to not be surprised that France's intention to heavily tax the rich will result in less tax intake?

[Orwellian]

It obvious to everyone except Hollande that if you inflict a punitive tax on the rich (75%) then they will simply leave the country and take their wealth with them.

It has never worked to inflict punitive taxes on the rich as they will simply vote with their feet and now France is suffering due to this stupid policy.

I do agree that all sectors of society need to pay their way but in most countries income tax banding means that the rich will already being more since a salary of say, £90000 taxed at 40% will pay more tax than a salary of £50000 taxed at 40%. Unearned wealth is another matter but those paying tax (via payroll taxes on a salary) already pay more.

its 75% on anything over a million, not on the whole lot.
they got rid of depardieu though so money well spent

kenobi There is already such a tax rate on most people as the 20%standard rate is supplemented bu 1-% NI. The latter is just a tax thrown into the same pot - it isn't invested anywhere ring-fenced.

Sorry I meant 10% NI of course.

socharlotte - re "it isn't obvious or even proven that that is the case.Rich people of course like to put that 'tale' about"

I don't think there are records of how many people of which income bracket leave a country when its tax rate is cranked up to such ridiculous levels as 75%, but there is ample data to show beyond any doubt that such tax rates decrease a country's overall tax income.

This is because the ones who stay then make the effort to put together tax-efficient corporate structures which, coupled with a bit of creative (but legal) accounting, makes sure their effective tax rate is far lower.

One damning consequence of such crazy tax rates is that the above mentioned corporate structures are then left in place - even if tax rates decrease back to 40%, you will see high-income people paying much less than 40%.

Why would you work for one quarter of your wage? It's clearly not worthwhile.

It's utterly ridiculous. Hollande is killing the country and god knows what will happen when far less tax comes in and the government spending becomes utterly unsustainable.

I personally think tax in the UK is too high and would welcome lower taxes and a great ethos of self-sufficiency and far less government spending.

"Why would you work for one quarter of your wage? It's clearly not worthwhile."

You wouldn't get taxed 75% on your whole wage.

Exactly, so you would already have a substantial income and no need for the extra money. If you were a lawyer, say, you would decline cases rather than work for such a low rate.

Mm.

I thought that the French Constitutional Court rejected Hollande's plans as they were presented because it would create anomalies/unfairness in taxation when taxing a single person vs. a couple.

Hollande is still pretty keen but he needs to go back to the drawing board.

Incidentally, this means the the recent change in CB in UK would have been rejected by the same court for the same reason.

Taxing the very rich has little effect on tax income for the state, actually, as only a very small percentage of the population has such riches.
But, conversely, if they leave, it has little effect too.

Increasing taxes on the very rich is a measure to please the masses only.

Lostonthemoors we are leaving. I am sure we are 2 of many, and this is from the UK where the French are going as a haven.

Lueji

Well I'm not sure about that. I remember reading that the top 1% of income tax payers account for about a third of the total income tax take, and the top 10% account for almost half.

So these ultra rich people are important. Also they have the ability to move their riches overseas and out of the reach of HMRC.

Being not too hard on the rich might, paradoxically, be the best way of extracting the maximum tax revenue from them.

Alternatives?

Far better to put political pressure on places like The Netherlands to close up their loopholes in tax so that tax throughout Europe is more consistant. More or less flat rate tax across Europe with a much higher threshold at which you start paying tax would be better for all.

Trouble is this would put a lot of accountants out of business.

It seems grossly unfair - it hardly affects the super wealthy - those with inherited money or properties - yet it a tax on hard workers especially those like depardieu who have come from nothing and absolutely rely on their annual income.

The top 1% of income tax payers do indeed account for about a third of the total income tax take in this country. But this tax, if applied in the UK, would not affect most of those ~150,000 people. It would affect more like the top 0.1% because it applies above 1m euros a year. And many people who earn at that level already take extensive steps to avoid their tax obligations. And get all self-righteous about it, the pricks.

The scale of avoidance and evasion in the world is staggering and utterly disheartening. I hope that if I ever were lucky enough to earn more than £1m a year, I would remember my enormous good fortune at never ever having to worry about food, household bills or care costs, and not begrudge paying a high marginal tax rate to help fund that for everyone else.

If you earn ?1m per annum and have done for many years, as is the case of Depardieu, then you really don't have to worry about ever earning money again. You might want to continue to earn, but you could obviously retire immediately. As for Depardieu, he has in my view chosen to become a propagandist for a vile autocrat who has is alleged to have stolen huge amounts from Russia. That is truly disgusting behaviour.

Yes, his Russian adventure is terrible - and I don't know much about the French system, however I find it tiresome in the uk, when politicians from the left with the security of family wealth - eg clegg - want to raise income tax.

But family wealth came from someone's income, somewhere! Nobody needs more than £1m a year. Those who are earning these amounts are the parents of those who ' have the security of family wealth'.

But nobody 'needs' two or three properties or 10s of millions in the bank. How then is it fairer to raise more and more money on annual income and not everything a person is materially worth?

Asset tax is morally wrong. They will have been bought with taxed income, and tax paid on interest and gains. To then tax the actual value of the asset amounts to robbery, IMO.

Well I don't believe in it either, but I think heavily taxing annual income is not 'fair' either.

I agree.

I suppose the way it works now the income is taxed, then the asset is taxed when it is passed on through IHT.

Gérard Depardieu was pretty much supported in his decision to leave by most French people

What evidence have you got for that petiteraleuse? Everyone I know thought it was disgraceful coming from someone who spent decades getting every penny he could from the statut d'intermittent, even though he didn't really need it.

I would remember my enormous good fortune at never ever having to worry about food, household bills or care costs, and not begrudge paying a high marginal tax rate to help fund that for everyone else.

I quite agree. It's shocking that only two British billionaires pay tax commensurate with their income: James Dyson and J.K. Rowling.