By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Richest Man in France Seeks Belgian Citizenship

theprof00 said:
Mr Khan said:
theprof00 said:
Yeah 75% is simply way too much.

But oh, that poor, poor man! He'll never reach 4th richest man in the world paying those tax rates. That's what this is all about right?
I mean yeah that tax rate is ridiculous, but this is a global financial crisis, and he's concerned that he's not making enough personal income?

Right. If you have enough to live "comfortably" that is with a roof over your head, food of your choice, and the core creature comforts of consumer society. Everything else is just greed.

Is it possible for you to think in terms other than black and white?

I want people to be successful and make lots of money. Success promotes success. The question HERE SPECIFICALLY, is at what point should there be a balance between the stability of one's own economy, and the capability to buy several jets. This guy likely makes about 3b a year after all is said and done.

Typical sensationalist response though. You'll drum up tons of support from the middle with an attitude like that. As republicans are really going to learn this election, their job is to entice the undecided, the middle. Painting an opposing idea in an obviously spun way only turns them off. Work on that.


Am I to assume that you mis-quoted?



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
the2real4mafol said:

It just shows how pathetic the rich, can't even handle a simple tax increase. I agree 75% is a bit much, but it's what you have to do, if you are in debt. I think 50 to 60% tax on the rich is fairer. Even the 45% tax on those who earn above £150,000 I think is fair, better than the ridiculously low taxes of America. Maybe, Hollande is a bit nuts on this.

But either way, a bad economy usually caused by moderates (liberals and conservatives) normally leads to the far left (communists) or far right (fascists) getting power, nearly always. If people aren't happy with Hollande, they just vote in the fascist Le Pen next time, who were 3rd in this year's election!


Why should they be expected to pay a tax increase? They've already had to go through countless loops, and perform thousands of tricks, at the state's will, to become successful. In doing so, they've created jobs, and provided goods and services that people want. These people are beneficators to humankind, and should not be punished for being so.

45% on people earning over 150,000k? I tell you something, my parents are over that bracket, and they're paying WAY over 45%. You forgot to include the fact that the personal allowance is removed at 100,000. Also, national insurance, sales taxes, import taxes, capital gains, fuel duty, alcohol duty, air travel taxes, property taxes, road taxes, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that the price of everything you buy is increased by all the taxes that the producer had to pay. I'd say that the amount that goes to the taxman is closer to 100%, than 45% (one of my dad's friends worked it out once, he said that around 87% of his income went to the taxman... but, hey, it's fine, he's a millionaire.)

Also, you said that "it's what you have to do, if you're in debt". That's bollocks. It makes sense if this guy was responsible for the debt... but, judging by his actions here, he's probably not a big Government guy... why should he have to beholden to the burden of other people's wants? Nothing more than theft.

Bad economies are caused by monetary policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Panic of 1837, in a pre-monetary policy world


"In summation, Temin was right to notice that the inflation of the 1830s began in 1830 not in 

1833.  However, he is wrong to absolve President Jackson and the state banks of all blame for the 

monetary and credit inflation of the decade.  The incorporated, fractional-reserve banks of the 

states were the chief cause of the inflation previous to the panic, and Jackson's state-bank 

depository system was a secondary cause.  Temin is also wrong to blame the Panic of 1837 

merely on changing market conditions abroad.  Had the United States had a sound banking and 

monetary system founded on 100 percent specie reserves, the fall in cotton prices and the drying 

up of British credit would have been a mere temporary inconvenience and certainly would not 

have led to a calamitous panic, followed by a brief recovery and then a second panic and a four 

year business contraction.  "

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/trask1.pdf

Specie reserves aren't the answer either. Keeping the system in check under specie reserves requires much more vigorous government intervention than even our current floating exchange rate system (though less so than Bretton Woods).

Studies out there show that the economy was more sharply cyclical in the heyday of the Gold Standard, rather than less. You've previously espoused that the pre-civil war, pre-centralized currency system was the ideal. Unless you want a non-centralized strict specie reserve system.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:

Specie reserves aren't the answer either. Keeping the system in check under specie reserves requires much more vigorous government intervention than even our current floating exchange rate system (though less so than Bretton Woods).

