Laurium's Silver Mines ?


Citizen Dividend on all natural resources even if you do no pay for their exploitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend

He does literally want to raise the corporate tax (something that should be taken out altogether, taxes should never been put on something that is to be encouraged) and for making the disproportionately high tax rates to the wealthy even higher (over 50%!).

Again exaggeration, there is no such high tax rates to the wealthy higher to 50% in Sanders's program. Keep spreading lies.

Don't be smug. common sense. So tell me then, a someone who has rare sense, what is so good about equal income spread?

Someone without common sense like you, is someone not seeing inequalities are getting higher and higher these last decades, someone that does not see there is something profoundly wrong when there is a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages and have the highest childhood poverty rate of nearly any developed country on earth. This is common sense. Sadly many of you do not have it yet.

If money isn't spent, if it's just hoarded, than it's as good as being burned, and that means less money flowing, deflation. Everyone is richer. And if it is spent, then it gets re-integrated

I guess you do not have any basics in Economics, so let me explain you how saving money is bad for the economy with this quote: "The growth in wealth, so far from being dependent on the abstinence [savings] of the rich, as is commonly supposed, is more likely to be impeded by it" (John Maynard Keynes)

You're miffed he's rich and you're not. If you really wanted to advance income equality, you would have told him something expensive he can buy so that the money gets re-integrated, or maybe even better, tell him to start a business.

This is why you contradict yourself everytime, if you want a real meritocracy then this situation should not exist. Answer me simply to this? Did he merit this fortune and revenue?
I am not saying France is perfect in this situation, you will call it a "socialist heresy" (like socialism is an insult), but in France inheritance is heavily taxed (especially the fortunes), to avoid some high inequalities at birth, this is something our ancestors fought for during the French revolution: Equality and meritocracy, sadly our country is no longer an example in that matter, as nowadays inequalities are thriving.

You can't deny that these are philantrophers, even if they haven't yet given all the money that they pledge to.

Of course we can deny it, these are just promises, Zuckerberg made it just after his daughter was born and many suspected it was again another marketing trick to tenderize and attract more people, which is certainly not far from the reality.

Again exaggeration, there is no such high tax rates to the wealthy higher to 50% in Sanders's program. Keep spreading lies.

I showed you earlier, http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto
As for corporate taxes being raised, https://berniesanders.com/issues/making-the-wealthy-pay-fair-share/

So I'll keep lying then.

Someone without common sense like you, is someone not seeing inequalities are getting higher and higher these last decades

I see that, it's a good sign.

someone that does not see there is something profoundly wrong when there is a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans work longer hours for lower wages and have the highest childhood poverty rate of nearly any developed country on earth.

I see it profoundly wrong and rare sensed to force folk who earn more to pay a disproportionally high rate. They don't work 300x harder than an average American, even if they earn it, and that's the beauty of income disparity, as I was saying: exponential income for linear effort.

I also find it profoundly wrong to stifle jobs through minimum wage laws and other "workers' rights" that hurt both sides. If you want to work for less, and for 12 hours a day, go for it, noone should stop you.

highest childhood poverty rate of nearly any developed country on earth

One of Sanders's lies. It's high in self-classification, but generally ranks low in uniform classification. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/

America has a negligible poverty rate under 1.9 USD a day (I think it's less than 0.01%). Could not find any worldwide stats on childhood poverty, and that's such a specific grab anyway. I can talk about how the EU has a 40% unemployment rate, but let's look holistically.

I guess you do not have any basics in Economics, so let me explain you how saving money is bad for the economy with this quote: "The growth in wealth, so far from being dependent on the abstinence [savings] of the rich, as is commonly supposed, is more likely to be impeded by it" (John Maynard Keynes)

Yes, everyone seems to be after Keynes. He's your man if you want some economic growth, of course the government has to invest in some industries, but he's not for economic freedom, and nowadays Keynesianism is very clearly overdone. Also, this quote explains nothing, other than "rich hoarding money is bad."

This is why you contradict yourself everytime, if you want a real meritocracy then this situation should not exist. Answer me simply to this? Did he merit this fortune and revenue?

Obviously a meritocracy to that extent is unachievable. Even you will not argue for fully equal incomes, I doubt. What are we, going to start paralysing folk so not to give an advantage over paralysed folk? And next go our brains dumbing us down. I know a good saying to answer.

"Opportunity doesn't mean starting with the same cards as everyone else, opportunity means winning with the cards you have."

I am not saying France is perfect in this situation, you will call it a "socialist heresy" (like socialism is an insult), but in France inheritance is heavily taxed (especially the fortunes), to avoid some high inequalities at birth, this is something our ancestors fought for during the French revolution: Equality and meritocracy, sadly our country is no longer an example in that matter, as nowadays inequalities are thriving.

Sadly "your" country is still way too socialist. I don't recall the precise stat, but I think 80% guns in France are illegally gotten. Anyhow, socialism is inherently against meritocracy since it makes the rewards for being rich so much less. Also, the French Revolution was over high bread and salt taxes (and general bad economy) and hatred for those who imposed the taxes, if I am not mistaken.

Of course we can deny it, these are just promises, Zuckerberg made it just after his daughter was born and many suspected it was again another marketing trick to tenderize and attract more people, which is certainly not far from the reality.

He's already given money, he's already philantrophed.

I showed you earlier, http://fee.org/media/13527/rates.png?width:%20100%;%20height:auto
As for corporate taxes being raised, https://berniesanders.com/issues/making-the-wealthy-pay-fair-share/

So I'll keep lying then.

It is not disproportioned as it is a progressive tax and he justified it anyway. As for the above 50% taxation you did not mentioned it was about the estate taxation, not necessarily businesses, and it is explicitly targeting "those would only impact the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million", again yes it is spreading lies and misinforming since you do not make any effort to share a correct information.

I see that, it's a good sign.

Yes it is. Never said you were a hopeless case.

One of Sanders's lies. It's high in self-classification, but generally ranks low in uniform classification. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/29/491443/un-report-child-poverty/
America has a negligible poverty rate under 1.9 USD a day (I think it's less than 0.01%). Could not find any worldwide stats on childhood poverty, and that's such a specific grab anyway. I can talk about how the EU has a 40% unemployment rate, but let's look holistically.

Yes sure Sanders's lies all over again, will you say UNICEF is also working for Bernie Sanders and his minions? God damn it Juq, this is getting pathetic really.

A report from UNICEF reveals America ranks #4 in the world among so-called “advanced” nations for child poverty. As observed by Paul Bucheitt from Alternet, “the numbers are staggering.” Meanwhile, the GOP aims to cut $5.5 trillion in spending for various programs, including food stamps.

In UNICEF’s survey of “advanced” nations (OECD countries), America ranks an appalling 26 out of 29 when it comes to the material well-being of children . Only the far less advantaged former Eastern Bloc countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Romania lag behind in providing the wherewithal for children to grow up into healthy, educated, and productive adults.

Now as I said earlier, keep spreading your own lies, I do not know why you despise Sanders so much, but anyway children poverty is something real in America and many foreign and international organizations reported it, so keep ignoring it as you wish.

Yes, everyone seems to be after Keynes. He's your man if you want some economic growth, of course the government has to invest in some industries, but he's not for economic freedom, and nowadays Keynesianism is very clearly overdone. Also, this quote explains nothing, other than "rich hoarding money is bad."

Sure so now you seem more qualified than a Genius in Economics, that takes the cake! Like your clanmate Tupacito-kun (aka Major) smartly stated earlier (I will reformulate it if you don't mind uh) " No source is valid, unless it confirms to Juq's or Major's beliefs. "

Obviously a meritocracy to that extent is unachievable.

It is not achievable according to you sure. Notice I am not against Rich people, I am not against Rich people that deserved their place, that worked hard to achieve their fortune, if you took time to read me, I am against people taking advantage illegally from the system (for ex people speculating) or people doing nothing of their lives (here I join your opinion I believe) and living with fortunes from their families (annuitants) which is a total backward system, as it is creating castes, you know before in Europe we used to have the Nobility, now we have a caste of millionaires, or people that never worked of their lives having a lavish lifestyle whereas they never MERITED it. And yes when it comes about Meritocracy, your reasoning Juq is wrong here. Totally wrong. End of discussion.

Sadly "your" country is still way too socialist. I don't recall the precise stat, but I think 80% guns in France are illegally gotten. Anyhow, socialism is inherently against meritocracy since it makes the rewards for being rich so much less. Also, the French Revolution was over high bread and salt taxes (and general bad economy) and hatred for those who imposed the taxes, if I am not mistaken.

Again, Socialism isn't a bad word. And France isn't sorry to disappoint you a Socialist state, if you knew really the situation.
Meritocracy and Socialism can work together, or prove me I am wrong, because as for now excepted showing your hatred for "Socialism" you did not provide any good arguments.
The French Revolution was over high bread, since people of that period could only afford to buy a bread to sustain themselves, so yes it was a key factor to this revolution, and about these taxes there was a hatred because some people did not pay it (The Nobility, the Clergy), and nowadays we are seeing it coming again: Millionaires try to avoid paying taxes, in France and other countries, the Rich flee the country to fiscal paradises and do not pay taxes, so the ones to blames are them, you awkwardly said earlier we had to thank the Rich for paying these taxes, the thing is a great number of them do not pay them at all!

Edited 4/1/2016 01:10:57

It is not disproportioned as it is a progressive tax and he justified it anyway.

It is. Progressive taxes mean that the richer pay more, but not disproportionately more, but nowadays it's not a battle between progressive and superprogressive taxes, which have been mistakenly called flat tax against progressive tax. But anyhow, it's disproportional, imagine.

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 40%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 20%

It ends up that you pay 80,000 F to the workers (20,000 F left), and they're not even going to get 1,000 F anyway since payroll tax.

Now, your profit is 120,000 which would bring you up to 140,000 and encourage business growth, were it not for "draconian" taxes.

120,000*0.8 = 96,000
96,000*0.6 = 57,600 F

Total left at the end of the year = 77,600. Some workers will have to be fired, you have lost money.

What Sanders wants to do:

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 60%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 35%

120,000*0.65*0.4 = 31,200 F

Total left at the end of the year = 51,200. Even more workers would have to be fired, you have lost money.

And Sanders wants to grow taxes on everybody, every income group.

As for the above 50% taxation you did not mentioned it was about the estate taxation, not necessarily businesses

I didn't say it was land tax, this is just income+payroll tax. Corporate taxes, he does not want to raise so insanely high (thank goodness).

Yes sure Sanders's lies all over again, will you say UNICEF is also working for Bernie Sanders and his minions? God damn it Juq, this is getting pathetic really.

A report from UNICEF reveals America ranks #4 in the world among so-called “advanced” nations for child poverty. As observed by Paul Bucheitt from Alternet, “the numbers are staggering.” Meanwhile, the GOP aims to cut $5.5 trillion in spending for various programs, including food stamps.

UNICEF also shows how it is a lie = America is not highest in the world for "developped" countries. Meantime the GOP aims to stop giving food to folk who don't need it (and of course, schools will still give out free food) and from that get more jobs to folk, and end more poverty.

Also, I looked at this report, it was again, based on relative poverty rates. What may be poverty in America is richness in Romania.

Now as I said earlier, keep spreading your own lies, I do not know why you despise Sanders so much

Sanders is the best since he wants to stop killing innocent lives. But he's mad about economy.

Sure so now you seem more qualified than a Genius in Economics, that takes the cake! Like your clanmate Tupacito-kun (aka Major) smartly stated earlier (I will reformulate it if you don't mind uh) " No source is valid, unless it confirms to Juq's or Major's beliefs. "

Don't be smug, and explain to me (or let Keynes do it) how rich keeping money to themselves somehow hurts everyone else.

It is not achievable according to you sure.

Ok, it's probably achievable, but it's definitely not something either us want.

Notice I am not against Rich people, I am not against Rich people that deserved their place, that worked hard to achieve their fortune, if you took time to read me

If you're for disproportionally high taxes to the wealthiest income groups, then you're against all those wealthy groups.

I am against people taking advantage illegally from the system (for ex people speculating)

I don't know what you're talking about, but this definitely is a problem in welfare.

people doing nothing of their lives (here I join your opinion I believe)

It should be their freedom to do naught. I actually am for "efficiency socialism" as it has been shown to have one of the highest economic growth rates, though it's a very unfree market and not too meritocratic. Only for emergencies only (like Germany after Second World War).

living with fortunes from their families (annuitants) which is a total backward system

This won't even solve anything, though. Folk will just bury some gold in the ground not long before they die and tell their children where to dig it up, with 0% taxes. Inheritance is not a backward system, I say again.

"Opportunity doesn't mean starting with the same cards as everyone else, opportunity means winning with the cards you have."

you know before in Europe we used to have the Nobility, now we have a caste of millionaires, or people that never worked of their lives having a lavish lifestyle whereas they never MERITED it.

I think you are greatly overestimating how many rich folk just inherited their money. Why would someone give money to someone who doesn't know how to make it grow? Why would really someone give money if it won't be given back? Love, sure, but often times great deals of inheritances are given just to charities.

But this could all fit if you tell me, are you for forcing those on welfare to work? Sanders isn't (nor for doing drug tests to be eligible for welfare).

Also, these few "nobles" as you say, well, what happens? They spend their money through "lavish lifestyles" and the money gets reintegrated through a meritocratic system, not just arbitrarily through socialism.

And France isn't sorry to disappoint you a Socialist state, if you knew really the situation.

Classifications and specificities, I don't care too much, but I know that France is too left.

Meritocracy and Socialism can work together, or prove me I am wrong, because as for now excepted showing your hatred for "Socialism" you did not provide any good arguments.

They can, but the more socialism you've, the less meritocracy you have. Socialism and capitalism is an ultimate argument of cooperation against competition. They can co-exist, but the more cooperation there is, the less competition there is. And of course, superprogressive taxes try to take away the exponential rewards for higher income groups, this is just one example of how it cancels out.

some people did not pay it (The Nobility, the Clergy), and nowadays we are seeing it coming again: Millionaires try to avoid paying taxes, in France and other countries, the Rich flee the country to fiscal paradises and do not pay taxes

Well, that's easy, just force them to pay more taxes only if suspected of tax fleeing. But don't lump everyone in the same group, disproportionately high taxes is why they're leaving in the first site and noone's coming in. Frankly, why would they even HQ in France at all if taxes grow too high? Also, noone should ever be barred from leaving the country (unless under criminal investigation)

Also, that's precisely the opposite of what's happening now - the nobility is paying disproportionately higher taxes than the rest, while the church is paying pretty normal rates (still disproportionately high in the EU, I think, but not very).

ones to blames are them, you awkwardly said earlier we had to thank the Rich for paying these taxes, the thing is a great number of them do not pay them at all!

Businesses will always be moving to better economic environs. Also, everywhere has taxes, they do pay, but it suddenly gives the Cayman islands loads of money instead of France.

It is not disproportioned as it is a progressive tax and he justified it anyway.

It is. Progressive taxes mean that the richer pay more, but not disproportionately more, but nowadays it's not a battle between progressive and superprogressive taxes, which have been mistakenly called flat tax against progressive tax. But anyhow, it's disproportional, imagine.

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 40%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 20%

It ends up that you pay 80,000 F to the workers (20,000 F left), and they're not even going to get 1,000 F anyway since payroll tax.

Now, your profit is 120,000 which would bring you up to 140,000 and encourage business growth, were it not for "draconian" taxes.

120,000*0.8 = 96,000
96,000*0.6 = 57,600 F

Total left at the end of the year = 77,600. Some workers will have to be fired, you have lost money.

What Sanders wants to do:

Money = 100,000 F
Tax rate for those 100,000+ F = 60%
Yearly payment for each worker at business of 80: 1,000 F
Yearly profit on business: 120,000
Corporate tax: 35%

120,000*0.65*0.4 = 31,200 F

Total left at the end of the year = 51,200. Even more workers would have to be fired, you have lost money.

And Sanders wants to grow taxes on everybody, every income group.

