France: Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 1:16 PM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/business/international/some-french-entrepreneurs-say-au-revoir.html?hp&_r=0

    “Generally, if you are self-made man and earn money, you are looked at with suspicion,” said Erick Rinner, a French executive at Milestone Capital Partners, a British-based investment bank, who has lived in London for 20 years.

    Mr. Hollande’s election, and especially his proposal — since ruled unconstitutional — to impose a 75 percent tax on the portion of income above one million euros (about $1.4 million) a year, have only reinforced that perception.

    Continue reading the main story
    “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.”


    This is precisely the same culture that many liberals so desperately want to build in the US.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 1:27 PM GMT
    Well, in the good ol' days, 75% of income over $1.4 million would have been very generous:

    Fed U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013

  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 1:28 PM GMT
    You know those days, don't you, riddler78? The time that people on the right miss so much and wish they could go back to icon_lol.gif

    Was entrepreneurship missing back then? History says no.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 1:28 PM GMT
    creature saidWell, in the good ol' days, 75% of income over $1.4 million would have been very generous:

    Fed U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013



    The minor subnote that often gets omitted when posting these stats. And what were the actual effective tax rates during those periods?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 1:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    This is precisely the same culture that many liberals so desperately want to build in the US.

    I'm so glad you know us better than we know ourselves, so you can educate us. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 1:37 PM GMT
    Even with higher effective tax rates, those who this proposal is targeting are better able to minimize the effects of the tax hike.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 1:37 PM GMT
    creature saidYou know those days, don't you, riddler78? The time that people on the right miss so much and wish they could go back to icon_lol.gif

    Was entrepreneurship missing back then? History says no.


    Entrepreneurial opportunities weren't as great back then but still better than much of the world.

    While these are the days many liberals want to build:


    The reality is somewhat different (and the myth of the 91 percent tax rate some liberals like to tout has been repeatedly debunked given the actual taxes paid/tax shelters available for the wealthy at the time):
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dustin-siggins/2012/11/20/debunking-paul-krugmans-beloved-91-percent-tax-myth

    The next irony is that despite tax rates falling, they've fallen at every income bracket in the US - and taxes have been considerably more "progressive". How have "progressive" policies been working out for the poor? History isn't kind.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 1:43 PM GMT
    LMAO Riddler78, I love you. You think the Elizabeth Warren video puts similarly-minded people in a bad light? You're too much!

    Speaking of tax shelters, what about the ones available now.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 1:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature saidYou know those days, don't you, riddler78? The time that people on the right miss so much and wish they could go back to icon_lol.gif

    Was entrepreneurship missing back then? History says no.


    Entrepreneurial opportunities weren't as great back then but still better than much of the world.

    While these are the days many liberals want to build:


    The reality is somewhat different (and the myth of the 91 percent tax rate some liberals like to tout has been repeatedly debunked given the actual taxes paid/tax shelters available for the wealthy at the time):
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dustin-siggins/2012/11/20/debunking-paul-krugmans-beloved-91-percent-tax-myth

    The next irony is that despite tax rates falling, they've fallen at every income bracket in the US - and taxes have been considerably more "progressive". How have "progressive" policies been working out for the poor? History isn't kind.


    Nice try. Tax policies also include Reagan's voodoo economics and the Bush tax cuts. None of which helped this country, and in fact, helped put us further down the hole. So don't try to put the blame on "progressive" policies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 1:52 PM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidYou know those days, don't you, riddler78? The time that people on the right miss so much and wish they could go back to icon_lol.gif

    Was entrepreneurship missing back then? History says no.


    Entrepreneurial opportunities weren't as great back then but still better than much of the world.

    While these are the days many liberals want to build:


    The reality is somewhat different (and the myth of the 91 percent tax rate some liberals like to tout has been repeatedly debunked given the actual taxes paid/tax shelters available for the wealthy at the time):
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dustin-siggins/2012/11/20/debunking-paul-krugmans-beloved-91-percent-tax-myth

    The next irony is that despite tax rates falling, they've fallen at every income bracket in the US - and taxes have been considerably more "progressive". How have "progressive" policies been working out for the poor? History isn't kind.


    Nice try. Tax policies also include Reagan's voodoo economics and the Bush tax cuts. None of which helped this country, and in fact, helped put us further down the hole. So don't try to put the blame on "progressive" policies.


    Ah and how have Obama's policies helped? In fact, if it weren't for Reagan's economic policies, the US would look far more like France today than it does. Inconvenient little fact no?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 1:53 PM GMT
    creature saidLMAO Riddler78, I love you. You think the Elizabeth Warren video puts similarly-minded people in a bad light? You're too much!

    Speaking of tax shelters, what about the ones available now.


