Just because the rates are there don't mean that those corporations and people actually pay. Offshore accounts are great for hiding money

Why are they hiding in the first site? Since they're being madly and multiformly taxed. If you really want, just take tax from those in other countries, too, though. That's another hassle-free way to solve the problem.

And furthermore, you said the average (50,000$) American. Sanders is taxing all these income groups more.

Ah, the wonderful life of mixed nuts and chicken and fish. Sounds rad. I know too many healthy people who got cancer to believe its JUST eating carcinogens, so don't be an arrogant prick.

It's not just eating carcinogens, but medic knowledge and not being about carcinogens will lower your risk of getting a dangerous cancer. Metastic cancers are only hazardous if they're not spotted soon enough, spotted too late, that is. Furthermore, I even said I am for healthcare in life-threatening settings, but not what Sanders wants to get (free healthcare for clipping toenails or something).

Edited 3/31/2016 21:27:32

It sure as hell doesn't seem to, source me.

http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto

Extremely wealth folk pay the most taxes, you should thank your local rich person.

Thank them? Extremely wealth persons pay more taxes according to their revenues, and in America, dont worry about them, they still keep most of their fortune.

but there are 536 billionaires in America, it's obviously not a significant problem,

these 536 billionaires own 12.5% of the whole American wealth. If you do not see yet the problem then I am wondering if your critical mind is not affected.

if they were as "greedy" as you accuse them to be, they're working to make more and more.

They are not working to make more and more, their employees are making them wealthier, actually these billionaires nowadays are not working at all, unless you prove this is wrong.

A great deal of these billionaires' money goes to charities and foreign help funds, by the way (like B. Gates)

Well the truth is few of them are true Philanthropists, sadly, Bill Gates is an exception.

Stop being melodramatic, in America, it's still one of the best median incomes, best in the OECD I think, actually (which is loaded with socialist countries). This isn't a problem at all.

"I think", pigs will fly before the time you will provide solid sources supporting your statement...

And calling rich folk lazybones who don't work is bullshit, too,

Well it is part true anyway, particularly for those inheriting fortunes without doing anything at all.

I'm not against free life-threatening healthcare, but I'm definitely against bigger healthcare. Cancer is in great deal preventable through, well, y'know, not eating carcinogens.

Some cancer are genetic, and avoiding these "carcinogens" you are talking about is impossible, we are surrounded with carcinogens. Life is becoming impossible for low-paid workers, self-employed workers and the unemployed to support themselves properly and have a decent treatment since medical care is expensive and sometimes causes significant financial worries for the sick people themselves and/or their families.

No source is valid, unless it confirms to Panda's beliefs.

No source is valid, unless it confirms to Panda's beliefs.

It is more like "Unless it confirms yours and Juq beliefs" right?

Thank them? Extremely wealth persons pay more taxes according to their revenues, and in America, dont worry about them, they still keep most of their fortune.

Not if Sanders has something to do with it (who wants to bring income/payroll taxes on 250,000 USD+ to 62%, not counting all the other taxes like land taxes, sales taxes, so on...). And it's not really worrying about them, it hurts everyone if you take business's money away. Big businesses will fail, that means less jobs, and then folk will blame that on capitalism and so more socialism will come, it's a nefaste cycle.

these 536 billionaires own 12.5% of the whole American wealth. If you do not see yet the problem then I am wondering if your critical mind is not affected.

Socialists try to bring up income disparity as something axiomatically bad. It's a good thing, especially if it's spread in a non-linear way, it gives an addicting path to do better, since you're income level will exponentially grow contrasted to a linear progression. In short, a good income disparity is a sign of meritocracy and good economy.

They are not working to make more and more, their employees are making them wealthier, actually these billionaires nowadays are not working at all, unless you prove this is wrong.

Who's paying the employers? Now, I'm not going to go through a list of 536 folk, but just the top 3:

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. Self-made.
Warren Buffet, founder of Berkshire Hathaway (umbrella business). Self-made.
Jeff Bezos, founder of amazon.com. Self-made.

Hmm.

Well the truth is few of them are true Philanthropists, sadly, Bill Gates is an exception.

Warren Buffet: plans to donate 5/6 wealth to charity by 2026 (5% each year).
Jeff Bezos: though not as philantrophic, he likes more to donate money to research and cosmology (Clock of the Long Now: 42 million $, Bezos Center for Innovation at the Seattle Museum of History and Industry, 10 million $)
Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook): plans to donate 1/2 wealth to charity, has donated 1,000 million $+ to charity.

"I think", pigs will fly before the time you will provide solid sources supporting your statement...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx

Some cancer are genetic, and avoiding these "carcinogens" you are talking about is impossible, we are surrounded with carcinogens. Life is becoming impossible for low-paid workers, self-employed workers and the unemployed to support themselves properly and have a decent treatment since medical care is expensive and sometimes causes significant financial worries for the sick people themselves and/or their families.

True, some are genetic, and some carcinogens are impossible, but the point is, it's partially avoidable, but I am for taxpaid healthcare in life-threatening settings.

If you really want to "help the poor working families", then implementing choking tax in America is not the way to do it, rather, grow foreign help spending. Folk on welfare with 12,000 $ income (lowest median income of any state in America, Mississipi) need your help much less than than folk in Burundi, where there is huge crime rates right now, and the median income is 128 $, and there is no welfare system to speak of.

. Big businesses will fail, that means less jobs, and then folk will blame that on capitalism and so more socialism will come, it's a nefaste cycle.

Not necessarily, when businesses "fail" people usually do not blame capitalist policies but socialist ones. But anyway I do not see how this is linked with taxing more the rich. Again you are exaggerating it, it's not like Sanders is against business and want to take business's money away.

Socialists try to bring up income disparity as something axiomatically bad. It's a good thing,

It is a good thing when this disparity is not important. It is not only about "socialism" as you often seem to refer to this notion, but "common sense".

a good income disparity is a sign of meritocracy and good economy.

Indeed it is unless it is in a disproportionate manner, and again you skip the problem with "annuitants" and people inheriting fortune without doing anything, recently I read on Quora a 26 years old dude having trouble because he could not decide what he could do with his 200.000k per year revenues, something he inherited from his grandfather then father's investments in real estate. This is what I was talking about: Annuitants are a plague to our societies, and reducing taxations to these people will not solve at all the troubles our economies are currently facing.

Warren Buffet: plans to donate 5/6 wealth to charity by 2026 (5% each year).
Jeff Bezos: though not as philantrophic, he likes more to donate money to research and cosmology (Clock of the Long Now: 42 million $, Bezos Center for Innovation at the Seattle Museum of History and Industry, 10 million $)
Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook): plans to donate 1/2 wealth to charity, has donated 1,000 million $+ to charity.

"Plans" does not mean he will do it, so again lets see if they will do it would you before saying they are true philanthropists.
You can also talk about those billionaires keeping their money, not redistributing it, or giving it randomly to people taking the opportunity of their weakness to take their fortunes, see Bettencourt's story (the senile Magnate of L'Oreal).

Not necessarily, when businesses "fail" people usually do not blame capitalist policies but socialist ones. But anyway I do not see how this is linked with taxing more the rich. Again you are exaggerating it, it's not like Sanders is against business and want to take business's money away.

They blame it on the economic system "as is", which most see as capitalism. And, no, I'm not exaggerating, Sanders may not be against business as policy, but he does literally want to raise the corporate tax (something that should be taken out altogether, taxes should never been put on something that is to be encouraged) and for making the disproportionately high tax rates to the wealthy even higher (over 50%!).

It is a good thing when this disparity is not important. It is not only about "socialism" as you often seem to refer to this notion, but "common sense".

Don't be smug. common sense. So tell me then, a someone who has rare sense, what is so good about equal income spread?

Indeed it is unless it is in a disproportionate manner

Especially if it is in a disproportionate matter, I said this earlier about exponential growth for linear ranking. It can be overdone, I agree, but that's definitely not a problem in America (where the median income is one of the highest).

recently I read on Quora a 26 years old dude having trouble because he could not decide what he could do with his 200.000k per year revenues, something he inherited from his grandfather then father's investments in real estate.

You're miffed he's rich and you're not. If you really wanted to advance income equality, you would have told him something expensive he can buy so that the money gets re-integrated, or maybe even better, tell him to start a business.

This is what I was talking about: Annuitants are a plague to our societies, and reducing taxations to these people will not solve at all the troubles our economies are currently facing.

If money isn't spent, if it's just hoarded, than it's as good as being burned, and that means less money flowing, deflation. Everyone is richer. And if it is spent, then it gets re-integrated, and richness gets passed down through meritocracy. Either way, it's win-win under capitalism, while socialism wants to force down the one choice of basically making everyone richer, and when everyone is given money, noone is given value.

"Plans" does not mean he will do it, so again lets see if they will do it would you before saying they are true philanthropists.

You can't deny that these are philantrophers, even if they haven't yet given all the money that they pledge to. And I was just basing it off the richest billionaires in America, which to your grounding, are the biggest problem. If you want, a little further down the list.

Larry Ellison, founded Oracle (computer business), self-made. Gave 490 million $ to charity.
Charles Koch, investor, first one on the list not really self-made. First one on the list who isn't really a philantropher, though he gave 18 million $ to Wichita State University.

Education is a right, everybody shall have the opportunity and the chance to go to college, and it should not be a question of money.

Just wanted to point out that this isn't true. Its not a constitutionally protected right and it shouldn't be. Not everyone is capable of doing well in College and the government (aka public taxpayer money) shouldn't be financing stupid college kids getting drunk every night and trying to score hookups with anything that moves, breathes, or looks at them.

Its not a constitutionally protected right

You and your constitution...

At any minute now, Russia and Switzerland will collapse into total riots, anarchy, and disorder since they dared rewrite their constitutions in the 1990s.

Laurium's Silver Mines ?


Citizen Dividend on all natural resources even if you do no pay for their exploitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend

He does literally want to raise the corporate tax (something that should be taken out altogether, taxes should never been put on something that is to be encouraged) and for making the disproportionately high tax rates to the wealthy even higher (over 50%!).

Again exaggeration, there is no such high tax rates to the wealthy higher to 50% in Sanders's program. Keep spreading lies.

Don't be smug. common sense. So tell me then, a someone who has rare sense, what is so good about equal income spread?

Someone without common sense like you, is someone not seeing inequalities are getting higher and higher these last decades, someone that does not see there is something profoundly wrong when there is a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages and have the highest childhood poverty rate of nearly any developed country on earth. This is common sense. Sadly many of you do not have it yet.

If money isn't spent, if it's just hoarded, than it's as good as being burned, and that means less money flowing, deflation. Everyone is richer. And if it is spent, then it gets re-integrated

I guess you do not have any basics in Economics, so let me explain you how saving money is bad for the economy with this quote: "The growth in wealth, so far from being dependent on the abstinence [savings] of the rich, as is commonly supposed, is more likely to be impeded by it" (John Maynard Keynes)

You're miffed he's rich and you're not. If you really wanted to advance income equality, you would have told him something expensive he can buy so that the money gets re-integrated, or maybe even better, tell him to start a business.

This is why you contradict yourself everytime, if you want a real meritocracy then this situation should not exist. Answer me simply to this? Did he merit this fortune and revenue?
I am not saying France is perfect in this situation, you will call it a "socialist heresy" (like socialism is an insult), but in France inheritance is heavily taxed (especially the fortunes), to avoid some high inequalities at birth, this is something our ancestors fought for during the French revolution: Equality and meritocracy, sadly our country is no longer an example in that matter, as nowadays inequalities are thriving.

You can't deny that these are philantrophers, even if they haven't yet given all the money that they pledge to.

Of course we can deny it, these are just promises, Zuckerberg made it just after his daughter was born and many suspected it was again another marketing trick to tenderize and attract more people, which is certainly not far from the reality.

Again exaggeration, there is no such high tax rates to the wealthy higher to 50% in Sanders's program. Keep spreading lies.

I showed you earlier, http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto
As for corporate taxes being raised, https://berniesanders.com/issues/making-the-wealthy-pay-fair-share/

So I'll keep lying then.

Someone without common sense like you, is someone not seeing inequalities are getting higher and higher these last decades

I see that, it's a good sign.

someone that does not see there is something profoundly wrong when there is a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages and have the highest childhood poverty rate of nearly any developed country on earth.

I see it profoundly wrong and rare sensed to force folk who earn more to pay a disproportionally high rate. They don't work 300x harder than an average American, even if they earn it, and that's the beauty of income disparity, as I was saying: exponential income for linear effort.

I also find it profoundly wrong to stifle jobs through minimum wage laws and other "workers' rights" that hurt both sides. If you want to work for less, and for 12 hours a day, go for it, noone should stop you.

highest childhood poverty rate of nearly any developed country on earth

One of Sanders's lies. It's high in self-classification, but generally ranks low in uniform classification. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/

America has a negligible poverty rate under 1.9 USD a day (I think it's less than 0.01%). Could not find any worldwide stats on childhood poverty, and that's such a specific grab anyway. I can talk about how the EU has a 40% unemployment rate, but let's look holistically.

I guess you do not have any basics in Economics, so let me explain you how saving money is bad for the economy with this quote: "The growth in wealth, so far from being dependent on the abstinence [savings] of the rich, as is commonly supposed, is more likely to be impeded by it" (John Maynard Keynes)

Yes, everyone seems to be after Keynes. He's your man if you want some economic growth, of course the government has to invest in some industries, but he's not for economic freedom, and nowadays Keynesianism is very clearly overdone. Also, this quote explains nothing, other than "rich hoarding money is bad."

This is why you contradict yourself everytime, if you want a real meritocracy then this situation should not exist. Answer me simply to this? Did he merit this fortune and revenue?

Obviously a meritocracy to that extent is unachievable. Even you will not argue for fully equal incomes, I doubt. What are we, going to start paralysing folk so not to give an advantage over paralysed folk? And next go our brains dumbing us down. I know a good saying to answer.

"Opportunity doesn't mean starting with the same cards as everyone else, opportunity means winning with the cards you have."

I am not saying France is perfect in this situation, you will call it a "socialist heresy" (like socialism is an insult), but in France inheritance is heavily taxed (especially the fortunes), to avoid some high inequalities at birth, this is something our ancestors fought for during the French revolution: Equality and meritocracy, sadly our country is no longer an example in that matter, as nowadays inequalities are thriving.