Studies out there show that the economy was more sharply cyclical in the heyday of the Gold Standard, rather than less. You've previously espoused that the pre-civil war, pre-centralized currency system was the ideal. Unless you want a non-centralized strict specie reserve system.


When a large portion of your economy is made up of agriculture, a poor harvest can cause "cyclical" movements.

Well, I don't agree with what the author proposes. Point is, the panic can be attributed to a central bank (BUS), and state-level santioned banks



SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:

Specie reserves aren't the answer either. Keeping the system in check under specie reserves requires much more vigorous government intervention than even our current floating exchange rate system (though less so than Bretton Woods).

Studies out there show that the economy was more sharply cyclical in the heyday of the Gold Standard, rather than less. You've previously espoused that the pre-civil war, pre-centralized currency system was the ideal. Unless you want a non-centralized strict specie reserve system.


When a large portion of your economy is made up of agriculture, a poor harvest can cause "cyclical" movements.

Well, I don't agree with what the author proposes. Point is, the panic can be attributed to a central bank (BUS), and state-level santioned banks

Jackson & Co. did everything they could to depower and destroy that bank, however. Likely the push was due to too little centralization or stability.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

SamuelRSmith said:
theprof00 said:
Mr Khan said:
theprof00 said:
Yeah 75% is simply way too much.

But oh, that poor, poor man! He'll never reach 4th richest man in the world paying those tax rates. That's what this is all about right?
I mean yeah that tax rate is ridiculous, but this is a global financial crisis, and he's concerned that he's not making enough personal income?

Right. If you have enough to live "comfortably" that is with a roof over your head, food of your choice, and the core creature comforts of consumer society. Everything else is just greed.

Is it possible for you to think in terms other than black and white?

I want people to be successful and make lots of money. Success promotes success. The question HERE SPECIFICALLY, is at what point should there be a balance between the stability of one's own economy, and the capability to buy several jets. This guy likely makes about 3b a year after all is said and done.

Typical sensationalist response though. You'll drum up tons of support from the middle with an attitude like that. As republicans are really going to learn this election, their job is to entice the undecided, the middle. Painting an opposing idea in an obviously spun way only turns them off. Work on that.


Am I to assume that you mis-quoted?

I think he took Khan's geniune response as sarcasm.  Which, a lot of people would do if they didn't really know Khan.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

I think he took Khan's geniune response as sarcasm.  Which, a lot of people would do if they didn't really know Khan.

Perhaps he thinks i'm a leftist parody and not an actual leftist.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

If my country is in need and I have enough money to live comfortably for 10 years, they can tax me 90%.
It's only tax on current earnings and not your total worth. It's not going to kill you by any mean when you already got too much money.



I would die before I payed 75 % of my income on taxes. I wish all the liberals in the US would go there and enjoy socialism and leave honest working people who believe that poor people who refuse to work or are lazy should be left to fend for themselves and eat amongst the dogs not be robbed to pay for the incompetant.



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

homer said:
I would die before I payed 75 % of my income on taxes. I wish all the liberals in the US would go there and enjoy socialism and leave honest working people who believe that poor people who refuse to work or are lazy should be left to fend for themselves and eat amongst the dogs not be robbed to pay for the incompetant.

Let's do a social experiment, then: go to the slums of Calcutta, have someone shoot you in the spine, then pull yourself up by your bootstraps and conquer that country.

I'll wait.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
homer said:
I would die before I payed 75 % of my income on taxes. I wish all the liberals in the US would go there and enjoy socialism and leave honest working people who believe that poor people who refuse to work or are lazy should be left to fend for themselves and eat amongst the dogs not be robbed to pay for the incompetant.

Let's do a social experiment, then: go to the slums of Calcutta, have someone shoot you in the spine, then pull yourself up by your bootstraps and conquer that country.

I'll wait.

How many French people do you suppose live in slums and have paraplegia?

That's entirely besides the point, of course. Just because the ten or so people in France who are actually earning enough to reach that income bracket are losing a significant amount of money doesn't mean that your paralysed slum dweller will see one euro cent of it.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective