Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income

[PapaG]

How soon until this happens here?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/18/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518

(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.

The government has been forced to redraft a proposed bill to levy a temporary 75 percent tax on earnings over 1 million euros, which had been one of Hollande's campaign pledges.

The Constitutional Council has judged such a high rate of taxation to be unfair, leaving the government to rehash it to hit companies rather than individuals.

Since then, a top administrative court has determined that a marginal tax rate higher than 66.66 percent on a single household risked being considered as confiscatory by the council.

Les Echos reported that nearly 12,000 households paid taxes last year worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 revenues due to the exceptional levy. ($1 = 0.7798 euros)

(Reporting by Leigh Thomas, Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

How soon until this happens here?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/18/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518

never?

 

[TehChad]

I think for every dollar earned after a certain dollar amount- maybe something like $20 million- on a personal level, the tax rate jumps to something really high, like 80%. You could lower the tax rate for everyone below that number and for those above it, tough. I mean really, what can you not afford earning $20 million in ONE YEAR?! Assuming you live in Oregon and have $10 million taken out for income tax (conservative number), you still have enough to buy (with CASH):

- Five $1 million dollar homes (or one $5 million dollar home)
- A $2 million private jet
- $2 million for every single dream car you've ever wanted
- The last million should easily cover everything else- salary for your pilots & jet fuel, property taxes for your home(s), everyday living expenses, furnishings for your new home(s), maids, landscapers, and everything else.

Whoops, forgot about the yacht. That might have to come next year. Gonna be rough.

 

[maxiep]

I think for every dollar earned after a certain dollar amount- maybe something like $20 million- on a personal level, the tax rate jumps to something really high, like 80%. You could lower the tax rate for everyone below that number and for those above it, tough. I mean really, what can you not afford earning $20 million in ONE YEAR?! Assuming you live in Oregon and have $10 million taken out for income tax (conservative number), you still have enough to buy (with CASH):

- Five $1 million dollar homes (or one $5 million dollar home)
- A $2 million private jet
- $2 million for every single dream car you've ever wanted
- The last million should easily cover everything else- salary for your pilots & jet fuel, property taxes for your home(s), everyday living expenses, furnishings for your new home(s), maids, landscapers, and everything else.

Whoops, forgot about the yacht. That might have to come next year. Gonna be rough.

Why does the question have to be, "What is enough"? It should be, "None of your business how much I make. I should pay a reasonable rate akin to what someone making $250K would make".

Believe it or not, money made after that level is almost 100% invested. Most people that make those sums of money don't spend all of it on themselves or goods and services. Instead, after spending their money on whatever they wish to purchase that year, they invest the rest. Those funds create jobs for others.

That money, which is return-driven, is more likely to be used effectively than monies dumped into the government.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Why does the question have to be, "What is enough"? It should be, "None of your business how much I make. I should pay a reasonable rate akin to what someone making $250K would make".

Believe it or not, money made after that level is almost 100% invested. Most people that make those sums of money don't spend all of it on themselves or goods and services. Instead, after spending their money on whatever they wish to purchase that year, they invest the rest. Those funds create jobs for others.

That money, which is return-driven, is more likely to be used effectively than monies dumped into the government.

How much of that money is squirreled away in off shore tax havens?

 

[Denny Crane]

How much of that money is squirreled away in off shore tax havens?

Why do you think people use off shore accounts?

One obvious answer is that it facilitates doing foreign partnerships and investments.

The laws here are so punitive that the foreigners often don't want to deal with our banks. They're also so punitive that bringing money back into the country is discouraged.

You know that you must declare all your worldwide income to the IRS... If you don't, it's tax evasion. A crime.

 

[maxiep]

How much of that money is squirreled away in off shore tax havens?

Who cares? They're not illegal.

Bottom line, we care way too much about how other people do. I care about how much money I make. How much you do is none of my business.

 

[MickZagger]

Who cares? They're not illegal.

Bottom line, we care way too much about how other people do. I care about how much money I make. How much you do is none of my business.

Thats simply not true or you wouldn't despise unions so much.

 

[maxiep]

Thats simply not true or you wouldn't despise unions so much.

I don't care about private unions, I care about public ones. I have explained why.

 

[TehChad]

Gets to a point where a certain amount of income is ridiculous and pointless. Take Christy Walton for example. Here's a woman who inherited her daddy's money and is now worth about $30 billion...yes, that's a "b", not an "m". In my opinion there's absolutely no reason any individual should be allowed to have that much wealth and not have to pay a motherload (percentage-wise) of taxes. God forbid she put her money back into her business and create thousands of new jobs, donate it to a charity, donate it to cancer research, give it to a homeless guy, I don't care. But it doesn't do anybody any good (including her) to have such a gargantuan amount stowed away in investments. Plus if you create these extremely high taxes for the mega-rich, that can only help everyone else, including those in the rich-but-not-ridiculously-rich category (which 50% of internet forum posters pretend to be in), businesses of all sizes, and the middle and lower class as well.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Who cares? They're not illegal.

That may be, but I think it's slightly relevant to your argument that everything above 250k is invested and thus creates jobs. US companies put trillions of dollars into tax havens. That's hardly investing.

 

[jlprk]

Everybody buy silver!

http://www.investingchannel.com/art...APSING-ONTO-THE-FACES-OF-RETARDS#.UZqJIaU9l0s

 

[maxiep]

Gets to a point where a certain amount of income is ridiculous and pointless. Take Christy Walton for example. Here's a woman who inherited her daddy's money and is now worth about $30 billion...yes, that's a "b", not an "m". In my opinion there's absolutely no reason any individual should be allowed to have that much wealth and not have to pay a motherload (percentage-wise) of taxes. God forbid she put her money back into her business and create thousands of new jobs, donate it to a charity, donate it to cancer research, give it to a homeless guy, I don't care. But it doesn't do anybody any good (including her) to have such a gargantuan amount stowed away in investments. Plus if you create these extremely high taxes for the mega-rich, that can only help everyone else, including those in the rich-but-not-ridiculously-rich category (which 50% of internet forum posters pretend to be in), businesses of all sizes, and the middle and lower class as well.

