• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon wants 100% tax on top salaries

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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
 

gabbo

Member
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

So I take it you're for this kind of tax plan?
Man, what I wouldn't give for the NDP to go that far with their platforms here in Canada, truly embrace their socialist past. He might be a bit heavy on rhetoric, but damn do I want to see him win/a left coalition come out that campaign.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I'm for it, but I prefer for it to happen in France first. France is pretty much the only major Western country that can bring about social changes that will be imitated by others. Canadians are too dumb to understand and support the same principles, we're always waiting after the US or the UK to go in any direction.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
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?
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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, screw everyone else, Facebook drives the economy!
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
What fuels economic growth? Old money blue bloods or ambitious young tech giants?

Certainly not young tech giants. What fuels the economy is people having jobs, not the salary of a CEO.
 
The thread title seems a bit misleading as the French candidate is not suggesting a 100% on all income, but all income over 300,000 in Euros. This essentially would establish the idea of a maximum salary, correct?
 

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Sweet. I say keep going left until you figure out how to make it work.
 

Good article.

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.

You know there's been a corporate capture of government when even the socialist candidate is pushing austerity during a recession.

Lol so no new middle size businesses will ever be created again in France.

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?
 

prwxv3

Member
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.

Well most businesses are created for the sole purpose of becoming filthy rich.
I want to be a millionaire someday too
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Lol so no new middle size businesses will ever be created again in France.

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.
 

ccbfan

Member
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.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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.

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.
 

Tuck

Member
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.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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.

That's the whole point.
 

sphagnum

Banned
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 would a socialist candidate care about the growth of a private business?
 

Black-Box

Member
I think this is a good thing, could save everyone a ton of money

if this happened in Canada, I am sure the Leafs would make it to the playoffs at least once
 

ccbfan

Member
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.

Wow.

300K is nothing, a bunch of people make 300K+. Most of these are not CEO of large corporations.

Many of these are lawyers, doctors and low level execs.

Most are small business and medium size business owners. People expand to make more money. They don't take risk with no gain. I don't think many of your understand how much income one successful business can bring in and how much actual income earners (AKA not capital gain earners) get taxed when you can't reach that crazy loop hole stage. (Which is way more than 300K)


You need to raise the salary to 3 Million to get the the CEO of large companies. And also make increase capital gains tax over so and so around to really fight the wealthy.

All a tax on all income over 300K is stunt your own growth.
 
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.

It's funny that free market proponents ignore their own ideology during discussions like these.
 

ccbfan

Member
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 company losing 100s of millions because of a failed innovation or spending 100 millions for a sucessful one.

You really thing small business that gets capped at 300K can try something like that?
 

bwtw

Neo Member
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?

Further, why would someone take on a high risk-high reward project if the reward is capped? If I have to invest millions in a project say, with only a small probability of success (but large upside) why would I bother? Are we assuming here that products from companies like Google (in the tech arena, for example) would exist if one could only earn 300k? Even tho investment costs would be multitudes higher?
 

jchap

Member
Cool. Make the people who already have wealth even more powerful since no one else will have the means to attain it.
 

Acheron

Banned
So everyone relocates businesses and high-wage jobs to Switzerland, Belgium, Germany or the UK? It's a global economy folks not the 1930s. Money, businesses and jobs are no longer as sticky and they are free to move to fairer jurisdictions much as voters are free to punish the successful.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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.
 

Acheron

Banned
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.
 

Biff

Member
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.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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.

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.
 
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.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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.

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?
 

ccbfan

Member
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.


You have to be a joke account. No one can be so stupid.

You must be a libertarian making fun of the typical neogaf college/high school student took one intro to sociology and think they understand all of society.

Heck I'm not even sure what are you trying to say in this current post.

Only certain people are allowed to start business? Like who decides that the government? Ether_Snake? All failed businesses are because those people are failures not because there's a lot of luck involved in it? All skill?

Seriously. WTF are you trying to say.
 

ccbfan

Member
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?

Very few people are arguing for a completely free market. They just arguing against stupid ass regulations that makes no sense.

Take this example.

A bed curfew for a 10 year old kid at 9 pm. Good Idea.

A bed curfew for a 10 year old kid at 3 pm. Bad Idea.
 

Angry Fork

Member
I love this guy, wish we could have a candidate like this in the states.

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.

I'm in favor of a society where everyone being an equal class is more humanitarian and just. I'd rather everyone make 30k a year and the rest of the money that people don't see be funneled into national programs like healthcare, shelter, food for all etc. things like that then you wouldn't need the extra money to survive and the 30k would be all yours to spend as you wish. I don't like the idea of someone being able to make as much as he wants just because he employes a lot of people.

The government can do that job and save a lot of money for everyone to reap the benefits instead of just the people who work for the companies and the CEO's. And people will not avoid those jobs because it's something they love doing. Even if the max you could make is something like 50k per year it wouldn't be the same 50k as it is now. It would be like 200k is now when converted to a system where everyone already has an actual base standard of living rather than people in incredible poverty balancing out the incredibly rich.

And people who are programmers, artists, web designers etc. would still do those jobs because they love doing them and are interested in them. I basically want to take out the mentality of selling yourself and your labour for money when you can work on what you love and money will become just a necessary bi-product. As far as garbage men go or menial labour nobody wants to do I would invest in high end technology and robotics to do that job and if possible offer incentives for people who don't mind doing it and don't feel like doing anything else.

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.

They can sleep well at night knowing whatever extra they make will be used to give free health and utilities to everyone in the country. Their extra profit would be used to raise everyone's standard of living so the concept of a poor homeless person or someone living month to month barely surviving would be gone.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
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?
 

ccbfan

Member
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.
 

Acheron

Banned
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.

Literally all of the examples you gave are in the retail sector. Which isn't the complete point. I once looked at a Canadian retail company that focused on picking up excess cargo at rock bottom prices and retailing it beneath Wal-Mart's prices. It's an attractive model but certain unpredictable facts abound. What if Wal-Mart begins locking down these trade auctions? What if the economy improves rapidly encouraging premium rather than discount spending? What if I can't get sufficient bank loans early on to accrue necessary inventory?

It's a successful business now and employs hundreds but the founders all from existing retail companies would have never left their jobs and risked everything if there wasn't a substantially higher reward than another $50k-$100k.

That doesn't even scratch the surface in much harder industries. Junior mining? Biotech? Software? All of these are very capital intensive and investors and founders need to be compensated for their substantial risk if things go South. Do you think Sequoia would have given YouTube or LinkedIn the money necessary to grow if they couldn't realize a substantial return on money they were likely to lose?
 

Acheron

Banned
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?

Don't be dumb, luck to some extent makes the free market more meritocratic. If there is a clear system then it becomes a game and highly entrenched players are advantaged in it.

Much as forest fires clear the way for newer, younger trees so to do the impossible to predict recessions and innovations of today allow for a resetting of wealth and power. Companies can insulate themselves by staying more liquid and less leveraged but risk is never removed.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
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.

If you were French and lived in 1789, you would be a royalist saying "I love how certain part of France suddenly think that a civilian government would be some benevolent being incapable of corruption and greed.". No, it would not be infallible, but it would be better!

A government can do more to work in favor of society's interest at large, to collect money in order to improve the standard of living for all, provide equal opportunities and fight injustices.

The current excessive accumulation of wealth is a social injustice, just as the privileges were in 1789.
 

sphagnum

Banned
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.

Nobody thinks the government can ever be perfect, but if you eliminate the influence of money (coming from the rich) on our politics and make the system more democratic, it would be far less corrupt.

That everyone working their current jobs are because they love it not because they are doing it for the money.

When did anyone say that this is the case? What we want is an economic system where people can actually pursue their dreams because they aren't being screwed over by capitalists who run society into the ground by making things like healthcare for profit, forcing people to work crappy jobs they don't want. Unless you're referring to people who are solely in it for the big dollars, who I would pity for being so blinded by greed.

That someone working their butt off is not going to resent some sitting on their butt while both received the same reward.

Yeah! $300k is, like, totally the same thing as $30k man! Yeesh, how can I ever prove that I'm better than those peasants if I can't have 300 MILLION dollars?!


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.

And so, Melenchon has fulfilled his purpose.
 

Rubenov

Member
Like has been said before, this guy has no chance at winning.

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.

French do love taxes though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom