Multiple parties are jockeying for position in the aftermath of France’s seismic snap election. The leftist New Popular Front (NPF) insists its ideas should be implemented.
France’s left wing New Popular Front (NPF) - now the largest group in parliament - has called for a prime minister who will implement its ideas including a new wealth tax and petrol price controls.
The leftist alliance secured the most seats in the recent French elections but fell short of the 289 needed for a majority in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.
President Emmanuel Macron’s Together bloc came in second and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) party finished third.
France’s parties are now jockeying for position and it’s unclear exactly how things will shake out, but the NPF has insisted it will implement its radical set of ideas.
Back in the 50s and 60s after WW2 the UK had a 95% tax band for the highest earners. This was due to the country struggling to pay off its debts to the USA after WW2. The Beatles even wrote their song Taxman about it in 1966.
Ultimately there is a problem with these super high taxbands whereby countries that try them will often encounter something called the Laffer Curve whereby overall tax take decreases as the tax rate increases. This isn’t even necessarily tax evasion, all it takes is for wealthy people to be suitably motivated to avoid taxes.
In the UK now if your income breaches £100k then you are paying a higher rate of tax on everything earned over that amount but also you lose the £12.5k tax free allowance that all citizens are entitled to. Overall breaching £100k leads to you paying a marginal rate of tax of 60% even if you don’t earn much over it. Because of this high earning jobs often let you put money into salary sacrifice pension schemes to avoid breaching the £100k mark. It only becomes worthwhile earning over £100k when you reach the region of ~£130k, which is substantially more. Essentially the system encourages tax avoidance by having this cliff which people who are behaving like rational agents will do anything to avoid. If it were less punative then some economists argue that the government would raise more money.
Laffer Curve is junk economics from Ronald Reagan’s propaganda team. Cannot take seriously any argument that relies on it.
It’s not. If you accept that :
- Taxing at 0% brings no tax revenue
- Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue
Then you accept that between those two extremes there’s a tax optimum that for a given rate gives the most tax revenue. This is the Laffer curve.
no, it is propaganda. I mean, “Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory, even more so in a progressive tax system (please look up what the even means, statistically believing in the Laffer curve also comes with a ton of other misconceptions about financial policy)
also some history to the Laffer curve, it is an unproven theory that basically always get trotted out by the wealthy to argue for lowering taxes, tho it ironically has been shown to have no predictive power whatsoever.
All economic theories are unproven, approximations about how economists think people might behave. There’s a reason it is often referred to as the ‘dismal science’. Quite often they are based on counterfactuals and projections of what might have happened.
The Laffer Curve is not a rule which always reflects reality but it has explanatory power in certain situations, since logically there has to be a point where avoiding taxes becomes more appealing than paying them.
Regan, et al deploying the theory as part of their political rhetoric - potentially in bad faith - shouldn’t discredit the concept itself because doing so would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s an ad hominen attack against an economic theory; a bit like saying capital controls are always bad because President Xi in China frequently uses them.
ok, so scientifically speaking “proof” is a mathematical concept only, physics doesn’t prove shit, chemistry doesn’t prove shit, no other science proves shit.
But economics, like every other science out there makes models, these models when applied to certain circumstances make predictions, we test these models by testing the predictions they make.
The more accurate the prediction the better and more relevant the model, the issue that economics has is that many people instead of looking at the actual science, take the fictional work and claim it reality, mainly because they believe some propaganda commissioned by really wealthy people, to keep their wealth. the Laffer curve is one such example because it allows rich people to invest into lower taxes and increased privatization.
The Laffer curve isn’t bad because Regan used it, it’s bad because it has a track record of not having any predictive capability.
Also, there exist mechanisms by what we punish tax evasion, taking the likelihood of tax evasion into account for the purpose of setting tax rates is self-defeating, in the assumption that any persons want the maximum amount of money for themselves would always try to evade taxes, no mater what the tax rate is.
I think we agree about the nature of scientific enquiry, how it is all based on inductive reasoning and cannot provide the certainty of mathematics. Additionally, it looks like we agree that the Laffer Curve has been used to justify bad policy in the past.
However, I don’t think that the theory has been debunked in the way you are describing. There is broadly a difference of opinion between Keynesian economists who are skeptical of the theory and then Supply-Side economists who endorse it; and then a whole spectrum of views in the middle from Behavioural economists or other schools of thought who are more ambivalent.
