Support NeoGAF

[Kurtofan]

Oh god I can't imagine. Paris smells bad enough as it is

It's not in Paris it's in Marseille.

 

[fortified_concept]

We don't have it better. If things don't change, we'll get screwed in the long run. Lazy old people might want to protest because the reform will affect them the worst, but the kids? If it doesn't pass, they'll be fucked!

Who said that? Sarkozy the prick? Did he also say that you'll end up like Greece? The fact is that France is more stable than most EU countries and one of the richest countries in the world. There's no immediate threat to your economy and no reason to cave in every time a rightwing prick wants to pass anti-labour measures using fearmongering.

 

[Midas]

I love you France. Stand up for what you believe in. This would never happen in Sweden.

 

[demosthenes]

My point is that the argumentation makes no sense. He presents numbers from other countries that are showing that the French have it better as if that's an argument for the increase of retirement age. As if the countries that are getting screwed more are wiser or something because they're getting screwed more.

Now this is the phenomenon I'm talking about. You don't mind that much that the middle class has decreased because of expensive wars, the huge gap between rich and poor, the unemployment and the fucking corporations leaving your country to exploit a Vietnamese kid for a few cents a day, the enormous mistakes in the financial sector, the tax cuts for the rich, you almost seem at peace with that even though these are the main reasons for all the problems in USA. But you hear about middle class wanting entitlements and you rant for an entire thread. To my eyes it seems like a slave defending his master from other slaves who want to get free. With people raising against authority and demanding entitlements is how we enjoy our freedoms and rights we have today, this is the historic truth, you claim the complete opposite.

I don't mind much? Show me concrete evidence why the middle class has decreased. It's a multitude of things. Every* corporation is going to choose the lowest cost to make their product because not doing so will put them at a comparative disadvantage. (*Yes, some do not and those products are sold at higher prices and are usually niche). The mistakes of the financial sector and the tax cuts for the rich. You think I agree with these, why? Where did I say I support the mistakes? Where did I say I didn't write several papers in grad school about the mistakes. I didn't want the Bush tax cuts especially when we started the wars. You're stereotyping me and then saying you're not. Ranting for an entire thread? I've made less than 10 posts here.

I claim the opposite? Where did I EVER claim that fighting/demanding/revolting hasn't gotten us to where we are today? But the simple fact is that you want people to be able to live off the government for 30-40 years and I'm saying it's not possible. It's not just middle class entitlement but every worker's entitlement. If you want to retire @ 60, start planning @ 20, don't depend on the government. It financially cannot sustain itself and we're still using borrowed time and borrowed money.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

But the simple fact is that you want people to be able to live off the government for 30-40 years and I'm saying it's not possible. It's not just middle class entitlement but every worker's entitlement. If you want to retire @ 60, start planning @ 20, don't depend on the government. It financially cannot sustain itself and we're still using borrowed time and borrowed money.

preach.

 

[Kurtofan]

If you want to retire @ 60, start planning @ 20, don't depend on the government. It financially cannot sustain itself and we're still using borrowed time and borrowed money.

How do you do that when you're a student?

 

[demosthenes]

How do you do that when you're a student?

I meant in your 20s really, but you can still do that when you're a student...get a job. School program too rough (I know some programs are), why not the summer? I worked every summer and winter break while in school.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

How do you do that when you're a student?

20s

 

[fortified_concept]

I don't mind much? Show me concrete evidence why the middle class has decreased. It's a multitude of things. Every* corporation is going to choose the lowest cost to make their product because not doing so will put them at a comparative disadvantage. (*Yes, some do not and those products are sold at higher prices and are usually niche). The mistakes of the financial sector and the tax cuts for the rich. You think I agree with these, why? Where did I say I support the mistakes? Where did I say I didn't write several papers in grad school about the mistakes. I didn't want the Bush tax cuts especially when we started the wars. You're stereotyping me and then saying you're not. Ranting for an entire thread? I've made less than 10 posts here.

I sincerely apologize then but in my defense in your other posts you didn't seem that bothered when I mentioned these problems. And the truth of the matter is that with all that money wasted you could afford that kind of pension system for many decades to come.

Every* corporation is going to choose the lowest cost to make their product because not doing so will put them at a comparative disadvantage.

