French President Francois Hollande has called for a 75 percent income tax on top earners in France t - Polidicks

SigmaLambda, are you seriously implying that every millionaire is a thief?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36933927]Thbbbt; no, it just takes the money to hire someone else to do it for you. Money perpetuates itself. The United States is not a meritocracy; wealth is not hard work, it's exploitation. Everybody can't be rich; the only way to increase your own financial standing is at the expense of the financial standing of someone else. [/QUOTE] The economy is not a zero sum game. this is like a really basic thing i hope you meant something else

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36933908]there's a difference between "work that is hard" and "work that few people can do" [/QUOTE] yes, the former is the one that people in this thread were claiming is what made rich people rich, and overvaluing the latter is what perpetuates a system of classist elitism.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36933972]yes, the former is the one that people in this thread were claiming is what made rich people rich, and overvaluing the latter is what perpetuates a system of classist elitism.[/QUOTE] i don't think anyone in here seriously was saying that rich people got rich through pure gruntwork like a janitor it's a mixture of hard work (as in conscientiousness), intelligence, opportunity and sheer luck. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying that to demonise these rich people is counterproductive

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36933941]The economy is not a zero sum game. [/QUOTE] In a capitalist society it is; and when money is able to buy political power (doy) it becomes something even more pernicious.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;36932634]if they earned their money, they shouldn't have to give most of it just because they worked harder to get it.[/QUOTE] And this civilization won't get anywhere until this retarded fallacy is stops being repeated over and over.

well it's about fucking time someone from a socialist party actually does something socialist.

[QUOTE=TehMentos;36933142]It definitely will. If you make 1.2 million a year, yes, you're going to own a nice house that is suitable for that income. If you're suddenly forced to pay twice as much in taxes, you will not be able to live in that house anymore. You imagine how it must be to suddenly lose another 35% of your income. It's not just "Oh well, get a smaller house then" because firstly, it'll be impossible to sell your current home, and you'll be losing even more money each month. And NOBODY will buy new houses in that price level when their target group have all had their income cut by 35%. Secondly, it's hardly fair since the far majority of "rich people" actually work hard to make that kind of salary. Sure there's the last 0,01% of the population that are billionaires and could probably afford something like that. But increasing taxes to 75% for "rich people" would hurt a lot of families, and would not help the economy at all in the end.[/QUOTE] ITT: Nobody understands how tax brackets work. France taxes "on a sliced basis so that each ‘part’ of the income is charged on a progressive basis. Thus, if a couple have net income of €30,000 in the year there are two 'parts' of €15,000, with each part taxed using the scale rates." Nobody gets kicked out of their house, they have 75% applied to their income [I]above a certain point.[/I] This is what I hate about tax discussions on FP. Everybody reads a number and goes OH JESUS 75% OF MY MONEY IS A LOT OF MONEY, and it's not talking about 75% of your shit, but 75% of another upper percentage of your shit.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36934001] it's a mixture of hard work (as in conscientiousness), intelligence, opportunity and sheer luck. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying that to demonise these rich people is counterproductive[/QUOTE] nah, I think it's actually more of a mixture of old money, old money, old money, and sheer luck. It's a mixture of being a member of the established upper class or migrating into the upper class with the help of various privileges like your race, sex, and place in space and time. People keep saying that taxing the rich is unfair, but all I am saying is that the system is, by it's very fucking nature, profoundly unfair to all but a certain, small group of people.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36934023]ITT: Nobody understands how tax brackets work. France taxes "on a sliced basis so that each ‘part’ of the income is charged on a progressive basis. Thus, if a couple have net income of €30,000 in the year there are two 'parts' of €15,000, with each part taxed using the scale rates." Nobody gets kicked out of their house, they have 75% applied to their income [I]above a certain point.[/I] This is what I hate about tax discussions on FP. Everybody reads a number and goes OH JESUS 75% OF MY MONEY IS A LOT OF MONEY, and it's not talking about 75% of your shit, but 75% of another upper percentage of your shit.[/QUOTE] but but communists :'c

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36934063]nah, I think it's actually more of a mixture of old money, old money, old money, and sheer luck. It's a mixture of being a member of the established upper class or migrating into the upper class with the help of various privileges like your race, sex, and place in space and time. People keep saying that taxing the rich is unfair, but all I am saying is that the system is, by it's very fucking nature, profoundly unfair to all but a certain, small group of people.[/QUOTE] These are some impressively broad generalizations you're making.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36933927]The United States is not a meritocracy[/QUOTE] It's not. It's an oligarchy. (In my worthless opinion) it suffers on the issue of "too few capitalists". Hollywood for example: You only have the same "Big 5" dominating the field. Repealing Glass-Stegall was a big mistake. A progressive tax system is fine but not on a retarded scale.

75%? doesnt that seem a little too extreme?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36932578]Tearing everyone down to poverty in the name of equality isn't a solution to anything. Better to open the opportunity to prosperity to all instead. Why don't you lose your internet and fine home and made homeless, because that's how others are? No, they're not being made impoverished, that was a [B]hyperbole[/B] so don't retort on that.[/QUOTE] I never insinuated that they deserved to be hobos; just that there should be more equality, less of a gap between rich and poor; it just doesn't seem right for so many to hoard and be overly-extravagant when there are people without a home or food or those niceties that comprise civilization. Thing is, do you really NEED a luxury yacht or three cars? Do you really NEED foie gras and champagne every day? No you don't; it's kind of a waste, although in theory the guys that make the yachts and the cars and the bourgeois food get money for their work, which still goes into circulation, so the big spenders aren't really the problem; it's people who hold onto more money than they need that are the problem that demands a solution. Some could argue that you don't necessarily NEED a PC or an internet connection or a bunch of candy bars, and they're partially-correct; you don't need them to survive, but they are affordable things that can help you LIVE. There really should be a distinction between surviving and actually living; surviving is ensuring you don't die from hunger or cold or disease or other things, stuff that your body needs in order to keep on ticking; LIVING on the other hand is being happy, staying sane, enjoying your time in the world, in other words keeping your mind from snapping due to boredom or depression, which is what we need in order to function. If you aren't enjoying life you need something to sort out your problems, and in many cases the something is yourself, but sometimes the problems are beyond your capabilities to solve, and thus you need external help. When someone's hogging all the resources as they're busy [B]living[/B], whilst there are a lot of people who are struggling to [B]survive[/B] due to not having the resources, that is a dick move; everyone should be able to survive and have a reasonable standard of living, and when the poor are dying because the fat cats are partying, that is an abhorrent injustice. If your standards are too high, like you think you're ABOVE an honest meal and humble lodgings, someone needs to drag on the choke-chain and pull you back down to earth. If your living doesn't cost so much that other people can't survive, then it's ok; if you're putting plenty of money into circulation in a way that helps poorer people live, you're doing a good job. But if you're hoarding what others desperately need to stay alive and sane, or using the resources for things that nobody really requires and for the most part doesn't circulate in a helpful way, then you're a part of the big problem. Another problem is that most people aren't really "transparent" about what they're doing with their resources; they don't explain what they're doing with their resources (in this case money), either because they don't think they need to explain themselves, or because they're too lazy to explain (it really doesn't take that much effort to make a statement, unless you can't read or write, or have dyslexia, in which case those are somewhat viable excuses). People really should be more open about what they're doing with their resources, like they should explain how much money they're spending on buying harvested produce, how much they're paying their employees, so we KNOW what they're doing with the money they have, so we KNOW that the money is being used for something useful. The issue of people not understanding would be prominent in the plan, but in that case they should be educated on the subject, like how circulation works, how the employees need to be paid for their contribution to the system, how the required materials and items for the business cost money to make and acquire; basically everyone should be taught how economics and jobs work, preferably from a young age so that they don't grow up ignorant of how the world works. Another important thing; people need jobs, and if there aren't enough jobs to go around, corporations needs to make more jobs, and people need to make an effort as well; they need to gather experience and skills so that they can perform the job that's right for them, and thus gain money with which to gather the resources they need for survival and an enjoyable life. When you're given money so that you can pay for employees to increase the production value of your business, you don't pocket that money and use it on other things; you bring in more employees and pay them the money you have. If the money's given for you to make more workspaces, to increase the number of employees you can have working in your business, you can use it for that; if it's given to you for buying more items and materials, you can use it to buy the stuff you need in order to make the products and/or perform the services. Use the money for what it's meant for and things don't get as bad as they are now; use it properly and don't hoard money that isn't technically yours. If you're saving up for something valuable, use your own disposable income, don't use other people's money for things that they don't need or want or benefit from. But we shouldn't work TOO hard; working too hard can be detrimental to you if you don't take the time to live once in a while, sometimes you need play and rest to relax, live well, and be all the more prepared to do your duty and work for whatever cause you're working for, be it harvesting food, keeping the streets safe, treating the ill, or providing entertainment to help others live well. So to wrap up; nobody needs to be a hobo, the gap between rich and poor needs to shrink, we don't need expensive things that cause other people to go without, affordable luxuries are ok as they don't really hurt anyone too much, surviving and living are two different things, hogging required resources is bad, people need to be more humble, stimulating the economy is good, transparency and understanding are absolute requisites for a functional society, people need to work to get money, jobs are needed to pay people for their work, and people also need rest and play so that they can live and stay sane. I don't play by your rules Scorpius; you aren't the guy in charge. If I want to retort, i'll do so in my usual style; it doesn't hurt anyone to have a little transparency and understanding so that we don't all chew each other's heads off like rabid cuttlefish. Explaining oneself is pretty much a very important requisite for understanding one-another, and admittedly I should've explained my reasons earlier; for that i'm sorry for the confusion, though hopefully I managed to make a right to equalize the wrong by explaining things, even though I suspect you won't both reading half of this. I apologize for that too; brevity and conciseness are two things I have found rather difficult to properly utilise, they're things that don't immediately pop-up when i'm writing (I end up afraid that the message won't get through, so I avoid the risk of misunderstanding by explaining stuff the way I know).

[QUOTE=thisispain;36934008]well it's about fucking time someone from a socialist party actually does something socialist.[/QUOTE] The Socialists haven't done anything Socialists for me until they give the means of production to the workers. Not just merely tweaking with the tax system.

Proud to be an American, where at least I know I don't need to pay 75% income tax.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36934006]In a capitalist society it is; and when money is able to buy political power (doy) it becomes something even more pernicious.[/QUOTE] no. you are categorically, unequivocally, objectively wrong. I think you haven't ever opened an economics textbook, this is a [B]BASIC THING.[/B] also I don't get how being able to buy political power somehow alters the structure of the economy so that it's no longer positive sum??? do you even read your posts before hitting send [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36934063]nah, I think it's actually more of a mixture of old money, old money, old money, and sheer luck. It's a mixture of being a member of the established upper class or migrating into the upper class with the help of various privileges like your race, sex, and place in space and time. People keep saying that taxing the rich is unfair, but all I am saying is that the system is, by it's very fucking nature, profoundly unfair to all but a certain, small group of people.[/QUOTE] and entrepreneurs apparently don't exist [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] (I'm not saying the stuff you pointed out isn't a problem; I agree with you on old money. You're just needlessly making them out to be The Evil Ones where you get points for saying bad things about them and are admonished for saying good things.)

[QUOTE=bob4life;36934323]75%? doesnt that seem a little too extreme?[/QUOTE] Read Xenocide's post, it seems like a lot but it's not, the taxes only affect an amount of money above a defined amount. They could be taxed by 100% and still they would earn money. Let's say that, that defined amount is 1 million and there's someone that earns 2 million, if he was taxed by 100% he would still earn 1 million so in reality this person is being taxed by only 50% of what he earns in total. At least that's what I understood from Xenocide's post.

What's to keep all of the top income earners from leaving France? I mean I think the rich should pay more taxes too but having them pay 75% income tax sounds incredibly stupid. Unless of course you're actually trying to drive businesses and investors out of your country.

[QUOTE=ironman17;36934339]Huge ass post[/QUOTE] Shit just got real.

holy shit, 75%?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36934063]nah, I think it's actually more of a mixture of old money, old money, old money, and sheer luck. It's a mixture of being a member of the established upper class or migrating into the upper class with the help of various privileges like your race, sex, and place in space and time. People keep saying that taxing the rich is unfair, but all I am saying is that the system is, by it's very fucking nature, profoundly unfair to all but a certain, small group of people.[/QUOTE] Because we can generalise the entirety of human existence as being a class war between two (Or 3) groups of people.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36934528]Because we can generalise the entirety of human existence as being a class war between two (Or 3) groups of people.[/QUOTE] sure we can

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36934355]Proud to be an American, where at least I know I don't need to pay 75% income tax.[/QUOTE] and where you also are free to have the delusion that there is a faint possibility that you could be rich some day if you just worked hard enough

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36934639]and where you also are free to have the delusion that there is a faint possibility that you could be rich some day if you just worked hard enough[/QUOTE] but what about the people that did

[QUOTE=thisispain;36934613]sure we can[/QUOTE] Yes, I too enjoy fiction.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36934639]and where you also are free to have the delusion that there is a faint possibility that you could be rich some day if you just worked hard enough[/QUOTE] "Delusion" But it's happened

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36934719]Yes, I too enjoy fiction.[/QUOTE] you didn't have to tell me that, i've read your previous posts. [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Carnage2323;36934738]"Delusion" But it's happened[/QUOTE] sure and plenty of people didn't die in war, ergo war is justified.

RL should have a gold cap

[QUOTE=thisispain;36934758]sure and plenty of people didn't die in war, ergo war is justified.[/QUOTE] huh good point actually, I can't think of a decent zinger to that