French President Francois Hollande has called for a 75 percent income tax on top earners in France t - Polidicks

[quote]At a recent press conference in Paris, Swedish soccer star Zlatan Ibrahimovic announced that a French team had signed him for about $17 million a year. Soccer salaries often cause controversy, but Ibrahimovic’s created an instant scandal. The next morning President Hollande had his deputy budget minister Jerome Cahuzac go on French radio, to denounce the record pay-out as indecent. The French government’s reaction won’t just be indignation. If Hollande has his way, Ibrahimovic will get socked with a 75 percent income tax on his new mega-salary. Same goes for anyone earning more than about $1.2 million a year in France. Hollande is trying to lower France’s deficit in order to stave off contagion from other faltering eurozone countries such as Spain. The loudest complaints about the 75 percent tax bracket come, predictably, from those who stand to pay it. At a small hotel in Paris, Sophie Canipel says she once liked the idea of inheriting this place from her parents. But with the top-tier tax, she says, she’ll be ruined. “Right now, as upper middle class people, my husband and I are paying around 45 percent in income taxes each year,” Canipel says. “When I inherit the hotel from my parents we’ll get bumped up into that 75 percent tax bracket because the value of the place will be counted as income. There’ll be nothing left over for us.” Without doubt Madame Canipel and others like her stand to pay through the nose. But they’re hardly getting a lot of sympathy from their working class neighbors. In the city of Nancy, in eastern France, a shop owner named Anne says that she supports the tax hike. That way, she says, there’d be a fairer distribution of wealth between the ultra rich and the middle class. But the vast majority of French non-millionaires aren’t rushing to celebrate. Because many people doubt that the rich will really end up paying the tax increase. A barista named Sophie works at a corner café in the Paris suburb of Asnieres. “I like the idea that the rich pay more, but I worry that they’ll find a way to pass the buck,” she says. “I’m sure that’s going to happen. The middle class is going to take it on the chin. It always happens that way. And the middle class is shrinking.” Another fear is that more French wealth will leave the country. The wealthiest Frenchmen routinely stash their money in far-flung tax havens. Now, there’s concern that businesses might simply pack up and go. Under Hollande’s tax reform, French corporations have lost a handful of deductions, including a big one on overtime salaries. Businesses already complain that labor costs are too high in France. French carmaker Peugeot cited those costs this month as a reason for laying off 8,000 workers and closing a plant outside Paris. If Peugeot follows through, it would be the first car factory to close in France in 20 years. British Prime Minister David Cameron recently joked that he would roll out the red carpet for French companies in the form of tax breaks. Unions are up in arms. And Hollande himself has come out swinging he needs to show that he can, in fact, tax big money and not have the little guy pay the price. France’s finance Minister, Pierre Moscovici, went on French radio to say that Peugeot’s plan was unacceptable. When asked what leverage the government has over private business, he hinted that government subsidies for the carmaker might come into question. The outcome at Peugeot could weigh heavily on the credibility of President Hollande’s plan to tax the wealthiest more without strangling the economy. France’s unemployment is at 10 percent and has been rising. He’d like to win this battle before moving on to the next: trimming France’s bloated public sector.[/quote] [url=http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/french-president-hollandes-plan-to-tax-rich-touches-nerve/]Source[/url] Damn right.

Couldn't this potentially drive away a lot of of the upper class? Bearing in mind they have the money to relocate elsewhere...

[QUOTE=David29;36932176]Couldn't this potentially drive away a lot of of the upper class? Bearing in mind they have the money to relocate elsewhere...[/QUOTE] Income isn't money they already have. I doubt any of these people actually [I]rely[/I] on their incomes.

France could use the money definitely, and if some uptight fancy-pants can't downsize and live less extravagantly, like the rest of us, they really shouldn't be rich.

that's lame

[QUOTE=ironman17;36932375]France could use the money definitely, and if some uptight fancy-pants can't downsize and live less extravagantly, like the rest of us, they really shouldn't be rich.[/QUOTE] Someone shouldn't have to degrade their lifestyle simply to be "more equal" with someone who has less than them.

Really? Please explain. (no really do, I wanna hear your opinion)

[QUOTE=The golden;36932554]If someone is making over 1.2 million a year then I doubt this will "degrade their lifestyle"[/QUOTE] I didn't say they were. But the guy I replied to said they should regardless. [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ironman17;36932551]Really? Please explain. (no really do, I wanna hear your opinion)[/QUOTE] Tearing everyone down to poverty in the name of equality isn't a solution to anything. Better to open the opportunity to prosperity to all instead. Why don't you lose your internet and fine home and made homeless, because that's how others are? No, they're not being made impoverished, that was a [B]hyperbole[/B] so don't retort on that.

[QUOTE=The golden;36932554]If someone is making over 1.2 million a year then I doubt this will "degrade their lifestyle"[/QUOTE] Yes, if they are living happily off of the 1.2 million that they are [I]earning themselves[/I] and then suddenly it turns into 300,000, that can cause some problems You have to realize these rich people also work hard and earn their own money and it doesn't deserve to be taken away so that they can be made equal with everyone else, that's just not fair

That's incredible

The President has balls.

[QUOTE=The golden;36932554]If someone is making over 1.2 million a year then I doubt this will "degrade their lifestyle"[/QUOTE] if they earned their money, they shouldn't have to give most of it just because they worked harder to get it.

lmao 75%

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36932744]Lol, most millionaires didn't "work hard", they just inherited the money.[/QUOTE] Yeah, Bill Gates never made a dime on his own, he got it all from his parents, right?

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36932744]Lol, most millionaires didn't "work hard", they just inherited the money.[/QUOTE]Not necessarily inherited. But no, the amount of effort one puts out has zero correlation to how much the earn.

[QUOTE=ironman17;36932551]Really? Please explain. (no really do, I wanna hear your opinion)[/QUOTE] By your logic, we should all be hobos. There will always be someone poorer than you and your arguement could be easily applied to yourself. Why don't you downgrade?

[QUOTE=The golden;36932554]If someone is making over 1.2 million a year then I doubt this will "degrade their lifestyle"[/QUOTE] It definitely will. If you make 1.2 million a year, yes, you're going to own a nice house that is suitable for that income. If you're suddenly forced to pay twice as much in taxes, you will not be able to live in that house anymore. You imagine how it must be to suddenly lose another 35% of your income. It's not just "Oh well, get a smaller house then" because firstly, it'll be impossible to sell your current home, and you'll be losing even more money each month. And NOBODY will buy new houses in that price level when their target group have all had their income cut by 35%. Secondly, it's hardly fair since the far majority of "rich people" actually work hard to make that kind of salary. Sure there's the last 0,01% of the population that are billionaires and could probably afford something like that. But increasing taxes to 75% for "rich people" would hurt a lot of families, and would not help the economy at all in the end.

[QUOTE=TehMentos;36933142]It definitely will. If you make 1.2 million a year, yes, you're going to own a nice house that is suitable for that income. If you're suddenly forced to pay twice as much in taxes, you will not be able to live in that house anymore. You imagine how it must be to suddenly lose another 35% of your income. It's not just "Oh well, get a smaller house then" because firstly, it'll be impossible to sell your current home, and you'll be losing even more money each month. And NOBODY will buy new houses in that price level when their target group have all had their income cut by 35%. Secondly, it's hardly fair since the far majority of "rich people" actually work hard to make that kind of salary. Sure there's the last 0,01% of the population that are billionaires and could probably afford something like that. But increasing taxes to 75% for "rich people" would hurt a lot of families, and would not help the economy at all in the end.[/QUOTE] I learned a lot from this, thanks.

I'm not really a fan of this. The rate must be somehow at the median. Not too high that it starts to create significant damage to the economy and not too low that the tax being gathered isn't enough. 75% doesn't sound like the median to me. If the goal is to prevent the concentration of money then ramp up the inheritance tax.

[QUOTE=redhaven;36933395]I'm not really a fan of this. The rate must be somehow at the median. Not too high that it starts to create significant damage to the economy and not too low that the tax being gathered isn't enough. 75% doesn't sound like the median to me. If the goal is to prevent the concentration of money then ramp up the inheritance tax.[/QUOTE] This is very true. Luckily this is just a move on Hollande's part to get some attention and show WHAT he stands for. 75% tax rates are unrealistic, anyone can tell. This will most likely end in a compromise where taxes are raised slightly, maybe to 50-55% which I think sounds a lot more fair.

Funny how Facepunch always cries that rich Americans should pay more in taxes, but when France does it, everyone defends the rich.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;36933595]Funny how Facepunch always cries that rich Americans should pay more in taxes, but when France does it, everyone defends the rich.[/QUOTE] There is a difference between 'pay more tax' and 'pay a stupid amount of tax'.

[QUOTE=ironman17;36932551]Really? Please explain. (no really do, I wanna hear your opinion)[/QUOTE] There are people that cannot afford shoes. You should gives yours up or you have no right to be middle class. [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cypher_09;36932632]The President has balls.[/QUOTE] where his brain should be.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;36933595]Funny how Facepunch always cries that rich Americans should pay more in taxes, but when France does it, everyone defends the rich.[/QUOTE] No one in America ever called for 75%. I think at most people called for 40% Also, Facepunch isn't a whole, singular entity with only you as an independent mind of it.

The highest income tax rate should be ~50%, any higher is really pushing it in terms of just being punishment for success (and don't give me that whole paying taxes isn't punishment bullshit). These people work to earn their money and taking away 75% of it is just flat out silly.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;36932634]if they earned their money, they shouldn't have to give most of it just because they worked harder to get it.[/QUOTE] investing money in the stock market and living off the yields of investments is hardly hard work being a janitor or a public school teacher or a manual labor is fucking hard work.

[QUOTE=Coffee;36933605]There is a difference between 'pay more tax' and 'pay a stupid amount of tax'.[/QUOTE] They will still have make at least three times as much as any average person,i don't see how this tax rate is either stupid or unfair. A bunch of rich people won't be able to afford their 9th car and a mansion,big fucking deal,the only reason why they're rich in the first place is the society and the government. If hard work is what makes someone rich then everyone in Africa would be trillionaires.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36933752]investing money in the stock market and living off the yields of investments is hardly hard work being a janitor or a public school teacher or a manual labor is fucking hard work.[/QUOTE] Manual labor isn't paid less because it's hard, it's because anyone could do it. It takes some skill and brainpower and a lot of knowledge to swim through stocks. And I seriously doubt anyone lives off of stocks alone given their risk.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36933752]investing money in the stock market and living off the yields of investments is hardly hard work being a janitor or a public school teacher or a manual labor is fucking hard work.[/QUOTE] there's a difference between "work that is hard" and "work that few people can do" [editline]25th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=znk666;36933762]the only reason why they're rich in the first place is the society and the government.[/QUOTE] what a fascinating insight please tell me more seriously if investment banking is such easy work then why don't you go out and do it?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36933789]Manual labor isn't paid less because it's hard, it's because anyone could do it. It takes some skill and brainpower and a lot of knowledge to swim through stocks.[/QUOTE] Thbbbt; no, it just takes the money to hire someone else to do it for you. Money perpetuates itself. The United States is not a meritocracy; wealth is not hard work, it's exploitation. Everybody can't be rich; the only way to increase your own financial standing is at the expense of the financial standing of someone else. The people at the top aren't the cleverest, hardest workers; they're the people who are most talented at [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1199749]tax evasion[/url], outsourcing jobs, lobbying the government to maintain their own wealth, and cutting corners and taking the margins for themselves.