HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "The rich" are ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:49 PM

"The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes.

French Government Denounces Wealthy Leaving Country After Imposition of 75% Tax Rate

During his campaign for president, France’s Socialist President Francois Hollande famously declared “I don’t like the rich” and upon taking office hit the wealthy with a 75% tax rate....Now wealthy French citizens have responded predictably by moving out of France.
The English have also seen the same decline in wealthy taxpayers after it imposed a 50% tax. They are now going to reduce that tax after the departure of many wealthy Brits and David Cameron controversially pledged to “roll out the red carpet” for any French residents fleeing the massive tax hike. In the meantime, anger at the wealthy continues to rise in France, where “eat the rich” signs are appeared

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/12/french-government-denounces-wealthy-leaving-country-after-imposition-of-75-tax-rate/#more-57956

92 replies, 7518 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 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply "The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes. (Original post)
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 OP
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #1
LiberalLoner Dec 2012 #2
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #11
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #14
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #15
dmallind Dec 2012 #22
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #23
pampango Dec 2012 #77
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #5
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #19
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #6
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #12
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #26
JohLast Dec 2012 #33
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #34
hedgehog Dec 2012 #55
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #59
hedgehog Dec 2012 #92
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #64
brokechris Dec 2012 #68
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #76
brokechris Dec 2012 #78
The Magistrate Dec 2012 #79
brokechris Dec 2012 #82
brokechris Dec 2012 #80
closeupready Dec 2012 #4
Buns_of_Fire Dec 2012 #7
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #18
Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #20
dembotoz Dec 2012 #66
bemildred Dec 2012 #8
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #9
Cleita Dec 2012 #10
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #35
Cleita Dec 2012 #40
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45
Cleita Dec 2012 #48
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #61
Cleita Dec 2012 #65
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #67
Cleita Dec 2012 #69
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #74
Cleita Dec 2012 #75
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #90
hfojvt Dec 2012 #13
ladjf Dec 2012 #16
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #17
trotsky Dec 2012 #27
ladjf Dec 2012 #91
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #21
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #24
Hydra Dec 2012 #28
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #29
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #70
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #86
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #50
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #25
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #30
xchrom Dec 2012 #31
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #36
Autumn Colors Dec 2012 #83
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #89
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #37
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #54
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #88
ieoeja Dec 2012 #32
MADem Dec 2012 #38
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #42
MADem Dec 2012 #43
closeupready Dec 2012 #39
mainer Dec 2012 #44
closeupready Dec 2012 #46
mainer Dec 2012 #49
closeupready Dec 2012 #52
mainer Dec 2012 #56
closeupready Dec 2012 #62
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #58
mainer Dec 2012 #72
mainer Dec 2012 #41
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #47
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #57
mainer Dec 2012 #73
adirondacker Dec 2012 #85
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #51
liberalmuse Dec 2012 #53
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #63
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #60
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #71
kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #81
quakerboy Dec 2012 #84
NC_Nurse Dec 2012 #87

Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:51 PM

1. No travel visas

This isn't hard. Bar them from the country, period. They are tax evaders. No coming to Paris or London for the weekend. Over. You leave? Stay gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:52 PM

2. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:33 PM

11. The EU allows free movement between any countries.

There is not even passport control between most countries.

The 75% tax rate will not last long. Soon enough there will be nobody in that tax bracket to collect it from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:43 PM

14. Furthermore, if you leave, you're not allowed to do business in or with the country anymore.

You're forbidden from owning stock in the country's companies. Companies that you own stock in, even one share, are not allowed to import or export from the country, at all, until the company forces you to part with your shares. No trading, period. You're out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:45 PM

15. Again, France would have to leave the EU to do this.

Not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:07 PM

22. And there is absolutely no legal mechanism to do it anyway.

People should be perfectly free to live wherever they can establish legal residency. The idea of exit visas or restrictions on ex-pat citizens is tyrannous. If the rich want to leave, let them leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:09 PM

23. The US isn't part of the EU...

Just saying...

