France's 75% tax rate approved by top court after revisions
513 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kuydna;43361427]How much is the tax on the first million?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_France#Income_Taxes[/url]
[QUOTE=halofreak472;43362506]Not necessarily 100 times the talent or skill, as much as the ability to make the company 100 times as much money. You can dig a hole and refill it over and over, and while it may have been hard work, and you could have refilled the hole in a beautifully efficient way that required 40 years of training, you didn't actually produce anything of value, so you would be worth $0.
There's a lot going on in this thread about how rich people get rich by exploiting society. First off, if there's a government policy that gives them an unfair advantage, then that isn't true capitalism. Proper capitalism is more of an "every man for himself" ideology, there's no policies in place to make the playing field artificially level, but also not artificially uneven. Secondly, they don't need to give back to society, there's no debt they owe. To get rich, you have to do something that can either make someone money, or make something that they feel is worth more to them than their own money. So, you get your profit off of that, the other person is now better off than they were without your service, and everyone is happy. If you have an apple, and your friend has an orange, and both of you value the other's product, then you trade them. If you turn out to know a lot of people who think an apple is worth more than an orange, then you can start pulling in the massive stashes of oranges. Is it fair for them to come breaking down your doors and taking them back from you, demanding that you need to give them what you owed them?
Also, if someone who's filthy rich invests in 1,000 golden toilets, then guess what, the market for golden toilets goes up, and the people making them get their salaries.
I think it's a terrible thing that there are people in poverty, but saying they're entitled to free money that involuntarily comes out of the pockets of other people is similarly unjust, because now they're sitting on stolen money.[/QUOTE]
You know it's fucking degrading, you comparing what I do for a living to digging a fucking hole and filling it up over and over again.
[editline]31st December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;43363061]The COE most definitely has more than 100 times the responsibility. Talent and skill aren't the only factors.[/QUOTE]
Does he? So the engineers who work for NASA or Roscosmos, the people who put man on the moon, who sent people in space, do they have less responsibility than a CEO? How about the people designing safety systems? Billions of people use cars, do the people who make them safe, clean and dependable have less fucking responsibility? If you think that, you're delusional.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;43363458]Why is it that in order to defend libertarianism or attack taxation it always gets simplified down to elementary school levels? The world isn't that simple. Is it because that's as much as you understand of economics, or is it because the only way you can push that logic is by removing so many relevant factors that you're left with an analogy that barely resembles reality?[/quote]
Then show me how taxation isn't the involuntary taking of money, or how someone owes money by having a lot of it.
[quote]Again, calling taxes "stolen money" is a gross oversimplification and logical fallacy. If someone is forced to work to survive but his pay is vastly inferior to what he is actually worth, is that not his time and effort being stolen? That's the problem that conservative libertarians never seem to recognize.[/QUOTE]
The person already agreed to that wage though. The problem with government intervention is it's an involuntary use of force, you basically suck it up and wait until democracy works in your best interest. Wages can be negotiated, people can look for a job that's less crap-tacular than the one that wants to offer them little to no money, hell, they can acquire skills that are worth more than something that a company thinks is worth the bare minimum to them.
[QUOTE=Stopper;43363719]You know it's fucking degrading, you comparing what I do for a living to digging a fucking hole and filling it up over and over again.[/quote]
I used that as a rather extreme example of how effort and value aren't directly related.
[quote]Does he? So the engineers who work for NASA or Roscosmos, the people who put man on the moon, who sent people in space, do they have less responsibility than a CEO? How about the people designing safety systems? Billions of people use cars, do the people who make them safe, clean and dependable have less fucking responsibility? If you think that, you're delusional.[/QUOTE]
Again, their work isn't making people as much as the CEO, so they get paid less. If someone thinks NASA putting a man on the moon is going to make them 30 billion dollars, then they'll make NASA filthy rich in order to convince them to put that 30 billion dollars in their pocket.
