French election: Hollande wants 75% tax on top earners - Polidicks

[img]http://puu.sh/iJ0a[/img] [QUOTE][B]The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax. [/B] "[B]Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income,[/B]" he said. Speaking on prime time TV, he promised that if elected, [B]he would undo tax breaks enacted by Nicolas Sarkozy. [/B] The tax proposal was condemned by his political opponents. Opinion polls suggest the gap between the Socialist candidate and Mr Sarkozy has narrowed. The two are tipped to reach the run-off on 6 May, after eliminating other rivals on 22 April. Taxation for the rich has become a hot campaign issue, with tax advisers in neighbouring Switzerland saying that [B]higher taxes for the wealthy in France could spark an exodus[/B], Reuters news agency reports. Many of France's richest celebrities already live abroad. The French right-of-centre newspaper Le Figaro reports that Mr Hollande's announcement on the TF1 channel appeared to take party colleagues by surprise. Jerome Cahuzac, responsible for budgetary affairs on Mr Hollande's campaign team, was questioned about the 75% rate on another channel, France 2, just minutes afterwards. Mr Hollande himself renewed his call on Tuesday, saying the 75% rate on people earning more than one million euros a year was "a patriotic act". "It's a signal that has been sent, a message of social cohesion, there is an effort to be made," he explained. "It is patriotic to agree to pay a supplementary tax to get the country back on its feet." Centrist presidential candidate Francois Bayrou dismissed the idea. He told another TV channel, BFMTV: "I think it was [French film director Michel] Audiard who used the rather rough phrase: the rubbish-ometer [French: deconnometre] is working overtime." Ministers from Mr Sarkozy's ruling UMP party also attacked the proposal. Francois Hollande "invents a new tax every week without ever proposing the smallest saving", said Budget Minister Valerie Pecresse and Foreign Minister Alain Juppe denounced the plan as "fiscal confiscation". [B]When Mr Sarkozy came to power in 2007, he introduced a "tax shield" that capped tax at 50% of all income[/B].[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739[/url]

Good.

Amazing,i hope they'll win the election.

So all corporations will move to a new tax heaven. Why would they stay in France, when they get better tax elsewhere

Looks like Harry Enfield found a new country on his list to stay away from.

I do agree on high taxes for the wealthy, but 75% seems a bit too much, maybe something like 60% would be better

[QUOTE=Unsmart;34907327]So all corporations will move to a new tax heaven. Why would they stay in France, when they get better tax elsewhere[/QUOTE] they should just increase tariffs on products that can be created in france then.

[QUOTE=Unsmart;34907327]So all corporations will move to a new tax heaven. Why would they stay in France, when they get better tax elsewhere[/QUOTE] Just like how, in the US during the 40s and 50s (top income tax bracket was, at its peak, 94%) all the rich people moved away. The idea that all the wealth will leave a country if the rich are taxed more is absolutely preposterous.

I'd rather have this guy as president that any other candidate of this year. To make it short, the two other important candidates of this election are a right-wing arrogant fuck who proved his incompetence for the past five years and a far-right wing xenophobic bitch who wants to turn the country into a white-only ultra-sheltered state.

I feel like 75% is a little bit too much but I don't know shit about economics or whatever subject this falls on

75% is way too much. Imagine working your whole life extremely hard to become successful just to have it all taken away by the government.

While I think taxes should be progressive, going up to 75% is a bit extreme. "Patriotic act" is no justification, really, if it saps the motivation of both the already-rich AND the ordinary people. People are going to move away if a VERY LARGE percent of their income (honest or otherwise) simply gets raked out of their hands, nor are the common people motivated to work harder to strive for riches and a better life if they know what's now waiting for them anyway. Progressive taxes, capped at 60% sounds much more reasonable.

Yeah, 75% is waaaay to fucking much. 50 to 60 is tops to make me comfortable.

[QUOTE=IForgotPassword;34907983]75% is way too much. Imagine working your whole life extremely hard to become successful just to have it all taken away by the government.[/QUOTE] Beat me to it. I absolutely believe in people paying a "fair share" (whatever the hell that means), but this is heavily punishing people for being successful in life and that's completely wrong.

Paying your fair share, fine. But why do they think 75% is a good idea?

I don't see why this doesn't make sense to everyone. I know, for a fact, the tax rate for the top bracket (highest earners) hovered around 80 to 90 percent in the US from the 1940s until the 1980s when Reagan got elected. After that, the tax rate slowly declined from 90 percent all the way down to 35 percent which is where its been since the early 2000s. If you made a graph of our economy and the tax rate of the top bracket the curves would be nearly identical. The tax rate is directly proportional to the health of the economy, and this proves it. Google tax history for the US if you don't believe me. If you're curious: The tax rate for the lowest bracket has gone from about 1 percent (around the 1940s) to now somewhere around 20. How the fuck does any of this make sense?! Where is the fucking logic?

If you earn 6 figure sums and pay 75% of it, you can still very easily live off the other 25%. Especially if you make say 600,000 and pay 450,000 for example. You still have 150,000 which is more than enough money to live on for a year.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34908197]If you earn 6 figure sums and pay 75% of it, you can still very easily live off the other 25%. Especially if you make say 600,000 and pay 450,000 for example. You still have 150,000 which is more than enough money to live on for a year.[/QUOTE] Exactly. And the top bracket that this guy is talking about is people who earn a million euros or more which leaves you with at least 250,000. How greedy can you be to call that absurd?

[QUOTE=Coridan;34908246]Exactly. And the top bracket that this guy is talking about is people who earn a million euros or more which leaves you with at least 250,000. How greedy can you be to call that absurd?[/QUOTE] So lets assume this guy worked his entire life extremely hard to get where he is now, And earns 1 million. With taxes off he only gets 250. All that while some other guy earns 300K and does jack shit all day. How is that fair?

[QUOTE=Coridan;34908246]Exactly. And the top bracket that this guy is talking about is people who earn a million euros or more which leaves you with at least 250,000. How greedy can you be to call that absurd?[/QUOTE] I'd say people have an issue with it because it punishes you for being successful. Higher taxes is one thing but...

People think this is a good idea? Let people keep their money.

[QUOTE=riceninja;34908411]People think this is a good idea? Let people keep their money.[/QUOTE] It's a good idea regarding the fact our economy partly went to shit because the current president Sarkozy removed most of the taxes regarding the rich, willingly created massive loopholes for them to pay even less and instead made the more modest population pay. I'd rather have people getting more than ONE MILLION EUROS A YEAR hugely taxed than the rest of the population having to suffer job deprivation and higher taxes that they can't afford to pay. [editline]28th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;34908373]I'd say people have an issue with it because it punishes you for being successful. Higher taxes is one thing but...[/QUOTE] It doesn't punish you for being successful. A single individual getting [I]at least[/I] one million euros a year (so that includes all the others who get much, much more) aka at least 100 000€ a month will not fall in poverty by having 75% of it taken away, he will still be able to live extremely well. [editline]28th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Djessey;34908347]So lets assume this guy worked his entire life extremely hard to get where he is now, And earns 1 million. With taxes off he only gets 250. All that while some other guy earns 300K and does jack shit all day. How is that fair?[/QUOTE] Dude it's one million a YEAR, not a MONTH. Plus you still get taxed accordingly to your income, it's not 75% for above 1m and jack shit for everyone else. [editline]28th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=just-a-boy;34907993]Progressive taxes, capped at 60% sounds much more reasonable.[/QUOTE] In France there already are Progressive taxes capped at 50%, according to your income. Problem is that sarkozy when he set the cap to 50% also added a wide array of shit measures that allowed rich people to basically pay jack shit.

I think 75% tax is a joke. Sure, 250k euro may not be little, but giving up 750k to the government? Who the hell would agree to that? [QUOTE=Ganerumo;34908506]It's a good idea regarding the fact our economy partly went to shit because the current president Sarkozy removed most of the taxes regarding the rich, willingly created massive loopholes for them to pay even less and instead made the more modest population pay. I'd rather have people getting more than ONE MILLION EUROS A YEAR hugely taxed than the rest of the.[/QUOTE] That's quite unfair. Why not just tax everyone evenly within a reasonable boundary according to their salary, instead of putting all the pressure on a single group of people. Then I don't know how much he wants to tax other people, perhaps he wants rather high taxes on everyone.

[QUOTE=Coridan;34908246]Exactly. And the top bracket that this guy is talking about is people who earn a million euros or more which leaves you with at least 250,000. How greedy can you be to call that absurd?[/QUOTE] I worked hard and pulled myself up to the level of making a million a year I sure as hell don't want the government taking away 75 percent of that.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;34908610]I think 75% tax is a joke. Sure, 250k euro may not be little, but giving up 750k to the government? Who the hell would agree to that?[/QUOTE] I'd say sensible people who realize our economy is kinda turning to shit. The measure can understandably look ridiculous with an outsider look, but when you keep your eyes on the French economy all year round, you really understand why it's a good idea. Through the five previous years, Sarkozy and his government constantly favored the rich by giving them less taxes, which obviously lowered the government's income. So to fill the newly dug holes, the government decided that the majority of the modestly paid population had to pay for the rich and massively stupid measures that make to sense were taken. More taxes for the middle/lower class, less money spent into important public establishments such as hospitals and schools, and generally a lot of measures that deeply affected the common people and left the rich perfectly fine. So yeah, having the government taking money where there's actually plenty of it without actually hurting anyone sounds like a better idea than crippling everything else like they did for at least the past half-decade.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34908506]It doesn't punish you for being successful. A single individual getting [I]at least[/I] one million euros a year (so that includes all the others who get much, much more) aka at least 100 000€ a month will not fall in poverty by having 75% of it taken away, he will still be able to live extremely well.[/QUOTE] Right, so just because he's not in poverty doesn't mean that he's not being punished. As I said earlier, I am all in favor of everyone paying their fair share and in some cases that means the rich should be taxed higher, but this is just exorbitant. Think about it: You've got a guy who worked his ass off for years, if not decades. Finally, his big break comes and after all that hard work he's making over $1 million a year and he can provide for himself and his family AND put money away for future generations, charity, whatever he wants to do. And then the government comes and takes almost all of it away. How the hell would you feel? Now obviously I just presented a heavily optimistic and idealized situation there, but that's essentially what we're talking about.

The problem is that government takes 75% and you will never see that money put to use again.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;34908690]Right, so just because he's not in poverty doesn't mean that he's not being punished. As I said earlier, I am all in favor of everyone paying their fair share and in some cases that means the rich should be taxed higher, but this is just exorbitant. Think about it: You've got a guy who worked his ass off for years, if not decades. Finally, his big break comes and after all that hard work he's making over $1 million a year and he can provide for himself and his family AND put money away for future generations, charity, whatever he wants to do. And then the government comes and takes almost all of it away. How the hell would you feel? Now obviously I just presented a heavily optimistic and idealized situation there, but that's essentially what we're talking about.[/QUOTE] Except your argument doesn't make much sense. It would if the guy suddenly made over 1m a year (which only happens in the case of massive heritage and lottery winning, and there are actually measures for those cases where you expand your taxes to several years so it's easier to absorb), but in order to reach an income that's over 1m a year you have to indeed work for very long - which means you already saved buttloads of money BEFORE reaching that one threshold of 1m/y. It's not like they will all of a sudden lose every possession on earth, if they reached an income OVER 1m a year (so that includes 2m a year, 3m and such) they will probably never have to worry about working any other day of their life anyway. Plus, what can you do of those 1m bucks a year anyway. There's a point where the amount of money you have is ridiculously high and you have nothing to do with it, so instead of being an immature idiot and keeping it in a diamond plated safe where no one will ever touch it (some people have so much money that even the next generation will not see the bottom of their bank account and possibly the next one too), you can do the sensible thing and help the country you grew up in and that helped YOU when you tried to reach the top, back when you were still part of the lower/middle class and when it provided you with free health care and public school.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34908761]Except your argument doesn't make much sense. It would if the guy suddenly made over 1m a year (which only happens in the case of massive heritage and lottery winning, and there are actually measures for those cases where you expand your taxes to several years so it's easier to absorb), but in order to reach an income that's over 1m a year you have to indeed work for very long - which means you already saved buttloads of money BEFORE reaching that one threshold of 1m/y. It's not like they will all of a sudden lose every possession on earth, if they reached an income OVER 1m a year (so that includes 2m a year, 3m and such) they will probably never have to worry about working any other day of their life anyway. Plus, what can you do of those 1m bucks a year anyway. There's a point where the amount of money you have is ridiculously high and you have nothing to do with it, so instead of being an immature idiot and keeping it in a diamond plated safe where no one will ever touch it (some people have so much money that even the next generation will not see the bottom of their bank account and possibly the next one too), you can do the sensible thing and help the country you grew up in and that helped YOU when you tried to reach the top, back when you were still part of the lower/middle class and when it provided you with free health care and public school.[/QUOTE] Like I said, I presented an idealized situation and, in retrospect, it was poorly worded. I realize that it's not a sudden jump from, say, 33% to 75%. Regardless, it's an EXCEPTIONALLY high tax. And what can I do with $1 million? I can donate to charity, I can treat my family as well as I'd like, I can put money away, I can invest...I can do a lot. As far as your last sentence goes...who do you think pays for the existence of "free" healthcare and school? Taxpayers!

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;34908793]Like I said, I presented an idealized situation and, in retrospect, it was poorly worded. I realize that it's not a sudden jump from, say, 33% to 75%. Regardless, it's an EXCEPTIONALLY high tax. And what can I do with $1 million? I can donate to charity, I can treat my family as well as I'd like, I can put money away, I can invest...I can do a lot. [/quote] You can still treat your family as well as you'd like with 250k a year (aka 20 000 a month roughly), investing is still widely possible, same for charity. Hell, it's not like those 750k are going to the bin, they are pretty much going to help other people out as it's tax paying, it's giving away money for the greater good vs giving away money for the greater good. Tax paying is already funding stuff like help for the homeless and the building of more proper housing anyway. [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;34908793] As far as your last sentence goes...who do you think pays for the existence of "free" healthcare and school? Taxpayers![/QUOTE] Well yeah, and the more income you have, the more you should contribute as the richer you are the less it's going to affect you.