Will Smith on 75% Tax in France: 'God Bless America!' (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/will-smith-75-tax-france-god-bless-america)


(CNSNews.com) – France’s Socialist president, Francois Hollande, has proposed rasing the tax rate to 75 percent on income above 1 million euros ($1.24 million) a year, a proposal that liberal actor Will Smith expressed surprise over – but did not disagree with – when asked about it earlier this year.

On France’s TF1 in early May, Smith explained why he supported the idea of paying higher taxes, saying, "I have no issue with paying taxes and whatever needs to be done for my country to grow. I believe very firmly that my ability to sit here -- I'm a black man who didn't go to college, yet I get to travel around the world and sell my movies, and I believe very firmly that America is the only place on Earth that I could exist. So I will pay anything that I need to pay to keep my country growing."

Nothing is stopping him or Warren Buffett from voluntarily paying more taxes.

Nothing is stopping him or Warren Buffett from voluntarily paying more taxes.

*ding*

Stroke a check, Will!

Will Smith on 75% Tax in France: 'God Bless America!' (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/will-smith-75-tax-france-god-bless-america)


(CNSNews.com) – France’s Socialist president, Francois Hollande, has proposed rasing the tax rate to 75 percent on income above 1 million euros ($1.24 million) a year, a proposal that liberal actor Will Smith expressed surprise over – but did not disagree with – when asked about it earlier this year.

On France’s TF1 in early May, Smith explained why he supported the idea of paying higher taxes, saying, "I have no issue with paying taxes and whatever needs to be done for my country to grow. I believe very firmly that my ability to sit here -- I'm a black man who didn't go to college, yet I get to travel around the world and sell my movies, and I believe very firmly that America is the only place on Earth that I could exist. So I will pay anything that I need to pay to keep my country growing."


Will Smith is right,the rich should pay more.:coffee:

Will Smith is right,the rich should pay more.:coffee:

Why is Warren Buffets company locked in a bitter dispute with the IRS then?

Why is Warren Buffets company locked in a bitter dispute with the IRS then?



Ask Warren .:whistle:

It's easy for people like Warren Buffett, who likely pays a low tax rate because of loopholes, and other people with offshore accounts to say they should pay more taxes when they're not paying taxes.

It's easy for people like Warren Buffett, who likely pays a low tax rate because of loopholes, and other people with offshore accounts to say they should pay more taxes when they're not paying taxes.

I bet People like Warren Buffett most likely pay more taxes in a year than you will in your entire life, more than I will too most likely. Even with their off shore holdings.

They pay their fair share.

I bet People like Warren Buffett most likely pay more taxes in a year than you will in your entire life, more than I will too most likely. Even with their off shore holdings.

They pay their fair share.


LOL Well no, if you remember Warren came out and said the tax system needs a fix becuase his secretary paid a higher % of taxes then he did.

:whistle:

LOL Well no, if you remember Warren came out and said the tax system needs a fix becuase his secretary paid a higher % of taxes then he did.

:whistle:

Yes, I remember, and the quote is as stupid today as it was when he said it. If Warren wants higher taxes on capital gains (money which invested has already been taxed), how much more should it be raised?

Government uses taxation as a hammer to influence behavior, not to raise revenue. The government could take 100% of the wealth of the top 1% and run the country for 8 days. :bigwhoop:

The government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

Yes, I remember, and the quote is as stupid today as it was when he said it. If Warren wants higher taxes on capital gains (money which invested has already been taxed), how much more should it be raised?

Government uses taxation as a hammer to influence behavior, not to raise revenue. The government could take 100% of the wealth of the top 1% and run the country for 8 days. :bigwhoop:

The government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.




Ok ,so you know more about finance then Warren Buffet,okkkkkkk.:whistle:

I bet People like Warren Buffett most likely pay more taxes in a year than you will in your entire life, more than I will too most likely. Even with their off shore holdings.

They pay their fair share.

