So then, what is the ideal top level tax rate (hint: not Denmark's 62% morriss) Page 5

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:40:14 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    So the owners and operators of France's luxury good brands don't get paid? Because if they got paid then they would be taxed then surely they would want to move.
    Not sure I understand. Hollande has declared a new 75% tax on individuals. As a result wealthy individuals (who repviously paid French tax, bought French goods in French shops etc) are moving away. This is counterproductive.
    Higher tax rates are supposed to push wealth creators away. If the individual rate is high, and your entire board is going to see a tax increase, then why aren't entire companies being moved elsewhere?

    A low rate of business tax might leave more money in the company but really, at the end of the day, what's solely important for owners and operators is how much money they have in their pockets, yeah?
    Really?

    Individuals don't necessarily have to be domiciled in France to own / run / extract money from French companies.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:42:40 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Not sure I understand. Hollande has declared a new 75% tax on individuals. As a result wealthy individuals (who repviously paid French tax, bought French goods in French shops etc) are moving away. This is counterproductive.
    Only when taken in isolation - depends on whether we're just talking a small handfulls of people or a mass brain drain.
    Nope. I'm super rich. I earned £50m last year. I paid £22m in taxes. I bought £25m worth of goods from French companies last year in France, who all profited as a result of my custom and paid £5m in taxes.

    Hollande puts in the new 75% tax rate and I move to Switzerland.

    I now pay Swiss tax and buy Swiss goods and the French public are out of pocket by tax revenues of £27m annually.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:43:39 40,959 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    If the tax rate is so ruinous that it compels all the wealthy to emigrate then it's going to be hard to run a company if all the top management have to fly in to their job every day.

    What I'm trying to say is that the argument that high taxes necessarily mean an exodus of wealth and talent is simplistic bullshit. It will certainly happen but not in numbers that will be of any consequence other than to hysterical headline writers and those who confuse anecdotes with data when trying to bolster a pet argument.
  • monkman76 2 Jan 2013 16:44:57 4,822 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    @monkman76 the big difference is one of these is given, the other is taken from you.
    Can you expand? They both look like handouts you haven't earnt yourself to me.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:45:38 40,959 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It would be interesting to know what percentage of his income that fella used to pay to the French government. I guess if he moves he also stops buying all those French luxury goods which those luxury good companies are so prolifically exporting ;)
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:45:51 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    If the tax rate is so ruinous that it compels all the wealthy to emigrate then it's going to be hard to run a company if all the top management have to fly in to their job every day.

    What I'm trying to say is that the argument that high taxes necessarily mean an exodus of wealth and talent is simplistic bullshit. It will certainly happen but not in numbers that will be of any consequence other than to hysterical headline writers and those who confuse anecdotes with data when trying to bolster a pet argument.
    Really really?

    Firstly, top management don't have to be in the country anyway, let alone the owners who make up the (massively) largest proportion of individuals who pay taxes as a result of company profits.

    Secondly, we're seeing it happen in France. It is not 'bullshit', it is 'going on right now'.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 16:46:26 5,456 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Nope. I'm super rich. I earned £50m last year.
    Sacrificial lambs wouldn't be worth sacrificing if there wasn't a price to pay. Though I'd wager than none of these guys are paying 27 mil in taxes anyway.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 16:47:50 02-01-2013
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:47:17 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    It would be interesting to know what percentage of his income that fella used to pay to the French government. I guess if he moves he also stops buying all those French luxury goods which those luxury good companies are so prolifically exporting ;)
    I'd be interested to see how much the 75% tax rate would actually earn for the Government, even if everyone was forced to stay. Betcha it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the deficit. There aren't that many of them.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Mr-Brett 2 Jan 2013 16:51:15 12,834 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Mr-Brett wrote:
    @elstoof You mention opportunity a lot, I'm curious if you mean it in an American Dream sense or that class boundaries aren't as rigid as they once were or something else entirely?
    Do class boundaries even still exist? I can't say I've ever liked at anyone and considered what class they might fall into, and how that would affect my opinion of them. I suppose I meant it more in the American dream sense, where people like that Cambridge Bag Company woman can turn £600 startup fund into a multi million pound company in a few years.
    Ok, would you say that's an argument against much government financial intervention?

    Level 37 Social Justice Warrior

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 16:51:35 7,791 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    @monkman76 the big difference is one of these is given, the other is taken from you.
    Can you expand? They both look like handouts you haven't earnt yourself to me.
    I can choose where the money I leave goes, I can give it all to my child, the RSPCA, whoever, depending on how I see fit.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:52:06 40,959 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Secondly, we're seeing it happen in France. It is not 'bullshit', it is 'going on right now'.
    Tax rescinded, Depardieu not going to move back. Perhaps not the best poster boy for prudent fiscal reasoning, eh?

    Never mind, there's still that other fella to prove your point.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 16:53:34 7,791 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Mr-Brett intervention into what?
  • Mr-Brett 2 Jan 2013 16:55:28 12,834 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Fincances, I guess redistribution would put it better.

    Level 37 Social Justice Warrior

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:55:42 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Wonder why he applied for dual nationality then? Backtracking to save your public reputation is, of course, unheard of in France.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:56:27 40,959 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    It would be interesting to know what percentage of his income that fella used to pay to the French government. I guess if he moves he also stops buying all those French luxury goods which those luxury good companies are so prolifically exporting ;)
    I'd be interested to see how much the 75% tax rate would actually earn for the Government, even if everyone was forced to stay. Betcha it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the deficit. There aren't that many of them.
    No doubt about it; deficits aren't going to be solved simply by taking the higher incomes. But the higher incomes can handle the hit right now. Economies most certainly take a big hit when you remove money from the people who are compelled to spend it all to live.

    Introducing the concept of fairness to the argument is fraught with danger but surely you can agree that a guy worth $24 billion can probably stand to put a bit more money back into the pot right now?

    Personally, I'd prefer to raise the wages of the poorer than tax the shit out of the rich as a means to improve finances. I'd still, however, like to see income - and more importantly but difficult, wealth - disparity dealt with. Taxation is imprecise but works.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 16:59:06 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Introducing the concept of fairness to the argument is fraught with danger but surely you can agree that a guy worth $24 billion can probably stand to put a bit more money back into the pot right now?
    Can he afford to? Almost certainly. Does he deserve to? No.

    Focussing on their worth as a driver for tax? Complete arsewater.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • JoeBlade 2 Jan 2013 17:00:12 2,591 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Most of you who are riled up about that supertax thing seem to quite miss its point. Unlike normal taxes it's not about taking a portion of people's income to provide for society in general.

    Thing is, the vast majority of the ultra rich are that wealthy because they're in a position where they can ask however much money they want for their jobs.
    What the supertax is primarily meant for is sending them a message, being "Now we're ok with you wanting to earn a lot of money, that ambition is just fine. However, there's a point beyond which a wage is outright unjust and unfair. Since you choose how much you earn we therefore advise you not to ask more than (insert amount here)'s worth per year."

    Just ask yourself: does Gérard Depardieu's work contribute thousands of times more to our society than, say, retail work? Like hell.
    Sure he kept millions entertained for hours but how much is that actually worth? And what about all the shit flicks he was in that are arguably deterimental to society, what (negative) value do you attribute to them?
    And what about people like the Kardashians who could be said to have done nothing for society but have large arses?
    Even most CEOs of large companies are nothing but spokespersons, the face of the company towards the outside world and the ones that take the dive for the boards of directors when the latter make a poor decision. How is that worth thousands, even millions times more than picking up the garbage every week?

    Yet for some bizarre reason society thinks it's ok that Depardieu can ask millions for one acting job while that poor sod behind a counter working their arse off while taking abuse from customers earns thousands of times less on a yearly basis. Why?

    The supertax is an incentive against completely unfair, ridiculously high wages. Perhaps the precise amount and the practical implementation need tweaking and as long as it's not observed worldwide it's indeed not really viable but I for one agree with the idea.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 17:02:57 7,791 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Because people want, and will pay for Depardieu.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 17:04:17 40,959 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Wonder why he applied for dual nationality then? Backtracking to save your public reputation is, of course, unheard of in France.
    That's why he is irrelevant. If he was supposed to be an example of the drain this tax would have caused yet claims he was going to remain in France and pay that tax anyway then perhaps the furor over the implications of that high tax on the rich might have been blown a tad out of proportion?

    Again, I'd like to see some examples of countries whose economies - not media - were greatly effected by high tax rates on the rich.

    Edited by Khanivor at 17:05:04 02-01-2013
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 17:05:09 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    JoeBlade: Bollocks. The 75% tax is an election pledge to appeal to the masses, not a warning to the super rich to stop being so damn successful.

    And do we need to do supply and demand again? I wonder how much Depardieu's films have grossed, and how much is due to the attraction of having him in it.

    Betcha he's more use to the French economy than Jean Jacques Le Dropout on till 9 at Auchan.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 17:08:28 02-01-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Bremenacht 2 Jan 2013 17:05:35 18,761 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm not sure what's worse - tax evasion, or people who sit around like Smaug on vast piles of cash (taxed or untaxed) doing nothing. No wonder the lonely mountain is so lonely.

    Still. At least he didn't transfer all the gold to Mordor in search of higher interest rates.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 17:06:16 44,551 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Again, I'd like to see some examples of countries whose economies - not media - were greatly effected by high tax rates on the rich.
    Like I said, it was only in theory because no government has been that stupid until now.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Bremenacht 2 Jan 2013 17:08:47 18,761 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Again, I'd like to see some examples of countries whose economies - not media - were greatly effected by high tax rates on the rich.
    The UK, I suppose. Figures indicate that the introduction of the 50% rate resulted in a lot less people paying it.
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 17:09:49 5,456 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Again, I'd like to see some examples of countries whose economies - not media - were greatly effected by high tax rates on the rich.
    Didn't Britain suffer in the 70s from that? Or was that just Tory propaganda?
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 17:13:01 7,791 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Again, I'd like to see some examples of countries whose economies - not media - were greatly effected by high tax rates on the rich.
    Like I said, it was only in theory because no government has been that stupid until now.
    I don't know, the Mitterrand government caused quite an exodus. At one point my father in law was paying 150% of his income on tax during his reign.
  • Dangerous_Dan 2 Jan 2013 17:14:22 2,378 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    JoeBlade wrote:

    Just ask yourself: does Gérard Depardieu's work contribute thousands of times more to our society than, say, retail work? Like hell.
    Sure he kept millions entertained for hours but how much is that actually worth? And what about all the shit flicks he was in that are arguably deterimental to society, what (negative) value do you attribute to them?
    That is worth the amount of money which the producers were willing to pay to Gérard which in turn is their estimation on what the people are willing to pay for watching the movie, including the poor sod behind a counter working his ass off, spending some of his hard earned money on watching Gérard.

    But you do have a point, the poor sod working his ass off is being scammed and it is unjust but most probably not because of the reasons you are thinking about.
  • nickthegun 2 Jan 2013 17:17:01 60,611 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    I don't know, the Mitterrand government caused quite an exodus. At one point my father in law was paying 150% of his income on tax during his reign.
    The fuck?

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • El_MUERkO 2 Jan 2013 17:18:10 17,082 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    JoeBlade: Bollocks. The 75% tax is an election pledge to appeal to the masses, not a warning to the super rich to stop being so damn successful.

    And do we need to do supply and demand again? I wonder how much Depardieu's films have grossed, and how much is due to the attraction of having him in it.

    Betcha he's more use to the French economy than Jean Jacques Le Dropout on till 9 at Auchan.
    I would have gone with Jean Jacques Latrine.

    As to your point, I completely agree.

    ----------------

    Everyone's tax burden could and should be under 50% if all taxes due were collected and no one was allowed to fiddle the system. There is no justification for a government requiring more than half of what the populace earns.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 17:23:30 7,791 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    I don't know, the Mitterrand government caused quite an exodus. At one point my father in law was paying 150% of his income on tax during his reign.
    The fuck?
    Income tax, wealth tax etc plus cost of living meant he was selling off parts of his portfolio to pay the tax bill which then attracted capital gains tax... Nice eh.
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 17:31:42 40,959 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Again, I'd like to see some examples of countries whose economies - not media - were greatly effected by high tax rates on the rich.
    Like I said, it was only in theory because no government has been that stupid until now.
    Like I said, it was done in the US in the 50s. Top rate was 92% I believe. And look, that was the same period when the GDP growth was at its highest.



    In fact, there's a link to be made between lowering the top rate and the GDP growth going down.

    Edited by Khanivor at 17:31:53 02-01-2013
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply