Wealthy French opt not to pay high taxes

D

DFWAg

1,000+ Posts
I posted an article not too long ago about the failure of the British Treasury to extract incremental revenue through increased tax rate bands on the wealthy, 50% in the case of the Brits.

Seems like the same is happening in France.

Wealthy French decide Belgium is a great place to live

If you had not read the prior news, a French Billionaire quickly moved to Belgium when the Socialist Party rolled out its 75% tax bands on the wealthy.

I love Belgium

It will be interesting to me to see how effectively any fiscal cliff deal is in actually delivering incremental revenue via tax hikes if they indeed are part of any deal.
 
It's not about increasing revenue, it's about appeasing the idiot class who believes the rich don't pay their "fair share".
 
As I've said before, the rich didn't get rich by being stupid. Government in their wisdom think the rich won't modify their behavior. When they implemented a luxury tax in the 90's the rich quit buying yachts and planes and it practically killed the industry putting a lot of people out of work. Plus, tax revenues went DOWN. Brilliant.

As the earlier poster said, this is purely symbolic with no practical justification.
 
Many people of the left don't have any money, never have, never will. Which isn't to say they don't make decent money, they just spend it, all of it, as quickly as they can. Which is why they want taxes on the rich, hoping to be given some of it.

Of course should they be given the money, it will only slip through their hands like a hot knife though butter. Where it will find it's way back into the hands of the wealthy. They know they can't manage their own money, which is why they want to manage yours.

At the end of the day they'll always be going from big spender to poor as church mice. This is who we have running our government. Always with the hand out, somehow un-ashamed.

Many of them are on this very board, you know who you are. Yes you may have a good education, and have a good salary, you never seem to have any money. There's a reason for that, you spend more than you make. Now you want the government doing the same.

Just remember, your money is my money, it is only a short term loan you're granted every two weeks. I will have my money back, and then some. So take all you desire, I'll have it back in spades, and you? Well, you'll be broke again, just as you have always been.
 
For my part, cleaning up the tax code to eliminate the special subsidies and tax perks (that predominantly benefit the rich) would be enough by me. That would satisfy my punitive/fairness itch. Beyond that, reducing the spending is the real answer.
 
Why do you want to punish success? just curious. In college, should we increase tuition for those who study harder and make "A's"?

I am all for cleaning up the code and if we are going to raise taxes, make everyone pay more. That way they are incentivized to push their elected officials to spend less.
 
Well, in most business you market to those who can afford to spend. Since the top 1 percent own about 37-39 percent of the wealth in the US, they are natural targets. Not to mention that demographics show that while low income and middle income earners have struggled during this long slow recovery, those with lots have done very well. I know that many of you believe that the guy who makes 150 times more than the hourly worker is just being fairly compensated for his vastly greater productivity, but I contend that bargaining power, not productivity and effort, are what set salaries. I don't want to "punish the rich" or the damn near mythical "job creators" but not locking in their tax rates at historic lows is not the same thing as implementing a Pol Pot strategy. No one wants to confiscate their weath and send them to reeducation centers.
 
I think you are reading too much liberal press. The proposal is to raise taxes on those making greater than $250,000, which is about 15 times minimum wage, not 150.

Raising taxes on many of those at the $250,000 level will negatively impact small business, where jobs are primarily created. Statistics show that the current proposal for tax increases Obama wants would only cover the Government's spending for about 10 days.

Until EVERYONE has a financial stake in the tax increases, there will continue to be over bloated spending by the government and the can will be kicked down the road.

Sorry, but trying to say I do not pay my fair share because I make more money due to education, hard work and risk does not resonate with me or many other entrepreneurs. The dollars I pay are overwhelmingly high even if my effective tax rate is balanced due to capital gains.
 
I have no problem with jacking up the rates of the top 1% to what they were previously but I think it advantageous to raise everybody else's as well, just so everybody understands they have a stake in the game,. This would include those who have no income and pay no taxes, A minimum head tax of $100 a year would suffice to let everybody know where the "government money' comes from.

As for the rich leaving the jurisdiction, let them depend on passports from some ******** for a while and let them pay to get their US passports back. Living here is the best bargain in the history of the world,
 
It's not about nor ever will be about having a stake in the game. It's about punishing successful and spending so more can be hooked on entitlements. There's no intention to cut spending, but just to raise taxes. That crap being spewed about agree to increases now and we'll look at cutting in January is just that.....CRAP!!! Sounds identical to "We need to pass the healthcare plan so we can see what's in it" WTF??
 
25% flat tax with no deductions and at the same time a 25% REAL DECEARSE in spending ( and that includeds spending on Medicare & SS).

Real spending cuts are whats needed, along with real entitlement reform.
 
Vol Horn: I have lived around liberals all my life and I have never heard one of them even obliquely talk about punishing people for being successful or attempting to hook people and make them dependent on entitlements.

Your surmise is based on the fact that dogmatics on the right can't imagine any charitable explanation for why some people want to expand the state's ambit of activities. Lots of them don't understand why people like you or I want to put a leash on the state and so they make up bizarre, erroneous explanations for smaller government advocates. It is a disservice to rational thought either way.
 
Some of you have a laughably simplistic view of the country, where "right" = hardworking and honest, and "left" = lazy and looking for a handout. Looks like a lot of you are buying the Republican talking points where everyone who votes against their party are just freeloaders.

There really is such an animal as myself -- hardworking (I have two full-time jobs), educated, a strong proponent of personal accountability, owner of a small business, and a person who pays plenty of taxes... and I recognize a widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots... a dangerous and unsustainable division. I also reject outright that every attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy is "class warfare," and I reject the notion that any attempt to increase revenue on the rich is wholly equivalent to being a proponent of a socialist state. I don't seem to recall cries of outrage and "warfare!!!!" when they went into effect, so why the outrage when they're repealed?

Serious question: Were we a socialist state under Clinton (i.e. before the Bush tax cuts)? Does it make us socialist to go back to that code? Were the Bush tax cuts "class warfare" against the working poor, or is it only "class warfare" when the proposed changes ask the wealthy to pay more?

I'm sure I'll be attacked for this post, but the overly-simplistic views that some of you hold are just absurd. The world is more complicated than that.
 
The opposite of "punish" is "reward." Is increasing taxes specifically on the rich a reward for success? No, so I say his analysis is right.

The Left has consistently made the narrative that the rich are not paying their fair share which is totally false in absolute dollars. They also refer to the rich as if they are not workers. They want to help the "working man" by taxing the rich. It has been total class warfare by the Democrats and it has worked on the uneducated who depend upon the government for too much.
 
Ah damn the injustice. The greater the disparity in income between the 2 percent and the working class, the ever growing share of tax burden the high earners must bear. God I bet they need a crew of janitors with extra mops and buckets to clean up the flood of tears when Goldman Sachs hands out bonus checks.
 
If you are a janitor,you have failed to either increase your skills or improve through education.

You are also likely paying no federal income taxes so you are more interested in increasing spending rather than cutting spending because maybe some of those dollars are coming to you.

The term "working class" originates from Karl Marx era of his term prolateriat. Interesting corellation?
 
Hollande and the Socialists just got ***** slapped. Link.

And if you read the basis for the ruling, you gotta wonder how much brains these guys have. They assessed the tax on individuals rather than households, so if two people in a household each make E900K, they don't get hit with the tax. However, if one person in the household makes E1.2M, he does get hit with the tax. Stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top