On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
75% is just high when looking at very recent times. As recently as 79 there was plenty of countries with higher personal top tax rates. Looking at the trend it has been going down the past 30 years, I don't know enough economics/politics to know why it has been doing that.
The arguments for moving money being easier today is of course striking, yet I don't see why they would suddenly do so just because of a few more % if they havn't already done so.
Listen newb! When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Cigarette taxes leads to fewer people smoking. Tax subsidies for green energy companies means you get more of them.
Why the namecalling? Negative tone is negative. I agree with you btw but not the namecalling. Imho if you tax the superrich 75% they will take their business elsewhere. 51% is the absolute max you can tax safely.
I think we would definitely see businesses paying out 999,999 Euro salaries and using loopholes to distribute the rest. The only real way to 'tax' the super rich is to stop the governments sponsorship of their failed companies and reintroduce competition into the marketplace.
Why? That's clearly not how it would work... you will never get less money (as a total amount) because you are paid more, lol.
A 75% tax rate at €1,000,000 means every single euro earned at €1,000,000 and after is taxed at 75%.
So if the tax bracket til €10,000 is at 10%, then the first €10,000 that person with a lucrative salary makes is taxed only €1,000. Then if the tax bracket at €15,000 is 15%, then still the first €10,000 is taxed at 10% (costing him €1,000 in taxes) and next €5,000 is taxed at 15%, costing €750.
So if you had a total annual salary of €15,000, you'd pay €1,000 + €750 in taxes, aka €1,750 (not 15% of the full €15,000, which would have been €2,250).
Although if you're anything like the U.S., then you get to take a flat standard deduction (no one at that level itemizes really), making your taxable income drop to like €6,000, meaning you'll pay a whopping grand total of around €600.
As much as people bash the tax code, with the exception of long term capital gains, the tax system is designed heavily heavily in the favor of the lower class/poverty level. Almost all credits and tax deductions will only apply if you're making a certain amount of income. But people who don't know (not necessarily you, you don't even live in the U.S.) love to bash it regardless. 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
75% is just high when looking at very recent times. As recently as 79 there was plenty of countries with higher personal top tax rates. Looking at the trend it has been going down the past 30 years, I don't know enough economics/politics to know why it has been doing that.
The arguments for moving money being easier today is of course striking, yet I don't see why they would suddenly do so just because of a few more % if they havn't already done so.
Listen newb! When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Cigarette taxes leads to fewer people smoking. Tax subsidies for green energy companies means you get more of them.
Why the namecalling? Negative tone is negative. I agree with you btw but not the namecalling. Imho if you tax the superrich 75% they will take their business elsewhere. 51% is the absolute max you can tax safely.
I think we would definitely see businesses paying out 999,999 Euro salaries and using loopholes to distribute the rest. The only real way to 'tax' the super rich is to stop the governments sponsorship of their failed companies and reintroduce competition into the marketplace.
Why? That's clearly not how it would work... you will never get less money (as a total amount) because you are paid more, lol.
A 75% tax rate at €1,000,000 means every single euro earned at €1,000,000 and after is taxed at 75%.
So if the tax bracket til €10,000 is at 10%, then the first €10,000 that person with a lucrative salary makes is taxed only €1,000. Then if the tax bracket at €15,000 is 15%, then still the first €10,000 is taxed at 10% (costing him €1,000 in taxes) and next €5,000 is taxed at 15%, costing €750.
So if you had a total annual salary of €15,000, you'd pay €1,000 + €750 in taxes, aka €1,750 (not 15% of the full €15,000, which would have been €2,250).
Although if you're anything like the U.S., then you get to take a flat standard deduction (no one at that level itemizes really), making your taxable income drop to like €6,000, meaning you'll pay a whopping grand total of around €600.
As much as people bash the tax code, with the exception of long term capital gains, the tax system is designed heavily heavily in the favor of the lower class/poverty level. Almost all credits and tax deductions will only apply if you're making a certain amount of income. But people who don't know (not necessarily you, you don't even live in the U.S.) love to bash it regardless. 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
I understand how tax works, I get taxed just like everyone else. I think you missed what I said, loopholes; you can find a thousand examples of the super rich avoiding tax by doing a quick google. I'm talking about not paying any tax beyond the top threshold by using similar techniques to Philip Green (pay out a dividend to his wife in a tax exempt Country). I understand this would effect people who earn a million or just over, but once you get towards the higher wages its very simple to avoid payment. This has got to be a real possibility in France.