Maybe France has this problem, but we don't.

Hell, even if we break a few treaties by doing this, we're big enough that we can get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:12 PM

77. True. The US does not have the same constraints that France or any other EU country would have.

"Hell, even if we break a few treaties by doing this, we're big enough that we can get away with it."

I do hope that the president does not believe that we can break treaties that other countries have to follow just because we are bigger than they are. That precedent would make it very difficult to resolve international problems by negotiation and treaty, if other countries thought that we had no intention of living up to our end of the treaties anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:04 PM

3. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld retroactive taxes.

 

See, e.g., U.S. v Carlton 512 US 26 (1994) with cites to earlier cases.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1941.ZO.html

Theoritically, if we had politicians that represented Americans as a whole instead of the international rich and super-rich, retroactive tax increases could be imposed and the U.S. military and other governmental assets could be used to track down those trying to leave and hide their wealth in other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:10 PM

5. Gee, cannot figure out why our government would not use such a handy tool.

totally mystifying, it is.
Not a clue.
Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

19. They used retroactive laws for the FISA bill. But then, that benefited the wealthy

Corps and stopped the lawsuits that had begun.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:15 PM

6. I have Long Considered This, Sir, the Most Appropriate Possible Use For Our Country's Military

The seizure of assets hidden abroad from taxation, and the bringing of law to outlaw territories where tax evaders shelter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:36 PM

12. US Army battalions storming Swiss banks?

Yeah, that's a cool idea. Suggest it to Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:14 PM

26. Caymans and Bahama Would Be My First Targets, Sir....

Once a few examples had been made, other miscreants might be more amenable to reason....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:08 PM

33. So

you want our army to invade other countrys to get money. Sound good to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohLast (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:22 PM

34. It Is a Most Traditional Employment Of Armies, Sir

Sometimes the old ways are best....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:23 PM

55. It's a major plot point in David Brin's Earth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:30 PM

59. Interesting, Ma'am: I Confess I Had Never Heard Of the Fellow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:46 AM

92. The book was written about 20 years ago, set about 20 years from today -

there's a whole list of predictions in the book that have already come true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:36 PM

64. Agreed. We can also stop protecting their trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:50 PM

68. are you aware that funds in the Caymans and the Bahamas are not "hidden"

and that people do pay taxes on them?

There used to be a few countries that kept banking secrets--but the patriot act has ended that.

I know this for a fact--I used to have money in a Grand Cayman bank (I lived there for a while). IRS was well aware of the fact--and I had to report the meager bit of interest income I got.

The reason people bank overseas post-patriot act is--1) in some countries your money is backed by gold so it is more stable 2) higher interest rates 3) diversification

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brokechris (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:07 PM

76. Peddle It Elsewhere, Fella

You sound like someone asking who scored the winning touchdown in the World Series....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:14 PM

78. right. But I actually have British citizenship thru my mum

and lived on Grand Cayman--have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brokechris (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:18 PM

79. When You Demonstrate Some Knowledge Of How Tax Shelters Actually Work, Sir, We Might Talk

Till then, you are just digging a hole....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:23 PM

82. I know a bit about tax shelters too--but have never had that kind of money

that I need to be very concerned about them.

I do know--and this is true and a fact--that your CI bank accounts are not "secret" or "hidden" as far as the IRS is concerned. They know what you have in there and they know what interest you earn. And YES you do have to declare it. A simple bank account in the Caymans does not equal a tax shelter. I was responding to the issue of secretiveness only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brokechris (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:18 PM

80. AND I still have a current bank account at a Cayman bank

although at the moment it only has the equivalent of about $144 USD in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:07 PM

4. So many ways that high-income earners can avoid

paying such taxes.

From the original Telegraph story:

>>"Thankfully, few are seeking exile to exempt themselves from being in solidarity with fellow Frenchmen." <<

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:17 PM

7. I keep waiting to see the line of "Eat the Rich" cooking sauces...

Not ALL "rich" people, just the more egregious asscarrots -- "Blankfein Bernaise", "T.Rump Orange Glaze", and "Wall Street Marauder Marinade", for example.

Not that anyone is seriously considering them for Sunday dinner (WAY too toxic!), but such a stunt might get some airplay and serve just to demonstrate the contempt some people hold them in.

(Oh, and anyone who might consider it might want to have a couple of lawyers lined up. I'm sure a sauce for "T.Rump Roast" would not be met with much humor by the main ingredient.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:00 PM

18. duzy worthy material, there.

too bad we do not have Duzys anymore...sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:43 PM

66. ummmmmmmmmmmmm tasty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:17 PM

8. So long, don't let the door hit your butt. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:19 PM

9. Whatever! Then they were not really French or British; they merely liked the scenery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:23 PM

10. So what. It opens a niche for the not rich to become rich.

The thing to do is don't allow them to leave and take their money with them. Sure, there is nothing you can do about Swiss or Cayman Islands accounts, but don't let them leave the country with the assets they have in the country and allow them only a limited amount of income from those assets to leave the country, hence they will still have to pay taxes. I believe we used to do that here. If you were living or working in a foreign country, you were only allowed to take out a certain amount of dollars a year. The purpose was to keep the money in circulation in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:33 PM

35. Do you advocate for US states being able to do that as well?

 

Remember that France is part of the EU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:57 PM

40. We have something like that, for international money changing:

http://www.customsandinternationaltradelaw.com/2010/02/articles/customs-1/currency-seizure/help-us-customs-took-my-money-at-the-airport/

Sure it wouldn't be between states and probably shouldn't happen in the EU. But it seems a lot of those rich people are going to places like Dubai and other similar havens. I think then they should be forced to pay taxes on the income earned in the place where the money originated. Maybe this is what is needed in future international trade agreements and treaties.

Frankly, my whole attitude is go away. Other people will get rich in your place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:07 PM

45. Two things

 

So you contend that if a bunch of wealth leaves a country, new wealth will just fill that void? Where does it come from? Will it come from all of those around the person growing wealthy or will it be created? If it is created, shouldn't we encourage all rich people to leave so eventually everyone is wealthy?


Second, if it just within the EU, there is enough variation between countries that most rich could deal with that. And my understanding is that money IS taxed in the country it is earned in for pretty much all countries.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:17 PM

48. If your last contention is true, then why would they be leaving because of higher taxes? I'm really

not that interested but maybe you have the answer.

As to your other acid questions. In nature, if a species becomes extinct, another species fills in its place. Otherwise, read up on the fall of the Roman Empire or the Bubonic Plagues of the Middle Ages. When the wealthy of Rome disappeared and that of Europe due to plague, it opened up new opportunities. The European barbarian tribes took over the vacant estates of the Romans becoming the emerging kingdoms of Europe and the Plague paved the way for the Renaissance. You can't go wrong learning from history or observing nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:33 PM

61. Because money made on investments

 

can be made regardless of what country you are officially in and often is not associated with a specific country.

As for your analogy, the difference is that when the wealthy of Rome died, they didn't take their wealth with them.

So just to make sure I understand you position, do you think it is a good idea to have all of our rich leave, thinking that new wealth will be created in their absence?

If so, I still do not understand where you thin kt hat wealth will come from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:38 PM

65. According to Adam Smith, wealth is created when you make something, so

if our industrialists, who are making our things in China, leave then maybe we can make them here again and become wealthy again. Right now we are turning into a third world country of a few haves and millions of have nots. I say good riddance, while we still have a few trees left to make stuff from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:48 PM

67. Why wouldn't the industrialists

 

who replace them also just have the stuff made in China?

So is it safe to assume that those rich folks currently in America are not rich because they took money from those who were poor and consolidated it but, instead, created it? For examples, the Walton family?

And for the record

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

"More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!"

""Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival."

Not that it is really relevant since most manufactured goods are not made from wood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:55 PM

69. Forget them. I really want to get rid of the bankers and insurance companies and nationalize them.

They are parasites and need to be made boring and practical and to serve the needs of the community.

As far as the forest, it was a metaphor. We have so much more to manufacture with. I would rather the forests were left alone personally. The Waltons are basically thieves who do it legally. They can leave forever as far as I'm concerned. Bring back the New Deal policies and 1950's tax rates that have been eroded over time and that's what this country needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:05 PM

74. How did the Waltons do it illegally?

 



And what is to stop the replacements from doing it the same way?

As for high tax rates, it they go too high, we'll see what Britain and France are seeing. If you go back to the 50's and see how many people actually paid that rate, you will find it was very few. As the rates go up, the "highly compensated" will always find ways to get compensation in ways that are not direct income. The key is to find a sweet spot and balance that most people consider fair but also cover the bases to minimize the ability to "hide" the compensation.

For example, people go on and on about the Whole Foods CEO only having a salary 14 times that of the common worker. However, if you dig into it, you find that his compensation is really valued at about $6M/year.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/20/john-mackey-pay_cx_hc_06ceo_0420wholefoods.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:07 PM

75. Did you read my post? I never said illegally.

Since it appears you are skimming the words because you don't want a real discussion but a pissing match I'm not continuing with you on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:41 PM

90. My bad

 

you said "thieves" and "legally" and I read it as "illegally".

So please explain how they were legally thieves. And what would stop their replacements from doing the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:39 PM

13. oh boo hoo hoo

"he increasing vilification of the wealthy"

Where? On the net?

Certainly not in the M$M.

Maybe people on the net are just reacting because so many of the wealthy are saying "I need to keep my $300,000 tax cut and the canaille need to work 3 more years before retiring".

But, for myself, I would define rich in such a way as to include Turley himself.

Which would go a long way towards explaining why Turley is so anxious to defend his fellow rich people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:55 PM

16. IMO, those rich who are fleeing Britain and France were making no monetary contribution to their

Country anyway. England and France are fortunate to get rid of the greedy bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:59 PM

17. Tax receipts went down when the UK raised the top tax rate to 50%.

So they are reducing it to 45% so that they can increase tax revenue.

That's the Laffer Curve in action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:28 PM

27. Do you have any documentation of the claim in your subject line?

Everything I've been able to find says that more money was indeed raised under the 50% rate, the reasons for reducing it to 45% do not include Laffer Curve adjustment.

And then there's this:
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2012/03/did-the-50p-tax-rate-really-raise-less-than-1-billion-in-201011/

In the event, HMRC data for 2009/10 (the year before the 50p rate was introduced) and 2010/11 (the first year of its existence) appear to show a very large increase in income tax revenue in 2009/10 and a very large drop in 2010/11. This suggests that tax avoidance through ‘forestalling’ (moving taxable income forward from 2010/11 to 2009/10 to pay tax at 40% rather than 50%) inflated tax receipts in 2009/10 and depressed them in 2010/11 (and possibly subsequent years as well). The HMRC report on the impact of the 50p rate shows that total income for individuals with incomes above £150,000 increased from £101.3bn to £115.7bn from 2008/09 to 2009/10 before falling to £87bn in 2010/11 (HMRC, Table 5.1).

Forestalling on this scale makes it pretty much impossible to estimate the ‘long-run’ yield from the 50% tax rate on the basis of the 2009/10 and 2010/11 data alone, because there is no real way of knowing how much of the drop in income in 2010/11 is due to forestalling and how much is due to other, longer run, avoidance factors depressing taxable income, or other behavioural impacts on work by top earners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:40 AM

91. Good post. Thanks for the input. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:06 PM

21. If they are not contributing anyhow, let them leave. They are just a burden

those who are paying their taxes.

I don't see the downside of getting rid of Corporate Welfare Kings. Eg, no more bailouts when they gamble away the country's wealth.

Somalia might be a good place for them. I don't know if they even have a tax system in place.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:09 PM

24. So don't stop at a 75% tax rate, go all the way to 100%.

Might as well make absolutely certain that these people leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:31 PM

28. And they are contributing to the economy in an irreplaceable way how?

Basic capitalism- if they leave, someone else will move in to provide whatever service they were providing. If they were stealing it, then you get that net benefit of them not being around instead.

Really don't know why everyone wants to mix systems to create things like "Job Creators" and "Too Big to Fail."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:33 PM

29. I'd be willing to stop spending trillions of dollars bailing them out after they

gamble away the people's tax dollars. I like what Iceland did, arrest them, confiscate their assets, prosecute them and send them to jail.

And no, I wouldn't take 100% until after a trial and conviction. If they did not participate in the biggest bank heist in history, then tax them fairly like everyone else.

If they do not want to contribute to their country's welfare, then let them leave they are nothing but a burden on the rest of us who do pay taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:57 PM

70. Are you a republican?

Why are you defending the wealthy on this thread advocating for keeping taxes low on the already wealthy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:36 PM

86. I'm fine with Obama's plan to raise the top rate to 39.6%.

However, beyond a certain point, raising the rate becomes counterproductive as the high earners (who tend to be more mobile) can leave, as is happening in France.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:18 PM

50. or Haiti n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:14 PM

25. First, there's no "75% tax rate". It's a temporary add-on for income over $1 million. Income below

 

$1M is taxed at lower rates.

Second, I don't believe 'the rich' are suddenly leaving france in droves because of it.

Third, revoke their citizenship if they do, and seize their property in france for redistribution & fuck em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:36 PM

30. I like that. The people really cannot afford to keep these people on welfare

any more. We the taxpayers all over the world, have been propping them up for over 15 years now and it's time they get a job and pay their fair share like everyone else.

Third, revoke their citizenship if they do, and seize their property in france for redistribution & fuck em.


Exactly. Money is god to them, let them follow their money to wherever they are hiding it. But they are dead weight on the countries whose economies they destroyed at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:39 PM

31. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AlexSatan (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:28 PM

83. The Depp example isn't really a good one

I'm no tax expert, but this is what I understood from that article:

Depp retains dual citizenship and the USA is one of the only countries that requires those with dual citizenship to pay taxes to the USA in addition to what they have to pay in the other country. In most other countries, someone with dual citizenship would only pay taxes to the country where they reside most of the year.

So if he spends more than a certain number of days per year in France, then he would be required to pay tax on the same income to both countries and if the tax % France charged him PLUS the tax % the USA charged him totalled 100% or even more than 100%, he'd be working for free or paying for the privilege of working.

He chose not to become a French citizen and also has to make sure he doesn't spend more than 183 days per year in France.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:04 PM

89. depp wasn't paying french taxes in the first place & recently split with his french girlfriend. he

 

left france before the election.

he admits he tries to minimize his taxes, but the 75% thing isn't the reason he left -- & it doesn't really appear that he left totally; he maintains homes in the us & france.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:38 PM

37. Seize their property?

 

The easy solution to that is for them to sell it before they leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:22 PM

54. Don't blame me, I just posted a news article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:59 PM

88. didn't mean to blame you -- the press always reports like that, like people are being taxed 75%

 

on all their income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:02 PM

32. So what? They still have to pay French tax on French income.


I suppose they could stop investing in French companies as well. But, again, so what? Pretty certain 99% of stock trades are between holders of previously issued stock. Which means none of that money is invested in the company anyway.

A company only receives money to invest when they sell the stock, not when you buy it from someone else.

If the ex-pats sell all their shares in French companies, those companies don't lose a dime. And France taxes the new owner of the stock exactly what they would have taxed the ex-pats.

If the ex-pats keep their shares in French companies, then they still have to pay the French dividend tax.

