Media black out: 1 Million protest in Paris

[Bleipriester]

It is simple to understand that if you grab into the pocket of the poor, there is no lobby that will prevent this. They only have the way they use in France right now.

So, what do you propose? If you were the French president with limitless power, what would you do in this case?

Being President is not being the representative of a certain group within the people but of all of them. Therefor, taxes and expenses have to be fair.

What does be fair means in this context? I suppose it means take more money from the rich and give to the poor?

More money from the rich to fund the state. Take money from the poor and it will hurt them, take it from the rich and they won´t even notice. That´s fair.

For you yes, for them not so much. In these case they will take their money and move them somewhere else. After that, there will be no rich, no money, but only the poor.

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

 

[ESay]

So, what do you propose? If you were the French president with limitless power, what would you do in this case?

Being President is not being the representative of a certain group within the people but of all of them. Therefor, taxes and expenses have to be fair.

What does be fair means in this context? I suppose it means take more money from the rich and give to the poor?

More money from the rich to fund the state. Take money from the poor and it will hurt them, take it from the rich and they won´t even notice. That´s fair.

For you yes, for them not so much. In these case they will take their money and move them somewhere else. After that, there will be no rich, no money, but only the poor.

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

 

[Bleipriester]

Being President is not being the representative of a certain group within the people but of all of them. Therefor, taxes and expenses have to be fair.

What does be fair means in this context? I suppose it means take more money from the rich and give to the poor?

More money from the rich to fund the state. Take money from the poor and it will hurt them, take it from the rich and they won´t even notice. That´s fair.

For you yes, for them not so much. In these case they will take their money and move them somewhere else. After that, there will be no rich, no money, but only the poor.

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

 

[ESay]

What does be fair means in this context? I suppose it means take more money from the rich and give to the poor?

More money from the rich to fund the state. Take money from the poor and it will hurt them, take it from the rich and they won´t even notice. That´s fair.

For you yes, for them not so much. In these case they will take their money and move them somewhere else. After that, there will be no rich, no money, but only the poor.

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

That is nonsense.

 

[Bleipriester]

More money from the rich to fund the state. Take money from the poor and it will hurt them, take it from the rich and they won´t even notice. That´s fair.

For you yes, for them not so much. In these case they will take their money and move them somewhere else. After that, there will be no rich, no money, but only the poor.

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

That is nonsense.

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

 

[ESay]

For you yes, for them not so much. In these case they will take their money and move them somewhere else. After that, there will be no rich, no money, but only the poor.

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

That is nonsense.

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

It is your opinion and it can not coincide with his.
First of all, you want to discriminate people based on their income. Why Peter should give 66% of his income while Michael will be giving only 20%?

Second. These money Peter will give to the state rather than invest in his company and hire new employees. I personally don't believe that state bureaucrats are the number one in efficiency of using money.

And third. I think that such people like Peter will choose to move to another country and develop their business there. But 'fat cats' will stay at their home country and find a way with the help of well paid lawyers to 'optimize' their taxes. Actually, they already are good in it now.

 

[Bleipriester]

Yeah, I heard that rich **** argument before. But if they move away when they have to contribute, they are of no value anyway. Just make a law that they have to pay up as long as they are citizens, like in the US. Problem solved.

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

That is nonsense.

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

It is your opinion and it can not coincide with his.
First of all, you want to discriminate people based on their income. Why Peter should give 66% of his income while Michael will be giving only 20%?

Second. These money Peter will give to the state rather than invest in his company and hire new employees. I personally don't believe that state bureaucrats are the number one in efficiency of using money.

And third. I think that such people like Peter will choose to move to another country and develop their business there. But 'fat cats' will stay at their home country and find a way with the help of well paid lawyers to 'optimize' their taxes. Actually, they already are good in it now.

Any typist can do what Peter does - and even faster. Why don´t give 3 million to every typist?
Even harder is the job of the asphaltist. He deserves 10 million every year.
Peter is just in luck, he can be lucky when he keeps one million for himself to waste freely on internet porn and chips.

 

[ESay]

There are a number of countries which offer their citizenship in exchange for investment. And they are not all shit holes.

But there is even more important matter. You propose to virtually discriminate one group of people and to solve some problems of another group thanks to that.

When people are talking about the rich they often have in mind the bankers or financial traders or other 'fat cats'. Sometimes they mention the descendants of rich families who did nothing to gain their fortunes.

But I often imagine IT sector. It is the field where many common people made their fortunes purely thanks to their intellectual and hard working abilities.

So, if say Peter founded some company several years ago and now is gaining 3 million dollars of net income annually, will be he considered rich and have to share his fortunes with the poor?

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

That is nonsense.

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

It is your opinion and it can not coincide with his.
First of all, you want to discriminate people based on their income. Why Peter should give 66% of his income while Michael will be giving only 20%?

Second. These money Peter will give to the state rather than invest in his company and hire new employees. I personally don't believe that state bureaucrats are the number one in efficiency of using money.

And third. I think that such people like Peter will choose to move to another country and develop their business there. But 'fat cats' will stay at their home country and find a way with the help of well paid lawyers to 'optimize' their taxes. Actually, they already are good in it now.

Any typist can do what Peter does - and even faster. Why don´t give 3 million to every typist?
Even harder is the job of the asphaltist. He deserves 10 million every year.
Peter is just in luck, he can be lucky when he keeps one million for himself to waste freely on internet porn and chips.

It is a bit of funny to compare a typist with a programmist.
I don't know whether your stance is popular in Germany. Frankly, I hope it is. I am not that particular anti-German, but strong Germany isn't of interest for some Eastern European countries.

 

[Bleipriester]

Yes, he is a top rate candidate.

That is nonsense.

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

It is your opinion and it can not coincide with his.
First of all, you want to discriminate people based on their income. Why Peter should give 66% of his income while Michael will be giving only 20%?

Second. These money Peter will give to the state rather than invest in his company and hire new employees. I personally don't believe that state bureaucrats are the number one in efficiency of using money.

And third. I think that such people like Peter will choose to move to another country and develop their business there. But 'fat cats' will stay at their home country and find a way with the help of well paid lawyers to 'optimize' their taxes. Actually, they already are good in it now.

Any typist can do what Peter does - and even faster. Why don´t give 3 million to every typist?
Even harder is the job of the asphaltist. He deserves 10 million every year.
Peter is just in luck, he can be lucky when he keeps one million for himself to waste freely on internet porn and chips.

It is a bit of funny to compare a typist with a programmist.
I don't know whether your stance is popular in Germany. Frankly, I hope it is. I am not that particular anti-German, but strong Germany isn't of interest for some Eastern European countries.

Programmers are not unusual and the most common job in some federal states. It is no longer elitist and Peters success is based on his idea, not skill.
The occupation is also subjected to outsourcing.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

1 million French in the streets protesting? Really?

And yet Americans have the gall to call the French "weak"....when it's Americans who have chosen to belly up and surrender their liberty

Good for the French. They apparently have REAL patriots.

 

[ESay]

That is nonsense.

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

It is your opinion and it can not coincide with his.
First of all, you want to discriminate people based on their income. Why Peter should give 66% of his income while Michael will be giving only 20%?

Second. These money Peter will give to the state rather than invest in his company and hire new employees. I personally don't believe that state bureaucrats are the number one in efficiency of using money.

And third. I think that such people like Peter will choose to move to another country and develop their business there. But 'fat cats' will stay at their home country and find a way with the help of well paid lawyers to 'optimize' their taxes. Actually, they already are good in it now.

Any typist can do what Peter does - and even faster. Why don´t give 3 million to every typist?
Even harder is the job of the asphaltist. He deserves 10 million every year.
Peter is just in luck, he can be lucky when he keeps one million for himself to waste freely on internet porn and chips.

It is a bit of funny to compare a typist with a programmist.
I don't know whether your stance is popular in Germany. Frankly, I hope it is. I am not that particular anti-German, but strong Germany isn't of interest for some Eastern European countries.

Programmers are not unusual and the most common job in some federal states. It is no longer elitist and Peters success is based on his idea, not skill.
The occupation is also subjected to outsourcing.

Try to see wider. My posts weren't about programmers per se. Peter is a collective image of every person who is smart and entreprising.

 

[Bleipriester]

He could give two away and his life would still be fantastic.

It is your opinion and it can not coincide with his.
First of all, you want to discriminate people based on their income. Why Peter should give 66% of his income while Michael will be giving only 20%?

Second. These money Peter will give to the state rather than invest in his company and hire new employees. I personally don't believe that state bureaucrats are the number one in efficiency of using money.

And third. I think that such people like Peter will choose to move to another country and develop their business there. But 'fat cats' will stay at their home country and find a way with the help of well paid lawyers to 'optimize' their taxes. Actually, they already are good in it now.

Any typist can do what Peter does - and even faster. Why don´t give 3 million to every typist?
Even harder is the job of the asphaltist. He deserves 10 million every year.
Peter is just in luck, he can be lucky when he keeps one million for himself to waste freely on internet porn and chips.

It is a bit of funny to compare a typist with a programmist.
I don't know whether your stance is popular in Germany. Frankly, I hope it is. I am not that particular anti-German, but strong Germany isn't of interest for some Eastern European countries.

Programmers are not unusual and the most common job in some federal states. It is no longer elitist and Peters success is based on his idea, not skill.
The occupation is also subjected to outsourcing.

Try to see wider. My posts weren't about programmers per se. Peter is a collective image of every person who is smart and entreprising.

And they shouldn´t pay tax why?

 

[ESay]

Of course they should. But smart and entreprising Peter should pay the same tax rate as a roustabout Michael do. And in some cases even less.

 

[Bleipriester]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

 

[ESay]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

Nonsense. You earn more, you pay higher taxes with the same rate.
Peter earns 3 millions and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 600 000 a year.
Michael earns 20 000 and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 400 a year.

