People deserve a certain modicum of dignity (or the lower rungs on Marslow's Hierarchy of Needs): namely health, food, and shelter. It behooves the whole of society also if those who are unable to participate in society are made able to participate (and also fulfills another Need), and these Needs are superior to the "right of a man to the sweat of his own brow."
Those who are able to give should give, those who are in need should receive.
Now the how of all this is, of course, the tricky part, but there is little doubt that this course of action is *right,* save by those who hold unfeasibly extreme views of property rights.
How, specifically, do you intend to get him to pay this money- regardless of tax rate. Pretend I'm him, convince me to stay in France.
I wouldn't. He's free to go, after having oh, say, 50% of his net worth seized by the State.
How can you believe this to be fair? His money is his money. Not your money. Not my money. Not France's money.
Because he's trying to dodge a civic duty, no different than throwing a draft dodger in jail
So a forced transfer of funds from the French to their refugee population. I thought government was supposed to be for the people?
This brings up another point. Why do France and especially Germany do things like this? How are the people not outraged by their government wasting their money on refugees who just suck money away from the hard working citizens?
In Sweden they want to raise the retirement age to 75(literally working to death) in order to pay for them. There is a reason so many national socialist parties are booming in Europe.
