HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Va te faire foutre, Gerar...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:12 PM

Va te faire foutre, Gerard Depardieu


(Reuters) - Actor Gerard Depardieu has become the latest Frenchman to look for shelter outside his native country after a series of tax hikes by Socialist President Francois Hollande on the wealthy.

The "Cyrano de Bergerac" star has bought a house in the Belgian village of Nechin near the French border, local mayor Daniel Senesael told French media on Sunday, adding he had also enquired about procedures for acquiring Belgian residency.

Senesael said Depardieu would join some 2,800 French living in the same area a few minutes drive from the border, including the Mulliez family, owners of French hypermarket chain Auchan and Decathlon sports stores, who have lived there for years.

Belgian residents do not pay wealth tax, which in France is now slapped on individuals with assets over 1.3 million euros, nor do they pay capital gains tax on the sale of shares. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/09/uk-france-tax-depardieu-idUKBRE8B80FO20121209



74 replies, 4575 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 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Va te faire foutre, Gerard Depardieu (Original post)
marmar Dec 2012 OP
alfredo Dec 2012 #1
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #2
marmar Dec 2012 #3
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #15
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #31
tledford Dec 2012 #64
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #39
banned from Kos Dec 2012 #4
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #16
marmar Dec 2012 #20
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #17
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #58
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #62
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #69
Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2012 #26
LTR Dec 2012 #59
ChazII Dec 2012 #5
Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2012 #6
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #18
Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2012 #24
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #30
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #32
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #43
Chan790 Dec 2012 #45
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #49
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #54
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #57
Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #7
CTyankee Dec 2012 #23
Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #70
CTyankee Dec 2012 #71
Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #72
CTyankee Dec 2012 #74
Enrique Dec 2012 #8
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #9
RobertEarl Dec 2012 #10
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #11
RobertEarl Dec 2012 #12
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #19
RobertEarl Dec 2012 #35
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #63
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #40
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #65
Chan790 Dec 2012 #46
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #66
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #56
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #67
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #73
Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2012 #25
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #28
Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2012 #36
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #33
LineLineLineReply .
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #34
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #37
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #38
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #41
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #42
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #44
Chan790 Dec 2012 #47
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #50
Mass Dec 2012 #13
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #14
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #68
xchrom Dec 2012 #21
MrScorpio Dec 2012 #22
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #29
librechik Dec 2012 #27
GoldenOldie Dec 2012 #51
librechik Dec 2012 #52
Rex Dec 2012 #48
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #53
Rex Dec 2012 #55
Shivering Jemmy Dec 2012 #60
Rex Dec 2012 #61

Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:18 PM

1. They would have sided with the Vichy regime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:20 PM

2. I don't blame him. I would, too. France has a wealth tax? Wow. No wonder Depp is moving. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:21 PM

3. You don't blame him for being a greedy a-hole?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:47 AM

15. I don't blame him for not wanting to give to the govt half of his wealth....not just his income.

Who would? I wouldn't. I'd move. That's not greed. That's common sense. There's a difference between a reasonable tax rate on income, and the govt just taxing what you have, that it already taxed when you made it. There is also a difference between that and the inheritance tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:41 AM

31. but he's happy to use the free services, though. btw, he doesn't give the gov't half his income.

 

top tax rate is 48% & applies only to income above 500K euros.

income under that is taxed at progressively lower rates.

no problems if he doesn't want to pay the taxes, let him renounce his citizenship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:34 PM

64. "no problems if he doesn't want to pay the taxes, let him renounce his citizenship."

BINGO!

I've often thought we should offer the same deal to Americans. You don't want to pay federal taxes? Fine, renounce your citizenship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:12 AM

39. The maximum wealth tax rate is 1.8%, above 16 million Euros

The Hollande rates for 2012 start at 0.55% for wealth valued between 800,000 euros and 1,310,000 euros.

The rates then increase progressively on bands of wealth above that level.

The highest rate is 1.8% for the taxable wealth that exceeds 16,790,000 euros.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19464110


Throwing around phrases like "half of his wealth" is just a waste of everyone's time, including your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:21 PM

4. The Beatles established residency in Monaco when British taxes became punitive

 

Tax policy is not something to take lightly.

ETA - According to this it was only Ringo http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/music-taxexiles/1/

But U2, the Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Freddie Mercury all became tax exiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:48 AM

16. McCartney doesn't live in Britain, to begin with. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:55 AM

20. He has a residence is East Sussex, England and in Scotland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:48 AM

17. Rod Stewart moved to America from Britain years ago, for tax reasons. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:43 PM

58. Then he's a greedy asshole too. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:28 PM

62. Not in my opinion. A progressive tax makes sense to me, but taxing what a person owns...

after it's already been taxed when you earned it, makes no sense to me, and is a money grab. It's his money. He earned it.

I'm willing to pay a reasonable tax for government services, like street lights, highways, infrastructure, Medicaid for the poor, subsidies for health care for lower middle income, Medicare, Social Security, etc. But there's a limit to the govt taking what is left after they taxed it reasonably (or heavily) when I earned it.

I believe this, regardless of how much money a person earns or has. The progressive tax takes care of taxing the wealthy more....if we really do progressively tax their income.

And we here in the States get the benefit of Stewart's and others' wealth! Which helps our economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:20 PM

69. Well I simply disagree

People are double taxed ALL the time. What suddenly makes that income so special that it doesn't get to be double taxed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:56 AM

26. And JK Rowling, who is at least as rich as they,

Has declared her intention of staying in the UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:58 PM

59. I don't blame any of them

Paying a fair share is one thing, but an income tax rate that back in the 60s and 70s ranged at times between 75-90% for top earners was a bit extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:26 PM

6. Idiots like that act as if they'd starve if they made ONLY two million dollars a year

instead of four.

The Beatles were only between 19 and 21 years old when they became multi-millionaires, so perhaps you can excuse their attitude, but really...

It's like the online comments in my local paper a few years ago when someone won a large lottery price. Whatever the prize was, the winner would have "only" ten million dollars after taxes, and all the right-wing types were piling on that, talking about how "Obama needs that money more than the winner does" or "The winner is getting cheated."

I got disgusted and posted, "Only ten million dollars? Hmm, I could SO live on that." And I got more "likes" than any of the right-wingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:50 AM

18. People act so high and mighty, when it's not their money. YOu wouldn't want to give away half

the money you earned, either...which, btw, was taxed already when you made it.

It's an oppressive tax, IMO, and totally different from a reasonable tax rate on income. Taxing a person's wealth is just a grab by the govt. of someone else's money that that person made. There's no basis in reason for it, like there is in income tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:41 AM

24. Really? Who's acting high and mighty?

The person who isn't willing to pay for the society that makes his wealth possible, or the person who points out that the lottery winner in the high tax bracket will still have 2000 times the US median annual income to retire on?

Depardieu and the other wealthy can easily lose their sense of perspective and forget how much luck plays a part in a person's success.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:32 AM

30. So you think estate taxes should be abolished?

Oh and the "reason for it", is that the widepsread accumulation of wealth is only possible within a functioning society with a functioning government. Otherwise we could just revert to despotism and feudalism and wealth accumulation would require private armies to protect that wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:46 AM

32. the money was taxed when you made it? how's that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:26 AM

43. So, estate taxes should go away too?

Really?

Excuse me for saying this, but greed is at the heart of our problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:54 AM

45. I would.

If the only roadblock I faced was a 1.8% wealth-tax and a 48% income tax...alors je serais tombée de la nuit parisienne.

Adieu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:17 PM

49. Well there you go again, exposing your true nature and projecting it on others.

 

Before Clinton/Bush wrecked the economy, I paid over $60K a year in income taxes and was happy that I made so much that I could.

My only complaint was that so much of that money was wasted on corporate welfare when there were many other places it was, and still is, needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:34 PM

54. Get a clue ...

Or stop lying... Whatever it is you're doing here. Pure bigotry, stereotypes, severly lacking facts. Where do you get your info about Europe? The John Birch Society?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:42 PM

57. Oh Good Gawd I Am Applauding!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:27 PM

7. Bon Voyage.

My partner got incredibly sick from drinking water in Brussels. Good luck dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:36 AM

23. That's horrible. I was just in Brussels in October and found it incredibly advanced. I'm surprised

to hear that she got sick. My travel buddy and I took trains to Ghent, Bruges and Antwerp and never had a problem anywhere we went...that's disturbing. Did you figure out where the problem was?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:33 PM

70. He, actually.

We don't know. He came home and was sick for four days. He drank copious amounts of tap water from the hotel across the street from the airport. When he checked in it was too late to get dinner, so it wasn't food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:02 AM

71. I am wondering if he was in contact with a bad virus on his flight home. I had a similar problem

on a trip to northern Italy. Very soon after getting there, getting really sick and it was a virus tearing through our group. A doc in our group said he thought it was probably contracted on the flight coming over. Thank god I travel with packs of Immodium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:08 AM

72. He's usually pretty hardy, with an immune system of steel.

We were both surprised by how debilitated he was as soon as he started his trip home and after. Hard to say. I am pissed enough with M. Depardieu to hope that it might be something visited on him, but he probably drinks bottled water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:13 AM

74. I've never had a problem in the western European countries I have visited.

But I am wary of those flights over and back. Lots of people in very close quarters. I am careful about washing my hands a lot on those flights. And actually the flight over/back from Belgium were the least crowded ones I have been on (to Europe) with the exception of an Air France flight to and from Paris. I loved the Air France Airbus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:28 PM

8. France will survive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:31 PM

9. Wow. Who would have thought that when France imposed a 75% tax rate on the rich,

that rich people would move out of France (bearing in mind that French citizens have the right of abode anywhere in the EU)?

I'm just flabbergasted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:35 PM

10. Weeds out the selfish

I'm sure the French people will be glad to see them leave. Good way to weed out the greedy bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:39 PM

11. I guess US states could use the same approach.

For example, NJ could raise its top state income tax rate to 30%. The combined Federal plus state top rate of 70% or so would certainly cause any rich selfish bastards to leave the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:46 PM

12. And go where?

How else are we ever going to pay for corporate welfare if we don't tax the corporate gold diggers who are getting the most benefits from government?

IOW, who else can we tax besides the rich?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:53 AM

19. It's not greed. Would YOU want to pay income tax on money you earned, then additional

heavy tax on what you OWN, which was taxed already in the past? That's a money grab, not an income tax based on reason and necessity.

I would move in a heartbeat, and so would you, if we were able to.

Think about it. You own a house and a car. Besides the other permits and license fees you pay, the govt then wants you to pay it 30% of the VALUE of those things. Nonsense. I'd move. Oppressive and a money grab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:52 AM

35. You against property tax?

You should be happy in Somalia then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:29 PM

63. I said the govt tax was ABOVE the other fees and taxes for property & $ you own. You against

a tax on the $1,000 sitting in your savings account? If not, you can move to France!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:14 AM

40. Stop making things up - it makes you look ridiculous

Now you've pulled "30%" out of your arse. The figure is 1.8%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:37 PM

65. Actually, it's not 1.8%. But in any case, it's a stupid tax. France is the ONLY European country

that still has that tax.

It causes so many people to leave France, that it actually takes away money from the government. Stupid.

A wealth tax is a stupid idea, IMO. Just a money grab. Increase the income tax, if you want to get more $ from people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:00 PM

46. "heavy tax on what you OWN" = wealth-tax of 1.8%?



Yes, I'd pay that if I got citizenship in an EU nation and to live someplace with socialized medicine and a decent standard of living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:39 PM

66. Many people get those benefits w/o having to pay that tax. Taht's not what the tax is for.

France is the only European country left that still has that tax. It's a tax of wealth, not FOR anything, just for the purpose of taking it and preventing the person from accumulating even more wealth. It's a stupid tax,IMO. As evidenced by the fact that the other countries have stopped it, and people move from France because of it.

If a tax doesn't result in more money to the govt, as in the case of the wealth tax, then it serves no purpose except for punishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:41 PM

56. I pay all of the above and am not "oppressed"

Actually, I'm quite happy as it is, knowing what those taxes fund ( and doubly so, considering how wasteful those taxes would be spent in the US on an ineffective war machine and corporate welfare...)


While I am "opressed" by the US to pay taxes on income that is already locally taxed. Funny how the world works...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:42 PM

67. Those taxes don't fund anything. It's estimated that France loses $2B a year...

because of the tax, from people leaving France to avoid paying it. That's why Sweden and all the other European countries who used to have a wealth tax have stopped it. France is the only one that still does it...and it decreased the tax.

You do not pay a wealth tax here in the U.S. There is no such tax here.

I wonder how you'd feel if your $10,000 in savings were taxed by teh government. Not the 1% investment income. But the $10k you saved. I expect you'd be unhappy about taht. It serves no purpose, except to punish you for saving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 02:11 AM

73. I live in Europe. Pay income, wealth tax.

Your hypotheticals are lost on me. I'm living it and I'm so totally getting the better deal, no matter how much that irks you.

This thread makes it apparent that you haven't gotten the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Just rumors and other "I heard that..." nonsense... No more wealth tax my ass... It's true that there has been a trend away from them.. France, Norway and Switzerland still have it, and there's a good chance that the Spaniards and the Germans are going to reintroduce it. By the way... France, Norway, Switzerland... Does something about that list jump at you (hint: eurocrisis?) ... Wealth tax is the way to go, where I live, it's here to stay, and no one feels oppressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:53 AM

25. 75% MARGINAL rate

Not 75% of everything. They'll still have plenty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lydia Leftcoast (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:02 AM

28. Maybe. But when people can save millions a yearby relocating from Paris

to London or Belgium, is it really that surprising when they choose to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:53 AM

36. If they can "save millions," then they're already more fortunate than 99.9%

of their fellow citizens. They need to get over themselves.

They remind me of the crybaby rich woman in Oregon who wrote a letter to the editor of The Oregonian that began, "I pay $100,000 a year in income taxes, but I'm not rich."

Sure you aren't. Maybe you're not rich in comparison to Bill Gates, but in comparison to 99% of Oregonians, you're rolling in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:47 AM

33. please give evidence of this 75% rate, because my research says top rate = 48% & only for

 

income over 500K euros.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to HiPointDem (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:00 AM

38. OK. So if someone earns 10 million euro, they will pay 75% tax on 9 million of that.

So the rational thing is to move to London (temporarily, if it turns out that the tax is really only temporary) to save about 2.7 million euro. The tax savings could easily pay for the cost of a London apartment, with money left over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:14 AM

41. the logical thing is to renounce your citizenship, since the reason for the temporary tax is

 

france's fiscal emergency. depardieu doesn't want to help, fine, let him become a brit them, but quit leeching off the french dime, including its rather significant subsidies to the arts.

for me the logical thing is never to pay to watch one of his films, the fat drunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:22 AM

42. I don't think that's necessary, as I believe that the tax is based upon residency, not citizenship

(unlike the US).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:32 AM

44. i don't care what it's based on; if you won't pay taxes in a fiscal emergency when you are more

 

than capable, you should lose your citizenship and all benefits derived from taxes other people are forced to pay in your stead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:02 PM

47. agreed. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:19 PM

50. What do you think about people who move from NY or NJ to Florida or New Hampshire

to reduce their state income tax from 9% to zero? Do these people deserve equal contempt for abandoning NY and NJ to these states' fiscal emergencies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 09:49 PM

13. The guy is a moron and a drunk.

I remember, when I lived in Paris, that he ran into me when rushing out of the restaurant, nearly knocked me down (I am about 5' and 110 lbs), and then continue without excusing himself.

In addition, he has always been very right wing, close to the FN. Good riddance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:09 PM

14. And public urinator

Which led to a classic AC360 giggle segment on CNN...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:44 PM

68. And a self-admitted rapist

Then got ticked when people called him one. Because, well, it was "rape."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:57 AM

21. and france is relieved to be rid of such a boor. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:24 AM

22. Compared to France, much of Belgium is underdeveloped

I've been to France, Germany and BENELUX and in that entire region. But unlike everywhere else, Belgium still looks like it's recovering from the last war.

You get what you pay for, I imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:04 AM

29. Top tax rate in London is 45%. Many French are moving there (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:59 AM

27. Liberte, oui, but forget about the fraternite and especially the egalite--typical

if the rich don't want to be hated, they know what they can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:25 PM

51. Please check out US Tax Rates paid during late 1940 - 1950's

This is the period when Interstate Highways, and much of our infrastructure growth was accomplished......new schools built, VA college benefits/college grads, home ownership, along with re-building Europe. My hourly salary during the early 50's, was $.70 an hour. At that time the extremely wealthy were paying up to 90%. We all shared in the hardships of the pre and post-war and our Nation thrived.

Now, the Mitt Romney's who are multi-billionaires/millionaires are bitching because they arehaving to pay as little as 15% on a small portion of their wealth, but hiding the majority of their wealth in Foreign countries. Because of the lust for more money and power we now lay claim to crumbling infrastucture....roads, bridges, schools, and lives. and it is accepted.....because "they built," their wealth????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldenOldie (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:31 PM

52. exactly--we are being punked big-time

I'm sick of their lies and procrastination while they collect extraordinary benefits!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:05 PM

48. Awww those poorwittle wich people having

to move so they don't have to cough up money. Makes me want to...nah I don't really care, they can all go jump off a cliff for all I care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:31 PM

53. I don't think they are looking for sympathy. They are simply moving out (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:38 PM

55. Who cares, I cannot even believe this is news.

Rich spoiled brats won't eat their peas...news at 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:54 PM

60. What should be done?

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shivering Jemmy (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:46 PM

61. Ignore it.

What rich people do is tabloid news. So I guess someone should be informed. What should be done? Let those that have no shame be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread