France drops its super tax on millionaires

[webfact]

France drops its super tax on millionaires
SYLVIE CORBET, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — It was supposed to force millionaires to pay tax rates of up to 75 percent: "Cuba without the sun," as described by a critic from the banking industry. Socialist President Francois Hollande's super tax was rejected by a court, rewritten and ultimately netted just a sliver of its projected proceeds. It ends on Wednesday and will not be renewed.

And that critic of the tax? He's now Hollande's economy minister, trying mightily to undo the damage to France's image in international business circles.

The tax of 75 percent on income earned above one million euros ($1.22 million) was promoted in 2012 by the newly-elected Hollande as a symbol of a fairer policy for the middle class, a financial contribution of the wealthiest at a time of economic crisis.

But the government was never able to fully implement the measure. It was overturned by France's highest court and rewritten as a 50 percent tax paid by employers.

Faced with a stalling economy and rising unemployment, the government reversed course in 2014 with a plan to cut payroll taxes by up to 40 billion euros ($49 billion) by 2017, hoping to boost hiring and attract more investments.

All the while, Prime Minister Manuel Valls kept repeating his new credo: "My government is pro-business".

Ultimately, while the super tax affected only a small number of taxpayers, it triggered huge protests in business, sporting and artistic communities.

French actor Gerard Depardieu decried it vociferously and took Russian citizenship. Soccer clubs threatened to boycott matches for fear that 114 of their players or coaches would be taxed. The final version of the tax allowed them to minimize the burden.

The announcement of the 75 percent tax had "a very bad psychological effect" in business circles, says Sandra Hazan, a lawyer who heads Dentons Global Tax Group. Even if most of the companies were able to minimize or avoid the tax, "I think it had an extremely devastating impact on the attractiveness of France for foreigners."

At the time of its proposal, British Prime minister David Cameron ironically proposed to "roll out the red carpet" to French companies willing to avoid the tax.

Economist Thomas Piketty, author of the book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", criticized it as "a millstone around the neck" of the government, asking instead for global reform of tax laws.

Proceeds from the tax are estimated to total 420 million euros ($512 million) for about 1,000 employees in 470 companies, according to the government. By comparison, France's budget deficit has soared well over 80 billion euros ($97 billion).


-- (c) Associated Press 2014-12-31

[icare999]

typical of idiot socialists them ore you tax the less you'll get. But some people never learn. For super rich tax is voluntary and always will be since they can simply move. Thatcher proved it when she reduced top rate from 98% to 40% and got more tax money in. If UK is not careful and if it elects another socialist government its poor and middle class will pay and rich will just hide as they always have and can. Of course socialist politicians will not be hit since they like all rich will hide their wealth as they always have. They are all scumbags bent on destroying what little freedom is left.

[realenglish1]

Typical of Socialists including Obama. USA Corp Tax is at the high end of 45%.across the border in Canada they have 32% Corp Tax and now in Japan to spur economic growth the Japanese are dropping the Corp rate to just 32%.

Yet Obama and France both want high corp Tax. Now you know why Burger King has moved its head office to Canada. Others will follow unless the USA drops Corp Taxes to 30%.

Why open a business in the USA when there are other venues where you pay substantially less.

Wake up Obama your way of governing does not work

[JacChang]

When the economy fails, when the world doesn't have anything to eat. Blame who? The poor, the middle class, the rich?

Yes, blame the rich. You can't fine or give a ticket to a poor. You can only do it on the rich.

Taxing the rich, aka punishing the rich, aka not pleasing those who do well in the economy, those who have a handle on life and is able to manage their finances to work for them. Rich people will not want to be there. And in economies, you want rich people, they are the life and blood, they are good things. They own businesses and they spend wildly. Poor is just like leech, always need need need, want want want, and help help help.

France is very lucky to have the 75% tax rejected, it if succeeded, their economy would go down even more.

When do politicians and civilians learn, self greed and populist strategies DO NOT WORK.

