We have been discussing the tax policies of President Francois Hollande’s Socialist government — a record that I have criticized as ruinous from an economic standpoint. A recent report indicates that for some high-earning families — more than 8,000 — the Hollande policies impose a 100% tax. It is the ultimate “eat the rich” policy. Even for those families facing a 75% rate, it is unclear why they would continue to work in the country. Many are not. France is experiencing a flight of both high earners and companies.
The bizarre 100% tax is the result of a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million). The surcharge was imposed shortly after Hollande took office on a promise to hit the rich with high taxes. The Hollande 75% direct tax was so unfair that the Constitutional Council struck it down. However, this report states that the one-off levy effectively pushed some families to a 100% tax.
The newspaper Les Echos found that nearly 12,000 households paid taxes last year worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 revenues due to the exceptional levy. ($1 = 0.7798 euros).
Putting aside how many families are impacted by taxes above 75%, it is in my view an insane, self-destructive economic policy for France. I just spent an evening with a friend and his parents discussing the situation in France. This is a moderate family politically that has long fished in French waters. My friend is now an American citizen but his parents and family remain in France. They recounted how they had to destroy half of their ships because of taxes. They are seeing other businesses doing the same or simply moving out of France. These a patriotic and proud French people but they are watching their government cannibalize off the economy. The government is getting instant revenue while killing revenue producing businesses. It is like eating the grapes and roots of the vineyards of Bordeaux for food and leaving the fields barren.
As someone who truly loves visiting France, it is disheartening to watch Hollande’s cultural war on the wealthy. I favor higher taxes as part of a comprehensive package of reforms in this country and other countries. However, Hollande’s expressed hatred of the rich resulted in a political success and now an economic disaster. It is also grossly unfair to wealth French who love their country and are not opposed to making sacrifices. Hollande played the class card and told the French that their problems were due to a sinister upper class rather than France’s high labor costs and burgeoning budgets. Even if one dismisses this study and the one-year levy, there are still many thousands of families and businesses who face a government demanding 75 percent tax rates.
These policies however will only lengthen the economic crisis. Indeed, France is already viewed as a hostile country for business and that is likely to continue under Hollande who is fighting the French judges to impose taxes higher than what is viewed as constitutional or fair by the courts.
Source: Reuters
Who could argue with such a critique of pure reason? So much evidence, so artfully presented! Absurd, yet flaccid!
🙄
Carry on.
“Never once WON an argument.” A phrase oft repeated by yourself. I have often said I don’t look upon this as a debate w/ win or lose, but a discussion.
mark2575, And understand the back story. For some, certainly not all, they are seeing the President they voted for twice, and even knocked on doors for, pissing on both his legs while shitting his pants. It’s a stressful episode in their lives, so we should be empathetic.
mark2575, Please stay here. Some of these bozos will try and run your off, they like a tight circle..like their asses.
Bron, Having lived good lives and being engaged w/ the real world, we are bound to have great anecdotes to relate.
I’m sure for some people who lived off he public trough their entire career, hard work is a myth.
If you think my position is even remotely fascist, you aren’t paying attention and/or you don’t know what fascism is, David.
Gene H –
I am not trying to stereotype your position as fascist. You seemed to acknowledge that fascism emphasizes the collective as being all important and that it is on the opposite end of the spectrum from individualism. Thus far, your emphasis has been on the fascist perspective. Sometimes a person emphasizes one perspective to bring balance to an otherwise imbalanced perspective brought by somebody else. I am trying to see if that is what you are doing here, or if you truly see no value to considering the individual.
Perhaps also I am just trying to nudge you toward some acknowledgement of value of the individual perspective brought up by Bron so that this exchange would be more of a discussion than a harsh debate where both sides are polarized. You certainly have a lot to offer in the way of knowledge, but with much knowledge often comes pride which is sometimes difficult to temper with humility, and pride can interfere with what would otherwise be very useful dialogue resulting in a synergism of knowledge.
