Will Smith Lectures France About Paying Taxes Until Learning Of Their 75% R

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by snerd, May 14, 2012.


  1. God Bless America.:supergrin:
     

  2. .....
     
    #3 JK-linux, May 15, 2012
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  3. I would LOVE to see Will Smith pay 75% in taxes. Help a brother out, Will.
     
  4. 4TS&W

    4TS&W 2A RKBA 4EVER

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


    No rich music/movie stars exist outside of America?
     
    #6 chickenwing, May 15, 2012
    Last edited: May 15, 2012
  6. 4TS&W

    4TS&W 2A RKBA 4EVER

    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:
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 4TS&W

    4TS&W 2A RKBA 4EVER

    A free market is a relative thing.

    It has been more free than say, France.
     
  9. A free market is a free market, you either have one or you don't. I get what you are saying though.
     
    #10 chickenwing, May 15, 2012
    Last edited: May 15, 2012
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     

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

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. 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:
     
  15. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    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.
     
  16. 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:


    .
     
  17. Not true. Not sure where you get your tax information, but you are not correct with your 90% figure.
     
  18. 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
     
    #19 pugman, May 15, 2012
    Last edited: May 15, 2012
  19. 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
     

Share This Page