As for the above 50% taxation you did not mentioned it was about the estate taxation, not necessarily businesses

I didn't say it was land tax, this is just income+payroll tax. Corporate taxes, he does not want to raise so insanely high (thank goodness).

Yes sure Sanders's lies all over again, will you say UNICEF is also working for Bernie Sanders and his minions? God damn it Juq, this is getting pathetic really.

A report from UNICEF reveals America ranks #4 in the world among so-called “advanced” nations for child poverty. As observed by Paul Bucheitt from Alternet, “the numbers are staggering.” Meanwhile, the GOP aims to cut $5.5 trillion in spending for various programs, including food stamps.

UNICEF also shows how it is a lie = America is not highest in the world for "developped" countries. Meantime the GOP aims to stop giving food to folk who don't need it (and of course, schools will still give out free food) and from that get more jobs to folk, and end more poverty.

Also, I looked at this report, it was again, based on relative poverty rates. What may be poverty in America is richness in Romania.

Now as I said earlier, keep spreading your own lies, I do not know why you despise Sanders so much

Sanders is the best since he wants to stop killing innocent lives. But he's mad about economy.

Sure so now you seem more qualified than a Genius in Economics, that takes the cake! Like your clanmate Tupacito-kun (aka Major) smartly stated earlier (I will reformulate it if you don't mind uh) " No source is valid, unless it confirms to Juq's or Major's beliefs. "

Don't be smug, and explain to me (or let Keynes do it) how rich keeping money to themselves somehow hurts everyone else.

It is not achievable according to you sure.

Ok, it's probably achievable, but it's definitely not something either us want.

Notice I am not against Rich people, I am not against Rich people that deserved their place, that worked hard to achieve their fortune, if you took time to read me

If you're for disproportionally high taxes to the wealthiest income groups, then you're against all those wealthy groups.

I am against people taking advantage illegally from the system (for ex people speculating)

I don't know what you're talking about, but this definitely is a problem in welfare.

people doing nothing of their lives (here I join your opinion I believe)

It should be their freedom to do naught. I actually am for "efficiency socialism" as it has been shown to have one of the highest economic growth rates, though it's a very unfree market and not too meritocratic. Only for emergencies only (like Germany after Second World War).

living with fortunes from their families (annuitants) which is a total backward system

This won't even solve anything, though. Folk will just bury some gold in the ground not long before they die and tell their children where to dig it up, with 0% taxes. Inheritance is not a backward system, I say again.

"Opportunity doesn't mean starting with the same cards as everyone else, opportunity means winning with the cards you have."

you know before in Europe we used to have the Nobility, now we have a caste of millionaires, or people that never worked of their lives having a lavish lifestyle whereas they never MERITED it.

I think you are greatly overestimating how many rich folk just inherited their money. Why would someone give money to someone who doesn't know how to make it grow? Why would really someone give money if it won't be given back? Love, sure, but often times great deals of inheritances are given just to charities.

But this could all fit if you tell me, are you for forcing those on welfare to work? Sanders isn't (nor for doing drug tests to be eligible for welfare).

Also, these few "nobles" as you say, well, what happens? They spend their money through "lavish lifestyles" and the money gets reintegrated through a meritocratic system, not just arbitrarily through socialism.

And France isn't sorry to disappoint you a Socialist state, if you knew really the situation.

Classifications and specificities, I don't care too much, but I know that France is too left.

Meritocracy and Socialism can work together, or prove me I am wrong, because as for now excepted showing your hatred for "Socialism" you did not provide any good arguments.

They can, but the more socialism you've, the less meritocracy you have. Socialism and capitalism is an ultimate argument of cooperation against competition. They can co-exist, but the more cooperation there is, the less competition there is. And of course, superprogressive taxes try to take away the exponential rewards for higher income groups, this is just one example of how it cancels out.

some people did not pay it (The Nobility, the Clergy), and nowadays we are seeing it coming again: Millionaires try to avoid paying taxes, in France and other countries, the Rich flee the country to fiscal paradises and do not pay taxes

Well, that's easy, just force them to pay more taxes only if suspected of tax fleeing. But don't lump everyone in the same group, disproportionately high taxes is why they're leaving in the first site and noone's coming in. Frankly, why would they even HQ in France at all if taxes grow too high? Also, noone should ever be barred from leaving the country (unless under criminal investigation)

Also, that's precisely the opposite of what's happening now - the nobility is paying disproportionately higher taxes than the rest, while the church is paying pretty normal rates (still disproportionately high in the EU, I think, but not very).

ones to blames are them, you awkwardly said earlier we had to thank the Rich for paying these taxes, the thing is a great number of them do not pay them at all!

Businesses will always be moving to better economic environs. Also, everywhere has taxes, they do pay, but it suddenly gives the Cayman islands loads of money instead of France.

Every government has plans to change taxes. There are about one hundred different propositions to do taxes in USA. :P


Businesses need proper infrastructure and human resources. The second most important is the access to resources. There are special services in industrial zones.

Edited 4/1/2016 05:42:39

It is. Progressive taxes mean that the richer pay more, but not disproportionately more, but nowadays it's not a battle between progressive and superprogressive taxes, which have been mistakenly called flat tax against progressive tax. But anyhow, it's disproportional, imagine.

Again this was specifically targeting estates and their taxation, and the heavy taxes concern the richest ones. Let's imagine they finally approve this taxation (so 50% for some very Rich people), this Rich person earning for example 10000k per year will still have 5000k, largely enough to survive don't you think? You talked about Burundi, I am sure many people there could be satisfied with just 10k per year (lowest salary in many countries in Europe), so 5000k...
You know, in France, president Hollande wanted to implement a new taxation against the Rich, something higher to 75% for the richest ones (this was part of his program, and was meant to attract more people usually voting far left). His plan was abandoned, because most of the people in France (and you say we are socialist) were against it. I myself do not agree with it, I personally believe the maximum would be 50% of taxation, because above it, yes it is disproportionate and insane since most of your revenues are drawn in that case.

About businesses, Socialists are not against it, see again our government, Hollande gave many fiscal gifts and advantages to companies (particularly the smaller ones), more than the conservative Sarkozy did during his whole presidency.
All is not about socialism, you have different kinds of socialism, progressive ones, liberal ones, etc.
So you have to be clearer while using this notion as "socialism" is indeed a vague notion.

UNICEF also shows how it is a lie = America is not highest in the world for "developped" countries. Meantime the GOP aims to stop giving food to folk who don't need it (and of course, schools will still give out free food) and from that get more jobs to folk, and end more poverty.

Also, I looked at this report, it was again, based on relative poverty rates. What may be poverty in America is richness in Romania.

UNICEF is only dealing with children issues not general economics, this report shows that America in terms of children poverty rates is the worst in this category with only Romania and some others eastern nations being worse. Relative poverty rates also count for example the power purchase of families, sure families suffering of poverty in America would be richer than in Romania, but do not forget also, that in countries such as Romania or China, life is less expensive, so even if you earn 4 times less than an American, they can afford to buy more things, in China with only 200 dollars per month (average revenue) you can live comfortably and sustain yourself easily, since for example a chicken or a fish would cost no more than 1 dollar (this is what I saw while going there), rental amount and accommodation are also way less expensive int these country, so of course if you have a truncated of view or choose to ignore purposely and do not consider all these factors you would not understand how "relative poverty rates" work.

Sanders is the best since he wants to stop killing innocent lives. But he's mad about economy.

Again I do not believe Sanders is extreme in terms of Social policies, some extreme people would be a Jean-Luc Melenchon (despicable highly narcissistic leader of the far left in France) or a Jeremy Corbyn (although Corbyn even if he is radical could improve many things in the UK). So again "mad about economy" this is pure irony at best or ignorance.

