Support NeoGAF

[Deified Data]

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.

You're not wrong.

That said, I don't trust "society" to responsibly dictate how much high-earners should contribute. I see the middle and lower classes (paradoxically led by high-income politicians - what do they have to gain?) banding together to actively distory society to their ends. This is the left.

I consider myself a liberal, but this is not the left that I want to be associated with. This is power brokering, plain and simple. That stolen income will end up in someone's pocket after a bit has been skimmed off the top for public works. This is the way of things, and I cannot endorse it.

 

[kame-sennin]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

I understand your push for moderation, but you are looking at this issue in a vacuum. No one is trying to "punish" the wealthy for being rich. What people are saying is that the wealthy have to pay back some of the money they have already taken from society. The Walton family for example, "earns" money because they own the world's biggest retail chain. Workers earning incredibly low wages are responsible for operating the stores. But because society allows the Waltons to own these stores, the family can take the wealth that is generated by others. Regardless of what their father/grandfather did to make Wal Mart a success, today, the Waltons are funneling money from workers simply because their name is on sheet of paper. The purpose of progressive taxes is to redistribute some of that money back to the worker in the form of health insurance or welfare. It would be immoral to allow one person to engage in labor while another person who does no work receives the profit - all while the laborer has no health coverage or lacks money to buy food.

 

[Deified Data]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

I understand your push for moderation, but you are looking at this issue in a vacuum. No one is trying to "punish" the wealthy for being rich. What people are saying is that the wealthy have to pay back some of the money they have already taken from society. The Walton family for example, "earns" money because they own the world's biggest retail chain. Workers earning incredibly low wages are responsible for operating the stores. But because society allows the Waltons to own these stores, the family can take the wealth that is generated by others. Regardless of what their father/grandfather did to make Wal Mart a success, today, the Waltons are funneling money from workers simply because their name is on sheet of paper. The purpose of progressive taxes is to redistribute some of that money back to the worker in the form of health insurance or welfare. It would be immoral to allow one person to engage in labor while another person who does no work receives the profit - all while the laborer has no health coverage or lacks money to buy food.

Love Elizabeth Warren.

I totally support equal taxation. 100% income tax, however...there's no other way of viewing it other than punishment. This is obviously Melenchon's intention. I'd be a lot more open to these ideas coming from someone less partisan.

Food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMAY4tKQc9Q&feature=related

Ron Paul responds to Warren's message with...nothing. I really expected more out of him. Probably shouldn't have.

 

[RDreamer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

I understand your push for moderation, but you are looking at this issue in a vacuum. No one is trying to "punish" the wealthy for being rich. What people are saying is that the wealthy have to pay back some of the money they have already taken from society. The Walton family for example, "earns" money because they own the world's biggest retail chain. Workers earning incredibly low wages are responsible for operating the stores. But because society allows the Waltons to own these stores, the family can take the wealth that is generated by others. Regardless of what their father/grandfather did to make Wal Mart a success, today, the Waltons are funneling money from workers simply because their name is on sheet of paper. The purpose of progressive taxes is to redistribute some of that money back to the worker in the form of health insurance or welfare. It would be immoral to allow one person to engage in labor while another person who does no work receives the profit - all while the laborer has no health coverage or lacks money to buy food.

God I love Elizabeth Warren.

To add to everything you've said here, I think that we do need stronger income redistribution because increasingly in our societies money itself makes money. Once you have money your ability to make it goes up exponentially. Once you combine that with capitalism, that starts to become a bad thing. People with money can succeed simply because they have money, not because they have a good idea or a great work ethic or any other thing that's beneficial to society. The capitalism people want and the benefits people want are products and ideas succeeding because they're good products or ideas. When someone can drown a good idea out with money, then that's no longer a good system. I'm not in particular saying that everything needs to be completely even. That would be naive, and likely completely chaotic. You still need to have profit incentive. But at the same time, government and the taxation system has a large role in evening these things out. You have to skim a bit off the top, because in a healthy economy money moves upward, and, as I said before, money increasingly makes more money exponentially.

 

[makingmusic476]

I'd be cool with 80-90% tax rate.

Honestly, if I had control over the U.S. for one day, I'd add a new tax bracket for those making over $1 million, taxing anything over that threshold at 85-90%, with the threshold rising with inflation. Then I'd raise capital gains to 40%.

Then I'd implement single payer healthcare.

It would do wonders for social stability and income inequality in our country.

