Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:49 PM Dec 2012

"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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes. (Original Post) dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 OP
No travel visas alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #1
+1 LiberalLoner Dec 2012 #2
The EU allows free movement between any countries. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #11
Furthermore, if you leave, you're not allowed to do business in or with the country anymore. backscatter712 Dec 2012 #14
Again, France would have to leave the EU to do this. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #15
And there is absolutely no legal mechanism to do it anyway. dmallind Dec 2012 #22
The US isn't part of the EU... backscatter712 Dec 2012 #23
True. The US does not have the same constraints that France or any other EU country would have. pampango Dec 2012 #77
Our Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld retroactive taxes. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3
Gee, cannot figure out why our government would not use such a handy tool. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #5
They used retroactive laws for the FISA bill. But then, that benefited the wealthy sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #19
I have Long Considered This, Sir, the Most Appropriate Possible Use For Our Country's Military The Magistrate Dec 2012 #6
US Army battalions storming Swiss banks? Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #12
Caymans and Bahama Would Be My First Targets, Sir.... The Magistrate Dec 2012 #26
So JohLast Dec 2012 #33
It Is a Most Traditional Employment Of Armies, Sir The Magistrate Dec 2012 #34
It's a major plot point in David Brin's Earth! hedgehog Dec 2012 #55
Interesting, Ma'am: I Confess I Had Never Heard Of the Fellow The Magistrate Dec 2012 #59
The book was written about 20 years ago, set about 20 years from today - hedgehog Dec 2012 #92
Agreed. We can also stop protecting their trade. TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #64
are you aware that funds in the Caymans and the Bahamas are not "hidden" brokechris Dec 2012 #68
Peddle It Elsewhere, Fella The Magistrate Dec 2012 #76
right. But I actually have British citizenship thru my mum brokechris Dec 2012 #78
When You Demonstrate Some Knowledge Of How Tax Shelters Actually Work, Sir, We Might Talk The Magistrate Dec 2012 #79
I know a bit about tax shelters too--but have never had that kind of money brokechris Dec 2012 #82
AND I still have a current bank account at a Cayman bank brokechris Dec 2012 #80
So many ways that high-income earners can avoid closeupready Dec 2012 #4
I keep waiting to see the line of "Eat the Rich" cooking sauces... Buns_of_Fire Dec 2012 #7
duzy worthy material, there. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #18
Here! Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #20
ummmmmmmmmmmmm tasty dembotoz Dec 2012 #66
So long, don't let the door hit your butt. nt bemildred Dec 2012 #8
Whatever! Then they were not really French or British; they merely liked the scenery. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #9
So what. It opens a niche for the not rich to become rich. Cleita Dec 2012 #10
Do you advocate for US states being able to do that as well? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #35
We have something like that, for international money changing: Cleita Dec 2012 #40
Two things AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45
If your last contention is true, then why would they be leaving because of higher taxes? I'm really Cleita Dec 2012 #48
Because money made on investments AlexSatan Dec 2012 #61
According to Adam Smith, wealth is created when you make something, so Cleita Dec 2012 #65
Why wouldn't the industrialists AlexSatan Dec 2012 #67
Forget them. I really want to get rid of the bankers and insurance companies and nationalize them. Cleita Dec 2012 #69
How did the Waltons do it illegally? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #74
Did you read my post? I never said illegally. Cleita Dec 2012 #75
My bad AlexSatan Dec 2012 #90
oh boo hoo hoo hfojvt Dec 2012 #13
IMO, those rich who are fleeing Britain and France were making no monetary contribution to their ladjf Dec 2012 #16
Tax receipts went down when the UK raised the top tax rate to 50%. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #17
Do you have any documentation of the claim in your subject line? trotsky Dec 2012 #27
Good post. Thanks for the input. nt ladjf Dec 2012 #91
If they are not contributing anyhow, let them leave. They are just a burden sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #21
So don't stop at a 75% tax rate, go all the way to 100%. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #24
And they are contributing to the economy in an irreplaceable way how? Hydra Dec 2012 #28
I'd be willing to stop spending trillions of dollars bailing them out after they sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #29
Are you a republican? abelenkpe Dec 2012 #70
I'm fine with Obama's plan to raise the top rate to 39.6%. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #86
or Haiti n/t SoCalDem Dec 2012 #50
First, there's no "75% tax rate". It's a temporary add-on for income over $1 million. Income below HiPointDem Dec 2012 #25
I like that. The people really cannot afford to keep these people on welfare sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #30
+1 xchrom Dec 2012 #31
Two high-profile examples AlexSatan Dec 2012 #36
The Depp example isn't really a good one Autumn Colors Dec 2012 #83
depp wasn't paying french taxes in the first place & recently split with his french girlfriend. he HiPointDem Dec 2012 #89
Seize their property? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #37
Don't blame me, I just posted a news article. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #54
didn't mean to blame you -- the press always reports like that, like people are being taxed 75% HiPointDem Dec 2012 #88
So what? They still have to pay French tax on French income. ieoeja Dec 2012 #32
So that's why Johnny Depp moved outta France! MADem Dec 2012 #38
Hard to blame him. MrSlayer Dec 2012 #42
It's been a long while since I spent full tax years outside the US. MADem Dec 2012 #43
And another thing: for every one of them there's a J.K. Rowling closeupready Dec 2012 #39
Except JK Rowling hasn't been hit with 75% taxes yet mainer Dec 2012 #44
But her case does rebut the claim in the thread title, closeupready Dec 2012 #46
Taxes in the UK aren't 75%. mainer Dec 2012 #49
Thread title: ""The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes." closeupready Dec 2012 #52
I was replying to your thread about JK Rowling mainer Dec 2012 #56
You respond to a point I didn't make. closeupready Dec 2012 #62
Of course in Rowling's case, vast income and 'working' are no longer tied. Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #58
Taxation doesn't differentiate between those actively working and those already wealthy mainer Dec 2012 #72
How do the French define wealthy? Is it $250,000 like in the US? mainer Dec 2012 #41
The linked ariticle gives no proof of the OP claim, this is stupid crap uponit7771 Dec 2012 #47
I assumed people could follow the links in the pages. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #57
14 percent of the French are "poor"? mainer Dec 2012 #73
"Thankfully, few are seeking exile to exempt themselves from being in solidarity with fellow French adirondacker Dec 2012 #85
Singapore is going to run out of room Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #51
I think people like this should live in the places they put their money... liberalmuse Dec 2012 #53
My Masters Thesis dealt with this 99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #63
Better Fleeing than Fleecing, is what I say. 99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #60
A fact check on the British figures: muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #71
It mis time for the industrialized countries to impose sanctions on tax avoidance nations. kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #81
And going where? quakerboy Dec 2012 #84
Perhaps we'd be better off without them. NC_Nurse Dec 2012 #87
 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
1. No travel visas
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:51 PM
Dec 2012

