France General Discussion II: Living under Marxism

[Peter the Lefty]

That's it, the government just lowered the price of one liter of gas by 0,06 €. Huge priority for a left-wing government to spend its money on... -___-'

Oh and Montebourg said that nuclear power was a "sector with a future" (un secteur d'avenir), the Greens are pretty pissed but they either resign or shut up. So they shut up. Glad we the FdG didn't negotiate ministers beforehand like those did...

Wow, this government really is becoming a train wreck really fast. 

[You kip if you want to...]

Montebourg's right though. This is the problem with Greens, they're never satisfied.

[Zanas]

Montebourg is neither right nor wrong : it is a question of political will. He could just have consulted his junior green government partner before expressing such an affirmation. That is to say, if any socialist had any consideration whatsoever for their coalition partners... :-P

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

[You kip if you want to...]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

And I hear the richest guy in France has applied for Belgian citizenship.

[Insula Dei]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

And I hear the richest guy in France has applied for Belgian citizenship.

To put it with Libération: Casse-toi, riche con.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

And I hear the richest guy in France has applied for Belgian citizenship.

To put it with Libération: Casse-toi, riche con.

Lots of criticism can be addressed to Libération, but one thing is for sure: their titles are awesome.

[Vosem]

The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains...a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

And these are somehow good things, to be welcomed?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains...a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

And these are somehow good things, to be welcomed?

They at the very least can be for those of us who don't consider rich people arahitogami.

[後援会]

苛斂誅求

The old adage that taxpayers are like sesame seeds (you can always get more oil from sesame seeds!) has not proven exactly true. See: France's richest man.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains...a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

And these are somehow good things, to be welcomed?

For those who care about the millions of people who would actually suffer if the this burden was imposed on them rather than on those who can afford it... yeah.

[Iannis]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

I hope they will calculate with prudence that the actual revenue of the taxes will be half of what they hope, They can't be so stupid not thinking this, and what for raising the country's competitiveness, considering that after these new taxes it's lagging behind even more?

[Vosem]

The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains...a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

And these are somehow good things, to be welcomed?

They at the very least can be for those of us who don't consider rich people arahitogami.

Believing everybody should pay the same tax rate -- or at least thinking that rich people don't inherently deserve to pay a greater percent of their income -- doesn't mean you consider them arahitogami.

The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains...a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

And these are somehow good things, to be welcomed?

For those who care about the millions of people who would actually suffer if the this burden was imposed on them rather than on those who can afford it... yeah.

The first question should be if this burden should be placed on anyone, but ultimately it's a question of fairness. If rich people are paying a smaller percent of their income than poor people, raise their taxes (or lower poor people's taxes) -- it's unfair. But the opposite is also unfair, and the fact that rich people can handle it doesn't make it any better. That said, those who are so poor that such a tax rate would call their survival into question should have a lower rate...but rich people should not have a higher rate, and it strikes me as really awful that you're celebrating people being robbed.

To state my ideology more broadly, income inequality is not a problem. Poverty is a problem. (I will be pissed if someone quotes the first sentence out of context on one of the Deluge threads on Forum Community.) The fact that some people don't have enough money to survive is a problem. They deserve help. The fact that some people have more than enough isn't. All of society, not just rich people, should bear a section of the burden of supporting poor people. There's a reason that taxes are in percents, not flat amounts of cash -- so that it's fair. It would be unfair to demand the same amount of $ from the middle-class as the rich. It would also be unfair to demand a higher %. Call it regressive if you want. In fact, if a higher tax rate on the 1% than literally everyone else is progressive, I'll revel in the label.

苛斂誅求

The old adage that taxpayers are like sesame seeds (you can always get more oil from sesame seeds!) has not proven exactly true. See: France's richest man.

