|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
 Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 5:37 pm Post subject: Thousands of French Taxed Over 100% |
 |
|
| Quote: |
More than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100 percent of their income in 2012, according to a French newspaper report.
Citing data from France's finance ministry, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Friday that in addition to those taxed at over 100 percent last year, almost 12,000 households paid taxes worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 income and that a further 9,910 households were taxed at more than 85 percent of their income. |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/19794221
Would Jesus would be in favor of rich people paying high taxes? He told the rich young man to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to have a chance of entering the kingdom of heaven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If money becomes your "god" then drastic measures are called for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodge7
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: Thousands of French Taxed Over 100% |
|
|
| ghostrider wrote: |
| Quote: |
More than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100 percent of their income in 2012, according to a French newspaper report.
Citing data from France's finance ministry, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Friday that in addition to those taxed at over 100 percent last year, almost 12,000 households paid taxes worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 income and that a further 9,910 households were taxed at more than 85 percent of their income. |
http://www.cnbc.com/id/19794221
Would Jesus would be in favor of rich people paying high taxes? He told the rich young man to give all his money to the poor if he wanted to have a chance of entering the kingdom of heaven. |
Not to turn this into a religious discussion or anything, but Jesus said that because he knew that the man loved money more than God, and He took the opportunity to highlight the fact that people who have other "gods" (money) before the real True God, they will not enter Heaven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Their president told them, before being elected, that if elected he was going to tax them. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the tax on their taxable income over a certain amount. It's not like some guy making 50k euros a year is being taxed 100%.
It's some guy making 2 million euros who's being taxed for the income over 1 million euros (or some other high figure). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlyboy
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
| Their president told them, before being elected, that if elected he was going to tax them. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. |
True, but he also said he wouldn't raise taxes any further next year, and now he's backpedalling from that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deja
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The idiots running the article or believing it need to figure the mathematical impossibility of being taxed over 100%.
It reminds me layman "economists" in my country saying people are taxed 80% of their income - when not a single person pays 80% of their gross income for taxes, social security, VAT and all the rest of tax&Co combined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
It's the tax on their taxable income over a certain amount. It's not like some guy making 50k euros a year is being taxed 100%.
It's some guy making 2 million euros who's being taxed for the income over 1 million euros (or some other high figure). |
Makes you wonder why the article was written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
100% tax rates are confiscatory at any level of income.
I'm not resolutely against top level rates over 50%, but why should anyone engaged in legal activities pay more than 75 cents on their last earned annual dollar to the state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
100% tax rates are confiscatory at any level of income.
I'm not resolutely against top level rates over 50%, but why should anyone engaged in legal activities pay more than 75 cents on their last earned annual dollar to the state? |
Because they probably didn't "earn" that last dollar in any meaningful sense of the word. Let's be honest here: anyone earning over a certain level of income is acquiring it by capturing the production of other workers. My father's a CEO at a sizable accounting firm. He earns a lot more than his employees, and while he works harder than them, he doesn't work proportionately harder than them. His income is what it is because he gets to decide who earns what. Accordingly, he and the partners (those with the power in the company structure to unseat him) earn a lot, and those with no such power earn substantially less. And his company is one of the less abusive examples of this kind of "cash grabbing." Carly Fiorina "earned" more being fired than you will in your entire life. That's pathological.
I'm not saying France's specific policy is warranted, I don't know enough about France to speak authoritatively on the matter. In general, though, there are plenty of circumstances where people capture societal wealth without themselves producing it, and in such circumstances, I see no reason why even a penny of said wealth should be fundamentally exempt from potential taxation. It's commonly said, "If you want less of something, tax it," right? Well I don't think I'm alone in wanting less vast over-compensation of corporate executives, bankers, hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, and the like, so why not tax it heavily? The higher the personal taxes of a company's CEO, the more sense it makes for him to invest company revenue in his workers instead of paying himself a huge bonus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
100% tax rates are confiscatory at any level of income.
I'm not resolutely against top level rates over 50%, but why should anyone engaged in legal activities pay more than 75 cents on their last earned annual dollar to the state? |
Because they probably didn't "earn" that last dollar in any meaningful sense of the word. Let's be honest here: anyone earning over a certain level of income is acquiring it by capturing the production of other workers. My father's a CEO at a sizable accounting firm. He earns a lot more than his employees, and while he works harder than them, he doesn't work proportionately harder than them. His income is what it is because he gets to decide who earns what. Accordingly, he and the partners (those with the power in the company structure to unseat him) earn a lot, and those with no such power earn substantially less. And his company is one of the less abusive examples of this kind of "cash grabbing." Carly Fiorina "earned" more being fired than you will in your entire life. That's pathological.
I'm not saying France's specific policy is warranted, I don't know enough about France to speak authoritatively on the matter. In general, though, there are plenty of circumstances where people capture societal wealth without themselves producing it, and in such circumstances, I see no reason why even a penny of said wealth should be fundamentally exempt from potential taxation. It's commonly said, "If you want less of something, tax it," right? Well I don't think I'm alone in wanting less vast over-compensation of corporate executives, bankers, hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, and the like, so why not tax it heavily? The higher the personal taxes of a company's CEO, the more sense it makes for him to invest company revenue in his workers instead of paying himself a huge bonus. |
You've made a good half of the case, namely, why the rich should willingly part with their money. Your second half will be much harder. Why should it go to the government?
Americans should pay more in taxes, wealthy Americans should pay significantly more in taxes, and superwealthy Americans should not be able to pass off their superwealth to their heirs.
But why should any government, particularly the American government, take in so much money? And please do not give me tax-and-spend theory, and I will in return save you the recitation of tax-and-spend fact.
Your ultimate aims are good, though. I believe we should target the extreme concentration of wealth with corporate governance reform (a revolution, really), campaign finance reform, increased taxes on earned income, and greatly increased taxes on passive income. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
You've made a good half of the case, namely, why the rich should willingly part with their money. Your second half will be much harder. Why should it go to the government?
Americans should pay more in taxes, wealthy Americans should pay significantly more in taxes, and superwealthy Americans should not be able to pass off their superwealth to their heirs.
But why should any government, particularly the American government, take in so much money?
|
I don't think it necessarily should go to the government. If the threat of a super-high 99% tax bracket causes a company to take Carly Fiorina's $40 million "firing bonus" and instead invest it in its common workers, that's not only fine, it's probably outright better (and if nothing else, more efficient) than said money being directly captured and redistributed by the government. Ultra-high tax brackets should be about incentivization, not revenue. I'm not sure if President Hollande sees things that way though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
You've made a good half of the case, namely, why the rich should willingly part with their money. Your second half will be much harder. Why should it go to the government?
Americans should pay more in taxes, wealthy Americans should pay significantly more in taxes, and superwealthy Americans should not be able to pass off their superwealth to their heirs.
But why should any government, particularly the American government, take in so much money?
|
I don't think it necessarily should go to the government. If the threat of a super-high 99% tax bracket causes a company to take Carly Fiorina's $40 million "firing bonus" and instead invest it in its common workers, that's not only fine, it's probably outright better (and if nothing else, more efficient) than said money being directly captured and redistributed by the government. Ultra-high tax brackets should be about incentivization, not revenue. I'm not sure if President Hollande sees things that way though. |
I guess I don't believe that high taxes discourage the profit-seeking motive. People still smoke even though the taxes will absolutely kill them.
Well, actually it seems smoking taxes discourage people from starting, which should be enough.
Effects of Tobacco Taxation
| Quote: |
| Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status. However, there is a striking lack of evidence about the impact of increasing cigarette prices on smoking behavior in heavy/long-term smokers, persons with a dual diagnosis and Aboriginals. Given their high prevalence of smoking, urgent attention is needed to develop effective policies for the six subpopulations reviewed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Americans should pay more in taxes, wealthy Americans should pay significantly more in taxes, and superwealthy Americans should not be able to pass off their superwealth to their heirs. |
Although I do believe the wealthy should pay more taxes, I disagree in not allowing their superwealth to be passed on to their heirs.
Isn't it the main reason a lot of people work and save? For their heirs. Let people pass on their weatlh, and if that particular superwealthy heir is abusing their position, that's when you bring them back down to earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Americans should pay more in taxes, wealthy Americans should pay significantly more in taxes, and superwealthy Americans should not be able to pass off their superwealth to their heirs. |
Although I do believe the wealthy should pay more taxes, I disagree in not allowing their superwealth to be passed on to their heirs.
Isn't it the main reason a lot of people work and save? For their heirs. Let people pass on their weatlh, and if that particular superwealthy heir is abusing their position, that's when you bring them back down to earth. |
Concentration of wealth threatens democracy. A robust estate tax would still allow the superwealthy to pass on wealth to designated beneficiaries, but they would have to use investment vehicles such as trusts. Thus, they could choose who to benefit but not how to benefit them, as trusts vest the power to control into a trustee (subject to trustor's instructions and terms).
When I talk about superwealthy I should clarify: I mean anyone worth more than $1 billion. Thus, my model Estate Tax would be at a 75% rate but possess a $5 million exemption (along with the current special exemptions for ongoing farms and commercial concerns). Nobody needs to inherit more than $5 million.
People do earn and save to protect their loved ones. But enough becomes enough at a certain point. There are many motivations to start new businesses and venture, and profit should be only one reason. And once someone has a lot of money, profit should not be the primary motivator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