Fair? I think yes.

 

[Bleipriester]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

Nonsense. You earn more, you pay higher taxes with the same rate.
Peter earns 3 millions and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 600 000 a year.
Michael earns 20 000 and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 400 a year.

Fair? I think yes.

I don´t think it is fair. Michaels 20K are barely enough to live in dignity, he pays enough indirect taxes already.
Peter on the other hand swims in money and whether he pays 20 or 60 % - it has no impact on his lifestyle.

Your calculation earns 604K, my earns 1,8 million. Your calculation means that the state is drowning in debt, by the way.

 

[ESay]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

Nonsense. You earn more, you pay higher taxes with the same rate.
Peter earns 3 millions and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 600 000 a year.
Michael earns 20 000 and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 400 a year.

Fair? I think yes.

I don´t think it is fair. Michaels 20K are barely enough to live in dignity, he pays enough indirect taxes already.
Peter on the other hand swims in money and whether he pays 20 or 60 % - it has no impact on his lifestyle.

Your calculation earns 604K, my earns 1,8 million. Your calculation means that the state is drowning in debt, by the way.

At the first time your method will bring more money. But after a while, Peter will come to conclusion - why should I be a milch cow? And then he decides to formaly register his firm in say Malta where the taxes are much lower and that grants the citizenship in exchange of investments.

So, your method will leave the state with 400 a year. And maybe even less, because Peters friend may decide to leave with him, and this friend happens to be Michael 's employer.

 

[Bleipriester]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

Nonsense. You earn more, you pay higher taxes with the same rate.
Peter earns 3 millions and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 600 000 a year.
Michael earns 20 000 and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 400 a year.

Fair? I think yes.

I don´t think it is fair. Michaels 20K are barely enough to live in dignity, he pays enough indirect taxes already.
Peter on the other hand swims in money and whether he pays 20 or 60 % - it has no impact on his lifestyle.

Your calculation earns 604K, my earns 1,8 million. Your calculation means that the state is drowning in debt, by the way.

At the first time your method will bring more money. But after a while, Peter will come to conclusion - why should I be a milch cow? And then he decides to formaly register his firm in say Malta where the taxes are much lower and that grants the citizenship in exchange of investments.

So, your method will leave the state with 400 a year. And maybe even less, because Peters friend may decide to leave with him, and this friend happens to be Michael 's employer.

Peter and Michael´s employer thought they were smart but Peter´s app suddenly disappeared from the app store.

 

[ESay]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

Nonsense. You earn more, you pay higher taxes with the same rate.
Peter earns 3 millions and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 600 000 a year.
Michael earns 20 000 and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 400 a year.

Fair? I think yes.

I don´t think it is fair. Michaels 20K are barely enough to live in dignity, he pays enough indirect taxes already.
Peter on the other hand swims in money and whether he pays 20 or 60 % - it has no impact on his lifestyle.

Your calculation earns 604K, my earns 1,8 million. Your calculation means that the state is drowning in debt, by the way.

At the first time your method will bring more money. But after a while, Peter will come to conclusion - why should I be a milch cow? And then he decides to formaly register his firm in say Malta where the taxes are much lower and that grants the citizenship in exchange of investments.

So, your method will leave the state with 400 a year. And maybe even less, because Peters friend may decide to leave with him, and this friend happens to be Michael 's employer.

Peter and Michael´s employer thought they were smart but Peter´s app suddenly disappeared from the app store.

I already said that Peter is a collective image, remember? There are thousands of Peters who produce various products from apps to socks.

 

[Bleipriester]

Not in my opinion. You earn more, your rate is higher.

Nonsense. You earn more, you pay higher taxes with the same rate.
Peter earns 3 millions and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 600 000 a year.
Michael earns 20 000 and pays 20% in taxes, that means he pays 400 a year.

Fair? I think yes.

I don´t think it is fair. Michaels 20K are barely enough to live in dignity, he pays enough indirect taxes already.
Peter on the other hand swims in money and whether he pays 20 or 60 % - it has no impact on his lifestyle.

Your calculation earns 604K, my earns 1,8 million. Your calculation means that the state is drowning in debt, by the way.

At the first time your method will bring more money. But after a while, Peter will come to conclusion - why should I be a milch cow? And then he decides to formaly register his firm in say Malta where the taxes are much lower and that grants the citizenship in exchange of investments.

So, your method will leave the state with 400 a year. And maybe even less, because Peters friend may decide to leave with him, and this friend happens to be Michael 's employer.

Peter and Michael´s employer thought they were smart but Peter´s app suddenly disappeared from the app store.

I already said that Peter is a collective image, remember? There are thousands of Peters who produce various products from apps to socks.

They have to learn to be grateful for the opportunity at all. If Peter wouldn´t have to pay the tax, there would be no infrastructure, ect. And even if Peter managed to get rich nevertheless, who stops Michael who is just underway to Peter´s mansion?