Pollux
Member
Gotta believe in worker's democracy to be a socialist. But you might be a pretty hard social democrat!
Looking into it, it appears that I am the latter. Thanks!
Gotta believe in worker's democracy to be a socialist. But you might be a pretty hard social democrat!
I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed. So it is with every new thing. Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready and then it is inevitable. To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense.
-Henry Ford
To me the tax rate stinks of protecting the old money blue bloods. If you already made your millions you are fine, if you a young entrepreneur looking to start the next flavor of the moment billion dollar iCompany, it would be wise to consider leaving for elsewhere. And correct me if I am wrong, isn't it extremely easy to move to another country with an EU passport?
So basically let's keep this unjust social construct alive for the sake of the next Zuckerberg.
What fuels economic growth? Old money blue bloods or ambitious young tech giants?
Most French citizens like their economic security and shared prosperity. So it may seem odd that someone with Sarkozy's programme could have been elected in the first place, and have a chance to win re-election. But this is largely due to popular misunderstanding of the most important economic issues, aided and abetted by flawed media coverage. As in 2007, the conventional wisdom is that France is living beyond its means, and Sarkozy now warns that France could be the next Greece and face economic meltdown if he is not re-elected. He pledges to balance France's national budget by 2016.
Unfortunately his Socialist party rival, Francois Hollande, pledges to balance the budget by 2017. Of course there are some important differences between the two, but if either candidate were to implement a fiscal austerity programme of this magnitude while the French and European economies are this weak, it is almost certain that unemployment and other economic and social problems will worsen. And France will lose some its important economic and social achievements.
Fortunately France has a more progressive alternative: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, backed by the Left Front. He seems to be the only one in the race that understands the real economic choices faced by France and the eurozone. France does not need austerity – that would be its best chance of actually ending up like Greece. Mélenchon proposes instead that the European Central Bank do its job and make loans to France and other European governments at 1%, as it does for the banks. France's interest burden on its debt is already quite reasonable, at about 2.4% of GDP; so if it can keep borrowing costs low it can grow its way out of its current problems, creating employment and increasing incomes in the process. That is sensible macroeconomic policy.
Lol so no new middle size businesses will ever be created again in France.
I like his views! I really want to see if he won and seriously did that.
I mean I don't understand the point of accumulating vast amounts of money, what for? If you have so much money that you can influence the government then fuck you. People out there are starving or can't find jobs while so many are hoarding wealth that can be used for social programs to help people get back on their feet or to fund better education.
Lol so no new middle size businesses will ever be created again in France.
Good article.
You know there's been a corporate capture of government when even the socialist candidate is pushing austerity during a recession.
You really think people will choose to not follow their dreams because they may eventually become rich and end up with a 300k salary cap?
No they'll stop have dedication to expand. I know people that make 300k a year with two successful stores. He is already thinking about expanding in two more state. Mainly to make more money. Why would he take the risk when there is no gain?
Many small businesses will stay small businesses because there's no gain and all risk ti expand if 300k is the max you can make.
If you made 300k a year, they would take everything after the 300k.
Oh ok that makes much more sense... I thought it was more along the lines of 'If you make 400k, we take all 400k.'
Which would not make sense.
Not sure how much I like this idea though. The thought of there being a cap on the earnings someone can make... besides, companies would simply stop paying people so high wages, to avoid the tax.
No they'll stop have dedication to expand. I know people that make 300k a year with two successful stores. He is already thinking about expanding in two more state. Mainly to make more money. Why would he take the risk when there is no gain?
Many small businesses will stay small businesses because there's no gain and all risk ti expand if 300k is the max you can make.
Why? Because a CEO will put more money back in the company rather than give himself a bigger salary?
A 100% tax on income pass $300,000 would only mean that you wouldn't have a higher salary. It would also lead to downward pressure on executives of public companies who would try to vote themselves a car, a house, or anything like that if the law didn't cover this already, as it would be pretty difficult to tell shareholders to vote in favor of the CEO taking money from the company to buy himself a new house.
Someone else would open the business. If there is high potential profit from opening a restaurant in a certain place, someone will do it. If your buddy's idea is actually good, someone will do it anyway. If it's not good, he would end up bankrupted or whatever, which is not good.
Free market corrects itself! Remember?
This is innovation. If the same person is opening the same stores everywhere, or the same kind of store, there are diminished returns.
Watch all four videos of this documentary called "Everything is a remix" and you'll understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrjsHSbHkY&feature=related
You are better off having people copying each others, than having the same person copying himself, as this leads to innovation.