You missed the entire point of my post. The millionaires on TV are saying "The rich should pay more taxes" or "the poor should pay more taxes". If they're going to demand tax increases, they should cut a check to the IRS themselves.

They pay more in taxes than I do because their 15% is a far greater sum of money than my 15%. I'm using 15% for Warren Buffett because he pays Capital Gains taxes. Bottom line, Warren Buffett pays the same percentage in taxes as I do and probably pays a lower percentage in taxes than quite a few people on these forums do.

I'm oppossed to any and all tax increases during a recession. And, if taxes are raised or cut, they need to be across the board.

Nothing is stopping him or Warren Buffett from voluntarily paying more taxes.

Exactly. And it's funny because they're probably using every loophole they can find to avoid paying more in taxes while saying they should pay more in taxes.

Ok ,so you know more about finance then Warren Buffet,okkkkkkk.:whistle:

Soros and Buffet know more about finance than I do, and know more about how to manipulate the tax system than I do. Their comments are to benefit themselves, not us lowly peons. Typical leftists, I got mine and I'm gonna make sure you don't get yours! :popcorn:

.

I'm oppossed to any and all tax increases during a recession. And, if taxes are raised or cut, they need to be across the board.
The whole thing needs to be redone,I'm for a flate tax rate.:coffee:

Exactly. And it's funny because they're probably using every loophole they can find to avoid paying more in taxes while saying they should pay more in taxes.

Darn it! You beat me to the 'Submit Reply' button! You hit the nail right on the head! :buddies:

The whole thing needs to be redone,I'm for a flate tax rate.:coffee:

That's the most intelligent thing you've ever posted!

Darn it! You beat me to the 'Submit Reply' button! You hit the nail right on the head! :buddies::cds::cds::cds:

LOL Well no, if you remember Warren came out and said the tax system needs a fix becuase his secretary paid a higher % of taxes then he did.

:whistle:

are we talking percent or fair share.
If ol Warren paid 10% on a million, he paid 100k
if the secretary paid 20% on 50,000 she paid 10k

I think, and I could be wrong, Warren actually paid more than his fair share toward the bill.
As a matter of fact, if the current debt is 48k for each and every person in the U.S, then Warren at 10% of his million, payed for two people, the secretary is still 38k short of her fair share.

are we talking percent or fair share.
If ol Warren paid 10% on a million, he paid 100k
if the secretary paid 20% on 50,000 she paid 10k

I think, and I could be wrong, Warren actually paid more than his fair share toward the bill.
As a matter of fact, if the current debt is 48k for each and every person in the U.S, then Warren at 10% of his million, payed for two people, the secretary is still 38k short of her fair share.

So, are you saying that, if I pay $3,000 in taxes, that's all anyone else should pay? That's extreme.

Yes, I remember, and the quote is as stupid today as it was when he said it. If Warren wants higher taxes on capital gains (money which invested has already been taxed), how much more should it be raised?

Government uses taxation as a hammer to influence behavior, not to raise revenue. The government could take 100% of the wealth of the top 1% and run the country for 8 days. :bigwhoop:

The government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

That last line is absolutey false and just more confirmation of the stupidity of the American voter.

We have a definite revenue problem...that is plain to see for any one with 2 brain cells and a reading level above the 3rd grade (this excludes the Tea Party).

We have a definite entitlement spending problem that is also plain to see for anyone with 2 brain cells and a reading level above 3rd grade (this excludes the far left).

So, are you saying that, if I pay $3,000 in taxes, that's all anyone else should pay? That's extreme.

No actually, I think that taxes should be based on a per dollar traded.
If X numbers of dollars change hands in the U.S, The government should be able to figure out what percent of each dollar is required in order to meet their obligations.
So, we are basically agreeing, a flat tax, based on a percentage of dollars moved.
The guy that makes a million is still going to pay more than me, but he is going to pay the same percentage of dollars.
You will pay X% of your pay, you will pay X% of every dollar spent.
Now that is fair. and everyone pays their fair share.. almost.

the rich guy still pays more of the bill, but it can be assumed that he ate more expensive stuff at the dinner.

