High earners say au revoir to France

Nom Chompsky

High Tory
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
54,616
Reaction score
39,465
Location
Cape Town
You see this is what happens when one elects a champagne socialist like Hollande. He attempted to side with the populist, but uninformed rhetoric that the solution to rising inequality is to tax the rich more. But what he doesn't factor in is the rich have the means to move to other, more tax-friendly places. This leaves his high-tax policy in disarray as he'll get less money than previously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/9261905/High-earners-say-au-revoir-to-France.html

The annual mass exodus from the French capital sees the city's inhabitants while away the August heat in the countryside.

But this week many of the biggest earners across the Channel have been mulling a départ which could be rather more permanent.

The toppling of Nicolas Sarkozy by François Hollande, the first socialist president to lead the country in 17 years, has sent ripples of fear through the wealthier arrondissements of Paris.

Their new president may block the eurozone austerity advocated by Germany's Angela Merkel, but he is not opposed to his richer citizens feeling the squeeze.
Mr Hollande plans to implement a 75pc tax rate on earnings over €1m (£800,000), on top of a 45pc rate for people making €150,000 or more. He is also expected to raise "wealth taxes" on property assets and end his predecessor's tax incentives to lure bankers back home.

In addition, France's high earners feel increasingly unwelcome in a country now led by a man who has admitted: "I don't like the rich."

So where are they looking? London. It comes as no surprise – while Hollande prepares to raise taxes, over here David Cameron is cutting the 50pc tax rate for income above £150,000 to 45pc. "I have already worked in London and lived in South Kensington," said one French banker who expects to return to the UK over the next three months. "The question is how much of Hollande's rhetoric will materialise into policy."

Few are keen to find out. Private equity firms and American banks in Paris have already begun making arrangements for their top executives to set up office in London, amid widespread concern about changes to the French income tax regime.

High-earners are changing their behaviour so they appear safely based in London before any painful crackdown. "Partners are coming over to establish a track record of behaviour that is outside tax, from an early stage, so that they can respond quickly to what is coming down the track," said a senior source at one private equity firm.

"The exodus will mean a lot of France's biggest earners relocate to London," said a hedge fund manager. "It won't be possible for everyone, but those who can make the switch will definitely be working on a contingency plan."

One US bank was organising tax advice for its Paris-based staff, said a source: "Naturally people are concerned, and we are just trying to make sure we address those concerns."

The source insisted that it would not mean a wholesale exit from France, but rather that employees would be offered options. However, some staff have already formally asked for transfers, with most plumping for London.
 
Its a fine line to tread.

While I believe that rich people should have a higher tax burden than the poor, you dont want to punish them.
 
75% tax? What kind of spastic thinks that 75% tax is justifiable under any circumstances?
 
75% tax? What kind of spastic thinks that 75% tax is justifiable under any circumstances?

Hey, here you go. Hand me your money, and in return I'll swap out your 3-ply toiletpaper for 60-grit sandpaper.
 
75% tax? What kind of spastic thinks that 75% tax is justifiable under any circumstances?

This isn't just any circumstance though, the eurozone is falling apart and if it wasn't for one or two countries it would be dead.

One US bank was organising tax advice for its Paris-based staff, said a source: "Naturally people are concerned, and we are just trying to make sure we address those concerns."

That is a terrible idea. Tony blair may not be remember for many things but the UK can thank him because they are not bankrupt.

Maybe someone can explain to me why they are so hell bent on saving the euro, why not just call it quits. It is crippling europe.
 
75% tax? What kind of spastic thinks that 75% tax is justifiable under any circumstances?

You'll be surprised...

In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over ÂŁ20,000 (ÂŁ155,247 as of 2012),[2], and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. In 1974, as many as 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax.[4] Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[5] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[6] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[7] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
 
Sommmmeone has to pay for the welfare state. Guess some rich people decided they don't really want to anymore since paying lazy bums more money will only make things worse...
 
I present to you, the best explanation of tax out there, and why people with money (who knows how this works) usually don't complain as long as they're not ripped off like this:

Tax System Explanation with Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued
to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right, exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted
the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?

The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the
poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes DO get the most benefit from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
 
Eina is all I can say.
/prepares for more "eina time" in the stock exchange tomorrow.

Yeah. Markets are going to be in the red for a while yet until Europe sorts its mess out. Just means there will be the odd bargain share to be bought.
 
Sommmmeone has to pay for the welfare state. Guess some rich people decided they don't really want to anymore since paying lazy bums more money will only make things worse...

You know i hate this attitude, you act like everyone who isn't rich are lazy bums but you fail to realize that a crisis hits the poor harder than the rich, their daily living costs sky rocket while their salaries do not follow suit.

These lazy bums you speak of are mostly the reason people are rich. Who do you think does all the grunt work? To say that people who work for little money are lazy bums is just idiotic. You have your opinion but it seems like an ignorant thing to say.
 
I watched the Iron Lady last night. How applicable. During one of the worst financial crises after WW2 she proceeded to enact even more conservative measures, and the country was better off for it. Eventually. It takes time for supply side economics to take off.

France should definitely reduce some of the ineffectual parts of its welfare spending.

But I don't know enough to make a compelling argument for anything.
 
You know i hate this attitude, you act like everyone who isn't rich are lazy bums but you fail to realize that a crisis hits the poor harder than the rich, their daily living costs sky rocket while their salaries do not follow suit.

These lazy bums you speak of are mostly the reason people are rich. Who do you think does all the grunt work? To say that people who work for little money are lazy bums is just idiotic. You have your opinion but it seems like an ignorant thing to say.

What bothers me is that welfare is becoming institutionalised. It's supposed to be a safety net for those who find themselves in a tough situation. Any humane society would see the need for this. It should provide people with opportunities so that the poverty cycle can be broken (the DA are all about this), and they elevate themselves to a position where they also contribute to the system. When people are on welfare for an indefinite period of time, and the amount of people keeps swelling, then something is wrong. This is unsustainable, and will lead to the downfall of countries.
 
Not the first time this sort have thing has happened there.

Wonder if the guillotine will make a comeback.
I doubt they'll chop off Sarkozy's head.

I watched the Iron Lady last night. How applicable. During one of the worst financial crises after WW2 she proceeded to enact even more conservative measures, and the country was better off for it. Eventually. It takes time for supply side economics to take off.
Actually she was mostly adept at hiding the damage and failure of her policies.

France should definitely reduce some of the ineffectual parts of its welfare spending.
They certainly do. Nothing wrong with trimming the fat. But fixing the crisis, which goes way beyond welfare, is going to be expensive and painful. Welfare is just a red herring.

I present to you, the best explanation of tax out there, and why people with money (who knows how this works) usually don't complain as long as they're not ripped off like this:

Sommmmeone has to pay for the welfare state. Guess some rich people decided they don't really want to anymore since paying lazy bums more money will only make things worse...
Well sorry, but they too have to contribute to funding development for the future. Of course they want all the development, infrastructure and government backing for their ventures, but none of the responsibility.
 
You see this is what happens when one elects a champagne socialist like Hollande. He attempted to side with the populist, but uninformed rhetoric that the solution to rising inequality is to tax the rich more. But what he doesn't factor in is the rich have the means to move to other, more tax-friendly places. This leaves his high-tax policy in disarray as he'll get less money than previously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/9261905/High-earners-say-au-revoir-to-France.html

They are paying so little tax it won't make a difference.

London is only a temporary haven. The Tory led coalition is probably not going to last its full term in Parlement.

Soon they will have no place to run, except maybe to a few mafia run countries like Russia.
 
Europe will never be united, cannot be united.

Eight prophetic words in the book of Daniel says so.

(Dan 2:43) And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
 
While I believe that rich people should have a higher tax burden than the poor, you dont want to punish them.
Why?
It's percentage based. Why should someone successful be penalized? Why not have one tax percentage for everyone?
 
Someone who earns R10 000 p/m will be harder hit by a 10% or 20% tax rate than someone earning R100 000 p/m.

R10,000 x 0.1 = R1000 tax.
R100,000 x 0.1 = R10,000 tax.

How is the person being taxed R1000 "harder hit" than the person paying R10,000?!
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X