 

[maxiep]

That may be, but I think it's slightly relevant to your argument that everything above 250k is invested and thus creates jobs. US companies put trillions of dollars into tax havens. That's hardly investing.

Not all monies have to be invested in the US. It's no one's business where one invests their money. All I'm saying is that money invested by individuals is almost always used more efficiently than money taxed and spent by the government.

 

[blazerboy30]

Gets to a point where a certain amount of income is ridiculous and pointless. Take Christy Walton for example. Here's a woman who inherited her daddy's money and is now worth about $30 billion...yes, that's a "b", not an "m". In my opinion there's absolutely no reason any individual should be allowed to have that much wealth and not have to pay a motherload (percentage-wise) of taxes. God forbid she put her money back into her business and create thousands of new jobs, donate it to a charity, donate it to cancer research, give it to a homeless guy, I don't care. But it doesn't do anybody any good (including her) to have such a gargantuan amount stowed away in investments. Plus if you create these extremely high taxes for the mega-rich, that can only help everyone else, including those in the rich-but-not-ridiculously-rich category (which 50% of internet forum posters pretend to be in), businesses of all sizes, and the middle and lower class as well.

I'd like to repost this, but please replace the "$30billion" with whatever you made last year. It probably sounds ridiculous to you, like this post did to me.

Those that think the government will somehow become more responsible with their spending because they've raised taxes on the rich, need a reality check.

 

[TehChad]

I've presented this before, and nobody has ever presented a decent argument against it. I see that continues to to this day. And if you read what I said closely enough (obviously not the case), you'll recall I said for every dollar AFTER a certain amount. I picked $20 mil, but hey, I'm flexible. So if you really hate your government that much, feel free to take out that exact amount and pay a lower tax rate than what you otherwise would have, and the excess money that you would have earned can go toward whatever you want...charity, homeless, I really don't care. I feel like I've typed this before...oh wait, that's because I have.

 

[MARIS61]

I think we should do that here in the US. We could raise quite a bit by taxing the French elite.

 

[MARIS61]

Not all monies have to be invested in the US. It's no one's business where one invests their money. All I'm saying is that money invested by individuals is almost always used more efficiently than money taxed and spent by the government.

Yeah, purchasing meth is more efficient than feeding hungry children.

Just an example. Feel free to present yours.

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, purchasing meth is more efficient than feeding hungry children.

Just an example. Feel free to present yours.

Investing in google vs. investing in Solyndra. Your turn.

 

[MARIS61]

You say that like Google is a good thing. It's a tool our government is using to track us, brainwash us, and ultimately control our very movements. And it's a financial leech on our country and most of the world.

Google shaved $3.1 billion off its taxes the past three years with elaborate overseas tax shelters known as "the Double Irish" and "the Dutch Sandwich." That might sound kinky, but a tax professor says it's serious business: "They're perpetuating evil."

That's what accounting expert Abraham Briloff told Bloomberg News after the wire service dug into Google's tax accounting and found the company pays a 2.4 percent overseas tax rate, lower that paid by even its more crafty competitors llike Microsoft, Oracle, IBM and Apple. The company achieves this by routing profits through Bermuda, the Netherlands and Ireland. Google's response: "Google's practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries." Google, as always, is just better at doing it. That's probably impressive work for a certain class of corporate accountant, but it's pretty far from "Don't be evil."

 

[jlprk]

I know none of you clicked it, so here it is!!

SILVER IS COLLAPSING ONTO THE FACES OF RETARDS

By: Stock Picks and Discussion at iBankCoin | The Fly | Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 11:41 am EST 1139

Both gold and silver are getting smoked today, down about 1.5%. You can ponder all you like as to the reason behind the drop. Look no further than the power of fiat currency, backed by the full faith and credit of the US military apparatus.

While you misfits “invest” in bitcoins, the market trends higher daily, taking out gold bugs and curb stomping them until their jaws break off their faces.

I strongly advise you to avoid buying the dips in precious metals. The central banks have complete control of the markets now and have brought “stability” to the commodity markets too. They want it all, higher asset prices without the side effects of inflation. You’d think when a central bank creates new currency out of thin air, it would give life to inflation, most readily seen through commodities. Well, that might happen one day down the road. But for now, commodities are contained and alternative forms of currency are–essentially– in the f a g box.

 

[maxiep]

You say that like Google is a good thing. It's a tool our government is using to track us, brainwash us, and ultimately control our very movements. And it's a financial leech on our country and most of the world.

Google shaved $3.1 billion off its taxes the past three years with elaborate overseas tax shelters known as "the Double Irish" and "the Dutch Sandwich." That might sound kinky, but a tax professor says it's serious business: "They're perpetuating evil."

That's what accounting expert Abraham Briloff told Bloomberg News after the wire service dug into Google's tax accounting and found the company pays a 2.4 percent overseas tax rate, lower that paid by even its more crafty competitors llike Microsoft, Oracle, IBM and Apple. The company achieves this by routing profits through Bermuda, the Netherlands and Ireland. Google's response: "Google's practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries." Google, as always, is just better at doing it. That's probably impressive work for a certain class of corporate accountant, but it's pretty far from "Don't be evil."

Says the guy who embraces Obama policies. At least Google enriches its investors. The only ones getting wealthy from Obama's policies are his political allies. Thanks for playing, though.