If you cap earnings, employers will pay up to that level and all tax income that would have been recived over the cap level would be lost.
New French Tax rate
- Thread starter Shrek
- Start date
If you cap earnings, employers will pay up to that level and all tax income that would have been recived over the cap level would be lost.
That's where taxes on company profit would take over theoretically? If the people at the top can't pocket all the profit and it's being aggressive taxed then the number of people they can employ should increase.
Everybody knows that it is important to attract the wealthy to London, otherwise how are the wealthy in London supposed to get wealthier?
There is a reason why we lag behind so many other highly developed nations in terms of standard of living.
Employing more people to do the same amount of work?
It isn't about punishment, the higher your salary the greater the likelihood that you're dependent on the rest of society to fund it, directly or through the maintenance of favourable conditions.
Now Spain please follow
They should make 90% taxes for profits that are above 1M. And I am serious on it.
They should make 90% taxes for profits that are above 75,000.
Without increasing expenditure, so everyone has to work less overall? Sounds like a good idea to me.
Don't wanna take this off topic but thats so lazy and plain wrong it's unreal
I'm all for robbing the rich
I am all for that too. Actually, the man who came fourth in the last french elections and who represents the traditional left, Jean Luc Mélenchon, has proposed that the state takes everything above 360,000 euros. He also wants to enforce a ratio of 20 between the highest paid and the lowest paid in any company. I think that these are great ideas.
75% does seem very drastic though. It will effect footballers thinking of going to France. PSG might be able to afford paying the tax themselves, but other clubs will struggle to attract players.
True, but they can feck off somewhere else. Just imagine the PSG players who are NOT earning net of tax. Truth is, with the oil money they may be able to take the hit, but elsewhere in France many top players will have to be disposed of by the club (if net) or will choose to leave (if gross).
Footballers earn far too much money, no question, but it is clear that long term this only leads to French clubs lowering their standards, not players earning less or more money being collected in the form of taxes.
My fundamental problem with these type of rates is that they provide great eye-candy for the masses, collect -by French budget standards- very little money to make any real difference, lead to the loss of talent/wealth being expatriated and somewhat remove the incentive for those trying to "move up the ladder".
The rich will find some place else for their money and will stay rich, a few patriotic wealthy people get screwed for their patriotism for no significant benefit to the state's finances, the poor are all clapping their hands but not seeing much benefit, and the middle class is condemned not to ever be able to accumulate wealth to the extent those before them did.
You don't make things more equal, you just stagnate social mobility, take a photo of the curent situation and lock it up for the future.
In theory it looks progressive, in practice it's all a fecking car crash.
These conversations always make me chuckle.
Without the rich people tax PSG were on their way to dominate french football but it's gonna get even more difficult for other club.I guess in a way the other league will have many more good players from the Ligue 1 available to them
But companies wouldn't pay anything over 360,000 euros would they. The ratio idea is interesting though.
The budget states the tax increases will raise a further €20billion. That's a huge benefit.
Imagine the number of jobs that would be lost if spending was cut by that amount.
That's a cracking idea if it's enforcible.
I agree about football, but to be honest football is an non-issue here when it comes to peoples real lives.
Your speculation about it being a car crash is exactly that, as said above it's going to raise £20bn ish, how it's used will depend on the results but that amount of money isn't to be sniffed at.
It's a fecking ridiculous idea.
In what way? I expect most people could get by on 184 euros and hour if they were really frugal. If you work for a company employing people on minimum wage that puts your top earners on £7k a week working 9-5 5 days a week, if people employing people for minimum wage can't get by on 380k euros a year something is wrong.
In a way it's not up to government to decide what I'm going to pay my employees when I run a company.
Ah, so it's a "I don't like being told what to do" point rather than a "this has fundamental technical flaws" point. It's a perfectly valid one to make, I disagree of course but that's because I'm not an evil capitalist.
That's a poor reason.
Of course they can get by but life isn't about getting by for everyone, some people want more and they should be allowed to achieve that.
Anyway, for people employing other people do you actually mean company owners? Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to earn all that money?
I'm fine with minimum wage as it protects people, maximum wage doesn't protect people, it just ensures no one will earn too much. Besides it's impossible to enforce it I guess, you cannot put people who earn several million a year currently on €380k a year max (if that figure quoted before is right) overnight, it won't work.
I've addressed this already, people can't have everything they want, we live on a planet with finite resources.
I've also addressed this already.
I didn't see it to be fair.
Well they can work as hard as they can to make the best out of their lives. In a perfect world talented and hard-working people would earn a lot, talented and lazy would get by fine on their talent, hard-working and without a talent would get by fine on their hard work while lazy and untalented would live a poor life.
Exactly, but in a world where the top 1% own almost 40% of everything and the bottom half barely 1% that clearly isn't happening. I don't care what you think, half of the people in the world aren't lazy and untalented.
There does seem to be some psychological barrier broken when the headline tax rate goes north of 50%. Not to say it's wrong.
€20billion raised to help cover a deficit of €83billion in a budget of €1.44 TRILLION in an economy worth €2.8 TRILLION
It's small change relative to all the other numbers it can affect negatively on a far larger scale.
Think about it again, the government spends 1.44 TRILLION and their most significant action to crack down on the deficit is to piss off every single wealthy person and present or potential foreign investor to the tune of €20bn. And the €20bn are measured based on incomes taxed at 45%. The overall income to be taxed is going to dwindle through evasion, expatriation, etc. erasing part of the PROPORTIONATELY measly benefit to public finances.
It's a car crash, no two ways about it (although to me the bigger car crash is removing social mobility upwards, I have no problem in principle with the rich paying more, none at all).
An agent I use in south kensington has taken on a French member of staff to deal with all the property enquiries from French ex pats. Could this higher tax rate explain this?
You're talking about the entire world here though and that takes Africa and poorer regions of America and Asia into equation, place which are often overpopulated or simply very poor. Raising taxes in France isn't going to help them.
If you looked at statistics in France only it probably wouldn't be the same.
It's pure speculation on your part, the reduction to the deficit by 20 billion for a temporary tax measure isn't to be sniffed at, it certainly isn't measly. The effect of evasion and expatriation will only be proved over time, I think a lot of countries will see how much it benefits France and copy it by the end, it's allowed them to keep investing an extra 20 billion in people at the bottom who actually need it.
What about foreign aid? Less likely to be cut/increased slower (I don't know the ins-and-outs of French aid).
It's a global and local problem, the top 10% in France earn the same as the bottom 50%, the top 1% of people in the UK take a 5th of everything and the bottom half of us hold 9% of the wealth. Thats back up to pre-WW1 levels after 5% during the 70's. You can't solve the whole problem globally without solving it locally, nobody is saying the 75% tax rate is going to make the world a fair place but addressing the wealth gap is an important step in the right direction.
I've avoided mentioning the obvious issue of the better state the French government is in financially the more they can give in foreign aid up until now, but that's because it's a drop in the ocean, not because it doesn't help.