I think it is an interesting thing. I think it would do no good for France, but for the rest of us it would provide an interesting test regarding the question of if "soaking the rich" is going to make anything better. With rates like 75% one hardly can argue they didn't go far enough. And even if it says it's two years, in two years either the fallacy of it would be obvious and would allow them to quietly roll it back and claim the victory, or it could be claimed a huge success and continued further, so limited term is not a big problem if we see it as an experiment.
With rates like 75% one hardly can argue they didn't go far enough.
In Scandinavia, we tried top marginal rates ~100% for a decade or two. :) Actually didn't work too badly, but the political mood changed, and rates were gradually lowered, now to a mere 60%. Some good effects of the cuts, some bad effects.
Nah, just social democracy. The "Law of Jante" is a parody of conservative small-town Denmark of ~1900 (a rough American analogue is Main Street by Sinclair Lewis), while social democracy is roughly the opposite, managing the rapidly urbanizing Denmark of 1930s-1980s and using the increasing economic strength to build a well-working, prosperous country. The kinds of people the Law of Jante parodies don't vote for the left-wing parties; they're more like American small-town conservatives who're suspicious of book-larnin' and PhDs and big-city lawyers and instead extol small-town and rural values. They would definitely not vote for raising taxes to pay for a metro system or a university, or anything of that sort. Church taxes though, they'd support. Social democracy is sort of the opposite, being generally pro-technology, pro-education, pro-urban-planning, and pro-infrastructure (some of the main things they put taxes towards).
Comments
I think it is an interesting thing. I think it would do no good for France, but for the rest of us it would provide an interesting test regarding the question of if "soaking the rich" is going to make anything better. With rates like 75% one hardly can argue they didn't go far enough. And even if it says it's two years, in two years either the fallacy of it would be obvious and would allow them to quietly roll it back and claim the victory, or it could be claimed a huge success and continued further, so limited term is not a big problem if we see it as an experiment.
In Scandinavia, we tried top marginal rates ~100% for a decade or two. :) Actually didn't work too badly, but the political mood changed, and rates were gradually lowered, now to a mere 60%. Some good effects of the cuts, some bad effects.
Jante tax, eh?
Nah, just social democracy. The "Law of Jante" is a parody of conservative small-town Denmark of ~1900 (a rough American analogue is Main Street by Sinclair Lewis), while social democracy is roughly the opposite, managing the rapidly urbanizing Denmark of 1930s-1980s and using the increasing economic strength to build a well-working, prosperous country. The kinds of people the Law of Jante parodies don't vote for the left-wing parties; they're more like American small-town conservatives who're suspicious of book-larnin' and PhDs and big-city lawyers and instead extol small-town and rural values. They would definitely not vote for raising taxes to pay for a metro system or a university, or anything of that sort. Church taxes though, they'd support. Social democracy is sort of the opposite, being generally pro-technology, pro-education, pro-urban-planning, and pro-infrastructure (some of the main things they put taxes towards).