• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires' tax

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - France's Constitutional Council on Saturday rejected a 75 percent upper income tax rate to be introduced in 2013 in a setback to Socialist President Francois Hollande's push to make the rich contribute more to cutting the public deficit.The Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) - a flagship measure of Hollande'selection campaign - was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the government would redraft the upper tax rate proposal to answer the Council's concerns and resubmit it in a new budget law, meaning Saturday's decision could only amount to a temporary political blow.
While the tax plan was largely symbolic and would only have affected a few thousand people, it has infuriated high earners in France, prompting some such as actor Gerard Depardieu to flee abroad. The message it sent also shocked entrepreneurs and foreign investors, who accuse Hollande of being anti-business.
Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said the rejection of the 75 percent tax and other minor measures could cut up to 500 million euros in forecast tax revenues but would not hurt efforts to slash the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling of 3 percent of economic output next year.
"The rejected measures represent 300 to 500 million euros. Our deficit-cutting path will not be affected," Moscovici told BFM television. He too said the government would resubmit a proposal to raise taxes on high incomes in 2013 and 2014.
The Council, made up of nine judges and three former presidents, is concerned the tax would hit a married couple where one partner earned above a million euros but it would not affect a couple where each earned just under a million euros.
UMP member Gilles Carrez, chairman of the National Assembly's finance commission, told BFM television, however, that the Council's so-called wise men also felt the 75 percent tax was excessive and too much based on ideology.

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires' tax | Reuters
Click to expand...


Sound familiar folks? It should....In fact the only difference I can see between the new French President and ours, is that at least the French President openly declares that he is a socialist....
 
j-mac said:
Sound familiar folks? It should....In fact the only difference I can see between the new French President and ours, is that at least the French President openly declares that he is a socialist....
Click to expand...
The only thing I enjoyed about this when it happened is that they admitted it was a revenge tax instead of just going with the equality bull**** like we do here.
 
j-mac said:
Sound familiar folks? It should....In fact the only difference I can see between the new French President and ours, is that at least the French President openly declares that he is a socialist....
Click to expand...
That's the only difference that catches your eye? How about the 36% spread between the two proposed rates? How did that manage to slip by?
 
j-mac said:
Sound familiar folks? It should....In fact the only difference I can see between the new French President and ours, is that at least the French President openly declares that he is a socialist....
Click to expand...

Can we borrow those French judges? I may have to change my mind about our courts looking to foreign legal precedents for their decisions.

So, the French have to be treated equally tax wise. A household with two wage earners that both earn a little less than a million would not pay the higher rate, but another household with one wage earner who earns just over a million would.

Note the little jab from whoever wrote that story: "...the Council's so called wise men". I suspect that that so-called reporter hates, hates to see the rich get a break, all legal issues notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
a351 said:
That's the only difference that catches your eye? How about the 36% spread between the two proposed rates? How did that manage to slip by?
Click to expand...

How did France only having a few thousand millionaires slip past you?
 
Last edited:
I'm glad I come here. You'd never know about this from our lame stream media. Imagine the fear on our beloved socialist faces around if taxation is required to be fair and equal?
 
I guess the French government is beholden only to its wealthiest members, just like ours.
 
CalGun said:
I'm glad I come here. You'd never know about this from our lame stream media. Imagine the fear on our beloved socialist faces around if taxation is required to be fair and equal?
Click to expand...

LOL fair and equal in the US? Get real.. it is so lopsided towards the rich that it is comical. If it was fair and equal in the French way of things (and most of Europe), Romney would actually be paying 40+% instead of only 14%.
 
Wow really? And what percentage of our government burden does the lower 1/2 of America pay?


PeteEU said:
LOL fair and equal in the US? Get real.. it is so lopsided towards the rich that it is comical. If it was fair and equal in the French way of things (and most of Europe), Romney would actually be paying 40+% instead of only 14%.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Wow really? And what percentage of our government burden does the lower 1/2 of America pay?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. People should bear the burden relative to their income.. and in the US, the rich have a very small burden vs the middle class. I dont care that someone pays millions in taxes or that the rich pay a large portion of the over all taxes... they also earn most of the income for **** sake.

In a progressive tax system the more you earn the more you pay per last dollar earned. That is fair and the only sensible way of doing things if we want to fund all the things we want the government to do. Is it redistribution of wealth? Yes, but that is the point.. the bigger the income inequality the more social unrest there will be and at some point there will be a revolt.

But in the US, it is quite the opposite.. the rich pay relatively much less of their income in taxes in % than the middle class.. and that is a major problem. I know the right love to find excuses and deflect away from facts, but when the tax rate of the 3rd riches man in the world is much much lower than his secretary... that is a freaking problem. Last time there was such a system it ended up with beheadings of the political and economic leaders in the capital's main square.
 
a351 said:
That's the only difference that catches your eye? How about the 36% spread between the two proposed rates? How did that manage to slip by?
Click to expand...

Your strive to have equal outcome will mean that no one attains wealth.
 
j-mac said:
Sound familiar folks? It should....In fact the only difference I can see between the new French President and ours, is that at least the French President openly declares that he is a socialist....
Click to expand...

Fine by me. A weak France is good for the world.
 
j-mac said:
Your strive to have equal outcome will mean that no one attains wealth.
Click to expand...
That's strange. Can't recall a single instance in which I voiced support for such a notion. Just pointed out the glaring, unmistakable flaws in directly comparing Hollande and his policies to Obama and his own.
 
PeteEU said:
Irrelevant. People should bear the burden relative to their income.. and in the US, the rich have a very small burden vs the middle class. I dont care that someone pays millions in taxes or that the rich pay a large portion of the over all taxes... they also earn most of the income for **** sake.
Click to expand...

If the incentive is to keep more of your monetary assets, as well as more of what you earn, in your view then what does this sort of thinking do to that?

In a progressive tax system the more you earn the more you pay per last dollar earned. That is fair and the only sensible way of doing things if we want to fund all the things we want the government to do. Is it redistribution of wealth? Yes, but that is the point.. the bigger the income inequality the more social unrest there will be and at some point there will be a revolt.
Click to expand...

So think about what you are saying here...If I earn more, then I should pay a higher percentage of what I earn, all because you either don't have the means, education, or drive to make more? That's silly.

But in the US, it is quite the opposite.. the rich pay relatively much less of their income in taxes in % than the middle class.. and that is a major problem. I know the right love to find excuses and deflect away from facts, but when the tax rate of the 3rd riches man in the world is much much lower than his secretary... that is a freaking problem. Last time there was such a system it ended up with beheadings of the political and economic leaders in the capital's main square.
Click to expand...

the analogy between Buffet and his secretary is a proven falsehood, and as such dismissed.
 
j-mac said:
Sound familiar folks? It should....In fact the only difference I can see between the new French President and ours, is that at least the French President openly declares that he is a socialist....
Click to expand...

i see another significant difference : 75 percent is significantly higher than 39.6 percent. also, the French have completely socialized health care.
 
j-mac said:
If the incentive is to keep more of your monetary assets, as well as more of what you earn, in your view then what does this sort of thinking do to that?
Click to expand...

Hey I understand where you are coming from and in principle I agree. The more money kept in peoples hands the better.. but I am also a pragmatic.. Society has agreed that certain thing we all join in to pay for.. that has to be funded and that is via taxes. The more funding need the more taxes are needed to be collected.. it is a fact of life.

But let me put it this way..

Person nr. 1 earns 50k a year and pays 50% in tax .. so has 25k to live off.
Person nr. 2 earns 1 million a year and pays 15% in tax and has 850k to live off..

Is that fair at all? Of course not. Not to mention that person nr. 1 is the huge massive majority of the population...

So that is why in the progressive tax system, you say.. person 1 will only pay 25% in taxes and person 2 will pay 40%. That means that person 1 has far more to live off and person 2 might have less to live off, but it still is much much more than person 1 and more than enough.

So think about what you are saying here...If I earn more, then I should pay a higher percentage of what I earn, all because you either don't have the means, education, or drive to make more? That's silly.
Click to expand...

Dont you guys learn basic tax policy in school over there? You pay a higher percentage on the last dollar earned not on the whole income. That means you pay the same tax rates as everyone one else in the middle class for the first say 250k, but for all the money you earn over the 250k you pay a higher tax rate on that only. Hence the more you earn the higher the tax rate will be on the last part of the income, not all of it. That is how a progressive tax system works and it is by far the fairest and best way of doing things.

the analogy between Buffet and his secretary is a proven falsehood, and as such dismissed.
Click to expand...

Maybe in right wing media and blogs, but in the real world it is not false. That your last presidential candidate refused to release his tax returns and those he did release showed a tax rate of only 13%... shows that Buffet was right.
 
PeteEU said:
Dont you guys learn basic tax policy in school over there? You pay a higher percentage on the last dollar earned not on the whole income. That means you pay the same tax rates as everyone one else in the middle class for the first say 250k, but for all the money you earn over the 250k you pay a higher tax rate on that only. Hence the more you earn the higher the tax rate will be on the last part of the income, not all of it. That is how a progressive tax system works and it is by far the fairest and best way of doing things.
Click to expand...

Of course, there is actually nothing fair about a system that takes more from one person than another.


Maybe in right wing media and blogs, but in the real world it is not false. That your last presidential candidate refused to release his tax returns and those he did release showed a tax rate of only 13%... shows that Buffet was right.
Click to expand...

14%, not 13%.

Regardless, his tax rate was on capital gains.
 
LowDown said:
Can we borrow those French judges? I may have to change my mind about our courts looking to foreign legal precedents for their decisions.

So, the French have to be treated equally tax wise. A household with two wage earners that both earn a little less than a million would not pay the higher rate, but another household with one wage earner who earns just over a million would.

Note the little jab from whoever wrote that story: "...the Council's so called wise men". I suspect that that so-called reporter hates, hates to see the rich get a break, all legal issues notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

That is exactly correct... (In the US) with these "progressive" tax rate ideas a person making 240k a year would take home more than the person making 300k...

That is dangerous, if you're a CFO of a small company then what is the purpose to ask for a raise? what is the purpose to aspire to make big money?? For a raise to even be worth it one would have to jump from 250k to 400 at least to have a significant take home. In what universe will a business do that - especially after how the government rapes their business.

Basically Marxists (in the United States as well) are closing the door on wealth and destroying the desire to become successful by creating an atmosphere where doing such would be moot. Why go to school for 10 years when you can just work at Burger King?

The progressive/socialist philosophy makes no Goddamn sense.
 
Last edited:
You said one thing right. "I don't care" and that part is clear. Why do leftist want to be called centrist? Wierd.


PeteEU said:
Irrelevant. People should bear the burden relative to their income.. and in the US, the rich have a very small burden vs the middle class. I dont care that someone pays millions in taxes or that the rich pay a large portion of the over all taxes... they also earn most of the income for **** sake.

In a progressive tax system the more you earn the more you pay per last dollar earned. That is fair and the only sensible way of doing things if we want to fund all the things we want the government to do. Is it redistribution of wealth? Yes, but that is the point.. the bigger the income inequality the more social unrest there will be and at some point there will be a revolt.

But in the US, it is quite the opposite.. the rich pay relatively much less of their income in taxes in % than the middle class.. and that is a major problem. I know the right love to find excuses and deflect away from facts, but when the tax rate of the 3rd riches man in the world is much much lower than his secretary... that is a freaking problem. Last time there was such a system it ended up with beheadings of the political and economic leaders in the capital's main square.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
You said one thing right. "I don't care" and that part is clear. Why do leftist want to be called centrist? Wierd.
Click to expand...

They're not, they're actually authoritarians - hardly left. They're more rightwing than the typical republican or conservative.
 
Henrin said:
Of course, there is actually nothing fair about a system that takes more from one person than another.
Click to expand...

Of course it is fair... problem is right wingers look at the individual and not at society as a whole.. and that is one of their main problems when it comes to economic theory.... too much focus on the individual (the me me me me me me attitude) and not enough on improving society as a whole.



14%, not 13%.

Regardless, his tax rate was on capital gains.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom