Support NeoGAF

[twobear]

But all of that is ancient history and we're really looking at a recent and modern phenomena of increasing income inequality. Indeed, this was after a three decade period of decreasing income inequality where in, at least, the US, income for the bottom 20% was rising at a faster rate than income for the top 1%.

Aye, but the neoliberal policies that precipitated the growing inequality in the anglophone world were still very heavily based on the classical liberal tradition, no?

 

[empty vessel]

Aye, but the neoliberal policies that precipitated the growing inequality in the anglophone world were still very heavily based on the classical liberal tradition, no?

I'm not entirely dismissing that influence. I just think that, since we know it hasn't always been thus, it can't be the primary cause.

 

[el retorno]

http://politics2012.blogs.france24.com/article/2012/04/12/melenchon-targets-anglo-saxon-world-0

I love his quip about English being the language of the occupier considering French's history with the english language. This kind of stuff is the same old stuff about french being pissed that they aren't the language of the world and that Paris isn't the worlds capital anymore.

No, forget the iPad. When cancer is cured we will gain 'quite a bit' of what...?

Seriously!? Your an asshole.

Id say that it's more so the fact that the policies stem from more authoritarian principles as opposed to the wants of the people. Hard left countries that have enacted more leftist policies have been ruled by dictators or otherwise more authoritarian people.

Places in Europe like Sweden have enacted more leftist policies by vote and they seem to be doing fairly well last time I checked.

Sweden and other Scandanvian countries have not adopted policies like this. They are capitalist through and through. They just regulate more which isn't the same has what this guy is talking about.

It doesn't help that "socialist" countries often get their shit kicked in when it comes to trade and America still won't be open with Cuba. America or whatever capitalist nation is dominant will try to wheedle out what they see as 'competition'.

Why should this effect be discounted? Some countries don't vote for leftist policies isn't it their right to not trade with people they disagree with? Thats some of the effects of socialist policies people with capital don't want to invest it there. You can discount that and just say "they never gave us a chance".

 

[Angry Fork]

Why should this effect be discounted? Some countries don't vote for leftist policies isn't it their right to not trade with people they disagree with? Thats some of the effects of socialist policies people with capital don't want to invest it there. You can discount that and just say "they never gave us a chance".

If the government doesn't want to trade with people it doesn't like fine but don't bar people from doing it. And the reasons America gives are lies/hypocrisy of the highest degree. You can't possibly think America's policy towards Cuba is okay or makes sense.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Id say that it's more so the fact that the policies stem from more authoritarian principles as opposed to the wants of the people. Hard left countries that have enacted more leftist policies have been ruled by dictators or otherwise more authoritarian people.

Places in Europe like Sweden have enacted more leftist policies by vote and they seem to be doing fairly well last time I checked.

While Sweden is MUCH further left than say America, i still wouldn't classify it as a hard left country. In other words I don't see many policies it has that would make hard leftists, socialists fap in their pants.

 

[empty vessel]

Sweden and other Scandanvian countries have not adopted policies like this. They are capitalist through and through. They just regulate more which isn't the same has what this guy is talking about.

Even the US has "adopted policies like this." Highest marginal tax rates were at one point 90%. I suspect that was over a larger amount of income, and it was never 100%, but these are really differences in degree rather than kind.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Sure, but what we are discussing is which "certain people deserve to make more, much more, because the decisions they make affect 1000's of people."

I suggested cancer research scientists ought to be included in that group. Kosmo intended this to justify exorbitant pay for business professionals, as if they provide society's most critical work. The point being, there isn't really any connection at all between socially valuable and important work and pay for that work.

There isn't a connection; capitalism is not about appropriating salary based upon value. Nor is that the intended outcome. They only "deserve" it in the sense that they established a company in an economic system that allows for that kind of thing. The defense of capitalism as some sort of judge that weighs each individual's worth to society is a complete fiction. It should be defended because many aspects of it work. For example, if a society, in which a CEO of a tech company makes billions of dollars, can foster the kind of technological environment and economic scenario where cancer research is viable, even if those researchers make much less, them I am still in favor of it (of course, in reality public money is an integral aspect of most research and development).

I am not going to discount, though, that high inequality is indeed bad for a society, even if that society is otherwise prosperous.

EDIT: In response to some of the above conversation, Scandinavian countries still have some of the freest markets in the world.

 

[empty vessel]

There isn't a connection; capitalism is not about appropriating salary based upon value. Nor is that the intended outcome. They only "deserve" it in the sense that they established a company in an economic system that allows for that kind of thing. The defense of capitalism as some sort of judge that weighs each individual's worth to society is a complete fiction.

Right. That's the point. But it is Kosmo who is trying to justify pay in our current system in those terms.

It should be defended because many aspects of it work. For example, if a society, in which a CEO of a tech company makes billions of dollars, can foster the kind of technological environment and economic scenario where cancer research is viable, even if those researchers make much less, them I am still in favor of it (of course, in reality public money is an integral aspect of most research and development).

I'm sure we'll disagree about the extent to which it "works." I mean, clearly, capitalism accomplishes certain things. Whether the things it accomplishes is on balance good or bad for a society is a different question. Also a different question is whether a different system, which also accomplishes certain things, might be better for a society on balance than capitalism.

 

[Guileless]

Is there a real (or perceived) income equality issue in France?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

This is actually the very crux of the current crisis. All the governments gave up sovereignty over their currency, but there is no political unification. It would be fine to give up sovereignty over currency if there were something serving that purpose for a united political whole. This is essentially what the United States is (although it also did not go quite far enough, but it went a lot further than Europe). Europe is not politically unified, and giving up currency sovereignty under those conditions is like going on the gold standard. It's utterly foolhardy. Those countries that stuck with their own currencies absolutely did the right thing.

To me its inevitable that we will eventually have a United States of Europe. The Euro Crisis proves it.

The thing that makes me pissed is that you know they are going to chose to continue on with the Euro's success instead of the success of the social welfare that is so poplar in parts of Europe. Social welfare will be seen as the problem when in reality it was nations getting too hopped up on the economic increase from the Euro.

 

[twobear]

I'm not entirely dismissing that influence. I just think that, since we know it hasn't always been thus, it can't be the primary cause.

But you said 'over the last three decades', which is about the time that the Anglophone world unilaterally adopted neoliberalism.

 

[Neo C.]

I like the idea, it's a good way to make the money flow differently. I don't understand why people always worry so much for the rich, they don't need your defense! There are enough ways to avoid this tax and still make more than 300k. If anything, this tax gives the companies more strength, and these companies won't have trouble to find excellent managers if they can give them top services and priviledges. It's a tax that wouldn't result into more money for the government but better circulation of the investments.

And you people should not use Switzerland as an example for fleeing rich guys. The country might be an alternative in short term, but the rich foreigners in Switzerland are under pressure as well. Our house prices are rising like never before, and the immigration (of the rich) is one of the causes. Thanks to direct democracy, the Swiss are now very eager for higher taxes for rich foreigners.

Which means: If the French establish higher taxes, the Swiss will vote for higher or more taxes as well.

 

[RDreamer]

One concern I would have is that this wouldn't actually result in much more revenue. In fact, couldn't it result in much less? The thing is by having the tax at 100% past a certain amount, then companies will likely just pay that amount and not a penny more. By creating a hard line in the sand, no company in their right mind would pay more than that. I don't see any benefit to it at all, since it'd be like paying the government directly. If the tax were 80% or 90%, though, companies might still raise salaries higher in order to compete for top talent, which would result in more revenue for the government.

 

[Ganhyun]

I honestly don't understand why it is so wrong for someone who thinks up an idea, takes the time, effort, and risk to start up a company, does well, makes his/her money back and lots more, and continues to expand his/her company until it becomes a large, powerful company to do so. When did raising your family's social class up (long considered an American Dream) become a bad thing? It's not the company owner's fault that he/she took the time, effort, and risk and succeeded where someone else didn't.

Edit:

As anecdotal evidence, many Liberals are beginning to teach that having alot of money is bad. My girlfriend has a professor, an English professor, from India. The guy admits he came to America to make more money teaching than he would in India. Yet he teaches in his class that going to school to learn how to make more money, or making money, or even being able to pay for college out of pocket, is a horrible thing and anyone who does so is a terrible, horrible, cruel person who cares nothing for anyone else but themselves. (Yes, the teacher literally said this) This guy literally says that you are a better person living off government assistance/welfare, than if you work hard to provide for yourself/your family.

 

[Deified Data]

Does anyone know of any nations who currently hold a policy of charging an "exit fee" for tax exiles as Melenchon suggests?

 

[twobear]

I honestly don't understand why it is so wrong for someone who thinks up an idea, takes the time, effort, and risk to start up a company, does well, makes his/her money back and lots more, and continues to expand his/her company until it becomes a large, powerful company to do so. When did raising your family's social class up (long considered an American Dream) become a bad thing? It's not the company owner's fault that he/she took the time, effort, and risk and succeeded where someone else didn't.

Edit:

As anecdotal evidence, many Liberals are beginning to teach that having alot of money is bad. My girlfriend has a professor, an English professor, from India. The guy admits he came to America to make more money teaching than he would in India. Yet he teaches in his class that going to school to learn how to make more money, or making money, or even being able to pay for college out of pocket, is a horrible thing and anyone who does so is a terrible, horrible, cruel person who cares nothing for anyone else but themselves. (Yes, the teacher literally said this) This guy literally says that you are a better person living off government assistance/welfare, than if you work hard to provide for yourself/your family.

Actually, 'the American dream' (lets call it social mobility, since 'the American dream' is a patronising and misleading name) is more attainable in European states, with higher rates of tax, than it is in America. Increased income equality promotes social mobility. This can't be stressed enough. The smaller the relative gap between rich and poor in a country, the more able people are to move up the social hierarchy.

 

[WARCOCK]

I honestly don't understand why it is so wrong for someone who thinks up an idea, takes the time, effort, and risk to start up a company, does well, makes his/her money back and lots more, and continues to expand his/her company until it becomes a large, powerful company to do so. When did raising your family's social class up (long considered an American Dream) become a bad thing? It's not the company owner's fault that he/she took the time, effort, and risk and succeeded where someone else didn't.

Edit:

As anecdotal evidence, many Liberals are beginning to teach that having alot of money is bad. My girlfriend has a professor, an English professor, from India. The guy admits he came to America to make more money teaching than he would in India. Yet he teaches in his class that going to school to learn how to make more money, or making money, or even being able to pay for college out of pocket, is a horrible thing and anyone who does so is a terrible, horrible, cruel person who cares nothing for anyone else but themselves. (Yes, the teacher literally said this) This guy literally says that you are a better person living off government assistance/welfare, than if you work hard to provide for yourself/your family.

I'm just giving my personal perspective, this is by no means something i would expect other people to follow or abide to. But i don't really seek wealth at all. I find material wealth to be an abstraction that has no real essence. I find that knowledge/intellect and cooperative/harmonious relations with others to hold true value. On the level of the individual, really outside of creating enterprises, i don't see what uses wealth has other than instilling a comparative system of value between each other. It's a great organizational tool that's useful in a greater societal sense which leads to progress in multiple directions and separation of tasks. But i'm talking on the level of selfish individual aspirations? So is our great defining motive to just one up each other? I don't care for that idea. I'm stuck pursuing and following it by necessity, but it makes me a sad panda all day, everyday.

 

[empty vessel]

Does anyone know of any nations who currently hold a policy of charging an "exit fee" for tax exiles as Melenchon suggests?

The US already does this. It taxes all citizens regardless of where they live. France would just be doing that, no?

I'm just giving my personal perspective, this is by no means something i would expect other people to follow or abide to. But i don't really seek wealth at all. I find material wealth to be an abstraction that has no real essence. I find that knowledge/intellect and cooperative/harmonious relations with others to hold true value. On the level of the individual, really outside of creating enterprises, i don't see what uses wealth has other than instilling a comparative system of value between each other. It's a great organizational tool that's useful in a greater societal sense which leads progress in multiple directions and separation of tasks. But i'm talking on the level of selfish individual aspirations? So is our great defining motive to just one up each other? I don't care for that idea. I'm stuck pursuing and following it by necessity, but it makes me a sad panda all day, everyday.

This is a legitimate critique of capitalism. Marx believed that communism would effectively liberate people to follow their passions, their art, whatever that might be, instead of being coerced into selling their labor doing crap they don't enjoy just in order to subsist.

 

[Deified Data]

The US already does this. It taxes all citizens regardless of where they live. France would just be doing that, no?

US nationals living abroad, sure. Does the US do the same to expats? Honestly I'm not even sure how to phrase this question to look it up on my own.

 

[empty vessel]

US nationals living abroad, sure. Does the US do the same to expats? Honestly I'm not even sure how to phrase this question to look it up on my own.

Yeah, I think there's some jargon issues here. Expats are US nationals living abroad. No, the US cannot tax somebody that it deems or recognizes to have renounced citizenship, but that is very rare. I imagine there aren't many French people prepared to give up French citizenship, either.

 

[Deified Data]

Yeah, I think there's some jargon issues here. Expats are US nationals living abroad. No, the US cannot tax somebody that it deems or recognizes to have renounced citizenship, but that is very rare. I imagine there aren't many French people prepared to give up French citizenship, either.

Ah. I saw this in the interview and was curious to know how it would manifest. As for how much Melenchon proposes to tax those willing to renounce their citizenship, that's a question only he could answer. Worst case scenario, it almost sounds like a means of entrapment, but that's semantics.

 

[Neo C.]

One concern I would have is that this wouldn't actually result in much more revenue. In fact, couldn't it result in much less? The thing is by having the tax at 100% past a certain amount, then companies will likely just pay that amount and not a penny more. By creating a hard line in the sand, no company in their right mind would pay more than that. I don't see any benefit to it at all, since it'd be like paying the government directly. If the tax were 80% or 90%, though, companies might still raise salaries higher in order to compete for top talent, which would result in more revenue for the government.

That's... the whole point. It's a limit for the top dogs, and companies would compete differently for the top talent, not just by giving the highest salary. Ideally, the tax would also strengthen the mid level management or other parts of your company, the R&D guys for example.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

And you people should not use Switzerland as an example for fleeing rich guys. The country might be an alternative in short term, but the rich foreigners in Switzerland are under pressure as well. Our house prices are rising like never before, and the immigration (of the rich) is one of the causes. Thanks to direct democracy, the Swiss are now very eager for higher taxes for rich foreigners.

Which means: If the French establish higher taxes, the Swiss will vote for higher or more taxes as well.

I thought direct democracy was supposedly a horrible terrible idea that when implemented never ever works well for the public?

 

[keuja]

I thought direct democracy was supposedly a horrible terrible idea that when implemented never ever works well for the public?

Who’s saying that direct democracy is bad? (serious question)

 

[RDreamer]

That's... the whole point. It's a limit for the top dogs, and companies would compete differently for the top talent, not just by giving the highest salary. Ideally, the tax would also strengthen the mid level management or other parts of your company, the R&D guys for example.

Rereading the OP, I suppose that actually is most of the point. I guess I just got lost a bit with the commotion that this was thievery and all that sort of stuff, and thought of it as a way to collect tax revenue and redistribute wealth. What's kind of interesting when I look at it again, then, is that, theoretically, you'd force more monetary redistribution by putting a soft cap of, say, 90%. That's because companies will almost always compete at least a little in salaries, even if most of that is being taken away. By putting a hard cap on things the wage will stop there and you collect nothing above that. It's then up to the companies to do what they see fit with that money.

Personally, though, I'm still more in favor of the 80-90% top tax rate.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Who’s saying that direct democracy is bad? (serious question)

If you mention direct democracy (even if its just about adding elements of direct democracy) to quite literally anybody who doesn't live in Switzerland (especially if they are American) its always:

"LOL Direct Democracy! Mass mob! Abortion will be banned! People are stupid! Society will collapse! 5% tax rate on the middle class! Interracial marriage will be illegal! Gays will never have any rights! Media will convince them to turn the country into Nazi Germany! Even small amounts of Direct Democracy is bad! What about CALIFORNIA???!!!"

 

[Guileless]

Aye, but the neoliberal policies that precipitated the growing inequality in the anglophone world were still very heavily based on the classical liberal tradition, no?

Charles Murray's new book attributes today's accelerating inequality in the US to the dislocations of the 1960s. Im not sure if the other anglophone countries experienced similar dislocations or not.