No, not complying with the school lunch program of the month, your real job! Rage  I refuse to accept defeat though, the struggle for knowledge and the liberty it awakens continues! CURSE YOU! 
Wertyla's avatar
It's weird... They don't teach basic history (or quite a few other useful things), but they DO force kids to buy fruits and vegetables with their lunch... Thanks, Michelle Obama. Most of the healthy stuff ends up in the trash, anyway. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Zeonista's avatar
From the horse's mouth, no less. =P (Razz)  I originally wanted to learn how much you did learn in world history/civics/social studies, but then decided I didn't want to know... I spend enough days feeling like Cicero, or his latter-day fictional sons, Bail Organa & Garm Bel Iblis. ;)

"History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumens reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life, and brings us tidings of antiquity." - Cicero
"Not to know what has transacted in former times is always to be a child. If no use is made of labors of past ages, the world must always remain in the infancy of knowledge." - Cicero

"It is found by experience that admirable laws and and right precedents among the good have their origin in the misdeeds of others." - Cornelius Tacitus

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free." - Ronald Reagan

"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." - Sir Winston Churchill Wink/Razz 
Wertyla's avatar
Okay, here's a sample of how ignorant I am: Who was Cicero? Actually, the only two names on here I recognize are Ronald Reagan and Sir Winston Churchill (and I learned about them outside of school... Churchill was probably covered briefly and Reagan wasn't mentioned at all).
Zeonista's avatar
Now you need to get yourself going here! ;) Don't feel too bad, I mainly knew about these people (indirectly) from independent reading, too. Then I got to the University level of history and some mention was required. Look them up on Wiki and take it from there. Churchill will have a bit of reference to Tacitus as well.
View all replies
Graeystone's avatar
Robin Hood - Rich guy who had everything taken away from him by the government and decided to fight back against the tax collectors. . .the Left really knows how to pick their 'heroes'. . .
Robin Hood was not rich nor was he actually English. Originally he was a Welsh legend and fought against the invading English nobles and gave the money to his fellow poor Welshmen. But later the English took him and made him one of them, even though he still wasn't a rich nobleman. He was actually a middle class yeoman who lost his lands to a bunch of greedy rich guys. It wasn't until recent times did Robin Hood started to be a nobleman who lost everything to King John. So yes Robin Hood is still a left leaning hero who fought against a system of corruption and abuse that empowered the rich to abuse the poor.  
Zeonista's avatar
It's been the trend in the 20th century to show the Sheriff of Rottingham picking on the poor defenseless peasants. He was actually authorized to do so, Nottingham was part of a Crown fief and could be shaken down (sorry, "taxed") whenever Prince/King John wanted to do so. Peasants as a rule didn't own much worth taxing, so the money being collected was part of taxes on the various duties of Feudal England. Quite a lot of them, complicated tax codes never go out of style! :) Every coin or commodity rendered in kind diminished the barons' own income and wealth, so they naturally resented John's greed.

The thing with Maid Marian wasn't just being a jerk to a Medieval babe either. Marian was a ward of the Crown, being a female heir to a baronial title. Her lands were supposed to be held in trust until she was married to the right guy, and protected by the Crown against, well, robber barons! John basically commandeered the authority for her to marry, and kept the royal permission to do so for one of his followers.  It's a different form of Royal sticky fingers concerning property and inheritance rights.

In some of the early Robin Hood stories he is a yeoman farmer & occasional subsistence hunter who is framed for poaching by royal foresters of Sherwood Forest after he wins an archery competition. Again, Sherwood Forest was a Crown property, and hunting in it was considered trespass and poaching. So Robin Hood ran away to hide in said forest (irony), gathered some like men about him, and robbed high-value targets while eating the King's venison.

Graeystone's avatar
So no matter the version, Robin was giving corrupt government officials 'the middle finger'. Yet the Left say its the Rich that Robin did it to.

 Again, Sherwood Forest was a Crown property, and hunting in it was considered trespass and poaching. So Robin Hood ran away to hide in said forest (irony), gathered some like men about him, and robbed high-value targets while eating the King's venison.

Don't let Arblos read that. He'd probably have an aneurism because of how he feels about Bundy and what his group did.
Zeonista's avatar
"Hey Arblos, Robin Hood was the leader of an occupying militia! And they wore camouflage and used assault weapons!" :D
Graeystone's avatar
That's right. And it wasn't that they were 'anti-government', they were anti-corruption(Richard). . .and given how the left picks their heroes. . .Richard would be one.
Zeonista's avatar
Well, Richard I had his own problems with high taxation, corruption & abuse of power by subordinates, and being an absentee sovereign at times. Much of this was set aside by his subjects because he was the lawful king, he was a Crusader so "totes popular", and the administration was overall sound so criticism landed on the chief administrators, not the person of the popular king. Richard was also a volatile person, but he did blow hot & fast, and cooled off quickly, and he was never perceived as unfair, unjust, or ungenerous.

John did not share those advantages, which carried over into his lawful reign from his earlier attempt to stage a coup of the regency while Richard was a prisoner overseas. John's policies, his untrusting nature, and his hands-on rule made sure he was directly linked to every issue of discontent. The barons and the more well-off commoners did not want England to become de-centralized and fall into anarchy again, like the war between Matilda & Stephen. But they were not content to be used & abused by a king who used the law like a club, nursed grudges, trusted his cronies and mercenaries more than the nobles & gentry of England, and confused personal prerogative with the law of the land. It's worth noting that the Great Charter is aimed directly at royal rule and royal rights, rather than the standard Medieval gripefest against "the king's traitorous advisers and officials" or interfering favorites.
Graeystone's avatar
Yeah. . .John. . .that's who I meant. :embarassed: Facepalm 
View all replies
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In