Here's a good list highlighting what I mean - http://appointmetotheboard.com/amttb-rich-list.htm. I'm 100% aware a lot of this stuff is capital gains, I'm just trying to illustrate a point. A great income tax example recently would be Jimmy Carr. He was paying himself from a Jersey based company to avoid it.
I bash the tax system in the UK because its very bias against the average tax payer. I understand people want to avoid tax - hell I don't want my money going down the wealth transfer black hole any more than them, but I have no choice. I wouldn't even mind if this money was reinvested in the UK, but its not lol.
And I'm not an anti-rich socialist here, successful businessman are one of the cornerstones of any successfully society, but the government here really does its best to keep the rich, rich.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
On August 09 2012 11:06 Trowa127 wrote:
On August 09 2012 07:52 frontliner2 wrote:
On August 08 2012 22:56 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On August 08 2012 21:54 Yurie wrote:
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
75% is just high when looking at very recent times. As recently as 79 there was plenty of countries with higher personal top tax rates. Looking at the trend it has been going down the past 30 years, I don't know enough economics/politics to know why it has been doing that.
The arguments for moving money being easier today is of course striking, yet I don't see why they would suddenly do so just because of a few more % if they havn't already done so.
Listen newb! When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Cigarette taxes leads to fewer people smoking. Tax subsidies for green energy companies means you get more of them.
Why the namecalling? Negative tone is negative. I agree with you btw but not the namecalling. Imho if you tax the superrich 75% they will take their business elsewhere. 51% is the absolute max you can tax safely.
I think we would definitely see businesses paying out 999,999 Euro salaries and using loopholes to distribute the rest. The only real way to 'tax' the super rich is to stop the governments sponsorship of their failed companies and reintroduce competition into the marketplace.
Why? That's clearly not how it would work... you will never get less money (as a total amount) because you are paid more, lol.
A 75% tax rate at €1,000,000 means every single euro earned at €1,000,000 and after is taxed at 75%.
So if the tax bracket til €10,000 is at 10%, then the first €10,000 that person with a lucrative salary makes is taxed only €1,000. Then if the tax bracket at €15,000 is 15%, then still the first €10,000 is taxed at 10% (costing him €1,000 in taxes) and next €5,000 is taxed at 15%, costing €750.
So if you had a total annual salary of €15,000, you'd pay €1,000 + €750 in taxes, aka €1,750 (not 15% of the full €15,000, which would have been €2,250).
Although if you're anything like the U.S., then you get to take a flat standard deduction (no one at that level itemizes really), making your taxable income drop to like €6,000, meaning you'll pay a whopping grand total of around €600.
As much as people bash the tax code, with the exception of long term capital gains, the tax system is designed heavily heavily in the favor of the lower class/poverty level. Almost all credits and tax deductions will only apply if you're making a certain amount of income. But people who don't know (not necessarily you, you don't even live in the U.S.) love to bash it regardless. 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
I understand how tax works, I get taxed just like everyone else. I think you missed what I said, loopholes; you can find a thousand examples of the super rich avoiding tax by doing a quick google. I'm talking about not paying any tax beyond the top threshold by using similar techniques to Philip Green (pay out a dividend to his wife in a tax exempt Country). I understand this would effect people who earn a million or just over, but once you get towards the higher wages its very simple to avoid payment. This has got to be a real possibility in France.
Here's a good list highlighting what I mean - http://appointmetotheboard.com/amttb-rich-list.htm. I'm 100% aware a lot of this stuff is capital gains, I'm just trying to illustrate a point. A great income tax example recently would be Jimmy Carr. He was paying himself from a Jersey based company to avoid it.
I bash the tax system in the UK because its very bias against the average tax payer. I understand people want to avoid tax - hell I don't want my money going down the wealth transfer black hole any more than them, but I have no choice. I wouldn't even mind if this money was reinvested in the UK, but its not lol.
And I'm not an anti-rich socialist here, successful businessman are one of the cornerstones of any successfully society, but the government here really does its best to keep the rich, rich.
Anyway this was off topic - sorry guys!
Yeah, there's definitely insane tax loopholes for the super wealthy. I was more so referring to what the system is designed to do. I think I was more so referring to people who were making ~$300,000+ per year as opposed to the uber uber elite.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
I earn a small amount of money so I only pay ~33% tax. Then there is VAT, corporate tax etc that adds up on top of this. So I have an effective tax rate near 50% without paying any national income tax.