That last line is absolutey false and just more confirmation of the stupidity of the American voter.

We have a definite revenue problem...that is plain to see for any one with 2 brain cells and a reading level above the 3rd grade (this excludes the Tea Party).

We have a definite entitlement spending problem that is also plain to see for anyone with 2 brain cells and a reading level above 3rd grade (this excludes the far left).

We have a revenue problem because millions of people don't have jobs. We have a spending problem because those people who don't have jobs are having to resort to using entitlements services to feed their families.

We have a revenue problem because millions of people don't have jobs. We have a spending problem because those people who don't have jobs are having to resort to using entitlements services to feed their families.

We have a revenue problem because the president and congress dont understand the theory of not writing checks or taking out loans when there is no money to pay for it.

The government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

^This^

I bet People like Warren Buffett most likely pay more taxes in a year than you will in your entire life, more than I will too most likely. Even with their off shore holdings.

They pay their fair share.

They may pay more taxes in total dollar amouts; however, dollar for dollar? Not likely.

We have a revenue problem because the president and congress dont understand the theory of not writing checks or taking out loans when there is no money to pay for it.

This is true. When the previous administration decided to slash revenues, they also decided to buy an expensive entitlement program and two wars and bail on the check. Of course, Obama has been nothing more than Bush on Steroids:smack::smack::smack::smack:

We have a revenue problem because the president and congress dont understand the theory of not writing checks or taking out loans when there is no money to pay for it.

That is a problem that has existed since the days of George Washington. In fact, the only time our country was debt free was during the Andrew Jackson administration.

They may pay more taxes in total dollar amouts; however, dollar for dollar? Not likely.

Agreed. Dollar amount, absolutely. Percentage-wise, no.

Which is why it annoys me that people fall for this crap, these bazillionaires whining that the rich should be paying more taxes while they shelter and hide their own money to avoid paying.

Warren Buffett is full of #### and so is Will Smith. It's ALWAYS the middle-class that gets hosed on a tax hike.

That is a problem that has existed since the days of George Washington. In fact, the only time our country was debt free was during the Andrew Jackson administration.

Republican Party on Tax Reform (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Tax_Reform.htm)

Congress will never pay off the debt. In 2000, when Clinton was running budget surpluses and we were working to dial down the National Debt, the Republicans ran on a platform that budget surpluses are bad because it means Americans are overtaxed.

Then they ordered Medicare Part D and two wars.

We have a definite revenue problem..What is revenue used for? They are going to SPEND it on something. Why is it a revenue problem? Because they want to spend more than they take in. Control the spending and the revenue takes care of itself.

If the federal government went back to the spending levels from 2008, we would not have the revenue problem created by all of the spending.

...... they're probably using every loophole they can find to avoid paying more in taxes ........



if there is a loop hole, some Congress Critter put it there ..........

it was an incentive, or a credit or something else to encourage business .......

[alternatively some critter received large campaign donations ... to stick the tax break in]

if there is a loop hole, some Congress Critter put it there ..........

it was an incentive, or a credit or something else to encourage business .......

[alternatively some critter received large campaign donations ... to stick the tax break in]

Or it was put there because someone who donated a large sum of money to campaigns asked that it be put there.

I don't believe in class warfare and I'm a firm believer in cutting taxes across the board (not raising them), it's an indisputable fact that the income disparity is growing. Middle class incomes have nosedived under Barack Obama (who is "Bush on Steroids").

In 2000, when Clinton was running budget surpluses



:bs:


there was no Clinton Surplus, only creative book keeping ..........




The Clinton Surplus Myth (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/)



Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 [link] (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/). In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

[see chart at link]

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.


Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Myth of Clintonomics (http://www.endofinnocence.com/2011/07/myth-of-clintonomics.html)

At first, I couldn't believe it this week. Three different self-proclaimed liberals told me that Bill Clinton created a budget surplus and thus we should support the economic plans of the Democrats.

