|
Copé is as likely to become president in 2017 as I am to be involved in a threesome with Evan Rachel Wood and Roxanne McKee.
Well, I wish anyway.
|
On May 02 2012 22:49 Faya wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:39 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:33 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 22:24 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:16 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 22:04 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:58 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 21:43 Geiko wrote:
You say that what put the greek down was Fiscal leaks. How is Hollande going to stop fiscal leaks when he is planning on raising taxes for rich people and thus favors the "évasion fiscale" ? "La France, tu l'aimes ou tu la quittes", you remember, if raising tax will increase fiscal leaks, then you're not patriotic and you assume to be a jerk to the country that made you rich in the first time. Sarkozy also said it would be normal to flee the country if tax raised, wtf would a president say that ? France is full of selfish bastards who would run away, and because non of the 47% are as rich, it means france is even full of wannabe selfish bastards, worse. Look at the americans, supporting the tax raise, this is patriotism. We are just Vichy. It's funny because Hollande and sarkozy seem to agree on this point, more taxes will encourage fiscal evasion and people fleeing the country. Here's a video of Hollande explaining this http://www.arretsurimages.net/vite.php?id=13309. Americans support more taxes because right now, rich people are only paying about 30% taxes on their revenues and they would be in favor of paying closer to 40 or 50% In France rich people already pay that much. Isn't paying more then half of what you make in taxes already patriotic enough ? True patriots died for their country, when a person is earning 15.000€ a year or 1.5million, when you have to pay 40% of taxes, it means one will have 9000€ left while the rich will have 900.000€. Don't you think it could be fair to try and live with only 700.000€ a year ? Would it make a difference to the rich person? The point of raising tax is not to make the rich poor, it is just about asking some solidarity among the country of France, but it seems to hard for the french right-wing and its supporters. Let's just make a "soda tax" of one cent, it will cure the crisis... This is turning more and more into an ideological debate and less and less about political choices for our country. François Hollande and Ségolène Royale each make 360 000€ per year. Do they need that much money to live ? This is a typical case of "faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais". Don't try to make this into something else then ideology because it's nothing more. Raising taxes for the extremely wealthy will have ZERO impact on taxe revenues, it's just a demagogical thing to say (Hollande even admitted to this). The only thing this will lead to is rich people fleeing France and paying less taxes in France. How can you say it would have zero impact ? I have 10€, i take you 2, i will have 12, not 10. Maybe I'm talking to a kid that didn't go to school yet, therefore our debate is useless 'cause you can't vote. And maybe we should talk about the salary of Hollande and Royal, because after all, this is the new way to make a debate, not talk about programs and ideology, but rather attack people's integrity. Why would they do something if nobody follow them, this is just foolish, let's see if they do what they say once the law settled. If they do not, then you will be right to accuse them, right now it's just stupid and prove your lack of arguments. Stop with insults please. I you must know, I have a higher education diploma in France. There, settled ? I'm not the one saying this, françois hollande is saying this "it won't have any impact, it's more for the principle of it" is what he said. People are talking about sarkozy's salary so I talk about Hollande's salary. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. Yeah, i wasn't insulting, i was wondering who i was talking to, thats' it. Hollade said it would have no impact on the debt, not no effect at all. Measurements taken to bring back the growth will need money, found in such tax raises. Get it? Sarkozy's main idea is that doing socialist stuff like creating public jobs or raising salary will indubitably (yes i just used that word) increase the global debt. However, raising tax (to the richest) will even earnings and spendings, intelligent spendings, which will make a growth. But you can't understand that, because as maHo says, we're not from the same world. Keep your money and have fun in another country where you will pay less tax. And because you probably don't have the money you wish you had (people above a million euros per year are 0.02% in France), stay in France, and vote for Coppé in 2017.
You don't need to be so judgmental, you don't really know me do you ? I'm actually not attracted by money at all, if I was, I'd be working in a bank making an absurd amount of money and being miserable  I actually hate the bank centric system that the world has currently become with a passion and am totally revolted when i see traders making money off of nothing but millisecond transactions.
I vote for Sarkozy because he proposes a entrepreneur's capitalism instead of a financial capitalism. I believe in the virtue of hard work, and I believe in being proud of whatever ever money you are making, and the possibility to spend this money (that represents my work) the way I see fit. But maybe that makes me a bad person
|
On May 02 2012 22:56 Microchaton wrote:
Copé is as likely to become president in 2017 as I am to be involved in a threesome with Evan Rachel Wood and Roxanne McKee.
Well, I wish anyway.