[NeverSure]

Typical of Socialists including Obama. USA Corp Tax is at the high end of 45%.across the border in Canada they have 32% Corp Tax and now in Japan to spur economic growth the Japanese are dropping the Corp rate to just 32%.

Yet Obama and France both want high corp Tax. Now you know why Burger King has moved its head office to Canada. Others will follow unless the USA drops Corp Taxes to 30%.

Why open a business in the USA when there are other venues where you pay substantially less.

Wake up Obama your way of governing does not work

The last I knew the top corporate tax rate in the US was 35%. It ranged from 15% to 35%. Of course this is only on net-net profits minus a lot of other things that are deductible before reaching the number that is taxed.

That's about the same as for individuals. Individuals will be wealthy before they pay the top rate.

[abrahamzvi]

Typical of Socialists including Obama. USA Corp Tax is at the high end of 45%.across the border in Canada they have 32% Corp Tax and now in Japan to spur economic growth the Japanese are dropping the Corp rate to just 32%.

Yet Obama and France both want high corp Tax. Now you know why Burger King has moved its head office to Canada. Others will follow unless the USA drops Corp Taxes to 30%.

Why open a business in the USA when there are other venues where you pay substantially less.

Wake up Obama your way of governing does not work

May I ask you, realenglish1, if this is so, why does the US economy doing better than ,the Canadian or the UK one, ignoring Europe where in some countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and last but not least, Luxemburg, where corporate tax rates are close to NIL? I am not saying a super tax is the correct measure, all I am saying is, that some social justice has to be and can be financed by tax money, and that is what President Obama has been trying to do.

[Suffinator]

Another idiotic socialist ideology that didn't work. Get over it people the wealthy generate wealth in so many ways socialists never truly understand.

[MJP]

When the economy fails, when the world doesn't have anything to eat. Blame who? The poor, the middle class, the rich?

Yes, blame the rich. You can't fine or give a ticket to a poor. You can only do it on the rich.

Taxing the rich, aka punishing the rich, aka not pleasing those who do well in the economy, those who have a handle on life and is able to manage their finances to work for them. Rich people will not want to be there. And in economies, you want rich people, they are the life and blood, they are good things. They own businesses and they spend wildly. Poor is just like leech, always need need need, want want want, and help help help.

France is very lucky to have the 75% tax rejected, it if succeeded, their economy would go down even more.

When do politicians and civilians learn, self greed and populist strategies DO NOT WORK.

Not quite true. There are the working poor. Those that actually produce the wealth and have little to show for it. I know rich people who would not be rich if it was not for the working poor.

[Anthony5]

Typical of Socialists including Obama. USA Corp Tax is at the high end of 45%.across the border in Canada they have 32% Corp Tax and now in Japan to spur economic growth the Japanese are dropping the Corp rate to just 32%.

Yet Obama and France both want high corp Tax. Now you know why Burger King has moved its head office to Canada. Others will follow unless the USA drops Corp Taxes to 30%.

Why open a business in the USA when there are other venues where you pay substantially less.

Wake up Obama your way of governing does not work

The irony about the Burger king move to Canada is that it is initiated by one of their major shareholders, who suggested the high tax rate to the government.

[Lokie]

As Gerard Depardieu said;

F OO K You Garston, Dos Vedanya!!

[Ulic]

The real issue is tax reform. Yes cooperate taxes should be lowered, but loop holes need to be closed.

As I understand some (small business) in the USA pay 35% cooperate income tax while many large

corporations pay close to zero so the real corporate tax rate in the US is closer to 17 %. This unfairness

is what has to change. Of course groups like the Tea Party want the tax rate lowered to 15% and the

big corporations to keep there loopholes. So gridlock and unfairness prevails. As for France it is the

same. Unions and companies need to work together and be flexible. The pendulum has swung so

far to the left protecting the rights of workers to maintain there jobs. Companies cannot expand

and hire more staff for what may be cyclical demand (maybe 10 years) as then they can't downsize

ever without going bankrupt. Even that is very expensive.

[NeverSure]

The real issue is tax reform. Yes cooperate taxes should be lowered, but loop holes need to be closed.

As I understand some (small business) in the USA pay 35% cooperate income tax while many large

corporations pay close to zero so the real corporate tax rate in the US is closer to 17 %. This unfairness

is what has to change. Of course groups like the Tea Party want the tax rate lowered to 15% and the

big corporations to keep there loopholes. So gridlock and unfairness prevails. As for France it is the

same. Unions and companies need to work together and be flexible. The pendulum has swung so

far to the left protecting the rights of workers to maintain there jobs. Companies cannot expand

and hire more staff for what may be cyclical demand (maybe 10 years) as then they can't downsize

ever without going bankrupt. Even that is very expensive.

So suppose I start a corporation and get filthy rich. I start a Google or an Amazon, McDonald's or a Walmart. Maybe a Microsoft or an Apple.

Then I create hundreds of thousands of jobs and the wages have a ripple effect through the economy. I pay payroll taxes for each employee. The employees in turn all pay taxes to the government on their homes, wages, etc. I have shot a big boost into the economy and the government coffers.

Who the hell are you to now come along and confiscate what I made? What incentive is there to keep doing what I do rather than taking my billions and shutting down and retiring leaving thousands or hundreds of thousands out of work? What if I get pissed and shut down? What if I just decide to move my company to a more tax friendly country?

France is learning the hard way not to confiscate the wealth of the successful. I'm surprised they have any companies left at all.

[HerbalEd]

typical of idiot socialists them ore you tax the less you'll get. But some people never learn. For super rich tax is voluntary and always will be since they can simply move. Thatcher proved it when she reduced top rate from 98% to 40% and got more tax money in. If UK is not careful and if it elects another socialist government its poor and middle class will pay and rich will just hide as they always have and can. Of course socialist politicians will not be hit since they like all rich will hide their wealth as they always have. They are all scumbags bent on destroying what little freedom is left.

Instead of making knee-jerk hyperbolic assumptions you should read some history and get some perspective.

In the 1950s, under the conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency the top tax rate – what the richest Americans paid on their top marginal income – was around 90%.

Edited December 31, 2014 by HerbalEd

[singa-traz]

Interesting to see the show of support for the oppressed minority of those Super Rich ... by the vast majority of poor, soon to be poor or still dreaming to be Rich one day.

Let's support our brothers and sisters who suffer from earning more than one million euros a year, they really need it.

Edited January 1, 2015 by singa-traz

[impulse]

typical of idiot socialists them ore you tax the less you'll get. But some people never learn. For super rich tax is voluntary and always will be since they can simply move. Thatcher proved it when she reduced top rate from 98% to 40% and got more tax money in. If UK is not careful and if it elects another socialist government its poor and middle class will pay and rich will just hide as they always have and can. Of course socialist politicians will not be hit since they like all rich will hide their wealth as they always have. They are all scumbags bent on destroying what little freedom is left.

Instead of making knee-jerk hyperbolic assumptions you should read some history and get some perspective.

In the 1950s, under the conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency the top tax rate – what the richest Americans paid on their top marginal income – was around 90%.

And it's interesting that America started to lose its economic grip right after the highest marginal tax rates dropped...

Perhaps there's something to be said for the "use it (for the benefit of society) or lose it" philosophy of wealth, including land.

Nowadays, all those companies mentioned by NeverSure seem to be creating jobs outside of the USA. Anyone remember when Sam was still alive and all the signs inside Walmart said "Made in America"? And Walmart and McDonalds employees didn't qualify for food stamps?

Edited January 1, 2015 by impulse

[Anthony5]

The real issue is tax reform. Yes cooperate taxes should be lowered, but loop holes need to be closed.

As I understand some (small business) in the USA pay 35% cooperate income tax while many large

corporations pay close to zero so the real corporate tax rate in the US is closer to 17 %. This unfairness

is what has to change. Of course groups like the Tea Party want the tax rate lowered to 15% and the

big corporations to keep there loopholes. So gridlock and unfairness prevails. As for France it is the

same. Unions and companies need to work together and be flexible. The pendulum has swung so

far to the left protecting the rights of workers to maintain there jobs. Companies cannot expand

and hire more staff for what may be cyclical demand (maybe 10 years) as then they can't downsize

ever without going bankrupt. Even that is very expensive.

