6 ms·

The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entre

The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. The fact that your argument focuses on this minor point in order to dismiss the whole point is rather telling about what consent is being manufactured here...

nraynaud 13y ago
There is quite some bullshit in this article, because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company (so we are exactly in the same state as before). Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. And there is a little detail here: banking salaries are higher in London than in Paris and bankers are driven by money, so they emigrate massively in the pursuit of money. This has strictly no link to entrepreneurship, starting companies, or creating value from nothing, but hey, there is a complaint train, let's take it. And you can see the intermix quite a few times (got his wealth in finance, he worked in finance, the google references), Place de la Madeleine, is exactly who Fleur Pellerin is not trying to help, this are different people doing different things. And if for anything, bankers are part of the problems entrepreneurs have. So here is a nice little piece of context that was not in the article: here in France it's an election day today, and yesterday and today, political propaganda are forbidden in the country. The journalist is based in Paris, and has been for years, so she probably knew that nobody could answer to the article.
- crusso 13y ago
  because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company You don't necessarily have to change any law for the weight of decades of laws and regulations to finally catch up with the previous decent momentum of the private sector -- especially in a global market where the actions of other countries negatively impacts your lack of adjustments. Add to that a generally poor global economy, and new businesses will flee an anti-business climate.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth. A lot of people don't like seeing bankers with big bonuses after they trashed the economy for everyone else. They're suspicious of old money children who have inherited a fortune but seem to have contributed little of value themselves. They're envious of highly paid sporting or artistic celebrities who get more salary in a week than most of us make in a year. And so they support punitive rates of tax for those who earn noticeably more than they do, not necessarily based on any rational economic argument, but more because they feel it's "fair" for the "rich to contribute more" or some such argument. Unfortunately, what that usually does in practice is hit highly qualified professionals or modestly successful entrepreneurs. It hits the doctors who spent years training, then more years working long hours for little money as juniors, and who finally made it to more senior positions where they are literally in a position to save lives with their greater experience but earn a fair bit of money. It hits the top public servants: the veteran judges, the experienced military commanders, the senior civil servants, basically the kind of people who keep government actually working despite the whims of successive political administrations. It hits the lucky entrepreneurs, the ones who made it after maybe putting their lives on hold for years and investing their savings to build a real business that creates value and maybe jobs for other people. All of these people are the kind of people we really need in society to keep everything working, and usually they are people who have reached those positions not through good fortune or family connections but through a lot of hard work over a long period of time. However, the people these punitive taxes don't hit are the ones that the popular moneylust craves, because the super-rich are the people who have the flexibility to move their assets and/or themselves around to avoid high-tax environments. Absent serious international co-operation to overcome the naturally competitive tax environment that today's globalised society creates, these people will continue to be super-rich no matter what. I like to think that if the people supporting these high rates of tax for those with some above average level of wealth realised who they were really targeting, we'd have a different attitude to taxation today. As it is, I fear the politics of envy will continue to trump rational economic policy for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately the people who actually did earn their wealth will be the ones who suffer most for it.
  - 13y ago
- argonaut 13y ago
  > because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company Which has nothing to do with my argument. And no relevance whatsoever because the status quo is shitty, and not changing the status quo is bad in of itself.
crdoconnor 13y ago
>The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. Yes, the greater argument was that "the entrepreneurial climate is poor" because they wouldn't get very much sympathy saying "stop taxing the ultrawealthy so much. We don't like it!". Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious what they thing the 'fix' for this supposedly poor climate of this is when you read stuff like this: >Some wealthy businesspeople have also been packing their bags. >While entrepreneurs fret about the difficulties of getting a business off the ground, >those who have succeeded in doing so say that society stigmatizes financial success. >The election of President François Hollande, a member of the Socialist Party who >once declared, “I don’t like the rich,” did little to contradict that impression. Or this: >“It is a French cultural characteristic that goes back to almost the revolution and >Robespierre, where there’s a deep-rooted feeling that you don’t show that you make money,” >Ms. Segalen, the recruiter, said. “There is this sense that ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ >means that what’s yours should be mine. It’s more like, if someone has something I can’t have, >I’d rather deprive this person from having it than trying to work hard to get it myself. >That’s a very French state of mind. But it’s a race to the bottom.” Essentially, this article is emphatically NOT about entrepreneurs, particularly not struggling entrepreneurs. It's basically a good old whinge by the French elite.
- argonaut 13y ago
  It's interesting how your argument insists on collapsing this issue into a black and white issue: it's the elites whining and not in any way about entrepreneurs. And yet the only evidence you provide is one or two quotes where the article talks about the anti-wealth sentiment. Fun fact: an appreciation of wealth-generation is absolutely necessary and goes hand in hand with encouragement of entrepreneurship. Follow the incentives.
  - crdoconnor 13y ago
    >It's interesting how your argument insists on collapsing this issue into a black and white issue: it's the elites whining and not in any way about entrepreneurs. Right, because none of the issues presented in the article were actually ABOUT the problems entrepreneurs face. Did it mention fundraising? No. Did it mention hiring? No. Did it mention anything about gaining traction? No. Did it mention anything about finding a mentor? No. Did it mention something about how the proles were getting uppity about the rich needing to pay more taxes? Hell yea. Learn to read between the lines. >Fun fact: an appreciation of wealth-generation is absolutely necessary and goes hand in hand with encouragement of entrepreneurship. Follow the incentives. Neither fun nor a fact. My incentive is to be my own boss, not to one day become a billionaire asshole like Eric Schmidt. If I were making a million dollars a year I'd be fine with being taxed at 75%.

nraynaud 13y ago

There is quite some bullshit in this article, because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company (so we are exactly in the same state as before). Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. And there is a little detail here: banking salaries are higher in London than in Paris and bankers are driven by money, so they emigrate massively in the pursuit of money. This has strictly no link to entrepreneurship, starting companies, or creating value from nothing, but hey, there is a complaint train, let's take it. And you can see the intermix quite a few times (got his wealth in finance, he worked in finance, the google references), Place de la Madeleine, is exactly who Fleur Pellerin is not trying to help, this are different people doing different things. And if for anything, bankers are part of the problems entrepreneurs have. So here is a nice little piece of context that was not in the article: here in France it's an election day today, and yesterday and today, political propaganda are forbidden in the country. The journalist is based in Paris, and has been for years, so she probably knew that nobody could answer to the article.

crusso 13y ago
because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company You don't necessarily have to change any law for the weight of decades of laws and regulations to finally catch up with the previous decent momentum of the private sector -- especially in a global market where the actions of other countries negatively impacts your lack of adjustments. Add to that a generally poor global economy, and new businesses will flee an anti-business climate.
Silhouette 13y ago
Moreover it's merrily intermixing entrepreneurs problems with banking problems. This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth. A lot of people don't like seeing bankers with big bonuses after they trashed the economy for everyone else. They're suspicious of old money children who have inherited a fortune but seem to have contributed little of value themselves. They're envious of highly paid sporting or artistic celebrities who get more salary in a week than most of us make in a year. And so they support punitive rates of tax for those who earn noticeably more than they do, not necessarily based on any rational economic argument, but more because they feel it's "fair" for the "rich to contribute more" or some such argument. Unfortunately, what that usually does in practice is hit highly qualified professionals or modestly successful entrepreneurs. It hits the doctors who spent years training, then more years working long hours for little money as juniors, and who finally made it to more senior positions where they are literally in a position to save lives with their greater experience but earn a fair bit of money. It hits the top public servants: the veteran judges, the experienced military commanders, the senior civil servants, basically the kind of people who keep government actually working despite the whims of successive political administrations. It hits the lucky entrepreneurs, the ones who made it after maybe putting their lives on hold for years and investing their savings to build a real business that creates value and maybe jobs for other people. All of these people are the kind of people we really need in society to keep everything working, and usually they are people who have reached those positions not through good fortune or family connections but through a lot of hard work over a long period of time. However, the people these punitive taxes don't hit are the ones that the popular moneylust craves, because the super-rich are the people who have the flexibility to move their assets and/or themselves around to avoid high-tax environments. Absent serious international co-operation to overcome the naturally competitive tax environment that today's globalised society creates, these people will continue to be super-rich no matter what. I like to think that if the people supporting these high rates of tax for those with some above average level of wealth realised who they were really targeting, we'd have a different attitude to taxation today. As it is, I fear the politics of envy will continue to trump rational economic policy for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately the people who actually did earn their wealth will be the ones who suffer most for it.
- 13y ago
argonaut 13y ago
> because the current government has not changed any law about creating a company Which has nothing to do with my argument. And no relevance whatsoever because the status quo is shitty, and not changing the status quo is bad in of itself.

crdoconnor 13y ago

>The 75% wealth tax point was only a minor point in an article that expressed many many other points and anecdotes, and whose greater argument was that the entrepreneurial climate in France was poor. Yes, the greater argument was that "the entrepreneurial climate is poor" because they wouldn't get very much sympathy saying "stop taxing the ultrawealthy so much. We don't like it!". Nonetheless, it's pretty obvious what they thing the 'fix' for this supposedly poor climate of this is when you read stuff like this: >Some wealthy businesspeople have also been packing their bags. >While entrepreneurs fret about the difficulties of getting a business off the ground, >those who have succeeded in doing so say that society stigmatizes financial success. >The election of President François Hollande, a member of the Socialist Party who >once declared, “I don’t like the rich,” did little to contradict that impression. Or this: >“It is a French cultural characteristic that goes back to almost the revolution and >Robespierre, where there’s a deep-rooted feeling that you don’t show that you make money,” >Ms. Segalen, the recruiter, said. “There is this sense that ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ >means that what’s yours should be mine. It’s more like, if someone has something I can’t have, >I’d rather deprive this person from having it than trying to work hard to get it myself. >That’s a very French state of mind. But it’s a race to the bottom.” Essentially, this article is emphatically NOT about entrepreneurs, particularly not struggling entrepreneurs. It's basically a good old whinge by the French elite.

argonaut 13y ago
It's interesting how your argument insists on collapsing this issue into a black and white issue: it's the elites whining and not in any way about entrepreneurs. And yet the only evidence you provide is one or two quotes where the article talks about the anti-wealth sentiment. Fun fact: an appreciation of wealth-generation is absolutely necessary and goes hand in hand with encouragement of entrepreneurship. Follow the incentives.
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  >It's interesting how your argument insists on collapsing this issue into a black and white issue: it's the elites whining and not in any way about entrepreneurs. Right, because none of the issues presented in the article were actually ABOUT the problems entrepreneurs face. Did it mention fundraising? No. Did it mention hiring? No. Did it mention anything about gaining traction? No. Did it mention anything about finding a mentor? No. Did it mention something about how the proles were getting uppity about the rich needing to pay more taxes? Hell yea. Learn to read between the lines. >Fun fact: an appreciation of wealth-generation is absolutely necessary and goes hand in hand with encouragement of entrepreneurship. Follow the incentives. Neither fun nor a fact. My incentive is to be my own boss, not to one day become a billionaire asshole like Eric Schmidt. If I were making a million dollars a year I'd be fine with being taxed at 75%.