Where did that come from? More specifically, where did that myth come from?

OK, the Myth of Clintonomics is the product of media bias, of course, so what I really mean is, “How is that myth – still alive today?”

Ever since the Clinton administration, every believer in Clintonomics (including some Republicans!) could not actually explain how Bill Clinton created a surplus – and yet I have read only one refutation of Clintonomics and met only a handful of skeptics. Now that’s faith.

One reason the believers in Clintonomics have difficulty explaining the surplus is because the surplus occurred in 1999 and 2000 – several years after the Republicans took over the House and the Senate – and I have never heard any believer credit the Republican Congress under Clinton for the budget surplus. In fact, in the last couple of years, several believers I've spoken with have tried to deny that the Republicans took over the House in 1994 and the Senate in 1996!

Believers in Clintonomics would have to really jump through some hoops to try to credit Clinton but not the Republican Congress. However, defending Clintonomics is actually far more difficult than merely trying credit Clinton while denying the Congress because pretty much all of the facts are arrayed against the myth of Clintonomics – except for the convenient but trivial fact that he was in the right chair at the right time.

The correct phrase, passed down from believer to believer, is:

“Bill Clinton presided over a surplus.”

Oh … I see … That’s how he did it … He presided.

:bs:


there was no Clinton Surplus, only creative book keeping ..........

Great references, Billy Boy! :killingme Liberty University Online and a Blog! Too funny! :lmao:

Or it was put there because someone who donated a large sum of money to campaigns asked that it be put there. - [ that is what I meant ]


...... it's an indisputable fact that the income disparity is growing.



disparity between Who and Whom ?




it is also a KNOWN Fact raising [libs live in some fantasy land where they think SOME Day it will work] taxes, does not have a net increase affect in revenue ....... in the short term there is a little bump as folks adjust investment, aka move money around so it lowers taxes ....


and the Gov. ends up in a deeper hole ....... Gosh we expected X to come in ...... but we only got Y - we need higher taxes


look at France - 75% over 1,000,000 Francs ........ the rich are fleeing .... to the UK - the UK is NOT a tax netural country, they just do not have 75% tax on capital gains or income over 1,000,000 pounds sterling




:popcorn:

We have a revenue problem because millions of people don't have jobs. We have a spending problem because those people who don't have jobs are having to resort to using entitlements services to feed their families.

So if we have a revenue problem, the solution is to raise the tax rates on only the millionaires (words have meanings) for those making over $250,000?

Or is the solution to lower the tax rates for everyone?

Or is the solution to increase the tax rates for everyone?

The key word DipStick uses is 'jobs'. The stimulus didn't create jobs, it was payback to the environmental groups and bundlers. Banks have stringent requirements for small business capital. Large companies are hanging onto their reserves. The policies in place are strangling free enterprise. Not surprising since this administration believes that food stamps (EBT cards or whatever you want to call it) and unemployment checks stimulate the economy.

We, the people, built this country, not the government. Get the hell off our backs and let us do what we do best, compete and prosper.

disparity between Who and Whom ?




it is also a KNOWN Fact raising [libs live in some fantasy land where they think SOME Day it will work] taxes, does not have a net increase affect in revenue ....... in the short term there is a little bump as folks adjust investment, aka move money around so it lowers taxes ....


and the Gov. ends up in a deeper hole ....... Gosh we expected X to come in ...... but we only got Y - we need higher taxes


look at France - 75% over 1,000,000 Francs ........ the rich are fleeing .... to the UK - the UK is NOT a tax netural country, they just do not have 75% tax on capital gains or income over 1,000,000 pounds sterling




:popcorn:

You missed my comments where I said I do not support increasing taxes.

Under Barack Obama, the average middle class income has fallen seven percent when adjusted for inflation. That's all I said about income disparity.

So if we have a revenue problem, the solution is to raise the tax rates on only the millionaires (words have meanings) for those making over $250,000?

Or is the solution to lower the tax rates for everyone?

Or is the solution to increase the tax rates for everyone?

The key word DipStick uses is 'jobs'. The stimulus didn't create jobs, it was payback to the environmental groups and bundlers. Banks have stringent requirements for small business capital. Large companies are hanging onto their reserves. The policies in place are strangling free enterprise. Not surprising since this administration believes that food stamps (EBT cards or whatever you want to call it) and unemployment checks stimulate the economy.

We, the people, built this country, not the government. Get the hell off our backs and let us do what we do best, compete and prosper.

I :banghead: don't :banghead: support :banghead: raising :banghead: taxes :banghead: on :banghead: anyone. :banghead: << is that clear enough?

Raising taxes would kill the economy. Cutting taxes (which they should be talking about) won't help because that's money that will go to people paying off personal debts instead of going back in to the economy.

That's the most intelligent thing you've ever posted!

I think he should quit now, while he's ahead.

Yes, I remember, and the quote is as stupid today as it was when he said it. If Warren wants higher taxes on capital gains (money which invested has already been taxed), how much more should it be raised?

Government uses taxation as a hammer to influence behavior, not to raise revenue. The government could take 100% of the wealth of the top 1% and run the country for 8 days. :bigwhoop:

The government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.:yeahthat: And no matter how much they raise taxes, they will always spend more than we have. It would be nice if they could actually spend within our means and a lot less. The math just doesn't add up when you spend more than you make.

Great references, Billy Boy! :killingme Liberty University Online and a Blog! Too funny! :lmao:

:yeahthat:

Great references, Billy Boy! :killingme Liberty University Online and a Blog! Too funny! :lmao:...but are they factually incorrect?

Great references, Billy Boy! :killingme Liberty University Online and a Blog! Too funny! :lmao:

And you always link to...where?

(CNSNews.com) – France’s Socialist president, Francois Hollande, has proposed rasing the tax rate to 75 percent on income above 1 million euros ($1.24 million) a year, a proposal that liberal actor Will Smith expressed surprise over – but did not disagree with – when asked about it earlier this year.

On France’s TF1 in early May, Smith explained why he supported the idea of paying higher taxes, saying, "I have no issue with paying taxes and whatever needs to be done for my country to grow.....

.....and I believe very firmly that America is the only place on Earth that I could exist. So I will pay anything that I need to pay to keep my country growing."

The part that confuses me; no surprise there, huh; is this; according to the article, the basis of this statement is raising the tax rate in France.

Will Smith says that he as no problem doing what needs to be done making his country grow. Isn't his country the U.S.? This is not about raising the tax rate to 75% in America, is it?

The part that confuses me; no surprise there, huh; is this; according to the article, the basis of this statement is raising the tax rate in France.

Will Smith says that he as no problem doing what needs to be done making his country grow. Isn't his country the U.S.? This is not about raising the tax rate to 75% in America, is it?

Only for the middle class :yay:

And you always link to...where?

Your Mom

On France’s TF1 in early May, Smith explained why he supported the idea of paying higher taxes, saying, "I have no issue with paying taxes and whatever needs to be done for my country to grow. I believe very firmly that my ability to sit here -- I'm a black man who didn't go to college, yet I get to travel around the world and sell my movies, and I believe very firmly that America is the only place on Earth that I could exist. So I will pay anything that I need to pay to keep my country growing."

... and as the interview continued.....
The interviewer then said, “Do you know how much in France you would have to pay on earnings above 1 million euros [French President Francois Hollande's proposal]? Not 30 percent – 75 percent.”

At that point, Smith said, “75? Yeah, that's different, that's different. Yeah, 75. Well, you know, God bless America.”
:lol:

They're lucky, back in the day the rich went to the guillotine in France.

Your Mom

Wow. Snappy. Witty. Incisive. Yr really good at this "retorts" stuff, huh?

:killingme