Edit: I agree with the above several posts. I view it as an unfairness in the distribution of wealth. Nobody contributes enough to society or does work valuable enough to justify earning millions of dollars, save for a a few scientists in various fields of research, who wouldn't be getting hit by such tax hikes anyway.

Take the bulk of the money "earned" over a million and put it back into the economy through infrastructure projects that benefit us all, and make us overall a more productive and efficient society.

 

[Kosmo]

God I love Elizabeth Warren.

To add to everything you've said here, I think that we do need stronger income redistribution because increasingly in our societies money itself makes money. Once you have money your ability to make it goes up exponentially. Once you combine that with capitalism, that starts to become a bad thing. People with money can succeed simply because they have money, not because they have a good idea or a great work ethic or any other thing that's beneficial to society. The capitalism people want and the benefits people want are products and ideas succeeding because they're good products or ideas. When someone can drown a good idea out with money, then that's no longer a good system. I'm not in particular saying that everything needs to be completely even. That would be naive, and likely completely chaotic. You still need to have profit incentive. But at the same time, government and the taxation system has a large role in evening these things out. You have to skim a bit off the top, because in a healthy economy money moves upward, and, as I said before, money increasingly makes more money exponentially.

Are the Top 1% not paying back into society, as Warren suggests they do, by paying almost 40% of federal income taxes?

Just simply define "fair share" with a number/percentage - that's all I ask.

 

[empty vessel]

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.

Who are you to dictate to everybody else what society should do? On what basis would society not be the arbiter of property claims? Property laws are tools for achieving social ends, nothing more. When you elevate them to something untouchable by society, you are effectively denying the prerogative of a society to democratically govern itself. If a society democratically decides that what is best for all is an outcome with minimal income disparity between its members, and it changes the rules of the game to achieve this desired outcome, who are you to tell the rest of society to fuck off and that it cannot do it?

 

[Deified Data]

Are the Top 1% not paying back into society, as Warren suggests they do, by paying almost 40% of federal income taxes?

Just simply define "fair share" with a number/percentage - that's all I ask.

That's certainly fair. I'd expect the same out of the percentage of top earners who pay no income tax, of course.

Who are you to dictate to everybody else what society should do? On what basis would society not be the arbiter of property claims? Property laws are tools for achieving social ends, nothing more. When you elevate them to something untouchable by society, you are effectively denying the prerogative of a society to democratically govern itself. If a society democratically decides that what is best for all is an outcome with minimal income disparity between its members, and it changes the rules of the game to achieve this desired outcome, who are you to tell the rest of society to fuck off and that it cannot do it?

I see in this thread an unending mistrust of the top 1% earners, and an implicit trust in democracy to "fairly" redistribute these resources. Both views are blind.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I hope this guy wins, because I'm curious to see how it works.

America is so fucking off the rails that this sort of dude seems appealing to me. It's extreme, but it is what it is.

Love Elizabeth Warren.

I totally support equal taxation. 100% income tax, however...there's no other way of viewing it other than punishment. This is obviously Melenchon's intention. I'd be a lot more open to these ideas coming from someone less partisan.

Food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMAY4tKQc9Q&feature=related

Ron Paul responds to Warren's message with...nothing. I really expected more out of him. Probably shouldn't have.

It isn't punishment. It's an enforcement of a certain perspective of what a civil society should be. I don't disagree with the guy either. I can't fucking stand these super-rich, ungrateful assholes who can sit on their wealth and assets, and watch it all grow while other people do everything.

 

[Deified Data]

I hope this guy wins, because I'm curious to see how it works.

America is so fucking off the rails that this sort of dude seems appealing to me. It's extreme, but it is what it is.



It isn't punishment. It's an enforcement of a certain perspective of what a civil society should be. I don't disagree with the guy either. I can't fucking stand these super-rich, ungrateful assholes.

Civil society cannot exist in the absence of respect.

 

[msv]

I hope this guy wins, because I'm curious to see how it works.

America is so fucking off the rails that this sort of dude seems appealing to me. It's extreme, but it is what it is.

Why is it so extreme? I don't get it. There's no harm done to these high-earners. To all the people who are calling this extreme/insane, are you from the US?

 

[BobsRevenge]

Civil society cannot exist in the absence of respect.

Respect of the lower classes doesn't exist for people who are allowed to shit on everyone else while their money grows either. Respect should be a two-way street.

edit: So I should say I agree.

 

[Deified Data]

Respect of the lower classes doesn't exist for people who are allowed to shit on everyone else while their money grows either. Respect should be a two-way street.

edit: So I should say I agree.

