France announces tax increases to collect € 33,000 million

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

The President of France, François Hollande, announced at last night a new plan to increase government revenue by 33,000 million euros, the highest increase of the last decades. Most of the money the government intends to collect will come from taxes increases, which will render between 15,000 and 20,000 million. Hollande spoke last week about his plan to “reduce the deficit to 3 percent by the end of 2013”. During his talk, the leader described the plan announced last night as “the largest tax effort of the last thirty years.”

Last night, Hollande explained that the so-called adjustments to the French population. The French President explained last week some of the main points of his plan, which does not provide — according to him — for a general increase but a “rational and consistent with the ability of each individual,” he said. “Everybody will contribute according to their means,” Hollande added without providing further details and argued that “having future generations pay today’s deficit sounds like an anomaly.” He also stressed that the crisis does not justify everything. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? The unreasonable part is that the government should not be financing its gargantuan budget or deficit by stealing money from people who have worked hard to earn it.

Although Hollande had announced a 75% increase in taxes on the wealthiest, some french media outlets have announced that Hollande may backtrack on that initiative. It was almost predictable that the French president would make the poorest pay for government expenses and that his plan to tax the richest was just a smoke screen to gain confidence from the gullible population. The so-called exceptional tax of 75% on large fortunes, would have soften the burden on the poorest taxpayers, focusing mainly on large companies, as in the tax levy, which could be 67%.

According to Le Figaro, the proposal presented by Hollande during the election campaign, which raised the possibility to impose a tax of 75% for taxpayers with incomes above one million euros, would be “reduced to a minimum.” This proposal has become particularly relevant after news that the richest man in France, Bernald Arnault, announced his intention to apply for dual Franco-Belgian nationality.

Arnault, who leads companies such as Louis Vuitton, Givenchy and Moët & Chandon, has a personal fortune of 41,000 million euros. Specifically, the Government has decided that the exceptional tax only includes the gross income from work, leaving out capital gains and properties. Also, in the case of couples, the threshold would be raised to two million euros.

Once again, the French people have been duped by the supposed socialist leader whose socialist skills only work in favor of the wealthiest people in France.

More Taxes for a Dying Economy

By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
September 18, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.

A White House official said the proposal would be included in the president’s proposal for long term deficit reduction that he will announce Monday. The official spoke anonymously because the plan has not been officially announced.

Obama is going to call it the “Buffett Rule” for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.

Buffett wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece last month that he and his rich friends “have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.”

The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy.

House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he would oppose tax increases to reduce the deficit. Boehner has urged Congress’ deficit “supercommittee” to lay the groundwork for a broad overhaul of the U.S. tax code.

The panel has almost unlimited authority to recommend changes in federal spending and taxes and is working against a deadline of Nov. 23.

Boehner said the panel has “only one option, spending cuts and entitlement reforms,” a reference to government benefit programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Any broad compromise that clears the bipartisan committee is almost certain to require Democratic agreement to savings from programs such as Social Security and Medicare, along with Republican acquiescence to additional revenues, although any such trade-offs are rarely discussed openly until the last possible moment in negotiations.

Checkmate on Obama’s Tax Care

American Spectator

In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that

The Obama Administration has confessed to Obamacare being a tax after citizens legally challenge the system.

the individual mandate represents a tax — even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a “tax” or “penalty,” because either way, it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner” by the Internal Revenue Service.

But this is a characterization that Democrats, and specifically Obama, angrily denounced during the health care debate. Most prominently, in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Obama argued that the mandate was “absolutely not a tax increase,” and he dug into his view even after being confronted with a dictionary definition:

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

At the time Obama made that statement, the Senate Finance Committee had just released its own health care bill, which clearly referred to the mandate penalty as an “excise tax.” But in later versions, the word “tax” was stripped, because it had become too much of a political liability for Democrats. The final version that Obama signed did not describe the mandate as a tax, and used the Commerce Clause — not federal taxing power — as the Constitutional justification for the mandate.

“”This is an about face from what is laid out in the law,” said Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business, which joined the Florida lawsuit against ObamaCare. “In the text of the healthcare law, the findings for passing an individual mandate specifically rely on the effects of individuals on the national economy and interstate commerce. Nowhere in the findings is the mandate referred to as a tax. The Justice Department is now calling it a tax to try and convince the court not to rule on whether or not Congress exceeded their authority under the Commerce Clause by legislating that all citizens must purchase private health insurance or face a penalty.”

Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.