I don't care. Drown the motherfuckers with tariffs and teach them a lesson. The unemployment will keep rising, I don't understand how you find this acceptable.

I claim the opposite? Where did I EVER claim that fighting/demanding/revolting hasn't gotten us to where we are today? But the simple fact is that you want people to be able to live off the government for 30-40 years and I'm saying it's not possible. It's not just middle class entitlement but every worker's entitlement. If you want to retire @ 60, start planning @ 20, don't depend on the government. It financially cannot sustain itself and we're still using borrowed time and borrowed money.

How is it a simple fact? Do you have data that support that at our current productivity it is not actually possible or do you rely on the data of a broken financial system that is fixed to serve the upper class? Every time in history the people were demanding something that's what the ruling class was telling them, that it's not possible, yet, when the workers insisted and fought for it it was proven that the system could actually afford it and adapt.

 

[demosthenes]

I sincerely apologize then but in my defense in your other posts you didn't seem that bothered when I mentioned these problems. And the truth of the matter is that with all that money wasted you could afford that kind of pension system for many decades to come.

I don't care. Drown the motherfuckers with tariffs and teach them a lesson. The unemployment will keep rising, I don't understand how you find this acceptable.

How is it a simple fact? Do you have data that support that at our current productivity it is not actually possible or do you rely on the data of a broken financial system that is fixed to serve the upper class? Every time in history the people were demanding something that's what the ruling was telling them, that they can't do it, yet when the workers insisted it seems that the system could actually afford and adapt.

What money was wasted, what wars? Korea? Should we have stood by and watched as South Korea was overrun by the north w/ the backing of China? Or maybe we should've said screw it and not gone ahead w/ DDay? You're happy I assume with DDay, but should we have just watched Korea be dismantled?

Even if we hadn't gone to Iraq and Afghanistan and we saved that money would we be able to magically allow people to retire a year or two earlier? Or would we make the standard of living of current retirees better? Lots of issues here. But certainly not for lots of decades. Our baby boomers are retiring now and we don't have the base to support them, avoiding Iraq/Afghanistan would not have solved that problem.

Drown them? I'd rather not. Go talk to friends and family. See how many of them are invested in America/French/German firms that outsource, going to write them off as friends? Yea it sucks that it happens, but nobody anywhere is going to change it.

You keep talking about productivity, but it boils down to money. How much money is going in, how much is being taken out.

As I said before. Why are lots of companies going out of business? Why are American states going bankrupt? A lot of it has to do w/ the way pensions were setup 30-50 years ago. They thought America would never stop, the growth would continue forever, a stupid thought. GM was being weighed down by pension payments, states are being weighed down by pensions of $60,000 a year to teachers for 35+ years. System A was built for Circumstance A. We are now in Circumstance B. System A does not work anymore.

 

[Magni]

20s

I'll be a student till I'm 24-25, but I get what you're saying. Also students in France don't have as much time as US students, student jobs aren't as common as in the US, totally not the same culture. I do work in the summer though.

But yeah, I don't plan on (and have never planned on) the government for my retirement. That'll just be an added bonus.

@f_c,

I haven't heard anyone compare us to Greece yet actually. Sarkozy may have said that, probably did, but he's far from the only one. Basically everyone who knows what they're saying is saying that.

 

[fortified_concept]

Drown them? I'd rather not. Go talk to friends and family. See how many of them are invested in America/French/German firms that outsource, going to write them off as friends? Yea it sucks that it happens, but nobody anywhere is going to change it.

Yes let's ignore the thousands of unemployed adding each month because some friends have invested in bloodsucking corporations. And just because it's difficult to change something doesn't mean it's right or that we should accept it.

As I said before. Why are lots of companies going out of business? Why are American states going bankrupt? A lot of it has to do w/ the way pensions were setup 30-50 years ago. They thought America would never stop, the growth would continue forever, a stupid thought. GM was being weighed down by pension payments, states are being weighed down by pensions of $60,000 a year to teachers for 35+ years. System A was built for Circumstance A. We are now in Circumstance B. System A does not work anymore.

Do you actually believe that? So it's not of the disastrous republican governance or the recession caused by the fucking bankers, or the incredibly expensive wars it's mainly because of the pensions, right? Jesus Christ dude. GM is being weighted down because noone has money to buy cars not because of the pensions. GM is also weighted down because of incompetent high payed CEOs that thought heavily investing in these monstrosities called SUVs was a great idea. It seems that you need to read more about GM and the auto industry that is going through a crisis all over the world because... nope you guessed that wrong, it's not the pensions, because of the recession caused by the banking system.

 

[Skiptastic]

name them. I only see 2 camps:

Camp A Says: "People's health and ability to work are seriously degraded by that age (65+) and raising the age of eligibility higher would be disastrous. Instead remove the cap on certain taxes...and increase other taxes as necessary to compensate for the projected shortfalls. Furthermore, if you fuck with us, Camp B, our union might will shut this mothafucka down."

Camp B Says: "Fuck you and your increased taxes, Camp A! If these people are living 20-30 years longer than when the system was envisioned and implemented, then we have to see a bump in the qualifying age. Unlike in the 30s, there are plenty of sedentary jobs out there that retiree-age people can handle. Jobs that don't require long hours of standing, for example. let's figure out how to get them ready for those jobs. It's immoral to ask their children to support their retirement years income for 20-30 years. It's immoral to raise their taxes sky high so that their parents can stop contributing. and it's immoral to suggest that someone older can't work and contribute to this society."

if there's a middle ground, I'd love to hear it.

I choose the middle ground. Raise the retirement age, remove the cap on taxes, and tie benefit increases to inflation/minimum COLA.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't see why people are using one scapegoat to alleviate all their problems.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I choose the middle ground. Raise the retirement age, remove the cap on taxes, and tie benefit increases to inflation/minimum COLA.

word.

 

[fortified_concept]

How about we tax the fuck out of the rich and the banks who created the recession in the first place and if that doesn't work then we raise the pension limits? Would anyone from Camp B agree with that?

 

[demosthenes]

How about we tax the fuck out of the rich and the banks who created the recession in the first place and if that doesn't work then we raise the pension limits? Would anyone from Camp B agree with that?

Because many of those rich people worked for it and I don't think they should be handing over 50% of their wealth. And it appears unlike you I don't like taking what I didn't earn.

What about all the people in this country that were buying $250,000 and $450,000 houses with little income and subsequently defaulted? What about them?

 

[Skiptastic]

How about we tax the fuck out of the rich and the banks who created the recession in the first place and if that doesn't work then we raise the pension limits? Would anyone from Camp B agree with that?

I figured removing the cap was taxing the rich and businesses.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

oh shit.

bailing out of this thread. too much dry brush around here.

 

[Kibbles]

Only the French smile and laugh during protests.

That's what I was thinking. Came in expecting angry protesters and get a bunch of people smiling. :lol

 

[NonexistentK]

this is the country which has the 3rd biggest defense budget in the world right after China right, just checkin' :lol

 

[GaimeGuy]

Okay, what the fuck at this thread derailment.

 

[empty vessel]

I often enjoy your posts systematically dismantling the Free Market Taliban but you are a slave to ideology when it comes to this issue.

Pensions were always budgeted with an expected lifetime. Those are the facts because no scheme is sustainable if you PV'ed from infinity.

Defined benefit obligations rely on estimation of retirement age. It is fundamental to the calculation. Those programs are all headed for bankruptcy because people are unwilling to move the parameters in line with technological progress. Retirement age has to scale.

Defined benefit (i.e. X will pay Y a constant value Q for n periods) as a concept is also completely broken, but that is another matter.

This is all true as far as it goes, but it doesn't, in my opinion, go far enough. It is certainly true that extensions of life expectancy will mean that programs cost more. It is an entirely different question, however, whether we should reduce benefits. Pointing out that when these programs were initiated, the retirement age was set at (or even above) life expectancy is insufficient to establish that benefits should be reduced. It can stand equally for the proposition that the programs were weak to begin with (and, in the case of the US, at least, I think that is absolutely the case). Increases in life expectancy has had the effect of increasing the strength of the benefit (ability to enjoy retirement benefits for a longer period or even at all). But the only relevant questions that we have to answer are (1) whether we want that; and (2) whether we can afford that.

People who do not want it are, in my opinion, fairly crazy. The real question with some meat on it is the second one, and this raises some pretty profound social questions about how our societies are organized. What are we wasting wealth on? Are the distributions of wealth and resources in our country fair and equitable? If we do want this benefit, then what should be cut and/or how should we distribute our resources in the first instance to make sure we can afford it?

We do not need to conceive of these benefits as stand-alone projects that require us to tax ourselves more. We can conceive of them in other ways: from where will we redirect wealth that is wasted or has less social utility into these benefits that we believe have high social utility (if we do so believe)? What I object to is the almost knee-jerk acceptance of the idea that we have to cut these kinds of benefits. Claims are made that they are not affordable, but, to be honest, I haven't seen any real support for that claim, and it sounds awfully convenient to ruling segments of a capitalist society to take at face value.

Productivity increases not only mean that you can contribute more to society while you work, it also means you get more value per unit of leisure time i.e. less waiting and greater access.

This is true and is a good point.

The concept of universal benefits is also broken, they should all be means tested.

This I actually strongly disagree with, because it causes these benefits to become susceptible to the strong inclination in humans to segregate people into "deserving" and "undeserving" people. Benefits tied to "deservedness" (typically the most politically vulnerable people within the society) become the subject of intense pressure to be cut and are otherwise demonized. Instead, I think it is vitally important that all members of society see these programs as a collective enterprise that they all contribute to and receive. Instead of means testing, I would prefer reorganizing the economy to more equitably distribute resources in the first place. That's a much harder task, of course, but I think it has to be done.

The other issue which is inter-related: collection of revenues. I personally believe collection of corporate taxes at the national level is headed for disaster, international competition is actually a race to the bottom with corporate tax rates. There is a steady trend of governments collecting less corporate tax revenue as a proportion of the total take.

Agreed.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Does fortified_concept have some kind of deal with the moderators? I got banned once for a month for typing a fake letter to Treasure about Bangai-O 3 being an XBox 360 downloadable exclusive. It's 1 thing to be so intellectually scattershot, but he always calls right-wing people "retards" and "racists" and a host of other typically offensive things. I'm not asking for a ban, to clarify, I'm just in awe of his omnipotence. Is he some kind of a forum regular that gets ignored thanks to his familiar face?

Edit: Again, I'm not saying that moderators should jump on him. People are usually careful, though, BECAUSE of such fears. concept's, well, not careful.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Because many of those rich people worked for it and I don't think they should be handing over 50% of their wealth. And it appears unlike you I don't like taking what I didn't earn.

I seriously doubt many of those rich people worked for it. It likely came mostly from buying and selling stocks.

And it's not like they're afraid of throwing the middle and lower classes under a bus.

 

[fortified_concept]

Because many of those rich people worked for it and I don't think they should be handing over 50% of their wealth. And it appears unlike you I don't like taking what I didn't earn.

What about all the people in this country that were buying $250,000 and $450,000 houses with little income and subsequently defaulted? What about them?

Noone earns millions and especially billions of dollars. :lol The system is setup that way that makes it possible but that doesn't mean they earn it. Especially the fucking bankers who are so incompetent and greedy that don't deserve any of it. Not a single fucking cent.

this is the country which has the 3rd biggest defense budget in the world right after China right, just checkin' :lol

They're fourth but it's also a very good point. In other words this is bullshit. They have enough money not to tax the banks or the rich and and they have enough to waste billions on defense making weapons dealers rich but they don't have enough to help the middle class (as per usual). I will enjoy it if the French destroy that rightwing prick. Don't let me down guys.

 

[fortified_concept]

Does fortified_concept have some kind of deal with the moderators? I got banned once for a month for typing a fake letter to Treasure about Bangai-O 3 being an XBox 360 downloadable exclusive. It's 1 thing to be so intellectually scattershot, but he always calls right-wing people "retards" and "racists" and a host of other typically offensive things. I'm not asking for a ban, to clarify, I'm just in awe of his omnipotence. Is he some kind of a forum regular that gets ignored thanks to his familiar face?

Iirc backseat moderating is also a bannable offense. Also I'll call bullshit on your accusations. The only people I called retards are the teabaggers and rightfully so. I haven't resorted to namecalling with anyone in this thread.

 

[Reneledarker]

Question for France gaf, how much do you pay for your bureaucracy? here in Mexico we pay too much for the little they do, and when someone from the senate makes an initiative to lower their pay, all of them, even the opposite faction gang together to bring down such initiative, it's depressing, this year our president just created more high paying bureaucracy.

 

[Mistouze]

Question for France gaf, how much do you pay for your bureaucracy? here in Mexico we pay too much for the little they do, and when someone from the senate makes an initiative to lower their pay, all of them, even the opposite faction gang together to bring down such initiative, it's depressing, this year our president just created more high paying bureaucracy.

Wouldn't be able to give you a figure for this but their pay isn't much a subject of anger among people not working for the state. Their advantages sometimes (not being subject to being fired, early retirement and a lot of things) but not their salaries as those are generally inferior to what you would get in the private sector.

 

[NonexistentK]

Wouldn't be able to give you a figure for this but their pay isn't much a subject of anger among people not working for the state. Their advantages sometimes (not being subject to being fired, early retirement and a lot of things) but not their salaries as those are generally inferior to what you would get in the private sector.

Even for the mid-to high level bureaucracy?

 

[Technosteve]

Yo France Logan's Run that shit, and damn you got some fine looking womenz

 

[Liquid_Bike]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...k/Glenn-Beck-Social-Security-life-expectancy/

something to munch on, gentlemen.

What you are failing to take into account is how life expectancy is calculated. If you studied population trends most professors or academics would point to the flacies of the above. I would argue that Beck used these warped numbers to propagate his stance. Since I am lazy read this excert from wikipedia

"Interpretation of life expectancy

In countries with high infant mortality rates, the life expectancy at birth is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life. Because of this sensitivity to infant mortality, simple life expectancy at age zero can be subject to gross misinterpretation, leading one to believe that a population with a low overall life expectancy will necessarily have a small proportion of older people. For example, in a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five, but everybody else dies exactly at 70 years old, the life expectancy at age zero will be about 35 years, while about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70. Another measure such as life expectancy at age 5 (e5) can be used to exclude the effect of infant mortality to provide a simple measure of overall mortality rates other than in early childhood—in the hypothetical population above, life expectancy at age 5 would be 70 years. Aggregate population measures such as the proportion of the population in various age classes should also be used alongside individual-based measures like formal life expectancy when analyzing population structure and dynamics.

One example of this common misinterpretation can be seen in the In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was forever." This ignores the fact that life expectancy changes depending on age and the one often presented is the "at birth" number. For example, a Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas shows that at birth the life expectancy was 25 but if one lived to the age of 5 one's life expectancy jumped to 48. Similar papers such as Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 show dramatic increases in life expectancy after childhood."

Unless someone can prove me wrong I believe that those who made it to the age of say 16 would live significantly longer then 58/62 during the 1930s.

 

[SomeDude]

Anyone here that lives in France and has lived in the US, what are some of the pros and cons of both countries? what do you prefer about america over france, and vice versa.


thanks.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Iirc backseat moderating is also a bannable offense. Also I'll call bullshit on your accusations. The only people I called retards are the teabaggers and rightfully so. I haven't resorted to namecalling with anyone in this thread.

That's why I said that I didn't, and your inability to appreciate that's conspicuous. I DON'T WANT YOU BANNED, I say to the moderators. IT IS JUST PECULIAR THAT YOU ARE IMPOLITE CONSISTENTLY. USUALLY, NEOGAF IS NICE.

Edit: And all you had to do is write, "Yes, I've been here since 2004, so I generally do as I please." See? Simple.

 

[Pctx]

I have a flight going through Paris in less than 3 weeks.... you son's of bitches better figure something out real quick!

 

[Shanadeus]

name them. I only see 2 camps:

Camp A Says: "People's health and ability to work are seriously degraded by that age (65+) and raising the age of eligibility higher would be disastrous. Instead remove the cap on certain taxes...and increase other taxes as necessary to compensate for the projected shortfalls. Furthermore, if you fuck with us, Camp B, our union might will shut this mothafucka down."

Camp B Says: "Fuck you and your increased taxes, Camp A! If these people are living 20-30 years longer than when the system was envisioned and implemented, then we have to see a bump in the qualifying age. Unlike in the 30s, there are plenty of sedentary jobs out there that retiree-age people can handle. Jobs that don't require long hours of standing, for example. let's figure out how to get them ready for those jobs. It's immoral to ask their children to support their retirement years income for 20-30 years. It's immoral to raise their taxes sky high so that their parents can stop contributing. and it's immoral to suggest that someone older can't work and contribute to this society."

if there's a middle ground, I'd love to hear it.

In this very thread people have posted some pretty intriguing factors that haven't (as far as I know) been brought up in the debate. Things such as how people working longer might adversely affect younger people and leading to greater costs as well as civil unrest among the youth population.

Or how the productivity of a smaller population might still support a larger elderly population without the need of raised taxes as technology progresses and enables the same amount of people to achieve greater results as time goes on.

Someone mentioned that the older people still contribute to society but that their contributions simply aren't measured, and that one could perhaps implement programs which would take advantage of and measure the work they already do.

So no, I don't think it's a simple choice between raised taxes or raised retirement ages - and then we haven't even started discussing whether or not there are other cuts in spending the government can make before touching either taxes or retirement ages.

 

[Qwell]

Noone earns millions and especially billions of dollars. :lol The system is setup that way that makes it possible but that doesn't mean they earn it. Especially the fucking bankers who are so incompetent and greedy that don't deserve any of it. Not a single fucking cent.

I really shouldn't be jumping in here, but this always drives me nuts. Where do you think most companies started from? Take a look at a few, Microsoft, Dell, Amazon, Starbucks, McDonalds just to name a few. All of these companies started by a select handful of people with ambition and are now multi billion dollar companies. They are companies that employ tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people. They were huge gigantic leaps of faith that started extremely small and grew into what they are now. The government didn't create those jobs, and government does a horrible job at creating any jobs. Sure it can create a position but those jobs are not wealth creating positions, they are process positions.

Keep in mind that wealth is not a zero sum game, its not like there is 10 trillion dollars in the world and when someone gets rich someone else has to get poor. Wealth is grown, as the "richer get rich" the poor also get richer. Also keep in mind that all the talk about "tax and tarrif" the rich because they started this mess. Have you heard of the Laffer curve? Created by economist Art Laffer it is the rate of taxation which creates the most revenue. And it has been proven time and again as you increase tax rates it actually decreases overall revenue from taxes. It happens because as the rates increase more and more the "rich" find it necessary to change the way they earn and keep money. Moving it offshore, moving locations of businesses to more tax friendly areas. If you simply raise the rates to absurd levels they will find other areas in the world that won't do that. Right now there is a huge shift of wealthy moving from New York which has a very high tax rate to Florida which is much friendlier to business, Donald Trump just gave a speech about this. I see the same thing in my little area of the world in Beaverton, OR which is home for Nike and Intel. The city of Beaverton wanted to change the zoning for Nike to be incorporated by the city which would have increased its taxes and Nike said they would pull up stakes and move if that happened. You may consider it mean, but Nike also employs a lot of people directly and indirectly because of the boost to the local economy. If Nike moved who would come in to fill the void of all those lost jobs? Would the Oregon state government magically create the 9,000 jobs lost? And what about the indirect jobs created by all the Nike employees, the housing, the food, the service industry which would see a hit in the surrounding area?

 

[empty vessel]

Unless someone can prove me wrong I believe that those who made it to the age of say 16 would live significantly longer then 58/62 during the 1930s.

This is a good point. While I am sure that technology advances have allowed us to extend life on the back end when compared to the 1930s, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the growth in life expectancy statistics is on the front end, i.e., fewer people dying at a young age. I know I have recently done some family history research. Most of my ancestors lived into their 70s and 80s, and that is going back over a century.

 

[fortified_concept]

That's why I said that I didn't, and your inability to appreciate that's conspicuous. I DON'T WANT YOU BANNED, I say to the moderators. IT IS JUST PECULIAR THAT YOU ARE IMPOLITE CONSISTENTLY. USUALLY, NEOGAF IS NICE.

Edit: And all you had to do is write, "Yes, I've been here since 2004, so I generally do as I please." See? Simple.

You insult my intelligence and everyone's reading this thread. Your "question" about my supposed "omnipotence" was nothing but a horrible attempt to avoid being called out for backseat moderating.

Also, the moderators don't have a problem with people who mock groups based on their ideology, actions or behaviour. It happens all time with hipsters, Scientologists, religious nuts, unions, nationalists etc. etc.

 

[fortified_concept]

I really shouldn't be jumping in here, but this always drives me nuts. Where do you think most companies started from? Take a look at a few, Microsoft, Dell, Amazon, Starbucks, McDonalds just to name a few. All of these companies started by a select handful of people with ambition and are now multi billion dollar companies. They are companies that employ tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people. They were huge gigantic leaps of faith that started extremely small and grew into what they are now. The government didn't create those jobs, and government does a horrible job at creating any jobs. Sure it can create a position but those jobs are not wealth creating positions, they are process positions.

Keep in mind that wealth is not a zero sum game, its not like there is 10 trillion dollars in the world and when someone gets rich someone else has to get poor. Wealth is grown, as the "richer get rich" the poor also get richer. Also keep in mind that all the talk about "tax and tarrif" the rich because they started this mess. Have you heard of the Laffer curve? Created by economist Art Laffer it is the rate of taxation which creates the most revenue. And it has been proven time and again as you increase tax rates it actually decreases overall revenue from taxes. It happens because as the rates increase more and more the "rich" find it necessary to change the way they earn and keep money. Moving it offshore, moving locations of businesses to more tax friendly areas. If you simply raise the rates to absurd levels they will find other areas in the world that won't do that. Right now there is a huge shift of wealthy moving from New York which has a very high tax rate to Florida which is much friendlier to business, Donald Trump just gave a speech about this. I see the same thing in my little area of the world in Beaverton, OR which is home for Nike and Intel. The city of Beaverton wanted to change the zoning for Nike to be incorporated by the city which would have increased its taxes and Nike said they would pull up stakes and move if that happened. You may consider it mean, but Nike also employs a lot of people directly and indirectly because of the boost to the local economy. If Nike moved who would come in to fill the void of all those lost jobs? Would the Oregon state government magically create the 9,000 jobs lost? And what about the indirect jobs created by all the Nike employees, the housing, the food, the service industry which would see a hit in the surrounding area?

What you described sounds like Reaganomics to me and the threat that they'll leave sounds like blackmail. That's why the state can introduce tariffs which make it prohibitive for the corporation to leave otherwise they'll lose the market to cheaper products made inside the country. Governments should never bow to blackmail, they're the elected authority of the country and this is beneath them.

 

[empty vessel]

Keep in mind that wealth is not a zero sum game, its not like there is 10 trillion dollars in the world and when someone gets rich someone else has to get poor. Wealth is grown, as the "richer get rich" the poor also get richer.

This is quasi-true, but false in the important respects. At any given time, wealth is finite and its distribution can be identified. Wealth creation absolutely does have bounds. It is bounded by natural resources and it is bounded by our present technological capacity to extract and manipulate those resources. It is also socially bounded. For example, not anybody can be Bill Gates. Society's resources have to be expended and human capital developed. Bill Gates had to have access to computers growing up else he would have been in no position to create Microsoft.

While it is true that wealth is grown, this doesn't tell us much of anything. It is wealth's distribution that is important.

We can certainly make that pie bigger, but it still doesn't tell us anything about whether anybody actually has what they deserve, i.e., if their share of the pie is truly commensurate to their contribution to society. I believe the point being made to which you are responding is a rather simple one, and that is our economic system has dysfunctionally allocated to some individuals rewards that grossly exceed, by any objective measure, their individual contributions to their society. I think that is absolutely correct.

Also keep in mind that all the talk about "tax and tarrif" the rich because they started this mess. Have you heard of the Laffer curve? Created by economist Art Laffer it is the rate of taxation which creates the most revenue. And it has been proven time and again as you increase tax rates it actually decreases overall revenue from taxes. It happens because as the rates increase more and more the "rich" find it necessary to change the way they earn and keep money.

Not even Laffer himself would endorse this characterization of the curve. And while the Laffer curve has some relevance at the extremes, the US, at least, is nowhere close to approaching its relevance.

Moving it offshore, moving locations of businesses to more tax friendly areas. If you simply raise the rates to absurd levels they will find other areas in the world that won't do that.