Indeed. The poor are not respected now, the rich are not respected under Melenchon. I see no reason why we can't simply enforce equal taxation and be done with it. Removing inequality isn't the end-game here - that's impossible - it's ensuring the poor are capable of earning a living wage and the rich have ample incentive to pursue enterprise, regardless of who "deserves" what.

 

[Flatline]

Indeed. The poor are not respected now, the rich are not respected under Melenchon. I see no reason why we can't simply enforce equal taxation and be done with it. Removing inequality isn't the end-game here - that's impossible - it's ensuring the poor are capable of earning a living wage and the rich have ample incentive to pursue enterprise, regardless of who "deserves" what.

Are you really implying that a society allowing the rich to earn dozens of times more money than the average worker is disrespectful to the rich? The end game isn't removing inequality but reducing it.

 

[RDreamer]

Are the Top 1% not paying back into society, as Warren suggests they do, by paying almost 40% of federal income taxes?

Just simply define "fair share" with a number/percentage - that's all I ask.

There isn't a magical "fair share" number/percentage. As Warren puts it in that speech, you pay it forward "for the next kid that comes along." What she means by that is that the economy needs to keep rolling and opportunity and mobility need to keep high enough that the cycle continues to work. There isn't going to be a magical number you plug in and it always works, but right now what we have is clearly not working. The economy works from the bottom up. Money in the lower income brackets has to be spent on essential things, and it works its way upward to those at the top. The top must be kept in check, and money must be put back down into the bottom through taxation if enough of them aren't sufficiently expunging their own wealth toward the bottom.

Really, taxation shouldn't be looked at as trying to find a fair share for people to pay. That's looking at taxation and its purpose wrongly, though I do forgive Warren somewhat for doing it, since she's only retorting to the argument that people made all that money on their own. It's a way of greasing up the economy and/or making it continue to work. As I said in the poligaf thread before, taxations purpose is like the chain on a bicycle. You need to keep it maintained and just the right tightness. If it's too loose then things go awry, and the economy doesn't work.

Personally, at especially this time, I'd say something around 70% taxation on a bracket at $400,000 or more, and 80% or so on those making over a million would be about my preference. I could be a bit wrong on that assessment, but that's where I feel things should be. You need to keep the incentive of making more money, which people will always feel compelled to do as long as there's an opportunity for more, while also taking more and more away, because, as I've said before money itself creates more money.

 

[empty vessel]

I see in this thread an unending mistrust of the top 1% earners, and an implicit trust in democracy to "fairly" redistribute these resources. Both views are blind.

It's not "re"distribution. It's distribution, period. Market capitalism is not an end in itself. It is a tool to achieve social ends. If it doesn't achieve ends democratically deemed desired by society, then society has the prerogative to change the rules or make any modifications to the system it chooses. When it does so, it is not taking away anything that anybody has any "natural" entitlement to or "naturally" earned. Their income has always been distributed to them by society.

 

[kame-sennin]

I see in this thread an unending mistrust of the top 1% earners, and an implicit trust in democracy to "fairly" redistribute these resources. Both views are blind.

I want to unpack this statement a little bit. You're right in stating that a lot of people don't trust the ownership class to act in the benefit of society. You're also right to point out that the democratic process does not always result in a fair outcome. But if we are talking about achieving the most equitable distribution of wealth for society (see TED talk), which process is more likely to work? On the one hand, we have the wealthy, whose financial resources make it easier to attain even more wealth - an advantage the poor do not have. The wealthy even have the ability to redistribute wealth upwards from the lower class to the upper class, and keep it there for generations. The wealthy are financially motivated to do all these things.

On the other hand, we have the democratic process. The majority of society gets together and decides how best to use and distribute their resources. The outcome may not always be fair, it seems that majority would be more likely to make decisions that benefit society as a whole than 1% of the population.

 

[sn00zer]

That is goddamn bull shit

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Has a country ever done this before?

If so has one ever done it successfully?

 

[Deified Data]

It's not "re"distribution. It's distribution, period. Market capitalism is not an end in itself. It is a tool to achieve social ends. If it doesn't achieve ends democratically deemed desired by society, then society has the prerogative to change the rules or make any modifications to the system it chooses. When it does so, it is not taking away anything that anybody has any "natural" entitlement to.

Society has the prerogative to a lot of things. It's our responsibility as individuals to decide if it's right or not.

Because allowing the rich to earn dozens of times more than the average French is disrespect? The end game isn't removing inequality but reducing it.

Respect is treating your fellow man as an equal regardless of socio-economic status.

Respect is not treating someone like a villain because of their income, high or low.

Respect is not assuming classist stereotypes are true of someone whether they be rich or poor.

70%-80% is fine by me. 100% is a shock number, a number to dishearten the rich in a "you know what this is" fashion, a number to appease the poor. "If you don't like it, you can leave the country". It's punishment, that's abudantly clear. It's feeding off the classist prejudices of the poor to nip the heels of the rich. I feel more sorry for the poor falling for this sham than I do the rich who would continue to live in comfort whether their income was taken or not.

I'm taking a break.

 

[kame-sennin]

Indeed. The poor are not respected now, the rich are not respected under Melenchon. I see no reason why we can't simply enforce equal taxation and be done with it. Removing inequality isn't the end-game here - that's impossible - it's ensuring the poor are capable of earning a living wage and the rich have ample incentive to pursue enterprise, regardless of who "deserves" what.

That's what Melenchon's plan would do. People making 300k euros per year are rich. That is a financial incentive to work hard and get promoted. At the same time, all excess earnings are distributed downwards to prevent the poor from starving, being overworked, or not having medical care.

Respect is treating your fellow man as an equal regardless of socio-economic status.

Respect is not treating someone like a villain because of their income, high or low.

Respect is not assuming classist stereotypes are true of someone whether they be rich or poor.

70%-80% is fine by me. 100% is a shock number, a number to dishearten the rich in a "you know what this is" fashion, a number to appease the poor. "If you don't like it, you can leave the country". It's punishment, that's abudantly clear. It's feeding off the classist prejudices of the poor to nip the heels of the rich. I feel more sorry for the poor falling for this sham than I do the rich who would continue to live in comfort whether their income was taken or not.

I'm taking a break.

You're not addressing any of the issues. Now you're just saying that the tone of this proposal is too strident.

 

[Slavik81]

I'd be cool with 80-90% tax rate.

You'll be happy to know that Francois Holland, the more popular candidate on the left, had proposed a top rate of 75% on income about €1M. Including other government fees and taxes, the government take would be around 80-90%.

Why is it so extreme? I don't get it. There's no harm done to these high-earners. To all the people who are calling this extreme/insane, are you from the US?

It encourages people who could make more than 300k to either work less, or to leave France.

Many people support this on the basis than nobody can deserve that much money. I'd agree that most probably don't. However, it's irrelevant whether those people deserve to earn more or not. The only question is whether allowing them to earn more will achieve the outcome desired for society.

 

[patapuf]

That's what Melenchon's plan would do. People making 300k euros per year are rich. That is a financial incentive to work hard and get promoted. At the same time, all excess earnings are distributed downwards to prevent the poor from starving, being overworked, or not having medical care.

nobody really has to starve in france right now though. If benefits get too high people have less incentive to work. It is not only the rich that cannot be trusted to contribute to society unless forced. a meritocracy has to exist in some form and people with rare skills will always be in higher demand.

also such a move would be economic suicide for france because you have very well working economies right next to it that will gladly accept all companies and talent that thinks taxing 100% above 300k is moronic. Because earning 300k is NOT enough incentive to get promoted when you can earn 5 times that or more in germany, switzerland, the UK or other neighbourghs

 

[Flatline]

Respect is treating your fellow man as an equal regardless of socio-economic status.

Respect is not treating someone like a villain because of their income, high or low.

Respect is not assuming classist stereotypes are true of someone whether they be rich or poor.

70%-80% is fine by me. 100% is a shock number, a number to dishearten the rich in a "you know what this is" fashion, a number to appease the poor. "If you don't like it, you can leave the country". It's punishment, that's abudantly clear. It's feeding off the classist prejudices of the poor to nip the heels of the rich. I feel more sorry for the poor falling for this sham than I do the rich who would continue to live in comfort whether their income was taken or not.

I'm taking a break.

All these accusations are assumptions you made just because some people believe there should be a limit to income inequality. 100% isn't a shock number it's a logical suggestion a politician made believing that there should be, like a said, a limit to inequality for the good of society. The rich aren't the center of the world and everything isn't about them, some decisions are for the good of society not about the rich.

 

[empty vessel]

nobody really has to starve in france right now though. If benefits get too high people have less incentive to work. It is not only the rich that cannot be trusted to contribute to society unless forced. a meritocracy has to exist in some form and people with rare skills will always be in higher demand.

Are you saying that the difference between 300k euros and 30k euros is so insubstantial that you would not work any harder for 300k euros than you would for 30k euros? I find that to be a little unbelievable, seeing as how most people strive to work hard for much less. Is a person who makes 250k euros considered a lazy slob in France or a successful individual?

 

[patapuf]

Are you saying that the difference between 300k euros and 30k euros is so insubstantial that you would not work any harder for 300k euros than you would for 30k euros? I find that to be a little unbelievable, seeing as how most people strive to work hard for much less. Is a person who makes 250k euros considered a lazy slob in France or a successful individual?

I edited my post above. I meant that nobody will stay in France for 300K if their skills can earn them much more than that in a more open economy.

some skills are in higher demand than others that's not something Ideology can change.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

You'll be happy to know that Francois Holland, the more popular candidate on the left, had proposed a top rate of 75% on income about €1M. Including other government fees and taxes, the government take would be around 80-90%.



It encourages people who could make more than 300k to either work less, or to leave France.

Many people support this on the basis than nobody can deserve that much money. I'd agree that most probably don't. However, it's irrelevant whether those people deserve to earn more or not. The only question is whether allowing them to earn more will achieve the outcome desired for society.

Can you explain the argument "deserving to earn more than 300k" (or whatever the number is). Again, it's pure supply & demand. Who gave goverment the right to determine how much owners of a company want to pay their CEOs (or any other position)? Everyone who has ever done any sort of business or managment knows that companies revolve around their CEOs. Those who execute their orders are completely irrelevant in terms of how the company is going to perform. Naturally, those responsible for the creation of value reap the highest reward.

The argument that the workers create is totally flawed. They only bring the leader's vision to reality. No vision, no payment. It's really simple. Anyone can make an iPad when given the necessary parts. Rare are those who can invent them from scratch, thus the different pay grade.

 

[kame-sennin]

nobody really has to starve in france right now though. If benefits get too high people have less incentive to work. It is not only the rich that cannot be trusted to contribute to society unless forced. a meritocracy has to exist in some form and people with rare skills will always be in higher demand.

Capitalism precludes a meritocracy, so that's not a good argument against this plan. Further, no one is suggesting a society-wide standard salary. A 300k salary cap will still create social classes and encourage mobility.

also such a move would be economic suicide for france because you have very well working economies right next to it that will gladly accept all companies and talent that thinks taxing 100% above 300k is moronic. Because earning 300k is NOT enough incentive to get promoted when you can earn 5 times that or more in germany, switzerland, the UK or other neighbourghs

This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. People are not as likely to move as free market advocates claim, there is a wealth of talent waiting to be promoted should their managers flee, and businesses leaving the country encourages the formation of new businesses by creating gaps in the market.

 

[Flatline]

I edited my post above. I meant that nobody will stay in France for 300K if their skills can earn them much more than that in a more open economy.

some skills are in higher demand than others that's not something Ideology can change.

You're underestimating how many people are earning that much money because of their skills and not because they own stuff, or are good at manipulating the economy or certain industries. People with skills like scientists are not really being paid much anyway. I gave the same example in another thread but here it goes. Think of who earn the most in the gaming industry, it's certainly not the developers it's people like Kotick who have ruined the industry with predatory tactics and priority in huge marketing campaigns.

 

[patapuf]

Capitalism precludes a meritocracy, so that's not a good argument against this plan. Further, no one is suggesting a society-wide standard salary. A 300k salary cap will still create social classes and encourage mobility.



This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. People are not as likely to move as free market advocates claim, there is a wealth of talent waiting to be promoted should their managers flee, and businesses leaving the country encourages the formation of new businesses by creating gaps in the market.

That may be true for someone who earns int the bracket of 300-500K but if you can earn more than that people will move and so will the new talent, especially since there are francophone countries right next to it and france is not so big that they would be far away from home if they moved

while new buisnesses would follow you can't replace big firms overnight, especially not since if thes e new firms became big they would move as well. If your aim is to increase tax revenue this is a pretty bad move.

the 100 % tax could work if every country would implement it but if france does it alone it would simply become economically irrelevant and i doubt the french people will be better of because of it.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

There comes a point where you reach a certain threshold of income, and anything over would be pointless.

 

[patapuf]

You're underestimating how many people are earning that much money because of their skills and not because they own stuff, or are good at manipulating the economy or certain industries. People with skills like scientists are not really being paid much anyway. I gave the same example in another thread but here it goes. Think of who earn the most in the gaming industry, it's certainly not the developers it's people like Kotick who have ruined the industry with predatory tactics and priority in huge marketing campaigns.

There are also people like gabe who was only able to fund valve because he made a lot of money at microsoft - as a developper

And lets not forgett that gaming would not be where it is today without the marketing (in terms of size of the industry). I'm not happy of the direction the gaming industry is going right now but bobbys pay is not the reason of it. The industry goes in the direction it goes because more people than ever are playing games and the new methods bring in more money than the old ones. Bringing in more money is Koticks Job and with a bigger industry more people can actually work in it.

edit:
I'm not an advocate of cutthroat capitalism nor do i think the income distribution in the US is a good thing. However people are in competition with one another wether we want to aknowledge it or not. A country has to try to make the rules a such that everyone has a chance but lets not forgett that there are other countries playing the game as well. Ideology is a good guide but reality will always get in the way and a 100% tax for incomes above 300k will not benefit the french society in the long run. There are better ways to curb income inequality

 

[Flatline]

There are also people like gabe who was only able to fund valve because he made a lot of money at microsoft.

And lets not forgett that gaming would not be where it is today without the marketing. I'm not happy of the direction the gaming industry is going right now but bobbys pay is not the reason of it. The industry goes in the direction it goes because more people than ever are playing games and the new methods bring in more money than the old ones. Bringing in more money is the reason Kotick gets his salary in the first place

Except that Valve was so successful because of the talent of its founders and not because of Gabe's money. And even if your assertion that Gabe singlehandedly funded Valve is true all he would have to do it take a loan to start a business like most people do.

I agree that gaming certainly wouldn't be where it is today without marketing. Shitty publishers like Activision and EA wouldn't have that much power and casual gamers wouldn't buy the crap that is advertised the most. Bringing in more money by acting like a parasite and slowly ruining the industry is the reason Kotick is gets his salary.

 

[jp_zer0]

Who are you to dictate to everybody else what society should do? On what basis would society not be the arbiter of property claims? Property laws are tools for achieving social ends, nothing more. When you elevate them to something untouchable by society, you are effectively denying the prerogative of a society to democratically govern itself. If a society democratically decides that what is best for all is an outcome with minimal income disparity between its members, and it changes the rules of the game to achieve this desired outcome, who are you to tell the rest of society to fuck off and that it cannot do it?

How can you denounce an individual in relation to a "society," if a society is made by individuals?

There is a lot of talk about democracy and self governing society in this post, and yet at the core of this post is condescending. It infers that an individual has no say in the process of the collective. At the collective's whims, not the individual, the is when real problem solving is possible. This man, who you quoted, is the problem and the answer is the society.

This is where the problem of a collective comes in to play, because it denounces individuality and devalues people. The decision making process of say, property, is removed from the individual and given to the collective. Thereby, every individual member is isolated from the cultist idea of a collective, where any individual want, dream or accomplishment striven for becomes "insignificant" to the whims of the collective. The attitude that you have reflects the hatred of the individual; "who are you to?" you claim, as if the individual has no say in the decision making process. Because in your rhetoric anything the individual could do is evil, where even the intentional good is evil, because it is devoid of the collective. Individuals do good, they do bad, but most of all they are free. Only the invisible idea of the collective and a person's responsibility to it could destroy this freedom.

 

[patapuf]

Except that Valve was so successful because of the talent of its founders and not because of Gabe's money. And even if your assertion that Gabe singlehandedly funded Valve is true all he would have to do it take a loan to start a business like most people do.

I agree that gaming certainly wouldn't be where it is today without marketing. Shitty publishers like Activision and EA wouldn't have that much power and casual gamers wouldn't buy the crap that is advertised the most. Bringing in more money by acting like a virus and ruining the industry is the reason Kotick is gets his salary.

but not everyone gets loans, and there are risks banks (rightly) won't cover.

casual gamers today not only wouldn't buy EA's or Activisions crap they wouldn't game at all. There are a lot of alternatives in todays gaming market to avoid EA and activision and lose nothing.

Let's approach this differently: do you think steve jobs or myamoto for example wouldn't be worth a shittload of cash to hold on to? and do you believe these people would work in their country of origin for 300k or in the country next to it for 10 times that?

which society benefits in the end? The french taxpayer sure as hell wouldn't

 

[empty vessel]

I edited my post above. I meant that nobody will stay in France for 300K if their skills can earn them much more than that in a more open economy.

First, I don't think that's true at all. Second, even if it were, why would that be problematic?

This notion that the world is run by a handful of super competent and intelligent businessmen is really bizarre. We could execute every millionaire currently in existence today and tomorrow the world would be ... fine.

 

[Wazzim]

Has a country ever done this before?

If so has one ever done it successfully?

Sweden had a tax rate of 102% once. lol

 

[Blergmeister]

but not everyone gets loans, and there are risks banks (rightly) won't cover.

casual gamers today not only wouldn't buy EA's or Activisions crap they wouldn't game at all. There are a lot of alternatives in todays gaming market to avoid EA and activision and lose nothing.

Let's approach this differently: do you think steve jobs or myamoto for example wouldn't be worth a shittload of cash to hold on to? and do you believe these people would work in their country of origin for 300k or in the country next to it for 10 times that?

which society benefits in the end? The french taxpayer sure as hell wouldn't

Doesn't Myamoto work for dirt cheap, relatively speaking, compared with his importance at Nintendo? I feel like this is a bad example as I'm under the impression that he does earn less than 350k Euros a year.

Spoiler

I haven't researched this at all

 

[Kosmo]

Are you saying that the difference between 300k euros and 30k euros is so insubstantial that you would not work any harder for 300k euros than you would for 30k euros? I find that to be a little unbelievable, seeing as how most people strive to work hard for much less. Is a person who makes 250k euros considered a lazy slob in France or a successful individual?

It really depends what I get from the government if I only make $30K Euros. If the government is confiscating every dime over $300K and that means I can make $30K, but government gives me food, good housing, transportation, everything but entertainment and travel money, there may not be too much incentive to work for more than $30K.

 

[Wazzim]

First, I don't think that's true at all. Second, even if it were, why would that be problematic?

This notion that the world is run by a handful of super competent and intelligent businessmen is really bizarre. We could execute every millionaire currently in existence today and tomorrow the world would be ... fine.

Add to that the increased innovative opportunities created by giving every child a fair chance.

 

[Jarmel]

People will have to die for this to happen.

 

[dave is ok]

Are the Top 1% not paying back into society, as Warren suggests they do, by paying almost 40% of federal income taxes?

Just simply define "fair share" with a number/percentage - that's all I ask.

Your argument would work better if the top 1% actually paid income taxes.

Most of their money comes from investments which are taxed at 15%, not 40%.

 

[patapuf]

First, I don't think that's true at all. Second, even if it were, why would that be problematic?

This notion that the world is run by a handful of super competent and intelligent businessmen is really bizarre. We could execute every millionaire currently in existence today and tomorrow the world would be ... fine.

well incompetent buisnessmen tend not to make money. Of course a State cares about things other than making money which is why there are regulations that try to channel the moneymaking skills in something produktive for society. A a society with poor moneymaking skills however gets colonized/marignalized by societies that do. Alternativly the State simply becomes poor because of poor economic policies

braindrain is a problem in many countries.

Also while not every millionaire is one because of intelligence and skill there are enough that are. And yes, the world or at least the involved companies/workers would miss those.

 

[Blergmeister]

It really depends what I get from the government if I only make $30K Euros. If the government is confiscating every dime over $300K and that means I can make $30K, but government gives me food, good housing, transportation, everything but entertainment and travel money, there may not be too much incentive to work for more than $30K.

Do you have 30k left over after food, good housing, transportation, and everything else but entertainment and travel money as it is now? If not it doesn't seem like you have that incentive anyways.

 

[Kosmo]

Your argument would work better if the top 1% actually paid income taxes.

Most of their money comes from investments which are taxed at 15%, not 40%.

The top 1% pays a little less than 40% of all Federal tax dollars - whether that is money taxed as "income" or capital gains.

 

[Deified Data]

All these accusations are assumptions you made just because some people believe there should be a limit to income inequality. 100% isn't a shock number it's a logical suggestion a politician made believing that there should be, like a said, a limit to inequality for the good of society. The rich aren't the center of the world and everything isn't about them, some decisions are for the good of society not about the rich.

Society, much like capitalism, is a means to an end and not the end in itself. Society does not exist for the sole purpose of propagating itself – it exists to enforce order and serve the individual, just as the individual serves society. It’s a mutually-beneficial relationship, and I see that notion is lost on some of you.

The climate of this thread makes it nigh impossible for anyone to argue a point somewhere between blindly defending the rich and the foolhardy assertion that no man should ever hold an advantage over someone else. Partisan politics turning normally rational people into frothing ideologues, circle keeps turning.

In retrospect, I suppose the plan isn’t all that bad. Those who are uncomfortable with Melenchon’s policies could leave for a tax haven and the French people left to deal with their lot, for good or ill.

 

[Wazzim]

Can you explain the argument "deserving to earn more than 300k" (or whatever the number is). Again, it's pure supply & demand. Who gave goverment the right to determine how much owners of a company want to pay their CEOs (or any other position)? Everyone who has ever done any sort of business or managment knows that companies revolve around their CEOs. Those who execute their orders are completely irrelevant in terms of how the company is going to perform. Naturally, those responsible for the creation of value reap the highest reward.

The argument that the workers create is totally flawed. They only bring the leader's vision to reality. No vision, no payment. It's really simple. Anyone can make an iPad when given the necessary parts. Rare are those who can invent them from scratch, thus the different pay grade.

Who gave them the right? Are you an anarchist? Or someone who does not believe in the rule of the people?
I we vote for the politicians who want to set limits to the pay of CEO's then that means the government has the right to do it.

 

[Flatline]

but not everyone gets loans, and there are risks banks (rightly) won't cover.

casual gamers today not only wouldn't buy EA's or Activisions crap they wouldn't game at all. There are a lot of alternatives in todays gaming market to avoid EA and activision and lose nothing.
next to1
Let's approach this differently: do you think steve jobs or myamoto for example wouldn't be worth a shittload of cash to hold on to? and do you believe these people would work in their country of origin for 300k or in the country it for 0 times that?

which society benefits in the end? The french taxpayer sure as hell wouldn't

Talented people like Gabe always get loans. And what if casuals didn't game at all, they're dragging the industry to the wrong direction anyway. Miyamoto is the exception to the rule, very few developers become CEOs and I doubt the ones that do care that much about money anyway. No, I don't think Miyamoto would abandon his country to earn more money especially since Japanese CEO don't earn nearly as much as Americans ones anyway, as for Gabe he has repeatedly proven that he cares more about creating excellent games and caring for his employees which he treats like family than for money.

And let me reverse the question. Why do you think Miyamoto hasn't migrated to the US yet since American CEOs usually earn dozens times more than Japanese ones?

 

[kame-sennin]

That may be true for someone who earns int the bracket of 300-500K but if you can earn more than that people will move and so will the new talent, especially since there are francophone countries right next to it and france is not so big that they would be far away from home if they moved

while new buisnesses would follow you can't replace big firms overnight, especially not since if thes e new firms became big they would move as well. If your aim is to increase tax revenue this is a pretty bad move.

the 100 % tax could work if every country would implement it but if france does it alone it would simply become economically irrelevant and i doubt the french people will be better of because of it.

Right now the rest of the Eurozone countries are implementing harsh austerity measures designed to funnel money from the poor to the international banking community. This has and will continue to ravage the European economy. One of the articles posted earlier noted that France has weathered the storm a bit better because of their strong social safety net. Improving that safety net further is going to make France one of the few European countries to make it through the recession without gutting the middle class. Other countries can implement more regressive tax policies at their peril.

Let's approach this differently: do you think steve jobs or myamoto for example wouldn't be worth a shittload of cash to hold on to? and do you believe these people would work in their country of origin for 300k or in the country next to it for 10 times that?

Doesn't Miyamoto cap his own salary? Jobs is also an awkward example as, even though he demanded expensive perks at times, he also tended to live more modestly than most of his peers. Additionally, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, who built the first Apple computer, refused to be promoted past mid-level engineer. There's been a lot stated in this thread about the motivations of truly creative individuals. Personally, I don't think these people are always in it for money, but rather they do what they do to master their field and achieve great things. There's a book called Drive that compiles research about motivation. It makes the argument that financial incentives are only motivating up to a certain point, and beyond that point, actually produce worse results.

More importantly though, Steve Jobs would never have been the success that he became if he did not grow up in the U.S. He learned about computers because of government investments in technology which lead to the creation of Silicon Valley. If Jobs had moved to another country before he became successful, he wouldn't have had the resources to create the Mac. If he moved after he created the Mac, society would still have benefited from his co-creation.

First, I don't think that's true at all. Second, even if it were, why would that be problematic?

This notion that the world is run by a handful of super competent and intelligent businessmen is really bizarre.

It's the plot of an Ayn Rand novel.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Doesn't the government technically sets the salary for public jobs? If so, then I don't see a problem with the government setting the salary for the private sector.