6 ms·

I'd wonder how many films Depardieu got famous for haven't benefited any tax money from public financing. And how many would have been possible at all without i

• Markinhos 14y ago
  I don't think that gives the French goverment the right to tax the 75% of his income
  • maigret 14y ago
    Of course it does. Government is elected and has to the right to do whatever is constitutional and gets approved by both assemblies.
    • Markinhos 14y ago
      It can, in the same way the South African goverment could discriminate by race during the Apartheid. That something is constitutional doesn't mean it is morally acceptable
      • maigret 14y ago
        I wouldn't compare letting someone with "only" at least 250000 Eur/y in income anything similar to apartheid.
        • lvh 14y ago
          He was making a valid analogy: both events satisfied your requirements. Where do you draw the line? What is the differentiating factor between them?
        • Markinhos 14y ago
          Of course is not similar, but the point is only because it is legal and the goverment can do it, does not make it right.
• gambiting 14y ago
  During his lifetime he paid almost 150 million euros in taxes, so more than most of us will ever pay - so I think he can go wherever he pleases. And yes, even as a completely non-rich person, I think that the French 75% tax is absurd by every possible measure.
  • maigret 14y ago
    You don't answer my point - which is that the high taxes helped him get rich in the first place.
    • hnwh 14y ago
      what is your real point? So what how he got rich?
    • abrown28 14y ago
      The point is is it doesn't matter how he got rich. He is rich and can afford to flee the higher tax bracket. You can argue it's wrong or immoral of him to do so but none of your arguments will induce him to stay and pay the tax. You try to squeeze the class with the most means and mobility and they just slip through your fingers.
      • maigret 14y ago
        Yes he is free and we are. He has the right to do so, and others have the right to criticize him for that.
• varjag 14y ago
  Perhaps we should also contemplate how much return on investment would have France seen on the public money had Depardieu not starred in those films.
  • maigret 14y ago
    Good point.
• tagada 14y ago
  Benefited from tax money ? Of course ... Since every films made in France have to be financed by the State ... kind of a censorship bureau ... And the State takes his part in the success of the film of course. As of now, the state gained more than Depardieu with him than the opposite. Depardieu is a great actor and that's why he got rich. And the State had great benefits of having him all these years. For years and years, the French socialist bureaucracy have paid their monarchical lifestyle thanks to guys like Depardieu, who pays millions and millions taxes a year. The State is not supposed to be a jail where you have to pay the warden by 85% of your revenues. The French government is doing crap, totally. They are liars, incompetent and raging. Those leftists pretend to ́́"hate the rich", like Hollande said once, "the rich that earn more than 4.000€ a month", he added ... At the time, he himself earned about 20.000€ a month ... Bullshit ... Probably this is the worst government we had since the WWII. Anyway, J.M Ayrault, our dear prime minister who (like most of his friends) had trouble with justice for favoritism in a case of misappropriation of public goods (almost all of them had troubles for tax fraud as well), had no right to insult publicly the citizen Depardieu like he did who probably offered to France more than all of them altogether. Depardieu is 1000% right and most of the French people support him there.
• cheradenine01 14y ago
  That's an argument against public film financing, not in favour of higher marginal taxation on the wealthy.
  • hamax 14y ago
    How so? Didn't we all profit from it? Even(or especially) if he's taxed 75%.