General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"The rich" are fleeing Britain and France following high tax hikes.
French Government Denounces Wealthy Leaving Country After Imposition of 75% Tax RateDuring his campaign for president, Frances Socialist President Francois Hollande famously declared I dont 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
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)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.
LiberalLoner
(9,762 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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)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.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Not going to happen.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)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)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)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)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)totally mystifying, it is.
Not a clue.
Nope.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Corps and stopped the lawsuits that had begun.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)The seizure of assets hidden abroad from taxation, and the bringing of law to outlaw territories where tax evaders shelter.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Yeah, that's a cool idea. Suggest it to Obama.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Once a few examples had been made, other miscreants might be more amenable to reason....
you want our army to invade other countrys to get money. Sound good to me.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Sometimes the old ways are best....
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)there's a whole list of predictions in the book that have already come true!
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)brokechris
(192 posts)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
(95,247 posts)You sound like someone asking who scored the winning touchdown in the World Series....
brokechris
(192 posts)and lived on Grand Cayman--have you?
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Till then, you are just digging a hole....
brokechris
(192 posts)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)although at the moment it only has the equivalent of about $144 USD in it.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)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
(17,181 posts)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.)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)too bad we do not have Duzys anymore...sigh.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)Ask and you shall receive.
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/10/rich-and-tasty-recipes-for-the.html
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)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)Remember that France is part of the EU.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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 $6M/year.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/20/john-mackey-pay_cx_hc_06ceo_0420wholefoods.html
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Since it appears you are skimming the words because you don't want a real discussion but a pissing match I'm not continuing with you on this.
you said "thieves" and "legally" and I read it as "illegally".
So please explain how they were legally thieves. And what would stop their replacements from doing the same.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"he increasing vilification of the wealthy"
Where? On the net?
Certainly not in the M$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)Country anyway. England and France are fortunate to get rid of the greedy bastards.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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)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/
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.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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)Might as well make absolutely certain that these people leave.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)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)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)Why are you defending the wealthy on this thread advocating for keeping taxes low on the already wealthy?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)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.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)$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)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.
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.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)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)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.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)The easy solution to that is for them to sell it before they leave.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)on all their income.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)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)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/
He tells Britains The Guardian newspaper, Well, I kind of do (live back in America). Im 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 Im 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.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)If you have to pay both here and there you're getting killed financially.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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)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
(12,022 posts)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)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
(12,022 posts)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)>>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
(12,022 posts)And pointed out that UK is not 75%. Is this inaccurate?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)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)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
(12,022 posts)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
(12,022 posts)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.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)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
(12,022 posts)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)man"
from the news report above.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)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)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)Fuck 'em.
start some businesses from the ground up, worker-owned
preferably.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)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)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
(13,920 posts)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.