• France's 75% tax rate approved by top court after revisions
    513 replies, posted
[QUOTE=kuydna;43349186]Why do you feel the need to be so entitled? Someone is better off than me, so they should be taxed to death.Instead of hating people who are better off than you, why not try emulating them?[/QUOTE] "taxed to death" they're making millions of euros per year i think they'll be okay chief. criticism of the upper class and economic inequality has nothing to do with "entitlement" and you're a naive idiot if you think it does.
[QUOTE=Crazy;43349162]Why people generalize rich folk to be some kind of evil beings is beyond me.[/QUOTE] Rich people and corporations/big buisness aren't evil. They are neutral. The vast majority of time they only act on what will get them more money, without much regard for anything else. If doing something "good" means they get more profit they do it, if doing something "evil" means they get more profit they do it. Being able to act amorally is the issue, and why there needs to be more regulations on the rich/big businesses. I know that extended beyond what you were saying, but it seems kinda important to have this idea explained out there. [QUOTE=kuydna;43349186]Why do you feel the need to be so entitled? Someone is better off than me, so they should be taxed to death. Instead of hating people who are better off than you, why not try emulating them?[/QUOTE] You can't just emluate being rich. [b]You can't work yourself to being rich[/b], it requires a lot of oppourtunites that you can't just emulate. The vast majority of people will never be able to be rich, regardless of how hard they work. The rich are obviously able to defend themselves (cause you know they have money), why do they need you to defend them?
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;43346365]Yeah... give the government all the money, cuz people don't deserve the capital to invest in shit, or spend on goods and services. What does the government of france do with these billions of dollars that people in the free market wouldn't do?[/QUOTE] Provide cheap healthcare for one, provide services that help those who are less fortunate. Not be greedy as fuck and horde it. I can keep going if you want.
[QUOTE=Valnar;43349248]Rich people and corporations/big buisness aren't evil. They are neutral. The vast majority of time they only act on what will get them more money, without much regard for anything else. If doing something "good" means they get more profit they do it, if doing something "evil" means they get more profit they do it. Being able to act amorally is the issue, and why there needs to be more regulations on the rich/big businesses. I know that extended beyond what you were saying, but it seems kinda important to have this idea explained out there. You can't just emluate being rich. [b]You can't work yourself to being rich[/b], it requires a lot of oppourtunites that you can't just emulate. The vast majority of people will never be able to be rich, regardless of how hard they work. The rich are obviously able to defend themselves (cause you know they have money), why do they need you to defend them?[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was just about hard work, but then I can't agree with people who seem to think it's all down to luck. Not emulate being rich but emulate the mindset and behaviours that got people there. How many people are seriously trying to get rich and haven't allowed themselves to settle into somekind of rut or merely be content with where they are? How many people for example think playing lottery is the correct path to pursue? [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43349244]"taxed to death" they're making millions of euros per year i think they'll be okay chief. criticism of the upper class and economic inequality has nothing to do with "entitlement" and you're a naive idiot if you think it does.[/QUOTE] You make it sound like none of them share their money through charitable means or provide employment to others. Hell even buying yachts and mansions provides employment..... All I'm saying is 75% is far too much and government can't be relied on to solve very much. [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Crazy;43349198]No him particularly. It's just the overall tone in this thread that is baffling me.[/QUOTE] Probably because some people when they can live in their parents basement and off welfare they eventually forget how hard it is to make the money in the first place. [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;43349248]Rich people and corporations/big buisness aren't evil. They are neutral. The vast majority of time they only act on what will get them more money, without much regard for anything else. If doing something "good" means they get more profit they do it, if doing something "evil" means they get more profit they do it. Being able to act amorally is the issue, and why there needs to be more regulations on the rich/big businesses. I know that extended beyond what you were saying, but it seems kinda important to have this idea explained out there. You can't just emluate being rich. [b]You can't work yourself to being rich[/b], it requires a lot of oppourtunites that you can't just emulate. The vast majority of people will never be able to be rich, regardless of how hard they work. The rich are obviously able to defend themselves (cause you know they have money), why do they need you to defend them?[/QUOTE] You do realize we can probably include someone like Garry in this conversation? Is he evil? Has he made his money in some amoral way? Why, would it be ok for him to be taxed at 70% or more? Can you be sure alot of that money wouldn't be wasted by the state? Why should he pay for more civil servants to look busy and not provide employment to more programmers and graphic artists? You seem to be confusing millionaires with billionaires perhaps.... [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=viperfan7;43349307]Provide cheap healthcare for one, provide services that help those who are less fortunate. Not be greedy as fuck and horde it. I can keep going if you want.[/QUOTE] Please do. [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;43348996]today i learned unsubstantiated emotional blackmail means empathy![/QUOTE] Am curious; how much have you given to charity lately?
[QUOTE=kuydna;43349337] You do realize we can probably include someone like Garry in this conversation? Is he evil? Has he made his money in some amoral way? Why, would it be ok for him to be taxed at 70% or more? Can you be sure alot of that money wouldn't be wasted by the state? Why should he pay for more civil servants to look busy and not provide employment to more programmers and graphic artists? You seem to be confusing millionaires with billionaires perhaps...[/QUOTE] Why would Garry be paying programmers out of his personal salary that he gives himself? Did you even read the article and see what was getting taxed?
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43346241]Taxing high earners more is still unfair because it punishes people for being successful though.[/QUOTE]I doubt they'd be making so much if the schools educating the future workforce were underfunded, their workers were dying of preventable diseases due to lack of money, crime was rampant due to an underfunded police force and general social immobility etc etc etc.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43348975]Well I disagree with capitalism on principle but my (admittedly vague) point is that society shouldn't be excessively self-indulgent and value shit like sports cars and yachts over helping others.[/QUOTE] If you feel this strongly about it then, instead of buying that XBOne or PS4 give the money to charity....? Why is a luxury for you ok, but not for the guy who bought the sports car? There's always someone poorer after all. But then that assumes that having governments endlessly throwing money at problems is the solution in the first place. Why is China getting rich? Handouts? Fuck no. [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;43349668]Why would Garry be paying programmers out of his personal salary that he gives himself? Did you even read the article and see what was getting taxed?[/QUOTE] I don't think we know how much he pays himself. The point is 1) It's his. He shouldn't have to account to anyone about it. 2) Every penny that goes in tax is money he could have given to employees. You don't think GMod + Rust are making > 1m a year? Ok, use Notch as an example. [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;43349686]I doubt they'd be making so much if the schools educating the future workforce were underfunded, their workers were dying of preventable diseases due to lack of money, crime was rampant due to an underfunded police force and general social immobility etc etc etc.[/QUOTE] You're talking about the UK or US by the sounds of it. How much more money does the government of France really need. Do they spend it all as efficiently as possible? Seriously how many Frenchmen die from preventable diseases or "starve" (as someone else said)?
[QUOTE=Crazy;43349162]Why people generalize rich folk to be some kind of evil beings is beyond me.[/QUOTE] not evil, just not the infalible/altruistic/better/whatever beings some would like them to be. plus history has proven repeatedly(still does and shall continue to do so) that giving too much power to anyone tends to be a bad idea, money is power, people don't seem to realize this. also anyone who thinks progressive taxing is bad, is an utter idiot who should go back to school, you don't fix poverty letting the gap between rich and poor increase endlessly. what amazes me the most, is that Adam smith, the man who essentially created the idea of capitalism defended whats roughly the entire point of progressive taxation, but clearly its a communist idea. [QUOTE]Taken from The Wealth of Nations: "the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society,[B] all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."[/B] [B]"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."[/B][/QUOTE] i truly have a hard time understanding why so many who aren't rich(especially those who are poor) defend the rich so much.
[QUOTE=kuydna;43349161]The US was much better before the 80's?[/QUOTE] That's my point - 70s had a near 75% tax bracket, and the 60s and before (all the way back to the New Deal) had up to 92% tax rates. The economy was stable until Reaganomics fucked everything up.
[QUOTE=kuydna;43349699]I don't think we know how much he pays himself. The point is 1) It's his. He shouldn't have to account to anyone about it. 2) Every penny that goes in tax is money he could have given to employees. You don't think GMod + Rust are making > 1m a year? Ok, use Notch as an example.[/QUOTE] You didn't understand what I was saying. Now I will preface this by saying I don't know the financial workings of Facepunch or monetary laws of England, but Garry would be a very bad businessman (and possibly sent to jail) if he took all of the money from Gmod + rust as personal income. The money would go to the Facepunch Studios company and Garry would have a personal salary from that. The 75% tax would be on the personal salary if he gives himself > 1 million euros per year. Money for employees comes from the company, not Garry.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;43349990]That's my point - 70s had a near 75% tax bracket, and the 60s and before (all the way back to the New Deal) had up to 92% tax rates. The economy was stable until Reaganomics fucked everything up.[/QUOTE] You realize that no one actually payed taxes when they got into those brackets? People dodged them like hell. If I'm making 999K and my employer wants to give me a promotion to over 1,000K I'll take it in benefits instead of income. So he can pay for a company car, give me trips, etc. No one is going to work extra to get 25% of the intended promotion.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;43349990]That's my point - 70s had a near 75% tax bracket, and the 60s and before (all the way back to the New Deal) had up to 92% tax rates. The economy was stable until Reaganomics fucked everything up.[/QUOTE] Did anyone actually pay at those rates or just find creative ways around it? Also for such a supposedly fucked up country the US did a pretty good job leading the Internet and PC revolutions. Why isn't Google French? Why do companies like that never get their start in Europe? [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;43350005]You didn't understand what I was saying. Now I will preface this by saying I don't know the financial workings of Facepunch or monetary laws of England, but Garry would be a very bad businessman (and possibly sent to jail) if he took all of the money from Gmod + rust as personal income. The money would go to the Facepunch Studios company and Garry would have a personal salary from that. The 75% tax would be on the personal salary if he gives himself > 1 million euros per year. Money for employees comes from the company, not Garry.[/QUOTE] Wait, wasn't this 75% going to be levied at not just individuals but businesses too? So Facepunch would be dealing with 75%
They're wanting to tax corporations at 75% - you know what will happen? Corporations will operate internationally from a country with more attractive tax rates and just have their employees pay the regular tax. Nobody will pay 75% - it's just going to lose France money they might have had with a lower tax rate.