All this would seem to be proving is that a lot of rich people are really stupid. They are pretty much demonstrating the point that they really don't deserve all their money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:49 PM

38. So that's why Johnny Depp moved outta France!

The minute I did a search, well whoomp, there it is....

http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2011/11/johnny-depp-moves-back-to-america-to-avoid-paying-taxes-in-france/

Depp has now moved his family out of France after government officials asked him to become a permanent resident, as he feared he would end up paying tax in both countries.

He tells Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, “Well, I kind of do (live back in America). I’m between wherever I end up on location, and then the States. (I left because) France wanted a piece of me. They wanted me to become a permanent resident. Permanent residency status – which changes everything. They just want… Dough. Money… I’m certainly not ready to give up my American citizenship.”

Depp goes on to explain that if he spends more than 183 days a year in France he will have to pay income tax in both Europe and America, adding, “So you essentially work for free.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:00 PM

42. Hard to blame him.

 

If you have to pay both here and there you're getting killed financially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:06 PM

43. It's been a long while since I spent full tax years outside the US.

I seem to remember, though, that there was an offset/credit of sorts when you paid foreign taxes.

My memory is vague on that, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:54 PM

39. And another thing: for every one of them there's a J.K. Rowling

who is fine with paying a higher tax rate; she benefited from government programs when she was on welfare, and doesn't resent helping to finance social programs for those who are needy today.

I'll take her type of citizenship over Mitt Romney's any day of the week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:06 PM

44. Except JK Rowling hasn't been hit with 75% taxes yet

That level is enough to drive many people elsewhere. Losing half your income is one thing; losing the majority of it is a little crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:13 PM

46. But her case does rebut the claim in the thread title,

insofar as she is one of Britain's wealthiest citizens. She's not only not fleeing, but she's been publicly arguing the case that tax avoidance is wrong, and further that personally she is fine with paying the higher rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:18 PM

49. Taxes in the UK aren't 75%.

I pay the maximum rate. Like Rowling, I too have argued for an increase. But raise it to 75%, and I would really question the point of working at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:20 PM

52. Thread title: ""The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes."

>>The English have also seen the same decline in wealthy taxpayers after it imposed a 50% tax. <<

Not J.K. Rowling.

As to 75%, it's lower than Republican Eisenhower's top marginal tax rate of 93%. We did fine during his term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:25 PM

56. I was replying to your thread about JK Rowling

And pointed out that UK is not 75%. Is this inaccurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:35 PM

62. You respond to a point I didn't make.

The article claims the rich are fleeing Britain (and France) due to new higher tax rates.

Those "higher" tax rates could amount to 50% or 75% or even 95% - it's not material to the point I was making; the point I was making was that the claim in the thread title (that the rich are fleeing Britain) does not square with J.K. Rowling's recent public remarks that she is happy to pay taxes, since it helps finance social welfare programs.

I have no arguments to make as to how high is too high in terms of marginal tax rates. It's clear you believe 75% is above your comfort level. It would be above my comfort level, personally. But if I was Bill Gates, it could be 95% and I'd still make more in one day than most people make in a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:29 PM

58. Of course in Rowling's case, vast income and 'working' are no longer tied.

Like most of the folks making more than a million a year, JK has what you call 'passive income'. She could never write another word and still make an utterly insane amount of money. Subtract 75% and it is still insane. So I hardly think your situation is much like hers, and I hardly expect her to slog off her priciples in order to add to an endlessly growing pile of money.
She's got about a billion dollars already. A billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:01 PM

72. Taxation doesn't differentiate between those actively working and those already wealthy

I'm still working and trying to accumulate enough for retirement, so a 75% rate would truly be a disincentive for me. (And I'm a longterm Democrat who thinks a 50% tax rate is A-OK.) For those of us who don't try to escape taxes, who take very few deductions, a 75% rate hits us especially hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:59 PM

41. How do the French define wealthy? Is it $250,000 like in the US?

Because the majority of those wouldn't be banksters, but doctors and lawyers and small business owners. It'd be a disaster if France saw an exodus of its best surgeons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:15 PM

47. The linked ariticle gives no proof of the OP claim, this is stupid crap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:28 PM

57. I assumed people could follow the links in the pages.

Here:
France's Jean-Marc Ayrault slams flight of the 'greedy rich'
France's prime minister has slammed wealthy citizens fleeing the country's punitive tax on high incomes as greedy profiteers seeking to "become even richer".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9738178/Frances-Jean-Marc-Ayrault-slams-flight-of-the-greedy-rich.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:04 PM

73. 14 percent of the French are "poor"?

And it's rising? In a country that's already highly taxed?

Things in France seem even worse than things in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:36 PM

85. "Thankfully, few are seeking exile to exempt themselves from being in solidarity with fellow French


man"

from the news report above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:20 PM

51. Singapore is going to run out of room

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:21 PM

53. I think people like this should live in the places they put their money...

in order to evade taxes. And they shouldn't be allowed to invest or game the systems in any of the countries like the US, France or the UK. If you cannot find it within yourselves to put a tiny bit of your wealth back into the country that gave you the freedom and opportunity to earn (or inherit), and expand your wealth, fuck you. You are out of the game. Go try your luck somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmuse (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:36 PM

63. My Masters Thesis dealt with this

My research showed that the job stability and amount of profit that
gets re-invested locally, both decrease the greater the distance
is from the workplace site to the locus of ownership & control
i.e. proximity of company headquarters & boardroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:31 PM

60. Better Fleeing than Fleecing, is what I say.

Fuck 'em.

start some businesses from the ground up, worker-owned
preferably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:00 PM

71. A fact check on the British figures:

That's where the problems for the claimants start. Last week, Tax Research UK pointed out that drawing these conclusions ignores the elephant in the room: the fact that HMRC itself found evidence of £18 billion worth of 'forestalling' in the first 50p year.

In HMRC's own words:

"...there was a considerable behavioural response to the rate change, including a substantial amount of forestalling: around £16 billion to £18 billion of income is estimated to have been brought forward to 2009-10 to avoid the introduction of the additional rate of tax."


This suggests that the figures for 2009-10 are larger than would have otherwise been the case if the policy hadn't been announced and these people hadn't brought forward their declared income (certain people can alter the 'timing' of their income, sometimes to avoid changes in rates). HMRC confirm this in their latest statistics release:

"Forestalling in 2009-10 exerts a significant influence on the projected profile of combined liabilities due at higher and additional rates of tax. These are projected to have fallen in 2010-11 as incomes for the richest decline from forestalled to below ‘normal levels’, but recover in later years as these special factors subside, and economic recovery is assumed to build."


Claiming that thousands of millionaires simply 'left' the UK thus misses the point: a simple look at the figures shows that the overall number of taxpayers remained almost unchanged between 2009/10 and 2010/11. Following the introduction of the rate, much of the deterioration in declared incomes over £1 million will have been a result of abnormally high levels in 2009/10 due to forestalling.

Where forestalling occurs, we can also reasonably expect an 'unwinding' effect were the income figures will return to stability, which again demonstrates the partial picture painted by taking only the first year's effect of the policy in drawing conclusions about it's overall impact.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/labour_50p_tax_rate_millionaires_leave_country-28645

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:21 PM

81. It mis time for the industrialized countries to impose sanctions on tax avoidance nations.

We sanction socialist or communists countries that we don't like...not because they are harming us but because we simply don't like them. Yet countries that allow and encourage tax avoidance for other nations are actually harming us. If we don't do this, it means to me that the rich really don't care about their own countries as long as they can accumulate wealth and power for no other purpose than to accumulate wealth and power. I guess the "banksters" own all those countries that hoard the wealth of the tax cheats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:33 PM

84. And going where?

Just keep raising the rates everywhere till the only places left are China, Russia, and Somalia. Then they can choose which they wish to take their cash(after paying appropriate taxes on money earned within each country its made in) to hide out in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:45 PM

87. Perhaps we'd be better off without them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread