France To Raise Top Tax Rate To Shocking 75%

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Johnny Depp, Nov 2011 (when the writing was on the wall)

I assumed you winked because he was motivated by not wanting to be double-taxed, which is completely irrelevant to the current argument.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

I assumed you winked because he was motivated by not wanting to be double-taxed, which is completely irrelevant to the current argument.

No, the wink was because he is hot and back in America...

I posted a more relevant link in my later post.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Here's a more recent article regarding the wealthy leaving France.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...void-Tax-Hike/

This comment is awesome:

Originally Posted by patricia

GOD ONLY ASK FOR 10%. HE DOESN'T PANIC AND ASK FOR MORE WHEN THE ECONOMY IS BAD. THEY JUST WASTE A LOT OF OUR HARD EARNED MONEY AND THEN WANT MORE. WE NEED LEADERS WITH WISDOM OF GOD'S WAY.

If you think the government gives you a bad return on your money...

[chemgear]

This is another one of the things that is helping the death spiral in Europe. They're raising the tax with the hopes of greater revenue to start paying off their debts. But rich people are leaving and it's ultimately resulting in lower tax revenue.

I guess they could close their borders and THEN raise the taxes . . .

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Azure

I recall something about Britain doing the same thing and a bunch of rich people moving away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman


Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

[TurnedTheCorner]

Sacre bleu!

[saskflames69]

Pardon my French, but this is ####ing ridiculous.

[troutman]

Vive le difference!

[GGG]

I dont find this that unreasonable.

Nova Scotia has a 21% top bracket and Canada has a 29% top bracket totaling 50% starting at 150k. alberta taxes at 39%. I would rather see increases in the 500k plus rates than

Frances previous rates and if left unchanged, their rates for the middle class seem quite low. Up to 70k euros the tax rate is only 30% far less than Canada. And above 70euros is still only 41% and they have income splitting for families.

http://www.french-property.com/guide...ability/rates/

The question I have is do you hurt your economy by having this policy. If you are mega rich you probably already use tax havens so i dont see it having much effect their. I dont see it raising that much money either as the megarich have already moved to switzerland.

But overall if you make 1.23 million per year do you need more money? Is limiting the gap between rich a poor good social policy. I think it is. The ability to make more than 1 million per year before seeing punitive taxes put on is plenty of incentive for innovation and risk taking.

[GP_Matt]

Is this going to affect the tax rate on capital gains and dividends? I took a quick look andFrance has a flat tax of 34% on capital gains. I would imagine that anyone making more than a million a year will figure out how to convert a portion of their salary into capital gains to avoid the top rate.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

So does this mean that these folks are going to pay about $825k in taxes and take home the rest?

Seems ridiculous that the government could take more from you than you get to earn.

No, only the amount people make above $1.23M will be taxed at 75%. The rest of their income is taxed at lower rates.

For some historical context, from the 1940s until the 1980s, the tax rate for Americans in the top bracket (which started at $200k, not adjusting for inflation) was 70% or greater, peaking at a whopping 91% in some of those years.

[MarchHare]

Way to suck the motivation out of anyone to achieve a high level of success.

1962: "Golly! That Sam Walton, what a hard working American inspiration"
"Yes son, if you work hard, you can be just like Sam one day if you put your mind to it"

Per my above post, Sam Walton was facing income taxes of ~90% in 1962. That didn't suck his motivation away from launching a wildly successful business.

Here's a graph from wikipedia showing the US tax rate for the top income bracket over the years:

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by GGG

I dont find this that unreasonable.

You make some good points. I think I would find it a little disconcerting if the government gets more of my income than I do. I think 50% should be the top tax rate for no other reason than on principle.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Sounds like he wants a nation full of unsuccessful losers (basically a country full of Occupy protesters).

Way to suck the motivation out of anyone to achieve a high level of success.




1962: "Golly! That Sam Walton, what a hard working American inspiration"
"Yes son, if you work hard, you can be just like Sam one day if you put your mind to it"

2012: "Walmart Sucks! Those Waltons are blood sucking vultures. Their grand daddy worked to damn hard. **** those successful brats!"
"Yes son. Now go key that Bentley. Those rich p***ks can afford a new paint job"


How the world has changed.

While a 75% tax rate is completely absurd and damaging, your post is highly simplistic and doesn't reflect the situation or issues at all. In the 1950's you could work your way up from mailroom to CEO with one company. Things are completely different now.

Things have changed, but maybe not in the way you see it.

Back to the issue at hand, I'm not sure how any tax rate over 50% even makes sense. Then you're just losing money.

48% was fine, don't know why they felt the need to increase it.

[NBC]

The top income tax level in the UK in in early-mid 1970s was 87%. This led to an exodus of high-income earners to places like (strangely enough) France, the US, West Indies, etc. I think that there also may have been a tax on investment and capital gains as well. Lots of people left and took their money with them.

While the full economic effect is hard to quantify 40 years later, what it did do is it made high-income earners suspicious of government tax policy and many of these individuals have placed their money offshore or in these really complex tax avoidance schemes. These avoidance schemes are perfectly legal, but according to the government and left-leaning policy think-tanks, they are morally abhorrent. Comedian Jimmy Carr has fairly recently incurred the wrath of the anti-tax avoidance brigade.

There is heavy suspicion and distrust on both sides of the issue here in the UK.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think that if anyone thinks the rich will actually be paying 75% doesn't understand why tax attorneys exist. My guess is by the time those attorneys figure out the various loopholes that can be exploited, most will probably be paying less in taxes than the average citizen (see Romney, Willard). Tax attorneys charge $400+ an hour for a reason, because they get the job done.

[Cowperson]

The 75% rate from the French is headline-grabbing but the government would insist its not the whole story. They're also lowering tax rates to incentivize investment in businesses.

Basically, they're creating an environment where leaving your money in the bank and living off the interest/dividends is going to put you in a highly taxable position while taking the same dollars and investing in active business opportunities and hiring people will give you a much better deal.

The 75% thing is essentially designed to force passive money to be more active.

That being said, they will likely lose the money that wants to be passive to other jurisdictions.

We'll see how it works out. Probably badly actually.

There is a global competition for capital.

Cowperson

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The 75% rate from the French is headline-grabbing but the government would insist its not the whole story. They're also lowering tax rates to incentivize investment in businesses.

Basically, they're creating an environment where leaving your money in the bank and living off the interest/dividends is going to put you in a highly taxable position while taking the same dollars and investing in active business opportunities and hiring people will give you a much better deal.

The 75% thing is essentially designed to force passive money to be more active.

That being said, they will likely lose the money that wants to be passive to other jurisdictions.

We'll see how it works out. Probably badly actually.

There is a global competition for capital.

Cowperson

I don't think this is necesarily going to happen. The thing about people who earn more than a million dollars a year is that they are generally good at earning and keeping money. They will find a way around this. There's a reason why Mitt Romney pays a fraction of the tax percentage the average worker does.

[Fire]

Way to run a country France. Instead of considerably decreasing their spending they increase taxes massively to fix their budget issues. This is not going to end well for Europe with this mentality. Watch for Quebec to follow suit.

[flamesfever]

nm