

- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| An epiphany | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 28 2013, 08:21 PM (987 Views) | |
| Incog | Jan 28 2013, 08:21 PM Post #1 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
Never quite knew what the word meant, but when I looked up the definition I decided it would be a perfect title for this thread. Yesterday I was discussing what I felt was wrong with France on skype with gs. I ended up wanting to make a thread about it- ok fuck introductions let's get to the point. I have come to realize that everything is going to hell. My government does not represent me or my views. The government does not do what should be done to make the country grow and develop itself. With the current economic recession at the moment, coupled with the government's total incompetence, I feel as if France is headed towards becoming a 2nd Nazi Germany. I would shudder to think of what would happen if the right-wing extremists of France would be elected. The government does not encourage economic growth. Let's put it this way, 50% of all French families don't pay taxes. I'm talking those who are unemployed, study, work for the government, old people, etc. That means that only the remaining 50% are producing wealth for France (it's all about money, you should know this). 50% is quite a lot of dead weight and furthermore you have a lot of people who don't work and abuse the system that way. Old people have worked and deserve their retirement, civil servants such as teachers, public transportation, etc, are useful (to an extent, i'll come back to this later) but don't actually produce wealth. There are two problems here. Let's take a major transportation company as an example, the SNCF. This is France's railroad network. The problem is that this company doesn't actually make profit, it costs money to operate but doesn't actually make profit. This is made worse by the fact that the railroad company is split up, meaning that the company who operates trains and manages train stations isn't the same company who maintains the actual rails. You need to take into account that people who work for the SNCF don't pay taxes and many of them don't do their job properly. Railroad engineers (train drivers) are still paid a certain bonus every year. It's the coal bonus. Before electric locomotives, engineers would have to shovel coal into the engine's furnace, which was dangerous and dirty work. So they were given a certain bonus to compensate for the difficult job. The problem is that they're still being paid that bonus ... with electric locomotives. Really. They also retire at the ripe old age of 50 (compared to 65 for a normal person). It would be fucking stupid to say that the SNCF is operating normally. How many airline companies around the world are privately operated? If those companies operated the same way the SNCF does, they would simply go bankrupt and cease to exist. The thing is that the government is paying for the operation of the railroad but without making actual profit from it. The SNCF is ONE example. That's one wasteful expense. The other problem is that quite a few people abuse the unemployment system. Basically in France, if you lose your job (if you quit), you get 2 free years of 80% of your salary of the job you had. Many people abuse that system, they work a bit, go unemployed, work a bit, go unemployed, etc, etc. The government just keeps on paying them, oblivious to the fact that they're encouraging people NOT to work. On the other hand, if you're someone who wants to create a small company, you need to invest your own money to do it. You don't get any help from the government. What, I ask you, is probably better for the overall economy? The person who created a company and is generating wealth with it, or the person who is paid literally thousands by the government to jack off at home for two years? The worst part is that the person who invests in companies does so at their own risk. If I invest 1000 into a company, I do so at my own risk. I'm not certain that the company will pull through and make a profit. If the company fails, I've lost 1000. If the company pulls through and the company gives me back 1400 for my initial investment, I'm forced to pay 40% of that 1400 back to the government. This is a HUGE deterrent for anyone looking to invest in a French company. Let's compare that to the USA. If I invest 1000$ in an American company and it fails, 20% of that 1 grand is take off my taxes. If the company pulls through, 20% of what I gain is taxed. Where would you rather invest? This is largely oversimplified but that's the gist of it. So let's review the situation. The government is largely in debt to banks, meaning that every year (or w/e the fuck the time scale is), a certain amount of money is paid back to banks. We are in DEBT. A nice big fat debt. The government wants to fix that debt but they're going about it in a horribly wrong way. Instead of encouraging economic growth, they're doing the exact