Ayrault letter Depardieu (French tax)

[Christophe]

2 explanations according to which it would be possible to pay 85% and more of taxes:

http://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/S-informer/France/Peut-on-payer-85-d-impots-sur-ses-revenus-_NG_-2012-12-17-888878

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/12/17/l-impossible-calcul-de-l-impot-de-gerard-depardieu_1807490_823448.html

These 2 articles contradict each other ... so who is telling the truth?

[BobFuck]

the excessive wealth of some is the result of a mismanaged society

Wouldn't it rather be:

La poverty The excessive nature of some is the result of a poorly managed society.

3- in all logical rigor, the most appropriate talent to achieve this objective is that of making money ...

It is easy to deduce from the precedents that talent, real or not, is second compared to the primacy of gain which, in any case is, in its abstraction, pure quantitative.
There is therefore a (false?) Basic naivety in wanting to estimate the qualitative in terms of quantitative ...

Unfortunately, success is not correlated with talent.

but:

- the actor whose film moves the crowds deserves his salary
- if 50.000 guys pay 80 € instead to see guys kicking a ball, which would be scandalous, it would be that these guys are not paid up to par ... (even if I don't care) .

[Christophe]

No Bob, nothing to say about football!

[jlt22]

2 explanations according to which it would be possible to pay 85% and more of taxes:

http://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/S-informer/France/Peut-on-payer-85-d-impots-sur-ses-revenus-_NG_-2012-12-17-888878

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/12/17/l-impossible-calcul-de-l-impot-de-gerard-depardieu_1807490_823448.html

These 2 articles contradict each other ... so who is telling the truth?

Here are other explanations from more expert sites, or it appears that a taxpayer can even pay more than 100% of his income, but only in 2012:

http://www.lesechos.fr/economie-politique/politique/actu/0202453835583-pourquoi-depardieu-paie-t-il-85-d-impot-521355.php

http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/france/20121217trib000737746/pouquoi-depardieu-a-pu-payer-85-d-impot-en-2012.html

http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/economie/depardieu-peut-il-payer-85-de-ses-revenus-au-fisc_365470.html

[BobFuck]

In the socialist paradise of Sweden in the 1975s (before the ensuing bankruptcy, of course), a writer enjoyed significant success for one of her books.

Revenue 2.000.000 kr
Taxes 2.002.000 kr
Result: -2000 kr.

She never not let go... and the unrest it caused was not for nothing in the defeat of the socialists in the following elections.

[chatelot16]

we mix too often 2 thing

1) is it normal that there are wages as huge as certain ...

2) is it the role of the impot to correct this error?

I am convinced of the answer! the role role of the state is not to correct the absurdity of certain wages by taxes

the main problem is not that there are too big wages ... it is rather that there are too low wages!

the problem is that the very wealthy operate more like businesses: they don't eat banknotes! they make people work with their money ... breaking everything with wacky taxes is not necessarily a good thing

the very rich who leads a luxurious and spending life while traveling abroad will not have to pay isf! however his money is entirely wasted without profit for France

the one who invests his money in housing for rent, or in actions of French company, is much more useful in France and it is the one who will be knocked out of isf, tax on capital gains ... n isn't there a problem?

the tax problem is very complicated and full of traps ... reasoning too simplistic are often disastrous

industry and housing are down: we must encourage those who have money to invest! and it is not by promising to take everything from them that they will do it

another solution, really take everything from the rich so that the state becomes the rich main investor? dream or nightmare? the state would be able to take everything and do nothing ...

it's like designing a formula one engine: it's not by excessively increasing the diameter of the cylinders that you make the car win ... you have to subtly balance all the dimensions

there are however already good things in the current fiscal rules, but it is too complicated and incomprehensible: the state discredits itself by being incomprehensible, as well by those who should be able to understand to manage their business well, as for the citizen means who should also be able to understand to be able to simply vote

no democracy is possible if nobody understands what is important

[Obamot]

the reasons trop simplistic are often disastrous

Simplistic in short, how are you?

1) is it normal that there are wages as huge as certain ...

The question is perhaps not so much in the end as in the confusion of what should be this end!
In any case, as the current theoretical model imposes itself on all (market economy based on the law of supply VS demand on a background of "competitiveness"), this will hardly change, although it is wrong! Afterwards, isn't everyone free to do what they want with the money earned!

Half of your post is there!

Furthermore, the Depardieu case concerns only a very small part of the population. For the rest, the system works as best it can, but it works.

Once again, what is wrong is the protection of intellectual property qualitatively VS the absence of any rule that seems to govern mass production. The only one that now seems to "bring in something" and which ultimately crushes everything else, like a steamroller.
And this lack of protection is one of the factors that explains tax evasion on the side of the people concerned, amha.

[BobFuck]

the main problem is not that there are too big wages ... it is rather that there are too low wages!

Blame.

http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2010/ ... ampon.html

[chatelot16]

this description of the gap, this area between assisted and rich, or the more you work the less you earn shows the horror

how can people who govern let such a harmful situation exist that benefits no one and discourages everyone

we have seen in history systems allowing to enslave the population to better exploit it, but the current system which discourages does not even exploit!

unemployment and assistantship is not a means of exploitation ... at most the fear of unemployment is a means of blackmail ... but which is not worth much ... the race for promotion would be more motivating that fear of unemployment

this gap does not discourage those who are poor side of the gap: it also discourages the creation of business by those who are on the other side: I want to start a business, but I need motivated employees: how motivate in such a rotten and compulsory system: the only solution to build the factory abroad, not necessarily to have lower wages, but to have less absurd social conditions!

[Obamot]

Bein tachérisme was well based on the ultra-liberal economic policy, which suggested the use of promotion to encourage the merit which you describe.

However:
- huge gap between the wealthy and the poor or very modest;
- state interventionism;
- such high taxation, the marginal tax bracket on capital income is then Present in several = 98% and the one on income from Present in several = 83%2.
- unemployment will go up to 9%. then 15% under Labor (officially ... but in reality much worse ...);
Exactly the current situation of retrodevelopment which points to Europe today.

Tachérisme is the avatar of conservative revolution Following the two oil shocks and the Keynesian crisis (wiki source).

It was just as much a failure since we realize that in this system which currently prevails (and that even the Socialists apply by making the round back), everyone is cheated in favor of cunning predators (subrimes + crisis + rescue of banks => attack in good standing against sovereign debt).

Yes indeed, "Overly simplistic reasoning is often a disaster".

Again, it is an illusion and will remain so, as long as we confuse cause and effect, will make a means to achieve a goal, the goal in itself.
The merit is not to earn more (the need for security is the second step at the bottom of the pyramid), but to be honestly better recognized symbolically and especially socially. It has been widely proven by Herzberg and then A. Maslow.
Happiness is more surely in the prospect of developing than earning more money.