[QUOTE=halofreak472;43363901]
Again, their work isn't making people as much as the CEO, so they get paid less. If someone thinks NASA putting a man on the moon is going to make them 30 billion dollars, then they'll make NASA filthy rich in order to convince them to put that 30 billion dollars in their pocket.[/QUOTE]
Do you really think the only value that defines the worth of someone's work is how much money it makes other people? That's pretty sad.
[QUOTE=Stopper;43363927]Do you really think the only value that defines the worth of someone's work is how much money it makes other people? That's pretty sad.[/QUOTE]
Concerning how much they will get paid for it, yes, unless the buyer has some other emotional value in it that they also think is worth money to them.
This isn't how you fix the economy or poverty, france.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;43364035]This isn't how you fix the economy or poverty, france.[/QUOTE]
How do you fix the economy and poverty, ultra_bright?
[QUOTE=halofreak472;43363901]Then show me how taxation isn't the involuntary taking of money, or how someone owes money by having a lot of it.[/QUOTE]
A small amount of people hoarding the vast majority of money is wrong, the same way it would be if they were hoarding power, or hoarding a resource people desperately need. That, and the government, without whom the rich would not have any of the money because the government is required for money and laws to exist, needs money to exist, and because all of our natural resources are privately owned they can only get that money through taxes.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;43364148]A small amount of people hoarding the vast majority of money is wrong, the same way it would be if they were hoarding power, or hoarding a resource people desperately need.[/quote]
But the people are freely giving the money to them. Hoarding crosses the line when they steal it from people who need it. Steve Jobs never held anyone at gunpoint to buy his iPod, people wanted an iPod and gave him all that money for it. If he wanted to give more away and expect nothing in return, he was free to do it.
[quote]That, and the government, without whom the rich would not have any of the money because the government is required for money and laws to exist, needs money to exist, and because all of our natural resources are privately owned they can only get that money through taxes.[/QUOTE]
That's a justification for it, but you haven't actually answered the question.
While I'm not an anarchist, the government isn't necessary for money to exist, it just makes it more easy and stable since it's based around a centralized system (Although, I haven't looked much into anarchism myself, so who knows, I could be horribly wrong on that). Look at all the virtual currencies. Yeah, they suck for being actual money due to the fluctuations in value, but at least they're functional as currency.
1 million is more than 80000 euros per month. The minimum salary in france is around 1500 (to round up).
That's 55 more money than the average guy. You're supposed to be able to live with 1500. If you have better job you can get to say 2500 and live decently. So that's still 77500 per month of "non vital stuff".
When you get that much money you shouldn't get greedy. What is 2000 more or less? Even 10000? What is the purpose of all that money for a single person?
You aren't punished for earning money and being sucessfull, you should feel like angels, guardians of the society. You contribute more to it that the average people, and they should be grateful for that. That hospital that opened recently? You made it happen. That school that actually get enough money to pay their teachers? It's because of your hard work. I would be proud to have that much money, and knowing it's spent on fixing those problems.
And even then, supposed you earn 1 million you aren't touched by that law. It's everything over that that's taxed. It's really only a problem of people not knowing the worth of the money they have, and a law that will affect maybe 1% of the population.
Their lifestyle won't suffer from it, but it'll help improve the lifestyle of others.
[QUOTE=NapyDaWise;43364514]
You aren't punished for earning money and being sucessfull, you should feel like angels, guardians of the society. You contribute more to it that the average people, and they should be grateful for that. That hospital that opened recently? You made it happen. That school that actually get enough money to pay their teachers? It's because of your hard work. I would be proud to have that much money, and knowing it's spent on fixing those problems.
[/QUOTE]
But why can't you just voluntarily give money to hospitals and schools? Wouldn't it be much better to see your hard work go to where you best see fit, as opposed to what someone else wants to do with your own property?
What happens if the government goes off and invests in services you don't approve of, such as buying their own personal private jets and golden toilets? They're human beings too, they're just as influenced by greed and personal gain as you are, and they get to have the last say with what goes on with your money.