[QUOTE=kuydna;43350047]Did anyone actually pay at those rates or just find creative ways around it? Also for such a supposedly fucked up country the US did a pretty good job leading the Internet and PC revolutions. Why isn't Google French? Why do companies like that never get their start in Europe? [editline]29th December 2013[/editline] Wait, wasn't this 75% going to be levied at not just individuals but businesses too? So Facepunch would be dealing with 75%[/QUOTE] The 75% was to be paid by the individual, but that got shut down. According to the article it had been reformed so that the company pays a 50% tax based on the salaries over 1 million euros. The total amount of that tax being determined the the total amount of the salaries excess over 1 million by the way the article words it. Simple example, for how it seems to be. Company pays a wage of 1.5 million to a person, and has to pay a tax of 250,000 because of that wage.
[QUOTE=Valnar;43350172]The 75% was to be paid by the individual, but that got shut down. According to the article it had been reformed so that the company pays a 50% tax based on the salaries over 1 million euros. The total amount of that tax being determined the the total amount of the salaries excess over 1 million by the way the article words it. Simple example, for how it seems to be. Company pays a wage of 1.5 million to a person, and has to pay a tax of 250,000 because of that wage.[/QUOTE] Doesn't that provide a disincentive for companies to pay in excess of 1m in salaries? And if so, how do they expect they'll be able to attract and retain the best people in an increasingly global marketplace? EDIT: how is this dumb?
[QUOTE=kuydna;43350247]Doesn't that provide a disincentive for companies to pay in excess of 1m in salaries? And if so, how do they expect they'll be able to attract and retain the best people in an increasingly global marketplace?[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "the best people"? Generally only executives get paid in the 1 million + range. No other types of workers (such as artists, engineers, accounts etc.) really ever get paid over 1 million.
[QUOTE=onebit;43346263]How terrible, I'm sure they'll cry themselves to sleep.[/QUOTE] Nope. They'll probably move to another country and take all the jobs & money with them.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43352814]Nope. They'll probably move to another country and take all the jobs & money with them.[/QUOTE] So the best course of action is to just not implement new taxes and regulations then? That seems like poor reasoning. Cause things are kinda fucked in a lot of countries with regards to the power big companies/corporations have.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43352814]Nope. They'll probably move to another country and take all the jobs & money with them.[/QUOTE] The shitheads who are greedy enough to do this in the first place don't need a new tax to motivate them to get out of the country. They'll leave regardless. I'd rather have the country vote a law like this and cull out some of the most poisonous rich dudes than bend over even more than what we already are.
Well, guys, instead of talking of stuff that doesn't or will never affect you, come in France and try to be a successful entrepreneur.
[QUOTE=Valnar;43352777]What do you mean by "the best people"? Generally only executives get paid in the 1 million + range. No other types of workers (such as artists, engineers, accounts etc.) really ever get paid over 1 million.[/QUOTE] Anyone who masters a profession and takes the risk of going alone over a salary has the potential to make unlimited earnings. You really have to go above-and-beyond to learn everything you possibly can and dedicate a lot of time into it, for a long time, even when not being paid or motivated by others - to get to that level. If you're working as a graphics designer in a firm you'll earn your max £38k/year after like 12 years. Alternatively you could go freelance, start a company, sell your artwork, or even develop your own products by hiring or meeting a programmer, or learning to do it yourself if you're so inclined. All of which have unlimited earning potential. Some faster than others. Engineers - same thing, different context. Spot a unique niche or gap in the market, fill it. Accountant is the only one you listed that works differently to the rest, as there's reputation involved which takes years to build up. You could probably found your own firm, become a senior partner and make a lot though. I encourage entrepreneurship to everyone. Salaries are addictive, but being a free man is worth more than a salary can ever provide.
