jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (173 posts)

France's 75% tax rate

  1. Silverspeeder profile image59
    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago

    How many French millionaires will your country take?
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-2 … e-tax.html

    How long do you think it will be before Frances economy will be on the big slide downwards?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It will be on a downslide because smarter French millionaires are going to leave France rather to be TAXED TO DEATH.  They apparently won't be contributing to such a toxic economy where they will be incessantly taxed for their labor.  This is the trend against prosperity and the more successful and affluent among us. 

      Successful and affluent people nowadays are derided and penalized instead of being respected in this socialist economy.  The poor are now enabled and praised for being so-called downtrodden and oppressed.  What people refuse to realize that in first world countries, people who are affluent are smart strategists while people who are poor made POOR decisions and possess a mindset leading to their DIRE socioeconomic situation.  In essence, the poor are life's D to F students while affluent people are life's A students, time to recognize this!

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What socialist economy?

    2. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In 1954 the tax rate in the US was about 90%, did it hurt our economy? So what if France's tax rate is a meager 75%?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How many people gave 90% of their income to the federal government in the form of income tax in 1950?

        Offhand, considering that most state income tax + sales tax is more than 10% I'd say not many.

        It's one thing to set the rate, it's quite another to actually collect that much.  Had the US Federal government ever collected 90% of people's income we would not now be here.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That's it. The tax rates don't mean much unless you win the lottery or a huge prize on "The Price is Right". The UK's tax rate is about 55% and less than a fraction of a percent of the population would ever pay it. Basically France's 75% tax rate is something to bitch about by non-Frenchmen.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Its not all about whether I pay it, its more about whether my boss wants to pay it. If he decides the tax is too steep he may move the business somewhere its not, that way I and others lose their job and of course this reduces the total tax take for the government.
            Also higher taxes translate to higher prices and therefor the trickle down effect catches up with everyone.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              How many people in France have jobs that pay over one million euros a year?

              1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know John, maybe a more relevant question would be how many people are employed by companies that pay some of their workers more than a million Euro's a year.
                This is a tax on success and successful companies.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Or maybe an incentive to keep wages down and with them inflation.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Inflation will go up with tax rates at 75%.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Or a scare tale to keep foreign business from investing in France...

    3. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How many French millionaires employ tax accountants to ensure they pay minimal taxes whatever the rate?

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know John do you? I suppose we will see when they leave or don't leave the country.
        Mind you its quite an assumption that all rich people employ accountants to avoid paying tax, its like saying all benefit recipients are scroungers.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, let's wait and see shall we?

          it would be a strange company that did not employ tax accountants and it is a tax on companies rather than individuals. That is nothing like saying that all benefit recipients are scroungers.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes we will, it seems that some the people who will be penalised are already looking to leave.

            You intimated that companies employ accountants to avoid paying tax, I say they employ accountants to make sure the tax man gets it right and doesn't charge these companies to much.

            Don't you think the tax on companies will affect those companies that have to pay more tax? Or should they just let their workers who earn more than a million euro's a year go.

    4. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 98462.html

      There you go, increase taxes and lose business and jobs.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How do you make that connection? There is nothing in that snippet to suggest that.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It does actually John, it says that the fist thing Hollande did was to raise taxes. It also mentions the huge 75% tax upon businesses with high earners.
          It certainly frightens business away as there has been a definite decrease in foreign investment in the country.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, not prepared to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    Oh no! How can I possibly live with only two yachts and two multi-million-dollar homes?! I MUST ESCAPE FOR MY LIFE!!

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I bet it loses more income than it raises!

      Economics of the envious.............

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It will almost certainly cost more than it raises; such things always do.

        Partly because those people with the two yachts and two multi-million dollar homes have worked hard to accumulate them and won't give them up easily.  Better to leave and have them somewhere else, out of the reach of the beloved mother country that has suddenly turned so greedy.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    No, wilderness, you know its the rich who are greedy. How dare they be so crafty and conniving and how dare they manage their wealth so darn well!

    The government just wants to enable equality! Government officials are not greedy! They want want what is best for all! They are not greedy...
    they are wonderfully idealistic!

    Why are not the rich as idealistic as the government?  Why do the rich want to keep everything they earn and why are they not inclined to share their wealth willingly?

    Why?

    ...or do they end up sharing what they earn?
    and do they end up providing jobs?
    Those darn rich!

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What is funny is that the argument is about an end game to tax those that have done so well because of the success of the global economic policies that have given much wealth to those who have used the global markets to prosper. Through direct or indirect means many of the wealthy have used either the stock markets or the global markets and labor pools to garner a lions share of the earning capacities this structure allows. This was put very carefully in place back when a Democrat was in the White House. The military industrial complex we were warned about by Eisenhower way back in the '50's has had decades of influence to disappear into the fabric of our culture and continues to eat away at the middle class it employs. We as a society would rather just tend to our own little lives and leave the politics and leadership to a group who serve behind a veil of lies. The funny thing is that the ones who have prospered so greatly from the global economy we are running towards seem to protest the most as a conservative platform. The lunacy is astounding!

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What does selling in a global economy have to do with tax rates?  Because you sell outside your own backyard means you should triple your tax rates?  What kind of lunacy is that??

        Of course the smart ones that were able and willing to figure out how to make money are the ones complaining - why would a charity case complain about taking charity someone else is forced to pay for?

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I am sorry if you don't get the inference but raising the tax rate is done in order to equalize that which is lacking. Lost jobs, failed business's, bankruptcies all contribute to lack of revenue the government can collect to run the country. We have this here as well, hence a global connection. Mind you I truly believe that the government waste and failed actions are not something in which I would place any confidence. But due to elections and something to address the situation they do make inroads around it.

          For some odd reason many conservatives feel you can take away the consumers income or greatly reduce their earnings and somehow charge more for the products they sell and continue to go along without any care for its' ramifications. Combining the inflation rate (which no one wants to admit is rising) and the lack of a livable wage will force something to give. Many have lost their homes and savings trying to make ends meet. Their answer is to get better educated and qualified for a higher paying job thus improving their lot? These jobs are quickly being outsourced before you can get that job and begin paying your way out of the student loan debt you have incurred. Unfortunately the government is left holding the bag as it tries to come up with ways to bring about some way of balancing the widening gap between the Ubber rich and the quickly becoming destitute.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm just not following that at all.  What does "raising the tax rate is done in order to equalize that which is lacking" mean, for instance?  What are you trying to equalize if not govt. spending vs govt. income?  And to a very large degree, I would say that raising/lowering taxes is very often done in an attempt at social engineering; an attempt to get business to act in a way politicians want.  To hire in a depressed area, for instance, or to invest more in R&D.

            Somewhere, somehow, you seem to have come up with the idea that it is government's duty and task to reduce the wage/wealth gap between the poor and the uber rich.  It is not - government has absolutely no right to take from one simply to give to someone the politicians find more worthy or needy.  That is a gap that may or may not need "balancing" (I'm not convinced it is all bad) but whether it does or not it is not the task of politicians.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I have tried to connect the dots for you but it seems your propensity to see only that government is bad and free enterprise is the best fit is over ruling any logic I could explain to you. Free enterprise is at  core our economic structure but influence bought through legislation and greed is at odds with the "free" part of it. Who will be left to arbitrate the fairness of it all if you can buy the arbitrator? Through legislation, influenced by corporate contributions millions upon millions of people have lost their jobs, houses and retirements. The government is left with homeless, unemployed (by jobs that will never come back) people who through no fault of their own have been left behind. For some odd reason you think this corporate sellout to foreign labor just kind of "happened"! It was planned and is still being orchestrated even as we speak. Obama just signed into effect three more countries loaded with slave labor we can exploit for more corporate greed all the while retarding any job growth to take place here. What makes you think that there is any movement towards hiring in depressed areas here when you have eight years olds in Bangladesh who can sew a few soccer balls together for a few pennies while corporate can sell the ball here for $70.00 to $80.00 a pop. Wake up to who is really the taker in your scenario!

              The hard core conservative says that if they wanted to work they could get a job at WalMart or McDonalds that would only pay a miniscule amount of what they must maintain. Guess what? We have now lowered our standard of living to those reviled as illegal immigrant labor. Is that what it must come too? In the meantime the stock market soars to new heights and the middle class sinks to new lows offered jobs the lowliest of society scrapes by on. Some "free enterprise" system!

              That is why in order for the government to care for its' citizens it must have an income if not from those too poor to afford it, at least from those who have profited from this unequal system. This is third world economics my friend and your ideas of allowing the rich to go on unabated hoarding money in tax free havens is criminal if not immoral. If you cannot see it you are a sheeple of a different conciseness.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And for some reason you want to simply gloss over that legislation, put into effect by government, is the root cause of those people losing their homes and jobs (well, that and their own stupidity).  Gloss over it, and give govt. more rein to do it all over again!

                Every time our government has put it's sticky and greedy little fingers into the economy it is a disaster, yet you insist it is the only way to support people.  Yes, corporate sellout to other countries didn't "just happen"; the biggest single reason is government interference.  Huge tax rates, big minimum wages in some places, and tens of thousands of niggling laws that cost billions upon billions of dollars just to be nice and PC.  So companies move out - why would you ever be surprised at that and why would you ever, ever want to continue the same pitiful legislative practices that are at the root of it? 

                You may have lowered your standard of living to that of illegal aliens, I have not.  Nor have the vast majority of Americans.  Yes, a minority have lost their jobs in the housing bubble collapse and subsequent recession caused by stupid legislators thinking they can give everyone whatever they want.  So take govt. OUT of the economy as much as possible; don't use the power of congress to do it all over again!

                "That is why in order for the government to care for its' citizens..."

                Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  JFK, inaugural address, and something we seem to have forgotten today.  Or set aside in our incessant greed that someone ELSE has to support us.

                Past a very minimal level, additional government economic control always fails.  The socialist policies of our current rulers are already biting us hard (the recession, the Obamacare fiasco, etc.) but some people simply cannot seem to recognize it.  They will continue, forever trying to redistribute the wealth of the nation from the people that earned to the non-producers that have not.  And in so doing, they will continue to cause additional economic failures until the country is back in the 19 century again.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Your scenario of all of this is like the tail wagging the dog. Your points don't acknowledge the role of corporations lobbying practices that created the mess we are in. Leave the poor corporations alone to count the billions they have raked in due to their buy out of the politicians is instant clemency all the while making it all okay to continue the same practice because of stupid government interference negating any fix to the situation. You may not realize it but everything you own and have saved for whether positive or negative has been a result of this whole scheme playing out. I don't believe government has all the answers. Far from it, but sitting back and allowing the rape to continue is complicity to the situation. You may count it a minority that the whole middle class is disappearing only shows the sheeple mentality has taken its ownership with you. Don't feel bad as you are not alone. The pathetic truth is that when they come for you it will be too late as it was for the others you consider the minority.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Corporations did NOT pressure our stupid congress to virtually force banks to give out loans that could not be paid back.  Not even the banks did that - it came purely from legislators buying votes from people that wanted a house but could not buy one.

                    Business is not the bogey man you think it is.  While far from perfect, and needing some control, the primary problem in the country is congress and their insistence that everyone be equally wealthy.  provide business some rules and guidance and it will do fine - try to make every move business makes a matter of law and you get what we see - massive government greed taking over while business moves out of the country.

                    Nor will I concede that the middle class is dying out - a great many of them are moving up the ladder.  Enough that what WAS middle class is now a much smaller group.

  4. 0
    Sooner28posted 2 years ago

    You mean like the United States had in the 50's?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and mostly wasted by the government.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How so?

        The 50s in the USA saw incomes rise by 30% in purchasing power, the economy grew by 37%, inflation was minimal and unemployment low. For most of the 50s the USA ran at a surplus!

        That hardly looks to me as if much was wasted.

        BTW for the decade the top rate of tax was over 90%, not many businesses moved out, went to the wall or any of the other dire results predicted for France's 75%

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But the business didn't pay the 90%, either.  It is effectively nothing but a scare tactic to force business to use loopholes created to provide social projects of lawmakers.

          Will France's be the same?  Technically a 75% rate but no one pays over 30% or so?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Or very few pay.

            I doubt many French men earn over a million euros a year.

        2. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          By 1959 there was a $12billion deficit and inflation was high.
          http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1950.html

          Enough Frenchmen for the government to think they can raise over €1billion.

          Nothing but an envy tax John.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Why are you envious? Give it up, it's a destructive emotion.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            BTW, nothing better to back your point than somebodies high school project!

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But at least I posted a link John, can you post something to substantiate your claim that high taxes didn't hurt the economy in the US in the 50's?

              I am not envious John but it seems the socialist Hollande is. As the tax is expected to collect less than €1 billion (which is a drop in the ocean against Frances economic problems) it can only be seen as an envy tax.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Would it have pleased you more if they'd raised tax on the lowest paid rather than the highest paid?

                Do your own searches please.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no need to raise taxes on anyone john. Government spending is the problem not personal wealth.

                  I have done loads of searches John and the conclusion I came to was best served by the link I posted.

                  I also found that the stock markets in America stayed pretty level through the periods when high taxation was incurred, with reasonable taxation the markets and the flow of money has increased.

                  As I said the tax will do nothing for the lower paid workers, it may lose some their jobs as some companies consolidate their profits.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    What would you have the government of France stop spending on?

                    So you looked for something to serve the conclusion you had reached rather than the facts?

                    So you're saying that the markets and flow of money are better now than in the 1950s! I think many would disagree with that.

                    I suppose there are some companies that will cut back production to maintain profits, but they do that in the UK already and we have low taxes.

 
working