Well, that's easy, just force them to pay more taxes only if suspected of tax fleeing. But don't lump everyone in the same group, disproportionately high taxes is why they're leaving in the first site and noone's coming in. Frankly, why would they even HQ in France at all if taxes grow too high? Also, noone should ever be barred from leaving the country (unless under criminal investigation)

Actually, nobody is barred (for now) in France to leave this country and save their fortune elsewhere, unlike some nations like the US (France is not a mad socialist dictatorship as some of you seem to believe). This is highly egocentric to not participate in the finance of the nation that allowed you to become richer after all, people like Bernard Arnaud (richest man in France leading LVMH and many other companies) made all their fortune in France and fled this country, Bernard Arnaud tried to become Belgian to avoid paying taxes in France, but almost all his fortune was made in France, do you see the injustice? The least he could do is participating to the general effort, the Rich are taxed in France that's right, but not insanely as you may think to believe. Nevertheless their greediness is strong, as it seems this axiom is valid after all: The richer you get the more selfish and greedier you become, everybody is not a Benjamin Franklin. As Molière used to say "Que la peste soit de l'avarice et des avaricieux!"

Also, that's precisely the opposite of what's happening now - the nobility is paying disproportionately higher taxes than the rest, while the church is paying pretty normal rates (still disproportionately high in the EU, I think, but not very).

The Church and the Nobility were an example to show you how similar the situation is nowadays but it is no longer the Clergy and the Nobility but a caste of rich people, as Warren buffet said not so long ago "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Everything is said with this.

I think you are greatly overestimating how many rich folk just inherited their money. Why would someone give money to someone who doesn't know how to make it grow? Why would really someone give money if it won't be given back? Love, sure, but often times great deals of inheritances are given just to charities.

Overestimating? Show figures please, many people inherited fortunes, and I personally know at least 2 people in this case that inherited huge fortunes (counted in Millions) whereas doing nothing at all.
Giving his fortune to charities is an exception, people are not all philanthropist or perhaps are you that naive? We do not live in a child's fantasy world, so wake up Juq.

But this could all fit if you tell me, are you for forcing those on welfare to work? Sanders isn't (nor for doing drug tests to be eligible for welfare).

Also, these few "nobles" as you say, well, what happens? They spend their money through "lavish lifestyles" and the money gets reintegrated through a meritocratic system, not just arbitrarily through socialism.

well it seems you are ignoring the reality, people benefiting from a welfare system are working, because after all even if they benefit from this economical support, they are poor, and to sustain yourself you have to work.

As for the ones inheriting a fortune, and spending their money, it's not like you are just making random comment again right? Money is not reintegrated as easily, some families keep their fortunes for centuries (see the Rothschild) but tell me what are their merit?

As I told you earlier, I personally know someone who inherited a fortune at 18 years old, after his grand father died (his family possessed a French Haras, raising horses for competition), this guy does not spend his money at all, he prefers to keep it safe (which is partly understandable), but you see this shows simply how your simplistic analysis is wrong, since it is not supported by solid arguments again.

Businesses will always be moving to better economic environs. Also, everywhere has taxes, they do pay, but it suddenly gives the Cayman islands loads of money instead of France.

If it was only businesses, but it is not most of the time businesses, but fortunes of people accumulated for years at the expense of others. Let's take the example of rich French people fleeing the country, their wealth was made in the expense of the French people. The least they could do is to redistribute it, and do not worry, it is not like they would lose all their fortunes, in France the Richest ones are not taxed more than 30% usually, and many of them have relations with the politicians (see Sarkozy and Liliane Bettencourt magnate of L'Oreal, and the story of Paul Bismuth), that help them to have some unfair advantages other people do not have.
Most of the people having grown an insane fortune such as Trump or Arnault, are people that made their fortune not only because of merit but also collusion and friendship with politicians or influential people.

Edited 4/1/2016 12:35:17

Edit: too controversial/I'm too sleepy to discuss politics

Edited 4/1/2016 14:36:31

He has made racist statements towards Mexicans and Blacks, the two largest minorities (I'd rather spend time with them then 95% of white people anyways).

Calls Donald Trump out for making 'racist' remarks, then immediately declares that he prefers to refrain from spending time with a large majority of a particular race.

Oh but wait, its only racist if its against black people or Mexicans, isn't it!

Tut tut, liberal hypocrisy.

What further pisses me off is someone from my city, Beloit Wisconsin, went to Janesville Wisconsin, and was pepper sprayed by a Trump support for attempting to hit him for grabbing her breasts.

This is wrong on so many levels its insulting and sad.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cops-find-donald-trump-fan-accused-pepper-spraying-teen-article-1.2583803

The man who you claimed 'grabbed her breasts' has actually been declared innocent and cleared of all allegations.

But of course, you conveniently choose to ignore that.

Meanwhile, the girl has been recommended for disorderly conduct charges. Videos and eye witnesses clearly show she punched the man, unprovoked.

But of course you conveniently don't mention that as well. After all, its okay to attack Trump supporters, but not okay for them to defend themselves, isn't it?

Tut tut, liberal logic.

Edited 4/1/2016 14:53:21

Tut tut, liberal logic

I strongly doubt American Empire is liberal. And is it better than conservative logic? Tut tut, bring a snowball in the gathering house to prove global warming is fake. Far better to be liberal than to be conservative.

angry koala's answer

I skimmed it, I'm not (probably angry koala isn't either) qualified to say more, nor do I want to deal with smugness ("So again "mad about economy" this is pure irony at best or ignorance." "are you that naive? We do not live in a child's fantasy world, so wake up Juq.").

Last year Hillary said she was 67. Now she's "68."

Which one is it, HilLIARy?

I strongly doubt American Empire is liberal. And is it better than conservative logic? Tut tut, bring a snowball in the gathering house to prove global warming is fake. Far better to be liberal than to be conservative.

I was pointing out the fallacy and hypocrisy of American Empire's post which seems to be all too prevalent from the few other 'liberal' political commentators on this site and in the world. Of course, if you made the effort, you could argue similar stances from both sides of the political spectrum.

Calls Donald Trump out for making 'racist' remarks, then immediately declares that he prefers to refrain from spending time with a large majority of a particular race.

Oh but wait, its only racist if its against black people or Mexicans, isn't it!

Tut tut, liberal hypocrisy.

Explain how I can be racist towards my own race, and explain how preferring to spend time without 95% of a group is racist, I never claimed their were inferior, nor did I say another was superior.

Also, in response to the pepper spray, from the view of this video, the man who used the pepper spray was not provoked, he was neither hit, nor in the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C1_8EaGs20

2:00, watch down left of her (blonde clearly in an argument).

Edited 4/2/2016 06:15:33

Explain how I can be racist towards my own race, and explain how preferring to spend time without 95% of a group is racist, I never claimed their were inferior, nor did I say another was superior.

I don't know what race you are, but to make a blanket statement saying that you don't want to spend time with 95% of people of a particular skin colour is pretty racist.

Its as racist as saying 'White people can't be poor,' a quote from your political hero Bernie Sanders by the way.

Also, in response to the pepper spray, from the view of this video, the man who used the pepper spray was not provoked, he was neither hit, nor in the argument.

Yes, the man who used pepper spray was defending the other Trump supporter after the girl punched him in the face.

For someone who claims Trump is 'violent' and 'anti-first amendment', you don't seem very keen on mentioning or denouncing the girl's unprovoked violence against Trump supporters though. She was angry because they disagreed with her opinion, nothing else, so she got angry and attacked.

In fact, another video shows that the girl says 'I deserved that' at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO3I5VBEE_4

You need to start reading both sides of the story and not just what you want to read and fits your confirmation bias.

Probably start by watching less The Young Turks. They and Huffington Post are the two biggest media jokes this election.

I used to kind of like Trump, I thought he was the best of the Republicans; I mean, saying "Immigrant Mexicans are murderers and rapists" could be relatively proportionally true (although he has no backing, and usually backing in other sites shows that immigrants generally commit less crimes than the native population), but that was before I actually researched him. "...and some, I guess, are good folk.". I used to think that he was actually kind of peaceful for a Republican, he even said that he'd do nothing against Russia and let Russia "help" the Syrian setting, and says of Vladimir Putin that he's a great man (in return, Putin is maybe the one foreign leader who supports Trump). And believe me, RIA and Vesti, they definitely have bias for Trump, but I went to other sources.

He's a joke, but he wouldn't be much worse than the other Republicans.