4 ms·

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 sta

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.
- jedrek 13y ago
  > This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth. It seems like most of the envy is more perceived by the ultra-rich (or wannabes) than actually exists... > 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. You realize the 75% tax rate is on year income exceeding one million euro, right? One million euro is 34x the average salary in France, which means that anybody hit by that tax makes more money in less than two years than the majority of their countrymen will earn in their entire lives. I make way more than an average salary where I live and I don't really have any problem paying higher tax rates. Sure, I work harder than lots of people who work 9-5 jobs, but I don't work any harder than friends I have who work two jobs. There is no question, in my mind, that people who work harder and take risks should reap greater potential rewards... the real question we need to answer is how much higher those rewards should be. It's time to stop pretending that the doctor who spent years training, working as an intern, etc did it in a vacuum. It was tax francs that built the hospitals, that created the institutions that taught them and made them the best of the best. The entrepreneur sells a product shipped on roads built with taxes, over an electric grid built with taxes and might very well bill people using letters sent by mail... well, you get the idea. Not to mention the employees they hire, who were educated with what? Was it taxes? You betcha. Besides with progressive taxes, that doctor will always make more, because progressive taxes do not penalize you for earning more. If you're making 100,000€, your after-tax income is ~62,500; if you're making 200,000€, it's ~133,000€. > 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. You're a little delusional. France has a pretty high level of social mobility because of it's high taxes, not in spite of them. Having access to free higher education is a massive boon to lifting people out of poverty. France has the second highest birth rate in the EU due do a generous social safety net. These things cost money, but they're excellent long-term investments. People don't exist in a vacuum, economies are wonderfully interconnected things and acting like the people who take risks and succeed are some kind of superheroes who shouldn't give back because of some deranged notion that they "did it themselves" is myopic, dishonest and, to be frank, total bullshit.
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.

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.

jedrek 13y ago
> This is a big problem with current envy-driven politics surrounding wealth. It seems like most of the envy is more perceived by the ultra-rich (or wannabes) than actually exists... > 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. You realize the 75% tax rate is on year income exceeding one million euro, right? One million euro is 34x the average salary in France, which means that anybody hit by that tax makes more money in less than two years than the majority of their countrymen will earn in their entire lives. I make way more than an average salary where I live and I don't really have any problem paying higher tax rates. Sure, I work harder than lots of people who work 9-5 jobs, but I don't work any harder than friends I have who work two jobs. There is no question, in my mind, that people who work harder and take risks should reap greater potential rewards... the real question we need to answer is how much higher those rewards should be. It's time to stop pretending that the doctor who spent years training, working as an intern, etc did it in a vacuum. It was tax francs that built the hospitals, that created the institutions that taught them and made them the best of the best. The entrepreneur sells a product shipped on roads built with taxes, over an electric grid built with taxes and might very well bill people using letters sent by mail... well, you get the idea. Not to mention the employees they hire, who were educated with what? Was it taxes? You betcha. Besides with progressive taxes, that doctor will always make more, because progressive taxes do not penalize you for earning more. If you're making 100,000€, your after-tax income is ~62,500; if you're making 200,000€, it's ~133,000€. > 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. You're a little delusional. France has a pretty high level of social mobility because of it's high taxes, not in spite of them. Having access to free higher education is a massive boon to lifting people out of poverty. France has the second highest birth rate in the EU due do a generous social safety net. These things cost money, but they're excellent long-term investments. People don't exist in a vacuum, economies are wonderfully interconnected things and acting like the people who take risks and succeed are some kind of superheroes who shouldn't give back because of some deranged notion that they "did it themselves" is myopic, dishonest and, to be frank, total bullshit.

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.