People that have never owned nor managed multi-m(b)illion companies talking about the ease in which to run it. I could almost bark a laugh if they didn't insult the intelligence. At least these threads continue to make for great [I]Read And Shudder For The Future[/I] collections I send out to people.
[QUOTE=Axznma;43353084]People that have never owned nor managed multi-m(b)illion companies talking about the ease in which to run it. I could almost bark a laugh if they didn't insult the intelligence. At least these threads continue to make for great [I]Read And Shudder For The Future[/I] collections I send out to people.[/QUOTE] Hey, not all of us think that its not hard as fuck, just most people here.
It's a different kind of hard. The kind of hard where there simply is no illusion of guaranteed employment for the foreseeable future, nor any direction or instruction given. It's out there and plain to see that if you're idea isn't working, you're gone, along with the shareholders money. Entrepreneurs take similar risks to CEOs, that's why they tend to end up as CEOs of other companies (if not already CEOs of their own).
[QUOTE=Axznma;43353084]People that have never owned nor managed multi-m(b)illion companies talking about the ease in which to run it. I could almost bark a laugh if they didn't insult the intelligence. At least these threads continue to make for great [I]Read And Shudder For The Future[/I] collections I send out to people.[/QUOTE] Hard or not, they have more money and should thus take the brunt of the taxes. It works out best for everyone, the rich are still rich and the poor aren't as poor as they would be
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43353584]Hard or not, they have more money and should thus take the brunt of the taxes. It works out best for everyone, the rich are still rich and the poor aren't as poor as they would be[/QUOTE] What don't you understand about- * encouraging tax avoision/evasion * killing entrepreneurial spirit * driving away businesses and talent In addition to this I bet every one of the faux leftists on here would soon change their minds if they had a 6 or 7 figure income. This is going to harm France and benefit it's neighbours especially the UK, it's that simple. [editline]30th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;43352777]What do you mean by "the best people"?[/QUOTE] What do you think I meant? [editline]30th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;43352865]So the best course of action is to just not implement new taxes and regulations then? That seems like poor reasoning. Cause things are kinda fucked in a lot of countries with regards to the power big companies/corporations have.[/QUOTE] Or at least not implement new taxes that are equivalent to being buttraped with a hot poker. 75% is obscene. It's the kind of level you levy if you want to discourage something, say smoking, drinking, legalized narcotics etc.
[QUOTE=kuydna;43353825] What do you think I meant? [/QUOTE] I really don't know what you mean, thats why I asked you. [QUOTE]Or at least not implement new taxes that are equivalent to being buttraped with a hot poker. 75% is obscene. It's the kind of level you levy if you want to discourage something, say smoking, drinking, legalized narcotics etc.[/QUOTE] So, 66% taxes are fine, but 75% will be the tipping point that causes all of the rich people in France to up and leave?
[QUOTE=Valnar;43354110]I really don't know what you mean, thats why I asked you. So, 66% taxes are fine, but 75% will be the tipping point that causes all of the rich people in France to up and leave?[/QUOTE] Losing some of their rich is bad enough, no-one said anything about all. Not only is it not a pragmatic tax but it's also unfair and immoral. Why should someone spend 70% or more of their productive hours working for the government? Anyway, what happens if French companies decide to offset those extra taxes by passing on the extra costs to consumers? [editline]30th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Six;43352935]Well, guys, instead of talking of stuff that doesn't or will never affect you, come in France and try to be a successful entrepreneur.[/QUOTE] No thanks, I'd prefer to keep as much of my profits as possible :) [editline]30th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizards Court;43349890]not evil, just not the infalible/altruistic/better/whatever beings some would like them to be. plus history has proven repeatedly(still does and shall continue to do so) that giving too much power to anyone tends to be a bad idea, money is power, people don't seem to realize this. also anyone who thinks progressive taxing is bad, is an utter idiot who should go back to school, you don't fix poverty letting the gap between rich and poor increase endlessly. what amazes me the most, is that Adam smith, the man who essentially created the idea of capitalism defended whats roughly the entire point of progressive taxation, but clearly its a communist idea. i truly have a hard time understanding why so many who aren't rich(especially those who are poor) defend the rich so much.[/QUOTE] Laffer Curve, heard of it? [url]http://positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2013/12/12/the-laffer-curve-in-democracy-3/[/url]
75% of a million.. still alot.. but kinda takes the point of earning all that money away..
[QUOTE=kuydna;43354154]Losing some of their rich is bad enough, no-one said anything about all. Not only is it not a pragmatic tax but it's also unfair and immoral. Why should someone spend 70% or more of their productive hours working for the government? [/QUOTE] How exactly is it immoral and unfair. Why should there be people who live in poverty when there are people who not only make obscene amounts of money but also run companies/corporations that only care about doing everything they can to increase their profit margins? I ask again, why do you defend rich people?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.