Funny, but that particular old adage is very true. The fact that one man escaped doesn't mean that others will.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first question should be if this burden should be placed on anyone, but ultimately it's a question of fairness. If rich people are paying a smaller percent of their income than poor people, raise their taxes (or lower poor people's taxes) -- it's unfair. But the opposite is also unfair, and the fact that rich people can handle it doesn't make it any better. That said, those who are so poor that such a tax rate would call their survival into question should have a lower rate...but rich people should not have a higher rate, and it strikes me as really awful that you're celebrating people being robbed.

To state my ideology more broadly, income inequality is not a problem. Poverty is a problem. (I will be pissed if someone quotes the first sentence out of context on one of the Deluge threads on Forum Community.) The fact that some people don't have enough money to survive is a problem. They deserve help. The fact that some people have more than enough isn't. All of society, not just rich people, should bear a section of the burden of supporting poor people. There's a reason that taxes are in percents, not flat amounts of cash -- so that it's fair. It would be unfair to demand the same amount of $ from the middle-class as the rich. It would also be unfair to demand a higher %. Call it regressive if you want. In fact, if a higher tax rate on the 1% than literally everyone else is progressive, I'll revel in the label.

Since you're making it a "justice" issue, I have to say I find it really hard to justify the current inequalities of incomes based on merit. In other words, Steve Jobs is not worth one million of your average workers. But since this is a philosophical issue, there is no way one of us can possibly convince each other, so let's leave that behind.

I'll rather focus on pointing out the logical and economic inconsistency of your proposal. So, you say, those who "can't afford" to pay taxes shouldn't pay any, and everyone else should pay in proportion to income (say 10%). This already indicates that there's a basic problem with pure flat taxation: there are certain people who can't do without this 10% of their income. Now, where do you draw the line between those who "can afford" paying taxes an those who can't? Is it those who need this 10% to avoid starving? To buy a house? A car? Health insurance (in the US at least)? To pay for their kids' education? If you draw the line at the lower level, I'm not sure you will have done much against poverty. But if you draw it at the upper level, that means you make no difference between the poorest of the poor (who physically can't afford to pay taxes) and the more marginal cases (who could afford to pay taxes, but for whom paying taxes makes a substantial difference in their living standards).

See, the problem is that there is not, on one side, "the poor", and on the other side, everybody else. Society is a continuum of living standards, which goes from a starving homeless to Mitt Romney. It does not suddenly become "affordable" to pay a 10% tax. Rather, you have levels of affordability ranging from "I'll die if I pay taxes" to virtually no difference at all. And here we come at the very reason why you have progressive taxation: because money does not mean the same thing to everybody. Take a billionaire 10% of his income, and all he'll do is have a bit less money to save (which would have served no purpose apart from further augmenting his wealth). Take an upper-middle class person 10% of his income, and he will have to renounce to a flat-screen TV or the last iPad. Take a middle-class person 10% of his income, and he won't be able to pay for his kid's higher education. Take a lower-middle class person 10% of his income, and he won't be able to afford health insurance. Take a working-class person 10% of his income, and he might not be able to pay his rent. Etc... So, as "just" and "fair" as it might look in pure abstraction, flat taxation does not merely maintain the society's inequalities: it increases them. Progressive taxation makes sense because it takes into account what concrete difference taking money away from someone makes in its everyday life, beyond your poor/non-poor dichotomy.

You might not care about this, since wealth equals merit, and if you don't want to suffer from flat taxation you just have to work harder and make more money. But here's when things get really interesting. Let's get back to your plan: no tax for the poor (whatever you define as such), 10% for everybody else. Who gets screwed in this scenario? The middle class. The poor don't pay, so they stay the same. The middle class, being just wealthy enough to be subject to taxation, is the category for which taxation has the most concrete impact. While they might not become outright poor, their standard of living is significantly deteriorated and they have now to focus on their basic needs. Well, I've got a scoop for you: this is the best recipe for economic ruin. Every modern, post-industrial economy is based on the middle class for its subsistence. Because the middle class is the category that actually consumes the income it earns. The wealthy only consume a tiny part of their income, the rest being saved. And without people to buy stuff, there's no economy. The middle class is what provides the customers without whom no business can thrive. When you're left without a middle class, all you can do is live off export, but that works only as long as other countries have middle classes to buy your products. So, it is not only fairer, but also more economically effective, to tax more heavily those for which money matters the less.