Life would be more simple if those two were running the country, i tell you
|
On May 02 2012 22:45 Eiaco wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:14 Velr wrote:On May 02 2012 21:20 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 20:51 darkshad30000 wrote:On May 02 2012 20:38 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 02 2012 20:26 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 02 2012 20:12 Geiko wrote:
When I hear Mélanchon say "When you see a rich person, you've got to take his money" (lui faire les poches) I can't help but ask myself where all the "love" between frenchmen is... This is a lie, from Sarkozy. Sarkozy manipulated Melenchon discourse, and everybody repeated that like idiots. Melenchon said "on va leur faire les poches" as a metaphor talking about ultra-rich people with abusive salaries. Like only a complete and utter moron would have thought that he was saying that when you see a rich person you have to rob him. But well, nobody checked and Sarkozy's trademrak outrance and manipulative deformation of people's speech worked perfectly. So, you didn't "hear" anything especially from JLM. You just repeated. Prêt à penser, welcome in Sarkozie. Don't you think "on va leur faire les poches" is a rather aggressive statement that can only generate hatred and violence ? Btw you didn't address the second part of my post. Well, that's not the problem. Between -"On va leur faire les poches", meaning we need to tax lot more ultra rich people (just that you know, the average difference between top and lowest salaries in society of the CAC 40 has been multplied by 20 in thirty years) in a meeting, and -"Melenchon says that when you see a rich you have to "lui faire les poches"", meaning physically attack the rich and rob them, there is a big difference. So either you didn't listen to JLM and you repeated what Sarkozy says, and you just get manipulated like an idiot. Either you know that you are completely transforming a militant statement and you are being blatantly dishonest. Don't change the subject, I am talking about this precise sentence that you said. It's a problem when you guys are telling me that left vs right is a battle of love vs hate (sic). Please don't resort to insults such as "idiot", I'm not trying to be aggressive, lets keep this civil  "on va leur faire les poches" literally means in French: "we are going to rob them". The use of that sentence is not innocent by JLM and he knows very well this will exacerbate the Anti-Rich sentiment that he is basing his campaign on. Because believe or not, in France, making money is something you should be ashamed of. And btw, you still didn't address the second part of my previous post. I agree with you so much Geiko. In france, it's a shame to be rich. In france when you support Sarkozy you are a selfish, and when you support Hollande, you are generous! I ask Melenchon's fan, why there isn't some Steve Jobs or Bill Gates in France? They are earning millions of dollars but how many jobs did they create? You think it's a shame they earn so much money? Fortunetaly that there are rich people in France! I don't understand how people can be so agressive against rich! Most of the time they deserve their money For every Steve Jobs there are half a dozen Paris Hiltons and a Madoff. Do they deserve their money? Imho: Steve Jobs and other "RICH" people don't deserve their money as long as people that work FULL TIME at their companies can't even support their family or grant them an "ok/decent" living standart. No, they don't deserve their money, they get rich because they exploit their employes and the state which has to support these guys because "Mr. Rich" is to cheap to pay them decently. These "rich guys" actually leech from the system because they are the ones that create the working poor that need additional support (which the same rich guys don't want to pay a fair amount of taxes for). Job creators? My ass. This was diffrent ~30 years ago, this has to change again. If you taxed Steve jobs 40% of his salary for the past 5 years, you would have made a total of $2. (He was on a $1 salary).
1: Whos talking about Salary? It's about Income and i don't give a fuck where it comes from, Tax it.
2: Even if he didn't make a single buck the last 5 years, this only shows how much he exploited the shit out of everything as hard as he could in the years before that...
3: I still don't get why you guys can't get over the fact that Steve Jobs got "named" (not even by me at first) and feel to need to Whiteknight for a guy that sold WAY overpriced stuff, is suspected to have bought his organs on the black market and exploited the shit out of every worker that could not be directly connected to him (Foxcom.......).
|
On May 02 2012 22:33 Faya wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:24 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:16 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 22:04 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:58 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 21:43 Geiko wrote:
You say that what put the greek down was Fiscal leaks. How is Hollande going to stop fiscal leaks when he is planning on raising taxes for rich people and thus favors the "évasion fiscale" ? "La France, tu l'aimes ou tu la quittes", you remember, if raising tax will increase fiscal leaks, then you're not patriotic and you assume to be a jerk to the country that made you rich in the first time. Sarkozy also said it would be normal to flee the country if tax raised, wtf would a president say that ? France is full of selfish bastards who would run away, and because non of the 47% are as rich, it means france is even full of wannabe selfish bastards, worse. Look at the americans, supporting the tax raise, this is patriotism. We are just Vichy. It's funny because Hollande and sarkozy seem to agree on this point, more taxes will encourage fiscal evasion and people fleeing the country. Here's a video of Hollande explaining this http://www.arretsurimages.net/vite.php?id=13309. Americans support more taxes because right now, rich people are only paying about 30% taxes on their revenues and they would be in favor of paying closer to 40 or 50% In France rich people already pay that much. Isn't paying more then half of what you make in taxes already patriotic enough ? True patriots died for their country, when a person is earning 15.000€ a year or 1.5million, when you have to pay 40% of taxes, it means one will have 9000€ left while the rich will have 900.000€. Don't you think it could be fair to try and live with only 700.000€ a year ? Would it make a difference to the rich person? The point of raising tax is not to make the rich poor, it is just about asking some solidarity among the country of France, but it seems to hard for the french right-wing and its supporters. Let's just make a "soda tax" of one cent, it will cure the crisis... This is turning more and more into an ideological debate and less and less about political choices for our country. François Hollande and Ségolène Royale each make 360 000€ per year. Do they need that much money to live ? This is a typical case of "faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais". Don't try to make this into something else then ideology because it's nothing more. Raising taxes for the extremely wealthy will have ZERO impact on taxe revenues, it's just a demagogical thing to say (Hollande even admitted to this). The only thing this will lead to is rich people fleeing France and paying less taxes in France. How can you say it would have zero impact ? I have 10€, i take you 2, i will have 12, not 10. Maybe I'm talking to a kid that didn't go to school yet, therefore our debate is useless 'cause you can't vote. And maybe we should talk about the salary of Hollande and Royal, because after all, this is the new way to make a debate, not talk about programs and ideology, but rather attack people's integrity. Why would they do something if nobody follow them, this is just foolish, let's see if they do what they say once the law settled. If they do not, then you will be right to accuse them, right now it's just stupid and prove your lack of arguments.
It will have very limited impact for a very simple reason: the "rich" people concerned are 30 000 in France. The total amount gained from taxation benefits far more from taxing lightly a lot of people than taxing heavily a few. Don't forget that half the French population don't even pay income tax. Likewise, the real money-bringers in terms of tax income for the State are the TIPP (oil tax) and TVA (value added tax), because everyone pays it.
I find the debate for this election to be way too polarized for my taste. It's hard to have a constructive discussion when each side treats the other as the Devil incarnate or -- even worse -- try to make then out as somehow intellectually deficient in order to discredit their ideas. However, those that say it's a product of the past five years have a very short term memory. History tends to repeat itself.
|
On May 02 2012 22:48 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:38 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:32 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:28 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:00 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:56 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:44 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:26 darkshad30000 wrote:On May 02 2012 21:20 -_-Quails wrote:
[quote]
For every Steve Jobs there are half a dozen Paris Hiltons and a Madoff. Do they deserve their money?
Paris hilton is an heiress. This father (or grand father) create several thousand jobs! And madoff is a shame, but not all boss of CAC 40 are like him! You don't get punished for the crimes of your forefathers, why should you profit from their success? You've worked hard to win money, why should someone prevent you from using the way you see fit (giving it to children) ? Committing crimes is a personal issue, as well as doing good deeds (you don't inherite a legion of honor for example) Money is something you've earned and now posses and you are free to give it to anyone you want. Why are you comparing different things ? I have now clarified my meaning in the quoted post. The comparison was one of convenience only. My meaning was that the inheritor has done nothing to deserve riches. Whether or not they inherited money from someone who earned their wealth and created jobs does not have any bearing on whether they themselves have done so. We can also turn this into an ideological debate instead of a political one if you want but I'm not sure that it fits the context of this thread. My question to you is: you inherite your genes from your parents, why shouldn't you inherite money. If you have beautiful parents, you'll most likely end up not too bad looking, did you deserve that ? Inequalities at birth are part of life, trying to reduce them to the extreme like what you are implying only puts more emphasis on the natural inequalities that already exists. Whaaaa, Geiko is back in this thread, and he is in top form ! I would have loved to see him in 1789 explaining to the people in Paris : "Cmon guys ! You don't know it yet but there are genes, and if you are beautiful, your children will most likely be so. So if you can inherit beauty, why wouldn't you inherit the status of your parents ? I mean, life is unfair, right ? Why would you try to change it ? Sure there are those people who are rich because their parents were, but, seriously is that a big deal ? Cmon guys ! And of course there has to be a King ! I mean, he is the son of the King, that's no small feat !" + Show Spoiler +-_- + Show Spoiler +Cmon guys ? Why are you aggressive all of a sudden ? Is that some part of the "pensée unique" ? You are so brainwashed... Nooooo, don't do this ! Noooooooooo Did you read my post about equality of rights ? Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children. I'd appreciate if we could have a serious discussion without willfully distorting other's words I probably didn't read or understand your post, but how can you say : "Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children" ? You do realize that in our society money can buy you : health (i hope this one is obvious) rights (a good lawyer can make wonders) social status happiness (with some limitations obviously, but still, no money => unhappiness) So, excuse me but I feel like I was extremely serious, even though I can't help but present it in an ironical form, sorry Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ? I'll tell you why I believe our system is fine as it is without any more inheritance taxes. My grand parents came to this country with just their luggage. I come from a rather modest household but I have never been prevented from going to school and learning the same things like everybody else. Now I graduated from a school that most people in France would call "l'élite" (with a negative connotation of course) and I owe it all to my hard work and the fact that France gave me that opportunity. Of course some rich sons had access to private teachers, theaters every weekend and a better cultural background, but everyone in France still has the same rights and possibilites as everyone else. I don't see why we would need to confiscate more money from inheritance and I would love for you to tell me how much more you think we need.
I do not understand what you mean when you ask "Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ?" but if you think that in our society, everyone has the same chances to achieve success, I respectfully disagree.
Concerning the rest of your post, I guess different stories lead to different understandings of our world. I have to congratulate you for your success story, but I am currently graduating from an "elite school", and when I ask people around me about their backgrounds, I see that most of the people come from families that are richer (to say the least) than the average population in France. Of course there are some of those success stories, but to few, and as far as I am concerned, I feel like I managed to get there without much hard work.
And to quote Nathalie Arthaud  , I do believe that there are thousands of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in our "cités" (should be suburbs in english), but in the current state of our society, they will never ever think about starting their business, and even less likely is it for them to have the means to do it. So, yeah, I would rather tax very harshly the gifts from parents to their children and give all the children a chance than staying with the current state.
|
On May 02 2012 22:58 Faya wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:56 Microchaton wrote:
Copé is as likely to become president in 2017 as I am to be involved in a threesome with Evan Rachel Wood and Roxanne McKee.
Well, I wish anyway. Life would be more simple if those two were running the country, i tell you
People would be too busy fapping during speeches to pay attention to what they say.
Ha, you made me imagine a lesbian-co-presidency by those 2. That would be fucking glorious, let me tell you :D. Amber Heard prime minister !
Et comme nous sommes dans l'intermède comique :
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9TxFn.jpg)
|
On May 02 2012 21:45 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 21:39 Otolia wrote:On May 02 2012 21:35 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:31 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 21:23 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:11 Faya wrote:
I'm so sick of this country where it used to be a land of debate, since sarko is prime minister, debates became schoolyard fight, with the same intellectual level as kids. I'm so sick of the right wing in France, left isn't 'love' and right isn't 'hate', it is just : left= concerned for most of the population, right=concerned for myself (and maybe my family).
This makes any debates sterile as fuck, results of the election will just show if the people of France is just shitty or if they show a little faith in humanity, somehow.
And finally, I am sick of my people of France, hating for 5 years the way of managing the country by Sarkozy by 75%, realising every now and then how the president is implicated in many dark affairs, increasing the debt of France by 2/3 to gifts to the richest etc,
AND NOW WHAT ? The second turn shows 53%/47% in the latest poll ? what made you change your point of view ? Or maybe one fourth of the french people is just like rats, running away when everything goes wrong and showing up from nowhere when horizons look better. You guys are the reason why americans and the rest of the world are making fun of us, as fleeing chickens, and if you're making sarkozy win again, after what he has done, you're just making them right.
I keep hope, sarkozy isn't on his way to win, and i'm already happy for the next 5 years, knowing that right-wing supporters will hide and have to lie, as they do all the time, to protect themselves and their money... You do realize that what makes debating hard is your condescending tone regarding anyone who doesn't think like you rather then "because of sarkozy". It's funny how everything wrong in the world right now is "because of Sarkozy" Do you have anything in your post you wish me to respond to ? Or are you just "throwing it out there" ? You see the point right here? aren't you condescending saying we just use the "anti-sarkozysm". What would you want me to say instead ? It is because of the crisis? WRONG (I told you, 2/3 of created debt in the last 5 years isn't due to the crisis but the way of running the public money, rapport cour des compte). So yes, everything a little bit aware of what's going on is saying "because of Sarkozy" because it is, and unfortunately it is not funny. Tonight, he will once again "enfumer" everybody, be more racist, gain pointsn and eventually win the elections, officially running a country of dumbass people, half-stupid, half-racist and half-selfish. You are aware that the "cour de compte" is led currently by a member of the socialist party (that Sarkozy named himself by the way, the right isn't as "sectaire" as you claim now ?) and that this repport can be criticized in a number of ways. You are also aware regarding the debt that at the time, François Hollande said that the gouvernement's action wasn't going far enough, and that France should increase its debt even more to deal with the crisis ? Are you aware that out of all the countries in Europe, France has been amongst the best at maintaining its "pouvoir d'achat" and limiting unemployment growth ?. Who is trying to "enfume" who ? Thing is little can be linked to Mr. Sarkosy. The social system did most of the work. And though a retirement reform was necessary, it was done atrociously by the actual president. Furthermore, the crisis isn't as bad as people think it is. In fact it is more of an european political crisis rather than a financial crisis (in western EU) Care to discuss what part or the "réforme des retraites" was done atrociously ?
Specifically ?
The absence of differenciation between a hard physicallly or mentally demanding work and more advanced work which aren't as tiring for the body. Working in a lab as a scientist isn't nearly as difficult as working in PSA work lines. But both of them have to do the same amount of years.
The absence of flexibility (quite surprising coming from a liberal) on the number of years.
And last, the absence of communication, explanation to the work mass who felt cheated. Governing isn't about making the right decisions all the time, it's about explaining why things have to change in a way that most people will understand the necessity of said change.
|
On May 02 2012 23:01 VyingsP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:38 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:32 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:28 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:00 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:56 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:44 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:26 darkshad30000 wrote:
[quote]
Paris hilton is an heiress. This father (or grand father) create several thousand jobs! And madoff is a shame, but not all boss of CAC 40 are like him! You don't get punished for the crimes of your forefathers, why should you profit from their success? You've worked hard to win money, why should someone prevent you from using the way you see fit (giving it to children) ? Committing crimes is a personal issue, as well as doing good deeds (you don't inherite a legion of honor for example) Money is something you've earned and now posses and you are free to give it to anyone you want. Why are you comparing different things ? I have now clarified my meaning in the quoted post. The comparison was one of convenience only. My meaning was that the inheritor has done nothing to deserve riches. Whether or not they inherited money from someone who earned their wealth and created jobs does not have any bearing on whether they themselves have done so. We can also turn this into an ideological debate instead of a political one if you want but I'm not sure that it fits the context of this thread. My question to you is: you inherite your genes from your parents, why shouldn't you inherite money. If you have beautiful parents, you'll most likely end up not too bad looking, did you deserve that ? Inequalities at birth are part of life, trying to reduce them to the extreme like what you are implying only puts more emphasis on the natural inequalities that already exists. Whaaaa, Geiko is back in this thread, and he is in top form ! I would have loved to see him in 1789 explaining to the people in Paris : "Cmon guys ! You don't know it yet but there are genes, and if you are beautiful, your children will most likely be so. So if you can inherit beauty, why wouldn't you inherit the status of your parents ? I mean, life is unfair, right ? Why would you try to change it ? Sure there are those people who are rich because their parents were, but, seriously is that a big deal ? Cmon guys ! And of course there has to be a King ! I mean, he is the son of the King, that's no small feat !" + Show Spoiler +-_- + Show Spoiler +Cmon guys ? Why are you aggressive all of a sudden ? Is that some part of the "pensée unique" ? You are so brainwashed... Nooooo, don't do this ! Noooooooooo Did you read my post about equality of rights ? Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children. I'd appreciate if we could have a serious discussion without willfully distorting other's words I probably didn't read or understand your post, but how can you say : "Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children" ? You do realize that in our society money can buy you : health (i hope this one is obvious) rights (a good lawyer can make wonders) social status happiness (with some limitations obviously, but still, no money => unhappiness) So, excuse me but I feel like I was extremely serious, even though I can't help but present it in an ironical form, sorry Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ? I'll tell you why I believe our system is fine as it is without any more inheritance taxes. My grand parents came to this country with just their luggage. I come from a rather modest household but I have never been prevented from going to school and learning the same things like everybody else. Now I graduated from a school that most people in France would call "l'élite" (with a negative connotation of course) and I owe it all to my hard work and the fact that France gave me that opportunity. Of course some rich sons had access to private teachers, theaters every weekend and a better cultural background, but everyone in France still has the same rights and possibilites as everyone else. I don't see why we would need to confiscate more money from inheritance and I would love for you to tell me how much more you think we need. I do not understand what you mean when you ask "Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ?" but if you think that in our society, everyone has the same chances to achieve success, I respectfully disagree. Concerning the rest of your post, I guess different stories lead to different understandings of our world. I have to congratulate you for your success story, but I am currently graduating from an "elite school", and when I ask people around me about their backgrounds, I see that most of the people come from families that are richer (to say the least) than the average population in France. Of course there are some of those success stories, but to few, and as far as I am concerned, I feel like I managed to get there without much hard work. And to quote Nathalie Arthaud , I do believe that there are thousands of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in our "cités" (should be suburbs in english), but in the current state of our society, they will never ever think about starting their business, and even less likely is it for them to have the means to do it. So, yeah, I would rather tax very harshly the gifts from parents to their children and give all the children a chance than staying with the current state.
We clearly believe in the same things you and I. We believe that inheritance should be taxed because some form of redistribution is needed in order to prevent separation of societies into class and to insure Equality in rights for all. We believe that parents should be able to give some money to their children, because they worked hard to be able to provide a better future for their children.
What we do not agree on is "how much" the state should be taking. And I'll agree with you that this is not an easy question. What makes you think inheritance taxes aren't high enough currently ?
|
On May 02 2012 23:07 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 21:45 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:39 Otolia wrote:On May 02 2012 21:35 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:31 Faya wrote:On May 02 2012 21:23 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:11 Faya wrote:
I'm so sick of this country where it used to be a land of debate, since sarko is prime minister, debates became schoolyard fight, with the same intellectual level as kids. I'm so sick of the right wing in France, left isn't 'love' and right isn't 'hate', it is just : left= concerned for most of the population, right=concerned for myself (and maybe my family).
This makes any debates sterile as fuck, results of the election will just show if the people of France is just shitty or if they show a little faith in humanity, somehow.
And finally, I am sick of my people of France, hating for 5 years the way of managing the country by Sarkozy by 75%, realising every now and then how the president is implicated in many dark affairs, increasing the debt of France by 2/3 to gifts to the richest etc,
AND NOW WHAT ? The second turn shows 53%/47% in the latest poll ? what made you change your point of view ? Or maybe one fourth of the french people is just like rats, running away when everything goes wrong and showing up from nowhere when horizons look better. You guys are the reason why americans and the rest of the world are making fun of us, as fleeing chickens, and if you're making sarkozy win again, after what he has done, you're just making them right.
I keep hope, sarkozy isn't on his way to win, and i'm already happy for the next 5 years, knowing that right-wing supporters will hide and have to lie, as they do all the time, to protect themselves and their money... You do realize that what makes debating hard is your condescending tone regarding anyone who doesn't think like you rather then "because of sarkozy". It's funny how everything wrong in the world right now is "because of Sarkozy" Do you have anything in your post you wish me to respond to ? Or are you just "throwing it out there" ? You see the point right here? aren't you condescending saying we just use the "anti-sarkozysm". What would you want me to say instead ? It is because of the crisis? WRONG (I told you, 2/3 of created debt in the last 5 years isn't due to the crisis but the way of running the public money, rapport cour des compte). So yes, everything a little bit aware of what's going on is saying "because of Sarkozy" because it is, and unfortunately it is not funny. Tonight, he will once again "enfumer" everybody, be more racist, gain pointsn and eventually win the elections, officially running a country of dumbass people, half-stupid, half-racist and half-selfish. You are aware that the "cour de compte" is led currently by a member of the socialist party (that Sarkozy named himself by the way, the right isn't as "sectaire" as you claim now ?) and that this repport can be criticized in a number of ways. You are also aware regarding the debt that at the time, François Hollande said that the gouvernement's action wasn't going far enough, and that France should increase its debt even more to deal with the crisis ? Are you aware that out of all the countries in Europe, France has been amongst the best at maintaining its "pouvoir d'achat" and limiting unemployment growth ?. Who is trying to "enfume" who ? Thing is little can be linked to Mr. Sarkosy. The social system did most of the work. And though a retirement reform was necessary, it was done atrociously by the actual president. Furthermore, the crisis isn't as bad as people think it is. In fact it is more of an european political crisis rather than a financial crisis (in western EU) Care to discuss what part or the "réforme des retraites" was done atrociously ? Specifically ? The absence of differenciation between a hard physicallly or mentally demanding work and more advanced work which aren't as tiring for the body. Working in a lab as a scientist isn't nearly as difficult as working in PSA work lines. But both of them have to do the same amount of years. The absence of flexibility (quite surprising coming from a liberal) on the number of years. And last, the absence of communication, explanation to the work mass who felt cheated. Governing isn't about making the right decisions all the time, it's about explaining why things have to change in a way that most people will understand the necessity of said change.
This is downright false. Numerous cases have been considered to change the age of when you can retire, including people who started working early, people who have suffered from medical problems due to their line of work etc...
Regarding communication, I have read plenty on the subject and had no problem obtaining the required information.
|
On May 02 2012 22:31 DOUDOU wrote:
don't be so confident, he might have promised it, but as every single contender, he won't keep everyone of his promises
i've read an interesting article a while ago: "what if we forced president to apply everything they promised during their run to the presidency"
quite interesting, we would probably see much less demagogue resolutions if that were to happen
You know what, I would really love to hear why such a thing is not applied, Because if I take a personal example if I fuck up a project I risk my job and money, why not the "président" ? And like you said it would cut all the bullshiting that we are seeing right now.
I want to ask a very serious question, there is absolutely no debate about the fact that Sarkozy is trying to get the FN votes, I really want to know how does it feel to probably vote for the same person than someone from the FN is going to vote for ?
|
On May 02 2012 23:15 FaRess wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:31 DOUDOU wrote:
don't be so confident, he might have promised it, but as every single contender, he won't keep everyone of his promises
i've read an interesting article a while ago: "what if we forced president to apply everything they promised during their run to the presidency"
quite interesting, we would probably see much less demagogue resolutions if that were to happen You know what, I would really love to hear why such a thing is not applied, Because if I take a personal example if I fuck up a project I risk my job and money, why not the "président" ? And like you said it would cut all the bullshiting that we are seeing right now. I want to ask a very serious question, there is absolutely no debate about the fact that Sarkozy is trying to get the FN votes, I really want to know how does it feel to probably vote for the same person than someone from the FN is going to vote for ?
How does it feel to vote for the same person that an anarchist or revolutionary communist is going to vote for ? I know of a couple of those type of people that are voting for Hollande.
Fortunately, I'm not arrogant enough to judge people like that.
I'm also not arrogant enough to think that 18% of people in France are racist scumbags.
It's good sometimes to try to understand why people are voting the way they do, and what that means for our nation rather then blindly pointing fingers.
|
This thread could be used to demonstrate a pretty fantastic number of those : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Read the list, seriously, and think how it applies to most of your arguments (not targetting anybody in particular, and I'm guilty of some myself)
|
On May 02 2012 23:08 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:01 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:38 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:32 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:28 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:00 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:56 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:44 -_-Quails wrote:
[quote]
You don't get punished for the crimes of your forefathers, why should you profit from their success? You've worked hard to win money, why should someone prevent you from using the way you see fit (giving it to children) ? Committing crimes is a personal issue, as well as doing good deeds (you don't inherite a legion of honor for example) Money is something you've earned and now posses and you are free to give it to anyone you want. Why are you comparing different things ? I have now clarified my meaning in the quoted post. The comparison was one of convenience only. My meaning was that the inheritor has done nothing to deserve riches. Whether or not they inherited money from someone who earned their wealth and created jobs does not have any bearing on whether they themselves have done so. We can also turn this into an ideological debate instead of a political one if you want but I'm not sure that it fits the context of this thread. My question to you is: you inherite your genes from your parents, why shouldn't you inherite money. If you have beautiful parents, you'll most likely end up not too bad looking, did you deserve that ? Inequalities at birth are part of life, trying to reduce them to the extreme like what you are implying only puts more emphasis on the natural inequalities that already exists. Whaaaa, Geiko is back in this thread, and he is in top form ! I would have loved to see him in 1789 explaining to the people in Paris : "Cmon guys ! You don't know it yet but there are genes, and if you are beautiful, your children will most likely be so. So if you can inherit beauty, why wouldn't you inherit the status of your parents ? I mean, life is unfair, right ? Why would you try to change it ? Sure there are those people who are rich because their parents were, but, seriously is that a big deal ? Cmon guys ! And of course there has to be a King ! I mean, he is the son of the King, that's no small feat !" + Show Spoiler +-_- + Show Spoiler +Cmon guys ? Why are you aggressive all of a sudden ? Is that some part of the "pensée unique" ? You are so brainwashed... Nooooo, don't do this ! Noooooooooo Did you read my post about equality of rights ? Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children. I'd appreciate if we could have a serious discussion without willfully distorting other's words I probably didn't read or understand your post, but how can you say : "Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children" ? You do realize that in our society money can buy you : health (i hope this one is obvious) rights (a good lawyer can make wonders) social status happiness (with some limitations obviously, but still, no money => unhappiness) So, excuse me but I feel like I was extremely serious, even though I can't help but present it in an ironical form, sorry Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ? I'll tell you why I believe our system is fine as it is without any more inheritance taxes. My grand parents came to this country with just their luggage. I come from a rather modest household but I have never been prevented from going to school and learning the same things like everybody else. Now I graduated from a school that most people in France would call "l'élite" (with a negative connotation of course) and I owe it all to my hard work and the fact that France gave me that opportunity. Of course some rich sons had access to private teachers, theaters every weekend and a better cultural background, but everyone in France still has the same rights and possibilites as everyone else. I don't see why we would need to confiscate more money from inheritance and I would love for you to tell me how much more you think we need. I do not understand what you mean when you ask "Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ?" but if you think that in our society, everyone has the same chances to achieve success, I respectfully disagree. Concerning the rest of your post, I guess different stories lead to different understandings of our world. I have to congratulate you for your success story, but I am currently graduating from an "elite school", and when I ask people around me about their backgrounds, I see that most of the people come from families that are richer (to say the least) than the average population in France. Of course there are some of those success stories, but to few, and as far as I am concerned, I feel like I managed to get there without much hard work. And to quote Nathalie Arthaud , I do believe that there are thousands of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in our "cités" (should be suburbs in english), but in the current state of our society, they will never ever think about starting their business, and even less likely is it for them to have the means to do it. So, yeah, I would rather tax very harshly the gifts from parents to their children and give all the children a chance than staying with the current state. We clearly believe in the same things you and I. We believe that inheritance should be taxed because some form of redistribution is needed in order to prevent separation of societies into class and to insure Equality in rights for all. We believe that parents should be able to give some money to their children, because they worked hard to be able to provide a better future for their children. What we do not agree on is "how much" the state should be taking. And I'll agree with you that this is not an easy question. What makes you think inheritance taxes aren't high enough currently ?
Aha, now that the preliminaries are set up, we can talk !
What makes me think the taxes aren't high enough ?
Actually, there is a misunderstanding here. Taxing people is not a goal. I do believe taxes are needed because there are many services that should be free, because it is linked with human dignity, and fundamentals human rights. More specifically, I do believe that health care, education, justice and security (non exhaustive list) should be free. Now this has to be free for the citizens, but obviously, it has a cost, and this cost should be payed by society, thus taxes.
Why do I believe that inheritance tax is one of the fairest ? Because, when you are dead, you do not need your money, and even if you earned it legally, you did not earn it by yourself. You used the education you were provided, you used the national transport infrastructues, you used qualified workforce, you took benefit of everything the society provides (including security, infrastructures...). That is why I do believe, that when you die, the society is much more deserving than your children. Concerning the children, they most likely already benefited from your wealth, meaning that they are probably well educated and in good health. Isn't that already a fantastic start in life ? The rest is up to them, not to you.
But I did not really answer your question. Why taxes are not high enough ? Two exemples.
In my familly, one of my grandparents pays the ISF, and had 2 appartments in Paris. But with all the possibilities of gift, my parents received one of the appartment with ridiculous fees (less than 20%), and they do not even need it. How crazy is that ?
Now for something completely different, take the wealthy families in France. Renault, Bettencourt, Mulliez, Lagardère... Ok, let's give some credit to the founder of each dinasty (there is no other word), he probably had some great ideas, and managed to use the to great success. But let's face it, what did their offspring do ? Not much. Anyone is able to pay some good manager/adviser who will enable you to keep a good amount of wealth.
And here I am not even discussing the Renault links with the 3rd reich, and the obvious threat such fortunes pose to democracy.
Those two exemples do not have much in common because obviously, the productive assets are not taxed upon succession. But for me it is all part of the same problem : even with all the great progress we achieved from the old regime, there is still a "noblesse" and a "tiers état". And that is not the most fair/efficient way for a society to run.
Want to discuss the amount of the tax ? What about 100% over 75 000€ per children ?
Note : do not take that amount to seriously, I have no qualification whatsoever to propose a relevant figure. This is just some food for thought.
And I can't help but feel sorry when you say that You and I believe in the same things. With what I believe, there is NO WAY IN HELL i'll ever vote for Sarkozy.
Edit : omg, dat wall of text... I'm done after this one.
Just for fun :
http://twitter.com/#!/Arnauld_CT/status/197633157120532480
|
On May 02 2012 22:56 Microchaton wrote:
Copé is as likely to become president in 2017 as I am to be involved in a threesome with Evan Rachel Wood and Roxanne McKee.
Well, I wish anyway.
Hahahahaha :-)
Well unfortunately for us you may have your chances. After all if we elected who would have believed in 2000 that Sarkozy would ever be president of this country? (actually and for other reasons, i wouldn't have bet a copek on Hollande few years ago)
|
On May 02 2012 23:44 VyingsP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:08 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 23:01 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:38 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:32 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:28 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:00 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:56 -_-Quails wrote:On May 02 2012 21:48 Geiko wrote:
[quote]
You've worked hard to win money, why should someone prevent you from using the way you see fit (giving it to children) ?
Committing crimes is a personal issue, as well as doing good deeds (you don't inherite a legion of honor for example) Money is something you've earned and now posses and you are free to give it to anyone you want. Why are you comparing different things ? I have now clarified my meaning in the quoted post. The comparison was one of convenience only. My meaning was that the inheritor has done nothing to deserve riches. Whether or not they inherited money from someone who earned their wealth and created jobs does not have any bearing on whether they themselves have done so. We can also turn this into an ideological debate instead of a political one if you want but I'm not sure that it fits the context of this thread. My question to you is: you inherite your genes from your parents, why shouldn't you inherite money. If you have beautiful parents, you'll most likely end up not too bad looking, did you deserve that ? Inequalities at birth are part of life, trying to reduce them to the extreme like what you are implying only puts more emphasis on the natural inequalities that already exists. Whaaaa, Geiko is back in this thread, and he is in top form ! I would have loved to see him in 1789 explaining to the people in Paris : "Cmon guys ! You don't know it yet but there are genes, and if you are beautiful, your children will most likely be so. So if you can inherit beauty, why wouldn't you inherit the status of your parents ? I mean, life is unfair, right ? Why would you try to change it ? Sure there are those people who are rich because their parents were, but, seriously is that a big deal ? Cmon guys ! And of course there has to be a King ! I mean, he is the son of the King, that's no small feat !" + Show Spoiler +-_- + Show Spoiler +Cmon guys ? Why are you aggressive all of a sudden ? Is that some part of the "pensée unique" ? You are so brainwashed... Nooooo, don't do this ! Noooooooooo Did you read my post about equality of rights ? Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children. I'd appreciate if we could have a serious discussion without willfully distorting other's words I probably didn't read or understand your post, but how can you say : "Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children" ? You do realize that in our society money can buy you : health (i hope this one is obvious) rights (a good lawyer can make wonders) social status happiness (with some limitations obviously, but still, no money => unhappiness) So, excuse me but I feel like I was extremely serious, even though I can't help but present it in an ironical form, sorry Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ? I'll tell you why I believe our system is fine as it is without any more inheritance taxes. My grand parents came to this country with just their luggage. I come from a rather modest household but I have never been prevented from going to school and learning the same things like everybody else. Now I graduated from a school that most people in France would call "l'élite" (with a negative connotation of course) and I owe it all to my hard work and the fact that France gave me that opportunity. Of course some rich sons had access to private teachers, theaters every weekend and a better cultural background, but everyone in France still has the same rights and possibilites as everyone else. I don't see why we would need to confiscate more money from inheritance and I would love for you to tell me how much more you think we need. I do not understand what you mean when you ask "Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ?" but if you think that in our society, everyone has the same chances to achieve success, I respectfully disagree. Concerning the rest of your post, I guess different stories lead to different understandings of our world. I have to congratulate you for your success story, but I am currently graduating from an "elite school", and when I ask people around me about their backgrounds, I see that most of the people come from families that are richer (to say the least) than the average population in France. Of course there are some of those success stories, but to few, and as far as I am concerned, I feel like I managed to get there without much hard work. And to quote Nathalie Arthaud , I do believe that there are thousands of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in our "cités" (should be suburbs in english), but in the current state of our society, they will never ever think about starting their business, and even less likely is it for them to have the means to do it. So, yeah, I would rather tax very harshly the gifts from parents to their children and give all the children a chance than staying with the current state. We clearly believe in the same things you and I. We believe that inheritance should be taxed because some form of redistribution is needed in order to prevent separation of societies into class and to insure Equality in rights for all. We believe that parents should be able to give some money to their children, because they worked hard to be able to provide a better future for their children. What we do not agree on is "how much" the state should be taking. And I'll agree with you that this is not an easy question. What makes you think inheritance taxes aren't high enough currently ? Aha, now that the preliminaries are set up, we can talk ! What makes me think the taxes aren't high enough ? Actually, there is a misunderstanding here. Taxing people is not a goal. I do believe taxes are needed because there are many services that should be free, because it is linked with human dignity, and fundamentals human rights. More specifically, I do believe that health care, education, justice and security (non exhaustive list) should be free. Now this has to be free for the citizens, but obviously, it has a cost, and this cost should be payed by society, thus taxes. Why do I believe that inheritance tax is one of the fairest ? Because, when you are dead, you do not need your money, and even if you earned it legally, you did not earn it by yourself. You used the education you were provided, you used the national transport infrastructues, you used qualified workforce, you took benefit of everything the society provides (including security, infrastructures...). That is why I do believe, that when you die, the society is much more deserving than your children. Concerning the children, they most likely already benefited from your wealth, meaning that they are probably well educated and in good health. Isn't that already a fantastic start in life ? The rest is up to them, not to you. But I did not really answer your question. Why taxes are not high enough ? Two exemples. In my familly, one of my grandparents pays the ISF, and had 2 appartments in Paris. But with all the possibilities of gift, my parents received one of the appartment with ridiculous fees (less than 20%), and they do not even need it. How crazy is that ? Now for something completely different, take the wealthy families in France. Renault, Bettencourt, Mulliez, Lagardère... Ok, let's give some credit to the founder of each dinasty (there is no other word), he probably had some great ideas, and managed to use the to great success. But let's face it, what did their offspring do ? Not much. Anyone is able to pay some good manager/adviser who will enable you to keep a good amount of wealth. And here I am not even discussing the Renault links with the 3rd reich, and the obvious threat such fortunes pose to democracy. Those two exemples do not have much in common because obviously, the productive assets are not taxed upon succession. But for me it is all part of the same problem : even with all the great progress we achieved from the old regime, there is still a "noblesse" and a "tiers état". And that is not the most fair/efficient way for a society to run. Want to discuss the amount of the tax ? What about 100% over 75 000€ per children ? Note : do not take that amount to seriously, I have no qualification whatsoever to propose a relevant figure. This is just some food for thought. And I can't help but feel sorry when you say that You and I believe in the same things. With what I believe, there is NO WAY IN HELL i'll ever vote for Sarkozy. Edit : omg, dat wall of text... I'm done after this one. Just for fun : http://twitter.com/#!/Arnauld_CT/status/197633157120532480
I do understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion on this matter, but I would like to point out what I think is wrong with this line of thought.
Regarding free health care, education, etc.. The idea in itself shows that you have a very generous personality and that honors you, however these great principles cannot be applied to real life. Let me give you an example. A couple years back, in my school cafeteria, there was paying meals and free salt and pepper packs as well as free bread loafs. People always took handfuls of salt and pepper and bread, and threw away 75% of what they took. Then the school made everyone pay 5cent for each pack of salt. People weren't even taking salt anymore. This is human nature, this is why currently, nothing is refunded 100% by our social system (with some exceptions). We already have one of the best and most generous medical system and higher education system in the world, why would we need to finance it even more ?
Regarding inheritance, you say that your money doesn't only belong to you, but also to France because you won it in France. But haven't you already paid taxes for that money ? Why should you pay more taxes when you die ? So if you want to use your money to buy 10 000 000 hamburgers before you die, it's your right, but you can't use that money to give to your children instead ? That doesn't make sense. My line of reasoning is that, you pay 20% of TVA when you buy hamburgers, you should also pay 20% of taxes when you give money to your children. It's just money changing hands.
Your personal example is a really great example because it shows what is currently wrong with the system and what needs to be changed. Evading taxes is currently the easiest thing to do when you have a lot of money, and the hardest thing to do when you are middle class. We can clearly see from your example that increasing taxes on the richest will not have any impact because they have 1000 ways of evading it anyways. What really needs to be done is enforcing current laws and current tax levels, making sure no one can squeeze out of paying his taxes. Raising taxes is just punishing those who are honest enough (or have no other choice) to pay them which is why it is counterproductive.
Mr Hollande's new taxes will as always hit the middle class hard when the extremely rich won't even feel a difference. This is why I support Mr Sarkozy's idea of increasing state revenue by increasing the TVA. TVA is paid by everyone (the increase is on non essential products) but especially foreign companies who will need to finance part of it to remain competitive. Mr Hollande's plan is to favor "la croissance", but how can you do that if you create 50 M additional taxes ?
Edit: Regarding the immigrants, it's funny to note that The question "are there too many immigrants in France" was asked by journalists to Hollande more then 10 times, and he never gave a single answer to that question
|
On May 02 2012 22:36 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:31 DOUDOU wrote:
please tell me more about this beauty gene
If your parents are good looking, chances are you'll be good looking yourself. Out of all the things I said, you REALLY want to discuss this part ? The future of France isn't interesting enough ?
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show
|
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:36 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:31 DOUDOU wrote:
please tell me more about this beauty gene
If your parents are good looking, chances are you'll be good looking yourself. Out of all the things I said, you REALLY want to discuss this part ? The future of France isn't interesting enough ? well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show
Wow, you're really adding to this discussion aren't you ? Good for you
|
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 22:36 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:31 DOUDOU wrote:
please tell me more about this beauty gene
If your parents are good looking, chances are you'll be good looking yourself. Out of all the things I said, you REALLY want to discuss this part ? The future of France isn't interesting enough ? well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show
Well, yes and no. Hollande or Sarkozy are not as different as were, for example, Mitterand and Giscard in 81, but they really don't have the same ideas. What I'm hoping for is that Hollande can do something on the European level to get us out of this mad spiral of austerity / recession / more austerity in which the Merkozy axis is putting us.
Even liberal economists are saying that what is being done in Europe is fucking dumb and that you can't JUST cut state budget and hope that things will go better. We see what is happening in Greece and Spain right now; not only it is dreadful strategies socially, but it is also an economic suicide.
The other thing that I think will change is this extreme antagonistic and violent climate in France. The way police behaves, the way justice functions, the way the administration treats foreigners, all of this is very dependant on who is at the top of the State. To have an immigrant mother, I can tell you that things changed drastically when Sarkozy got Interior Minister, and even more when he was elected.
|
At least this thread shows that us, French, are most likely the most "politisé" country in the world :D
Waiting for the debate this evening but we can already know what to expect, Sarkozy overly agressive, and Hollande overly defensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
