Top 10% earning as much as the bottom 50% doesn't look that bad to me as long as the bottom 50% can live a decent life for that kind of money. To be fair we're never going to get anywhere here, I have nothing against most rich people and I don't think taking all their money away is fair, that's all.
New French Tax rate
- Thread starter Shrek
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have four new competitions (with taglines and awards as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to read the rules and message Damien to submit your eight players by 14th September 2024
A new Carabao Cup prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for round 3 which begins 17th September.
A new Champions League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 17th September.
A new Europa League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 25th September.
For Odds or Evens you have until the 14th September to submit your players. Submissions will be open for the next 6 days, 5 hours, 47 minutes, 26 seconds, and will close on Sep 14, 2024 at 12:30. -
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) get the depressing job of reviewing United's 3-0 loss at Old Trafford to Liverpool. They discuss what went wrong, Casemiro's day to forget, and the pressure now on Erik Ten Hag. They also take some time to give McTominay a proper farewell, and give their overall thoughts on the Summer Transfer Window.
Top 10% earning as much as the bottom 50% doesn't look that bad to me as long as the bottom 50% can live a decent life for that kind of money. To be fair we're never going to get anywhere here, I have nothing against most rich people and I don't think taking all their money away is fair, that's all.
The money that is owed will get payed back. No doubts about that. It's just that the foreign people, you guys and the Dutch, wanted some ridiculous interests and thought they could hold us up for extra cash.
Well feck that we said. The bank that owes this, not the people, liquidized their properties, well pretty much all their stuff, and the money will come out of that. Not tax money.
Our minister of finance is hardcore socialist. Basically a communist. He's got little left of his reign and he knows it. Taxes are being raised left and right over here. The reasoning for them has also been proved to fail. Gas and alcohol is now more expensive and will get raised yet again January 1st. Same with tobacco. Yet when they did it last time they didn't get more money. Why? People started driving/drinking/smoking less or rolling their own shit and brewing their own drinks. The numbers speak for themselves and yet they can't get that through their thick skulls.
Taxes like this one in France I'm only in favor of temporarily. In the long run it will drive people away. I'd like to see a place where it hasn't. Where this idea has actually paid off.
Some of the Californian residents on here might lend in their two cents. Businesses are hardly growing in their state.
Basically you refused to be bullied by international finance and sorted your economy out cf Greece.
This is irrelevant. Inequality is not a problem unless you perceive it to be. People don't deserve equal incomes. Poverty, yes, inequality no.
The bottom half of the UK has a good lifestyle compared to many many people in the world. No one is asking to increase taxes or cut benefits for those people in need or 'poor'. And in reverse, the top 1% in the UK pays 25 of all income tax revenues. I think they are paying their fair share.
It's not fair that they get so much money in the first place. Tax is just a pretty pathetic way of trying to redress the balance.
Of course it's important when the people at the top (the people at the top in the MEDC's) are taking so much that the people at the bottom (the people at the bottom in the LEDC's) cannot obtain their "fair share". The people at the bottom in the UK just about get by, but thats because as a country we have more money than we should. You try to take from the people at the bottom to address the inequality worldwide before you've addressed it in this country first and you don't solve the problem.
Haven't gone through he whole thread, don't know if this has been pointed out: this was a measure announced by Hollande as a candidate which took everyone by surprise. He announced during a debate or a rally (can't remember), and the guy in charge with the finance part of his program was interrogated just after the announcement and admitted he hadn't heard anything about it beforehand. Rumour has it that the "elephants" of the socialist party (the "elephants" is the nickname given to the most influential member of the socialist party in France, the ones who have been there for donkey years) kind of cornered Hollande and managed a move to get him to announce this measure, to appeal to the left wing (they were losing a lot of votes to another candidate, Mélenchon, who is extreme left wing and who had a very radical stance of finance policies). So this comes out of the hat, it all seems ridiculous, bla bla bla he's elected everyone kind of forgets about it.
And a few weeks ago, it was announced that the initial scope of this new tax would be reduced. At first, footballers were going to be submitted to this tax, but it was recently announced that they wouldn't. This will only affect something like 1000 people.
It's probably interesting to note that France and Qatar have very strong bonds, and Qatar is investing shitloads of money in French economy. I'm talking billions of euros, and definitely not just in football. So the fact footballers won't be affected by this tax could probably be traced back to a favour made by the government to qatari investors.
And a few weeks ago, it was announced that the initial scope of this new tax would be reduced. At first, footballers were going to be submitted to this tax, but it was recently announced that they wouldn't. This will only affect something like 1000 people.
