Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper

[markomalley]

From Reuters:More than 8,000 French households’ tax bills topped 100 percent of their income last year, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Saturday, citing Finance Ministry data.

The newspaper said that the exceptionally high level of taxation was due to a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).

President Francois Hollande’s Socialist government imposed the tax surcharge last year, shortly after taking office, to offset the impact of a rebate scheme created by its conservative predecessor to cap an individual’s overall taxation at 50 percent of income.
This sounds like a tremendous move for true social justice!

Wow.

 

[ringil]

eat the rich.

 

[stinkcat_14]

President Francois Hollande’s Socialist government imposed the tax surcharge last year, shortly after taking office, to offset the impact of a rebate scheme created by its conservative predecessor to cap an individual’s overall taxation at 50 percent of income.
[/INDENT]This sounds like a tremendous move for true social justice!

Wow.

Are we talking about a wealth tax or an income tax? The article doesn’t say. Plus, however the government measures income is not the same as true income in the Haig-Simons sense. Also, we really don’t know enough to make much of a judgement because the article give few details.

 

[GEddie]

Hasn’t this happened in the 1900s USA?

 

[Trader]

Here is a business opportunity for you: sell welcome mats for all those wealthy Frenchmen who want to move to another country. I would like the Quebec franchise for anyone who speaks French. Canadian taxes are pretty high, but at least you get to keep part of what you earn.

The people who still live in France will just have to learn Arabic.

Will the last one to leave please remember to turn off the lights.

 

[GEddie]

Here is a business opportunity for you: sell welcome mats for all those wealthy Frenchmen who want to move to another country. I would like the Quebec franchise for anyone who speaks French. Canadian taxes are pretty high, but at least you get to keep part of what you earn.

The people who still live in France will just have to learn Arabic.

Will the last one to leave please remember to turn off the lights.

Belgium has you guys beat. Much nearer, and French is one of the official languages.

Gerard Depardieu is already there, living in a gated mansion 100 m from the border.

ICXC NIKA

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Hasn’t this happened in the 1900s USA?

Very close! I believe the tax rate was 94% on income of $200,000 and up in the 1940s. Of course, these days we have conservatives screaming bloody murder over marginal tax rates less than half that.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Very close! I believe the tax rate was 94% on income of $200,000 and up in the 1940s. Of course, these days we have conservatives screaming bloody murder over marginal tax rates less than half that.

And rightfully so!

 

[ProVobis]

Belgium has you guys beat. Much nearer, and French is one of the official languages.

Gerard Depardieu is already there, living in a gated mansion 100 m from the border.

ICXC NIKA

So the question is, how did he get “rich”?

Where is the IRS when you need them?

 

[Trader]

Very close! I believe the tax rate was 94% on income of $200,000 and up in the 1940s. Of course, these days we have conservatives screaming bloody murder over marginal tax rates less than half that.

That is not a fair comparison because many more deductions were allowed when those 94% marginal rates were law. The Reagan reform lowered rates and reduced deductions that caused growth reducing behavior. The Reagan reforms destroyed the tax shelter industry where losses on oil drilling were worth more than profits and ended the deductions for sales taxes and credit card interest, among others.

Getting people to consider investments for the economic benefits rather than the tax advantages is a pro-growth strategy that benefits the common good rather than special interests. Obamanomics turns that strategy up-side-down by paying more people not to work and investing in non-economic propositions as long as they are “green” or are sponsored by groups that are politically friendly to him.

 

[ringil]

aww, the poor rich.

 

[CrossofChrist]

That’s a little excessive.

But I’m not one of those “don’t tax the rich” people either.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And rightfully so!

It would be one thing if those conservatives would be against tax increases if they also didn’t start wars and pay for it by borrowing money. That is about as immoral as you can get, to tell our children that they have to pay for a war that they never agreed to in the first place.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It would be one thing if those conservatives would be against tax increases if they also didn’t start wars and pay for it by borrowing money. That is about as immoral as you can get, to tell our children that they have to pay for a war that they never agreed to in the first place.

Yep.

 

[GEddie]

Both wings of US politics, when they have held the mace, have used it with alacrity to start wars.

The issue is not to favor one side over the other, but to seat a leadership that is committed to stepping down as tough guy of the planet, and making peace with our neighbors.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Dawnia]

It would be one thing if those conservatives would be against tax increases if they also didn’t start wars and pay for it by borrowing money. That is about as immoral as you can get, to tell our children that they have to pay for a war that they never agreed to in the first place.

Is that really any worse than spending us into poverty through nonwar spending? Even with raised taxes, we’re in a hole too big to dig ourselves out of anytime in the foreseeable future. All politicians have their hand in the till regardless of the party. Raising taxes is a very short term solution, because the government doesn’t put the “new found funds” towards lowering debt, they just increase spending that much more.

(The last time the US was debt free was 1835, so we all have been paying for wars & spending that we didn’t agree to. Comforting thought isn’t it? )

 

[estesbob]

Very close! I believe the tax rate was 94% on income of $200,000 and up in the 1940s. Of course, these days we have conservatives screaming bloody murder over marginal tax rates less than half that.

Marginal rates tell us little about how people are taxed The effective tax rate on high earners went up after the regans tax reform

 

[stinkcat_14]

Marginal rates tell us little about how people are taxed The effective tax rate on high earners went up after the regans tax reform

It depends on what you mean by effective tax rate. The average tax rate paid by upper income households fell a bit during the reagan years.

For the highest income quintile, the average tax rate was 26.6% in 1981 and fell to 25.1% by 1989.

taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

 

[ProVobis]

Is that really any worse than spending us into poverty through nonwar spending? Even with raised taxes, we’re in a hole too big to dig ourselves out of anytime in the foreseeable future. All politicians have their hand in the till regardless of the party. Raising taxes is a very short term solution, because the government doesn’t put the “new found funds” towards lowering debt, they just increase spending that much more.

(The last time the US was debt free was 1835, so we all have been paying for wars & spending that we didn’t agree to. Comforting thought isn’t it? )

Not to worry, Bernanke is printing so much, there never will be the required amount of revenue needed to pay the debt owed there. They can cut all the govt expenses they want but as long as they keep borrowing at the pace they’re going, they can even have surpluses and the debt will grow. Simple math.

 

[Dawnia]

Not to worry, Bernanke is printing so much, there never will be the required amount of revenue needed to pay the debt owed there. They can cut all the govt expenses they want but as long as they keep borrowing at the pace they’re going, they can even have surpluses and the debt will grow. Simple math.

If there is enough revenue to pay all the bills & expenses, then what is the point of borrowing money you don’t need?