France's taxes seem completely unreasonable. You would need to make a total of $2,800,000 before you can take home one million dollars after taxes. That means their overall tax rate is 64.3% if they want to take home a million dollars, and that's factoring in a 45% tax on the first million. I can see 45% for a socialist type of government (in the sense that they provide a lot of social services). I can even see 50% being justifiable for them. But when you get above 50%, it's just theft. When the government makes more than you do off of your paycheck, there is something wrong.
I don't really care what the rich do with their money. It's honestly none of my business. Sure, they make more than enough, but that doesn't make it right to take it from them. It's also dishonest to try and legislate your views and morals onto other people. The same people who complain about christians trying to force their morals on others will turn around and and try to do the same thing trying to get the rich to pay more and support the poor. Politics is all hypocritical.
Also, nobody has given a good reason why the rich should pay disproportionately for services? They don't use the fire department or cops any more than the average person. They send their kids to private schools most likely, pay for better healthcare, and they don't drive millions more miles than the average person. So if you are charging them more for using the same or less services, you are stealing from them.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43365684]France's taxes seem completely unreasonable. You would need to make a total of $2,800,000 before you can take home one million dollars after taxes. That means their overall tax rate is 64.3% if they want to take home a million dollars, and that's factoring in a 45% tax on the first million. I can see 45% for a socialist type of government (in the sense that they provide a lot of social services). I can even see 50% being justifiable for them. But when you get above 50%, it's just theft. When the government makes more than you do off of your paycheck, there is something wrong.
I don't really care what the rich do with their money. It's honestly none of my business. Sure, they make more than enough, but that doesn't make it right to take it from them. It's also dishonest to try and legislate your views and morals onto other people. The same people who complain about christians trying to force their morals on others will turn around and and try to do the same thing trying to get the rich to pay more and support the poor. Politics is all hypocritical.
Also, nobody has given a good reason why the rich should pay disproportionately for services? They don't use the fire department or cops any more than the average person. They send their kids to private schools most likely, pay for better healthcare, and they don't drive millions more miles than the average person. So if you are charging them more for using the same or less services, you are stealing from them.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, that rich person will have only 1 million dollars a year, boo hoo.
What about the people in poverty that have to overwork to just scrape by?
What about the people in poverty that can't even get a job?
Do those people deserve to be in those situations, while there are people who [I]only[/I] get a million dollars?
Also, businesses get loads of benefits from the government.
There are government subsidiaries and contracts.
If a business travels a lot of goods physically than they use the infrastructure of the country a lot.
Lobbyists also tend to have a lot of sway in what laws get made.
There are lots of examples of how the rich benefit from the government.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43365684]
I don't really care what the rich do with their money. It's honestly none of my business. Sure, they make more than enough, but that doesn't make it right to take it from them. It's also dishonest to try and legislate your views and morals onto other people.[B][U] The same people who complain about christians trying to force their morals on others will turn around and and try to do the same thing trying to get the rich to pay more and support the poor.[/U][/B] Politics is all hypocritical. [/quote]
Politics is always about morals - even the position of amorality is [B][U]itself[/U][/B] a moral position - it says that politics is IMMORAL if it tries to force views on others, so it strives for a moral politics. People aren't upset because Christanity want "morals" in politics, they are upset because the morals are often arbitrary and out of touch with the larger trump morals of human rights, dignity, and freedom.
[quote]
Also, nobody has given a good reason why the rich should pay disproportionately for services? They don't use the fire department or cops any more than the average person. They send their kids to private schools most likely, pay for better healthcare, and they don't drive millions more miles than the average person. [B][U]So if you are charging them more for using the same or less services, you are stealing from them[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]
Maybe its the Marxist in me, but I tend to think of all profit as theft in one form of another - the answer to why it isn't thievery for a poor person to take super slashed wages and barely gain the fruits of her labor is that the poor person "chose" the job, so it wasn't theft. They could have gone somewhere else, and they stayed their of their own volition. If thats the case, then raising the taxes is also not theft, because the rich person CHOSE to life in that country, and stayed their of their own volition.
The answer is also: society wasn't built [B][U]for you[/U][/B], it was built for all of us to achieve wealth and a happy life. This is the tennet of socialism I can get behind- a more balanced distribution of resources. People aren't charged for what they use, they are asked to contribute to the well being of others. When you family sits down at the kitchen table, do you divide the food into categories of who "contributed" to the family more? I know we like to think of ourselves as "individuals", but we also depend on one another - thats sort of the tennet of government. Yes, you can be an inividual, but you will be called upon when times are good to give back, and the rest of society will be there for you when times are rough.
[editline]31st December 2013[/editline]
BTW: your math is wrong. Its not 75% of total income, its 75% of every dollar earned AFTER a million.
[QUOTE=Valnar;43366419]Oh no, that rich person will have only 1 million dollars a year, boo hoo.
What about the people in poverty that have to overwork to just scrape by?
What about the people in poverty that can't even get a job?
Do those people deserve to be in those situations, while there are people who [I]only[/I] get a million dollars?
Also, businesses get loads of benefits from the government.
There are government subsidiaries and contracts.
If a business travels a lot of goods physically than they use the infrastructure of the country a lot.
Lobbyists also tend to have a lot of sway in what laws get made.
There are lots of examples of how the rich benefit from the government.[/QUOTE]
See, you are under the assumption that one needs a certain amount of money to live. I could live quite happily off of the land with a part-time minimum wage job. I CHOOSE to live with things like power, and automobile, and other things that aren't necessities.
Nobody says that people deserve to be poor either, but people also don't deserve to have their money taken by the government just because they make what some people think is "too much".
And you are correct, businesses to get benefits and subsidies. I guess we should stop subsidizing green energy and see if it survives in the consumer market by itself then. Or did you mean we should only subsidize companies that you agree with. Would that be better?
Also: the majority of goods will travel on privately owned ships, railways which are privately owned and maintained by companies who pay taxes, and on trucks (for usually somewhat short distances), owned by tax paying companies and also paying "gas taxes" on each gallon of fuel they use like the rest of us. So yes, they use infrastructure, but they pay for their fair share.
As for lobbyists, you are correct. ALL lobbyists should be banned. Let the senators listen to their people.
Your argument is based on emotions instead of the facts and the truth.
[QUOTE=Flameon;43366521]Politics is always about morals - even the position of amorality is [B][U]itself[/U][/B] a moral position - it says that politics is IMMORAL if it tries to force views on others, so it strives for a moral politics. People aren't upset because Christanity want "morals" in politics, they are upset because the morals are often arbitrary and out of touch with the larger trump morals of human rights, dignity, and freedom.
Maybe its the Marxist in me, but I tend to think of all profit as theft in one form of another - the answer to why it isn't thievery for a poor person to take super slashed wages and barely gain the fruits of her labor is that the poor person "chose" the job, so it wasn't theft. They could have gone somewhere else, and they stayed their of their own volition. If thats the case, then raising the taxes is also not theft, because the rich person CHOSE to life in that country, and stayed their of their own volition.
The answer is also: society wasn't built [B][U]for you[/U][/B], it was built for all of us to achieve wealth and a happy life. This is the tennet of socialism I can get behind- a more balanced distribution of resources. People aren't charged for what they use, they are asked to contribute to the well being of others. When you family sits down at the kitchen table, do you divide the food into categories of who "contributed" to the family more? I know we like to think of ourselves as "individuals", but we also depend on one another - thats sort of the tennet of government. Yes, you can be an inividual, but you will be called upon when times are good to give back, and the rest of society will be there for you when times are rough.
[editline]31st December 2013[/editline]
BTW: your math is wrong. Its not 75% of total income, its 75% of every dollar earned AFTER a million.[/QUOTE]
I see your point, and respect your views, although I do not agree. I don't see anything wrong with making profit off of doing something that others can't/won't do. There aren't many things in this world that an individual can't do, we just produce and consume things because it's more economical for us to do it that way. In my eyes, you are paying someone to do something so you don't have to. You are paying someone to grow that food and distribute it to a store close to you. You are paying someone to buy that produce, and transport it to a place close to you so you can get to it easier. That's just my view.
Also, I did factor in a 45% tax on the first million, and 75% on the remaining millions. My math is correct. People forget that the first million is still taxed at 45%, which brings the average tax per dollar to 64.3%.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43366553]See, you are under the assumption that one needs a certain amount of money to live. I could live quite happily off of the land with a part-time minimum wage job. I CHOOSE to live with things like power, and automobile, and other things that aren't necessities.
[/QUOTE]
I am honestly taken aback at the ignorance of this statement.
Power isn't a necessity?
What about for people who live in the city? Live in a place that gets really hot or cold? Has small children to take care of? Cook food?
Wtf?
And an automobile?
What about people who need to travel for a job or job interview? Need to get groceries? Pick up a kid from school? Doesn't live where there is public transportation?
Are you trolling or are you really that deluded?
[quote]
Nobody says that people deserve to be poor either, but people also don't deserve to have their money taken by the government just because they make what some people think is "too much".
And you are correct, businesses to get benefits and subsidies. I guess we should stop subsidizing green energy and see if it survives in the consumer market by itself then. Or did you mean we should only subsidize companies that you agree with. Would that be better?
Also: the majority of goods will travel on privately owned ships, railways which are privately owned and maintained by companies who pay taxes, and on trucks (for usually somewhat short distances), owned by tax paying companies and also paying "gas taxes" on each gallon of fuel they use like the rest of us. So yes, they use infrastructure, but they pay for their fair share.
As for lobbyists, you are correct. ALL lobbyists should be banned. Let the senators listen to their people.
Your argument is based on emotions instead of the facts and the truth.[/quote]
What I meant by listing all of those benefits that companies get from the government is that rich people benefit a lot from the government, because said no one gave a good reason why rich people should be taxed more. So it isn't disproportionate that they have higher taxes when the government enables a lot of business.
[QUOTE=Valnar;43366625]I am honestly taken aback at the ignorance of this statement.
Power isn't a necessity?
What about for people who live in the city? Live in a place that gets really hot or cold? Has small children to take care of? Cook food?
Wtf?
And an automobile?
What about people who need to travel for a job or job interview? Need to get groceries? Pick up a kid from school? Doesn't live where there is public transportation?
Are you trolling or are you really that deluded?
What I meant by listing all of those benefits that companies get from the government is that rich people benefit a lot from the government, because said no one gave a good reason why rich people should be taxed more. So it isn't disproportionate that they have higher taxes when the government enables a lot of business.[/QUOTE]
I kinda was trolling in the first bit. I like to have some fun and a few laughs sometimes.
But on a serious note, the government doesn't just do things for businesses for no reason. It usually benefits the government in some sort of way to assist a business. Things like creating a major number of jobs (which increases the number of tax payers), helping a new industry grow (so it could help our quality of life), or helping a country become better in general. The government isn't supposed to just hand out money to it's buddies.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be taxed more, I'm just saying that you shouldn't be paying more in taxes than you take home. It seems to me that even if you make billions, you should see the majority of the fruits of your labor......
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;43346247]Please reelect this man. I want to see France continue in this direction.[/QUOTE]
Not gonna happen.
Besides this tax only applies to corporations, not individuals. The Constitutionnal Court refused this article.
Aren't all of the rich Frenchmen emigrating now because of this?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43368621]Aren't all of the rich Frenchmen emigrating now because of this?[/QUOTE]
No
[editline]31st December 2013[/editline]
they're pretty pissed off tho
Don't be fooled by the name, our government is anything but socialist. It succeeded in making every social class pretty pissed.
Like "will never be reelected / could be overthrown before the reelection" kind of pissed.
[QUOTE=katbug;43347785]
Also, I hate millionaires as much as the next guy, but at least when they're being flamboyant they're spending money. I'd rather have all millionaires be eccentric than hoard all their cash.[/QUOTE]
Yes
because every millionaire is automatically a douchebag.
I mean shit there are a lot of rich people who have their head too far up their ass, and it is in fact connected to under others wealth, but that's still a generalization.