“I am trying to see if that is what you are doing here, or if you truly see no value to considering the individual.
Perhaps also I am just trying to nudge you toward some acknowledgement of value of the individual perspective brought up by Bron so that this exchange would be more of a discussion than a harsh debate where both sides are polarized.”
DavidM,
If what you are trying to do is “nudge” Gene towards the value of the individual perspective, wouldn’t it follow that Gene in his comments has devalued the “individual perspective”? In reading his comments I see no evidence of that. Could you please provide that evidence from his comments by quoting his statements, rather than making a blanket assessment? Without specificity I would have to assume you are misreading him.
Mike Spindell wrote:
“Could you please provide that evidence from his comments by quoting his statements, rather than making a blanket assessment? Without specificity I would have to assume you are misreading him.”
I might be misreading him. I have some quotes in mind, but I am reticent to go back and quote him because it would turn this discussion into gotcha moments. Past experience has taught me that such a tactic would lead to more polarization and ad hominem attacks from him. I would rather he just clarify what he believes. If I am misreading him, then his responses will show that and I have no problem acknowledging my misunderstanding.
“I might be misreading him. I have some quotes in mind, but I am reticent to go back and quote him because it would turn this discussion into gotcha moments.”
DavidM,
Weak and disingenuous at best. If you make a charge against someone then I think you should be prepared to back it up, or be accused of misreading him. My guess is the truth is that because of your political perspective you made certain assumptions about Gene that were incorrect. This is inline with your lack of understanding of fascism, which is an authoritarian philosophy of
of the right wing that caters to the “elite” businessmen of society. You can personally define anything to suit your tastes, that doesn’t make your definition correct, or serviceable for discussion.
David,
You almost sound like you know what you are talking about. Almost.
The primary axis of political modality is left and right. The secondary axis of political modality isn’t between fascism and anarchism. It’s between democracy and authoritarianism. The third axis is between individualism and collectivism. No matter what axis you are considering, a median solution is always going to be better than an extreme solution. The extreme solutions all end in bad outcomes no matter the specific resultant form, be it closer to anarchy or closer to totalitarianism.
Gene H –
Well, if you agree that a median solution is better, why do you take the extreme position toward the fascist side? It seems like maybe you and Bron are describing two sides of the same coin and that you both therefore have some insights that are worthy of consideration.
Bron,
“But the guy that can solve it by hand can solve any beam configuration you give him, the guy that solves using the book may be limited.”
What you point to is the difference in knowing how to think and knowing what to think. Some people are incapable of learning how to think and some do it better than others. Whether a person can convert experience into how to think is up to the individual, but just because someone knows what they should think does not automatically predicate that they don’t know how to think as well. I meet people in business all the time that know what to think, far fewer that know how to think, but that difference is always tied to their innate individual capacity. Some of the how think crowd have multiple degrees, some have little or no formal education at all. The same can be said of the what to think crowd as well. Some are enamored with rote. Some are not.
nick:
for what its worth, I like your stories. But then I love to BS, maybe I have some Italian blood?
Nothing better than telling stories about past occurrences in your life, especially if they are good. A little exaggeration is OK as long as the essence is correct.
Aligories and examples are good ways to explain concepts to people.
When I describe soils to laymen, I use peanut butter, marshmellows, beach sand, modeling clay along with other items as examples of soil types. If you tell them the soil is a SM or silty sand they wont have much of an idea but if you tell them to think about mixing modeling clay and sand together with more sand than clay, they will be able to relate. Not exactly because an SM is not plastic but they get the idea.
Bron,
Let me complete this thought:
“What I’m talking about isn’t differences in opinion. Logic has rules. One of those rules” is the law of identity. An idea I know you are familiar with although through the distorted lens of Rand. Basic premises and foundational evidence are built on the rule of identity. Part of having good logic is operating from correct basics. One of the basics you consistently go wrong in is the nature of society. It is not a group of individuals that is the salient quanta about society. It is their cooperative action.
Sorry about that. UPS guy interrupted my train of thought and I got back on at a slightly different part of the platform.
tony c:
We [engineers] do that all the time, give a kid a 3 span beam and tell him to solve the problem. You give them a book and set them on their path, some guys work it by hand and some guys go right to the book and use the formula right out of the book, takes 10 minutes tops. And you would have to be stupid to not get the right answer.
But the guy that can solve it by hand can solve any beam configuration you give him, the guy that solves using the book may be limited. You dont know until you have them working for you. If you just want a warm body that you can start making billable hours on right away, then hire the book kid and hope for the best. If you want a future engineer, hire the kid who can use what he knows to solve non-standard problems.
nick,
“‘Winning’ here is vital for people who lose everywhere else.”
That sure explains why you’re so desperate to win here.
Just because you understand argumentation, logic and evidence even less than Bron (and by a long shot) is no reason to be jealous.
He at least tries. Which is far more than you can say.
Now please, regale us with more of your unsubstantiated anecdotes as evidence and false claims about people whom you know nothing about.
People don’t like Bron’s philosophical basis because they’re based in the fantasies of a sociopath, but they do like Bron as a person. From what I’ve seen here, no one particularly likes you. They tolerate you. I bet IRL is no different. Yet you never pause to question why that is, only sniping and being snide to others because it must be their fault they don’t like such a “fascinating” person such as yourself and take every one of your unsubstantiated dribbles as gospel fact.
It’s all only moderately interesting and completely transparent.
People don’t win or lose here, nick. That’s your misconception.
Arguments and evidence win or lose here.
That you never have any of your own is your undoing.
Carry on.
Davidm:
I think he and many others here are “free market socialists”.
tony c:
“Well, if you say so. Good argument.”
Thank you, I am developing my style.
Bron, You’ve just been spoken to by the judge, jury and executioner. You should genuflect. “Winning” here is vital for people who lose everywhere else. And it’s easy when you unilaterally proclaim victory. It’s debating and judging all rolled into one. Not like the real world, where you have to produce and your work is judged by clients, customers, etc.
nick spinelli –
ROTFLOL. Underneath that humor is a lot of truth.
Bron,
“There are many people much smarter than I, who think like I do. I do respect your intelligence but I simply disagree with you.”
Not the issue.
“How do you know your logic isnt based on a false premise?”
Because I can back up my logic in both form and function when it is challenged as well as any evidence it is based upon.
“How do you know you even have the requisite intellectual tools [I dont mean brains, you certainly have those] to examine your premises?”
As demonstrated time and again, I’m an expert on logic and evidence.
“You see destruction, I see destruction, we agree on some of the causes and disagree on others. Just because you think X and I think Y does not mean I am using flawed logic to come to my conclusion.”
What I’m talking about isn’t differences in opinion. Logic has rules. One of those rules
“What do you think engineering is? It is 5 years of varying degrees of mathematics which teaches you how to solve problems of various kinds. Almost every class I took involved solving real world problems using a frame work of principles and conceptual knowledge to reach a conclusion.”
What do you think law is? It’s social engineering. It involves real world problems because disputes and wrongs take place in the real world. The goal is to discover facts using a framework of principles and conceptual knowledge to reach a solution that is as just as possible. This is the ideal, however, like any endeavor involving humans – including engineering – the result may not be ideal although it may or may not be functional.
“From what I can tell about the law, you start with a conclusion and you make the case based on whatever it is which will sound reasonable and persuade a jury or a judge that your client is innocent or guilty depending on which side of the aisle you operate. The actual guilt or innocence is of no concern.
I am not opposed to this because overall it seems to work out.”
Speaking of rules of logic, one never starts with a conclusion. One starts with evidence. Good logic must be predicated on valid evidence. The rules of evidence are geared toward one basic principle – one you are familiar with and yet often misapply because of your religion – the law of identity. It is the same underpinning the scientific method uses.
The persuasive component of the argument is the exercise of the skill of rhetoric which only goes so far in the light of evidence. Do you really think defense attorneys don’t know when their client in guilty or not based on the evidence? That is very (very) rarely the case.
“The law is based on the opinions of many judges, it isnt based on formal principles [not many anyway] which have been vetted by hundreds of years of scientific inquiry.”
Actually it is based on formal and informal principles that have been vetted by hundreds of years of legal inquiry. Law is a social science, Bron. Soft science, hard science, it’s all science.
“A beam can be designed in many different ways but every single one of them are based in theory which has been proven by experiments to work in reality.”
A beam is a simple concept and has limited permutations. The law is not. It is a complex concept and has nearly unlimited permutations. The analogy fails for oversimplification. Engineering encourages binary thinking. Either something can withstand a stress or it can’t. 1 or 0. Binary thinking is an anathema to social engineering. Not all problems it is presented can resolve in 1 or 0. Sometimes the answer is -1. Sometimes the answer is x.
“The law is whatever a judge or group of judges says it is on a particular day based on what they think other men on a particular day mean. There isnt much logic in that.”
Sometimes but not always. That is, however, how common law works to distill principles. It’s somewhat analogous to writing. The true art of writing isn’t writing. It’s rewriting. That is how the distillate of common law operates. One judge says something based on a certain logic predicated upon a certain set of facts. A later judge faced with a similar situation revisits the logic. Either the logic holds for the present situation, it fails, or it needs adjustment to fit the current facts to work toward a similarly just conclusion. This adjustment may be concurring or diverse to the original decision.
“The founders tried to imbue our law with principles, 1 main one; the individual is the basis of our society and has a right to exist for his own sake”
Again, you reveal your presentism and your ideological underpinning in Objectivism and they fail you. There is nothing in the writings of the Founders that indicates “the individual is the basis of our society”. There is plenty to indicate that they thought the individual had inherent rights and that some of those rights were inalienable, but there is also plenty to indicate that they understood the inherent nature of society was cooperative action (which is anathema to Objectivism which places no value on the needs of society as compared to the desires of the individual). You’ve been presented with the evidence of this time and again so I won’t rehash it here, but a link to such a presentation is presented below.
Objectivism doesn’t recognize society as real when all scientific evidence (and legal principle in action) indicates that society is very real.
Your premise is faulty because the predicates of Rand are based on the fantasy that society doesn’t exist without ubermenchen. Society exists wherever more than one person is involved in a cooperative endeavor. Wherever there is a community of people living in a particular country or region, having shared customs, laws, and organizations? There is society and it exists regardless of how extraordinary any one individual thinks they are (or might even be).
“and 3 subordinate ones; the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”
Which is as found in the Declaration – which is not law but only informative to the spirit of the law. The Constitution is law and the baseline foundation for all our laws. As you’ve been shown before, the basic function of government described therein is “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” – a considerably more complex proposition than the individual’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. A complex proposition of such a nature as to guarantee not everyone is going to be happy in either method or outcome.
“That is what I start with as my operational premises for government and economics. And it is what leads me to my conclusions.”
Which are usually wrong because your premises are wrong. The Constitution starts with “We the People”, not “You the Individual”.
“If you disagree with that, it is your right.”
Again, not about agreement. It’s about evidence and logic. When it comes to the precepts of law, both of yours are faulty, ergo any logics you’ve built upon those precepts is faulty.
“How many formal, real science courses have you had?”
Quite a few. I had 80 hours above and beyond what was required to graduate and the bulk of them were science and history. Enough to where I could tutor astronomy with the instructor’s blessing. Enough to where I can converse with science professionals and they acknowledge that my understanding of the scientific method is proper and robust enough for us to have a common language and common ground over which to speak.