So suppose I start a corporation and get filthy rich. I start a Google or an Amazon, McDonald's or a Walmart. Maybe a Microsoft or an Apple.

Then I create hundreds of thousands of jobs and the wages have a ripple effect through the economy. I pay payroll taxes for each employee. The employees in turn all pay taxes to the government on their homes, wages, etc. I have shot a big boost into the economy and the government coffers.

Who the hell are you to now come along and confiscate what I made? What incentive is there to keep doing what I do rather than taking my billions and shutting down and retiring leaving thousands or hundreds of thousands out of work? What if I get pissed and shut down? What if I just decide to move my company to a more tax friendly country?

France is learning the hard way not to confiscate the wealth of the successful. I'm surprised they have any companies left at all.

What incentive is there to keep doing what I do rather than taking my billions and shutting down and retiring leaving thousands or hundreds of thousands out of work?

Greed for get even richer?

[Scott]

This topic is about the tax rate in France, not the US. If you wish to make comparisons, please do so in the context of the situation with France.

Off-topic posts will be removed.

[JacChang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

When the economy fails, when the world doesn't have anything to eat. Blame who? The poor, the middle class, the rich?

Yes, blame the rich. You can't fine or give a ticket to a poor. You can only do it on the rich.

Taxing the rich, aka punishing the rich, aka not pleasing those who do well in the economy, those who have a handle on life and is able to manage their finances to work for them. Rich people will not want to be there. And in economies, you want rich people, they are the life and blood, they are good things. They own businesses and they spend wildly. Poor is just like leech, always need need need, want want want, and help help help.

France is very lucky to have the 75% tax rejected, it if succeeded, their economy would go down even more.

When do politicians and civilians learn, self greed and populist strategies DO NOT WORK.

Not quite true. There are the working poor. Those that actually produce the wealth and have little to show for it. I know rich people who would not be rich if it was not for the working poor.

Wrong. I understand your mentality on righteousness but it doesn't exist in the real economy. The person who does the most work in a company or a country is not necessary the one who gets paid the most. Putting that aside, we get to reality.

Rich people are people who have money, and the ability to use that money to produce more money. Usually that entails starting huge corporations and companies which then hires people and gives the poor people jobs. You must remember the cause and effect. The source starts all, not what actually produces it. Same with south Africa, your debate would say riche people doesn't affect the economy, and the civilians themselves produce the most. My example would prove it wrong right here. If no automobile manufacturers decide to invest in South Africa as their plants, where would the economy be? Nil. So they decide to invest in South Africa, hires people, now the economy starts spurring, the rich spends, the poor gets money and spends as well. Let's say now you start taxing the rich, are they scared? They are out, they find another country. Once they are out, would you still stand behind your words, that the POOR actually produces the wealth?! Go ahead, try it, let's see if they are eating sand or money when the rich are punished and leaves. Let's see if the poor is really as you claim.

My buddy and me back in high school weren't doing well with regards to grades. He told me, it's alright, let these other classmates study hard and get good grades. When we are all ready, we will hire them to do the work, and we get the most profit.

[Globeman]

typical of idiot socialists them ore you tax the less you'll get. But some people never learn. For super rich tax is voluntary and always will be since they can simply move. Thatcher proved it when she reduced top rate from 98% to 40% and got more tax money in. If UK is not careful and if it elects another socialist government its poor and middle class will pay and rich will just hide as they always have and can. Of course socialist politicians will not be hit since they like all rich will hide their wealth as they always have. They are all scumbags bent on destroying what little freedom is left.

What possible socialist party does the UK have? Labour are just conservatives in more fashionable suits.

