HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » France: President calls f...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:26 PM

 

France: President calls for 75% tax rate for rich

Any thoughts and opinions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow-to-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?_r=2&hpw

41 replies, 3012 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply France: President calls for 75% tax rate for rich (Original post)
rational_democrat Aug 2012 OP
JaneyVee Aug 2012 #1
still_one Aug 2012 #2
white_wolf Aug 2012 #3
still_one Aug 2012 #5
white_wolf Aug 2012 #12
still_one Aug 2012 #14
JaneyVee Aug 2012 #17
DocMac Aug 2012 #26
stevenleser Aug 2012 #36
tsuki Aug 2012 #40
Stinky The Clown Aug 2012 #10
geckosfeet Aug 2012 #19
geckosfeet Aug 2012 #18
still_one Aug 2012 #32
geckosfeet Aug 2012 #41
Politicalboi Aug 2012 #4
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #6
Ruby the Liberal Aug 2012 #7
Zalatix Aug 2012 #30
DontTreadOnMe Aug 2012 #8
Politicalboi Aug 2012 #9
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #15
byeya Aug 2012 #37
Dkc05 Aug 2012 #39
limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #11
SDjack Aug 2012 #13
L0oniX Aug 2012 #16
rational_democrat Aug 2012 #20
strategery blunder Aug 2012 #24
Zalatix Aug 2012 #31
Lydia Leftcoast Aug 2012 #21
customerserviceguy Aug 2012 #22
cherokeeprogressive Aug 2012 #25
MrSlayer Aug 2012 #23
rDigital Aug 2012 #29
Trillo Aug 2012 #27
railsback Aug 2012 #28
kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #33
pampango Aug 2012 #34
Ganja Ninja Aug 2012 #35
FSogol Aug 2012 #38

Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:31 PM

1. Hollande should consider lowering the threshold to $500k/yr. That would put a good dent in deficits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:32 PM

2. That is wrong also. The fairest tax system is a percentage, where everyone pays let's say 10%

Unless you are at poverty level then no taxes.

Also, no deductions or tax loopholes

You make x dollars and it is above some minimum level you pay a fixed percent

It will never happen

The rich won't accept it without loopholes, and they pay off congress to keep it that way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:34 PM

3. A flat tax hurts the poor the most.

The rich can afford to pay higher taxes. If you are making 35,000 a year 10% will hurt you a lot more than it will for a millionaire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:39 PM

5. You didn't read my post, I said low income don't pay taxes, you have to make a certain amount before

You are taxed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:56 PM

12. I did read your post, it doesn't solve the issue of revenue.

We are running in debt as it is. We need more money, we need to raise revenue, and we need to raise taxes to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:57 PM

14. it is a start, and then get out of all the trillion dollar wars,would be another start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:00 PM

17. What would the threshold be for the flat tax? Look at it like this:

Why should someone who makes $1Million a year pay the same tax rate as someone that makes $43Million a year? That's how our system is currently set up and it's killing our revenue stream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:40 PM

26. The system is set up to fight wars.

Look at the defence budget. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 12:59 PM

36. It would be better than what we have now, we have a reverse progressive tax right now.

The wealthy, like the Romney's, pay less than a 15% effective rate because different types of income are taxed differently.

I prefer a progressive tax system where all kinds of income are treated the same. The Romney's should have the majority of their income taxed at the highest rate.

The fact is though that a flat tax would be fairer than what is happening now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 09:37 PM

40. I am for Eisenhower'ing their asses. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:55 PM

10. A flat tax is one of the worst schemes ever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:05 PM

19. It's a scam. It sounds good, and it is very good for the rich but is debilitating for everyone else.

But it sounds so fair and equitable that any "reasonable" person would advocate for it. Turns out reasonable people don't think very much about such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:02 PM

18. No. That's not fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 12:41 PM

32. why not. You make x dollars you pay a percentage. no loopholes except low income people do not pay

any taxes

I didn't read the article from the OP on this thread, but the headline is misleading.

It isn't 75%, it is 75% on money above a certain base level of 1 million euros

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 10, 2012, 06:57 AM

41. Flat tax not fair in any manifistation. Sweetening the deal with exemptions

does not cure the rest of the problems.

The higher your income the higher percentage of income taxes should be paid. It's that simple. At some level,combination of income, dependents, medical etc. no taxes would be paid. But any income above say $150, $200k should be subject to a scaled tax rate. That is, for each incremental increase in income the tax rate increases proportionally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:34 PM

4. We need something like that out here

When assholes like The Dick Cheney say deficits don't matter, raise the tax rate. If they raised the tax rate with the increase of the deficit, I think deficits would matter to the Repukes then. That is what is needed out here. Obama should make it clear that the Repukes put us in this position, and this is how it's going to be paid back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:44 PM

6. over $200,000. rate should be 50% or more.

How my h do the wealthy really need. Over 200,000 50% seems fair. Over 500,000 then 70% would be fair. Over 1,00,000 go to 75%

The rich need to help the rest of us in the community. Install the fairness doctrine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:46 PM

7. Thanks for bringing over Drudge's current headline.

Don't know what we would do without your concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #7)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 01:08 AM

30. Your response made no sense whatsoever.

 

We need to talk about 75% taxation for the rich, here in America.