In short, there is a reason why even the most extreme neoliberals in most places don't advocate for flat taxation: it's a mind-numbingly stupid idea whose sheer unfairness and economically disastrous natures makes it laughed at by any serious economist or social thinker.

I don't think I will ever convince you, but, for once, I decided to be optimistic and hope that providing an articulate response to such bullsh*t could not be a complete waste of time. I probably won't be doing that again any time soon.

[Vosem]

Since you're making it a "justice" issue, I have to say I find it really hard to justify the current inequalities of incomes based on merit. In other words, Steve Jobs is not worth one million of your average workers.

He's not worth a million workers, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to use the money he earned however he wants to.

I'll rather focus on pointing out the logical and economic inconsistency of your proposal.

OK.

So, you say, those who "can't afford" to pay taxes shouldn't pay any, and everyone else should pay in proportion to income (say 10%). This already indicates that there's a basic problem with pure flat taxation: there are certain people who can't do without this 10% of their income.

I agree with you so far...

Now, where do you draw the line between those who "can afford" paying taxes an those who can't? Is it those who need this 10% to avoid starving? To buy a house? A car? Health insurance (in the US at least)? To pay for their kids' education? If you draw the line at the lower level, I'm not sure you will have done much against poverty. But if you draw it at the upper level, that means you make no difference between the poorest of the poor (who physically can't afford to pay taxes) and the more marginal cases (who could afford to pay taxes, but for whom paying taxes makes a substantial difference in their living standards).

In answer to the first question, of where the line should be drawn, I honestly don't know; this is something that should be decided by an elected legislature, and I think it's enough of an ethical issue that I can't come up with an answer on the spot. Should those who literally cannot afford to pay taxes be forced to pay a rate that they simply cannot provide? No, and I mention that in my post.

See, the problem is that there is not, on one side, "the poor", and on the other side, everybody else. Society is a continuum of living standards, which goes from a starving homeless to Mitt Romney.

I think you could go further in either direction, but on this I can agree.

It does not suddenly become "affordable" to pay a 10% tax.

It's not sudden, as there are shades. But nevertheless, there is a boundary; there is a certain point at which you are so poor that 'everyone else's' tax rates shouldn't apply to you, and there is beyond that.

Rather, you have levels of affordability ranging from "I'll die if I pay taxes" to virtually no difference at all. And here we come at the very reason why you have progressive taxation: because money does not mean the same thing to everybody. Take a billionaire 10% of his income, and all he'll do is have a bit less money to save (which would have served no purpose apart from further augmenting his wealth).

Really? He could've invested it and created jobs, or contributed it to charity, or in other ways done very useful things with it. Or, alternatively, he could've saved it, which he has the right to do with his money. But I see your point -- he doesn't need it.

Take an upper-middle class person 10% of his income, and he will have to renounce to a flat-screen TV or the last iPad. Take a middle-class person 10% of his income, and he won't be able to pay for his kid's higher education. Take a lower-middle class person 10% of his income, and he won't be able to afford health insurance. Take a working-class person 10% of his income, and he might not be able to pay his rent. Etc... So, as "just" and "fair" as it might look in pure abstraction, flat taxation does not merely maintain the society's inequalities: it increases them.

Countries that actually have a flat tax (like the Czech Republic and the Baltic states) don't actually seem to have such a high income inequality, though...though I will agree this argument is difficult to refute.

Progressive taxation makes sense because it takes into account what concrete difference taking money away from someone makes in its everyday life, beyond your poor/non-poor dichotomy.

But it's still not fair because you're taking someone else's money and giving it to someone. That's the point, ultimately -- it's not fair to say, you have a lot, you have a little, give him your stuff. It's fair to ask society to say, help this person who only has a little.

