France to scrap 75% wealth tax

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-protests.html

Hollande scraps 75 per cent tax on millionaires after sparking huge protests and netting just a fraction of intended proceeds

- France has quietly scrapped its 75 per cent income tax on millionaires
- Super tax of Socialist President Francois Hollande was promoted in 2012 as a financial contribution from the wealthiest during an economic crisis
- But netted only fraction of its projected proceeds and has been rewritten
- Affected only small number of taxpayers but triggered huge protests

France has quietly scrapped its 75 per cent income tax on millionaires.

The super tax of Socialist President Francois Hollande was promoted in 2012 as a symbol of fairness, a financial contribution from the wealthiest at a time of economic crisis.

But it netted only a fraction of its projected proceeds and has been rewritten as a 50 per cent tax paid by employers.

President Hollande's super tax was rejected by a court, rewritten and ultimately netted just a sliver of its projected proceeds.

It ends on Wednesday and will not be renewed.

It affected only a small number of taxpayers, but triggered huge protests in business, sporting and artistic communities.

Actor Gerard Depardieu criticised it and took Russian citizenship and football clubs threatened to boycott matches for fear that 114 of their players or coaches would be taxed. The final version of the tax allowed them to minimize the burden.

Tax experts said it had a devastating impact on the attractiveness of France for foreigners.

The tax is estimated to have raised £328 million. By comparison, France's budget deficit has soared to well over £62 billion.

Another failed leftist policy down the toilet, very funny. I'm sure I recall Miliband, the Guardian and the likes of Owen Jones all swooning over the French failure that is Hollande when he was first elected too. Tax the bankers, tax the rich yada yada. All quiet on that front now.

50% is still way too high though. The lower, the better.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

Yeah, don't tax the wealthy. It will all trickle down to us plebs any day now!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Exhibit A: somebody who still naively believes people who have earnt their wealth will just sit there and accept a 75% tax.

Yeah, don't tax the wealthy. It will all trickle down to us plebs any day now!

And it does trickle down. Where do rich people put their money? Under their pillows? They put it into banks. Where do poorer/lower middle class people get loans from to start up competitor businesses? (providing there aren't too many regulations in the way preventing competition) The Bank. Economics 101.

[MKR&*42]

I am glad they reduced it down to 50pcnt, but I also agree with you Dan that 50 is still a bit too much (only a bit IMO). 75pcnt on the other hand is absurd.

[FlyingJesus]

Major leaps in tax brackets like that just take away any incentive to ever make that kind of money, essentially with 75% it means you're working four times as hard as someone who gets to take home the same amount as you not totally accurate as obv those people will be paying taxes too but the basics are there

[The Don]

Exhibit A: somebody who still naively believes people who have earnt their wealth will just sit there and accept a 75% tax.



And it does trickle down. Where do rich people put their money? Under their pillows? They put it into banks. Where do poorer/lower middle class people get loans from to start up competitor businesses? (providing there aren't too many regulations in the way preventing competition) The Bank. Economics 101.

No, it doesn't.

What a load of rubbish. Is that why the salary of the lower/middle classes has been relatively stagnant for the past few decades and barely keeping up with inflation whilst the top CEO’s and bankers have seen nearly a 300% pay rise since the late 90’s? or Is that why the amount of adults having to live with their parents is at an all time high? The prospect of buying a house is simply unattainable for large amounts of people now

and you’re complaining that the richest people in our society, those that on average earn nearly THREE HUNDRED TIMES as much as the people they employ, have a higher tax rate than the lower classes?

Absolutely ridiculous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, it doesn't.

What a load of rubbish. Is that why the salary of the lower/middle classes has been relatively stagnant for the past few decades and barely keeping up with inflation whilst the top CEO’s and bankers have seen nearly a 300% pay rise since the late 90’s? or Is that why the amount of adults having to live with their parents is at an all time high? The prospect of buying a house is simply unattainable for large amounts of people now
and you’re complaining that the richest people in our society,http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2013/06/27/ceo-pay-has-risen-more-than-twice-as-much-as-the-stock-market/”]those that on average earn nearly THREE HUNDRED TIMES as much as the people they employ[/url], have a higher tax rate than the lower classes?
Absolutely ridiculous.

The problem of the gap you talk about is a result of monetary policy, not of the free market or encouraging business. There's a lot of myths surrounding the gap argument too: http://www.cato.org/publications/com...nequality-myth as well as the fact that generally there's nothing wrong with gaps between the rich and the poor provided there is a high turnover between the brackets (ie high social mobility) as Dr Thomas Sowell notes - it's a must watch too, an excellent short lecture.

I would admit there's a problem in that the monetary system is biased against the poorest in that the central banks printing money at such high rates (with the inflation that follows) hits the poor the hardest and wipes away their wealth more so than the richest, which is why I would restore the gold standard.

But 75% and 50% absurd tax rates on successful people don't solve any problems you may find/imagine.

[FlyingJesus]

Comparing someone who runs a corporation affecting thousands if not millions of people in some way or another to someone who cleans toilets or waits tables is ridiculous. Of course the pay packets are disproportionate; they're based on the assumed worth of the position and paid for by private money. It's like when people compare soldiers to premiership footballers and suggest that "we" should pay the soldiers more as though wages for everyone comes from one giant pot of money that's controlled centrally, when really you have to take into account what a business is willing to pay someone for their services and not just what you think is fair

[The Don]

Comparing someone who runs a corporation affecting thousands if not millions of people in some way or another to someone who cleans toilets or waits tables is ridiculous. Of course the pay packets are disproportionate; they're based on the assumed worth of the position and paid for by private money. It's like when people compare soldiers to premiership footballers and suggest that "we" should pay the soldiers more as though wages for everyone comes from one giant pot of money that's controlled centrally, when really you have to take into account what a business is willing to pay someone for their services and not just what you think is fair

You have to compare them (growth/decline of wages) to analyse whether the current system is working, don't be so naive. I'm not suggesting they should be paid the same or that their wages should be comparable, which your comment implies. The 300 times salary comment was provided to show that the rich can survive with higher tax rates than the poor.

[FlyingJesus]

But it's not a question of survivability, it's one of worth