They already do that too with minimum wage. If we can have minimum wage, why not a maximum wage?
French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon wants 100% tax on top salaries
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
They already do that too with minimum wage. If we can have minimum wage, why not a maximum wage?
Flatline
Banned
Dude, no offense but I don't know how else to tell you this, please get off your high horse. Throughout the thread you're assuming that your opinion is the standard of moderation and that advocating for a limit means that we hate rich people or that we're supporting the idea that "no man should ever hold an advantage over someone else". In fact I hate that idea because it promotes laziness but I also hate the idea of unlimited wealth created by the labor of others.
kame-sennin
Member
You say you're arguing for moderation, but you're completely distorting the argument of Melenchon and his supporters. A 300k salary cap does not mean that no one will have an advantage over anyone else. Anyone earning 300k has a huge advantage over someone who makes 30k. Your argument seems intellectually dishonest.
since we don't know how much miyamoto earns (and he isn't CEO) the question is a difficult one to answer but i'm sure its a great deal more than 300k.
again: i'm not against policies to reduce income equality but:
- the policy as proposed would probably do the french economy more harm than good. wich puts all french people in a bad position not only the rich
- don't project the situation in the US to France, income distribution is different as is the income of the state.
- is it really good if a potential head of state gambles the already fragile economy and would the specific problems france has really be solved by more money? lets not forgett that biggest hurdle for the french youth are not that the state doesn't collect enough tax and that they don't get enough social security.
- there are better ways to reduce income inequality
- the tax assumes the french would actually have a compentent president that would be able to distribute the money sensibli. They do not
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Public jobs are funded with tax payer money.
Your salary is directly from my and others pockets.
With the private sector, that money you get in your salary is from people actively purchasing goods.
One way is money that is forcibly distributed from people, the other way is people choosing to give out there money.
While I disagree with this tax, I do think you are missing the point. The general mindset behind this isn't "Why should the boss make more money than I do?" but more so "Why should the boss an excruciating amount more than all of his employees, many of which who are suffering?"
I assume that was for a special case and not for the long term?
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Do you actually know this? Sounds like a guess based on heuristics that might lead to an inaccurate conclusion.
Yes it was a special case.
while true that this is guesswork do you really feel this is worth the gamble? There are policies with less risks to implement that would do more to help the poor in france.
empty vessel
Member
In France they are, but not in the US. In the US the government simply pays for public jobs with money it creates. The economic consequences are (1) increased aggregate demand from the spending and (2) removal of labor from the private sector (which isn't problematic because the private sector isn't using it anyway, as evidenced by the unemployment rate).
France is different because they do not use a currency that they create. France is a currency user, not a currency issuer, so it has to collect revenue in this currency before it can spend it. Accordingly, public jobs in France are indeed funded with tax payer money.
Flatline
Banned
The average Japanese CEO earns one sixth of the average american one. As for your points they're all assumptions based on very little evidence imo. Why do you think it would damage France's economy, what are the better way to reduce income inequality other than literally setting a limit to income inequality and what's the French youth's biggest hurdle?
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I want to see the experiment play out. The world has been able to watch the US experiment and fail (for most of us) with various economic/financial schemes (and suffered from them too... and then didn't learn from them), and I want to watch another high-profile Western nation try something extreme in the other direction.
I actually believe the US government does pay for public jobs with tax payer money, and uses the printed money to plug holes in the economy, adjust inflation, and increase employment. It does this through lending new printed money to private entities to increase the amount in circulation (a lot of which comes back through taxes, but it's still tax money). And of course the top earners get the vast majority of that and invest most of it in the financial sector or overseas.
Because that's where the money is (and not the taxes). Naturally I'm way oversimplifying it and I'm also probably wrong to some degree.
This is kind of redundant. Yes i believe in what i believe in, and wish to see the government embody my beliefs(i do vote!). The difference between me and santorumites is that i'm not insane( at least i hope so
). Don't tread on our freeedom gov't!1111 Let's not devolve into moral relativism vs universalism here please :/
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I've mentioned before in the ex-objectivist thread, that argument of hers, while noble in intention, is a strawman.
Deified Data
Banned
No offense taken - I'm used to it.
I know enough not to argue against political fervor. I've said my piece and will be gone, high-horse and all.
empty vessel
Member
Well, I think the insight here is that, for governments like the US, all spending by the government is with money it creates. And all taxpayer money it receives is never used but destroyed. Conceptually, that is what occurs.
There isn't really a distinction between "printed money" and "unprinted money." The government can spend without printing money simply by crediting accounts at banks. Or it can spend by printing money and literally giving it to people. But in either case the government is spending money it created. Likewise, people can pay taxes either by authorizing debits to accounts at banks (check) or by paying cash. But, either way, the government can be conceived as destroying everything that comes in as tax receipts and creating on the spot all money it spends.
Consider a society that eliminates paper/metal currency entirely, which one could very well do. What's left? A system of points that get added and subtracted like a scoreboard. Would it really make sense to say that the government spends some points one way and spends other points a different way? Or that the government "uses" the points that taxpayers give it? It's just an abstract accounting system, and for a government that issues the points in question, the government can be conceived as creating all points it spends and destroying all points it receives. And it can determine the total number of points available for use in trade and whether the economy needs more points or less.
All this to say, in the US public sector workers get paid points. And, in fact, so do private sector workers. It's just that in the former case, the US government determines how many points the worker will get and in the latter the private sector does, based on many factors. All that's happening in either scenario is adjustments to scoreboards.
The reason its bad for the economy is that the biggest companies are the most mobile and i don't think that the middle sized companies in france are a strong enough to plug the hole.
a hard cap is bad because there are already quite a few people earning more than that and they could outright leave, a guy making 2 millions a year will not suddenly take a paycut down to 300k, with that the state gets nothing instead of more. One can Tax them more moderately and more indirectly with capital gains or bonis or heritage, closing loopholes that exist and i'm sure there are more options. Why take the risk and take everything you can instead of raising as the need arises and being able to moderate the consequences gradually?
This is disregarding the fact that France already taxes a lot and that the additional money does have to be distributed sensibly in order to get an economic gain. The french politicians have not shown great ability with this.
The biggest hurdles the youth have in france is the rigid labour market. One of the consequences of the big hurdles to firing someone is that many firms only employ people they are certain are good/have experience which you can only get working the full job but badly paid as intern (i'm not sure i used the right english term here) of course once your internship is over there are more than enough other people willing to work for little to get experience.
There are more but i'm fuzzy on the details of the different social policies.
That is quite a bit less than i expected i admit.
However People that are used to high salaries won't suddenly accept a salary cut of this magnitude and those people will take their capital with them.
i'm no fan of 7 figure and higher salaries either but i highly doubt france woudl profit from the 300k limit.
going to sleep now.
elrechazado
Banned
No they aren't, all of them inherited it all and did and do nothing to deserve it.
Deified Data
Banned
All of them inherited it, none of them deserve it.
Sigh. This is where my frustration comes from. What was it someone said about me misinterpreting the intentions of Melenchon's supporters?
I really like this idea, because of three possible scenarios:
1, The rich leave, leaving a hole that new talented people can fill. The rich always protects the rich and there's a reason why "new" rich people are looked down upon by their so-called peers. Without them, people would've to step up.
2, The rich stay and continue with their disproportionately high income and the state takes everything over 300K, thus being able to increase spending on healthcare, infrastructure, education... the foundation for a country's growth and stability.
3, The companies decided to utilise the bracket and set a max wage of 300K and use the surplus on the company itself, through R&D, improving working conditions etc. Thus using the money to actually get a competitive edge instead of the CEO getting a new shiny boat for X amount of money.
Some people have complained that the small business owners would suffer under this. The owner would have to stash the surplus over 300K in the company and could then use that accumulated surplus as the base for expanding his business. How can you not see this? Is personal wealth everything? This is not a tax on corporate income but on personal income.
I'd rather try this way than wait for the implosion that will come when our form of capitalism collapses and crashes down on our heads.
1, The rich leave, leaving a hole that new talented people can fill. The rich always protects the rich and there's a reason why "new" rich people are looked down upon by their so-called peers. Without them, people would've to step up.
2, The rich stay and continue with their disproportionately high income and the state takes everything over 300K, thus being able to increase spending on healthcare, infrastructure, education... the foundation for a country's growth and stability.
3, The companies decided to utilise the bracket and set a max wage of 300K and use the surplus on the company itself, through R&D, improving working conditions etc. Thus using the money to actually get a competitive edge instead of the CEO getting a new shiny boat for X amount of money.
Some people have complained that the small business owners would suffer under this. The owner would have to stash the surplus over 300K in the company and could then use that accumulated surplus as the base for expanding his business. How can you not see this? Is personal wealth everything? This is not a tax on corporate income but on personal income.
I'd rather try this way than wait for the implosion that will come when our form of capitalism collapses and crashes down on our heads.
Something Wicked
Member
This is at Ron Paul-levels of understanding of modern economics and global markets.
But then again, I don't see the majority of France recognizing the absolute unsustainability of its government's extreme social collectivist policies. Not even 100% taxes on the French's rich, then top 5%, then top 10%, then top 20%, then top 40%, and so on- will save France from future massive deficits without sizable reforms. I can see Americans, Brits, Germans, and the Japanese enacting such reforms in time, but not the French en masse, despite the calls for reform by many intelligent and logically thinking French men and women.
So, in the end, might as well accelerate what appears to be a very likely economic collapse- elect this Melenchon idiot. For the young French entrepreneurs of today, you may want to seriously consider relocating in the not-too-distant future. Global investors are already poised to take runs at French banks and jack up France's CDS spreads if even Hollande is elected.
But then again, I don't see the majority of France recognizing the absolute unsustainability of its government's extreme social collectivist policies. Not even 100% taxes on the French's rich, then top 5%, then top 10%, then top 20%, then top 40%, and so on- will save France from future massive deficits without sizable reforms. I can see Americans, Brits, Germans, and the Japanese enacting such reforms in time, but not the French en masse, despite the calls for reform by many intelligent and logically thinking French men and women.
So, in the end, might as well accelerate what appears to be a very likely economic collapse- elect this Melenchon idiot. For the young French entrepreneurs of today, you may want to seriously consider relocating in the not-too-distant future. Global investors are already poised to take runs at French banks and jack up France's CDS spreads if even Hollande is elected.
If you're a small business owner and own a 100% stake in your own company, why would you bother trying to expand beyond the point where you are earning 300k?
There is absolutely nothing noble about Santorum's aims; they're all ignorance and bigotry.
kame-sennin
Member
He's being sarcastic. My point, which you never responded to, stands.
You don't understand why having a larger business would improve your quality of life, even if you couldn't take home earnings higher than 300k?
Deified Data
Banned
Ignorance and bigotry take many forms. I'm sure Santorum has quite the quixotic hero complex.
I don't think we have anything left to talk about. Our views of Melenchon and his beliefs are irreconciliable, I accept that.
empty vessel
Member
Ironically, of all of the countries you named, only one of them (Germany) is at all financially constrained. American, British, and Japanese governments have no financial limits on their spending at all and would never need to enact the kind of "reform" you want. In fact, it would be utterly and completely foolish to do so.
All I'm saying is that Santorum's aims can't be seen as "noble" unless you make some serious leaps of logic; meanwhile, there is some degree of sense in Mélechon's policies, specially in terms of stopping dynastic wealth (something that needs to die ASAP) and corruption.
Not directly no. Can you expand?
you act as though the only incentive to ever do anything is that you can horde an enormous amount of money that you will never be able to spend
i'm pretty sure that's not why most visionaries do things
but it probably is why most hacks who want to be very rich by abusing the anglo-american capitalist system do things
and therein lies the difference
i'm pretty sure that's not why most visionaries do things
but it probably is why most hacks who want to be very rich by abusing the anglo-american capitalist system do things
and therein lies the difference
JustProgress
Member
This will go nicely with the "What's the stupidest thing you've ever heard a person say" thread
So you're saying that people will take on huge risks (and time) in expansion for the sake of expanding on a 'vision'? Some would, sure, but you can't seriously believe that the majority would continue to work on expanding their business/vision rather than just do stuff with their free time now there's no opportunity cost to not working?
empty vessel
Member
Indeed, scientists and researchers have our society's most brilliant minds, and most do not ever make much money, nor does the pursuit of money motivate most researchers. This idea that businessmen and entrepreneurs are the best society has to offer and are responsible for society's advances is utter nonsense.
Deified Data
Banned
Both men have their supporters and their detractors. Both men can be seen as heroes or villains depending on your politics. It's okay to support one but not the other - I just don't see where the whole "there's no possible way his beliefs could ever make sense" argument comes from. I'm sure Santorum makes plenty of sense to xenophobic, homophobic, religious conservatives.
But that's probably besides the point.
Something Wicked
Member
You believe infinite government debt is not a problem.
Unfortunately, for your insane view, millions and millions of currency traders and investors throughout the world and billions and billions of taxpayers in current developing nations will not allow the US, UK, Japan, France, and Germany to maintain astronomical debts.
Just like many of those on this board, who hold social collectivist ideals from being jealous of those with higher incomes than themselves, the rest of the world is jealous of the developed world's current ability to run large deficits without proper recourse. As the power of the developing world grows, it would be wise not to completely piss off of the other 6, and then 7, and then 8+ billion people on this planet.
kame-sennin
Member
Melenchon's plan, as I understand it, only affects earnings. But perks and benefits, such as company cars or jets, aren't going to stop. Further, the more successful your business, the more you have to hand down to your children. Melenchon's plan only seeks to reduce the income inequality created by capitalism, it does not eliminate it.
Doesn't the private sector ultimately provide all tax dollars? Then I guess they should also set public sector job wages.
Cue EV with his "no, governments permits the private sector to have money" line of thinking.
Why would I not seriously believe this? Do you seriously believe that the world's great scientists and artists are motivated by wealth? Why should you seriously expect it to be different for the inventor of the world's next printing press or semiconductor.
You might not be able to conceptualise why a person might do something for a reason other than getting rich out of it. I don't believe it to be the motivator for a lot of the world's great visionaries.
[edit]But as I said, those people who want to go into an executive position in a company and get exorbitant salaries completely unrelated to their productive levels or in fact whether they're good at their job will hate these policies, because they wont be able to make an astronomical amount of money for being essentially a cog in a machine.
You're comparing taxes to the 1% to outright misogynistic policies? Seriously? There is extremism in Mélenchon's policies, there is hatred for 50% of the population in Santorum's.
Deified Data
Banned
kame-sennin
Member
Unless I'm missing some aspect of his platform, you would be correct. Like I said, this doesn't eliminate income inequality, it just reduces it.
empty vessel
Member
Sovereign governments that create their own money don't have debt. It's impossible. So, yes, obviously I believe "infinite government debt" is not a problem.
As to the US, UK, and Japan, they have no choice. These governments can meet any and all promises to pay ever made. That's one of the benefits of having the power to create money at will. France and Germany, because they gave up currency sovereignty, are on the other hand vulnerable to economic terrorism perpetuated by currency traders and investors for the purpose of dictating government policy. Of course, that's not democracy, but nobody ever accused you of believing in democracy, did they?
This makes no sense to me at all. You do realize that the US government never needs to borrow money, even when it runs a deficit, right? Think it through.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
As an American, the idea of the execution of the Euro, a common currency among different nations who are only roughly connected due to the currency, is one of the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard.
Either go all out (United States style) or don't go at all.
Either go all out (United States style) or don't go at all.
I'm not entirely sure how someone can make a thing about high rates of taxation into a whinge about how governments aren't paying off their debts. Have we fallen into nega-world where tax rates are suddenly not related to government revenue?
I mean, I could understand if you started whinging about the Laffer curve because then at least you'd be misguided in a more or less logical way, but still.
I mean, I could understand if you started whinging about the Laffer curve because then at least you'd be misguided in a more or less logical way, but still.
empty vessel
Member
This is actually the very crux of the current crisis. All the governments gave up sovereignty over their currency, but there is no political unification. It would be fine to give up sovereignty over currency if there were something serving that purpose for a united political whole. This is essentially what the United States is (although it also did not go quite far enough, but it went a lot further than Europe). Europe is not politically unified, and giving up currency sovereignty under those conditions is like going on the gold standard. It's utterly foolhardy. Those countries that stuck with their own currencies absolutely did the right thing.
An income cap isn't a bad idea, but 300,000 is a bit low. 3,000,000 would be a better place to set it.
I'd actually have different caps for different professions. I'd allow inventors, business founders, and doctors a higher cap than bankers or attorneys (sorry, EV and speculawyer).
I'd actually have different caps for different professions. I'd allow inventors, business founders, and doctors a higher cap than bankers or attorneys (sorry, EV and speculawyer).
- Status