5 ms·

It's crazy how so many people in this generation believe that getting rich is evil and wrong..but being forced to give up 60-80% of your earnings to a governmen

It's crazy how so many people in this generation believe that getting rich is evil and wrong..but being forced to give up 60-80% of your earnings to a government that will most likely squander it is not. Don't worry though. When all of the rich leave, there will be nobody left to tax.

jaggederest 14y ago
Whatever you say, John Galt. Go it alone, you don't need those proles, and let us know how that treats you.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  Don't worry. I'm not in France and I will never open a business there if taxes are this high.
oelmekki 14y ago
Those numbers are totally wrong. First, "pigeon"s don't talk about 80% but 60%. And they're wrong about that too. Here is an economical review from the law (translated from french) : http://goo.gl/70xwI http://goo.gl/70xwI The tax is not 60%, but 40%, worst case scenario ; and can be as low as 20% if conditions are met (keeping the business a long time, reinvesting money in an other company). Also, the purpose was not to blame rich ones, it was to tax transaction incomes at the same level as work income. Not more.
michaelochurch 14y ago
France has universal healthcare, tougher environmental regulations, and 5 weeks of paid vacation for all working people. I hardly call that a "squandering" of resources. Fighting an oil war in the desert is closer to that.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  "universal healthcare" Since when has a monopoly ever been a good thing? "tougher environmental regulations" France also based many of them on the idea that we have man-made global warming. "5 weeks of paid vacation for all working people" I would rather leave that up to companies and have 30%+ more of my taxes. "Fighting an oil war in the desert is closer to that." You gave me 3 simple examples. Every government in every country is inefficient. France somehow believes that those inefficiencies will go away by taking away more money from its citizens.
  - paulhauggis 14y ago
    I guess many people here on HN aren't interested in intelligent discussion, only down voting. I would expect nothing less from a person that believes in near total government control.
  - bokonist 14y ago
    Since when has a monopoly ever been a good thing? In the U.S., it is the healthcare providers who form for-profit monopolies that jack up the prices and screw over the consumer - see for example: http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2012/07/well-done-partners.html http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2012/07/well-done-partn... I'm not a fan of monopoly, but I'd rather have a monopoly that works in the interest of getting all patients healthcare and bargaining down consumer prices, rather than a monopoly that creates higher costs to feed the profits of providers. 5 weeks of paid vacation for all working people ... I would rather leave that up to companies I would rather have the vacation time. The problem is that most companies exist in a competive market, productivity is not absolute, but relative. If our company unilaterally allowed everyone to take 5 weeks vacation, the revenue would not fall 5% based on the lost productivity. It might fall 20 or 30% or more, because we would lose market share to our competitors, and we are fighting in a winner-takes-all market. But if all companies in our market had to offer 5 weeks vacation, and this was enforced, then we would all be on the same footing, and all would be better off. It's a classic collective action problem. And the way to solve a collective action problem is that you form an organization and agree on binding rules with punishment for defecting - this is called a government.

jaggederest 14y ago

Whatever you say, John Galt. Go it alone, you don't need those proles, and let us know how that treats you.

paulhauggis 14y ago
Don't worry. I'm not in France and I will never open a business there if taxes are this high.

oelmekki 14y ago

Those numbers are totally wrong. First, "pigeon"s don't talk about 80% but 60%. And they're wrong about that too. Here is an economical review from the law (translated from french) : http://goo.gl/70xwI http://goo.gl/70xwI The tax is not 60%, but 40%, worst case scenario ; and can be as low as 20% if conditions are met (keeping the business a long time, reinvesting money in an other company). Also, the purpose was not to blame rich ones, it was to tax transaction incomes at the same level as work income. Not more.

michaelochurch 14y ago

France has universal healthcare, tougher environmental regulations, and 5 weeks of paid vacation for all working people. I hardly call that a "squandering" of resources. Fighting an oil war in the desert is closer to that.

paulhauggis 14y ago
"universal healthcare" Since when has a monopoly ever been a good thing? "tougher environmental regulations" France also based many of them on the idea that we have man-made global warming. "5 weeks of paid vacation for all working people" I would rather leave that up to companies and have 30%+ more of my taxes. "Fighting an oil war in the desert is closer to that." You gave me 3 simple examples. Every government in every country is inefficient. France somehow believes that those inefficiencies will go away by taking away more money from its citizens.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  I guess many people here on HN aren't interested in intelligent discussion, only down voting. I would expect nothing less from a person that believes in near total government control.
- bokonist 14y ago
  Since when has a monopoly ever been a good thing? In the U.S., it is the healthcare providers who form for-profit monopolies that jack up the prices and screw over the consumer - see for example: http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2012/07/well-done-partners.html http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2012/07/well-done-partn... I'm not a fan of monopoly, but I'd rather have a monopoly that works in the interest of getting all patients healthcare and bargaining down consumer prices, rather than a monopoly that creates higher costs to feed the profits of providers. 5 weeks of paid vacation for all working people ... I would rather leave that up to companies I would rather have the vacation time. The problem is that most companies exist in a competive market, productivity is not absolute, but relative. If our company unilaterally allowed everyone to take 5 weeks vacation, the revenue would not fall 5% based on the lost productivity. It might fall 20 or 30% or more, because we would lose market share to our competitors, and we are fighting in a winner-takes-all market. But if all companies in our market had to offer 5 weeks vacation, and this was enforced, then we would all be on the same footing, and all would be better off. It's a classic collective action problem. And the way to solve a collective action problem is that you form an organization and agree on binding rules with punishment for defecting - this is called a government.