Can someone please marshal evidence that this is resulting in a net negative revenue stream for the French government?

So, they're escaping to the UK, where the tax rate is "only" 50%.

Looks like we can raise taxes on the wealthy after all.

Even I think that is a retarded tax rate. 75% if you make just a million euros? Seriously ridiculous.

Now 75% if you make 200 million euros a year? If you are earning that much, then maybe. But I'd top out at 50-60%.

Personally I'd like to see the US adopt a 50% highest tax rate, with much more reasonable tax rates (33%) at the 250k-1 million level, progressing from 33-40% at 1 million-5 million, 40-50% from 5-10 million, and 50% any higher than that.

Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair. And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone. At some point I believe you keep taxes low to allow consumption to occur at lower tax brackets so that the rich make money and hire more and everything else.

And more focus should be on education. Jobs going overseas are not coming back, people. The money is in innovation and new technology. People need to be properly educated. And to me it's not about high school - with some exceptions there are decent high schools out there. No, the college system is totally f*cking broken.

Marcus Aurelius: So, they're escaping to the UK, where the tax rate is "only" 50%.

And Switzerland)

And Manhattan.

Wherever it is the rich folks are going, France is now getting 75% of nothing from them instead of a smaller percentage of something.

Way to think things through, leftists!

bdub77: Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair.

You need to tell your rich friends that it's not fair that I work harder than they do and am not rich.

Lots of things aren't fair, but rich people and Republicans seem to think it's only worth changing when matters of fairness aren't skewed towards them.

As long as that kind of Objectivist poison (more money somehow magically means that you are a harder worker and therefore deserve more) still pervades this country's thinking, we're fu*ked.

Having said that, 75% is nuts and backlash like this is understandable and should have been foreseen.

Gulper Eel: Way to think things through, leftists!

As a generally left-of-center guy, I still agree with this. Fork in toaster stupid.

Of course Britain used to have a 95% tax rate on the very very rich which is why we have The Beatles song Taxman.

Calmamity: Having said that, 75% is nuts and backlash like this is understandable and should have been foreseen.

Gulper Eel: Way to think things through, leftists!

As a generally left-of-center guy, I still agree with this. Fork in toaster stupid.

Then you need to think things through. Who cares if "some" rich people do this? All that matters is the net gain or loss. If 10 rich people move out of the country, but 3 stay and you capture their income, that's a net benefit, since the amount of money those 3 are giving you is greater than the 10 that left are losing you.

You need actual evidence of net loss before you make judgments about whether this was a smart move.

Fork in toaster!!

bdub77: Even I think that is a retarded tax rate. 75% if you make just a million euros? Seriously ridiculous.

Now 75% if you make 200 million euros a year? If you are earning that much, then maybe. But I'd top out at 50-60%.

Personally I'd like to see the US adopt a 50% highest tax rate, with much more reasonable tax rates (33%) at the 250k-1 million level, progressing from 33-40% at 1 million-5 million, 40-50% from 5-10 million, and 50% any higher than that.

Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair. And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone. At some point I believe you keep taxes low to allow consumption to occur at lower tax brackets so that the rich make money and hire more and everything else.

And more focus should be on education. Jobs going overseas are not coming back, people. The money is in innovation and new technology. People need to be properly educated. And to me it's not about high school - with some exceptions there are decent high schools out there. No, the college system is totally f*cking broken.

I like the cut of your jib, though I would push the ramp up down a little, no reason not to start ramping at 500k.

bdub77: Even I think that is a retarded tax rate. 75% if you make just a million euros? Seriously ridiculous.

Now 75% if you make 200 million euros a year? If you are earning that much, then maybe. But I'd top out at 50-60%.

Personally I'd like to see the US adopt a 50% highest tax rate, with much more reasonable tax rates (33%) at the 250k-1 million level, progressing from 33-40% at 1 million-5 million, 40-50% from 5-10 million, and 50% any higher than that.

Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair. And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone. At some point I believe you keep taxes low to allow consumption to occur at lower tax brackets so that the rich make money and hire more and everything else.

And more focus should be on education. Jobs going overseas are not coming back, people. The money is in innovation and new technology. People need to be properly educated. And to me it's not about high school - with some exceptions there are decent high schools out there. No, the college system is totally f*cking broken.

My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property. In no way should it be okay for the government to take private property just because it's for the good of everyone. Taxes at 50% is boarderline slavery by society.

ScouserDuck: My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property.

"Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

Switzerland also has a wealth tax, so you get to pay tax on all of your investments and properties.

I hear Bermuda is nice this time of year...

Calmamity: bdub77: Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair.

You need to tell your rich friends that it's not fair that I work harder than they do and am not rich.

Lots of things aren't fair, but rich people and Republicans seem to think it's only worth changing when matters of fairness aren't skewed towards them.

As long as that kind of Objectivist poison (more money somehow magically means that you are a harder worker and therefore deserve more) still pervades this country's thinking, we're fu*ked.

The reason you work harder and make less is because your labor is worth less. You are exchanging something you have (skills and labor) for something someone else has (money). The ratio of exchange is determined by bilateral agreement and completely fair.

Your skills and labor are
apparently not worth that much money. Deal with it. I'm for a progressive tax system like the one we have. We have expenses to pay for and it is better that those who can afford more should pay more. But in no way is it inherently "fair" to take from one simply to give it to another, to compensate the other for their lack of marketable skills.

DamnYankees: ScouserDuck: My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property.

"Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

The idea of private property is a key idea in what makes the US as fantastic as it is. It's what makes the quartering of soliders illeagle and creates boundaries for searches and seizures. Our whole frame of privacy and law is based around private property. As soon as the idea of private property becomes more and more grey, people's rights disappear.

ScouserDuck: Taxes at 50% is boarderline slavery by society.

And now for the slippery slope argument.

"Taxes at X% is borderline slavery by society"

Where X is a rate for a bracket you wish you had to pay for the current efforts.

I wish the world would stop trying to work 4000 hours a year for a million dollar income and cut back to 1000 hours a year for a quarter million and be happy. Or if you can swing it, try 200 hours a year for $100k while you spend your time abroad in cheap places. Why do you think Arthur C Clarke moved to Sri Lanka.

ScouserDuck: DamnYankees: ScouserDuck: My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property.

"Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

The idea of private property is a key idea in what makes the US as fantastic as it is. It's what makes the quartering of soliders illeagle and creates boundaries for searches and seizures. Our whole frame of privacy and law is based around private property. As soon as the idea of private property becomes more and more grey, people's rights disappear.

You really didn't answer my question at all. Why can't we revise the definition of private property? We already have certain rules about it. There are certain things you can't own. There are certain things you can't do with your own property. There are certain things other people actually can do with your property. Private property has never been inviolable. I'm afraid your speaking in very generic terms that doesn't really address my concerns.

Oh noes! Without all those Job Creators (peace be unto Them) how will France ever be able to function?!

*thumbs down*
*blows raspberry*

digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

Of course. Despite what the neomarxists of fark would tell you, the top 1% of earners didn't get to be the 1% by luck. The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.

Now, if you are referring to investment income in previously obtained wealth, then yeah they may have no irreplacable skills. But of course, they do have the investment capital on which they are making the investment income. To the extent that capital is mobile, it may follow the taxpayer out of the country - and the 99% will not be able to replace it.

Debeo Summa Credo: The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.

I love that you believe this. It's endlessly amusing.

DamnYankees: ScouserDuck: DamnYankees: ScouserDuck: My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property.

"Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

The idea of private property is a key idea in what makes the US as fantastic as it is. It's what makes the quartering of soliders illeagle and creates boundaries for searches and seizures. Our whole frame of privacy and law is based around private property. As soon as the idea of private property becomes more and more grey, people's rights disappear.

You really didn't answer my question at all. Why can't we revise the definition of private property? We already have certain rules about it. There are certain things you can't own. There are certain things you can't do with your own property. There are certain things other people actually can do with your property. Private property has never been inviolable. I'm afraid your speaking in very generic terms that doesn't really address my concerns.

I did answer it. Technically, im sure we CAN revise the definition. But why would we want to? The more we revise it, the less free we are. A soon as we do things "for the good of the people", the more "the people" lose (see previous post).

bdub77:
Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair. And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone. At some point I believe you keep taxes low to allow consumption to occur at lower tax brackets so that the rich make money and hire more and everything else.


The problem with that thinking is that many of the super-wealthy today don't make their money producing things for people to buy, they make their money moving other wealthy people's money around. Thus, raising taxes on the wealthy means they have less money to invest and the fees Wall Street can collect go down.

ScouserDuck: But why would we want to?

Because the current definition is hurting the economy or is immoral?

ScouserDuck: The more we revise it, the less free we are. A soon as we do things "for the good of the people", the more "the people" lose (see previous post).

No offense, but your previous post is hardly an academic dissertation on the merits of the political philosophy of private property.

DamnYankees: "Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

It's pretty sad you think that way. That private property is something the state simply allows you to have. You don't have a right to your own possessions.

I assume the same thing goes for your life. If we as a society determine your life is not valuable enough, then we can exterminate it.

DamnYankees: ScouserDuck: But why would we want to?

Because the current definition is hurting the economy or is immoral?

ScouserDuck: The more we revise it, the less free we are. A soon as we do things "for the good of the people", the more "the people" lose (see previous post).

No offense, but your previous post is hardly an academic dissertation on the merits of the political philosophy of private property.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Fark was a peer reviewed journal.

Don't pay French taxes? Not a French citizen starting....now! Hopefully Britain will grant you citizenship ASAP.

MugzyBrown: You don't have a right to your own possessions.

This is a circular statement. How do I know what my "own possessions" are? Well, they are the things I own. What do I have a right to own? My possessions.

Your statement doesn't mean anything.

ScouserDuck: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Fark was a peer reviewed journal.

It's not, that's why you shouldn't be citing to it.

This is a circular statement. How do I know what my "own possessions" are? Well, they are the things I own. What do I have a right to own? My possessions.

Your statement doesn't mean anything.

Not only is your criticism baseless and nonsense, but you did a good job ignoring the actual discussion.

bdub77: Even I think that is a retarded tax rate. 75% if you make just a million euros? Seriously ridiculous.

Now 75% if you make 200 million euros a year? If you are earning that much, then maybe. But I'd top out at 50-60%.

Personally I'd like to see the US adopt a 50% highest tax rate, with much more reasonable tax rates (33%) at the 250k-1 million level, progressing from 33-40% at 1 million-5 million, 40-50% from 5-10 million, and 50% any higher than that.

It never ceases to amaze me that things like tax brackets (or for that matter basically anything else referenced to prices) fail to have any integrated compensation for inflation that doesn't involve congress manually enacting changes.

Tell me again why the $250K bracket (you know, the one that was the highest rate for really rich incomes) has NOT followed inflation into the $2-3 million range? If tax rate brackets actually followed inflation, the constant pressure to reduce them instead as inflation steadily moves them all towards impacting the poor and middle class would be considerably obivated.

Or are my grandkids going to have to hire accountants to deal with the income from their first summer job flipping burgers for a paltry $60/hr?

digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

And for cheaper.

Seriously, let the rich farking run for the exits if they suddenly believe they're being overtaxed. Go live somewhere else, Richie Rich, because you TAKE more than you GIVE.

I laugh when people say that omigod the USA is turning into a welfare state.

What about Corporate Welfare? Companies and individuals benefitting to the tune of BILLIONS due to government policiies that strongly support them.

Go live in Uganda and make yourself king, but don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

jakomo002: digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

And for cheaper.

Seriously, let the rich farking run for the exits if they suddenly believe they're being overtaxed. Go live somewhere else, Richie Rich, because you TAKE more than you GIVE.

I laugh when people say that omigod the USA is turning into a welfare state.

What about Corporate Welfare? Companies and individuals benefitting to the tune of BILLIONS due to government policiies that strongly support them.

Go live in Uganda and make yourself king, but don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

First of all, not all wealthy people take. They do something called "earn". Second of all, do you know how much philanthropy wealthy people participate in? Secondly, everybody "takes more than they give,". If they didn't, nobody would survive.

ScouserDuck: jakomo002: digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

And for cheaper.

Seriously, let the rich farking run for the exits if they suddenly believe they're being overtaxed. Go live somewhere else, Richie Rich, because you TAKE more than you GIVE.

I laugh when people say that omigod the USA is turning into a welfare state.

What about Corporate Welfare? Companies and individuals benefitting to the tune of BILLIONS due to government policiies that strongly support them.

Go live in Uganda and make yourself king, but don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

First of all, not all wealthy people take. They do something called "earn". Second of all, do you know how much philanthropy wealthy people participate in? Secondly, everybody "takes more than they give,". If they didn't, nobody would survive.

That should have been lastly.

Debeo Summa Credo: The ratio of exchange is determined by bilateral agreement and completely fair.

Yeah.... no.
In all industries that are not completely unionized, the agreement is neither bilateral nor fair.
In rare cases where the labor is in short supply, the applicants hold a slight advantage, but still leave employers with a significant bargaining chip, in that they get to decide who fills the position.
Since a labor shortage will never be the case as long as it's standard practice to ship every job overseas, it's the employers who hold all the power and then some. "We can ship this job to India for half the price." vs. "Well, I have kids to feed." is still neither bilateral or fair.

You can go on and on about how little everyone's education and experience is worth, but there is nothing the average worker can do when business wants American productivity for Burmese peasant wages.

Sergeant Grumbles: "We can ship this job to India for half the price." vs. "Well, I have kids to feed." is still neither bilateral or fair.

If your skills are so easily replaced by somebody who will work for half the price, then you should probably enhance your skills.

You have to be able to offer somebody something for them to pay your for your services. They don't hand you a salary just because.

Easy enough fix (maybe): France stops doing business with corporations that have these tax evaders on their boards.

/although 75% on 1+ million euros is f*cking insane

MugzyBrown: DamnYankees: "Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

It's pretty sad you think that way. That private property is something the state simply allows you to have. You don't have a right to your own possessions.

I assume the same thing goes for your life. If we as a society determine your life is not valuable enough, then we can exterminate it.

A lot of people believe that a person can be such a detriment to society through their actions that they don't have a right to life and they're executed by the government. It could be that some people are becoming a detriment to society by hoarding money and possessions and maybe the government should do something about it.

MugzyBrown: If your skills are so easily replaced by somebody who will work for half the price, then you should probably enhance your skills.

This seems like it makes sense on its face, but you're ignoring far too many externalities to have given the idea more than a passing thought.
The part you are ignoring is that the guy in India can do it because the standard of living in his country is much lower, not because he's more skilled. An American can't compete with that, because even the most frugal penny-pincher won't be able to lower his American cost of living to below India's.

highbrow45: A lot of people believe that a person can be such a detriment to society through their actions that they don't have a right to life and they're executed by the government. It could be that some people are becoming a detriment to society by hoarding money and possessions and maybe the government should do something about it.

I guess you're stating this because you believe people should be executed for whatever reason the majority of people feel is justified. Why else would you make such a statement, just for my information?

A lot of people have a lot of different beliefs on a lot of different issues.

MugzyBrown: Sergeant Grumbles: "We can ship this job to India for half the price." vs. "Well, I have kids to feed." is still neither bilateral or fair.

If your skills are so easily replaced by somebody who will work for half the price, then you should probably enhance your skills.

You have to be able to offer somebody something for them to pay your for your services. They don't hand you a salary just because.

No, but if a company can move freely across borders to places where laws are different when workers cannot, it creates a power imbalance and is not, in fact, a free market.

Somehow, I think if people were freely allowed to travel to any country they wished, (including to escape from, say, prosecution for committing a crime) as easily as a corporation can, we'd see some... interesting changes.

The part you are ignoring is that the guy in India can do it because the standard of living in his country is much lower, not because he's more skilled. An American can't compete with that, because even the most frugal penny-pincher won't be able to lower his American cost of living to below India's.

The part you are ignoring is that the guy in India's salary is lower because it is line with their cost of living.

If salaries in the US were being adjusted downward due to outside competition, then so would the cost of living.

Also the part that you're missing is what I said originally. If your job can be replaced by somebody for half the price, then you need to rethink your skills... or your price.

Do you pay $500 for a TV if there is an identical one next to it for $250?

Isn't 75% after you pocket the first 500,000 Euros? Or something like that?

bdub77: Even I think that is a retarded tax rate. 75% if you make just a million euros? Seriously ridiculous.

Now 75% if you make 200 million euros a year? If you are earning that much, then maybe. But I'd top out at 50-60%.

Personally I'd like to see the US adopt a 50% highest tax rate, with much more reasonable tax rates (33%) at the 250k-1 million level, progressing from 33-40% at 1 million-5 million, 40-50% from 5-10 million, and 50% any higher than that.

Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair. And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone. At some point I believe you keep taxes low to allow consumption to occur at lower tax brackets so that the rich make money and hire more and everything else.

And more focus should be on education. Jobs going overseas are not coming back, people. The money is in innovation and new technology. People need to be properly educated. And to me it's not about high school - with some exceptions there are decent high schools out there. No, the college system is totally f*cking broken.

So, this rich guy lives in California, like a lot of rich guys, and he's got that 50% federal income tax rate, but on top of that he's also got a state 10.3% tax rate after $1m(9.3% after $45k, we're not a very progressive state). You're going to justify taking more than half a person's earnings(after a certain point, a low point considering the incomes we're talking about) in taxes? That's pretty brutal, particularly for a nation that isn't predicated on the fascist idea that people should owe a debt to society arbitrarily(in fact, the US is predicted on classical liberalism, which is more or less an antithesis to fascism's duty and anti-individualism tenants).

Maybe it's a bit on the hyperbole side, but I'm just saying that it's ridiculous when people conveniently ignore the fact that states pick up a lot of the slack that the federal government may have given back in tax cuts over time, even more so now that many states are in dire fiscal straits and don't have the luxury of issuing more currency to finance their debt, which means that local taxes will rise because they have to.

What I forgot to say was that your overall public tax burden should be considered, not your federal income tax burden only. Set a percentage, but that percentage should be an overall number.

MugzyBrown: The part you are ignoring is that the guy in India's salary is lower because it is line with their cost of living.

How can I be ignoring that if I farkING SAID THAT.

MugzyBrown: Also the part that you're missing is what I said originally. If your job can be replaced by somebody for half the price, then you need to rethink your skills... or your price.

Also pretty sure I covered that in the original post. Here it is again, since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

Sergeant Grumbles:
This seems like it makes sense on its face, but you're ignoring far too many externalities to have given the idea more than a passing thought.
The part you are ignoring is that the guy in India can do it because the standard of living in his country is much lower, not because he's more skilled. An American can't compete with that, because even the most frugal penny-pincher won't be able to lower his American cost of living to below India's.

Sergeant Grumbles: Also pretty sure I covered that in the original post. Here it is again, since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

My point that you obviously missed is that it goes both ways. The standard of living isn't some magical fixed number. It can go up and down.

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.

I love that you believe this. It's endlessly amusing.

Just keep believing otherwise. I'm sure its comforting to think that the reason you're paid shiat isn't because your efforts and labor are worth shiat, but rather because you've been screwed over. It's not your fault, you're good enough, smart enough, and people like you.

MugzyBrown: Sergeant Grumbles: Also pretty sure I covered that in the original post. Here it is again, since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

My point that you obviously missed is that it goes both ways. The standard of living isn't some magical fixed number. It can go up and down.

So America's standard of living should go down? Why do you hate America?

Debeo Summa Credo: DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.

I love that you believe this. It's endlessly amusing.

Just keep believing otherwise. I'm sure its comforting to think that the reason you're paid shiat isn't because your efforts and labor are worth shiat, but rather because you've been screwed over. It's not your fault, you're good enough, smart enough, and people like you.

[blogs.federaltimes.com image 415x279]

Oh I'm sorry, did psychologists invent a way to analyze human capabilities to 100% accuracy while I was out? No? Then you're at least partially wrong. Deal with it. The system isn't perfect.

FarkedOver: So America's standard of living should go down? Why do you hate America?

Cost of living is what I meant