And capped salaries would probably make every one of us attempt to make $300,000 a year, so there would be far more economical innovation. It becomes an obviously attainable limit, unlike becoming the next Zuckerberg.
This would lead to increased innovation, which would surpass the level of innovation you have in the current patented-corporatist-imperialistic-monarchic system.
Someone else would open the business. If there is high potential profit from opening a restaurant in a certain place, someone will do it. If your buddy's idea is actually good, someone will do it anyway. If it's not good, he would end up bankrupted or whatever, which is not good.
Free market corrects itself! Remember?
This is innovation. If the same person is opening the same stores everywhere, or the same kind of store, there are diminished returns.
Watch all four videos of this documentary called "Everything is a remix" and you'll understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrjsHSbHkY&feature=related
You are better off having people copying each others, than having the same person copying himself, as this leads to innovation.
And capped salaries would probably make every one of us attempt to make $300,000 a year, so there would be far more economical innovation. It becomes an obviously attainable limit, unlike becoming the next Zuckerberg.
This would lead to increased innovation, which would surpass the level of innovation you have in the current patented-corporatist-imperialistic-monarchic system.
So you want everything to be mom and pop stores and you really think that will bring innovation?
Do you really think mom and pop stores can create products like Intel, IBM, Apple, ect.
Do you even understand the scales of those projects could take?
We're talking about people losing 100s of millions because of a failed innovation.
You really thing small business that gets capped at 300K can when try something like that?
So you want everything to be mom and pop stores and you really think that will bring innovation?
Do you really think mom and pop stores can create products like Intel, IBM, Apple, ect.
Do you even understand the scales of those projects could take?
None of that is possible as a result of salaries being uncapped, at all. Go watch the documentary "Everything is a remix" I posted above.
Innovation is evolution, and evolution is a copy modified. Anyone in a position to do something better than someone else will do it. It's not like just because the CEO's salary is capped that every one else is permanently employed. I'm employed to design a better phone than the competition, why would I not do it? That's what I am paid for, and I believe I can do it, so I do it. If I don't, someone else will and take my job. If I do my job, I have job security.
It's not difficult to imagine the government lifting the salary cap based on produced employment too. Create jobs, we don't tax you as much.
Aside from government having a poor record at managing the complexities of the full economy.
Entrepreneurship is naturally a gamble, over 80% of startups fail. Why then would a rational individual forgo working at a stable firm and create innovative startups? Because the returns are unbounded. All risks need to be requisitely rewarded or else there is no incentive.
Someone else would open the business. If there is high potential profit from opening a restaurant in a certain place, someone will do it. If your buddy's idea is actually good, someone will do it anyway. If it's not good, he would end up bankrupted or whatever, which is not good.
Free market corrects itself! Remember?
This is innovation. If the same person is opening the same stores everywhere, or the same kind of store, there are diminished returns.
Watch all four videos of this documentary called "Everything is a remix" and you'll understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrjsHSbHkY&feature=related
You are better off having people copying each others, than having the same person copying himself, as this leads to innovation.
And capped salaries would probably make every one of us attempt to make $300,000 a year, so there would be far more economical innovation. It becomes an obviously attainable limit, unlike becoming the next Zuckerberg.
This would lead to increased innovation, which would surpass the level of innovation you have in the current patented-corporatist-imperialistic-monarchic system.
I refuse to believe that somebody that types as much as you do is unable to comprehend basic stuff, so I'm convinced at this point your whole account is a ruse.
The free market only corrects itself, if you have a free market.
I like this, but good luck closing the loopholes.
80% of startups fail. Have you seen the people who start most of those companies? Have you talked with them? Have you worked for them?
80% of startups fail because they never should have started to begin with, because the people who started those businesses have no idea what the fuck they are doing. The girl who opens her organic food store doesn't realize she's in a terrible location, she doesn't realize that from outside it always looks like the store is closed, she doesn't realize that the interior lighting is reminiscent of a morgue and makes her products look as tasteful as the content of basement fridge in a dodgy Chinese restaurant. The Italian couple who run a print shop don't realize that constantly yelling at each other in front of the clients makes said clients uncomfortable.
I live close to a street littered with never-open shops, pawn shop next to pawn shop, 99c pizza slices stores that feed more bugs and rats than customers, and of course the useless why-the-fuck-would-you-go-there garage and the they-probably-launder-money Pho restaurant that is always closed. Those stores are cancer, they perpetuate a cycle of never-ending startups-faildowns that in reality DO NOT help the economy, all they help is allow people to wake up too early to work too many hours for too little money, providing absolutely NOTHING that society actually needs. If their stores were not occupying that place, a landlord would be renting an apartment there and house prices and rent would be lower than it is now (supply VS demand!), or someone who actually knows what the fuck they are doing would have analyzed the location and figured what to make out of it, rather than figure what to do and build that in the first available spot, devoid of an actual market, only to go bankrupt.
It's not difficult to start with a salary cap and open the system according to society's needs, rather than leave it open and say fuck it and look at society's foundations erode due to an excessive accumulation of wealth.
So do regulations make the market not free? Is the market not free enough? Should banks be regulated, or do regulations make the free market not free and unable to correct itself?
Macro economics should be a mandatory high school subject. The responses in this thread prove that.
If you cap people above $360k, guess what they're going to do when they hit that amount? They're going to go on fucking vacation for the rest of the year. Wtf, GAF... Seriously. This isn't Communism. Such a tax structure would ruin France's economy within a year.
Absolutely disgraceful. Salary jealousy is one of the worst plagues of this millenium. You people hate on super rich CEOs like Zuckerberg... Why? How many jobs have YOU created in your entire life? I think Facebook is a piece of shit timesink, but at the same time 3,000 people have a steady job and a good life because of Zuckerberg. Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google created 30 THOUSAND jobs. eBay employs 27,000 people. Amazon 56,000.
All these jobs created because of a profitable organization run efficiently by a select few at the top. Take away their honestly-earned compensation and see what happens to the future of the U.S. economy.
The one saving grace is that people who hate the rich often have very little business sense. Guess who's going to be the next generation of CEOs? Business-savvy people. Your children's economy is safe (for now). You're welcome.
No they'll stop have dedication to expand. I know people that make 300k a year with two successful stores. He is already thinking about expanding in two more state. Mainly to make more money. Why would he take the risk when there is no gain?
Many small businesses will stay small businesses because there's no gain and all risk ti expand if 300k is the max you can make.
80% of startups fail. Have you seen the people who start most of those companies? Have you talked with them? Have you worked for them?
80% of startups fail because they never should have started to begin with, because the people who started those businesses have no idea what the fuck they are doing. The girl who opens her organic food store doesn't realize she's in a terrible location, she doesn't realize that from outside it always looks like the store is closed, she doesn't realize that the interior lighting is reminiscent of a morgue and makes her products look as tasteful as the content of basement fridge in a dodgy Chinese restaurant. The Italian couple who run a print shop don't realize that constantly yelling at each other in front of the clients makes said clients uncomfortable.
I live close to a street littered with never-open shops, pawn shop next to pawn shop, 99c pizza slices stores that feed more bugs and rats than customers, and of course the useless why-the-fuck-would-you-go-there garage and the they-probably-launder-money Pho restaurant that is always closed. Those stores are cancer, they perpetuate a cycle of never-ending startups-faildowns that in reality DO NOT help the economy, all they help is allow people to wake up too early to work too many hours for too little money, providing absolutely NOTHING that society actually needs. If their stores were not occupying that place, a landlord would be renting an apartment there and house prices and rent would be lower than it is now (supply VS demand!), or someone who actually knows what the fuck they are doing would have analyzed the location and figured what to make out of it, rather than figure what to do and build that in the first available spot, devoid of an actual market, only to go bankrupt.
It's not difficult to start with a salary cap and open the system according to society's needs, rather than leave it open and say fuck it and look at society's foundations erode due to an excessive accumulation of wealth.
Luck?! I thought the free market was a meritocracy where the hardest working and smartest people are compensated based on their acomplishments!
If luck is a major factor in success, isn't that an argument for a more regulated system of minimum and maximum salaries?
I love how certain part of gaf suddenly think the government is some benevolent being incapable of corruption and greed.
This perfect entity able to give out fairly.
That everyone working their current jobs are because they love it not because they are doing it for the money.
That someone working their butt off is not going to resent some sitting on their butt while both received the same reward.
The craziest thing is many of these are atheist gaf too. That stuff sounds crazier than any religion I've heard of.
I love how certain part of gaf suddenly think the government is some benevolent being incapable of corruption and greed.
This perfect entity able to give out fairly.
That everyone working their current jobs are because they love it not because they are doing it for the money.
That someone working their butt off is not going to resent some sitting on their butt while both received the same reward.
Isn't the front-runner, Hollande, proposing a 75% tax on people making over a million euros? (can't remember the exact figure). I remember thinking it was crazy. Now it seems rather tame in comparison.