5 ms·

The amazing thing is that for all the globe-spanning political vitriol this has provoked, the amount of revenue involved according to the proponents is only €20

The amazing thing is that for all the globe-spanning political vitriol this has provoked, the amount of revenue involved according to the proponents is only €200-€300 million/year, out of €1.3 trillion/year in tax revenue total: "Hollande says the 75 percent tax he plans to impose would hit about 3,000-3,500 people and raise around 200-300 million euros a year." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-france-election-policy-idUSBRE83917G20120410 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-france-election... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France

testrun 13y ago
You are right, the amount is negligible in relation to total tax receipts. It seems to be more about political point scoring than to fix the economy.
- hudibras 13y ago
  It was one of Hollande's campaign promises, so of course he's going to try to get it passed into law. That's what politicians do.
smsm42 13y ago
The actual revenue probably would be less than that, since politicians tend to underestimate creativity and the lengths the people would go to avoid taxes.
flexie 13y ago
Yes. The tax is only on income exceeding EUR 1 million (USD 1.4 million). This means that the people usually associated with high income, such as medical doctors, lawyers, accountants, business owners, CEO's of small and medium sized companies etc. are not affected at all or only for a small part of their income. The tax is going to hurt a few super high earners such as a few soccer stars, a few pop stars, some investment bankers etc. The figures I have seen are more at 1,000 than 3,000. So, it will be harder for PSG to attract the best soccer players of the world, and some CEOs, investment bankers etc. will take wage cuts or move, but apart from that I doubt it's going to have any noticeable effects. It's certainly not going to lead to mass exodus of talents from France.
- yitchelle 13y ago
  Don't most sport stars live at (or at least have their residence at) Monaco or (insert low income tax country here) where the taxes are close to 0%?
  - flexie 13y ago
    No. That's only doable if you do individual sports such as boxing, tennis, golf, where you are free to take residence anywhere, or if you play for Monaco FC ;-)
    - vl 13y ago
      Surprisingly, not always. American hockey players (or coaches) playing for Vancouver often choose to live at Point Robers to avoid paying Canadian taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington
      - smsm42 13y ago
        Fascinating place, Point Roberts. I've read a number of people from surrounding localities go there for cheap goods (Canada has 12% VAT, US does not). Also, I heard, popular with witness protection since you have to cross the border control to drive in there (which could be a problem for somebody who is a felon).
  - mjn 13y ago
    If they work for a French soccer team, that just makes them cross-border commuters, which typically means you're responsible for taxes in both countries (unless a tax treaty between the countries harmonizes them). A Monaco resident working in France still has to pay French income tax on his or her French salary & bonuses. Living in Monaco may be a way to dodge taxes on advertising income if they do endorsement deals, though. Also things are more complicated for French citizens in particular, because Monaco and France have a tax treaty (dating to the 1960s) aimed at making it harder for French citizens and companies to use Monaco as a tax haven. Essentially Monaco agrees to tax French people/entities at the current French tax rates, rather than the usual Monaco rates, in a range of situations that fit the heuristic of using Monaco as an address of convenience (vs. bona-fide living / doing business there).
chatmasta 13y ago
You're missing the forest for the trees. The important metric to him is now many votes this "vitriol" garnered him. Answer: a lot. Socialist politicians prey on the wealthy with support of the majority. It's a dangerous game to be playing. Class wars are coming. When the wealthy must defend themselves, they will shield behind corporations, the overlords of the populace. You can see it. Human nature is causing societal drifts, leading to political shifts. Democracy is battling oligarchy, and oligarchy is winning. A revolution is coming.
- djur 13y ago
  I don't think the French need to be reminded what happens to the wealthy when the revolution comes. The plutocrats have forgotten what tumbrels sound like after several generations of relatively stable late capitalism.
  - bdcravens 13y ago
    FTFY: "I don't think the French need to be reminded what happened to the wealthy when the revolution came." Previous results are not indications of future success.
  - forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
    What happens to the wealthy when revolution comes? Can you illustrate us? I am from Spain, in 1936 we had a civil war and a million people dead. The country got devastated for decades. And the wealthy, which was much better prepared and organized, won. What you call plutocrats are only a very small part of the population. I also have family from eastern European countries, and communism was the worst thing that happened to them. There they had plutocrats of the public with more power than any capitalism could give(they could ruin your life or your families in an instant as everything was controlled by a selected few).
foolrush 13y ago
It is a simple fact that the burden of funding many cultures has fallen upon the individual as opposed to the corporate sector since the great depression[1]. It doesn't require much of a cognitive leap to understand that a healthy, educated, and stable populace comes at a price. Is it possible that such inflammatory tax gestures are more a statement against the perceived predatory corporate vampirism than practical income generation means? [1] http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3321737/ http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3321737/
- repsilat 13y ago
  Taxes on companies are just indirect taxes on individuals anyway -- they're inevitably passed on to employees, shareholders or customers, though it's not obvious who ends up paying what proportion of the cost. Taxes on individuals are easier to target and easier to enforce, corporate taxes are a comparatively blunt instrument of questionable fairness. Wouldn't you say that the rich directors and executives will find a way to pay less than their share? Treating companies them as autonomous, indivisible entities just plays into an "us vs. them" narrative, complete demagoguery. We should remember that everyone involved here is a person, and most of them aren't rich. When we take that into account it becomes clear why targeted taxes on salaries, on consumption and on capital gains might be a better option.

testrun 13y ago

You are right, the amount is negligible in relation to total tax receipts. It seems to be more about political point scoring than to fix the economy.

hudibras 13y ago
It was one of Hollande's campaign promises, so of course he's going to try to get it passed into law. That's what politicians do.

smsm42 13y ago

The actual revenue probably would be less than that, since politicians tend to underestimate creativity and the lengths the people would go to avoid taxes.

flexie 13y ago

Yes. The tax is only on income exceeding EUR 1 million (USD 1.4 million). This means that the people usually associated with high income, such as medical doctors, lawyers, accountants, business owners, CEO's of small and medium sized companies etc. are not affected at all or only for a small part of their income. The tax is going to hurt a few super high earners such as a few soccer stars, a few pop stars, some investment bankers etc. The figures I have seen are more at 1,000 than 3,000. So, it will be harder for PSG to attract the best soccer players of the world, and some CEOs, investment bankers etc. will take wage cuts or move, but apart from that I doubt it's going to have any noticeable effects. It's certainly not going to lead to mass exodus of talents from France.

yitchelle 13y ago
Don't most sport stars live at (or at least have their residence at) Monaco or (insert low income tax country here) where the taxes are close to 0%?
- flexie 13y ago
  No. That's only doable if you do individual sports such as boxing, tennis, golf, where you are free to take residence anywhere, or if you play for Monaco FC ;-)
  - vl 13y ago
    Surprisingly, not always. American hockey players (or coaches) playing for Vancouver often choose to live at Point Robers to avoid paying Canadian taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Fascinating place, Point Roberts. I've read a number of people from surrounding localities go there for cheap goods (Canada has 12% VAT, US does not). Also, I heard, popular with witness protection since you have to cross the border control to drive in there (which could be a problem for somebody who is a felon).
- mjn 13y ago
  If they work for a French soccer team, that just makes them cross-border commuters, which typically means you're responsible for taxes in both countries (unless a tax treaty between the countries harmonizes them). A Monaco resident working in France still has to pay French income tax on his or her French salary & bonuses. Living in Monaco may be a way to dodge taxes on advertising income if they do endorsement deals, though. Also things are more complicated for French citizens in particular, because Monaco and France have a tax treaty (dating to the 1960s) aimed at making it harder for French citizens and companies to use Monaco as a tax haven. Essentially Monaco agrees to tax French people/entities at the current French tax rates, rather than the usual Monaco rates, in a range of situations that fit the heuristic of using Monaco as an address of convenience (vs. bona-fide living / doing business there).

chatmasta 13y ago

You're missing the forest for the trees. The important metric to him is now many votes this "vitriol" garnered him. Answer: a lot. Socialist politicians prey on the wealthy with support of the majority. It's a dangerous game to be playing. Class wars are coming. When the wealthy must defend themselves, they will shield behind corporations, the overlords of the populace. You can see it. Human nature is causing societal drifts, leading to political shifts. Democracy is battling oligarchy, and oligarchy is winning. A revolution is coming.

djur 13y ago
I don't think the French need to be reminded what happens to the wealthy when the revolution comes. The plutocrats have forgotten what tumbrels sound like after several generations of relatively stable late capitalism.
- bdcravens 13y ago
  FTFY: "I don't think the French need to be reminded what happened to the wealthy when the revolution came." Previous results are not indications of future success.
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  What happens to the wealthy when revolution comes? Can you illustrate us? I am from Spain, in 1936 we had a civil war and a million people dead. The country got devastated for decades. And the wealthy, which was much better prepared and organized, won. What you call plutocrats are only a very small part of the population. I also have family from eastern European countries, and communism was the worst thing that happened to them. There they had plutocrats of the public with more power than any capitalism could give(they could ruin your life or your families in an instant as everything was controlled by a selected few).

foolrush 13y ago

It is a simple fact that the burden of funding many cultures has fallen upon the individual as opposed to the corporate sector since the great depression[1]. It doesn't require much of a cognitive leap to understand that a healthy, educated, and stable populace comes at a price. Is it possible that such inflammatory tax gestures are more a statement against the perceived predatory corporate vampirism than practical income generation means? [1] http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3321737/ http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3321737/

repsilat 13y ago
Taxes on companies are just indirect taxes on individuals anyway -- they're inevitably passed on to employees, shareholders or customers, though it's not obvious who ends up paying what proportion of the cost. Taxes on individuals are easier to target and easier to enforce, corporate taxes are a comparatively blunt instrument of questionable fairness. Wouldn't you say that the rich directors and executives will find a way to pay less than their share? Treating companies them as autonomous, indivisible entities just plays into an "us vs. them" narrative, complete demagoguery. We should remember that everyone involved here is a person, and most of them aren't rich. When we take that into account it becomes clear why targeted taxes on salaries, on consumption and on capital gains might be a better option.