French 75% tax rate struck down

[Jimbuna]

Now there's a turn up for the books.

In these times of austerity I don't see why the wealthy should pay a larger amount than those at the opposite end of the wealth scale.

Mind you, 75% did sound a tad heavy.

France's constitutional council has struck down a top income tax rate of 75% introduced by Socialist President Francois Hollande.
Raising taxes for those earning more than 1m euros (£817,400) has been a flagship policy for Mr Hollande.
The policy angered France's business community and prompted some wealthy citizens to say they would emigrate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20864114

[AVGWarhawk]

75% is outrageous. It is not like the wealthy use the government services more than those not as wealthy. Flat tax is the only way. Everyone pays a %. No exemptions for any reason.

[Jimbuna]

Well now we know why your not living in France....wouldn't want to pay the higher rate

I think the UK system is fairer...the tax percentage goes up when you reach a smaller threshold (these figures may recently have changed slightly.


Basic rate: 20% - £0 - £35,000
Higher rate: 40% - £35,001 - £150,000
50% - Over £150,000

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I think the UK system is fairer...

Are you old enough to remember when the UK tax on £1,000,000 was 95%?

It's no wonder every major artist in Britain moved to the US during the '50s and '60s.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Are you old enough to remember when the UK tax on £1,000,000 was 95%?

It's no wonder every major artist in Britain moved to the US during the '50s and '60s.

If I had a million or more in that era I doubt I'd be living in the UK...more likely own my own island in the Seychelles

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is not like the wealthy use the government services more than those not as wealthy.

You may want to think that through a bit more.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

If I had a million or more in that era I doubt I'd be living in the UK...more likely own my own island in the Seychelles

Call me if you need a motorcycle mechanic

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Are you old enough to remember when the UK tax on £1,000,000 was 95%?

It's no wonder every major artist in Britain moved to the US during the '50s and '60s.

and that is the issue. Government is fundamentally a service industry. However, unlike most services, the government owns a monopoly, making it hard for you to "take your business elsewhere". You can't not pay, after all, if you refuse to pay your phone bill, the phone company will simply cut your service. Refuse to pay taxes, and the IRS will be coming for you. If I hate the phone company, theoretically I can start my own phone company. If I start my own country, government, they would label me a rebel and send the army in.

you know what, I would actually hope that someday governments would "compete" for your tax dollars. They really need to improve service while reducing price.

if they charge too much for the service, why wouldn't you take your money else where? After all, they are simply "voting with their wallet"

[Sailor Steve]

But that's exactly what those British movie stars and musicians did. They couldn't start their own government, but they could move to a country where the tax rates were more to their liking. This ended up forcing the British government to change their tax policy.

In principle, though, I agree with you. The problem is that governments have no way of generating revenue, so they have to take it. It's been an accepted problem and solution since mankind formed societies, and there doesn't seem to be a real solution for it.

This ended up forcing the British government to change their tax policy.

Yet today even with the changed policy they still don't pay income tax.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Call me if you need a motorcycle mechanic

Well I'm still a millionaire but in Vietnamese Dong terms....1 million Dong = £30

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

you know what, I would actually hope that someday governments would "compete" for your tax dollars. They really need to improve service while reducing price.

Well, that's exactly what they do every 4 years, right? It's called campaigning.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You may want to think that through a bit more.

Oh do tell. I certainly can not think of anything

[Catfish]

^ hmm, the state should be the same as the government, in a democracy.

Back then in Germany in the 19th century (it was not a real democracy, despite having an elected government), 'the state' provided rails, telecommunications, electricity, postal services, water and all other basic services to the inhabitants, and industry. Its maintenance costed and costs money, also renewing and introducing new technologies like e.g. the Autobahn, internet infrastructure and the like much later.

Initially all this was paid for and built by the inhabitants of the country, the taxpayers. Maintenance also has to be paid for, by those who use it - if some use it to more extent, they have to pay more for it, right ?

So if a company uses those services, to sell its products to the inhabitants of this country or state, it should have to pay for its use, not ?

Unless the companies want to build all this country-wide infrastructure itself to use it, but most refrain for obvious reasons. They would also have to maintain all this, and pay for it, which would be more than even 95 percent taxes.

But lets say if companies would build it all themselves to use it, they would have to pay more for the same services, run by their own company or other privatized 'fellow' (competition) companies, who want to make real money with it, not only provide basic services for the good of the country.


Now in Germany almost all those systems and services have been privatized (read: disappropriated from the taxpayers who financed and built it all).


In the end now all pay a lot more for basic services, since all private postal services, private energy producers and private rail companies etc. certainly want to make big money, and also cash it in from their felolow companies.

Unfortunately now the big companies also realize they have to pay much more than before, just like the average citizen and taxpayer.

Companies pay less taxes than ever in Germany, but they now have to pay much more to their fellow privatized basic service companies to use their services.


I still wonder where the real advantages lie, for the good of most ?



Off topic:
The argument to "privatize verything and it will lead to competition and lower prices" is certainly nonsense. It makes no sense to build multiple energy power lines, multiple water resources like dams by several companies, Autobahnen and multiple rail systems - such big infrastructure cannot be built by several companies, it makes no sense and would ruin our good old earth even more - but most of all it is financial nonsense.

So big infrastructure usually belongs to one big company, or a conglomerate of sympathizing ones, the competition is naught, and they have the monopoly they want - to fetch any price they please.

Only that the other companies now have to pay those prices as well.

And if you look at British Rail, you can see the privatized companies do not maintain anything, they just overtook the infrastructure during the privatization, and let it decay to maximise cash.

Until .. decades later, when all has broken down, it is being socialized again and repaired and financed by - guess who ?

[AVGWarhawk]

Who is talking about companies? The 75% tax is for those making over a certain amount. I see some making the assumption this infers companies making over a certain amount. It looks to me the 75% includes anyone. So tell me how a movie star making over the amount somehow uses more government services. Is this individual making the IRS work extra hours to access his tax? Is this person going to the government sponsored parks than the less wealthy? Is he using the roads more than the others? Is he using the internet to trade on the markets? Possibly. But the guy with lesser wealth is using the net as well. Why should this individual making movies pay 75%? Because he can?