Projet de Loi

Jean De Villeray



An Act on Maximum Revenue


I know, it seems strange that such a law should exist, but before saying it is stupid, you should think of all the advantages of such a law over a long term. And remember that this law does not apply to any company. I know that some people would work less and live a more meaningful life. I also know that some salaries, especially the highest, millions and over, would take a very considerable plunge. And for the benefit of all.

That is why I say that before considering such a law as stupid, look at it very carefully. Does any people really need hundred of millions a year? One million? When people earn too much money, they live stupid lives. You know somebody who is an exception? Well, this person could be as much happy as it is right now in earning half that money, even the quarter of it.

Does this law has for goal to prevent somebody to earn lots of money? No. There is no limit to what a person can earn. However, over a certain revenue, the person must redistribute the surplus to the people of it choice, to whom it feels good or at ease to do so. It could be its children, parents, friends, charity organization, non-profit organization for the protection of the environment, of animals, human rights, etc.

Are there people or organization who shouldn’t have the privilege to receive any Individual Revenue Surplus (IRS) ? Yes. Who? Those who don’t deserve the title of citizen: hardened criminals, pyromaniacs, psychopaths, sexual predators, criminalized motorcycle gangs and affiliated groups, sentenced or not. As soon as somebody is identified as being a member of a criminal group, it is no longer eligible to receive an IRS.

Those who preach hate, racism, whether in their writings or speeches, shall also not deserve to receive an IRS. Is a repentant, rehabilitated criminal eligible to receive an IRS? NO. THE MERIT HAS A PLACE AND A RIGHT. Such person should have thought of it before. Is there doubtful cases? Yes. For example: the head of a workers union who refuse to obey a court order or a special law. Workers also. Demonstrators who are arrested during a manifestation while they haven’t commit any vandalism, molested anybody, weren’t wearing a mask nor were in possession of blank arms or any other weapon. Somebody hold in contempt by a court. All of our tribunals without any exception are outrages to the justice, to equity, to plain common sense. They give priority to the letter of the law rather than the spirit, they don’t make sure that their sentences or verdicts are carried out. They convene with the greatest criminals to forget about the most serious accusations as soon as the criminals agree to plea guilty to the lesser ones; they call that plea-bargaining. How can an honest citizen be silent in front of outrages to the most elementary principles of justice? Impossible. So, we must consider accusations such as those above-mentioned as doubtful cases. For all doubtful cases, we must concede the benefit of the doubt.

On which principle should we found the determination of the maximum revenue to be considered reasonable? On the following: nobody should earn more than the chief of the State or of the country, because it’s the one with the highest responsibilities in the country. For sure, we could also add other principles, but respecting that one would be a good start.

As time passes by, the respect of this principle could not be otherwise than beneficial and until we can enjoy those benefits, we must be patient. It is not a cure-all for all of the problems or abuses, but is there a better way to conscientize the future generations?

Communiquez avec moi pour me donner vos impressions.