What you are describing (which does occur) is just tax fraud. Moving one's wealth off-shore does not affect one's tax obligations to the US. The solution is a legal and enforcement one, but that requires having a government that is prepared to enforce the law against wealthy people. What you are describing is not an argument against raising taxes on wealthy people any more than saying that making murder illegal will just cause people to try to hide the bodies better is an argument against prohibiting murder.

Right now there is a huge shift of wealthy moving from New York which has a very high tax rate to Florida which is much friendlier to business, Donald Trump just gave a speech about this. I see the same thing in my little area of the world in Beaverton, OR which is home for Nike and Intel. The city of Beaverton wanted to change the zoning for Nike to be incorporated by the city which would have increased its taxes and Nike said they would pull up stakes and move if that happened. You may consider it mean, but Nike also employs a lot of people directly and indirectly because of the boost to the local economy. If Nike moved who would come in to fill the void of all those lost jobs? Would the Oregon state government magically create the 9,000 jobs lost? And what about the indirect jobs created by all the Nike employees, the housing, the food, the service industry which would see a hit in the surrounding area?

This is the disadvantage of the lack of uniformity in taxation. It, however, is not a reason not to tax. Having the luxury to choose jurisdictions is a loophole that is exploited, not a reason to avoid taxation. The solution is to make things uniform so that businesses and investors may not leverage one jurisdiction against another to gain an individual benefit to themselves.

And you should really find somebody other than Donald Trump to listen to for business advice.

 

[NotWii]

Gotta love the status quo defenders making excuses for the system, and saying the problem is the people :lol

 

[Zzoram]

Businesses use their jobs to blackmail states for tax breaks. They keep shifting jobs between states for better and better tax breaks. Those states claim they created new jobs, but in reality it's the same number of jobs just moving around and paying less and less tax every few years.

It's also a great way for businesses to let go their experienced higher paid staff. They offer them a job if they transfer or a package if they don't. Since the job moved and they didn't go with it, they're quitting not being fired.

 

[GhaleonQ]

You insult my intelligence and everyone's reading this thread. Your "question" about my supposed "omnipotence" was nothing but a horrible attempt to avoid being called out for backseat moderating.

No. I was wondering if you're like Drinky Crow (Kittowny? The one with "banned" as his tag) or Anihawk (whom I really like!). I know you're not portraying a character, but I was curious if you're "viewed" as a character. The bluster, self-seriousness, and self-identification with great causes for no apparent reason are memorable, so I asked if you're free to run around to make NeoGAF a more colorful place.

Also, "scare quotes." You're rhetorically ace, concept.

 

[avatar299]

The French get so much shit, but they are a fucking model for how to stand up and tell your government to eat a dick. They get right down to business by protesting and rioting over there and Americans need to take note: that's how you get shit done, not by complaining all the time but never taking the time to do anything about it.

Edit: Also...

WOULD to like...everyone in that picture except the dudes.

Wait, so the French are a model? They have accomplished Nothing but fuck up other peoples days.

On the other hand Americans have peaceful rallies and protest it seems almost every fucking week somewhere, and they are actually pushing people out of office. I guess they don't count because you don't like them

 

[Eteric Rice]

Wait, so the French are a model? They have accomplished Nothing but fuck up other peoples days.

On the other hand Americans have peaceful rallies and protest it seems almost every fucking week somewhere, and they are actually pushing people out of office. I guess they don't count because you don't like them

Aren't most of those peaceful rallies prompted by huge media corporations to help push their agendas?

 

[NotWii]

With an increasing life expectancy I think it silly that we expect people to live from 60 to possibly 90+ without contributing anything to society.

Have you met many 60 yr olds? They should not be left in charge of ANYTHING, let them enjoy their twilight years instead of making them slave away.

 

[Gallbaro]

And until they get the chance to vote them off they are using their right to demonstrate to show those pigs what the people want.

Who do they want to pay for early retirement.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Aren't most of those peaceful rallies prompted by huge media corporations to help push their agendas?

Yes.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Yes.

I'm glad I'm finally right about something.

On the other hand Americans have peaceful rallies and protest it seems almost every fucking week somewhere, and they are actually pushing people out of office. I guess they don't count because you don't like them

This would be fine and dandy if it weren't for what I said before.