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 !"
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.
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 ?
I don't see how your example is relevant. If education and health care are linked to fundamental human rights, it does not matter if some "waste" it. This is not about efficiency and productivity. Now obviously you need to be able to afford it, but France is not like Somalia, and there is well enough wealth around. What you can do is decide what is more fundamental (for example subsidies for Viagra is beyond stupid). Another place to look for is more TVA taxes on products like cigarettes or soda/obesity related food, or more taxes on companies selling them. And best higher education system? Maybe in grandes ecoles. And what about other education levels? You need to finance the medical system more simply because otherwise it won't be as good as it is anymore.
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.
Lol, to what extremes would you go; just money changing hands... Paying Mcdonalds and 20% in tax is not the same as paying 100% in tax. McDonald is not responsible for social conditions in France. The free hand of the market has many limits in the real world. If you are rich, one expectation is that you use this money to be productive, not just buy 10 000000 burgers. There is no indication that your children will not become just part of an extractive elite. There is also a simple justice argument, if you believe in equality of rights (for example of education), that means trying to remove both unfair disadvantages and advantages. You have to pay for the former with the latter. A right for education is useless if people can't afford it, or education is subpar in some places.
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
I don't see how TVA taxes can hit the extremely rich as much as the middle class, in fact the middle class is usually more affected by TVA tax. Your 10 000 000 hamburgers example illustrates it. But I don't know what Sarkozy has in mind for "non essential products". Or maybe my definition of middle class is not yours (150 000 a year is middle class for you?) Also I have not followed the details of their plans, but additional taxes do not necessarily lead to lower growth, if they are correctly aimed and well spent. On the left people would tell you that those 50M in taxes are refunded in the middle class pockets to increase consumption and lead to growth. It is not as simple either. I am afraid there is no definitive answer, the truth is personal preferences and ideologies will motivate the vote here because the topic is so complex, there is no way to honestly be 100% sure of the correct answer.
The example is very relevant. To give a more concrete example, some people tend to go see the doctor once a week every time they have a scratch (I know some of these people). If there is a small fee to pay (that is not reimbursed by the sécurité sociale) every time you go see the doctor, this will discourage this type of behavior. This does not change the fact that health is a an overly important issue and that I'm proud that in France, anyone of any social background can get good health care. I'm saying I'm against everything being completely free of charge.
Regarding social inequalities, I would argue that money is not the main drive for the reproduction of social inequalities. I believe in a society where people of all social background can have access to the same education, and job opportunities as everyone else. In such a society, it wouldn't matter how much you inherit from your parents since your status would be determined by merit alone.
The TVA vs taxes issue is extremely complicated, and you are right in saying there is no definitive answer. I'm arguing that raising taxes is always detrimental to the middle class, and wealthy people usually get away with not paying the new taxes through evasion strategies. TVA is more fair as everyone need to pay it when they buy products. "Essential products" are not part of Sarkozy's plan to raise TVA. These products are things such as food and prime necessity objects, therefor families with minimal wages will not be heavily affected by this increase in TVA.
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote: 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
Les chiens ne font pas des chats.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
That was probably worded poorly, you'll excuse me if my english isn't as good as i'd want it to be. The main idea was that motivation and hard work should always be able to overcome inequalities at birth. If that's not the case, then society has to intervene. If that is the case, then society doesn't need to apply more redistribution of wealth, and for that I argue that the more it will try to erase societal inequalities, the more it will exacerbate natural inequalities.
But all of this is very far from the topic at hand which is, if I may remind you, the French Presidential Elections and not a battle of ideology
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote: 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
Les chiens ne font pas des chats.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
That was probably worded poorly, you'll excuse me if my english isn't as good as i'd want it to be. The main idea was that motivation and hard work should always be able to overcome inequalities at birth. If that's not the case, then society has to intervene. If that is the case, then society doesn't need to apply more redistribution of wealth, and for that I argue that the more it will try to erase societal inequalities, the more it will exacerbate natural inequalities.
But all of this is very far from the topic at hand which is, if I may remind you, the French Presidential Elections and not a battle of ideology
How is ideology unrelated to the Presidential election I wonder... Tonight the debate, should be entertaining enough, many people underestimate Hollande in a debate imho. Probably won't matter much anyway.
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote: 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
Les chiens ne font pas des chats.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
That was probably worded poorly, you'll excuse me if my english isn't as good as i'd want it to be. The main idea was that motivation and hard work should always be able to overcome inequalities at birth. If that's not the case, then society has to intervene. If that is the case, then society doesn't need to apply more redistribution of wealth, and for that I argue that the more it will try to erase societal inequalities, the more it will exacerbate natural inequalities.
But all of this is very far from the topic at hand which is, if I may remind you, the French Presidential Elections and not a battle of ideology
French presidential election is a battle of ideology.
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
This liberal bullshit "work has to pay" "you need to be deserving" bla bla is just a way to justify a completely unfair social structure.
It's great that the deserving get rewarded. It's a bit of a pity that such reasoning lead to a type of society where the deserving are always the rich ones in the first place and where qualities such as being a hard worker or a smart person are orecisely conditioned by your environment.
Politic in France is so low... Most people are uneducated and don't even accept to discuss anything, always attached to their belief. Both candidate are low too, between the good for nothing Sarkozy ex president who did nothing against the crisis ("we are doing better than Spane" is everything he can say, which is quite pathetic if you consider that before the crisis nobody ever dared to compare us to Spane), and Hollande who is... well whatever.
I don't even understand how people can still care about the election and think that Hollande or Sarkozy will do anything the right way.
I will vote, for Hollande, not because I like him, but because Sarkozy is the better failure between the two.
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote: 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
Les chiens ne font pas des chats.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
That was probably worded poorly, you'll excuse me if my english isn't as good as i'd want it to be. The main idea was that motivation and hard work should always be able to overcome inequalities at birth. If that's not the case, then society has to intervene. If that is the case, then society doesn't need to apply more redistribution of wealth, and for that I argue that the more it will try to erase societal inequalities, the more it will exacerbate natural inequalities.
But all of this is very far from the topic at hand which is, if I may remind you, the French Presidential Elections and not a battle of ideology
How is ideology unrelated to the Presidential election I wonder... Tonight the debate, should be entertaining enough, many people underestimate Hollande in a debate imho. Probably won't matter much anyway.
People should be concerned about actual politics, decisions and projects. Ideology battles are usually very sterile wheras discussion on concrete projects and problems lead to more fruitful discussions. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind regarding their ideological ideas, but I can hope however that people will be convinced by some of my political arguments.
You're absolutely silly if you think anything postive will ever come of taxing even harder inheritage. The reason a lot of people don't waste all their money doing stupid things before their death is to assure their children have a safe/nice future. Screwing up with that will just have people do a lot more to find loopholes (there are quite a few) and do illegal things, and it does not encourage moderation and working long and hard just so the state can seize everything you've earned anyway.
Statements like that piss me off too much for me to want to develop the argument as it should be, but if you're not a half-wit you understand my point and its implications. Overtaxing inheritage will have mostly bad consequences, even if you disregard the fact that a lot of people would just leave the country / find loopholes. It's one of the multiple reasons why communism is idiotic and will not have a successful example in the next centuries. People deserve to do what they want with the money they earned at their death. In most cases it means going to their children.
On May 03 2012 02:46 Microchaton wrote: You're absolutely silly if you think anything postive will ever come of taxing even harder inheritage. The reason a lot of people don't waste all their money doing stupid things before their death is to assure their children have a safe/nice future. Screwing up with that will just have people do a lot more to find loopholes (there are quite a few) and do illegal things, and it does not encourage moderation and working long and hard just so the state can seize everything you've earned anyway.
Statements like that piss me off too much for me to want to develop the argument as it should be, but if you're not a half-wit you understand my point and its implications. Overtaxing inheritage will have mostly bad consequences, even if you disregard the fact that a lot of people would just leave the country / find loopholes. It's one of the multiple reasons why communism is idiotic and will not have a successful example in the next centuries. People deserve to do what they want with the money they earned at their death. In most cases it means going to their children.
Look, my grand parents are super wealthy.
They won't start to throw their money because they know it will be taxed.
Now, let me tell you. This money, I'll get it one day. I haven't done anything for it. And so, see, I will be happy that 40, 50 percent go to the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the cultural life of this country. It's not them who are being taxed, it's me. Cuz see, they will be dead. I am the one who will get the money, and who will pay willingly a big percentage of it to this country. It ahs nothing to do with communism. Just a bit of intergenerational redistribution so that wealth doesn't accumulate systemtically from a generation to another.
Your reasoning about how it's bad to tax people who are already super wealthy are bad.
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote: 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
Les chiens ne font pas des chats.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
That was probably worded poorly, you'll excuse me if my english isn't as good as i'd want it to be. The main idea was that motivation and hard work should always be able to overcome inequalities at birth. If that's not the case, then society has to intervene. If that is the case, then society doesn't need to apply more redistribution of wealth, and for that I argue that the more it will try to erase societal inequalities, the more it will exacerbate natural inequalities.
But all of this is very far from the topic at hand which is, if I may remind you, the French Presidential Elections and not a battle of ideology
How is ideology unrelated to the Presidential election I wonder... Tonight the debate, should be entertaining enough, many people underestimate Hollande in a debate imho. Probably won't matter much anyway.
People should be concerned about actual politics, decisions and projects. Ideology battles are usually very sterile wheras discussion on concrete projects and problems lead to more fruitful discussions. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind regarding their ideological ideas, but I can hope however that people will be convinced by some of my political arguments.
I don't really want to discuss your argument in itself (because that would lead us farther away from the topic), but you have to understand that your distinction is typical of the way a good part of the right has presented itself for years. To sum up what I mean, every french politician who has declared something along the line of "I'm nither a rightist nor a leftist" was a rightist. As Desporges joked "Ni de droite ni de gauche, qu'on soit de droite ou de gauche, on est hémiplégique, disait Raymond Aaron. Qui était de droite". And that is not an idea I made up, that's what my political science teacher taught me, and I'm not really convinced she was a leftist... The idea that politics should not be ideological but pragmatic is in itself an ideology.
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
No it's not. In fact that is the exact opposite of the definition of "deserving".
I will give you that it's harder for Mohamed du 93 to get a good diploma compared to Jean-Phillipe from Versailles. In fact that's exactly what I said... It's harder, but it's possible and that's what matters.
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
No it's not. In fact that is the exact opposite of the definition of "deserving".
I will give you that it's harder for Mohamed du 93 to get a good diploma compared to Jean-Phillipe from Versailles. In fact that's exactly what I said... It's harder, but it's possible and that's what matters.
Yeah it is possible. So the 1% kids who escape their parents condition because they are lucky and have exceptional life justify the fact that the 99% other will have the life they are supposed to have because they are born there: a shit life.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
That was probably worded poorly, you'll excuse me if my english isn't as good as i'd want it to be. The main idea was that motivation and hard work should always be able to overcome inequalities at birth. If that's not the case, then society has to intervene. If that is the case, then society doesn't need to apply more redistribution of wealth, and for that I argue that the more it will try to erase societal inequalities, the more it will exacerbate natural inequalities.
But all of this is very far from the topic at hand which is, if I may remind you, the French Presidential Elections and not a battle of ideology
How is ideology unrelated to the Presidential election I wonder... Tonight the debate, should be entertaining enough, many people underestimate Hollande in a debate imho. Probably won't matter much anyway.
People should be concerned about actual politics, decisions and projects. Ideology battles are usually very sterile wheras discussion on concrete projects and problems lead to more fruitful discussions. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind regarding their ideological ideas, but I can hope however that people will be convinced by some of my political arguments.
I don't really want to discuss your argument in itself (because that would lead us farther away from the topic), but you have to understand that your distinction is typical of the way a good part of the right has presented itself for years. To sum up what I mean, every french politician who has declared something along the line of "I'm nither a rightist nor a leftist" was a rightist. As Desporges joked "Ni de droite ni de gauche, qu'on soit de droite ou de gauche, on est hémiplégique, disait Raymond Aaron. Qui était de droite". And that is not an idea I made up, that's what my political science teacher taught me, and I'm not really convinced she was a leftist... The idea that politics should not be ideological but pragmatic is in itself an ideology.
That's really your opinion, and once again I respect your right to have that opinion, it's just not mine. When I vote for someone, I want to know what he did, what he plans on doing, how when and where. I don't care that people classify him as left-wing right wing etc... I want to compare projects and visions for France, not hear them argue about how similar they are to Mitterrand or de Gaulle. I've voted for the PS candidate for mayor in my town because he simply had the better project. And I voted for the UMP deputé for my department because he was going to support the man I voted for to be president in the Assemblée. But you are right in saying that this approach is also an ideology
On May 03 2012 02:56 BBS wrote: If Hollande gets elected, we'll be totally screwed in Europe.. He'll turn France into the next Spain or even worse ..
I've heard he wanted to turn it into Zimbabwe but I'm not sure.
Pity because Merkozy's austerity is doing such great result. Look at greece, it's working perfectly. In fact it's working so well that even the Financial Times says we are being completely dumb with this austerity mania.
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
No it's not. In fact that is the exact opposite of the definition of "deserving".
I will give you that it's harder for Mohamed du 93 to get a good diploma compared to Jean-Phillipe from Versailles. In fact that's exactly what I said... It's harder, but it's possible and that's what matters.
Yeah it is possible. So the 1% kids who escape their parents condition because they are lucky and have exceptional life justify the fact that the 99% other will have the life they are supposed to have because they are born there: a shit life.
On May 03 2012 02:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am the one who will get the money, and who will pay willingly a big percentage of it to this country
Funnily enough, you nailed the "willingly" that you get in communist countries.
What, yeah, I'll always pay my tax willingly. Because I know that they are necessary for this country.
But hey, you see someone who doesn't think egoistically and doesn't just think of his wealth and his little short term interest, and we are in Bolchevikland, right?
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
No it's not. In fact that is the exact opposite of the definition of "deserving".
I will give you that it's harder for Mohamed du 93 to get a good diploma compared to Jean-Phillipe from Versailles. In fact that's exactly what I said... It's harder, but it's possible and that's what matters.
Yeah it is possible. So the 1% kids who escape their parents condition because they are lucky and have exceptional life justify the fact that the 99% other will have the life they are supposed to have because they are born there: a shit life.
Great.
No, not lucky, but precisely "deserving".
Deserving in what ? Every sociological study on the matters shows that there are no or almost no deserving people in our societies - every occidental society at least. Social mobility is marginal, there is almost no way for a young poor guy to become a rich, and don't try to find the two counter exemple because statistically they mean nothing.
Most of the rich are children of richs who were themselves children of richs. It has nothing to do with "deserving", it's just that some people come to life with a silver spoon in the hand.
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
No it's not. In fact that is the exact opposite of the definition of "deserving".
I will give you that it's harder for Mohamed du 93 to get a good diploma compared to Jean-Phillipe from Versailles. In fact that's exactly what I said... It's harder, but it's possible and that's what matters.
Yeah it is possible. So the 1% kids who escape their parents condition because they are lucky and have exceptional life justify the fact that the 99% other will have the life they are supposed to have because they are born there: a shit life.
Great.
No, not lucky, but precisely "deserving".
What makes you deserving? Your experience. That's what you don't get.
Our environment makes us what we are. If you are lucky, it turns you end up completely different that what you wre supposed to be given your environment.
For Christ sake, read Bourdieu or any sociology at all.
Maybe one day you'll discover that putting hard work and being deserving is a bit easier if you are Jean Phillipe from Versailles, have wealthy and cultured parents, got a good education, went to a great school, lived in a friendly environment and be supported to death in your studies than if you are Mohammed from the 9-3, go to a shit school, in a shit area, have no support whatsoever from your parents, have a poor education, never go in holidays, etc etc etc etc...
No it's not. In fact that is the exact opposite of the definition of "deserving".
I will give you that it's harder for Mohamed du 93 to get a good diploma compared to Jean-Phillipe from Versailles. In fact that's exactly what I said... It's harder, but it's possible and that's what matters.
Yeah it is possible. So the 1% kids who escape their parents condition because they are lucky and have exceptional life justify the fact that the 99% other will have the life they are supposed to have because they are born there: a shit life.
Great.
No, not lucky, but precisely "deserving".
What makes you deserving? Your experience. That's what you don't get.
Our environment makes us what we are. If you are lucky, it turns you end up completely different that what you wre supposed to be given your environment.
For Christ sake, read Bourdieu or any sociology at all.
People like him reject Bourdieu for "determinism"... lol
EPT
, 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.
