Top part of the population as in talented, intelligent and hard-working people?
New French Tax rate
- Thread starter Shrek
- Start date
Top part of the population as in talented, intelligent and hard-working people?
Yep, nothing wrong with a doctor or highly placed public servent being paid a lot more than the lowest on the scale but footballers, singers and actors? feck off.
So Nicole is bad evil? So is Beiber? Rooney? Romney? Gates? Clinton? all millionaires...
The logic makes sense. Because, these are REAL people, willing to pay for these people. It's not based on your hypothetical valuation of what you think people are worth.
I wouldn't know. Both have existed since mankind was about and both are valued and essential.
No, this is not right.
I have nothing against doctors, scientists, university professors, businessman or for that matter even actors, singers and sportsmen to earn more than most of the people. But scale is wrong. It is not right that a footballer earns more in a week that doctors win in a year. It is not right that a CEO earns a thousands time more than a worker in his company. It is not right that a sheikh could pay a singer one million for her to entertain 45 minutes.
I am against the ratio that the top tier earns in comparison to normal people. If a singer earns 3-5 times more than the normal people then it is ok. But if she earns hundreds or thousands of times more than this is mental and should change.
I said that the system is evil not the individuals on it. The businessman often are evil but there are many good persons. The system is the problem, we are all pawns on it, even the billionaires.
There is a high chance that you wouldn't be alive if there wouldn't be doctors. I doubt that the quality of your life would have been lower if there wouldn't be these entertaining persons.
Exactly, the doctor example was a poor one. The average doctor doesn't earn close to €1million a year, so would be unaffected by the 75% rate.
I studied with several people who got to be on half a million or more, they weren't great at maths. Of course I exaggerate a bit when I imply they couldn't manage everyday arithmetic, but some of them were really limited. One of them never managed to get a calculation right the moment a Greek letter was thrown into it, he was like a rabbit caught in headlights. As it turns out, he was the most successful of the lot.
Oh sure, not saying they didn't have something going for them. I had this rugby mate, former Army guy, came back from Basra and did a few courses to help him get a top job. His mathematical or investment nous was limited but the gravitas, poise, cockiness and leadership was definitely there. He could sure schmooze people into certain big money investments, but I can guarantee you he didn't really understand them.
I know many economists and bankers (students, recently graduated and top professionals) and I can say that most of them are poor to average in the Maths. Most of them are limited to arithmetic (if there are big numbers in consideration they must use a calculator), and are hopeless in a little more advanced Maths.
In fact one of my best mates was one of the best students in Economic faculty. He couldn't solve a trigonometric equation even if his life was in sake. Interesting that in last months I am having more contacts with economists (cause I am working in a bank so most of them are economists) and they are idiots when it came to Maths. Everything that goes beyond simple arithmetics and they are fecked.
It doesn't really matter how good at maths they are, they must have some skills that get them the job ahead of others. The problem is like Nicole Whatzerface and Wayne Rooney, is it sustainable on a global scale to pay people who do those jobs what they do (or in the case of some banking sectors, should they even be allowed to do what they do)? The evidence suggests it isn't and the sooner everyone gets to grips with that the better. Even then it's nothing compared to the true billionaires, who are able to extract more money along every step along the chain while others go without.
I can see the arguments that taxing people at 75% stifles success (in that country) but ultimately society as a whole benefits more, which is more important than your personal concerns. But it's hardly surprising that some people who are actually paying those levels of tax rather than discussing it in the abstract on a forum would be upset.
All that being said, Ibrahimovic would be a bellend regardless of what he earned.
All that being said, Ibrahimovic would be a bellend regardless of what he earned.
I find that hard to believe considering economics, as studied at university, is largely applied calculus.
Not all banking roles are math intensive. Besides computers do all the computation nowadays.
I absolutely 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt believe thoase moaning and bitching in this thread would be up in arms against a 70% tax rate if they could actually do something society deemed worthy of such vast rewards themsleves.
I am an economist, and I'm also exceptionally good at maths as are all my economist friends.
That doesn't prove that the tax rate is good or bad though.
Tell that to Stephen King, some people just have a different view of right and wrong to you.
That has no relevance to the objective morality of the tax though, you have to take a wider view than what a few people think.
Of course; it's impossible to get an economics degree from a decent university if you aren't good at maths, the course is largely applied calculus. All these "I know an economist that can't do anything beyond mental arithmetic" stories are transparently bollocks.
I didn't bring economists into the picture, just high-flying investment bankers. Being an economist myself I'm aware of the calculus side.
That said, there are increasingly loads of "common-sense" based observers -behavioural economists- who don't have as much regard for the graphs and the calculus and focus more on "the story". But those who do it properly are still very comfortable with numbers as there is significant statistical analysis and modelling behind it.
Great news
And Warren Buffet. Someone who is crying out for higher taxes for the rich, even though he is one of the richest men on the planet.
So looks like after all it was just a campaign gimmick from Hollande and his camp.This law was rejected for technical reasons by the french constitutional council.Footballers were really worried about it 
So looks like after all it was just a campaign gimmick from Hollande and his camp.This law was rejected for technical reasons by the french constitutional council.Footballers were really worried about it
Doesn't mean it won't happen just not in its current form I.e. taxing individuals instead of households. Was their key campaign pledge so doubt it would be scrapped in its entirety.
Psg will be fecked regardless, assumIng there are no gaping loopholes/ffp is enforced properly/their sponsorship deals are properly scrutinised for fair value. Reasonably big assumption to make though...
It's not just the footballers.Many high profile celebrities, businessmen/women and generally rich people have threatened more or the less the governement to leave France (and their obligation to pay taxes) if this 75% thing is implemented.