Money raised from a new tax will be spent on tax cuts. This is how liberal Democrats think in the U.S. By not taking as much of our money from us they are giving us money. Sorry Monte but no, the government doesn't need income to spend on a tax cut. Maybe they will use the revenue from the new tax to pay for things that the other tax used to, but it is inaccurate to state that one tax is being spent on the cut of another.
I'm still very skeptical of where the money for the fuel tax is going. Based on what you just posted, the offset to the business tax cuts is reducing spending on public workers and their pensions. SO again, this does nothing to answer where the fuel tax revenue is really going.
According to Reuters, only 20% of the tax revenue is going to environmental policies.
That leaves 80% going into the general tax fund.
Since the French government isn't kind enough to publish a rundown of where that 80% is going all I can do is provide information on their spending plans or budget.
That budget, as I have shown, has outlined plans to give large (around 25 billion) tax breaks to business and the richest members of society.
The 80% amounts to a sum of around 27 billion Euros.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Money raised from a new tax will be spent on tax cuts. This is how liberal Democrats think in the U.S. By not taking as much of our money from us they are giving us money. Sorry Monte but no, the government doesn't need income to spend on a tax cut. Maybe they will use the revenue from the new tax to pay for things that the other tax used to, but it is inaccurate to state that one tax is being spent on the cut of another.
I'm still very skeptical of where the money for the fuel tax is going. Based on what you just posted, the offset to the business tax cuts is reducing spending on public workers and their pensions. SO again, this does nothing to answer where the fuel tax revenue is really going.
It doesn't matter where that exact money is going. Money is fungible. That is why it's called money. Earmarked funds is a myth. There is only + or -.
Yet Monte still clings to the claim that the fuel taxes are going to businesses. Not even in the form of actual payments, but his evidence has him claiming that the fuel tax revenue is going to PAY businesses for tax cuts. That is incorrect.
According to Reuters, only 20% of the tax revenue is going to environmental policies.
That leaves 80% going into the general tax fund.
Since the French government isn't kind enough to publish a rundown of where that 80% is going all I can do is provide information on their spending plans or budget.
That budget, as I have shown, has outlined plans to give large (around 25 billion) tax breaks to business and the richest members of society.
The 80% amounts to a sum of around 27 billion Euros.
A tax cut is not a payment. Taking less of someone's money is not paying them.
According to Reuters, only 20% of the tax revenue is going to environmental policies.
That leaves 80% going into the general tax fund.
Since the French government isn't kind enough to publish a rundown of where that 80% is going all I can do is provide information on their spending plans or budget.
That budget, as I have shown, has outlined plans to give large (around 25 billion) tax breaks to business and the richest members of society.
The 80% amounts to a sum of around 27 billion Euros.
A tax cut is not a payment. Taking less of someone's money is not paying them.
Unless your base belief is that everything belongs to the state by default unless it allows otherwise. "All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.”
- Benito Mussolini
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna
Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
Macron's policies of privatisation, public spending cuts, globalisation and tax breaks for the rich are straight out of the playbook of the great socialist leader Margaret Thatcher.
I could understand people viewing Hollande as a socialist. But Macron? Crack downs on unions, taking away worker's rights, tax breaks for the rich, the list goes on. Macron is not a socialist, he's not even on the left. He's a neo-liberal that managed to get leftists to vote for him, because the option would've been quasi-fascist Le Pen.
I think that's why some Americans think he's far left. He beat the far right candidate so what else could he be.
10 pages of evidence to the contrary could not persuade DB that his policies are not socialist.
There is only us and them and if ''us'' means the right then ''them'' must be the left.
/shrug
It could be that I’m stupid, and only see the world as us vs them.
Or it could be that you guys are stupid, and oblivious to the fact I never called Marvin a socialist. I called France socialist. You can put Idi Amin in charge of Sweden, and it’s still socialist.
Derp.
But I’m talking to people who don’t see the mass nationalization of businesses as an act of socialism, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised.
/shrug
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
I could understand people viewing Hollande as a socialist. But Macron? Crack downs on unions, taking away worker's rights, tax breaks for the rich, the list goes on. Macron is not a socialist, he's not even on the left. He's a neo-liberal that managed to get leftists to vote for him, because the option would've been quasi-fascist Le Pen.
I think that's why some Americans think he's far left. He beat the far right candidate so what else could he be.
10 pages of evidence to the contrary could not persuade DB that his policies are not socialist.
There is only us and them and if ''us'' means the right then ''them'' must be the left.
/shrug
It could be that I’m stupid, and only see the world as us vs them.
Or it could be that you guys are stupid, and oblivious to the fact I never called Marvin a socialist. I called France socialist. You can put Idi Amin in charge of Sweden, and it’s still socialist.
Derp.
But I’m talking to people who don’t see the mass nationalization of businesses as an act of socialism, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised.
/shrug
I guess the USA is a socialist state too then.
From your own wiki link...
United States
1917: Merck & Co. seized by the government during the war, later became a private company, separate from the original Merck Group operating outside of the US.
1917: All U.S. railroads were operated (but not owned) by the Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure. Railroads were returned to private control in 1920.
1918: The U.S. telephone system was nationalized on July 31, 1918, and placed under control of the Post Office department. It was returned to private ownership on July 31, 1919.[71]
1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the Tennessee Electric Power Company.
1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.
1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.
1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed Savings & Loans.
2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.
2008: Some economists consider the government's takeover of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association to have been nationalization (or renationalization).[72][73] The conservatorship model used with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is looser and more temporary than nationalization.[74]
2009: Some economists consider the government's actions through the Troubled Asset Relief Program with regards to Citigroup to have been a partial nationalization.[75] Proposal was made that banks like Citigroup be brought under a conservatorship model similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that some of their "good assets" be dropped into newly created "good bank" subsidiaries (presumably under new management), and the remaining "bad assets" be left to be managed under the supervision of a conservatorship structure.[74] The government's actions with regard to General Motors in replacing the CEO with a government-approved CEO is likewise being considered as nationalization.[76][77] On June 1, 2009, General Motors filed for bankruptcy, with the government investing up to $50 billion and taking 60% ownership in the company. President Barack Obama stated that the nationalization was temporary, saying, "We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way to help GM succeed
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
This is how liberal Democrats think in the U.S. By not taking as much of our money from us they are giving us money. Sorry Monte but no, the government doesn't need income to spend on a tax cut. Maybe they will use the revenue from the new tax to pay for things that the other tax used to, but it is inaccurate to state that one tax is being spent on the cut of another.