    I'm guessing you don't know very many entrepreneurs. Elizabeth Warren's speech is reflective of the values many like her share. Or do you disagree?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 2:00 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature saidLMAO Riddler78, I love you. You think the Elizabeth Warren video puts similarly-minded people in a bad light? You're too much!

    Speaking of tax shelters, what about the ones available now.


    I'm guessing you don't know very many entrepreneurs. Elizabeth Warren's speech is reflective of the values many like her share. Or do you disagree?


    lol I agree with Warren. I find it funny that you think that the content of her speech makes us look bad.

    Rachel Maddow even highlighted how conservatives circulated this video to demonize those of us on the left regarding this issue. Even though, as she pointed out, the Buffet Rule to tax a higher percentage of those at the top has 73% support in the poll she mentioned.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 2:04 PM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidLMAO Riddler78, I love you. You think the Elizabeth Warren video puts similarly-minded people in a bad light? You're too much!

    Speaking of tax shelters, what about the ones available now.


    I'm guessing you don't know very many entrepreneurs. Elizabeth Warren's speech is reflective of the values many like her share. Or do you disagree?


    lol I agree with Warren. I find it funny that you think that the content of her speech makes us look bad.

    Rachel Maddow even highlighted how conservatives circulated this video to demonize those of us on the left regarding this issue. Even though, as she pointed out, the Buffet Rule to tax a higher percentage of those at the top has 73% support in the poll she mentioned.



    Again, like I've said - it's the fundamental problem that I think liberals face. They don't understand the harm their beliefs and values cause in building a culture of dependence and reliance on the state.

    But again, the logical outcome is more like France today - as they say "au revoir" to entrepreneurs.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 23, 2014 2:27 PM GMT
    Are you for any social programs at all, as funded by the government?
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 23, 2014 2:47 PM GMT
    The best performing and brightest Entrepreneurs are now becoming a commodity (a resource) that in effect are being "purchased" and moved to locations more friendly to the craft. Perhaps it is better to allow leftist to continue to believe what they believe, because in doing so they will ultimately come to ruin. icon_biggrin.gif

    Of course, I am speaking in a medium where value is seldom realized and certainly not protected to begin with. The only purpose of value to most RealJockers is to provide them income so they can continue to sit on their asses and do nothing -- other than spend their days on RealJock.com

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 5:21 PM GMT
    creature saidAre you for any social programs at all, as funded by the government?


    Yes - I think there's a good case for something like basic income/EITC (though I think it needs some tweaks). I think this should replace much of the social programs out there.

    I think there's also room for programs to help those who are either physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves. What I don't really understand though is why there are so many on the left who blindly believe in increasing funding to program xyz without actually considering whether or not existing funds are well spent.

    It's practically a universally acknowledged fact that the US gets one of the poorest returns for its public dollars even when compared to more socialistic countries like the Scandinavian countries. Even they are rolling back their social programs though... you would think that there would be a greater push to build programs that actually show they work. Instead you have this system of strong public unions that keep pushing for additional funds that ultimately end up in the bureaucracy rather than directly helping those that programs are aimed at.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 6:04 PM GMT
    Just a quick comment to commend both riddler and creature. I don't really want to get into the discussion except to say that I completely agree with riddler's points and I don't think the points creature makes diminish riddler's case in any way. Nevertheless, it is an intelligent back-and-forth discussion not seen often enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2014 11:58 PM GMT
    Liberals do a great job of talking about helping poor people and needing higher taxes to do so but this is what often happens:

    "Sinkhole of bureaucracy
    washingtonpost.com
    There's an old mine in Pennsylvania where the U.S. processes federal retirements. By hand. On paper. In 2014."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/03/22/sinkhole-of-bureaucracy/

    That process now takes, on average, at least 61 days. That’s the same amount of time it took in 1977, according to a federal audit from that time. Many state retirement systems, which also handle large loads of employees, do it much faster. Florida takes 47 days. The California teachers’ retirement system takes 23. Texas takes two.

    Those three process their files digitally, not on paper. Since the 1980s, the U.S. government has been trying — and failing — to do the same thing here.

    The first time, work began in 1987. Years passed. About $25 million was spent, according to the Government Accountability Office. But within the government, officials started to worry that it wasn’t working.

    “The reports [from the contractor] just asserted that they had written X lines of code. . . . For an executive, that’s just invisible; you don’t know what it means,” said Curtis Smith, who oversaw retirement processing from 1989 to 1994. He was a longtime federal employee with a PhD in English literature, supervising a massive technology project.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 24, 2014 1:02 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature saidAre you for any social programs at all, as funded by the government?


    Yes - I think there's a good case for something like basic income/EITC (though I think it needs some tweaks). I think this should replace much of the social programs out there.

    I think there's also room for programs to help those who are either physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves. What I don't really understand though is why there are so many on the left who blindly believe in increasing funding to program xyz without actually considering whether or not existing funds are well spent.

    It's practically a universally acknowledged fact that the US gets one of the poorest returns for its public dollars even when compared to more socialistic countries like the Scandinavian countries. Even they are rolling back their social programs though... you would think that there would be a greater push to build programs that actually show they work. Instead you have this system of strong public unions that keep pushing for additional funds that ultimately end up in the bureaucracy rather than directly helping those that programs are aimed at.


    I'm all in favor of supporting programs that work over those that don't, but you really have to look at each program individually, instead of just scraping it across the board simply because it is a social program, and therefore seen as a sign of government dependence.

    The disagreement may be whether a program works or not, but I don't think anyone here, at least, would support adding funding if they believed it didn't work. That's wasteful spending.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 24, 2014 1:05 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidJust a quick comment to commend both riddler and creature. I don't really want to get into the discussion except to say that I completely agree with riddler's points and I don't think the points creature makes diminish riddler's case in any way. Nevertheless, it is an intelligent back-and-forth discussion not seen often enough.


    Thanks, socal.

    tumblr_mjk0g63n5z1ql5yr7o1_500.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2014 10:43 AM GMT
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidAre you for any social programs at all, as funded by the government?


    Yes - I think there's a good case for something like basic income/EITC (though I think it needs some tweaks). I think this should replace much of the social programs out there.

    I think there's also room for programs to help those who are either physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves. What I don't really understand though is why there are so many on the left who blindly believe in increasing funding to program xyz without actually considering whether or not existing funds are well spent.

    It's practically a universally acknowledged fact that the US gets one of the poorest returns for its public dollars even when compared to more socialistic countries like the Scandinavian countries. Even they are rolling back their social programs though... you would think that there would be a greater push to build programs that actually show they work. Instead you have this system of strong public unions that keep pushing for additional funds that ultimately end up in the bureaucracy rather than directly helping those that programs are aimed at.


    I'm all in favor of supporting programs that work over those that don't, but you really have to look at each program individually, instead of just scraping it across the board simply because it is a social program, and therefore seen as a sign of government dependence.

    The disagreement may be whether a program works or not, but I don't think anyone here, at least, would support adding funding if they believed it didn't work. That's wasteful spending.


    OK I agree with that stance... but I think you'd also acknowledge that when it comes to government bureaucracy, it's a lot more difficult to get rid of programs that don't work versus getting new funding?

    What are your thoughts on how welfare works now? I have a (L)iberal friend here in Canada who expressed frustration with how our welfare system works in that he believes it shouldn't be a "safety net" - but rather a "spring board" to bring people back up. There does seem to be an issue of when some people fall into the net they don't climb back up - and I think that's a problem - both for the individual and for the rest of society.

    What's your first reaction when you see problems like this?
    http://www.newser.com/story/184120/only-11-of-long-term-unemployed-find-jobs.html

    I'm guessing you also would agree existing "solutions" aren't working... what would be an appropriate way to help these long term unemployed?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 24, 2014 2:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creature said
    riddler78 said
    creature saidAre you for any social programs at all, as funded by the government?


    Yes - I think there's a good case for something like basic income/EITC (though I think it needs some tweaks). I think this should replace much of the social programs out there.

    I think there's also room for programs to help those who are either physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves. What I don't really understand though is why there are so many on the left who blindly believe in increasing funding to program xyz without actually considering whether or not existing funds are well spent.

    It's practically a universally acknowledged fact that the US gets one of the poorest returns for its public dollars even when compared to more socialistic countries like the Scandinavian countries. Even they are rolling back their social programs though... you would think that there would be a greater push to build programs that actually show they work. Instead you have this system of strong public unions that keep pushing for additional funds that ultimately end up in the bureaucracy rather than directly helping those that programs are aimed at.


    I'm all in favor of supporting programs that work over those that don't, but you really have to look at each program individually, instead of just scraping it across the board simply because it is a social program, and therefore seen as a sign of government dependence.

    The disagreement may be whether a program works or not, but I don't think anyone here, at least, would support adding funding if they believed it didn't work. That's wasteful spending.


    OK I agree with that stance... but I think you'd also acknowledge that when it comes to government bureaucracy, it's a lot more difficult to get rid of programs that don't work versus getting new funding?

    What are your thoughts on how welfare works now? I have a (L)iberal friend here in Canada who expressed frustration with how our welfare system works in that he believes it shouldn't be a "safety net" - but rather a "spring board" to bring people back up. There does seem to be an issue of when some people fall into the net they don't climb back up - and I think that's a problem - both for the individual and for the rest of society.

    What's your first reaction when you see problems like this?
    http://www.newser.com/story/184120/only-11-of-long-term-unemployed-find-jobs.html

    I'm guessing you also would agree existing "solutions" aren't working... what would be an appropriate way to help these long term unemployed?


    I do agree that bureaucracy keeps unworkable programs afloat, Reputations are at stake, and therefore people are reluctant to admit a program was a failure. In addition, those programs created overhead jobs, and there's a reluctancy to let them go because of job security.

    But let me reiterate that I don't approve of politicians cutting funding across the board because they see people who use these programs as too dependent. And that by slashing funding, they think they're helping to force people to get out and work.

    Socalfitness made a good point in his thread about approaching poverty from a more nuanced perspective, and that's how I feel about the programs, and the people on the receiving end of those programs. Every case is different, and that is how they should be treated. There are people who abuse the programs, and I believe should be expelled from them. But I don't like it when those abusers are held up as the poster child of these programs and use them an excuse to cut funding.

    I certainly support a springboard approach. I have no problem with a tough love. There are people who see the money as an excuse not to work, or not to seriously find a job or keep one. But there are legitimate reasons why some are on support for an extended period of time. And since giving up on a job search is a major issue, we need to combat that and keep people motivated.

    From the article you linked to:

    The researchers called for aggressive measures to fix the job market, including "designing effective interventions to prevent the long-term unemployed from receding into the margins of the labor market or withdrawing from the labor force altogether

    I agree. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2014 12:30 AM GMT
    creature saidI do agree that bureaucracy keeps unworkable programs afloat, Reputations are at stake, and therefore people are reluctant to admit a program was a failure. In addition, those programs created overhead jobs, and there's a reluctancy to let them go because of job security.

    But let me reiterate that I don't approve of politicians cutting funding across the board because they see people who use these programs as too dependent. And that by slashing funding, they think they're helping to force people to get out and work.

    Socalfitness made a good point in his thread about approaching poverty from a more nuanced perspective, and that's how I feel about the programs, and the people on the receiving end of those programs. Every case is different, and that is how they should be treated. There are people who abuse the programs, and I believe should be expelled from them. But I don't like it when those abusers are held up as the poster child of these programs and use them an excuse to cut funding.

    I certainly support a springboard approach. I have no problem with a tough love. There are people who see the money as an excuse not to work, or not to seriously find a job or keep one. But there are legitimate reasons why some are on support for an extended period of time. And since giving up on a job search is a major issue, we need to combat that and keep people motivated.

    From the article you linked to:

    The researchers called for aggressive measures to fix the job market, including "designing effective interventions to prevent the long-term unemployed from receding into the margins of the labor market or withdrawing from the labor force altogether

    I agree. I cannot imagine anyone disagreeing.


    That seems very reasonable. That said, I believe that people aren't able to work should have avenues of support other than unemployment insurance. What do you think the best approach is to those who are long term unemployed though? Do you think that unemployment insurance may have prolonged unemployment for many of those people?

    Here's an opinion piece written by Bill Clinton - that has been tremendously controversial amongst some liberals:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html?_r=0

    On your first point though, do you feel like Americans get good value for their public sector dollars? Is it an unreasonable approach to first seek savings before new spending?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 25, 2014 2:24 AM GMT
    What other avenues are you suggesting for those unable to work?

    I really don't know what the solution is for those who are long-term unemployed. As I said earlier, each case is different and should be treated as such. At the extreme end, you will have people who are capable and who don't want to work, even though employment is available. I am talking about those who give the program a bad name. I don't think they are as numerous as roadbikerob insists they are. These people I would cut off.

    I am sure there are people who got comfortable with unemployment insurance who don't make an effort to try to find work, and that it did prolong the situation. I'm not going to deny that. But what percentage of the cases is this problem?

    Public sector spending could be tighter, but allowance for spending is fine depending on the return you expect to see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2014 11:46 AM GMT
    creature saidWhat other avenues are you suggesting for those unable to work?

    I really don't know what the solution is for those who are long-term unemployed. As I said earlier, each case is different and should be treated as such. At the extreme end, you will have people who are capable and who don't want to work, even though employment is available. I am talking about those who give the program a bad name. I don't think they are as numerous as roadbikerob insists they are. These people I would cut off.

    I am sure there are people who got comfortable with unemployment insurance who don't make an effort to try to find work, and that it did prolong the situation. I'm not going to deny that. But what percentage of the cases is this problem?

    Public sector spending could be tighter, but allowance for spending is fine depending on the return you expect to see.


    I think for instance, there should be room for those with disability, that instead of minimum wage, there's more EITC (though some liberals see this as corporate welfare - and don't understand the trade off between the empowerment of work vs the short term costs to provide EITC).

    I suspect that it's a bigger problem than you might think... for instance in many states, assistance for being out of work/welfare pays more than minimum wage:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

    Bill Clinton and the Republican congress of the time are credited for massively reducing child poverty from massively reducing welfare rolls...

    There can be too much of a temptation to wait for the perfect job vs getting a job to trade up later (the former being a personal choice that I don't think society should finance). How tight do you think public sector spending is today?