[billd766]

On the 1st October 1973, Denis Healey, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said "I warn you that there are going to be howls of anguish from those rich enough to pay over 75% on their last slice of earnings".^[9] In a speech in Lincoln on 18 February 1974, reported in The Times the following day, Healey went further, promising he would "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak".

Labour raised the highest rate of income tax to 99% and floods of richer people left the UK for other parts of the world with better tax rates.

When the Conservatives got back into power they dropped the highest rate of tax to 48% and the Treasury gained more money in taxes than before and many rich people returned.

[Strangebrew]

What would be fair is a tax rate at a flat 10% for all No deductions allowed at all. Then force the government to budget with in that revenue frame work. Cut welfare make them work for there money like I do. If unable to work because of mental or other reason help them if they just to have kids clip both male a female then make them work.

[HerbalEd]

typical of idiot socialists them ore you tax the less you'll get. But some people never learn. For super rich tax is voluntary and always will be since they can simply move. Thatcher proved it when she reduced top rate from 98% to 40% and got more tax money in. If UK is not careful and if it elects another socialist government its poor and middle class will pay and rich will just hide as they always have and can. Of course socialist politicians will not be hit since they like all rich will hide their wealth as they always have. They are all scumbags bent on destroying what little freedom is left.

Instead of making knee-jerk hyperbolic assumptions you should read some history and get some perspective.

In the 1950s, under the conservative Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency the top tax rate – what the richest Americans paid on their top marginal income – was around 90%.

And it's interesting that America started to lose its economic grip right after the highest marginal tax rates dropped...

Perhaps there's something to be said for the "use it (for the benefit of society) or lose it" philosophy of wealth, including land.

Nowadays, all those companies mentioned by NeverSure seem to be creating jobs outside of the USA. Anyone remember when Sam was still alive and all the signs inside Walmart said "Made in America"? And Walmart and McDonalds employees didn't qualify for food stamps?

The rate dropped significantly under liberal-democrat President Kennedy, so your statement that "America started to lose its economic grip right after the highest marginal tax rates dropped... " isn't at all true. There were many years of economic high prosperity during the time the rich-tax came down more and more.

I think there should be a set tax for everyone (except for the truly poor) ... and a closing of many tax exemptions particularly enjoyed by rich individuals and big corporations.

For the sake of easy math, let's say everyone has to pay the same "percentage" tax of 10%. Thus someone who makes $30k/year pays $3K tax ... and those that make $100K pay $10K ... and those that make $1M pay $100k ... and those that make $100M pay $10M.

That seems fair to me. What isn't fair is that the people who have very large incomes should have to pay a larger percentage. In the above scenario, why should the guy who makes $100M/year have to pay 20% or 30% or 50% ($20M or $30M or $50M)? What is "socialistic" about this is the logic that the very rich should subsidize those who make less money, when with a universal-percentage tax, the rich are already paying proportionally more (as they should).

Edited January 1, 2015 by HerbalEd

[MJP]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

When the economy fails, when the world doesn't have anything to eat. Blame who? The poor, the middle class, the rich?

Yes, blame the rich. You can't fine or give a ticket to a poor. You can only do it on the rich.

Taxing the rich, aka punishing the rich, aka not pleasing those who do well in the economy, those who have a handle on life and is able to manage their finances to work for them. Rich people will not want to be there. And in economies, you want rich people, they are the life and blood, they are good things. They own businesses and they spend wildly. Poor is just like leech, always need need need, want want want, and help help help.

France is very lucky to have the 75% tax rejected, it if succeeded, their economy would go down even more.

When do politicians and civilians learn, self greed and populist strategies DO NOT WORK.

Not quite true. There are the working poor. Those that actually produce the wealth and have little to show for it. I know rich people who would not be rich if it was not for the working poor.

Wrong. I understand your mentality on righteousness but it doesn't exist in the real economy. The person who does the most work in a company or a country is not necessary the one who gets paid the most. Putting that aside, we get to reality.

Rich people are people who have money, and the ability to use that money to produce more money. Usually that entails starting huge corporations and companies which then hires people and gives the poor people jobs. You must remember the cause and effect. The source starts all, not what actually produces it. Same with south Africa, your debate would say riche people doesn't affect the economy, and the civilians themselves produce the most. My example would prove it wrong right here. If no automobile manufacturers decide to invest in South Africa as their plants, where would the economy be? Nil. So they decide to invest in South Africa, hires people, now the economy starts spurring, the rich spends, the poor gets money and spends as well. Let's say now you start taxing the rich, are they scared? They are out, they find another country. Once they are out, would you still stand behind your words, that the POOR actually produces the wealth?! Go ahead, try it, let's see if they are eating sand or money when the rich are punished and leaves. Let's see if the poor is really as you claim.

My buddy and me back in high school weren't doing well with regards to grades. He told me, it's alright, let these other classmates study hard and get good grades. When we are all ready, we will hire them to do the work, and we get the most profit.

You referred to the poor as a "leech". This is true for career welfare claimants but not for the working poor.

The rich may have the capital to invest but it's the working poor who actually create the wealth, they do the work, they pull the potatoes out of the ground. Once they are out, would you still stand behind your words, that the RICH actually produce the wealth?! Go ahead, try it. Let's see if they are eating money or potatoes when the poor are punished and leave. Let's see if the rich is really as you claim.

[EmptyHead]

Tax!

Are we still in the middle ages or something? It wasn't right back then when tax meant your wife and isn't right now when they take whatever percentage of your livelyhood they wish.

It is an act of aggression. They are thugs who will come to your home with guns if you don't give them what they want.

[MJP]

Tax!

Are we still in the middle ages or something? It wasn't right back then when tax meant your wife and isn't right now when they take whatever percentage of your livelyhood they wish.

It is an act of aggression. They are thugs who will come to your home with guns if you don't give them what they want.

That's true. Tax is extracted, ultimately, at the point of a gun.

Try not paying tax.

Now, don't go to court when summoned.

Now, resist arrest and hold up in your home.

Siege.

Guns come out.

It's not really that far fetched.

[HerbalEd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

When the economy fails, when the world doesn't have anything to eat. Blame who? The poor, the middle class, the rich?

Yes, blame the rich. You can't fine or give a ticket to a poor. You can only do it on the rich.

Taxing the rich, aka punishing the rich, aka not pleasing those who do well in the economy, those who have a handle on life and is able to manage their finances to work for them. Rich people will not want to be there. And in economies, you want rich people, they are the life and blood, they are good things. They own businesses and they spend wildly. Poor is just like leech, always need need need, want want want, and help help help.

France is very lucky to have the 75% tax rejected, it if succeeded, their economy would go down even more.

When do politicians and civilians learn, self greed and populist strategies DO NOT WORK.

Not quite true. There are the working poor. Those that actually produce the wealth and have little to show for it. I know rich people who would not be rich if it was not for the working poor.

Wrong. I understand your mentality on righteousness but it doesn't exist in the real economy. The person who does the most work in a company or a country is not necessary the one who gets paid the most. Putting that aside, we get to reality.

Rich people are people who have money, and the ability to use that money to produce more money. Usually that entails starting huge corporations and companies which then hires people and gives the poor people jobs. You must remember the cause and effect. The source starts all, not what actually produces it. Same with south Africa, your debate would say riche people doesn't affect the economy, and the civilians themselves produce the most. My example would prove it wrong right here. If no automobile manufacturers decide to invest in South Africa as their plants, where would the economy be? Nil. So they decide to invest in South Africa, hires people, now the economy starts spurring, the rich spends, the poor gets money and spends as well. Let's say now you start taxing the rich, are they scared? They are out, they find another country. Once they are out, would you still stand behind your words, that the POOR actually produces the wealth?! Go ahead, try it, let's see if they are eating sand or money when the rich are punished and leaves. Let's see if the poor is really as you claim.

My buddy and me back in high school weren't doing well with regards to grades. He told me, it's alright, let these other classmates study hard and get good grades. When we are all ready, we will hire them to do the work, and we get the most profit.

You referred to the poor as a "leech". This is true for career welfare claimants but not for the working poor.

The rich may have the capital to invest but it's the working poor who actually create the wealth, they do the work, they pull the potatoes out of the ground. Once they are out, would you still stand behind your words, that the RICH actually produce the wealth?! Go ahead, try it. Let's see if they are eating money or potatoes when the poor are punished and leave. Let's see if the rich is really as you claim.

It's obvious ... at least to some ... that it takes both the business owners and the workers to make an economy work.

Unless you've started a business from scratch and worked hard for years to build it up and make it a success, you'll never really know the other side.

One thing that rich bashers never take into account is the downsides of being a business owner. Especially the gamble of investing and reinvesting ... bank loans that you pray you'll be able to pay back and not go into bankruptcy ... the legal liabilities of being sued by a disgruntled customer, or being fined and/or prosecuted by a myriad of federal, state & local government agencies ... etc. etc.

While the worker gets to clock out and his work day is finished, many business owners work day continues. And even while on holiday there is the background mental hum of worry, or the constant emails from the business asking for guidance.

If the business owner can survive all these challenges and actually make him/her-self rich in the process ... then more power to them. I'd say they've earned it ... that is if they've treated their workers fairly during the process.

While it's assumed by most that the rich are evil, I know a lot of them who are very nice, highly ethical, and did not rip off anyone. They became successful and wealthy through years and years of very hard work, taking lots of financial gambles, and treating their employees with respect and fairness. Would the owner have gotten rich without the workers. Of course not. But on the other hand, the workers would not have had a job without the owner ... nor health insurance, a retirement fund, bonuses, being able to buy a home and put their kids through college, etc. etc.

Edited January 1, 2015 by HerbalEd

[MJP]

^^ I'm not bashing the rich, but I certainly will defend the working poor from being branded "leeches".

[impulse]

While it's assumed by most that the rich are evil, I know a lot of them who are very nice, highly ethical, and did not rip off anyone. They became successful and wealthy through years and years of very hard work, taking lots of financial gambles, and treating their employees with respect and fairness. Would the owner have gotten rich without the workers. Of course not. But on the other hand, the workers would not have had a job without the owner ... nor health insurance, a retirement fund, bonuses, being able to buy a home and put their kids through college, etc. etc.

The issue is that the vast majority of the wealth is several generations removed from the entrepreneurs you have described. Just like it was during the French Revolution.

One thing I admire about the French people is that they keep their government (and their elites) in fear- or at least a healthy respect of- the masses, ever since the Revolution. That's in direct contrast to the Brits and Americans whose masses live in fear of their governments (and, by proxy, the elites who control their governments).

I get the sense that this may signal them caving...

Edited January 1, 2015 by impulse

[HerbalEd]

^^ I'm not bashing the rich, but I certainly will defend the working poor from being branded "leeches".

I will defend them also. But I don't think there is an intrinsic nobility in being poor. I've been poor and I found poverty to be very motivating.

I do realize that many people do the right things, follow the rules, work very hard all their life and still get very screwed by the system ... in the USA & Europe, and esp. in third-world countries. And no matter how honorably our intentions, we all contribute to that to varying degrees. A vivid example is living in the cheaper economy of Thailand with much cheaper rent, food, taxis, labor, etc. than our home countries. Or buying and eating chocolate that's harvested by very cheap, semi-slave child labor in West Africa. Or using a computer, mobile phone, iPad, etc. made my over-worked under-paid Chinese factory workers.

Edited January 1, 2015 by HerbalEd

[Credo]

I am not going to discount how hard working many of the rich are, but a great deal of wealth is in part due to luck. Being in the right place, at the right time, with the right product goes a very long way to making people wealthy.

I know a lot of business people who have a lot of money. They aren't among the very wealthy. They don't own a jet, but may have a plane. They may have a nice home and a holiday home somewhere. They didn't have lady luck on their side, they got wealthy by very, very hard work.

Being poor really is the pits. I've been there, but not for long. It's really not a nice place to be.