Sadly "your" country is still way too socialist. I don't recall the precise stat, but I think 80% guns in France are illegally gotten. Anyhow, socialism is inherently against meritocracy since it makes the rewards for being rich so much less. Also, the French Revolution was over high bread and salt taxes (and general bad economy) and hatred for those who imposed the taxes, if I am not mistaken.

Of course we can deny it, these are just promises, Zuckerberg made it just after his daughter was born and many suspected it was again another marketing trick to tenderize and attract more people, which is certainly not far from the reality.

He's already given money, he's already philantrophed.

I showed you earlier, http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto
As for corporate taxes being raised, https://berniesanders.com/issues/making-the-wealthy-pay-fair-share/

So I'll keep lying then.

It is not disproportioned as it is a progressive tax and he justified it anyway. As for the above 50% taxation you did not mentioned it was about the estate taxation, not necessarily businesses, and it is explicitly targeting "those would only impact the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million", again yes it is spreading lies and misinforming since you do not make any effort to share a correct information.

I see that, it's a good sign.

Yes it is. Never said you were a hopeless case.

One of Sanders's lies. It's high in self-classification, but generally ranks low in uniform classification. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/
America has a negligible poverty rate under 1.9 USD a day (I think it's less than 0.01%). Could not find any worldwide stats on childhood poverty, and that's such a specific grab anyway. I can talk about how the EU has a 40% unemployment rate, but let's look holistically.

Yes sure Sanders's lies all over again, will you say UNICEF is also working for Bernie Sanders and his minions? God damn it Juq, this is getting pathetic really.

A report from UNICEF reveals America ranks #4 in the world among so-called “advanced” nations for child poverty. As observed by Paul Bucheitt from Alternet, “the numbers are staggering.” Meanwhile, the GOP aims to cut $5.5 trillion in spending for various programs, including food stamps.

In UNICEF’s survey of “advanced” nations (OECD countries), America ranks an appalling 26 out of 29 when it comes to the material well-being of children . Only the far less advantaged former Eastern Bloc countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania lag behind in providing the wherewithal for children to grow up into healthy, educated, and productive adults.

Now as I said earlier, keep spreading your own lies, I do not know why you despise Sanders so much, but anyway children poverty is something real in America and many foreign and international organizations reported it, so keep ignoring it as you wish.

Yes, everyone seems to be after Keynes. He's your man if you want some economic growth, of course the government has to invest in some industries, but he's not for economic freedom, and nowadays Keynesianism is very clearly overdone. Also, this quote explains nothing, other than "rich hoarding money is bad."

Sure so now you seem more qualified than a Genius in Economics, that takes the cake! Like your clanmate Tupacito-kun (aka Major) smartly stated earlier (I will reformulate it if you don't mind uh) " No source is valid, unless it confirms to Juq's or Major's beliefs. "

Obviously a meritocracy to that extent is unachievable.

It is not achievable according to you sure. Notice I am not against Rich people, I am not against Rich people that deserved their place, that worked hard to achieve their fortune, if you took time to read me, I am against people taking advantage illegally from the system (for ex people speculating) or people doing nothing of their lives (here I join your opinion I believe) and living with fortunes from their families (annuitants) which is a total backward system, as it is creating castes, you know before in Europe we used to have the Nobility, now we have a caste of millionaires, or people that never worked of their lives having a lavish lifestyle whereas they never MERITED it. And yes when it comes about Meritocracy, your reasoning Juq is wrong here. Totally wrong. End of discussion.

Sadly "your" country is still way too socialist. I don't recall the precise stat, but I think 80% guns in France are illegally gotten. Anyhow, socialism is inherently against meritocracy since it makes the rewards for being rich so much less. Also, the French Revolution was over high bread and salt taxes (and general bad economy) and hatred for those who imposed the taxes, if I am not mistaken.

Again, Socialism isn't a bad word. And France isn't sorry to disappoint you a Socialist state, if you knew really the situation.
Meritocracy and Socialism can work together, or prove me I am wrong, because as for now excepted showing your hatred for "Socialism" you did not provide any good arguments.
The French Revolution was over high bread, since people of that period could only afford to buy a bread to sustain themselves, so yes it was a key factor to this revolution, and about these taxes there was a hatred because some people did not pay it (The Nobility, the Clergy), and nowadays we are seeing it coming again: Millionaires try to avoid paying taxes, in France and other countries, the Rich flee the country to fiscal paradises and do not pay taxes, so the ones to blames are them, you awkwardly said earlier we had to thank the Rich for paying these taxes, the thing is a great number of them do not pay them at all!

Edited 4/1/2016 01:10:57

It is not disproportioned as it is a progressive tax and he justified it anyway.

It is. Progressive taxes mean that the richer pay more, but not disproportionately more, but nowadays it's not a battle between progressive and superprogressive taxes, which have been mistakenly called flat tax against progressive tax. But anyhow, it's disproportional, imagine.