I'm fairly sure they wil just find a loop hole in the system to get their big paid players their money ie just pay your players in cash, stock market, etc.
how naive do you have to be to believe that all of the richest people on earth got there because of some kind of overwhelming skill?
the job of a CEO is not spectacularly difficult in the slightest. i can assure you that most mega-millionaire CEOs didn't climb up the corporate ladder by being smart alone, they had to do it by sucking the dicks of their higher-ups and gaming the system as much as possible. in fact, they might not have even [I]climbed[/I] at all - plenty of them were rich [I]before[/I] they became the heads of a company.
sure, an entrepreneur can start a business based on their intelligence - once he or she steps down (or dies) then the company is either at the throes of nepotism and cronyism, or put in the hands of some thick-skulled half-blind business major who couldn't give two shits about the consumer and would rather do what's best for the company's short-term profits than anything else.
the fact of the matter is that the "hard work" that those [I]poor poor extremely wealthy people[/I] do amounts to jack fucking shit without the work that the employees put in every day. and yet, plenty of the employees barely get paid enough to live. so why is it that workers can be unfairly paid for their labor, while the top dogs get extremely disproportionately paid for theirs?
if anyone's entitled, it's these people who think that starting and maintaining a business is worth more money than a person would ever have use for. can we stop people from having high salaries? of course not. i wouldn't want to try and force a wage cap, and a law of that nature would just cause more problems than it would solve.
so meanwhile, taxes are necessary for the maintenance of government, and it just so happens that the rich are the people who stand to lose the least from tax rates. furthermore, the government is willing and able to invest in necessary things like infrastructure and education in times where the private sector isn't strong enough or capable enough to do the same, due to a loss of demand.
There are some very strong anti-capitalist sentiments in this thread. No doubt written on tools developed through capitalism.
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain to me how the People's Republic of China went from having a GDP of just a few hundred billion dollars in 1978 to about $12 trillion in 2013, in the process dragging hundreds of millions out of poverty? Socialism?
Happy New year.
Why not just use flat rates but force rich business owners to give employees payraises with 25% of everything they earn over a million. That way government gets its share but workers conditions improve. It'd be the same as the 75% bracket just less to the government and more to the people.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;43374323]Why not just use flat rates but force rich business owners to give employees payraises with 25% of everything they earn over a million. That way government gets its share but workers conditions improve. It'd be the same as the 75% bracket just less to the government and more to the people.[/QUOTE]
Because flat rates are still fucking laughably atrocious. Being given a pay rise won't fix that. Only awful economists seem to think a flat tax actually works without ruining the poor.
[editline]1st January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=kuydna;43374012]There are some very strong anti-capitalist sentiments in this thread. No doubt written on tools developed through capitalism.[/QUOTE]
Can't say I've seen much "anti-capitalism", I've seen people arguing for a more socialist-capitalist society. Where as a private business you are allowed to make as much money as you damn well please (providing you aren't infringing on peoples rights or causing damage), but as your income increases, the amount you contribute back to society increases. Seeing as the society supported you, paying it back seems only fair.
75% on anything over 1m isn't going to impact the vast majority of business owners anyway. Very very few people actually earn that much. Just looking at the US for example;
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png[/t]
The numbers in the 250,000+ category are crunched together, but following the trend the number of people in that bracket is minuscule as you go further along.
75% still does seem high, and will see a lot of opposition on that fact alone, but the current system is also pretty unsustainable. This at least looks like a method of trying to fix it that isn't "yeah, do whatever it'll fix itself eventually".
You know guys, there's a lot of rich people.
That means that a lot of them got rich through grit and determination. Lots got rich through luck. Lots got rich through screwing people over. Lots got rich by blowing the right dudes.
Why do people always seem to insist on either vilifying or deifying the rich? They're just people, and you cannot make assumptions about all of them based on the others.
The way someone got rich is irrelevant. What's relevant is the country they are living in.
France offers a TON of services that are either free or cheap, and that are financed by taxation. The least rich people can do considering are using this system like everyone else is to give more to the state. It's a basic concept of solidarity : if you do not need help, help those who need it.
Not to mention the fact that there comes a point where the amount of money you are hoarding becomes ridiculous. If you earn well over a million euros every year and don't do crap with it to help others (or if you are opposed to the state taxing you more to do it for you), then you're greedy.
Like a few ministers have said before, if you think your millions should stay in your pocket and never, ever go to the state or those who need it, then feel free to leave the country. Unless you somehow live in a stateless wasteland that's devoid of civilization then you owe your surroundings.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;43374408]Because flat rates are still fucking laughably atrocious. Being given a pay rise won't fix that. Only awful economists seem to think a flat tax actually works without ruining the poor.
[editline]1st January 2014[/editline]
Can't say I've seen much "anti-capitalism", I've seen people arguing for a more socialist-capitalist society. Where as a private business you are allowed to make as much money as you damn well please (providing you aren't infringing on peoples rights or causing damage), but as your income increases, the amount you contribute back to society increases. Seeing as the society supported you, paying it back seems only fair.
75% on anything over 1m isn't going to impact the vast majority of business owners anyway. Very very few people actually earn that much. Just looking at the US for example;
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png[/t]
The numbers in the 250,000+ category are crunched together, but following the trend the number of people in that bracket is minuscule as you go further along.
75% still does seem high, and will see a lot of opposition on that fact alone, but the current system is also pretty unsustainable. This at least looks like a method of trying to fix it that isn't "yeah, do whatever it'll fix itself eventually".[/QUOTE]
Don't be such a damn socialist. "Help" makes people weak. You might laugh and say bootstraps bootstraps bootstraps, but you'll be stronger for it in the end. You'll build character. You'll be less vulnerable. You'll get up faster when you fall over, or are pushed over. Few people helped me, even when I was homeless, yet I'm well on my way to overcome problems and nightmares most people could barely fucking imagine. Most people in my situation would already have suicided or turned to hard drugs. Not me. How is that? Maybe I decided to be an adult and not expect some strangers to fix my problems for me? I decided to take responsibility for myself. And the few times people have helped me, it's just made me weaker and complacent. How can you grow if there's a nanny-state constantly getting in the way spoon-feeding you like a little baby girl? Here's a thought for people; don't go to that nightclub or bar this Friday, snorting lots of Coke and binge-drinking, then complaining of poor health and having no money, don't watch that soap opera crap on TV and then wonder why your brain is turning to mush, don't surround yourself with idiots and wonder why nothing's going anywhere or you keep getting into trouble - instead spend the time bettering yourself. Learn things. As much as possible. Save your money. Invest your money. Don't get "tired" after 40 hours (or 15 hours if you're a typical student) of work. Stop whining. It's not the government's responsibility to help, or some stranger who's having their income raided by the taxman. If you want help, then go with a begging bowl on the street, if you have that little pride, or go to a charity, not the taxpayer. The reason the West has fallen so far over the last few decades is because we've forgotten all this stuff, stuff that our grandparents and their parents took forgranted. We've become a civilization of pussies. No wonder Asia is leaving us in the dust. How do we get out of this hole, by continuing to be pussies? Bring on the fucking boxes.
EDIT: When I finally get rich, I'll be doing everything possible to avoid paying more than a few K a year in taxes, even if I had billions. It's money down the drain. No-one in their right mind can honestly say the £720 billion the UK government and the $3.5 trilllion the US federal government spent last year is money well spent. Politicians are addicted to other people's money, let's stop indulging them.
[editline]1st January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=kuydna;43374012]There are some very strong anti-capitalist sentiments in this thread. No doubt written on tools developed through capitalism.
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain to me how the People's Republic of China went from having a GDP of just a few hundred billion dollars in 1978 to about $12 trillion in 2013, in the process dragging hundreds of millions out of poverty? Socialism?
Happy New year.[/QUOTE]
How is this dumb?
China hasn't boomed for 30+ years? While we've generally failed?
Also everyone who voted dumb to anything I've said, please be kind enough to explain why you are entitled to anything from the government? Why does the government of Canada owe you anything Oogala or the government of Denmark owe you anything GoDong? If people want to give via charity, then fine, I'm not arguing against that, but what business does the state have in CONFISCATING other people's assets to give to other people you might well hate or have no respect for? Especially at 75%. Why should I pay anything to welfare queens in housing estates who simply cannot be bothered? Let them starve, they'll soon miraculously find a job or find some training to participate in.
[QUOTE=kuydna;43378665]Don't be such a damn socialist. "Help" makes people weak. You might laugh and say bootstraps bootstraps bootstraps, but you'll be stronger for it in the end. You'll build character. You'll be less vulnerable. You'll get up faster when you fall over, or are pushed over. Few people helped me, even when I was homeless, yet I'm well on my way to overcome problems and nightmares most people could barely fucking imagine. Most people in my situation would already have suicided or turned to hard drugs. Not me. How is that? Maybe I decided to be an adult and not expect some strangers to fix my problems for me? I decided to take responsibility for myself. And the few times people have helped me, it's just made me weaker and complacent. How can you grow if there's a nanny-state constantly getting in the way spoon-feeding you like a little baby girl? Here's a thought for people; don't go to that nightclub or bar this Friday, snorting lots of Coke and binge-drinking, then complaining of poor health and having no money, don't watch that soap opera crap on TV and then wonder why your brain is turning to mush, don't surround yourself with idiots and wonder why nothing's going anywhere or you keep getting into trouble - instead spend the time bettering yourself. Learn things. As much as possible. Save your money. Invest your money. Don't get "tired" after 40 hours (or 15 hours if you're a typical student) of work. Stop whining. It's not the government's responsibility to help, or some stranger who's having their income raided by the taxman. If you want help, then go with a begging bowl on the street, if you have that little pride, or go to a charity, not the taxpayer. The reason the West has fallen so far over the last few decades is because we've forgotten all this stuff, stuff that our grandparents and their parents took forgranted. We've become a civilization of pussies. No wonder Asia is leaving us in the dust. How do we get out of this hole, by continuing to be pussies? Bring on the fucking boxes.
EDIT: When I finally get rich, I'll be doing everything possible to avoid paying more than a few K a year in taxes, even if I had billions. It's money down the drain. No-one in their right mind can honestly say the £720 billion the UK government and the $3.5 trilllion the US federal government spent last year is money well spent. Politicians are addicted to other people's money, let's stop indulging them.
[editline]1st January 2014[/editline]
How is this dumb?
China hasn't boomed for 30+ years? While we've generally failed?
Also everyone who voted dumb to anything I've said, please be kind enough to [B]explain why you are entitled to anything from the government?[/B] Why does the government of Canada owe you anything Oogala or the government of Denmark owe you anything GoDong? If people want to give via charity, then fine, I'm not arguing against that, but what business does the state have in CONFISCATING other people's assets to give to other people you might well hate or have no respect for? Especially at 75%. [B]Why should I pay anything to welfare queens in housing estates who simply cannot be bothered?[/B] Let them starve, they'll soon miraculously find a job or find some training to participate in.[/QUOTE]
Oh my god - I've never seen someone so misguided and so delusional.
Ok, I'm going to explain it in a way that even my 2 year old cousin will understand me.
Everyone goes to work. They voluntarily give a portion of their money to the government. The government then takes this money and spreads it around to where it is needed. Including back to you. Including back to services you use. When you've paid to the government, you deserve a portion back - in both money [I]and[/I] services.
If you don't understand this concept, you're going to have trouble functioning in society.
Second part: Because for every "welfare queen" as you call them, there's a hundred single mothers who can be bothered, but can't do it by themselves. The government has institutions that work to single out the people taking advantage of the system, AS IS WITH ALL OTHER SPHERES OF LIFE.
But honestly, you sound like you live in a bubble made by Ayn Rand. Just careful about speaking your opinion in public - some people might not appreciate being told to pull themselves by their bootstraps when they've been struggling to pay their bills after years of working minimum wage.
[editline]1st January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=kuydna;43378665]Don't be such a damn socialist. "Help" makes people weak.[/QUOTE]
And this part - I'm almost certain that if I look hard enough I can find this somewhere in "Atlas Shrugged".
You're just absolutely disgusting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.