Who cares what Drudge has to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:46 PM

8. no flat tax, that hurts the poor.

But 75% is really high. just make it 25% and NO LOOPHOLES.

Loopholes is what really hurts overall revenues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:52 PM

9. Raise it to 50%

For those who make 1 million or more and each year the deficit goes down, the taxes get lowered by 1%. But stop it at 35% if economy can allow it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:58 PM

15. the rich have plenty

75% is not too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dkc05 (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 01:03 PM

37. A marginal rate of 75% without loopholes sounds right to me

 

Plus a tax on stock and bond sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 09:22 PM

39. 50% on the sale of Stocks or Bonds would help the economy

If they sell the stock or bond tax them 50% and it will fix the defict real fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:55 PM

11. we need it here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:56 PM

13. Hope France goes after stored wealth. 10% a year would be a good.

e

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:00 PM

16. Jury says leave it alone. Another waste of the jury system.

Why would anyone alert on this? The sources for this news are many and this news is old and it's not exclusive to Drudge. The alert must have come from some sympathetic 1% who has it in for this new DU member ...and MIRT??? WTF


Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Show me this dude actually tossing around right-wing BS, and I'll vote to hide that. Posting links asking for opinion is harmless.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Link is to the New York Times. I don't see a problem with it. Maybe this is a job for MIRT, I am only looking at this post.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Abuse of alert system. Topic subject has been posted many times over the past months with many links other than Drudge ...Informationclearinghouse.org for one.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:05 PM

20. ........

 

lol you have to go through a jury process to post on this site?


oh my god

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Reply #20)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:22 PM

24. No. Some troll alerted on the post.

The post was then referred to a jury, who determined the alert was frivolous and let the post stand.

You do not need to have your posts "pre-approved" by a jury. Juries only get involved after someone thinks that a post violates the rules and clicks the alert button.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 01:10 AM

31. I don't see how Drudge Report had anything to do with the OP.

 

This alert WAS on the OP, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:11 PM

21. Les riches sont des cry-babies

Please note that it's NOT 75% of their total income, as the right-wing likes to pretend.

Here's a quote from the article:

A tax accountant in Paris with many wealthy clients, Steve Horton, has calculated that a two-parent, two-child household with taxable annual income of a bit more than 2.22 million euros ($2.75 million) now has after-tax take-home pay of about 1.1 million euros ($1.35 million) under France’s current tax system.

That household would end up with 780,000 euros, or $966,000, if the Hollande tax took effect, Mr. Horton says. (The same family, with comparable income in Manhattan, would take home $1.55 million, the dollar equivalent of 1.25 million euros, after paying federal, state and city income taxes, he calculated.)


In other words, les pauvres petits would have only $966,000 to live on, only $80,000 a month (which is WAY more than I earn in a year).

My heart does NOT bleed for them. And please, no Upper East Side types whining that $1.55 million is NOTHING in New York. They can tell that to their cleaning lady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:11 PM

22. I expect if it goes through

It will prompt an exodus of the well to do to Switzerland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #22)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:27 PM

25. Or Brussels. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:16 PM

23. 75% once you reach half a billion is fine.

 

It's waaaay too high at 250k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 01:05 AM

29. A lot of people

 

don't realize that 250k a year doesn't make you a rich person. Especially, after taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:48 PM

27. With sufficient loopholes, it can just be a stunt to fool the gullible.

That said, I don't know how France's tax ranks in that regard. But if the uber rich won't release their tax records when running for a U.S. public office, then why would they release them at any other time, to the public? If governments keep the information private, by law, then who knows if a progressive income tax code, or any other tax scheme, would actually capture a fair share of the super rich's taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Tue Aug 7, 2012, 11:46 PM

28. I don't see anything wrong with it

 

We used to have a high top marginal tax rate on something like over $3 million. Then Reagan came along and turned this country up side down, going from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 12:48 PM

33. We had a higher rate for decades.

We had top marginal rates that high or higher, during WWI and then later in the late 1930s to the 60s.

We seemed to fare pretty well as a nation during that stretch of time, compared to other nations and compared to our own record from other periods. France will not regret it, though billionaires weep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 12:54 PM

34. Higher taxes in Europe are an integral part of their social democracy model that

has resulted in the most equitable distribution of income in the world.

It is nice to see France, through its new socialist president, getting back to that model and away from Sarkozy's conservative way of doing things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 12:58 PM

35. I think a 90 % tax rate for the next 5 years on the super rich plus ...

a wealth tax on all assets at home or abroad and a inheritance tax that reduces their heirs from billionaires to millionaires is what we need. The super rich have declared an economic war on America and we need to make sure they lose and lose so bad that they never try it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rational_democrat (Original post)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 01:03 PM

38. This country once had a tax rate on the rich around 75%..

The rate isn't what they pay. After all their exceptions, loopholes, etc, they pay around 28%. Over the years (well since Reagan), the US tax on the rich was reduced to 35%, however all the loopholes and exceptions remained meaning guys like Romney pay less than 13%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread