Finally, we\’ve a definition of \”fair tax\”

Observers said the timing of the announcement appeared to be a damage limitation exercise amid reports that France’s Council of State is to bury Socialist president François Hollande’s controversial pledge to slap a 75 per cent tax on millionaire earners.

The Council will, according to Le Figaro newspaper, conclude that any figure above 66.6 per cent of earnings per household would be confiscatory. The Constitutional Council in January had already ruled that the 75 per cent mark was unfair.

66% eh? And that\’s a marginal rate.

45% income tax, what is it, 1 or 2% NI plus 13.8% employers\’ NI? We\’re damn close there: and in the £100k or so bracket, above it as the personal allowance gets withdrawn. Any tax rise from here would be \”unfair\” therefore, yes?

5 thoughts on “Finally, we\’ve a definition of \”fair tax\””

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    How the f**k do these pathetic little jumped up excuses for civil servants pretending to be a real Court justify the 66.6% figure? Where the hell did that come from? Did Moses come down from Mount Sinia with a third tablet shoved up his jumper? Did Jesus mention two thirds in the Sermon on the Mount?

    66.6% is outrageous, but it is not for these little ar$eholes to say. The French people elected a French government which has a mandate to carry out whatever insane pathetic little policy they want. It is not for these snot-nosed little bastards to decide they know better. The French people decide these things – and they deserve to reap the full rewards of their folly until they learn better.

  2. When the state is consuming 50% of GDP rather a lot of people have to pay more than 50% of their income to the state. Another reason to aim for a smaller state. Taxation is necessary theft so the only way to reduce the theft element is to shrink the state.

  3. I think the state, which provided free schooling and health services to you – and your mother did not use the free abortion service to rid society of the pesky little you – is entitled to 100% of your income. The local commissar and his duly democratically elected council can then decide how much of that salary you really need, and you have to justify your expenses with receipts and bills every week, otherwise you could be irresponsible and buy too much soda, butter, and god forbid, alcohol and nicotine.

  4. TheJollyGreenMan (#3)

    You’re channeling Arnald in his absence right?

    Don’t forget, the vision of the likes of Murphy and his acolytes HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THE USSR! (honest)

  5. Never said it before, will likely be a long time before I say it again, but agree completely with SMFS.

    There is a massive difference between Rule of Law and Rule by Unelected Judges.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *