Support NeoGAF

[Guileless]

Dude is a badass, i applaud the gesture despite its lack of feasibility. Also LOL at the the people in this thread comparing melanchon to the brand of crazy that is bred in the US political system. It's one thing to discard this idea as inane and unrealistic given one's personal conception of human nature and economics, but to not be able to grasp the nobility of intent of such an idea and compare it to the discourse that comes from the very far right here due to its relative distance from the center... is quite gross.

This is the exact attitude of many Santorum supporters: his aims are noble but unrealistic. You and Santorum fans just have different systems of morality you want the state to enforce. The comparison is apt in that sense.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I watched a doucmentry not long ago about the early days of the Soviet space program. They talked with a few of the scientist there, the scientists talked about how they were literally under the gun in some cases and also having to fake results to make some officials look good during walkthroughs.

Yes, it was a mess, often resulting in the mixture of science with politics and ideology. Trofim Lysenko, director of Soviet biology under Stalin, once referred to Mendelian genetics as bourgeois science. His experiments in agriculture were quietly abandoned only after they had failed on a large scale.

 

[Walshicus]

I can't completely substantiate this claim, but Timothy Ferris argues that most of the USSR's early success in space exploration was a product of poaching many of Germany's best rocket scientists at the end of World War II. After Russia's first few triumphs, their space program stagnated in comparison to the US because their system couldn't measure up in scientific achievement (in fact, the Soviet model repressed the freedom of the sciences). Furthermore, their economic performance left a lot to be desired. Khrushchev predicted that the USSR would finally catch up to the US sometime in the 70s or 80s, but of course it collapsed instead. The poll you posted says very little about the sustainability or the efficacy of the Soviet model, especially considering two important caveats.

Read Dmitri Volkogonov's "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire". He does a pretty good job of explaining why the Soviet system (as a Leninist/Stalinist state) was incapable of economic development. Stalin himself admitted that without the Gulags their economic targets would be unmet.

It's a damn shame we never got a socially liberal command economy to study.

 

[Flatline]

Not gonna happen. French populist leaders (left/right) generally know they have little chance to get elected (our mainstream media work against them anyway), most of the time they just make strong proposals and work for their ideas to spread.

Also, Mélenchon united the far-left, but didn't really make it stronger. He ate the communists alive and the small trotskists parties are about to die aswell.

Far-left implies that they're anarchists or communists. Asking for a 360,000 euros limit isn't a far-left opinion, it's hardly a leftist one. Also last I checked they're third at 15% so I'd say they're a lot stronger.

 

[Wazzim]

Would be cool if he got elected (even if it was just to observe the international reaction) but don't think he'll beat Hollande. Unless the later has some major scandal and creates a vacuum for Melenchon to jump in.

 

[twobear]

it makes more sense than 'trickle down economics' ever did, and for that reason he's already better than the GOP nominations

 

[Piecake]

Pretty crazy. Now I know there is evidence out there that points to that rich people dont move to other states with a lower tax rate, but I cant imagine that a whole lot of rich French people would stick around if the tax rate about 360k is 100%

I know id get the fuck out of there if i was rich and that was the tax rate

 

[G.O.O.]

Far-left implies that they're anarchists or communists. Asking for a 360,000 euros limit isn't a far-left opinion, it's hardly a leftist one. Also last I checked they're third at 15% so I'd say they're a lot stronger.

Far-left of the French spectrum... and Mélenchon is candidate for the left front and the communist party.

We always have several far-left candidates for our presidential elections. Their combined score in 2007 was low, but in 2002 it was roughly 15%, only with a better distribution. Now it's 15 - 0.5 - 0.5.

 

[Wazzim]

Pretty crazy. Now I know there is evidence out there that points to that rich people dont move to other states with a lower tax rate, but I cant imagine that a whole lot of rich French people would stick around if the tax rate about 360k is 100%

I know id get the fuck out of there if i was rich and that was the tax rate

The question is: Should we allow people to be unemployed and poor just because others are not satisfied with €350.000 a year?

It's a interesting discussion I had with a conservative friend of mine. I personally believe that 100% is too much, 90/80% (still extremely high) would be better. There should always be something to get with a higher income or else the arguments against high top brackets can look very legitimate.