If I would be earning ~80k USD I would be paying well over 50% on any money above the 70k limit. This is prior to adding in the other taxes that directly effect any and all costs of living for me.
I don't really mind this since I'm used to this tax level and indoctrinated to let the state handle large parts of the economy.
On August 08 2012 07:19 Dusen wrote: Denmark should leave the EU which we should have done a long time ago.
Instead teaming up with Finland, Sweden and Norway or something like that..
Atleast we where not stupid enougth to say "yes" to the Euro coin, but stupid enougth to put more money down in the Greece hole, just cause our Dear leader Helle Thorning Smith wants to secure herself a nice post in the EU when she gets crushed at next election. She didnt even ask nobody just signed the damn thing -.-'
You cant have the same coin when you financially are very far apart, thats what i've heard from people when we've talked about the crisis.
And no i dont know much about the crisis, but even a noob can see this is only going one way which is DOWN ((
Stop applying logic to politics. It does not work that way!
Denmark is already teamed up with Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. They are having a meeting before the EU meetings already!
The european economic policy is not controlled by Denmark: We are pegged to Merkel and it would have been exactly the same with another leader.
You sure about that? Cause as far as i remember everyone else was against it, but HTS just overulled everyone and threw money in the Greek hole of lost money.
I am not sure what you are pointing to, but the only parties against posting money into the hole seems to be LA and DF. Venstre has been very low key on most EU-issues since they agree with the governments handling of most things as far as I am aware, LA is just trying to gain some tracktion with their semi-libertarianism. DF is against it mostly to be contraire to the government and to make HTS burn some bridges.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
I earn a small amount of money so I only pay ~33% tax. Then there is VAT, corporate tax etc that adds up on top of this. So I have an effective tax rate near 50% without paying any national income tax.
If I would be earning ~80k USD I would be paying well over 50% on any money above the 70k limit. This is prior to adding in the other taxes that directly effect any and all costs of living for me.
I don't really mind this since I'm used to this tax level and indoctrinated to let the state handle large parts of the economy.
You pay 33% total, or your tax bracket limit is 33%? I'd be very shocked to learn that the lower wages in society are taxed at an overall rate of 33% (unless 33% is the lowest bracket), meaning that your highest bracket is probably around 40%+.
VAT isn't relevant to income taxes (assuming that is an equivalent of a sales tax, honestly in the past I've read up on the differences and I still don't understand it). If so, that is not considered relevant to terms of income.
If you were earning 80k USD in the U.S., you'd pay about $15,000 in taxes and have to put $4,500 in Social Security. Also, depending what state you live in (or even city), additional income taxes may apply shaving off anywhere up to another $6,000-$8,000.
Of course, then you should pay for other things, like healthcare, dental, pensions, 401k contributions, etc. so goes down. I don't make near $80,000, but my remaining disposable income from my paycheck is consistently about 2/3 of what I "make."
On August 10 2012 05:02 Rassy wrote: 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
This i find impossible to believe, does realy 90% of all tax revenus come from the top 5%? where did you get this number if may ask
I'd also like to see some sourcing on that. And anyway tax revenue isn't the only way that someone can contribute to society.
On August 10 2012 05:02 Rassy wrote: 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
This i find impossible to believe, does realy 90% of all tax revenus come from the top 5%? where did you get this number if may ask
Rubbish, tgive me a source the dutch pay progressive tax but you reach the 50ish percent already with like 50.000 euro...
The top 5% do not pay 90%, that was just an exaggeration. If I recall correctly, the top 10% pay around 72% of federal income taxes and the top 20% of earners pay around 90%. This is mostly because only 52% of Americans even pay federal taxes.
On August 10 2012 08:08 1Eris1 wrote: The top 5% do not pay 90%, that was just an exaggeration. If I recall correctly, the top 10% pay around 72% of federal income taxes and the top 20% of earners pay around 90%. This is mostly because only 52% of Americans even pay federal taxes.
If anything that just shows the wealth inequality across the society, nothing else really.
On August 10 2012 05:02 Rassy wrote: 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
This i find impossible to believe, does realy 90% of all tax revenus come from the top 5%? where did you get this number if may ask
Also from WSJ, the bottom 40% not only paid no income tax, but actually received payments from the government in forms of redistribution. I know I was one of them, I think I made $13,000 and got $1,600 for no apparent reason (and I thought it was fucking retarded they were giving it to me, but who I am to say no to free money?).
As a result of the 2001 tax cuts enacted by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, the share of taxes paid by the top 10% increased to 72.8% in 2005 from 67.8% in 2001, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Contrary to the myth that Mr. Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy, the 2001 tax cut reduced taxes for every income-tax payer in the country. He reduced the bottom tax rate to 10% from 15% and increased the refundable child tax credit to $1,000 from $500 per child, both cuts that President Barack Obama says we should keep. In so doing, millions of lower income taxpayers were removed from the tax rolls, shifting the remaining burden to those at the top, even after their taxes were cut.
According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 -- 60% of the country -- paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation's income.
When you make almost 26% of the income and you pay only 0.6% of the income tax, that's a good deal, courtesy of those who do pay income taxes. For the bottom 40%, the redistribution deal is even better. In 2001, these 43 million Americans, who earn less than $30,500, made 13.5% of the nation's income but paid no income tax. Instead, they received checks from their taxpaying neighbors worth $16.3 billion. By 2005, those checks totaled $33.3 billion.
Ah ty, that makes more sense. Still find it a bit misleading somehow, it makes it look like the bottom does not contribute annything wich is not true. That the bottom is contributing so little is because they earn so little and to me this merely shows how unevenly the wealth is devided, i guess it just depends from wich angle you look at it. Annyway, ineresting statistics still (as all statistics)
On August 10 2012 09:19 Rassy wrote: Ah ty, that makes more sense. Still find it a bit misleading somehow, it makes it look like the bottom does not contribute annything wich is not true. That the bottom is contributing so little is because they earn so little and to me this merely shows how unevenly the wealth is devided, i guess it just depends from wich angle you look at it. Annyway, ineresting statistics still (as all statistics)
In terms of income tax, they contribute a negative amount, and that's not even including the administrative fees.
I don't agree at all that it shows how unevenly wealth is divided either. Of course if you don't force the bottom 40% to pay anything, and you tax the top amount at significantly higher rates, the top will be paying substantially more. If they were all paying say a flat 20%, then yes, it would show a massive wealth disparity. But you can't make that claim when you have 0% involved and then a progressive tax system.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
On August 09 2012 11:06 Trowa127 wrote:
On August 09 2012 07:52 frontliner2 wrote:
On August 08 2012 22:56 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On August 08 2012 21:54 Yurie wrote:
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
75% is just high when looking at very recent times. As recently as 79 there was plenty of countries with higher personal top tax rates. Looking at the trend it has been going down the past 30 years, I don't know enough economics/politics to know why it has been doing that.
The arguments for moving money being easier today is of course striking, yet I don't see why they would suddenly do so just because of a few more % if they havn't already done so.
Listen newb! When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Cigarette taxes leads to fewer people smoking. Tax subsidies for green energy companies means you get more of them.
Why the namecalling? Negative tone is negative. I agree with you btw but not the namecalling. Imho if you tax the superrich 75% they will take their business elsewhere. 51% is the absolute max you can tax safely.
I think we would definitely see businesses paying out 999,999 Euro salaries and using loopholes to distribute the rest. The only real way to 'tax' the super rich is to stop the governments sponsorship of their failed companies and reintroduce competition into the marketplace.
Why? That's clearly not how it would work... you will never get less money (as a total amount) because you are paid more, lol.
A 75% tax rate at €1,000,000 means every single euro earned at €1,000,000 and after is taxed at 75%.
So if the tax bracket til €10,000 is at 10%, then the first €10,000 that person with a lucrative salary makes is taxed only €1,000. Then if the tax bracket at €15,000 is 15%, then still the first €10,000 is taxed at 10% (costing him €1,000 in taxes) and next €5,000 is taxed at 15%, costing €750.
So if you had a total annual salary of €15,000, you'd pay €1,000 + €750 in taxes, aka €1,750 (not 15% of the full €15,000, which would have been €2,250).
Although if you're anything like the U.S., then you get to take a flat standard deduction (no one at that level itemizes really), making your taxable income drop to like €6,000, meaning you'll pay a whopping grand total of around €600.
As much as people bash the tax code, with the exception of long term capital gains, the tax system is designed heavily heavily in the favor of the lower class/poverty level. Almost all credits and tax deductions will only apply if you're making a certain amount of income. But people who don't know (not necessarily you, you don't even live in the U.S.) love to bash it regardless. 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
I understand how tax works, I get taxed just like everyone else. I think you missed what I said, loopholes; you can find a thousand examples of the super rich avoiding tax by doing a quick google. I'm talking about not paying any tax beyond the top threshold by using similar techniques to Philip Green (pay out a dividend to his wife in a tax exempt Country). I understand this would effect people who earn a million or just over, but once you get towards the higher wages its very simple to avoid payment. This has got to be a real possibility in France.
Here's a good list highlighting what I mean - http://appointmetotheboard.com/amttb-rich-list.htm. I'm 100% aware a lot of this stuff is capital gains, I'm just trying to illustrate a point. A great income tax example recently would be Jimmy Carr. He was paying himself from a Jersey based company to avoid it.
I bash the tax system in the UK because its very bias against the average tax payer. I understand people want to avoid tax - hell I don't want my money going down the wealth transfer black hole any more than them, but I have no choice. I wouldn't even mind if this money was reinvested in the UK, but its not lol.
And I'm not an anti-rich socialist here, successful businessman are one of the cornerstones of any successfully society, but the government here really does its best to keep the rich, rich.
Anyway this was off topic - sorry guys!
Yeah, there's definitely insane tax loopholes for the super wealthy. I was more so referring to what the system is designed to do. I think I was more so referring to people who were making ~$300,000+ per year as opposed to the uber uber elite.
thats the problem here .... we (our media) always loves to hit on the working rich... while they pay with the middel class for the super wealthys moneys interest and the poor.
the fun thing is we wouldn't even need to do anything about it ... we would just have to stop to fucking bail their investments out. (since 2008 everyone should be able to see that)
i can't find anything which makes it more clear who runs this place.
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
Hard to say. It's almost a case by case a opinion. I'd say it's 50/50, but considering 99.99% of people is not directly concerned by this rate, i'm not sure many people make the effort to understand what are the good and bad side of this rate. Most of people just repeat the speech of the party they use to vote for.
I'd like to repeat that the rate is not "75% tax rate of your income if you get more 1M€ per year" (i.e. 750 000) but 75% of all money ABOVE 1M€ (i.e. for 1.1M€, it's 75 000 + the usual taxes on the million).
All taxes usually work like that, but it nearly kills incentive to work beyond €1 million.
I mean really, for every €1 an independent employer wants to pay you for your exceptional performance, you're going to get €0.25? Really? Personally, I always thought it should be capped at 50%. The government should never take MORE of what you earned than what you get yourself.
On August 09 2012 11:06 Trowa127 wrote:
On August 09 2012 07:52 frontliner2 wrote:
On August 08 2012 22:56 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On August 08 2012 21:54 Yurie wrote:
On August 08 2012 13:28 xDaunt wrote: So is France really going to shoot itself in the head and pass that 75% tax rate that Hollande is proposing? Is a majority of French people actually on board with this?
75% is just high when looking at very recent times. As recently as 79 there was plenty of countries with higher personal top tax rates. Looking at the trend it has been going down the past 30 years, I don't know enough economics/politics to know why it has been doing that.
The arguments for moving money being easier today is of course striking, yet I don't see why they would suddenly do so just because of a few more % if they havn't already done so.
Listen newb! When you tax something, you get less of it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Cigarette taxes leads to fewer people smoking. Tax subsidies for green energy companies means you get more of them.
Why the namecalling? Negative tone is negative. I agree with you btw but not the namecalling. Imho if you tax the superrich 75% they will take their business elsewhere. 51% is the absolute max you can tax safely.
I think we would definitely see businesses paying out 999,999 Euro salaries and using loopholes to distribute the rest. The only real way to 'tax' the super rich is to stop the governments sponsorship of their failed companies and reintroduce competition into the marketplace.
Why? That's clearly not how it would work... you will never get less money (as a total amount) because you are paid more, lol.
A 75% tax rate at €1,000,000 means every single euro earned at €1,000,000 and after is taxed at 75%.
So if the tax bracket til €10,000 is at 10%, then the first €10,000 that person with a lucrative salary makes is taxed only €1,000. Then if the tax bracket at €15,000 is 15%, then still the first €10,000 is taxed at 10% (costing him €1,000 in taxes) and next €5,000 is taxed at 15%, costing €750.
So if you had a total annual salary of €15,000, you'd pay €1,000 + €750 in taxes, aka €1,750 (not 15% of the full €15,000, which would have been €2,250).
Although if you're anything like the U.S., then you get to take a flat standard deduction (no one at that level itemizes really), making your taxable income drop to like €6,000, meaning you'll pay a whopping grand total of around €600.