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 40%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 20%

It ends up that you pay 80,000 F to the workers (20,000 F left), and they're not even going to get 1,000 F anyway since payroll tax.

Now, your profit is 120,000 which would bring you up to 140,000 and encourage business growth, were it not for "draconian" taxes.

120,000*0.8 = 96,000
96,000*0.6 = 57,600 F

Total left at the end of the year = 77,600. Some workers will have to be fired, you have lost money.

What Sanders wants to do:

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 60%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 35%

120,000*0.65*0.4 = 31,200 F

Total left at the end of the year = 51,200. Even more workers would have to be fired, you have lost money.

And Sanders wants to grow taxes on everybody, every income group.

As for the above 50% taxation you did not mentioned it was about the estate taxation, not necessarily businesses

I didn't say it was land tax, this is just income+payroll tax. Corporate taxes, he does not want to raise so insanely high (thank goodness).

Yes sure Sanders's lies all over again, will you say UNICEF is also working for Bernie Sanders and his minions? God damn it Juq, this is getting pathetic really.

A report from UNICEF reveals America ranks #4 in the world among so-called “advanced” nations for child poverty. As observed by Paul Bucheitt from Alternet, “the numbers are staggering.” Meanwhile, the GOP aims to cut $5.5 trillion in spending for various programs, including food stamps.

UNICEF also shows how it is a lie = America is not highest in the world for "developped" countries. Meantime the GOP aims to stop giving food to folk who don't need it (and of course, schools will still give out free food) and from that get more jobs to folk, and end more poverty.

Also, I looked at this report, it was again, based on relative poverty rates. What may be poverty in America is richness in Romania.

Now as I said earlier, keep spreading your own lies, I do not know why you despise Sanders so much

Sanders is the best since he wants to stop killing innocent lives. But he's mad about economy.

Sure so now you seem more qualified than a Genius in Economics, that takes the cake! Like your clanmate Tupacito-kun (aka Major) smartly stated earlier (I will reformulate it if you don't mind uh) " No source is valid, unless it confirms to Juq's or Major's beliefs. "

Don't be smug, and explain to me (or let Keynes do it) how rich keeping money to themselves somehow hurts everyone else.

It is not achievable according to you sure.

Ok, it's probably achievable, but it's definitely not something either us want.

Notice I am not against Rich people, I am not against Rich people that deserved their place, that worked hard to achieve their fortune, if you took time to read me

If you're for disproportionally high taxes to the wealthiest income groups, then you're against all those wealthy groups.

I am against people taking advantage illegally from the system (for ex people speculating)

I don't know what you're talking about, but this definitely is a problem in welfare.

people doing nothing of their lives (here I join your opinion I believe)

It should be their freedom to do naught. I actually am for "efficiency socialism" as it has been shown to have one of the highest economic growth rates, though it's a very unfree market and not too meritocratic. Only for emergencies only (like Germany after Second World War).

living with fortunes from their families (annuitants) which is a total backward system

This won't even solve anything, though. Folk will just bury some gold in the ground not long before they die and tell their children where to dig it up, with 0% taxes. Inheritance is not a backward system, I say again.

"Opportunity doesn't mean starting with the same cards as everyone else, opportunity means winning with the cards you have."

you know before in Europe we used to have the Nobility, now we have a caste of millionaires, or people that never worked of their lives having a lavish lifestyle whereas they never MERITED it.

I think you are greatly overestimating how many rich folk just inherited their money. Why would someone give money to someone who doesn't know how to make it grow? Why would really someone give money if it won't be given back? Love, sure, but often times great deals of inheritances are given just to charities.

But this could all fit if you tell me, are you for forcing those on welfare to work? Sanders isn't (nor for doing drug tests to be eligible for welfare).

Also, these few "nobles" as you say, well, what happens? They spend their money through "lavish lifestyles" and the money gets reintegrated through a meritocratic system, not just arbitrarily through socialism.

And France isn't sorry to disappoint you a Socialist state, if you knew really the situation.

Classifications and specificities, I don't care too much, but I know that France is too left.

Meritocracy and Socialism can work together, or prove me I am wrong, because as for now excepted showing your hatred for "Socialism" you did not provide any good arguments.

They can, but the more socialism you've, the less meritocracy you have. Socialism and capitalism is an ultimate argument of cooperation against competition. They can co-exist, but the more cooperation there is, the less competition there is. And of course, superprogressive taxes try to take away the exponential rewards for higher income groups, this is just one example of how it cancels out.

some people did not pay it (The Nobility, the Clergy), and nowadays we are seeing it coming again: Millionaires try to avoid paying taxes, in France and other countries, the Rich flee the country to fiscal paradises and do not pay taxes

Well, that's easy, just force them to pay more taxes only if suspected of tax fleeing. But don't lump everyone in the same group, disproportionately high taxes is why they're leaving in the first site and noone's coming in. Frankly, why would they even HQ in France at all if taxes grow too high? Also, noone should ever be barred from leaving the country (unless under criminal investigation)

Also, that's precisely the opposite of what's happening now - the nobility is paying disproportionately higher taxes than the rest, while the church is paying pretty normal rates (still disproportionately high in the EU, I think, but not very).

ones to blames are them, you awkwardly said earlier we had to thank the Rich for paying these taxes, the thing is a great number of them do not pay them at all!

Businesses will always be moving to better economic environs. Also, everywhere has taxes, they do pay, but it suddenly gives the Cayman islands loads of money instead of France.

It is not disproportioned as it is a progressive tax and he justified it anyway.

It is. Progressive taxes mean that the richer pay more, but not disproportionately more, but nowadays it's not a battle between progressive and superprogressive taxes, which have been mistakenly called flat tax against progressive tax. But anyhow, it's disproportional, imagine.

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 40%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 20%

It ends up that you pay 80,000 F to the workers (20,000 F left), and they're not even going to get 1,000 F anyway since payroll tax.

Now, your profit is 120,000 which would bring you up to 140,000 and encourage business growth, were it not for "draconian" taxes.

120,000*0.8 = 96,000
96,000*0.6 = 57,600 F

Total left at the end of the year = 77,600. Some workers will have to be fired, you have lost money.

What Sanders wants to do:

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 60%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 35%

120,000*0.65*0.4 = 31,200 F

Total left at the end of the year = 51,200. Even more workers would have to be fired, you have lost money.

And Sanders wants to grow taxes on everybody, every income group.

As for the above 50% taxation you did not mentioned it was about the estate taxation, not necessarily businesses

I didn't say it was land tax, this is just income+payroll tax. Corporate taxes, he does not want to raise so insanely high (thank goodness).

Yes sure Sanders's lies all over again, will you say UNICEF is also working for Bernie Sanders and his minions? God damn it Juq, this is getting pathetic really.

A report from UNICEF reveals America ranks #4 in the world among so-called “advanced” nations for child poverty. As observed by Paul Bucheitt from Alternet, “the numbers are staggering.” Meanwhile, the GOP aims to cut $5.5 trillion in spending for various programs, including food stamps.

UNICEF also shows how it is a lie = America is not highest in the world for "developped" countries. Meantime the GOP aims to stop giving food to folk who don't need it (and of course, schools will still give out free food) and from that get more jobs to folk, and end more poverty.

Also, I looked at this report, it was again, based on relative poverty rates. What may be poverty in America is richness in Romania.

Now as I said earlier, keep spreading your own lies, I do not know why you despise Sanders so much

Sanders is the best since he wants to stop killing innocent lives. But he's mad about economy.

Sure so now you seem more qualified than a Genius in Economics, that takes the cake! Like your clanmate Tupacito-kun (aka Major) smartly stated earlier (I will reformulate it if you don't mind uh) " No source is valid, unless it confirms to Juq's or Major's beliefs. "

Don't be smug, and explain to me (or let Keynes do it) how rich keeping money to themselves somehow hurts everyone else.

It is not achievable according to you sure.

Ok, it's probably achievable, but it's definitely not something either us want.

Notice I am not against Rich people, I am not against Rich people that deserved their place, that worked hard to achieve their fortune, if you took time to read me

If you're for disproportionally high taxes to the wealthiest income groups, then you're against all those wealthy groups.

I am against people taking advantage illegally from the system (for ex people speculating)

I don't know what you're talking about, but this definitely is a problem in welfare.

people doing nothing of their lives (here I join your opinion I believe)

It should be their freedom to do naught. I actually am for "efficiency socialism" as it has been shown to have one of the highest economic growth rates, though it's a very unfree market and not too meritocratic. Only for emergencies only (like Germany after Second World War).

living with fortunes from their families (annuitants) which is a total backward system

This won't even solve anything, though. Folk will just bury some gold in the ground not long before they die and tell their children where to dig it up, with 0% taxes. Inheritance is not a backward system, I say again.

"Opportunity doesn't mean starting with the same cards as everyone else, opportunity means winning with the cards you have."

you know before in Europe we used to have the Nobility, now we have a caste of millionaires, or people that never worked of their lives having a lavish lifestyle whereas they never MERITED it.

I think you are greatly overestimating how many rich folk just inherited their money. Why would someone give money to someone who doesn't know how to make it grow? Why would really someone give money if it won't be given back? Love, sure, but often times great deals of inheritances are given just to charities.

But this could all fit if you tell me, are you for forcing those on welfare to work? Sanders isn't (nor for doing drug tests to be eligible for welfare).

Also, these few "nobles" as you say, well, what happens? They spend their money through "lavish lifestyles" and the money gets reintegrated through a meritocratic system, not just arbitrarily through socialism.

And France isn't sorry to disappoint you a Socialist state, if you knew really the situation.

Classifications and specificities, I don't care too much, but I know that France is too left.

Meritocracy and Socialism can work together, or prove me I am wrong, because as for now excepted showing your hatred for "Socialism" you did not provide any good arguments.

They can, but the more socialism you've, the less meritocracy you have. Socialism and capitalism is an ultimate argument of cooperation against competition. They can co-exist, but the more cooperation there is, the less competition there is. And of course, superprogressive taxes try to take away the exponential rewards for higher income groups, this is just one example of how it cancels out.

some people did not pay it (The Nobility, the Clergy), and nowadays we are seeing it coming again: Millionaires try to avoid paying taxes, in France and other countries, the Rich flee the country to fiscal paradises and do not pay taxes

Well, that's easy, just force them to pay more taxes only if suspected of tax fleeing. But don't lump everyone in the same group, disproportionately high taxes is why they're leaving in the first site and noone's coming in. Frankly, why would they even HQ in France at all if taxes grow too high? Also, noone should ever be barred from leaving the country (unless under criminal investigation)

Also, that's precisely the opposite of what's happening now - the nobility is paying disproportionately higher taxes than the rest, while the church is paying pretty normal rates (still disproportionately high in the EU, I think, but not very).

ones to blames are them, you awkwardly said earlier we had to thank the Rich for paying these taxes, the thing is a great number of them do not pay them at all!

Businesses will always be moving to better economic environs. Also, everywhere has taxes, they do pay, but it suddenly gives the Cayman islands loads of money instead of France.

Every government has plans to change taxes. There are about one hundred different propositions to do taxes in USA. :P


Businesses need proper infrastructure and human resources. The second most important is the access to resources. There are special services in industrial zones.

Edited 4/1/2016 05:42:39

It is. Progressive taxes mean that the richer pay more, but not disproportionately more, but nowadays it's not a battle between progressive and superprogressive taxes, which have been mistakenly called flat tax against progressive tax. But anyhow, it's disproportional, imagine.

Again this was specifically targeting estates and their taxation, and the heavy taxes concern the richest ones. Let's imagine they finally approve this taxation (so 50% for some very Rich people), this Rich person earning for example 10000k per year will still have 5000k, largely enough to survive don't you think? You talked about Burundi, I am sure many people there could be satisfied with just 10k per year (lowest salary in many countries in Europe), so 5000k...
You know, in France, president Hollande wanted to implement a new taxation against the Rich, something higher to 75% for the richest ones (this was part of his program, and was meant to attract more people usually voting far left). His plan was abandoned, because most of the people in France (and you say we are socialist) were against it. I myself do not agree with it, I personally believe the maximum would be 50% of taxation, because above it, yes it is disproportionate and insane since most of your revenues are drawn in that case.

About businesses, Socialists are not against it, see again our government, Hollande gave many fiscal gifts and advantages to companies (particularly the smaller ones), more than the conservative Sarkozy did during his whole presidency.
All is not about socialism, you have different kinds of socialism, progressive ones, liberal ones, etc.
So you have to be clearer while using this notion as "socialism" is indeed a vague notion.

UNICEF also shows how it is a lie = America is not highest in the world for "developped" countries. Meantime the GOP aims to stop giving food to folk who don't need it (and of course, schools will still give out free food) and from that get more jobs to folk, and end more poverty.

Also, I looked at this report, it was again, based on relative poverty rates. What may be poverty in America is richness in Romania.

UNICEF is only dealing with children issues not general economics, this report shows that America in terms of children poverty rates is the worst in this category with only Romania and some others eastern nations being worse. Relative poverty rates also count for example the power purchase of families, sure families suffering of poverty in America would be richer than in Romania, but do not forget also, that in countries such as Romania or China, life is less expensive, so even if you earn 4 times less than an American, they can afford to buy more things, in China with only 200 dollars per month (average revenue) you can live comfortably and sustain yourself easily, since for example a chicken or a fish would cost no more than 1 dollar (this is what I saw while going there), rental amount and accommodation are also way less expensive int these country, so of course if you have a truncated of view or choose to ignore purposely and do not consider all these factors you would not understand how "relative poverty rates" work.

Sanders is the best since he wants to stop killing innocent lives. But he's mad about economy.

Again I do not believe Sanders is extreme in terms of Social policies, some extreme people would be a Jean-Luc Melenchon (despicable highly narcissistic leader of the far left in France) or a Jeremy Corbyn (although Corbyn even if he is radical could improve many things in the UK). So again "mad about economy" this is pure irony at best or ignorance.

Well, that's easy, just force them to pay more taxes only if suspected of tax fleeing. But don't lump everyone in the same group, disproportionately high taxes is why they're leaving in the first site and noone's coming in. Frankly, why would they even HQ in France at all if taxes grow too high? Also, noone should ever be barred from leaving the country (unless under criminal investigation)

Actually, nobody is barred (for now) in France to leave this country and save their fortune elsewhere, unlike some nations like the US (France is not a mad socialist dictatorship as some of you seem to believe). This is highly egocentric to not participate in the finance of the nation that allowed you to become richer after all, people like Bernard Arnaud (richest man in France leading LVMH and many other companies) made all their fortune in France and fled this country, Bernard Arnaud tried to become Belgian to avoid paying taxes in France, but almost all his fortune was made in France, do you see the injustice? The least he could do is participating to the general effort, the Rich are taxed in France that's right, but not insanely as you may think to believe. Nevertheless their greediness is strong, as it seems this axiom is valid after all: The richer you get the more selfish and greedier you become, everybody is not a Benjamin Franklin. As Molière used to say "Que la peste soit de l'avarice et des avaricieux!"

Also, that's precisely the opposite of what's happening now - the nobility is paying disproportionately higher taxes than the rest, while the church is paying pretty normal rates (still disproportionately high in the EU, I think, but not very).

The Church and the Nobility were an example to show you how similar the situation is nowadays but it is no longer the Clergy and the Nobility but a caste of rich people, as Warren buffet said not so long ago "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Everything is said with this.

I think you are greatly overestimating how many rich folk just inherited their money. Why would someone give money to someone who doesn't know how to make it grow? Why would really someone give money if it won't be given back? Love, sure, but often times great deals of inheritances are given just to charities.

Overestimating? Show figures please, many people inherited fortunes, and I personally know at least 2 people in this case that inherited huge fortunes (counted in Millions) whereas doing nothing at all.
Giving his fortune to charities is an exception, people are not all philanthropist or perhaps are you that naive? We do not live in a child's fantasy world, so wake up Juq.

But this could all fit if you tell me, are you for forcing those on welfare to work? Sanders isn't (nor for doing drug tests to be eligible for welfare).

Also, these few "nobles" as you say, well, what happens? They spend their money through "lavish lifestyles" and the money gets reintegrated through a meritocratic system, not just arbitrarily through socialism.

well it seems you are ignoring the reality, people benefiting from a welfare system are working, because after all even if they benefit from this economical support, they are poor, and to sustain yourself you have to work.

As for the ones inheriting a fortune, and spending their money, it's not like you are just making random comment again right? Money is not reintegrated as easily, some families keep their fortunes for centuries (see the Rothschild) but tell me what are their merit?

As I told you earlier, I personally know someone who inherited a fortune at 18 years old, after his grand father died (his family possessed a French Haras, raising horses for competition), this guy does not spend his money at all, he prefers to keep it safe (which is partly understandable), but you see this shows simply how your simplistic analysis is wrong, since it is not supported by solid arguments again.

Businesses will always be moving to better economic environs. Also, everywhere has taxes, they do pay, but it suddenly gives the Cayman islands loads of money instead of France.

If it was only businesses, but it is not most of the time businesses, but fortunes of people accumulated for years at the expense of others. Let's take the example of rich French people fleeing the country, their wealth was made in the expense of the French people. The least they could do is to redistribute it, and do not worry, it is not like they would lose all their fortunes, in France the Richest ones are not taxed more than 30% usually, and many of them have relations with the politicians (see Sarkozy and Liliane Bettencourt magnate of L'Oreal, and the story of Paul Bismuth), that help them to have some unfair advantages other people do not have.
Most of the people having grown an insane fortune such as Trump or Arnault, are people that made their fortune not only because of merit but also collusion and friendship with politicians or influential people.

Edited 4/1/2016 12:35:17

Edit: too controversial/I'm too sleepy to discuss politics

Edited 4/1/2016 14:36:31

He has made racist statements towards Mexicans and Blacks, the two largest minorities (I'd rather spend time with them then 95% of white people anyways).

Calls Donald Trump out for making 'racist' remarks, then immediately declares that he prefers to refrain from spending time with a large majority of a particular race.

Oh but wait, its only racist if its against black people or Mexicans, isn't it!

Tut tut, liberal hypocrisy.

What further pisses me off is someone from my city, Beloit Wisconsin, went to Janesville Wisconsin, and was pepper sprayed by a Trump support for attempting to hit him for grabbing her breasts.

This is wrong on so many levels its insulting and sad.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cops-find-donald-trump-fan-accused-pepper-spraying-teen-article-1.2583803

The man who you claimed 'grabbed her breasts' has actually been declared innocent and cleared of all allegations.

But of course, you conveniently choose to ignore that.

Meanwhile, the girl has been recommended for disorderly conduct charges. Videos and eye witnesses clearly show she punched the man, unprovoked.

But of course you conveniently don't mention that as well. After all, its okay to attack Trump supporters, but not okay for them to defend themselves, isn't it?

Tut tut, liberal logic.

Edited 4/1/2016 14:53:21