I believe that such a tax would increase the stability of the economy mostly because it forces people to invest and work together. (Not one CEO earning 12 million but rather a board of 12 people who all earn 1 million a year etc)
It would mean a major shake-up in the economic system though, are we fine with taking the risk of failure?

 

[ComputerMKII]

Raunchy 'Mélenchon Girls' video goes viral

MEDIAWATCH FRANCE, Tues. 10/4/2012: Many will remember the infamous "Obama Girls" video in support of Barack Obama in 2007. A similarly raunchy video has now hit the web in favour of far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Also, how do you say the candidates' names in sign language? "Pointy ears?" Really?!

http://www.france24.com/en/20120410...n-tune-raunchy-sign-language-candidates-names

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMEvmVplxY

 

[Lagspike_exe]

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

 

[empty vessel]

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

It's not thievery. One's income is always determined by society.

 

[Feature]

Alright Europe, you made fun of us for Santorum.

Now it's our turn.

You mean it's your turn to mock france? Okay

 

[Walshicus]

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

I guess many just don't think that it's possible for one person to actually earn more than £300,000 a year, and that the economic foundation of society is faulty in allowing such an outcome in the first place.

It would be nice to see a stronger link between social utility and wage.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

I guess many just don't think that it's possible for one person to actually earn more than £300,000 a year, and that the economic foundation of society is faulty in allowing such an outcome in the first place.

It would be nice to see a stronger link between social utility and wage.

What the hell does what "many think" have to do with this? "Many" don't have a company, "many" were never in the position to execute strategic decisions and "many" don't understand that in a company the only thing important is the CEO. Board of directors are rarely consisted of idiots. If they believe a manager should be payed €10,000,000 a year - they usually have a reason why they think that. What moral right does the goverment have to regulate how owners of a company should pay their workers and how they should valuate their work?

 

[Angry Fork]

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

What.

1. It's highly debatable if such people actually did put an 'insane' amount of hardwork to make over 300k. (Are you okay with 'thieving' from celebrities and people born into their wealth?)

2. There are plenty of people who work just as much and have nothing to show for it because they lacked the connections, social skills, business 'savvy', etc. Who speaks for the Mexicans in America being exploited to hell and back? (Just to use an American example, I don't know if such problems are in France as well)

3. Nobody should be able to make that kind of money off the labour of others. 1 person shouldn't be able to say he wants to make more than 300k per year at the expense of everyone else. The needs of all trumps his admiration for yachts and Jay Leno car collections, or at least it should. Unfortunately it's the opposite in America.

4. 'For someone who doesn't?' If he's the CEO of a company all of his workers are people that put something into the company and they don't get anywhere near what he makes nor do they have a stake in how the company is run, the benefits they receive, and so on.

What the hell does what "many think" have to do with this? "Many" don't have a company, "many" were never in the position to execute strategic decisions and "many" don't understand that in a company the only thing important is the CEO. Board of directors are rarely consisted of idiots. If they believe a manager should be payed €10,000,000 a year - they usually have a reason why they think that. What moral right does the goverment have to regulate how owners of a company should pay their workers and how they should valuate their work?

If the government doesn't play a hand then you end up with Foxconn China or worse.

Again, that CEO is nothing without the labour of his workers, but he cannot contribute what they do together, therefore they should have a say in how the company is run.

 

[Myke Greywolf]

Communism is alive and well I see.

The people that earn that sort of money are incredibly talented people. They'll just leave France.

A part of them is talented. Many of them are criminals, psychopaths, corrupt or simply born privileged. And those are usually the ones better at amassing and hoarding wealth. Good riddance to those, I would say.

 

[JGS]

It's not thievery. One's income is always determined by society.

It's determined by the demands of society.

 

[140.85]

If it didn't mean increasing the misery of French people, I would be glad to have this guy win so the world could get a front-row seat to the failure of these sorts of policies. But then again the world has repeatedly seen how these things turn out and still haven't learned anything so perhaps not...

 

[Angry Fork]

If it didn't mean increasing the misery of French people, I would be glad to have this guy win so the world could get a front-row seat to the failure of these sorts of policies. But then again the world has repeatedly seen how these things turn out and still haven't learned anything so perhaps not...

He isn't proposing a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[JGS]

What.

1. It's highly debatable if such people actually did put an 'insane' amount of hardwork to make over 300k. (Are you okay with 'thieving' from celebrities and people born into their wealth?)

2. There are plenty of people who work just as much and have nothing to show for it because they lacked the connections, social skills, business 'savvy', etc. Who speaks for the Mexicans in America being exploited to hell and back? (Just to use an American example, I don't know if such problems are in France as well)

3. Nobody should be able to make that kind of money off the labour of others. 1 person shouldn't be able to say he wants to make more than 300k per year at the expense of everyone else. The needs of all trumps his admiration for yachts and Jay Leno car collections, or at least it should. Unfortunately it's the opposite in America.

4. 'For someone who doesn't?' If he's the CEO of a company all of his workers are people that put something into the company and they don't get anywhere near what he makes nor do they have a stake in how the company is run, the benefits they receive, and so on.



If the government doesn't play a hand then you end up with Foxconn China or worse.

Again, that CEO is nothing without the labour of his workers, but he cannot contribute what they do together, therefore they should have a say in how the company is run.

1. Celebs deserve that much because that what they get. So thievery for one is thievery for the other. The most annoying part of these arguments are people dictating the value of a job they don't hold. I don't think most attorneys are worth much considering one side always screws up something. Fortunately for them, "society" disagrees.
2. Work is not the definition of value. Opportunity is a completely valid reason to make more money.
3. The primary ones to make that kind of money are ones that can employ others. Why would someone just concerned with themselves make more than the employer who is responsible for their career?
4. The employees do not have the same stake in the company as the owners. They never have and never will. The owners have to concern themselves with the mundane as well as the big picture. The interest in the company is only required to go as far as the paycheck for an employee. They can literally walk out the door and absolve themselves of any responsibility to the company whereas the employer could go to jail based on the actions of that employee. It's a false equivalency.

I don't care what France does regarding income tax, but the notion that a millionaire doesn't deserve their money is silly. If they decide to live in France with that hefty a tax, then they are OK with it anyway. My prediction is France would become the service center capital of the world. There would be lenty of middle managers and phone reps while the HQ's are built somewhere else.

 

[Angry Fork]

1. Celebs deserve that much because that what they get. So thievery for one is thievery for the other. The most annoying part of these arguments are people dictating the value of a job they don't hold. I don't think most attorneys are worth much considering one side always screws up something. Fortunately for them, "society" disagrees.
2. Work is not the definition of value. Opportunity is a completely valid reason to make more money.
3. The primary ones to make that kind of money are ones that can employ others. Why would someone just concerned with themselves make more than the employer who is responsible for their career?
4. The employees do not have the same stake in the company as the owners. They never have and never will. The owners have to concern themselves with the mundane as well as the big picture. The interest in the company is only required to go as far as the paycheck for an employee. They can literally walk out the door and absolve themselves of any responsibility to the company whereas the employer could go to jail based on the actions of that employee. It's a false equivalency.

I don't care what France does regarding income tax, but the notion that a millionaire doesn't deserve their money is silly. If they decide to live in France with that hefty a tax, then they are OK with it anyway. My prediction is France would become the service center capital of the world. There would be lenty of middle managers and phone reps while the HQ's are built somewhere else.

I don't understand what you're going on about. If the money celebrities like Kim Kardashian make (or just that make obscene amounts of money in general) are taken and funneled to doctors, teachers etc. the country would be much better off don't act like this isn't true. You seem to have completely side stepped or not answered anything I said (not surprising as you're the same in the atheism/theism thread).

My point was workers SHOULD have a stake in the company. It's obvious they don't in America right now you're not saying anything we don't already know. Being the CEO of a company and making money off the labour of others does not grant you the right to hoard it just because you had the idea to start the company to begin with. They can get praise and recognition for that but without workers they are nothing. Like I said, a millionaire wanting to hoard his money does not overcome the needs of everyone else and it shouldn't.

If there are poor people that can't get healthcare or basic shelter and the wealthy are buying 50,000$ watches it should be taken from them by force so the workers standard of living can be raised and they are allowed the same opportunities the millionaire got. What's better, properly paying for education, technology, healthcare etc. for all? Or allowing Jay Leno to amass a revolting car collection in his garage?

 

[Dambrosi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMEvmVplxY

Right, five things:

1) ...damn, she's hawt. Talented, too. Nice song, even if it is a parody.

2) ...oh dear, what would Mrs. Mélenchon think?

3) Is it just me, or is Computer's avatar strangely mesmerizing to anyone else? I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems off.

4) On topic - yeah, I could deal with this idea, though I'd set the bar at £500,000 before the gub'mint takes any excess, but only as long as the resultant income is guaranteed to be reinvested in public and welfare services that are open to everyone. As has been mentioned, the effect of such a "maximum wage" policy would be, among other things, to force corporations to stop paying their execs such stupidly high salaries, which would also be a Good Thing socially.

5) Thread title is misleading. Please change.

 

[Vagabundo]

It's a tax rate that will never get used. What company is going to throw money away? So what would happen to those millions and millions that used to be paid to the upper management?

Well better wages and work conditions for the other employees, better dividends to shareholders. It would increase the circulation and distribution of money and "raise all boats".

Realistically he is proposing a cap on salaries and I'm cool with that. after living through a banking system collapse and the insane bonuses and incentives to bankers I can only see this as a good thing.

lol at the thievery. These people only make and keep their money on the back of the society that provides educated healthy workers and a stable governemtn. If society want to cap their wage it is entitled to do so. No one lives in a vacuum here.

 

[empty vessel]

It's determined by the demands of society.

No, it's determined by society. Society decides and enforces all rules, including those that govern property. There isn't some law of nature according to which income gets distributed.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

The effort you put into your career is far from the only determining factor regarding your salary. But even if it was, I don't see your point. The jobs would need to get done regardless of how competitive the positions are or how much they earn. There would still be CEOs of multinational corporations if their salary was "only" $150,000 / year without the option for bonuses. People would still run businesses if they "only" raked in 200,000 / year in personal profits.

You ask why somebody who put hardwork into their career should pay for somebody who didn't. I'm curious as to how you feel about wealth redistribution and socialist policies in general - is it ok to have free health care if the top tax bracket is 60%, but not when it's 100%? Also consider that benefits for low income earners is hardly the only thing that the government funds. There's also also stuff like arts, sciences, public infrastructure and the military.

 

[War Peaceman]

It is obviously a policy motivated by publicity, but it isn't that bad in principle. Modern motivational theory has rubbished the idea that people are motivated by money (beyond it being a means to survival, which is of no concern to those this policy would affect), but it would certainly drive the super rich away. However, for this sort of approach to be effective, it would require more than just a tax rise (and I presume the party realise this) but an economic restructuring. It would need to provide the means whereby everyone can get into business and make money - to keep things competitive and replace those who leave.

 

[harriet the spy]

I still think that some of the hype/publicity behind him is fanned by the right wing. Cohn-Bendit gets it right: the one who is profiting the most of Melenchon's rise is Sarkozy,not the left.

On the idea, i think he is saying this but would not implement as high. You argue for something, and you implement something a bit less drastic.

 

[Guileless]

The "not bad in principle" or "in theory" arguments here remind me of the argument over the role of abstinence in sex education. Stressing abstinence first may be not bad in theory or in principle, but in reality it doesn't work because of human nature.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The Western world really should take some hints from China in implementing unique economic zones that try out these "radical ideas" from both the left and right spectrum.

While I would never would feel comfortable with my nation implementing it, I would enjoy seeing a sector of my nation or occupied territory being a guinea pig for such a thing. The Western world needs its own Hong Kongs.

Read Dmitri Volkogonov's "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire". He does a pretty good job of explaining why the Soviet system (as a Leninist/Stalinist state) was incapable of economic development. Stalin himself admitted that without the Gulags their economic targets would be unmet.

It's a damn shame we never got a socially liberal command economy to study.

Cuba? The dozen or so ex-Communist or Socialist countries?

 

[kame-sennin]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/6713/jean-luc-melenchon-is-the-french-newt-gingrich/category_list

This article is pretty weak. The writer basically says that Melenchon will be a disaster because he's not in favor of austerity. But austerity during a financial crisis is in fact a recipe for disaster.

 

[Flatline]

Far-left of the French spectrum... and Mélenchon is candidate for the left front and the communist party.

We always have several far-left candidates for our presidential elections. Their combined score in 2007 was low, but in 2002 it was roughly 15%, only with a better distribution. Now it's 15 - 0.5 - 0.5.

Are there not anarchists and communists in the French spectrum? A guy asking for a limit on the super rich isn't far-left, someone asking for country-wide salary equality or no authority is far left. This sounds like mass media bullshit that manipulate the public throwing in the public discourse little nuggets like "far-left".

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

Funny, I consider pure thievery making millions from the labor of the workers. I guess everyone has different standards for what is thievery and society should decide that. I guess they do.

 

[kame-sennin]

TED talk: How economic inequality harms societies

 

[JGS]

No, it's determined by society. Society decides and enforces all rules, including those that govern property. There isn't some law of nature according to which income gets distributed.

I thought employment/unemployment counted.

 

[Acheron]

The Western world really should take some hints from China in implementing unique economic zones that try out these "radical ideas" from both the left and right spectrum.

While I would never would feel comfortable with my nation implementing it, I would enjoy seeing a sector of my nation or occupied territory being a guinea pig for such a thing. The Western world needs its own Hong Kongs.

Hong Kong wasn't an SEZ, Shenzhen was and is. Turning small towns into SEZ's is no longer possible in the West as there would need to be external investment and trade to justify it. China's SEZs were successful not least because they received Western investment and traded with the West. There would be no socialist counterparty aside from other experimental communities.

The "not bad in principle" or "in theory" arguments here remind me of the argument over the role of abstinence in sex education. Stressing abstinence first may be not bad in theory or in principle, but in reality it doesn't work because of human nature.

Socialism does not work in theory. If good in theory means broken and contradictory to all scholarship on economics then I wonder what bad in theory is. There is no justification for abolition of the market other than ignorance or class-based jealousy.

There is justification on social grounds for taxation and government spending to moderate the differences between winners and losers, but capping or erasing distinctions fundamentally ruins incentive sets.

 

[Flatline]

I thought employment/unemployment counted.

You think that if society decided tomorrow to scrap the 40 hour weekend and reduce it to 32 unemployment wouldn't drop like a rock? The supply demand rule is always being manipulated either by society or the markets, the real decision is which one we'd like to have control.

 

[kame-sennin]

I was just thinking that a max salary would also require raising minimum wage to make sure that the funds that were supposed to go to CEO pay are (at least partly) diverted to the lower and middle class. The demand for every day products and semi-luxury items would skyrocket.

This is true. I don't understand why the super rich - particularly those that run or invest in consumer products companies - don't see that they benefit from this as well.

Pretty crazy. Now I know there is evidence out there that points to that rich people dont move to other states with a lower tax rate, but I cant imagine that a whole lot of rich French people would stick around if the tax rate about 360k is 100%

I know id get the fuck out of there if i was rich and that was the tax rate

Why would that mater? If the company president leaves the country, the VP will just take her job. It's not like there aren't tons of qualified individuals waiting to be promoted. Also, a power vacuum at the top means that people with good ideas who might not have been able to succeed in mature, saturated markets, would now have the opportunity to flourish.

What the hell does what "many think" have to do with this? "Many" don't have a company, "many" were never in the position to execute strategic decisions and "many" don't understand that in a company the only thing important is the CEO. Board of directors are rarely consisted of idiots. If they believe a manager should be payed €10,000,000 a year - they usually have a reason why they think that. What moral right does the goverment have to regulate how owners of a company should pay their workers and how they should valuate their work?

Most people in those positions got there because they were born into privilege. They are mostly white males born to wealthy parents, which enabled them to attend elite schools where they made friends with other wealthy people. These privileges are what gave them the opportunity to earn those salaries, not, in most cases, personal brilliance. Most members of the Walton family have done nothing to earn the exorbitant amount of money they have amassed.

If it didn't mean increasing the misery of French people, I would be glad to have this guy win so the world could get a front-row seat to the failure of these sorts of policies. But then again the world has repeatedly seen how these things turn out and still haven't learned anything so perhaps not...

Sarkozy is the candidate proposing austerity, not Melenchon.

2. Work is not the definition of value. Opportunity is a completely valid reason to make more money.

So it's valid that many white Americans make more money than many African-Americans because whites have greater opportunity on average? This seems immoral.

3. The primary ones to make that kind of money are ones that can employ others. Why would someone just concerned with themselves make more than the employer who is responsible for their career?

It's been proven over and over that publicly traded companies can increase their profits and generate more wealth for shareholders by cutting jobs. Further, Wall Street executives made money by destroying the world economy and eliminating countless jobs.

 

[Acheron]

Why would that mater? If the company president leaves the country, the VP will just take her job. It's not like there aren't tons of qualified individuals waiting to be promoted. Also, a power vacuum at the top means that people with good ideas who might not have been able to succeed in mature, saturated markets, would now have the opportunity to flourish.

It's not a case of management leaving it's a case of talent, investors and competitive advantage leaving. Excessive taxation will weaken reinvestment necessary to survive against foreigners, superior managers will exit reducing efficiency and innovation and investors will focus money towards other nations where their investment returns aren't threatened with expropriation.

Most people in those positions got there because they were born into privilege. They are mostly white males born to wealthy parents, which enabled them to attend elite schools where they made friends with other wealthy people. These privileges are what gave them the opportunity to earn those salaries, not, in most cases, personal brilliance. Most members of the Walton family have done nothing to earn the exorbitant amount of money they have amassed.

Those people tend to be more skilled and more educated. While there is a lag effect the market still churns regularly elevating middle class individuals and lowering formerly dominant families. If I make money and dispose of earned assets as investment in my sons and daughters, do they not deserve the benefit? Or should I be disallowed to spend my earning on tuition in excess of average?

So it's valid that many white Americans make more money than many African-Americans because whites have greater opportunity on average? This seems immoral.

The market is a mechanism. If I gain equal labour value from blacks as whites an entrepreneur can choose to hire an underpriced all-black workforce and outcompete his racist peers. On average black wages are lower, because on average black workers in the US are less educated, less skilled and work fewer hours. But that is the error of placing people in average buckets based on race and not skill/education. I know quite a few black investment bankers that make in excess of white peers from school.

It's been proven over and over that publicly traded companies can increase their profits and generate more wealth for shareholders by cutting jobs. Further, Wall Street executives made money by destroying the world economy and eliminating countless jobs.

Cutting jobs makes economic sense if the work can be more cheaply produced via other means. The agricultural sector used to employ well over 90% of workers, it's now less than 2% despite record production and high employment. Job cutting is frictional and cyclical, labour then is transferred to sectors that can use it productively.

The problem is you view a static system, the economy is dynamic and thus difficult (impossible) to centrally plan.

 

[empty vessel]

On average black wages are lower, because on average black workers in the US are less educated, less skilled and work fewer hours.

What is your explanation for this curious fact? What causes blacks to be less educated and less skilled?

 

[Acheron]

What is your explanation for this curious fact? What causes blacks to be less educated and less skilled?

Historical overhang from slavery, Jim Crow and lower investment. The labour market is not to blame but continued policy failures of government such as the toxic decision to base educational funding on county taxpayers than a more diverse state or ideally national funding base.

 

[Verelios]

Oh god, shots were fired. I would love to see this, but damn, there would be absolutely no incentive to be productive at all after a certain point.

 

[Wazzim]

How exactly is this "a noble, but unrealistic" policy? It's pure thievery. Why should those who put an insane amount of hardwork into their career development pay for someone who doesn't? Moral hipocracy at its worst.

A government is there for the stabilization of the country, lowering the differences in income between the groups of society is a fundamental part of that.
It has only been after Reagan's introduction of trickle-down 'profit for all' economics that the people forgot what the government is supposed to do.

The well-being of society in general should always be the number one cause of a government.

(I do not agree with the 100% tax at such a low bar but certainly agree with the overall vision of mister Mélenchon)

 

[kame-sennin]

It's not a case of management leaving it's a case of talent, investors and competitive advantage leaving. Excessive taxation will weaken reinvestment necessary to survive against foreigners, superior managers will exit reducing efficiency and innovation and investors will focus money towards other nations where their investment returns aren't threatened with expropriation.

The talent argument was used to justify excessive bonuses for Wall Street executives. The reality is that those "talented individuals" destroyed our economy, and would do so again if given the opportunity. As for investors, it's true that many of them will invest overseas, but even this is not necessarily a great loss. Investors tend to focus on short term growth, which is damaging to companies, their workers, and the economy in the long run. The money required to start new businesses can be provided by banks, assuming they are properly regulated.

Those people tend to be more skilled and more educated. While there is a lag effect the market still churns regularly elevating middle class individuals and lowering formerly dominant families. If I make money and dispose of earned assets as investment in my sons and daughters, do they not deserve the benefit? Or should I be disallowed to spend my earning on tuition in excess of average?

In the U.S., economic mobility has dropped over the past few decades (not sure about France). So market churn does not correct the inherent inequality prevalent in our society. No one is preventing you from investing in your children. A salary cap merely limits the amount of privilege that wealthy families are able to attain in favor of improving the social safety net.

The market is a mechanism. If I gain equal labour value from blacks as whites an entrepreneur can choose to hire an underpriced all-black workforce and outcompete his racist peers. On average black wages are lower, because on average black workers in the US are less educated, less skilled and work fewer hours. But that is the error of placing people in average buckets based on race and not skill/education. I know quite a few black investment bankers that make in excess of white peers from school.

Libertarians have long claimed that the market would punish racist business practices, but reality has shown otherwise. And regardless of who you know, the statistics do not lie. African-Americans have significantly less economic opportunity afforded to them than whites.

Cutting jobs makes economic sense if the work can be more cheaply produced via other means. The agricultural sector used to employ well over 90% of workers, it's now less than 2% despite record production and high employment. Job cutting is frictional and cyclical, labour then is transferred to sectors that can use it productively.

If you look at the comment I was responding to, you'll see that I was pointing out that the ownership class are not the job creators that modern mythology has painted them to be.

The problem is you view a static system, the economy is dynamic and thus difficult (impossible) to centrally plan.

I'm advocating regulation and a reduction in income inequality, not central planning.

 

[Deified Data]

It's "us versus them", it seems.

I sympathize with a lot of what's being said here - really, I do. But I simply can't endorse government-sanctioned thievery. Paying one's due to society is one thing, but statements such as "there's no way anyone could ever earn that much" or "no one deserves to earn that much off of labor" are...in some sort of limbo between childish naivitee and hard-boiled cynicism.

You might say "society determines what these people are worth", and you'd be right on some level. Just stop and realize that society has already decided what they're worth. Some stand to be taken down a peg, to be sure, but to have their monetary incentive chopped clean? I'm sorry, but no. That's too extreme. Workers are not slaves to capitol and capitol isn't a slave to workers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, one that should involve some modicum of respect. There is no respect here. Just taking. "You have done something wrong by earning this much money, so we'll take it". Do you realize how insane that stance is? It's entirely devoid of logic and common sense. It's the "class warefare" that pundits on the left and right have been moaning about in the USA for years, a veritable act of war.

What you're essentially telling these people is that you don't trust them to properly contribute to society - that you're going to take a portion of their income to ensure their cooperation. I'm no great lover of capitalism, but this is akin to holding the producers by the short-hairs, hostages for christsake. It's barbaric and petty. Simple as that.

I don't know what else to say. Madness has overtaken this thread. There are too few voices for moderation.

 

[ComputerMKII]

It's "us versus them", it seems.

I sympathize with a lot of what's being said here - really, I do. But I simply can't endorse government-sanctioned thievery. Paying one's due to society is one thing, but statements such as "there's no way anyone could ever earn that much" or "no one deserves to earn that much off of labor" are...in some sort of limbo between childish naivitee and hard-boiled cynicism.

You might say "society determines what these people are worth", and you'd be right on some level. Just stop and realize that society has already decided what they're worth. Some stand to be taken down a peg, to be sure, but to have their monetary incentive chopped clean? I'm sorry, but no. That's too extreme. Workers are not slaves to capitol and capitol isn't a slave to workers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, one that should involve some modicum of respect. There is no respect here. Just taking. "You have done something wrong by earning this much money, so we'll take it". Do you realize how insane that stance is? It's entirely devoid of logic and common sense. It's the "class warefare" that pundits on the left and right have been moaning about in the USA for years, a veritable act of war.

What you're essentially telling these people is that you don't trust them to properly contribute to society - that you're going to take a portion of their income to ensure their cooperation. I'm no great lover of capitalism, but this is akin to holding the producers by the short-hairs, hostages for christsake. It's barbaric and petty. Simple as that.

I don't know what else to say. Madness has overtaken this thread. There are too few voices for moderation.

Oh, I do disagree with Mélenchon (I consider myself a libertarian extremist) but there are just so many people on the opposing side that I won't try to argue.

 

[Kosmo]

The problem with batshit insane ideas like this is that once you have 50%+1 of the population paying no federal income taxes, these sorts of loony ideas actually start approaching reality.

In the US, we are currently at 49.5% of the population that pays no federal income tax.

 

[Deified Data]

Oh, I do disagree with Mélenchon (I consider myself a libertarian extremist) but there are just so many people on the opposing side that I'm won't try to argue.

This isn't a matter of argument, who's right and who's wrong. I'm sure a lot could be accomplished in society if we milked the rich like cattle. It's a matter of human dignity. First we decide one income limit, then we decide another. Society determines how much these people are worth, so who's to tell society when to stop? Who benefits from such chaos? I truly want to know.

 

[twobear]

It's "us versus them", it seems.

I sympathize with a lot of what's being said here - really, I do. But I simply can't endorse government-sanctioned thievery. Paying one's due to society is one thing, but statements such as "there's no way anyone could ever earn that much" or "no one deserves to earn that much off of labor" are...in some sort of limbo between childish naivitee and hard-boiled cynicism.

You might say "society determines what these people are worth", and you'd be right on some level. Just stop and realize that society has already decided what they're worth. Some stand to be taken down a peg, to be sure, but to have their monetary incentive chopped clean? I'm sorry, but no. That's too extreme. Workers are not slaves to capitol and capitol isn't a slave to workers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, one that should involve some modicum of respect. There is no respect here. Just taking. "You have done something wrong by earning this much money, so we'll take it". Do you realize how insane that stance is? It's entirely devoid of logic and common sense. It's the "class warefare" that pundits on the left and right have been moaning about in the USA for years, a veritable act of war.

What you're essentially telling these people is that you don't trust them to properly contribute to society - that you're going to take a portion of their income to ensure their cooperation. I'm no great lover of capitalism, but this is akin to holding the producers by the short-hairs, hostages for christsake. It's barbaric and petty. Simple as that.

I don't know what else to say. Madness has overtaken this thread. There are too few voices for moderation.

I don't trust the majority of high income earners to properly contribute to society. In fact, many of them band together to actively distort society to their own ends. They're called conservative political parties.

 

[RDreamer]

The problem with batshit insane ideas like this is that once you have 50%+1 of the population paying no federal income taxes, these sorts of loony ideas actually start approaching reality.

In the US, we are currently at 49.5% of the population that pays no federal income tax.

You should probably just not open your mouth. There's so much stupid in this post I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'll start with the fact that federal income tax isn't the only tax we pay, and some of the others are far more regressive. Also, perhaps a large portion of the population pays little to no federal income tax because we as a country are so insanely unequal? I'll end at that, because you rarely even come back to defend your inane arguments.

This isn't a matter of argument, who's right and who's wrong. I'm sure a lot could be accomplished in society if we milked the rich like cattle. It's a matter of human dignity. First we decide one income limit, then we decide another. Society determines how much these people are worth, so who's to tell society when to stop? Who benefits from such chaos? I truly want to know.

And right now the rich are milking the poor. It's also a matter of human dignity. Go watch that TED talk someone pointed out before. Inequality has an extreme cost on society. Who benefits right now from the rich milking the poor? The insanely rich, that's who.

Personally, yeah 100% tax on top salaries is a bit extreme. I'd agree with 70% on people making above, say, $400,000 per year, and 80% on people above 1 million, though.

 

[Kosmo]

You should probably just not open your mouth. There's so much stupid in this post I'm not sure where to start. I guess I'll start with the fact that federal income tax isn't the only tax we pay, and some of the others are far more regressive. Also, perhaps a large portion of the population pays little to no federal income tax because we as a country are so insanely unequal? I'll end at that, because you rarely even come back to defend your inane arguments.

Nor did I make this claim. Carry on.