As much as people bash the tax code, with the exception of long term capital gains, the tax system is designed heavily heavily in the favor of the lower class/poverty level. Almost all credits and tax deductions will only apply if you're making a certain amount of income. But people who don't know (not necessarily you, you don't even live in the U.S.) love to bash it regardless. 90% of our federal income tax revenues comes from the top 5% or so. The lower class majority doesn't contribute shit.
I understand how tax works, I get taxed just like everyone else. I think you missed what I said, loopholes; you can find a thousand examples of the super rich avoiding tax by doing a quick google. I'm talking about not paying any tax beyond the top threshold by using similar techniques to Philip Green (pay out a dividend to his wife in a tax exempt Country). I understand this would effect people who earn a million or just over, but once you get towards the higher wages its very simple to avoid payment. This has got to be a real possibility in France.
Here's a good list highlighting what I mean - http://appointmetotheboard.com/amttb-rich-list.htm. I'm 100% aware a lot of this stuff is capital gains, I'm just trying to illustrate a point. A great income tax example recently would be Jimmy Carr. He was paying himself from a Jersey based company to avoid it.
I bash the tax system in the UK because its very bias against the average tax payer. I understand people want to avoid tax - hell I don't want my money going down the wealth transfer black hole any more than them, but I have no choice. I wouldn't even mind if this money was reinvested in the UK, but its not lol.
And I'm not an anti-rich socialist here, successful businessman are one of the cornerstones of any successfully society, but the government here really does its best to keep the rich, rich.
Anyway this was off topic - sorry guys!
Yeah, there's definitely insane tax loopholes for the super wealthy. I was more so referring to what the system is designed to do. I think I was more so referring to people who were making ~$300,000+ per year as opposed to the uber uber elite.
thats the problem here .... we (our media) always loves to hit on the working rich... while they pay with the middel class for the super wealthys moneys interest and the poor.
the fun thing is we wouldn't even need to do anything about it ... we would just have to stop to fucking bail their investments out. (since 2008 everyone should be able to see that)
i can't find anything which makes it more clear who runs this place.
Not bailing out in many cases would hurt the lower class more than it would hurt the upper upper class. Super upper class still has a shitton of money after those events occur due to limited liability of corporations. Lower class loses a ton of jobs, unemployment increases, existing jobs are even harder to get as a result. And the U.S. government's bailout of the banks actually made money - the banks paid all the money back, with interest. So that was a stellar choice.
yeah ... the system is too deeply flawed ... but without a bailout it would totally crash and maybe rebuild a little bit better. You gotta have an understanding of the mechanics of fiat-money and its creation to get an idea of the problem. Expecially of the hidden tax inflation. austrain economics deals a lot with this. The lower class pays either way ...
The real bailout comes btw. from the Central Banks. I read something of 14 trillion from the FED for banks. In th EU it was 1 Trillion in the beginning of 2012 alone.
Not to speak about 0 interest in the US and 0.75% in Europe with the central banks taking the "toxic waste" papers as securities for that loans.
The tax we pay comes in inflation. We dont feel it yet because all the money is still in the casino keeping the asset bubble alive...
On August 11 2012 09:45 Gaga wrote: yeah ... the system is too deeply flawed ... but without a bailout it would totally crash and maybe rebuild a little bit better. You gotta have an understanding of the mechanics of fiat-money and its creation to get an idea of the problem. Expecially of the hidden tax inflation. austrain economics deals a lot with this. The lower class pays either way ...
The real bailout comes btw. from the Central Banks. I read something of 14 trillion from the FED for banks. In th EU it was 1 Trillion in the beginning of 2012 alone.
Not to speak about 0 interest in the US and 0.75% in Europe with the central banks taking the "toxic waste" papers as securities for that loans.
The tax we pay comes in inflation. We dont feel it yet because all the money is still in the casino keeping the asset bubble alive...
in song form ^^ :
I majored in economics I'm fully aware how the Fed handled things^. Song is interesting although not necessarily completely accurately depicting what we're addressing specifically.
HFT is on the rise and it is definately creating some changes to how markets work. Several illegal activities are made almost impossible to trace and can be automated into algorithms already. For the long term investor the proponents of HFT claims that they will be a significant advantage for pricing.
Now the question is: Does HFT pose a risk for the trading economy and does it change the perception of the crisis we have in europe? I am inclined to say that it is the case.
Most economic analysts are saying that the Eurozone is likely to have contracted in the second quarter of this year. This was expected and the recession is not over yet. Germany and France did better than expected though.
EPT
((
the dutch pay progressive tax but you reach the 50ish percent already with like 50.000 euro...
