Depardieu says he paid 85% of his 2012 income to taxes

become so rich. That and the fact that the French people went to see his movies.

EDIT - NM I read the article wrong, my mistake.

could you point out where I misread or misquoted the article?

Umtil this year, The law said that, between income taxes and tax on wealth, you could not be imposed more than 50 % of your income.

I'm just posting the article, so you can attack Huffington Post instead.

Not only does it include income tax, it also includes the additional wealth tax (not on income) as well as taxes for social welfare:

"In his letter to Ayrault, Depardieu said his 2012 tax bill, including payments to the French social-welfare system, totaled 85 percent of his income before the new tax rate kicks in."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-17/depardieu-will-give-up-french-citizenship-over-taxes

A/ Nobody has paid taxes on 2012 income yet.

B/ The highest income tax rate in France is 41%.

C/ It is still highly unlikely when it comes to welfare taxes, as you only pay up to the cap and the rest is a small percentage of the income.

Some people owe taxes based on best-estimate of their upcoming quarter's income.

You pay your taxes for 2011 in 2012, and you pay it by 1/3 of what you paid the previous year: 1/3 in Feb, 1/3 in May, and 1/3 in September (or whatever is left to pay).

Frankly, this looks like a pile of crap to me, and he is probably putting together a whole bunch of things that do not belong together (such as VAT)

Someone whose income comes from profit-sharing of movies will have complicated tax affairs that take years to complete. If he didn't have a big year in 2012, he could have paid 85% of what has come in to him this year to settle previous years' bills. Or he had capital gains taxes (from selling up properties in preparation for moving to Belgium, perhaps). But he'd put it as "85% of my income" to try to generate some sympathy.

on incomes over 1 Million Euros. Many of the wealthy are leaving. They're all putting their mansions up for sale. I don't know who is going to buy them though.

Most of them are staying though.

and probably inflate the real estate value while they are at it.

As I pointed out below, his net worth is estimated around $120,000,000. He pays about 2.2 million dollars annually in wealth tax, exclusive of income tax. If he earned 4 million dollars last year (and he hasn't made a hit movie in years; I don't know many Hollywood actors his age who are in the 4 million plus category) and his income tax was 46%, then he owes about 2 million dollars in income/welfare taxes.

Add it up: $2.2 in wealth tax plus $2 million in income tax = $4.2 million dollars in taxes owed.

On 4 million dollars of income.

In France, it's possible to owe more than 100% of your income in taxes.

Help me figure out where I'm obviously wrong. (I don't have Depardieu's annual income -- that's the missing X.)

But hey they don't matter since they are poor.

but I'm having trouble. A very poor person with almost no income would indeed pay sales taxes but in many states, food is tax-free. To pay 85% of your income in sales tax/use taxes would mean your income is so low that you're getting federal or state support for Medicaid or food stamps.

If you purchase $20,000 of items in a year and paid 5% sales tax on that, it amounts to $1000 in taxes. For that to be 85% of your income, it means you're only making about $1300 a year. Which means you're getting federal/state subsidies to survive, which cannot be considered income but which actually means you're getting a net back from the government.

Help me come up with the scenario of "many low-income people" paying 85% in taxes.

I was considering just discretionary spending but it still does not add up. Just like Depardieu's funky numbers and for exactly the same reason.

But then there are numbers to be believed and numbers to question. What we choose to question and what we choose to accept tells us a lot about ourselves.

and numbers give me comfort. It's the dweeb in me.

I suppose that should give you comfort also.

I haven't yet seen a rebuttal of Depardieu's letter to the press. All I can do is post what has been quoted in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post. It doesn't mean I believe it; it just means that's what he said.

Funny how people get attacked here for just posting news sources, as if I'm Depardieu himself.

I have re-phrased the OP to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that it's Depardieu saying it.

Anyways Belgium is in need of a public urinator. Does France have one they can borrow?

I'm still waiting for the press to make a statement.

France has a 1.8 percent wealth tax on net assets (aside from income). Depardieu's net worth is estimated at around $120,000,000, so that's a yearly tax of about $2.2 million, before income taxes. If he had an income this year of $3 million, then he's already at a 75% tax rate even BEFORE his income and social welfare taxes are taken into account.

So yes, it's very possible to be paying 85% in taxes.

I owned a bank for a bit. We had a number of tellers, and tellers being human made mistakes. Well those mistakes would be positive some days and negative others for the most part.

Except one teller. He would of all things be in the negative every day. Not a lot mind you, but 40 to 100 dollars on the average. He never was in the positive not once.

You see sometimes there are consistencies. It is what let most of us know that Bush and co. were.... well manipulating data. Looking for a desired outcome so to speak.

So maybe you will find what you are looking for.

Good luck.

...and even has the audacity to think he deserves to run the place.

citizenship.

He just plays himself. Just a big hulk. I don't think he earned a cent of that.

What is more, he gets role after role after role in otherwise great French movies.

No loss if he never appears in another movie.

I have never understood why he is such a big star in France.

Would be difficult to amass that much in wealth with such high taxes.

this is nothing new, and the rich need to stfu about government forcing them to pay their fair share. If they respected the laws of their country, this wouldn't be a problem. They are just criminals of a very nasty variety.

From what I've heard, under Eisenhower, no one actually paid 93%.

yeah, they were incentivized to help their own factories and so on, thus avoiding the major brunt of the tax (very much simplified version from my non-expert perspective.

Yeah, good for France if they can collect!The citizens get many benfits in return, unlike the US.

When you give up your French passport “you no longer want to be part of the mother country,” Sapin said in a radio interview on Europe 1. “I know him well, he’s a man of extravagance and exaggeration.”

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:58 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Depardieu paid 85% of his 2012 income to taxes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022010901

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Right wing talking point.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I know, I know, HuffPo is right wing
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said:
&feature=player_embedded
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: When did the RW develop talking points re: French actors?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I didn't know it was possible to post a mainstream news source and have it alerted!

So now the Huffington Post is a teabag site?

The same story's posted in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/gerard-depardieu-says-he-is-giving-up-french-citizenship.html?_r=0) and the Wall Street Journal.

So now we'll ban articles from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal?

with "RW talking point" for a story from a generally accepted news source. In the other case (I believe I served on a jury for that) we let it stand as well. Some people seem to think that just because a story doesn't fit the argument we'd like to make, we shouldn't discuss it at all. I think those are the ones we should discuss to determine what's going on... is the story inaccurate or misleading? Is the story accurate but only covers such a tiny group that the overall argument still stands? Is it possible that one's position might need to take this new information (if accurate) into account? I don't think it serves us well to be the party with their head in the sand.

The good we could do for our citizens with that kind of income coming in...

He doesn't have any money invested in French businesses? I guess France hasn't lost shit then, huh?

Isn't this the guy who whipped his shit out on an airplane and pissed right in the isle?

Yeah I feel bad for him

Funny that you left out the comments about him benefitting from "grants" from the French Film Industry.

Not the whole thing. That's the accepted limit on posting an article, I thought.

I pity Belgium for its sudden influx of assholes.