It's probably interesting to note that France and Qatar have very strong bonds, and Qatar is investing shitloads of money in French economy. I'm talking billions of euros, and definitely not just in football. So the fact footballers won't be affected by this tax could probably be traced back to a favour made by the government to qatari investors.
If you think about it, the accumulation of wealth currently seen is quite similar to the accumulation of wealth by the nobility and monarchies of Europe.
At one point perhaps some of that wealth was earned, eventually the system becomes in large part self perpetuating and fundamentally exploitative of the masses. Taxes suck, but, they are probably better than the alternative, and I am pretty sure we can all think up some pretty ghastly scenarios that would address the imbalance.
At one point perhaps some of that wealth was earned, eventually the system becomes in large part self perpetuating and fundamentally exploitative of the masses. Taxes suck, but, they are probably better than the alternative, and I am pretty sure we can all think up some pretty ghastly scenarios that would address the imbalance.
"fair share"? The UK has more money than it should? I give up.
I'm dumbfounded by peoples irrational need to endlessly discuss about their perceived 'fairness' in income and wealth. I'm more than happy to reduce absolute poverty, and increase choice and opportunity. But you have to recognise that the UK is not an empire any more, nor a world economic or military superpower. You have to understand that the countries with these absolutely poor people can do so much more than we can to improve their peoples quality of life. Some of these countries, most of which have elected representatives, do not want outside help such as the UK.With regards to the UK: The GINI coefficient is pretty much the same as pre-crisis. So inequality increasing is probably bullshit.
So basically having exempted footballers, he's targeting mainly businessmen due to politics not economics.
That's because you're a moral imbecile as you constantly demonstrate.
Nope, I'm not an interfering bastard and mind my own business.
"fair share"? The UK has more money than it should? I give up.
With regards to the UK: The GINI coefficient is pretty much the same as pre-crisis. So inequality increasing is probably bullshit.
GINI is a long term measure you berk
it's reliant on the statistics collected which have an inherent lag for a kick off. Pre/post crisis has nothing to do with it, the system has been broken for a lot longer than that. The amount of wealth accrued by the most wealthy 1% since it's record low in the 70's has increased from 5% to 20% of the total wealth, that isn't bullshit, well it is, but for different reasons.the arnault belgium thing is over-hyped. Let's see what he actually does with this 'tax residency' which is different from citizenship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/11/bernard-arnault-belgian-tax
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/11/bernard-arnault-belgian-tax
Exactly.
"fair share"? The UK has more money than it should? I give up.
With regards to the UK: The GINI coefficient is pretty much the same as pre-crisis. So inequality increasing is probably bullshit.
So basically having exempted footballers, he's targeting mainly businessmen due to politics not economics.
Spot on. As long as a society provides services to educate people (which the UK does) and doesn't allow its people to fall into absolute poverty (which the UK doesn't) then there's no need for the envy politics that the likes of peterstorey just love to tout every time they sniff out a thread that has anything to do with wealth.
It's called freedom. If you're talented enough, earn it. If you're not, you can at least hope to make a comfortable living. If you're unlucky, you're not going to fall into poverty. Hate the constant clamour for the equalisation of everything in the more extreme forms of socialism.
Because that's all tax money is ever used for to proivde a life in luxury for all the lazy bums.
I don't think that everybody should get equal amount of money. That was pretty much the socialism system which in fact failed. But on the other side I think that no-one deserves to be a billionaire, or for that matter to have 100M+. No matter how talented he could be, or what risks he takes too much is too much.
I also don't think that Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, Ibrahimovic, Messi and Ronaldo should earn in a week more than most of the people in the Earth earn in their lifetime. Nor they deserve having wages that are hundred times higher then doctors who save life every day, or policemen who insure the safety of people.
Yeah, I know that it is called capitalism. I just don't think that it is the best system, or for that matter that it is a good system. It's better than absolute monarchy, religious systems or communism but I think that it is a bad system which ultimately will collapse, and like everytime the low and middle part of society will haul most of the consequences.
The figure looks big, the overall impact on accounts is negligible: <1.5%. There's a lot at stake and being risked for that 1.5%. Your predicition on other countries seeing the benefits and copying is as speculative as mine, although common sense indicates there's more to my speculation: the more money you have the easier it is to hide it/shift it. Are you in any doubt the sheiks would be able to find more ways around FFP than, say, Luton?
Do you seriously think 1.44 trillion, half of the French GDP is being spent by the government entirely on people at the bottom? I'm sure more than 1.5% is entirely pissed up the wall on pointless stuff.
France not looking too bad in those figures, significantly better than the UK which does look absolutely horrendous. I remember when I was there the definition of top 1% was earning more than 100K a year, so even within that 1% there must be a ridiculous spread.
Foreign aid by governments is the sort of pissing money up a wall I referred to earlier. I used to work with charities and travelled the world coordinating projects, most of the ones dependent on private donations made wonders with whatever resources they got. Anything that was state/UN sponsored was wasteful, had little impact and actually left the locals and volunteers from other charities aghast and sometimes outright pissed off at how many profited in the name of charity/aid. In fact, wealthy philantropists are amongst the most effective in their use of resources (probably what made them wealthy in the first place).
I haven't mentioned it before either but for a different reason: "wasteful aid" is usually covert subsidising of failing local industries, so with unemployment, etc, in mind I can see it's relevance as a continued activity. Just don't be under any illusion that it helps anyone in poor countries, sometimes even more resources are wasted on transforming the useless donation into something remotely useful.
The deficit was €80billion no? So this tax slashes that by 25%, it's nothing to be scoffed at.
Aren't the French also introducing a law that means that it doesn't matter if you live abroad, so long as you are a French citizen, these taxes affect you? Therefore the claims in that article that it would be more beneficial to him to be a non-domiciled person in Britain are nonsense.
It seems a bit naive to me to believe that this 60+ year old man has decided to change his nationality because he genuinely feels Belgian (as I understand it his claim is that he spent many holidays in Belgium, I doubt I could convince anyone I'm Spanish because I've been to the Balearic or Canary islands a few times). His decision has come at a time where this move benefits him financially. That's all there is to it. I mean, hell, if I were him I might be doing the same thing, that doesn't mean that he isn't solely motivated by self-interest.
25% of the deficit sounds appealing indeed. 1.5% of the budget less so. 0.75% of GDP makes you wonder whether possible negative impacts may completely negate it and make things worse.
It's the French we are talking about, always on strike making demands, which raise their wages and/or reduce their working hours. They work 34 hour weeks, and the worrying thing is that you can't tell them to "work more". If they worked 40 hours they wouldn't produce more, just more of them would be unemployed. They simply aren't competitive, which reduces economic activity, so to avoid unemployment they work less for as much money at least, which makes them less competitive...
At some point you just have to bite the bullet. The problem is not solved by taking 20bn off the wealthy.
I did not know this. That sounds shite. It's like the American system
The problem with capitalism as it stands is that its had a broken implementation and it has its discontents.
We have a system that has some serious structural problems that for example creates too much of a bad thing pollution and too little of a good thing - healthcare.
One the one hand you have those that argue for free markets but in theory these are great but in reality they cannot exist for a multitude of reasons. On the other hands some advocate more and more state control which again reduces consumer choice.
The problem is no country has got rid of these structural problems therefore countries opt for point solutions to structural problems ie a higher tax rate, tax on airfare etc rather than looking at the fundamental workings of society and the allocation of resources.
We have a system that has some serious structural problems that for example creates too much of a bad thing pollution and too little of a good thing - healthcare.
One the one hand you have those that argue for free markets but in theory these are great but in reality they cannot exist for a multitude of reasons. On the other hands some advocate more and more state control which again reduces consumer choice.
The problem is no country has got rid of these structural problems therefore countries opt for point solutions to structural problems ie a higher tax rate, tax on airfare etc rather than looking at the fundamental workings of society and the allocation of resources.
Yeah but the deficit is the problem. IIRC (and this may be well off) their debt was 90% of GDP, so the issue is getting a balanced budget. That is the relevant measurement - how much of the deficit does the tax remove.
1.5% of the budget does admittedly seem very low. Cutting spending isn't the answer though, it will just lead to higher unemployment and decline in public services. Where would you cut?
I agree, particularly when you are in Poland. For every Abramovich which profited from the fall of communism through dodgy means there are many more cases of people who, starting from an equal footing, just embraced the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families.
I remember being in Poland in the 90s and observing this. There were loads of young and middle-aged -often brash- extreme-capitalism-lovers, and you could understand their excitement. On the other hand you also kept meeting others grumbling about how it was much better before, moaning about these young guys in fast cars...
You will have seen how people who have been afforded a similar standard of education have acted differently, applied themselves differently and obtained different results. Of course you will find nothing wrong with that.