opposite. Unemployment rates are going up, meaning that the government will have to spend more and more money paying unemployed people (I'm not implying that this is the fault of people who don't have a job, I'm attack the government only here). This also means that a smaller % of the active population is going to be generating wealth for the government. It's a big, fat, oily, ugly snowball. Because on top of that, the government is raising taxes on those who DO generate wealth. Where then, I ask you, is the incentive to work at all? If you DO work you're going to say good bye to a large chunk of the money you make. The company that employs you is also forced to pay more taxes by the way. This is going to force some of the smaller companies to reduce the amount of employees it has to pay, which means that more people are unemployed AGAIN. As if that weren't enough, the high profile CEOs, the big bosses of EADS, Dassault, Sanofi-Aventis... all the big French multinational companies. They're taxed more as well. The French elite is slowly but surely going away, away with all their competence in huge multinational companies. Those big companies who generate wealth and employment. Those big companies whose French shares are under 50%. Why would rocket scientists and competent engineers work in France if they could do the same job in the USA or another country and pay less taxes? Not to mention American companies are bigger and have more financial possibilities.. All in all, everything the government is doing is gearing up perfectly for economic stagnation. What they're doing is suicide for the country. So now, you'll ask the fatal question. I ask you, incog, you good ol' Frenchie, I ask you, what would you do different? I'd do what Hitler and Roosevelt did. I'd pour money into giving jobs back to the unemployed. How would I do it? I'd decrease the taxes that companies are forced to pay for employing someone. Let's talk about this real quick. To employ someone, a company has what they call a brute salary. Let's say that it'll cost company X 3000 a month to employ joe. Of those 3000, a certain amount will go to social security and shit like that, but basically a certain amount with go to the government. The government elected last May (I'm still face palming at this btw) has decided to raise those taxes meaning that a company will pay more money to employ someone, even though that someone isn't going to receive more of that money. Back to what I was saying. -Decreasing the taxes that companies pay to employ someone. You want companies to actually employ people and encourage the free market to take off again. -Real budget cuts. The government is forced to pay money to banks because of their debt. Education and free health care are too important to pass up, so you can't touch that either. The military expenses is similar. If anything, decrease the salary of all civil servants until the economic recession is over. The government's current motto is that "everyone must make an effort". Unfortunately that meant that those who generate wealth are simply taxed harder. What the government should actually do is make sure that everyone is actually working, which brings me to my next point. -Instead of paying the unemployed like the way they do, have them actually work. This is what Roosevelt did with Hoover Dam and what Hitler did with Volkswagen. Instead of having French cars being built in Tunisia, have them be built on French soil. The unemployed shouldn't be allowed to get money while doing nothing, the unemployed should be allowed to have access to work which generates wealth. Then they get paid. This goes hand in hand with "everyone must make an effort". If you're unemployed, you're not really supposed to be picky about the job you get. There's nothing degrading about working. What should the government's duties be? 1. Assure the protection of its people. That's what the military is for. 2. Assure justice. This is what laws and the judicial system is for. This is what lawyers, judges and the police are all about. 3. Assure education. Giving everyone the same, quality education. That's true investment. 4. Assure social security. If someone is ill, they can go to a hospital without having bills to worry about. If they lose their job, they should be allowed to work another job until they find a job that fits with what they do professionally. That's about it and the money shouldn't really be spent by the government on anything else. If the government had a half a brain, they'd have everyone pitch in to help deal with the economic recession, they wouldn't just keep hard taxes on those who work while sustaining a large, inactive portion of the population. There are a load of other problems that I haven't talked about but I think this is enough for now. I feel a bit sad and I wish that someone out there would actually fix things instead of making shit worse. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Ichigo1uk | Jan 28 2013, 08:24 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Huh?
|
Spoiler: click to toggle Tl:dr [spoiler'd by incog, sorry ichi] Edited by Incog, Jan 29 2013, 03:20 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 28 2013, 08:32 PM Post #3 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
amateur
|
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| budgie | Jan 28 2013, 08:56 PM Post #4 |
|
squawk
|
hey, that was an interesting read. and most of the time over here in California i tend to envy the socialist peculiarities of France. you should try out the public transit over here in San Diego (that's a joke. you shouldn't. don't.) and to most of the folks of the US, socialism is interchangeable with nazism. i agree with your points on the civil benefits of what hitler and roosy have done, but it would be very hard to pull off effectively on my side of the world, in its current state. regarding businesses, i mostly agree. however, it isn't the most ideal system in the states right now for start-ups. there's a strange reality for us, where, the more successful your business is, the less government restraints it has. IMO it should be the exact-fucking-opposite. starting up a bar in San Diego costs 2-3 million USD, and fewer than a quarter last more than a year. same with restaurants and similar zoned services. i subscribe to anarcho-syndicalism. can't imagine it will ever happen again on a large scale, but it's nice to think about. egalitarian, locational federating institutions, true socialism (might as well say industrial egalitarianism, since true socialism doesn't really mean much anymore) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalist there's the wiki link if you're interested. noam chomsky's what introduced it to me. i think. or emma goldmann. but emma's a psycho bitch |
| "I been done got the very same way I done did. - jam 2016 | |
![]() |
|
| Jack the IV | Jan 28 2013, 09:24 PM Post #5 |
![]()
The Gent's Club
|
Just on the point of trains and airplanes. Air travel (at least in the US) is subsidized much more than rail is, hence private companies can thrive. (Airports are owned by the government, trains have to pay for train stations and track etc.) There has been like one privately owned train passenger service in the entire history of the United States that made a profit. Transportation pretty much always has and always will be subsidized by the government. |
|
In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him. | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jan 28 2013, 11:47 PM Post #6 |
|
General
|
I'm sorry but i cant be arsed to read that when i have to scroll back and forth... get rid of the picture incog.... :) |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Jam | Jan 29 2013, 12:40 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
It's Rousseau's fault. |
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jan 29 2013, 03:48 AM Post #8 |
|
General
|
its jams fault.... i am interested in what it says but still dont want to scroll left to right. i might have to copy it into word...although he could just make tthe pic smaller to
|
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jan 29 2013, 11:34 AM Post #9 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
You seem to identify that one of the major problems in France is that people are abusing the social welfare system, and that money is therefore being channeled into people whose lives don't increase productivity. I think the government is less deserving of blame for this than people themselves. The intention of social welfare is to prevent people from going under, so that they at least have the capacity to remain content and healthy citizens. People want to have jobs, so that they can gain a sense of purpose and preoccupation in their lives, and sustain a reliable source of income, especially during periods of economic uncertainty (such as the current period). The government isn't trying to get people to remain unemployed; it's trying to prevent the social deterioration that results from high unemployment, which would lead to people becoming totally unemployable altogether. If there are problems in social welfare, the solution isn't to abolish it, but to examine specifically why it isn't helping towards the restitution of the economy, and to improve it accordingly. Taking benefits away from the common people, and directing money and attention towards the richest members of society, seems to me one of the surest methods of depriving people of faith in their government. If the government can't assume an attitude of responsibility for its poor and disadvantaged, then people will simply lose interest in politics, and try to manage their anxious affairs by themselves. The legacy of Roosevelt was not that he initiated public works schemes which gave people jobs. It was that he made the federal government a sympathetic and active authority, which did things that tried to directly improve the lives of everybody - something that previous administrations in America had never before attempted. Perhaps there are a number of problems in France's society and government. But these problems exist on a broad scale, and it's difficult to settle blame upon particular forces within society, when the causes of these problems are too complex and too abundant to be addressed by sweeping conclusions. Also:
Giving everyone the same, quality education doesn't necessarily result in a quality government. An equality of standards would eliminate diversity of opinion. Every person would have the same understanding, and harbour similar views, such that, during periods of extreme difficulty, very few people would exist who were capable of finding solutions to problems that are confounding everyone else. I think the government should be responsible for ensuring that everybody receives an education. But the government giving education, and an invariably non-diverse standard of education at that, raises illimitable objections. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 29 2013, 03:22 PM Post #10 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
well I don't know much about the US rail system but either way I'm sure that railways can be made to run profitably. at least reduce the amount of money it takes to work one (mostly by lowering the amount of people employed) i also believe that airports are owned by the state and i'm pretty sure that airline companies have to pay landing, parking and maintenance fees (that sort of shit) to the airport, ie to the government. i'm not sure but i still think that airline companies aren't run with loss of money. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 29 2013, 03:24 PM Post #11 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
ultra i'll get to you and agree or disagree with what you say just not now i promise i'll get to it. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jan 29 2013, 03:25 PM Post #12 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
thanks dude <3 |
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 29 2013, 03:29 PM Post #13 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
my head isn't geared up to argue about the welfare of my country i'll just go ahead and say that i don't want to be right or wrong, i just want to find a working economic system that is profitable to everyone and will make France's economy flourish so that everyone can buy a baguette every day :B |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | Jan 29 2013, 06:31 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Slow down
|
what are you saying? get rid of social welfare? there are always going to be people who abuse the system, but the system still needs to be there for the people who actually need it. it's not easy to find a job in this economy, let me tell you... anyway, you identifying a "problem" is nice and dandy, but how would you solve it? how are you gonna make teachers produce wealth? spend less money on them? teachers already make shit. and what do you propose we do with the disabled, elderly, and unemployed?
commercializing public services is risky business and shouldn't be done too lightly. consider what kind of changes would have to be made in order to make this company profitable, and consider that it has a complete monopoly. i'm not saying you're wrong though, it can be done. the government has nothing to do with commercial companies. consider the fact that this startup money that you're proposing can just as easily be abused. what the government does have something to do with, is people living in their country and not having the resources to afford a roof over their head, or feed themselves or their children. what do you propose the government should do with these people?
where you would rather invest isn't necessarily the better system... investing should be a risk. in the american system the government is paying you back for your own stupid investment. this is ridiculous. in the french system, the government is taxing your entire 1400 while it should only be taxing the 400, this is also weird. but imo more acceptable than the flaw in the american system. the american system encourages risky investments. i'll have you know that risky investments (mainly from banks) are a huge part of what caused the economic crisis we are currently in. there is nothing wrong with investing, but it's supposed to be a risk and if you lose your money, you lose your money. if you gain money, it's income and should be taxed. this is called an economic crisis and we are in one. worldwide.
you're acting like america is an economic paradise, but america's economy is probably worse off than the french one. anyway, taxing people who make a lot of money throws this money back into circulation instead of having those people throw it on the bank where it stays. the economy is a very fragile cycle. an example: someone who is on welfare (lower class) buys groceries. the (middle class) store owner spends this money to buy a car. the money he spends on this gets in the hands of the owner of the car company. this owner pays his (middle-class) employees so that the money is thrown back into the cycle. but, as we all know, the owner has a lot to spare. most of this is never going back to the bottom of society. hence, money accumulates at the 'top of the food chain' until middle class people can no longer afford to buy a car. as a result, the car company has to raise its prices to remain profitable and cars become a luxury only high class people can afford. from here, everything goes to shit. this is a simple example and probably doesn't reflect what would actually happen, but you get my point. the government throws large sums of money into the lower class (by either creating jobs with large projects, or social welfare), restoring the cycle. compare it to an ecosystem where plants are just as important if not more important than the tiger who is at the top. the difference between an ecosystem and the money cycle is that the tiger eventually will return everything he ate to the system for it to be recycled, while wealthy people do not spend all their money, let alone give it away to the lower class (equivalent to what the tiger does). this is where the government comes in. added to that, is that taxes are the governments only income. the government needs money and lots of it to guarantee the quality of public services, most importantly hospitals and schools. high class people are taxed more not only because of the money cycle, but also because they have the most money to spare that the government can use for public services. and i'm not saying the system is perfect because it isn't by a long shot, but your views are a little too right-wing, and a little too black and white, for my taste
|
![]() |
|
| gs | Jan 29 2013, 06:53 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Slow down
|
Spoiler: click to toggle where'd you get all that? you should start a gif thread on /b/ and dump what you have. epic lulz will be had, and you will gain new material. link on skype if you do, gotta love gif threads |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 29 2013, 07:14 PM Post #16 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
my views are mostly right-wing, i won't hide that. but know that i also want to figure out a system which is profitable to all, in the long run. also know that if i'm throwing this out there it's because i'm pretty sure my views are incomplete and i want someone to point out the flaws in my ideas so that they can be fixed, or a middle ground be found. this is what politics *should* be your analogy with the ecosystem is really good one and i never thought about money accumulating somewhere the way it does. this in turns explains the famous 1% thing that happened in USA not long ago, where money accumulating the way it does is actually a problem. i would love to see statistics of the state of the lower class of America actually. ![]() anyway as to the first quote block, you're right in that i don't really propose a solution. however i don't think that teachers/education should be slashed in terms of budget cuts. teachers don't generate wealth but for sure education is invaluable. however it's still an enormous expense considering the lackluster results you get at the end. education costs more to upkeep in France than it does the military... lol. i THINK some streamlining can be done on French education, however now is not the time, considering the state of the economy. as to people who abuse the system, well fuck them. the government should be more on the look out for those who abuse the system because that actually is a hole in terms of money. it clearly requires fixing so that money isn't wasted on them and rather used on those who really need it. but i argue that no one really needs permanently. the money should be used to sustain them for a bit of time but making them sustain themselves should be the priority. i also think that if you don't have a job you shouldn't be too picky and should at least accept TEMPORARY jobs while looking for a permanent one that suits your interests/education. as it is now you can abuse the system quite easily which is unfair to everyone, including those who really do need social security. as for investments, well, i agree that banks investing in dumb things is a bad thing. however you can't deny that a well placed investment does good for everyone. it's profitable to the company, the investor and the economy in general. it should be risky to invest but it also shouldn't be discouraged. that's what it is in France, with the current system. that's why i'm not sure what the proper way to go about this would be actually. it's true that losing money on an investment makes everyone lose money the way the USA does it. but the way France does it means that YOU lose money if you invest which discourages you from investing really, especially with such a steep tax on the turnover of your investment. because the way it is in France means that either way, you'll lose money, you'll just lose less money if your investment works. I suppose that you'd want to only invest in projects/companies that are worth investing in, because every failed investment is a loss. but you can't ban investing either. ![]() eh, sticky topic either way |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 29 2013, 07:16 PM Post #17 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
where'd you get all that? you should start a gif thread on /b/ and dump what you have. epic lulz will be had, and you will gain new material. link on skype if you do, gotta love gif threads[/quote]i have half a gig on gifs i've saved from browsing imgur. i used to do it for every single gif i came across until it became too much of a burden. the problem with gif threads is that they're less funny if your bandwidth is shit. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 29 2013, 07:26 PM Post #18 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
well, obviously you don't want to abolish social welfare. but you want to make sure that it doesn't become a huge gap of money for the government. i really wish we could have a nice graph, where you can see the government expenses compared to the government's income. it's that kind of information is hilariously difficult to obtain. q_q i'm FOR social welfare and it should be one of the government's duties to ensure social welfare, but social welfare shouldn't incite people to not fend for themselves, and this ugly tendency is becoming more and more widespread in France. it shouldn't be. social welfare for those who need it when they need it, but no one should permanently depend on money from the government (old people being an exception because they've earned their retirement after all) i don't think that the upper classes (you know i hate the term of "class".. categorizing people is something i find really distasteful) should benefit from the government. i believe that no one should benefit from the government unless they really need the help. i also believe that everyone should sustain the government through taxes. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | Jan 29 2013, 08:16 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Slow down
|
well the thing is, you brought education up as something that the government is spending too much money on. you can't improve education, AND spend less money on it. also, education SHOULD cost more than military. i can't believe you just said that. governments' enormous spending on military is one of the major things that are making this world shitty. imagine every single country simply removing all spending on military. you'd lose a bunch of jobs, i'll give you that, but you would have an absolutely gigantic amount of money to spend on stuff that actually improves living conditions. obviously i agree with this, but consider that it's not easy to pick out the bad apples. there are also people who are simply unlucky in their professional life and need the system to make up for that. yes a line has to be drawn, but where? this is a complex matter and solutions might be harder to find than you think. yes, a well placed investment is a good thing for sure. emphasis on well placed. a badly placed investment is bad in itself, and even worse if the government loses money over it. let me put it this way: someone who is good at investing will make money from it, which is encouragement in itself. people who are bad at investing will lose all their shit, which discourages them to ever do it again. this is how it should be. encourage bad investors by reimbursing part of the money that they threw away (which is essentially saying "tough shit bro that could happen to anyone. here's part of your money back and keep at it"), and what you're doing is setting yourself up for another huge crisis. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jan 30 2013, 11:22 AM Post #20 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Yeah, but what makes social welfare permissible at all is that people don't actually want it. It's personally humiliating to have to sustain yourself on handouts from the government. Most people would rather work and earn their income, rather than suffer the indignity of dependence. If a huge number of people are relying on welfare distributions by the government, the problem is either in the general temperament of all the people - they're all lazy douchebags - or, there's a deeper economic problem which adjustments to social welfare cannot alone remedy. In other words, I don't believe that social welfare is causing people to choose not to fend for themselves. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 30 2013, 05:24 PM Post #21 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
@ gs: i concur about the complexity of the issue of drawing the line. but you would think that perhaps those in charge could actually work on that instead of letting it be? as it is a real problem.. there are people paid to run the country, they should do it right. you can not do a job because it's difficult, that's not what being responsible is. the point of the military was just an image to show how expensive the education is, perhaps it should be that expensive but again, education in France isn't particularly special compared to what you see in other countries. considering it's the n1 source of expenses for the country, you'd think it could be better. but improving education is something else entirely. as far as military spending, well fuck it, it's pretty unrealistic to assume that you can not spend money on military. YES, if every cent used on warfare was instead used on civilization, we'd be more advanced than we are now. but human beings, being natural beings, are selfish. you can't not have a means to defend you and what you own. a nation with a military is simply mutual protection. recently things in Europe have improved as we've decided that we'd be better off working together rather than killing each other (guys I love Germany as a country, do you really think that was a case for a young frenchie 100 years ago?). but that is far from the case everywhere. you just can't not have a military and as much as world peace sounds nice, you'll always need arms to protect peace. it's just how things go. q_q |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | Jan 30 2013, 07:54 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Slow down
|
believe me they're working on it. i'm saying this is where they apparently decided was the best point to draw the line. and trust me, they weighed in a whole lot more factors and worked a lot harder on this than you. yet you criticize them without even proposing your own solution. consider that there are ALWAYS gonna be people who are able to abuse the system, that's just how it is. sometimes you have to count your losses, instead of spending millions to combat this. i'm not saying it's realistic. i'm saying that it would be optimal to underline the point that education SHOULD be costing more than military... and you seem to agree. i'm confused here because earlier you used military spending as an example by putting it up vs education spending, implying that military should be costing more... |
![]() |
|
| MaxJ | Jan 30 2013, 10:40 PM Post #23 |
|
Wij van A414A adviseren A414A
|
Hm we also got those traitors in our government. Although I wouldn't argue for a complete abolition of the welfare state am I quite a big supporter of a night-watchman state. The only thing I hate more than high taxes is a big government deficit and debt. So it highly depends on the economic context but it would first reduce that with the current tax levels. Moreover would I abolish all ridiculous benefits which are hardly worth the value like (as we have here iin the Netherlands) student scholarships and health care compensations and taxes like the house tax or inheretence tax(which is a bloody shame). After that I would reduce income tax to a flat percentage, somewhere 35-40% and to compensate lower incomes also reduce VAT. Cut in bureaucracy for businesses and lower taxes for them too(but that's not nessecary in the Netherlands as business tax levels are very low). As for France, I don't think it's unfair to have the retirement age at 70 or so. Everybody who wants to stop working(except maybe for real tough jobs) earlier has to pay it by themselves. Train driving is really not that hard so the salary should be in accordance with market wages. But actually, I don't think the situation in France is that bad as long as there won't be a 75% income tax level(which is theft). France is doing relatively good and we're past the worst part of the crisis. European(also French) businesses aren't really smaller than American companies and are also doing well. I agree with gs, it could be a lot worse(just look at the USA ). I don't see much improvement there as those problems seem to be more structural and are pretty much denied by Congress.
|
|
Jouw wereld, jouw A414A forum. | |
![]() |
|
| MaxJ | Jan 30 2013, 10:43 PM Post #24 |
|
Wij van A414A adviseren A414A
|
Both should cost as much as they need or as you are willing to spend. I believe the military should be one of the most important government priorities. It's the only way to (sort of, as nothing is sure) garuantee some way of national security. All other expenses will be worthless at the moment you wished you had spend more on military. |
|
Jouw wereld, jouw A414A forum. | |
![]() |
|
| budgie | Jan 31 2013, 05:51 AM Post #25 |
|
squawk
|
i maintain this hope that, once the boomer generation is all retired and buried, there will be less corruption and nepotism in the legislative branch, and more resistance to for-profit lobbyists which i identify as being the biggest issue atm. also the really narrow media cables in the states, that's no doubt a huge issue. nobody here really knows fuck unless they frequent foreign news cables |
| "I been done got the very same way I done did. - jam 2016 | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jan 31 2013, 10:05 AM Post #26 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
lolbtw the development of warfare usually corresponds with the improvement of civilization so yah. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Jan 31 2013, 07:18 PM Post #27 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
lol i don't agree. i'm talking about the french government, not the dutch one, and the french government is NOT looking to shut down those who abuse the system. and i did propose a solution. make it a clear cut system. if you lose your job, you get x amount of months to with some money, try to find a job. if after a while you still haven't found a job, you have to take a temporary one that the government gives you (and you get more money than before). it's profitable to whoever employs you because they get an employee who doesn't cost additional tax fees (these fees are something like 30% to 50% of how much an employee costs to a company). in the mean time you're still looking for a job that corresponds to your interests and education. also i wasn't implying that the military should cost more than education though it's surprising to me that it isn't the case, if you take into account how much France actually spends on its military (5th most in the world actually). |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | Jan 31 2013, 07:38 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Slow down
|
3/10 doesn't work - where is the government getting these jobs? there aren't infinite jobs, especially in an economic crisis. - who is paying the guy who spent his time finding a job for you? yep, the government. - does your new employer have any say in this? how do you think he feels, getting a new employee who he has to pay who probably doesn't want to work for him and is not gonna have any motivation at all in doing so? - what's gonna happen to temporary employment agencies, since the government is basically taking over their work? just gonna say again that it's really not as simple as you think. small changes in policy can have huge consequences and, like in this example, you will almost always end up hurting people unintentionally. |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Feb 1 2013, 05:04 PM Post #29 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
of course it's not simple, but that doesn't mean that some solution shouldn't follow through eventually.. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | Feb 26 2014, 11:02 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Slow down
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxing-the-rich-is-good-for-the-economy-imf-says-1.2552141 read that and it reminded me of something i posted once. apparently it was in this thread. evidently im way ahead of these fools
tldr: bumping an interesting subject with article i read |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:43 PM Jul 13
|















4:43 PM Jul 13