Pot, kettle, and more social engineering fail.

In what to me can only be seen as a hilarious “actions have consequences, you dumb ass collectivist twit” moment of truth, you have the always-ready-to-surrender French government with their panties all in a wad because after they jacked tax rates on the rich to ridiculously punitive levels, the rich sheeple they where hoping to fleece, are packing up and moving elsewhere.

Jean-Marc Ayrault’s outburst came after France’s best-known actor, Gerard Dépardieu, took up legal residence in a small village just over the border in Belgium, alongside hundreds of other wealthy French nationals seeking lower taxes.

“Those who are seeking exile abroad are not those who are scared of becoming poor,” the prime minister declared after unveiling sweeping anti-poverty measures to help those hit by the economic crisis.

These individuals are leaving “because they want to get even richer,” he said. “We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity,” he added.

“Thankfully, few are seeking exile to exempt themselves from being in solidarity with fellow Frenchmen.”

Announcing plans to spend up to 2.5 billion euros by 2017 to help the poor, Mr Ayrault said that poverty affected 12.9 percent of the population in 2002 and rose to 14.1 percent in 2010.

Let’s slog through this morass of bullshit. The punitive wealth confiscating collectivist twits are pissed that after they pass a law to fleece people – to the tune of 75% of their income – a large number of these people made choices to avoid being fleeced. Many are simply choosing to move out of France to avoid the ass rape from government for the simple crime of making more than wealth redistribution class warriors feel is appropriate for anyone but themselves to make. Government’s responds, angrily and with denigration, and attacks these people for not passively going along with the fleecing. The fact that they choose not to be raped is presented as the evil rich just wanting to get richer. Of course, it is implied by the class warrior credo that they plan to do so by stealing from those less fortunate than them. After all, how evil do you have to be to pack up and move simply to avoid helping those noble class warriors in government fight poverty? GREEDY BASTAGES!

All kidding aside, we are now living in sad and scary times. Faceless, inept, power-hungry, and petty bureaucrats are supposedly the good guys – they are fighting poverty! – and anyone that doesn’t subject itself to their will, is painted as evil. Sure, these collectivists have done away with the camps for those that disagree with them, but why do I get the impression that they see that as loss? Letting a bunch of government goons fleece you to buy votes from the non-productive is after all, showing solidarity with your fellow Frenchmen. Sounds a lot like the “paying high taxes in the US is patriotic” crap we get subjected to from our collectivist twits.

There is another lesson here. I am sure the French, just like our class warriors, have been fighting their war on poverty for decades too. Just like here in the US, where we have spent oodles of cash on all manner of social engineering projects in the last 6 decades – over $15 trillion just on the usual welfare programs, and countless trillions more on other crap giveaway schemes – you have just as much, if not more, poverty, the French government’s fight against poverty has met the same results. It’s a noble cause! Of course, pointing out the fact that poverty pimps fighting the very thing that gives them both power and enormous wealth to line their own pockets with, with other people’s money, of course, has only served to actually produce more poverty, is both unpatriotic and a sign of being an evil and greedy, self centered, nonconformist.

Following any economic policy that shifts the burden of fighting poverty from the those noble and social justice seeking poverty pimps in government – the ones with a track record of spending insane sums of money to just give us more poverty – to one where you actually encourage economy growing behaviors, things that produce more jobs, and rewards the more ingenious and hard working, is just crazy talk, anyway. High unemployment, especially amongst the young, stagnation, and wealth fleeing because of abuse, all are just a small price to pay for the ability to social engineer. Pointing out the politicians pushing this crap also end up stinking rich and with insane amounts of power over the sheep, however, is a sign of evil. Up is down. Good is bad. As long as you can give your scheme the veneer of meaning well, you can get away with murder. Maybe those camps I was just pointing out before are going to make a comeback sooner than later. In the name of fighting poverty and social justice, you know.

The moral of this story is a simple one though, but I am sure the class warriors have no interest in getting it.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    A 75% rate in ANY day and age is just insanity.

    Well no, for example reducing it to 75% from 80% wouldn’t be insanity. Or if neighbouring and trading nations had put theirs up to the same amount, it wouldn’t be insanity. It’s all relative.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Didn’t Bjorn Bork leave Sweden due to a tax rate of 106%?

    Well no, for example reducing it to 75% from 80% wouldn’t be insanity. Or if neighbouring and trading nations had put theirs up to the same amount, it wouldn’t be insanity. It’s all relative.

    So, are you saying that everyone else needs to jump up their tax rates as well, or just being obtuse?

    Thumb up 0

  3. Mississippi Yankee

    Well no, for example reducing it to 75% from 80% wouldn’t be insanity.

    Living there to begin with might be a form of insanity.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Kimpost

    Björn Borg left because of taxes (+climate and training), but they never were over 100%.

    Astrid Lindgren (Pippi Longstocking author) stayed in Sweden though and took her fight with our tax system public, when her marginal tax rate reached 102% (1975/76). To make her point she wrote a short story about a “witch author in Monesmania who happily payed her taxes without using loopholes” (like buying property, which our Finance Minister just happened to have done the very same year).

    Ah… swedes LOVED (and love) their Astrid Lindgren. Yet our Finance Minister was stupid enough to take her on in public debate. It went back and forth in the media. She crushed him and the tax code changed. The Social Democrats lost the following elections. Many believe that the Lindgren debate played a big role in that.

    I remember my Social Democrat father being upset over the debate. He knew it was a losing one. :)

    Thumb up 2