King Orfeo Must Be Thunderstruck...

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why would anybody but thunderstruck?

 

[oggbashan]

France has suffered bad publicity from some prominent individuals becoming tax exiles because of this tax.

But many had already arranged their affairs before Hollande became President. There are more French nationals in London than the population of a smaller French city - so much so that French politicians have to campaign in London.

I can remember when the UK had punitively high tax rates. Those who might have been expected to pay those rates employed accountants and lawyers to make sure that they didn't. The amount raised was derisory.

In the UK both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are proposing a 'Mansion Tax' on houses worth over one million pounds. But many of the really expensive houses are not owned by taxable individuals but by shell companies headquartered wherever the tax regime is favourable. Those that will be hurt are ordinary Londoners who have lived in the family home for decades.

High tax rates are counterproductive. President Hollande knew that but campaigned on "soak the rich" even though he knew he couldn't.

 

[Que]

this is why the tax the rich people are idiots:

" pickings from the levy paltry."

They always are. You do not get rich being stupid. Paying 75% would be stupid.

They did not even need to leave France to avoid it, although that would be simplest. Defer the income until after the silly tax expires, pay the money to another one of your holdings overseas and have that holding bu and own anything that you would like to possess.

Politicians that vow to tax the rich are either stupid or hiding the fact that eventually they will be taxing the middle class which is who always has and always will fund bloated government. The middle class doesn't generate enough wealth to make manipulating it to become nothing worth the trouble and expense of doing so.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

Rest assured KO will no doubt be here to defend high tax rates.

Since he knows little about anything and nothing about economics I won't bother to read his Salon post.

 

[PoppingTom]

High tax rates are counterproductive.

Depends.

We've got tax rates around 50%, with high write off possibilities. People got used to it, and whenever somebody yells "tax cuts now" somebody yells "who shall pay it?" back.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

this is why the tax the rich people are idiots:

" pickings from the levy paltry."

They always are. You do not get rich being stupid. Paying 75% would be stupid.

They did not even need to leave France to avoid it, although that would be simplest. Defer the income until after the silly tax expires, pay the money to another one of your holdings overseas and have that holding bu and own anything that you would like to possess.

Politicians that vow to tax the rich are either stupid or hiding the fact that eventually they will be taxing the middle class which is who always has and always will fund bloated government. The middle class doesn't generate enough wealth to make manipulating it to become nothing worth the trouble and expense of doing so.

Except the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes even after they play their little games.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No one enjoys paying taxes and all avoid it however they can.

 

[PoppingTom]

No one enjoys paying taxes and all avoid it however they can.

That's true, even in our country.

 

[Que]

Except the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes even after they play their little games.

And you have already soaked them for all that you will ever get.

Because:

No one enjoys paying taxes and all avoid it however they can.

The taxes the rich pay now are a minor nuisance to them compared to the steps they would need to go through to pay less.

Exactly like speed limits. The closer you come to setting the limit to the speed that the most people find safe and comfortable, the better compliance you get.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And you have already soaked them for all that you will ever get.

Because:



The taxes the rich pay now are a minor nuisance to them compared to the steps they would need to go through to pay less.

Exactly like speed limits. The closer you come to setting the limit to the speed that the most people find safe and comfortable, the better compliance you get.

That's your opinion. They've paid higher rates in the past, our taxes are irresponsibly low.

Nobody denies that the taxes they pay now are a minor nuisance (they still go through lots of steps to avoid paying them) they can handle a little more nuisance and in different places. Though some of them may need to be made either permanent of at least really really long.

 

[ishtat]

Part of my income is derived from an entity established in Hong Kong. The maximum corporate rate and personal rate are both below 16% - result, no one bothers to avoid tax.

 

[Que]

That's your opinion. They've paid higher rates in the past, our taxes are irresponsibly low.

Nobody denies that the taxes they pay now are a minor nuisance (they still go through lots of steps to avoid paying them) they can handle a little more nuisance and in different places. Though some of them may need to be made either permanent of at least really really long.

You keep saying that. You are dead wrong.

It is not "my opinion." it is as certain as any other observed economic behavior. For example, it is not just "my opinion" that if you raise the price of a big mac you will not sell more of them. It is not just "my opinion" that when the price of gas goes down people drive more.

Accountants and mathematicians and statisticians have proved this beyond the doubt of anyone but some Democrats and Socialists that want to believe in unicorns and rainbows. There are no statistical studies showing anything different then what I am saying.

They have not "paid higher in the past." the bracket was higher, the amount collected was not. There is a big difference between a nominal tax rate and an effective rate.

Even Democrat Party lapdogs like Krugman do not argue that raising the nominal tax rate will result in higher revenues. Even OBAMA when asked admitted that he was aware that it will not yield more revenue but when asked "why advocate it?" he says it is an issue of "fairness" which is stupid... It only ends up enriching accountants and taxing those that have minor success and cannot afford great accountants and lawyers.

Accountants love the tax code. It makes a whole worthless industry necessary.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You keep saying that. You are dead wrong.

It is not "my opinion." it is as certain as any other observed economic behavior. For example, it is not just "my opinion" that if you raise the price of a big mac you will not sell more of them. It is not just "my opinion" that when the price of gas goes down people drive more.

Accountants and mathematicians and statisticians have proved this beyond the doubt of anyone but some Democrats and Socialists that want to believe in unicorns and rainbows. There are no statistical studies showing anything different then what I am saying.

They have not "paid higher in the past." the bracket was higher, the amount collected was not. There is a big difference between a nominal tax rate and an effective rate.

Even Democrat Party lapdogs like Krugman do not argue that raising the nominal tax rate will result in higher revenues. Even OBAMA when asked admitted that he was aware that it will not yield more revenue but when asked "why advocate it?" he says it is an issue of "fairness" which is stupid... It only ends up enriching accountants and taxing those that have minor success and cannot afford great accountants and lawyers.

Accountants love the tax code. It makes a whole worthless industry necessary.

You probably won't sell more Big Macs, I have to assume McDonalds is smart enough to charge the maximum amount they can get away with.

BUt it is still your opinion, if they had solved the equation every nation in the world would have the exact same tax rate because the math would be solved but unfortunately it never will or even can be solved because every situation is unique.