“I literally have an entire degrees worth of science and math.”
And how many in social sciences? Because I’ve had a lot.
“And I had the added benefit of not learning bad habits from far left academics.As most of my engineering professors were conservative or true liberals.”
Nonsensical polemics. The far left academic is as rare as the far right academic. I know this because the bell curve tells me so.
“I am certainly willing to be shown where I am factually wrong, in fact I welcome it. ”
No, you’re in fact not willing in the slightest.
It has been proven that your Objectivist ideals are garbage time and again, not the least of which was here. That you’re too invested in Randian ego worship and the (bad) idea that selfishness is a virtue to admit that they are objectively bad premises is your problem. I can tell you F=ma all day long but if you deny the existence of mass, you’ll never get it right. Just so, I can tell you society and its shaping and maintenance are the primary function of law, but as long as you deny society is real, you’ll never get it right.
“But just saying I am wrong doesnt make it so.”
No but you being wrong by having your logic predicated on fantasy evidence does.
“Nor does showing me an opinion masquerading as a fact make it so either.”
The evidence has many times been presented. Opinion has nothing to do with it. Other than your recalcitrant opinion Ayn Rand was some kind of genius when she was demonstrably a sociopath, that her ideas are rooted in her mental illness and that society is a collective action despite her assertions to the contrary. Whether you accept those facts or not is your choice. You’re free to live in denial as you will. And while you’re free to your opinions, you are not free to your own facts.
And that’s what this is about. Your premises are more often than not based in fact, but based in the polemics of a crazy person espousing non-factual and antisocial predicates for action disguised (poorly) as a philosophy.
That’s what can be so frustrating about you, Bron. You’re clearly capable of both reason and learning, but you insist on clinging to the faulty stone of Objectivism despite it being shown many times there is more stable philosophical footing to be found elsewhere. Objectivism is the realm of disaffected teens, the emotionally stunted and the mentally ill. Don’t you think it’s time to shop about for a more sane and adult philosophical base?
Mike is right. You’re smarter than that and your clinging to a failed pseudo-philosophy is in large part why Tony is making mincemeat out of you. You’ve in fact never once won an argument here (against anyone) based upon your Objectivism. That should tell you that maybe there is something wrong with your premises.
Gene H –
Certainly the Constitution starts with “We the People…” because any good government must be a government of the people. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights seemed compulsory to append to the Constitution in order to balance the emphasis of the collective good with with the rights of individuals.
On the one end of the spectrum we have fascism, which focuses completely on the good of the collective, and on the other end we have individual freedom perhaps coupled with anarchism but more likely coupled with a very limited form of government. Isn’t the best thing somewhere in the middle, between fascism and anarchism? Surely you do not embrace fascism, right? If not, then it is not all about the collective. It seems that there must be enough freedom for individuals to work hard and see the fruit of their own labor and be responsible for distributing what they have to their neighbors who have less.
Bron: that is just wrong.
Well, if you say so. Good argument.
You are an engineer. So here is a hypothetical; say I want to hire an engineer. I develop a difficult competency test for my industry, and I give that to applicants to complete. I tell them it will take an hour and I will be watching them work on a surveillance camera.
Applicant One works hard; erasing, pondering, trying calculations, staring into space. He looks like he is struggling, but he finally finishes the test with a minute to spare, and he gets all the answers right.
Applicant Two answers all the questions without hesitation, in order, and finishes in ten minutes without breaking a sweat. He reviews his work, and then puts the pencil down without making any changes. He also gets all the answers right.
Forget the question, I am offering Applicant Two a job the minute I review his test. Hard work isn’t the currency, results are the currency. If you don’t get results it hardly matters how many grueling hours you put in trying. I don’t care how Applicant Two came to possess the mind he has, if he worked hard or was born with a chalk in his hand, I only want to know if he can do it again on problems that matter.
mespo, I remind you of the Hitchcock classic, The Birds.