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.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
11. The EU allows free movement between any countries.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:33 PM
Dec 2012

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.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
14. Furthermore, if you leave, you're not allowed to do business in or with the country anymore.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:43 PM
Dec 2012

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.

dmallind

(10,437 posts)
22. And there is absolutely no legal mechanism to do it anyway.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:07 PM
Dec 2012

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.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
23. The US isn't part of the EU...
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:09 PM
Dec 2012

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.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
77. True. The US does not have the same constraints that France or any other EU country would have.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:12 PM
Dec 2012
"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.
 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
3. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld retroactive taxes.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:04 PM
Dec 2012

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.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
5. Gee, cannot figure out why our government would not use such a handy tool.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:10 PM
Dec 2012

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

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
19. They used retroactive laws for the FISA bill. But then, that benefited the wealthy
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:02 PM
Dec 2012

Corps and stopped the lawsuits that had begun.



The Magistrate

(95,721 posts)
6. I have Long Considered This, Sir, the Most Appropriate Possible Use For Our Country's Military
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:15 PM
Dec 2012

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

The Magistrate

(95,721 posts)
26. Caymans and Bahama Would Be My First Targets, Sir....
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:14 PM
Dec 2012

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

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
92. The book was written about 20 years ago, set about 20 years from today -
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:46 PM
Dec 2012

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

brokechris

(192 posts)
68. are you aware that funds in the Caymans and the Bahamas are not "hidden"
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:50 PM
Dec 2012

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

The Magistrate

(95,721 posts)
76. Peddle It Elsewhere, Fella
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:07 PM
Dec 2012

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

The Magistrate

(95,721 posts)
79. When You Demonstrate Some Knowledge Of How Tax Shelters Actually Work, Sir, We Might Talk
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:18 PM
Dec 2012

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

brokechris

(192 posts)
82. I know a bit about tax shelters too--but have never had that kind of money
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:23 PM
Dec 2012

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.

brokechris

(192 posts)
80. AND I still have a current bank account at a Cayman bank
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:18 PM
Dec 2012

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

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
4. So many ways that high-income earners can avoid
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:07 PM
Dec 2012

paying such taxes.

From the original Telegraph story:

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

Buns_of_Fire

(17,441 posts)
7. I keep waiting to see the line of "Eat the Rich" cooking sauces...
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:17 PM
Dec 2012

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.)

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
10. So what. It opens a niche for the not rich to become rich.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:23 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
35. Do you advocate for US states being able to do that as well?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:33 PM
Dec 2012

Remember that France is part of the EU.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
40. We have something like that, for international money changing:
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:57 PM
Dec 2012
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.
 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
45. Two things
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:07 PM
Dec 2012

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.



Cleita

(75,480 posts)
48. If your last contention is true, then why would they be leaving because of higher taxes? I'm really
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:17 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
61. Because money made on investments
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:33 PM
Dec 2012

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.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
65. According to Adam Smith, wealth is created when you make something, so
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:38 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
67. Why wouldn't the industrialists
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:48 PM
Dec 2012

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.

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
69. Forget them. I really want to get rid of the bankers and insurance companies and nationalize them.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:55 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
74. How did the Waltons do it illegally?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:05 PM
Dec 2012


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

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
75. Did you read my post? I never said illegally.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:07 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
90. My bad
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 12:41 AM
Dec 2012

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.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
13. oh boo hoo hoo
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:39 PM
Dec 2012

"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.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
16. IMO, those rich who are fleeing Britain and France were making no monetary contribution to their
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:55 PM
Dec 2012

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

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
17. Tax receipts went down when the UK raised the top tax rate to 50%.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:59 PM
Dec 2012

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

That's the Laffer Curve in action.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
27. Do you have any documentation of the claim in your subject line?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:28 PM
Dec 2012

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
21. If they are not contributing anyhow, let them leave. They are just a burden
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:06 PM
Dec 2012

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.



Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
24. So don't stop at a 75% tax rate, go all the way to 100%.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:09 PM
Dec 2012

Might as well make absolutely certain that these people leave.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
28. And they are contributing to the economy in an irreplaceable way how?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:31 PM
Dec 2012

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."

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
29. I'd be willing to stop spending trillions of dollars bailing them out after they
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:33 PM
Dec 2012

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.

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
70. Are you a republican?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:57 PM
Dec 2012

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

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
86. I'm fine with Obama's plan to raise the top rate to 39.6%.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:36 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
25. First, there's no "75% tax rate". It's a temporary add-on for income over $1 million. Income below
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:14 PM
Dec 2012

$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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
30. I like that. The people really cannot afford to keep these people on welfare
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 04:36 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

Autumn Colors

(2,379 posts)
83. The Depp example isn't really a good one
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:28 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
89. depp wasn't paying french taxes in the first place & recently split with his french girlfriend. he
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 08:04 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
88. didn't mean to blame you -- the press always reports like that, like people are being taxed 75%
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:59 PM
Dec 2012

on all their income.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
32. So what? They still have to pay French tax on French income.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:02 PM
Dec 2012

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
38. So that's why Johnny Depp moved outta France!
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:49 PM
Dec 2012

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.”

MADem

(135,425 posts)
43. It's been a long while since I spent full tax years outside the US.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:06 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
39. And another thing: for every one of them there's a J.K. Rowling
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:54 PM
Dec 2012

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.

mainer

(12,095 posts)
44. Except JK Rowling hasn't been hit with 75% taxes yet
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:06 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
46. But her case does rebut the claim in the thread title,
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:13 PM
Dec 2012

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.

mainer

(12,095 posts)
49. Taxes in the UK aren't 75%.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:18 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
52. Thread title: ""The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes."
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:20 PM
Dec 2012

>>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.

mainer

(12,095 posts)
56. I was replying to your thread about JK Rowling
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:25 PM
Dec 2012

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

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
62. You respond to a point I didn't make.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:35 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
58. Of course in Rowling's case, vast income and 'working' are no longer tied.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:29 PM
Dec 2012

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.

mainer

(12,095 posts)
72. Taxation doesn't differentiate between those actively working and those already wealthy
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:01 PM
Dec 2012

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.

mainer

(12,095 posts)
41. How do the French define wealthy? Is it $250,000 like in the US?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 05:59 PM
Dec 2012

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.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
57. I assumed people could follow the links in the pages.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:28 PM
Dec 2012

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

mainer

(12,095 posts)
73. 14 percent of the French are "poor"?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:04 PM
Dec 2012

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

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

adirondacker

(2,921 posts)
85. "Thankfully, few are seeking exile to exempt themselves from being in solidarity with fellow French
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:36 PM
Dec 2012

man"

from the news report above.

liberalmuse

(18,763 posts)
53. I think people like this should live in the places they put their money...
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:21 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
63. My Masters Thesis dealt with this
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:36 PM
Dec 2012

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.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
60. Better Fleeing than Fleecing, is what I say.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 06:31 PM
Dec 2012

Fuck 'em.

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

muriel_volestrangler

(101,815 posts)
71. A fact check on the British figures:
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:00 PM
Dec 2012
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
 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
81. It mis time for the industrialized countries to impose sanctions on tax avoidance nations.
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:21 PM
Dec 2012

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.

quakerboy

(13,994 posts)
84. And going where?
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 07:33 PM
Dec 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"The rich" are ...