You might not care about this, since wealth equals merit, and if you don't want to suffer from flat taxation you just have to work harder and make more money.

This idea that right-wing economics means you think wealth=merit is pretty old and pretty untrue. I don't think wealth=merit. I think that it is unfair to take another person's things, which they fairly own. This is the key point, and if we can't agree on it there's no use to debating at all. As for the second part of the sentence, we both know that's not necessarily practical.

But here's when things get really interesting. Let's get back to your plan: no tax for the poor (whatever you define as such), 10% for everybody else. Who gets screwed in this scenario? The middle class. The poor don't pay, so they stay the same.

Ah, but if the poor aren't taxed, they require less money from the government to provide basic necessities -- which lessens the amount the middle-class must pay. The poor don't pay, but because of this they get less stuff.

The middle class, being just wealthy enough to be subject to taxation, is the category for which taxation has the most concrete impact. While they might not become outright poor, their standard of living is significantly deteriorated and they have now to focus on their basic needs.

Would it be, at least in the short run in the US, a tax increase on the middle-class? I'm going to admit, yes. Which is why I don't favor immediate adoption (France is still marching on and making it's tax system worse, which is why I brought this up in the first place). But because I think a flat tax would help the economy (trickle-down, laugh all you want), it would ultimately even out.

Well, I've got a scoop for you: this is the best recipe for economic ruin. Every modern, post-industrial economy is based on the middle class for its subsistence. Because the middle class is the category that actually consumes the income it earns. The wealthy only consume a tiny part of their income, the rest being saved.

This is true, basically, though it's not necessarily true the wealthy save everything and only spend a bit of it; some do that, but not all.

And without people to buy stuff, there's no economy. The middle class is what provides the customers without whom no business can thrive. When you're left without a middle class, all you can do is live off export, but that works only as long as other countries have middle classes to buy your products. So, it is not only fairer, but also more economically effective, to tax more heavily those for which money matters the less.

The point is that in the long run the middle-class would be helped...

In short, there is a reason why even the most extreme neoliberals in most places don't advocate for flat taxation: it's a mind-numbingly stupid idea whose sheer unfairness and economically disastrous natures makes it laughed at by any serious economist or social thinker.

You could ask 43 countries and several U.S. states who are doing OK...certainly the idea that nobody takes it seriously is simply incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Around_the_world

I don't think I will ever convince you, but, for once, I decided to be optimistic and hope that providing an articulate response to such bullsh*t could not be a complete waste of time. I probably won't be doing that again any time soon.

I don't think either of us will ever convince the other, but it's good to engage in debate -- it forces you to present your own views in a logical manner and debate them with those of the other person. I'll admit you're more knowledgeable on this issue than I am -- it doesn't change my opinion, but I'll say it.

[LastVoter]

You might not care about this, since wealth equals merit, and if you don't want to suffer from flat taxation you just have to work harder and make more money.

This idea that right-wing economics means you think wealth=merit is pretty old and pretty untrue. I don't think wealth=merit. I think that it is unfair to take another person's things, which they fairly own. This is the key point, and if we can't agree on it there's no use to debating at all. As for the second part of the sentence, we both know that's not necessarily practical.

Uh-uh

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's already a huge weakness in your vision of what "justice" is. Because, from your statements, I gather that a fair tax system is one in which everybody pays the same share. Deviating from that rule means "taking money from someone to give it to someone else" as you said before. If this is the only just system - if, in other words, this is a moral rule - it ought to be universally true (morality is made of categorical imperatives and suffers no exception clauses). So, the possibilities are two. Either your idea of taxation is morally right, which means that it is also morally right to ask a starving man to give up 10% of his income. Or it is not. This doesn't mean it is morally wrong of course, there can be other reasons to support it. But if you yourself admit that your system doesn't work in its pure form, if you admit that there can be an exception, then you cannot, on a moral ground, object to further exceptions, even if enough "exception" will eventually make the system progressive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I see. But then you have to define what are one's "basic needs". And if you have an extensive definition of what one's "basic needs" are (including things like education, health care, etc.), then the number of people who would be excluded from taxation - and thus the flat rate imposed to the others - would be so high, that the resulting tax system wouldn't be much different from progressive taxation, just rendered completely silly by the fact you would go from paying nothing to paying an enormous amount of taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, these are countries exiting from communist regimes, so, in terms of income inequalities, the started off very low. Still, if you search for a correlation between flat taxation and income inequality, I'm confident that the result will be clear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might not like it, but taking someone else's money and giving it to someone is part of the State's prerogatives. The collective's right to socialize and redistribute a certain part of one's wealth is broadly accepted as a part of the social contract in all modern democracies. It is fairly understandable that you think your money belongs to you and not to your neighbor, but as long as you live in a society and accept its common rule, you also have to accept that such society, through a democratic vote, can oblige you to contribute financially for the society's greater good. There is absolutely nothing unfair with that. Especially considering how much every one of us (and the wealthier in particular) owe to the society and how screwed they would be without it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, we've got a huge problem here. Because if wealth doesn't equal merit, this means some people have more than they deserve, and some have less. You can say they have earned their money, but have they earned it by working hard and doing something good for the collective? Have they earned it by inheritance? Have they earned it because they got help from people in a position of power/influence? Have they earned it by gambling (which is what the stock market is about, after all)? Have they earned it by tricking people? If there are so many ways to earn wealth that are unfair and/or detrimental to the greater number, why is the right to enjoy what you earned so sacred?

It's not like, even if wealth equaled merit, progressive taxation would be unfair: after all, the fact you are successful doesn't mean you don't have a moral duty to help those who didn't succeed like you. But the way reality work, and the way money is so often unfairly earn, makes your moral stance further absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you realize that, in all countries which substantial welfare states, the very poor don't pay taxes anyways? Do you know many serious countries where, say, the bottom 5% is taxed? I might be wrong, but I highly doubt it's the case. So your plan is, let's stop taxing the poor who aren't taxed anyways, but in exchange, let's shut down the programs aimed to help them. I'm sure they'll like your idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, indeed, please let me laugh. A theory which has been put in place for 30 years now and never, ever worked (to be more specific, it produced short-lived bounces followed by huge recessions which canceled all benefits) ought to be laughed at. Or at least it would be laughed at if it hadn't been such a tragedy for mankind, steadily eroding the fruits of decades of social progress and bringing us back to the 19th century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By what, your trickle-down magic? Sure, that's why the median income in the US today is the same as it was back in the 1970s, after years of Reaganomics and tax cuts of all kinds for the wealthy. The same, despite all the growth in the overall wealth. In which hands do you think all that growth ended up? Seriously, it would be nice to at least acknowledge basic realities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I notice that none of them (tax heavens aside) is a developed western country. This might be indicative of something... If your role model for a country is Czech Republic, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia or Andorra, I would guess something is wrong with your principles.

[Zanas]

I find it unfair that any government should take anyone's money at all. Who are they to do that anyway ?

[You kip if you want to...]

I find it unfair that any government should take anyone's money at all. Who are they to do that anyway ?

Without taxes, there's no government whatsoever, so...

[MaxQue]

I find it unfair that any government should take anyone's money at all. Who are they to do that anyway ?

Without taxes, there's no government whatsoever, so...

I think it is irony.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It appears the rich aren't taking it anymore

[Antonio the Sixth]

It appears the rich aren't taking it anymore

You put it as if they were actually suffering. Don't be silly.

[Zanas]

Well that campaign just made the "socialist" government back up... Sadness.

[MaxQue]

In other news, Benoit Hamon is praising the Quebec cooperative model.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well that campaign just made the "socialist" government back up... Sadness.

Wait, what happened?