It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

France's 75% Super Tax quietly comes to an end...

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
In a brave move the French almost 2 years ago implemented a 75% tax on personal earnings over $1 million. The promise of this 'Super-Tax' helped Hollande beat out Sarkozy for the presidency but it didn't go over well with the super rich. Some moved out of the country while others quietly made arrangements with their employer to lower salaries now and recover losses after 2 years when the Super Tax expired.

Well the tax is about to expire and won't be renewed. A brave experiment to reverse the ever growing income inequality in this world ends in failure. The super rich once again bend Democracy to their whim.

www.businessinsider.com...

I was wondering what people think of a tax like this? Possibly it should be implemented in many democratic countries at the same time so the super rich can't run and hide? Or should Democracy just give up trying to control income inequality?




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I imagine this will bring on a question of two sides and one that your everyday ats contributer will be carefull of discussing.

The only way one would advocate this would implicate you as one of the rich set, I can only imagine that one would not wish to do so in such a public forum.

For myself I would be happy to tax the rich as it is an incremental scale and those that earn the most and take the most from society should therefore put the most back in but I imagine there will be those that believe that they should not be punished for success will pop along at some point.

a reply to: noeltrotsky



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Most if not all of the super-rich in France were actors, singers and musicians. They could choose whether or not to go on tours, star in movies, attend concerts as well as set their own salaries. As soon as a 90% tax was imposed, they just cut their performances, reduced their salary and change their country of residence. Either way, the government lost out.

The only fair way would be a flat rate tax. The super-wealthy can always pay for accountants to find loop-holes and exemptions as simple as charity donations, or as complex as having multiple countries of residence.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
The only fair way would be a flat rate tax.

A flat tax system is even less progressive than the current tax systems in most Western countries. It's doesn't address income inequality at all, but I do like the dropping of all the stupid loopholes included.

It's pretty clear that a strongly progressive tax rate isn't desired in society today after this French failure. France is pretty Left leaning and even they can't implement it. I wonder if there is a better way to reduce income inequality?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

75% is a dumb idea.

How about just taking away any tax breaks whatsoever and just making them pay a flat tax.

Even with a flat tax the top 1% will be paying more than the lower classes.

I don't believe that the rich should be overly burdened with taxes. But they do need to pay them. No more tax breaks for the biggest welfare queens on the planet. The rich.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky


Progressive ideas always end in failure.

A flat tax without loopholes is the best and only way to have taxation.

Even consumption taxes can easily be evaded by simply buying and keeping luxury items in another country.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky The super rich once again bend Democracy to their whim.


So why the negative slant against rich people? It could just as easily be said "once again, the politicians bend fairness into a noose and put it round rich people's necks"

Tiered taxes are absolutely unjust.

It should be: Flat tax, earn more, pay more.

Not: Earn more, pay proportionally more and even more, and then ludicrously more....

The wealthier a person is, the more ability they have to avoid the system altogether.

The real answer is a simple flat tax where no one can avoid paying. No loopholes, no $1 CEO salaries with stock options, just a simple tax. Executives want to own shares in their own company? They have to buy them just like anyone else.



.
edit on 23-12-2014 by 8675309jenny because: reformatted



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
those that believe that they should not be punished for success will pop along at some point.



So you believe in punishing success ?

Ok there Leon Trotsky...



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I'm sorry but just no... Taxing earnings at a ridiculous 75% is NOT how income equality will be solved... Taxing savings and assets WILL... Even if just 1% of savings and assets of people were taxed in a year or two u could remove poverty... Why this would work? The super rich are sitting on mountains of wealth, this accumulated money is left relatively untouched by the tax man...



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
I was wondering what people think of a tax like this? Possibly it should be implemented in many democratic countries at the same time so the super rich can't run and hide? Or should Democracy just give up trying to control income inequality?


It seems that we have gone from a privately induced charity society to a Government control tax society to fix all our ills, and I need to ask who here feels any government is efficient in spending our hard earned tax money? People complain that some guy who makes 1 million doesn't pay his fair share in taxes, but never talk about a much larger number of people who never pay federal type taxes their whole lives. I'm not rich in any way, but I do pay about 40k in federal taxes every year and I need to ask who much does it cost to be an American, French? For me it is 40k a year for many it is zero...

Do any of you really think the top 1% of 1% really is the reason to all our problems with the resent label of "income inequality"?




more taxes, More Taxes, MORE TAXES the masses chant... really? Is that the answer?



edit on 24-12-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kamza
I'm sorry but just no... Taxing earnings at a ridiculous 75% is NOT how income equality will be solved... Taxing savings and assets WILL... Even if just 1% of savings and assets of people were taxed in a year or two u could remove poverty... Why this would work? The super rich are sitting on mountains of wealth, this accumulated money is left relatively untouched by the tax man...


Is it really the super rich's job to fix all this? We want the Government to fix it all, but we can tax the super rich 100% and it would not be enough, and now you suggest to tax already taxed income again and again and again...

Sounds like a person with no savings and so has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Lets tax the money of those who spent a life time making it and have already been taxed, tax it again....

It seems like you all are a group who plan on never making past head french fries frier at Burger King, and so like the zero to 75% plus tax since, I guess, you plan on being closer to the zero than the 75% the rest of your life.


edit on 24-12-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
It should be: Flat tax, earn more, pay more.


What if everyone had to pay 10%...hmmm a person who makes 20k needs to pay 2k, a person who makes 100 million pays 10 million. Sounds fair to me...



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero
I would think that very few of the super rich (depending on your definition) have actually earned the majority of their wealth. Inherited wealth and capital gains are massively under taxed in comparison to income.
The idea that anyone who supports higher taxation on the wealthiest is unambitious is just buying into the Horatio Alger myth.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Something France needs to do (but won't) is get the population to WORK HARDER AND LONGER HOURS.

They also need to make it easier to be self employed.

Did you know the word "entrepreneur", although french, is only used as a label for an employment system that limits people to a single activity (auto-entrepreneur). Stoopid!



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
It was frigging ridiculous, and caused me to spurt curses for days on end like I had Tourettes syndrome when Hollande got elected. Thank god the french people realized their mistake. Problem is we're still stuck with that moron for a few years!


Personally, I like the idea of flat tax for all. But I won't claim to be an expert in economics. In any case, that idea was too exagerrated to be implimented in any realistically beneficial way- for anyone.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The idea that anyone who supports higher taxation on the wealthiest is unambitious is just buying into the Horatio Alger myth.

Agreed. I've found that many people have great ambition, but it is in a role in society that is not extremely well paid. Teachers often have an amazing passion, yet Bankers out earn them by a long shot.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
It's interesting how many people are against a 'super' tax on income over $1 million, but the vast majority of people never make even close to that much each year.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
I was wondering what people think of a tax like this?


Punitively high taxation rates are an inherently unfair and are rooted in the politics of envy.

All punitive taxation does is appease those people who like to "shaft the rich", but the rich just find ways to avoid. Best that the rich don't avoid tax, but pay the same proportionately as everyone else.

Equality is the best approach.

Regards



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I'm so tired of hearing that wealthy people are badly done to, until your starving and not knowing where your next meal is coming from pay your tax and pay it quietly.

One of most prosperous periods of time in recent history was post world war 2 when the wealthy occupants of the uk were being taxed upwards of 70% of their annual income.

We rebuild a country, created the NHS, welfare safety net and creates affordable housing. Jobs were plentiful, people were happy and secure after so much destruction.

Taxing the wealthy works.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

There is a marked difference between patriotic taxation, such as which many nations faced after (and during) conflict and that during relative peace. If one knows their taxes are going to help rebuild a nation that was attacked and deeply destroyed, they tend to be willing; as evident in what you write.

On the other hand, taxing to tax for revenue, to sustain and shift wealth in order to prop up systems that obviously require the "rich" to pay, while allowing those who do not make as much, receive; that system is broken and cannot sustain.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join