Those in countries which haven't experimented that (at least not recently) see how some of that difference can be traced back to some chap doing something right or just getting lucky 200 years ago and find it rather unfair some complete buffoon today still benefits from that. It's an extreme caricature, of course the same doesn't apply to all wealthy people, but it is the depiction of fundamental unfairness which gets carried on from generation to generation. Thus the likes of Richard Branson and Alan Sugar being bandied about all the time to show some can make it regardless of all this.
I'm sure I could find 20bn in a 1.44tn budget which are a complete waste. But yes, you may have to make calls. Defence cuts? So long as you don't touch French-made stuff. Can you get away with cutting foreign stuff without tit-for-tat?
It's a minefield, sure but likely more sustainable to eliminate waste and inefficiency. Waste and inefficiency tend to grow and the longer you ignore them the more painful it is bound to be when you inevitably end up having to deal with it.
This path is rather "easy". Politically it works. If there are bad repercussions it can always be blamed on the "big bad rich people who betray France"...
Anyone and I mean anyone who believes in Ayn Rand and her objectivism bullshit should wake up.
Anyone and I mean anyone who believes that a certain few should be made responsible for providing for the large majority should really be ashamed of themselves.
The job of the elected few should be to create opportunities, policies and regulations so that everyone has an equal chance and the same accountability. They should not become modern day RobinHoods in-order steal from the rich to provide for the poor.
The concept of egalitarian societies has to one of the stupidest begin thrown around. People need to be encouraged to be ambitious not discouraged by taxing them 75%. Ambition is a virtue which should not be turned into a sin.
The job of the elected few should be to create opportunities, policies and regulations so that everyone has an equal chance and the same accountability. They should not become modern day RobinHoods in-order steal from the rich to provide for the poor.
The concept of egalitarian societies has to one of the stupidest begin thrown around. People need to be encouraged to be ambitious not discouraged by taxing them 75%. Ambition is a virtue which should not be turned into a sin.
Well that's exactly it. This tax helps distribute wealth a bit more equally, so that the opportunities people have are a bit more (though still a long way off) equal.
No one who is motivated by money is going to be discouraged by the fact that once they get to a million in earnings per year they'll hit a big tax hike on the rest.
Like SAF says, if you have talent and are willing to out in the hard-work money will automatically follow you. Money is not the only motivation but it is a reward. The incentive of combining talent and hardwork with risks and sacrifices.
IMHO, By having an insane tax rate you run the risk of discouraging people to take risks and make sacrifices. They are as important as the other two. The world is already filled with talented unsuccessful people. We don't need to add more.
Also, the human mind and body loves comfort. It will take in as much comfort as you would provide it. The easiest thing in the world is to become lazy. If given two options:
(1) A guaranteed $100,000 by buying a mere lottery ticket
Or
(2) A chance to earn $200,000 by putting in a month of hard labour combined with some serious brain racking.
8 out of 10 people will take option (1). In fact the other two will be derided as fools for choosing the second option.
True. I was born in 1989, the same year communism fell, and I've seen people achieve a success without much help from anyone. I will never agree that they should give up all their earnings beyond certain point only because they're more successful.
75% is too much. Many will opt for the bono route and move somewhere else to avoid paying hefty taxes.
The earning they have gotten have come through a massive help from the government and therefore the mass people with all their taxes.
Actually they would be asking if they can earn that same money somewhere else or they will try to find ways how not to pay it. 75% is extorsion.
I doubt that to be honest. If thats the case why many others hasnt emulated them?
'those jobs' often contain risks, ie you have to risk some of your existing wealth to earn more. Why would somebody do this? If you tax the wealthy too much, they just go off and earn their money elsewhere and pay their more reasonable tax to another government/country.
Even if it's not a risk job, people could choose to do less hours, take their foot off the pedal which is no good for the economy in general or the tax coffers as raking in 50% of lots is better than75% of nothing.
We still need to encourage our top people to keep industry going. They earn a lot of money generally because nobody else could do the job they do to that same standard and provide 'value' to their employers (or why else would they pay them).
The socialist shit on here is astounding. Nobody answered the question above that if people on top salaries should pay for the less affluent, where does it end, should £25k a year earners drop all of their luxuries so that the homeless and starving in africa all get equal?
Doubt all you want, it's the truth.
As long as there is demand someone will step up to meet it
GINI is a long term measure you berk
It depends on the data collection, and the UK collects data at regular intervals, so the GINI is a legitimate measure to use. You were pretending to say that inequality was increasing, it probably isn't at the rate you suggested.