Academics who do support the view have done empirical studies over the years that they believe suggest that the Laffer Curve is real, see:
- Romer & Romer, 2007: The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks
- Mertens & Ravn, 2013: The Dynamic Effects of Personal and Corporate Income Tax Changes in the United States
- Trabandt & Uhlig, 2009: How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited
It’s a matter of live debate in the field regardless of your opinion of the theory.
However, I don’t think that the theory has been debunked in the way you are describing
sure, you have listed a few papers, and having skimmed some of them I’m a bit iffy to their relevance mainly as to what numbers they take as indicators what of and at least one had an issue where one of the more prominent indicators they picked is heavily influenced by other outside activity more so than the taxes.
but here’s the thing, if it was just wrong all the time, it would have predictive power, the fact that it sometimes seems to be correct, and other times it being counter to predictions or being mostly non changing means that it’s not a useful model, and a useless model is trash, and honestly I’m highly skeptical of supply side economics, it has produced relatively little in terms of economic stability, nor sustainability.
personally, I’m more inclined towards Post-Keynesian demand side economics, and unlike supply side economics, they have actually made predictive models that actually have predictive power
“Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory
It’s not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that’s what marginal rate means, it’s the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there’s no point since it will bring no income after taxation.
you’re not very economically literate, are you? overtime pay is not taxed at the marginal tax rate, that’s not what that is.
the marginal tax rate is the maximum rate your income will end up at, that does not however mean that all your income is taxed at the rate.
as a very simplified example, assume you have the tax brackets
- $0-$1000 is 10%
- $1001-$2000 is 20%
- $2001-$3000 is 30% etc…
and you earn $2500, the taxes you will pay are $1000 at 10% -> $100 the next $1000 at 20% -> $200 and the last $500 will be taxed at 30% -> $150
meaning, in this example, you are paying $450 at a marginal tax rate of 30% on $2500. now overtime can bump you up, for example, imagine you work a LOT over those 40h and earn $3200, now you’re in the next tax bracket due to your earnings.
also, the whole point is to deny all income above a certain level, or do you really think your boss deserves 3000 times your pay? because he certainly isn’t working 3000 times harder than you are.
Oh please explain to me how marginal rates work… 🙄
If your marginal tax rate is already 30% and you decide to earn an extra $1, that $1 will be taxed at 30% and you get $0.70 in your pocket. That’s what “marginal” means.
Funadmentally it makes sense that tax take is 0 at 0% and low (though not neccessarily 0) at 100%, but in practice it only ever used to advocate for lowering taxes no matter what they are set at currently. You never see people talking about governments being on the left side of the Laffer curve and therfore we should raise taxes.
There’s also no evidence that I’m aware of that the curve is smooth, single peaked or even single valued and it is also likely highly dependent on myriad other factors, in short it’s effectively useless except as a rhetorical device for small-staters to advocate slashing taxes and public services.
That’s uh… pretty fucking dumb.
How the fuck did anyone think a cliff like that would be smart.
It’s especially bad with the recent inflation here causing fiscal drag. People are being dragged into higher tax brackets by their incomes rising in line with inflation (if they are lucky) but the tax bands are remaining at their pre-inflation levels so in real terms we are taxed more while earning less.
I think “the cliff” ended up being introduced in better times when £100k was an extremely good salary. It still is a good salary but it seems like when they introduced the policy they were likely thinking that folks earning it were making so much that it wouldn’t be worth their while to put the effort into avoiding it. However with recent cost of living challenges the demand for avenues to avoid the cliff rose and employers started to respond by offering schemes like the salary sacrifice pension one I mentioned in order to keep their employees happy.
Edit: There are many ways to avoid taxes such as creating your own limited company, paying for your lifestyle as a business expense and then only paying corporation tax on those expenses (currently 20% in the UK). At the same time you draw a “salary” from your own company which is substantially lower than what you would be getting if you include the expenses and then pay income tax for a lower band. The reason most people don’t do this - aside from the obvious moral implications - is that it’s usually more effort than it’s worth for them. At a certain point though, tax avoidance becomes so worthwhile that the temptation is too great for many to ignore.
Shoot whoever wrote that bill. (Metaphorically)
You make it sound like a cliff, but you lose £1 of the £12.5k allowance for every £2 over £100k you earn. You don’t suddenly lose the whole allowance at £100,001.
That’s interesting - I had read it being described as a cliff in various places online where people were discussing personal finances. Double checked now and you are right that it is less of a cliff than I’d thought. Good to know in case I ever get close to that tax bracket!
I think you do lose child care benefits or something at that point (I can’t remember, I don’t have kids)
Oh yeah, those personal finance places all want to talk about the laffer curve, right up until you remind people how high the X value would be. Then, as if by magic, they dont want to talk about them anymore.
To me, those places always seems full of AstroTurfing for the idea of lowering taxes for rich people. There might be some good stuff in there but I would take them main political thrusts made with about as much salt as you can find.
Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age or a neoclassical economist what economic problems tax breaks for the rich won’t fix.
To much money to spend on health care?
Tax breaks for the rich.
To little money to spend on healthcare?
Tax cuts for the rich.
Just the right amount of money to spend on healthcare?
Just the right time to cut taxes for the rich.
That’s just a bad implementation, then. Tax brackets are progressive for a reason, having a cliff like that should be an obvious no no.
Not to say you don’t have a point, because you do, but the govt could fix that particular issue very easily.
Can we get a non Murdoch source on this?
This is not a tax on the rich, it’s a tax on the upper middle class.
I laugh so hard because the headline for me is great news, only now I realized it’s sky news so it’s supposed to be scaring people
400’000€ yearly income is not middle class. It is roughly the top 1%. Are you maybe mistaking property for income?
I would have preferred taxing on property instead of income, but as long as interests and profits and other benefits are part of income, it sounds reasonable to me.
The rich don’t have income, they take out loans against assets
Your instinct to search for a non-Murdoch source is correct, as they are trying to paint the entire NFP as holding the same positions as their most extreme member.
There is little to no chance of Melenchon becoming Prime Minister or having any ability to enact this tax.
However a marginal tax rate of 90% on income over €400k is well above the upper-middle class and would apply to only the wealthiest families, most of whom would still have other avenues to minimise the tax they actually pay.
The… upper middle class…? An income of 400,000 euros? that’s 10x the median income.
What tf is rich then?
People who make money by investing. In the USA, the top 1% earn their income through investments, usually the purchase and sale of stocks. These are not taxed the same as regular income because they made the argument that you can’t really tax unrealized gains on investments that are sold, and it takes a while for the gains to actually materialize. Also, they tend to store their money, their liquid assets, in countries with looser tax laws, called tax havens. Much of their net worths are tied up in investments. Businesses, homes, art, classic vehicles, precious metals futures, oil futures, boats, etc.
Assessing the value of all of that is a chore, and they also pay lobbyists to keep the IRS defanged so that they don’t have the resources needed to go after the 1%. And don’t get me started on how much more speculative the stock market has become. Investors buy stocks, not on the expected dividends they’ll receive as a share of the profits of the business, but on their ability to flip the stock and sell it at a higher price to another investor, who is only buying because they anticipate flipping the stock. It’s like if a whole neighborhood of single family homes gets bought up buy a few house flippers, who make renovations, then put the houses up for sale, and sell to new flippers, who are only buying so they can make further renovations, increasing the value of the property again to sell to yet another flipper, ad nauseam.
This is France
Your point? The USA became the model for the western world in many respects after WW2, I would not be surprised if French billionaires make their money the same way American billionaires do.
It’s just an extremely usaian thing to do. Mega cringe to see constantly.
400k euro is still like the peak of wealth. Nobody is earning that much reasonably, even if there are even wealthier people doing shenanigans.
People who don’t pay income tax in the first place because they are so rich they don’t need a normal income. Those need to be taxed more.
Rich is when you have little to no taxable income, and your wealth is mostly unrealised captial gains that you borrow against to fund your lifestyle, and you use various other strategies to offset whatever salary you do get with expenses or make it otherwise untaxable
Policies favoring the rich are always sold as favoring the middle class. If middle class means the rich, then upper middle class means the filthy rich.
lol it’s like France loves to choose violence every time.
National sport. It’s fifth time now. If right would become too hard to fight against, then it will be sixth.
“Radical set of ideas”
Rational set of ideas.
Radical means change or far from the norm, so when the system we live in is crazy then radical often is rational. The terms are not opposed.
“Rational”
“Petrol price controls”
There is a slight argument to be made in order to stabilize transportation because people depend on the shipping of goods. However, there should be a differentiation between the shipment of necessities and luxuries. Ultimately this could come in the form of a higher tax on consumer goods and other for hire services.
I don’t think that’s what they’re getting at.
Or price controls at all.
We need to fix the price of croissants, vote for count Binface!
I will enjoy hearing about how the rich will just move away from their fancy mansions on the Riviera and their suites in Paris to avoid paying this tax and then seeing it not happen.
Why would they move? This is an income tax, not a wealth tax and the wealthy typically have relatively little “income”. Sure they may have a net worth of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of millions but their “incomes” (as defined by tax codes) can be surprisingly low.
Look at the CEOs like Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos whose salary was a single US dollar. They were incredibly wealthy but had nearly no normal income.
So unless you jigger the tax code to capture the work arounds the wealthy use this income tax will hardly touch them. It will only catch high wage earners, like a software dev working FAANG or something.
I guess that’s an argument for also having a wealth tax.
Because most of them still won’t move. Paris will not become a less desirable city to live in.
I guess that’s an argument for also having a wealth tax.
I think it would be easier if they rewrote the tax code so that everything (loans, stock sales, etc) counted as regular income and was subject to taxes.
Paris will not become a less desirable city to live in.
Was it ever desirable?
The city of light? The city of love? Famed for its art and culture and cuisine? Full of beautiful architecture?
No, no one ever wants to go there.
Have you ever been there or just seen the photos?
I get that you don’t like Paris, but there’s a reason why a lot of rich people live there and it isn’t because it’s a terrible place.
Some of them, sure, but I wonder how many would consider it worth the price. This is an income taxe I’m assuming, so it’s not like they’d lose out on actual wealth, investments, etc.
It might be worth it if even just half stay and pay the taxe.
That was my point- they won’t leave. They like living there too much. That’s just always the excuse when such taxes are proposed for not doing them. “The rich will all just leave.”
I think I’ve had this conversation with you before. Anyone who uses the “they’ll just leave” argument as a reason not to do it simply isn’t arguing in good faith.
This is a good start, for sure, but it should not be the end at all. The wealthier people get, the more effort they put into hiding/keeping that wealth.
Income/wealth/property/capital gains taxation is a balancing act. You want everyone paying their share; and everyone simultaneously agrees with that notion, while wanting to pay the absolute least for themselves. I would also argue that people need to see the benefits of that taxation in the form of maintained infrastructure and properly funded services. If it all just goes into the pockets of, e.g., the US military industrial complex, people will be less inclined to pay taxes at all.
Entirely possible. I’ve certainly discussed this topic multiple times. And yes, agreed, we need to do a lot more to curb excessive wealth.
If it’s successful presumably other places will start to follow suit. Somebody’s gotta go first tho.
It wasn’t done nationally, but the U.S. state of Massachusetts did it recently and it was quite successful.
Once again, the rich people with their Boston penthouses and Cape Cod beach homes didn’t want to leave.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-millionaires-tax-free-lunch-every-kid/
They raised $1 billion off of the relatively small number of rich people living in that state when the U.S. as a whole is taken into account.
There’s just no question to me that such taxes work. And the more places you implement them, the harder it will be to escape them.
Even if rich leave, so what? They dont have to pay taxes for shit and what little they do have to pay they will just avoid anyway.
Real estate prices go down a little? It’s hard to see a downside.
I never understood this argument. As a middle class person, I would highly prefer if all rich people left.
They are the ones hording the wealth.
Wealth is generated by applying labour to natural resources, that process doesn’t really include rich people, they just gate the resources.
Ah I misunderstood. I see we’re in total agreement.
Still glad I made my comment, if only as a foil against general doomerism.
While I agree, they most certainly will still try their damnedest to avoid it. From illegal stuff like tax fraud, to trying stuff like officially “moving” their workplace to a tax haven, while still living in France. There would definitely be more class warfare to be had, even after this were to pass (which they of course will fight tooth and nail against)
No doubt. The rich can afford to pay people to find every loophole and take advantage of everything they can take advantage of. But I’m still glad this is happening.
And it doesn’t have to work perfectly to be worth it. Even if through rich-person fuckery they manage to stuff their (overseas) mattresses with hidden income, I’d bet the net result would be more €€€ in the public coffres.
Besides, the mere fact of implementing those tax rates makes high end luxury homes less valuable, because rich people from abroad will have less incentives to want to move there. So, if rich French people want to move from a very expensive home in France to a very expensive home in Germany, the new one will have to be less luxurious, because they won’t be able to sell the old one for that much.
This does actually happen more than you think - it’s why all the world’s football and tennis stars miraculously decide to move to Monte Carlo as soon as they hit the riches. Which is exactly why we need a coordinated tax policy at an EU, EEA or global level, to make sure that you can’t just choose a neighbouring country and pay an order of magnitude less.
Problem is that the Uber wealthy have all sorts of extra tax vehicles that even the 400k/year income folks don’t have. With various holding companies owning the various assets you use (e.g your car, house, etc.) your on-paper income can be quite a bit lower. Throw in various deductions and that’s how you get super wealthy people paying less taxes than “regular” people. Progressive tax rates already exist, and while this increases the percentage at these incomes, unless it addresses all the other loopholes, this will conveniently miss the 1% and instead impact high earning professionals.
The problem with high wealth taxes is the same as the problem with nationalizing privately-owned businesses. Even if you’re not worried about the people you tax fleeing the country (maybe they can’t because their investments aren’t mobile) you still have to worry about the fact that no one would build anything in France (even things not currently taxed) if there was good reason to think that France might suddenly decide to seize a large fraction of its value.
(High income taxes aren’t as big a deal because wealthy people can restructure their investments in order to avoid most of them, but I wonder whether the lost economic activity is actually worth more to the country than the money raised by the tax.)
Most people who actually build everything do not have significant enough wealth to be affected. France doesn’t need someone with significant wealth in order to build something. France can provide the financial capital. We do know that public investment spurs private investment, but private investment isn’t strictly required.
Besides, we’ve already seen plenty examples of countries where people with significant wealth do not use it to build things in low tax destinations, especially where that low tax results in crumbling infrastructure and unstable labor and political climate.
I wonder whether the lost economic activity is actually worth more to the country than the money raised by the tax.
The answer is “yes” it’s worth it. Answering “no” puts you in a race to the bottom which leads to dysfunctional economy and eventually some sort of political upheaval, during which wealth and factories are exceedingly likely to be taken away anyways. See history for references. Also every EUR creates more economic activity at the bottom, than the top. The vast majority of the aggregate demand in richer economies isn’t comprised from the top 1%. The aggregate demand is what makes it worth making things and what drives significant private investment. Drive it down and there comes a point where no amount of tax cuts can offset it.
Yeah, the person you responded to doesn’t understand investment. No one makes investments based on taxes. They make investments based on demand.
That’s why people build in NYC which has a million taxes and regulations, while tiny island tax havens have little investment beyond tourism. No, Austin is not the next Silicon Valley no matter how many tax breaks they give out. No, Atlanta is not the next Hollywood.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
France’s left wing New Popular Front (NPF) - now the largest group in parliament - has called for a prime minister who will implement its ideas including a new wealth tax and petrol price controls.
The leftist alliance secured the most seats in the recent French elections but fell short of the 289 needed for a majority in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.
President Emmanuel Macron’s Together bloc came in second and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) party finished third.
France’s parties are now jockeying for position and it’s unclear exactly how things will shake out, but the NPF has insisted it will implement its radical set of ideas.
It is possible that President Macron - who called the snap election in a bid to counter the rise of the far-right - could seek a deal with more moderate elements of the NFP.
His government last week suspended a decree that would have diminished workers’ rights to unemployment benefits, which has been interpreted as a gesture toward the left.
The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 55%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
hell yea
Tax them. Tax the fuck out of their income and wealth.
Sounds great, now how are they proposing to tax the wealthy. You know, those people who have a jet set lifestyle but no income to tax?
The answer would be of course they have income, and we have to adequately recognize it as such.
Borrowing money against stocks? Income. Capital gains on high value or nonessential assets (e.g. non-primary residences and stock)? Income.
Actual money has to come in at some point to manifest that lifesytyle and that is obviously income.
I’ve always thought that it would make sense to tax borrowing money against something, but you need to have a way to account for it being paid back with either yet to be taxed assets, or already taxed assets.
E.g
Has 100 million in bank.
Leveeages 10m to buy a house.
Sells stock to pay off loan monthly.
Now in this case we can tax the 10m (maybe at a different rate) but if they sell the stock to pay off the loan it should take into account the tax they paid on the loan.
Also if they pay the loan off with already taxed money (cash in an account) that loan then needs to have its tax refunded in some manner.
It can get pretty messy, but if the law only triggers when you do this over a certain threshold, those people would be able to afford the tax people to sort it out.
The easy way around the problem is to tax loans that aren’t being used to purchase an asset. This is the “living expenses” loan hack that the ultra-wealthy use and it absolutely needs to be removed.
Your example is a bit different because the wealthy person is selling stock to make the mortgage payment. In this case they should already be paying capital gains taxes on those sales. If they aren’t then figure out why and fix the tax code.
We can tie the two situations together by considering the annual sum of all stock sales and non-asset purchasing loans as regular income and thus subject to income tax, minus any capital gains taxes already paid.
That easily closes both of the common loopholes that the ultra-wealthy use while leaving us normal people untouched. The ultra-wealthy would suddenly be paying income taxes on the money they are spending to maintain their lifestyle, same as the rest of us are.
Sorry I meant in my example they took out a loan, not a mortgage.
Better rates that way probably.
But it’s the same problem even if it’s living expenses.
You borrow 1m to live off of and pay income tax on it.
You then sell stocks to close out the loan and pay capital gains tax
You’ve now paid tax twice.
Edit: that’s what it needs to be able to account for which might get messy
Stock dividends? Oh, you bet that’s income. Income should be delta wealth, simple as.
Borrowing money against stocks? Income.
I actually take issue with this one, though. Debt doesn’t just disappear, until you (or someone else) pays it back, rich or poor alike.
Edit: It doesn’t but apparently in the US specifically the taxation isn’t the same.
At least in the US dividends already count as normal income and taxed at the rate of wages, as far as I know.
On the debt, I’d say the remedy for that is some sort of tax credit on repayment, depending on how the repayment goes. So if you are using real income to pay a debt that has already incurred tax liability, then that real income is exempt to avoid the double taxation.
They’re not in Canada, I’m pretty sure. Which is messed up.
Is there something I can read on leveraging stocks as a loophole? I’ve never heard of it. Every financial advisor will tell you to avoid long-term debt if at all possible.
Here’s something talking about the loophole: https://equitablegrowth.org/closing-the-billionaire-borrowing-loophole-would-strengthen-the-progressivity-of-the-u-s-tax-code/
And some talking about some ways in which it can be leveraged: https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20220928/avoid-capital-gains-taxes-like-a-billionaire-using-buy-borrow-die-strategy
In short, by borrowing, the tax code assumes that long term the proceeds of the loan will be disposed of in an appropriate tax way. However there are so many ways to be slippery about repayment that it’s hardly a guarantee. So it may be wise to shift to pessimistically assuming long term shenanigans at borrowing time and taxing the proceeds as income, with tax breaks around “sane” repayment to handle the intended “avoid double taxation” behavior.
Fascinating. Old paintings as a way of hiding wealth make sense - that is subjective value - but you can look up stock prices in near-real time. Uncle Sam just has a really weird way of defining a transaction, probably do to something in deep US history.
If we’re rearranging the whole tax code in this hypothetical, I’d just write it in such a way the IRS is allowed to tax gains even if there’s no “realization”, or at least taxes heirs just like the deceased. If not, I guess it’s a matter of what you can get legislative support for, and what the article suggests would be a reasonable kludge.
Problem with taxing unrealized gains is that there’s a fair argument that unrealized gains are, largely, fictitious. For example if Musk said, today, “I am selling all my stock, give me 250 billion now”, he would not get 250 billion dollars, because there isn’t 250 billion dollars of money actually primed to buy Musk’s stock.
Analagous, if your house went up by $150k, then they said “oh, you ‘earned’ $150k, you owe $80k”, your only way to cover that would be to sell the house, which isn’t fair because you were living in it, not using it as a financial instrument. However, if you borrowed $150k and used it to buy a couple of corvettes based on that equity increase, well that’s weird but maybe ok depending on how you ultimately pay back that $150k you borrowed, but at least in the short term, you made $150k appear out of thin air, which might be janked in the long term…
Hell yes. Finally policy suggestions which make sense. Autocratphiles masquerading as communists are mad at this turn of events??
Have you no idea how capitalists function?
Actual communists are more intelligent than this.
Its just hilarious seeing 400k being wealthy my man. The really wealthy don’t take a salary and instead have corporations and trust funds that pay them minimum salary and more stocks and shares. They then leverage these stocks and shares using cheap loans from their bank buddies for very low interest tates.
Income tax is a tax on the working class, not the capitalist class.
No true Scotsman. The evidence is right in front of you but you don’t want to see it.
All i am saying is that if you tax working people its not actually doing what it said on the tin: taxing the rich. Rich people don’t work for their income. Their money works for them.
I agree with you about that part, the part I’m criticizing you for is your continued belief that ‘real’ communists are intelligent even though the comments here are filled with their shoddy reasoning and inability to learn from reality
AVERAGE annual income in France (the one that gets skewed by a handful of people making exorbitant incomes) is €41,000. Over half of people in France make less than 1/10th the €400,000 mark. This tax doesn’t affect anyone that actually works for a living
This tax doesn’t affect anyone that actually works for a living
The average general surgeon in France makes around 230,000 euros before bonuses and all, so there are surgeons out there making 400k euros. I’m pretty sure they work for a living. You also underestimate how hard highly paid corporate executives work. You might not VALUE their work, but most of them work their asses off (even if what they are doing is counterproductive or stupid or worthless).
This tax doesn’t affect very many people who work for a living, but the people who are wealthy enough to actually not work for a living at all will not be affected either, since this isn’t a tax on wealth.
Does the french suggestion separate income types? It’s very preferable to tax non-working high wealth & income even more than salary income.
Capitalists usually aim the tax pressure towards median salary income, and less for stocks, or property. The regressive model should be switched to progressive taxing.
deleted by creator
Can you expand on what kkkrakkker means?
The kkk references an organization common to the American Midwest and Deep South known as the “Klu Klux Klan”, most notorious for its domestic terrorist activities aimed at wealthy and well-organized communities of color following the end of the American Civil War. They were also a powerful political caucus stretching across both major American parties for over a century. Often conceived of as a “secret society” with a certain practices bordering on the occult as part of initiation and promotion, the real influence of the organization tended to boil down to its control of state and local police agencies and prosecuting offices.
A cracker is a stale white salty piece of bread, often served with soup or stew.
Gotchya.
For a second there I thought they were using it to say they’d take all of someone’s money based on the color of their skin as well as associating all white people with the KKK.
Removed by mod
Ah. Just saw the .ml. Good luck with the racism.
Removed by mod
And here I thought it had something to do with treating people a certain way because of the color of their skin. /shrug.
Call it whatever you want but it’s morally disgusting to treat anyone a particular way due to immutable traits.
i took pleasure reading that aloud and rolling the k’s
To be clear the 90% tax is an income tax, which is actually not unprecedented as other commenters note. Melenchon has talked about 100% but I guess the other parties negotiated him down.
Actually, 90% income tax for the top incomes was common in western countries in the 50s.
On paper, yes, in practice, no.
In the US, at the time that marginal tax rates got that high, the amount of things you could deduct was also MUCH higher. Truth is, nobody ever actually paid 90% back then.
That sounds like the era. KISS was not a principle appreciated by economic legislators until the later 20th century. Mercantilism died slow.
deleted by creator
Just 90% has the pro that you’ll actually collect revenue. Nobody’s paying out money that doesn’t reach the intended party even a bit. However, I feel like 100% would be worth it just for the paradigm shift in the way we think about society - that maybe there should be limits to how “special” you can get, and that that’s not spooky communism but simply realism about our mortal condition.
Honestly, they should probably leave income alone and just double down on the wealth tax.
Wage-based taxation has always been an awkward way to target the rich.
I have very different feelings about someone from a poor background who went into massive debt to develop their skills and become a top earner vs. someone who inherited a fortune and doesn’t put any effort beyond checking their bank balance periodically.
Plus, there is the “won’t they just leave?” argument. Which is mostly FUD, but in the case where someone’s wealth is based on their skilled labor they do have a much easier time just leaving. If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.
If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.
Sell it to a holding company incorporated abroad. Own shares of that holding company instead.
Wage-based taxation has always been an awkward way to target the rich.
Is it wages or is it income? Income covers much more than wages, and in a good system one would account for everything without loopholes. A comprehensive income tax that catches everything would go pretty far.
Wealth tax can be dicey, in theory. It would require a sell-off to actually have money that can be used to pay taxes, and the sell-off would change the value of the assets. For example, the S&P 500 is “worth” 46 billion dollars. That’s more than twice the “money” that exists total, it’s literally impossible to actually manifest all of that to dollars, so most of the “worth” cannot be “realized”.
The moving part is very real for the ultra rich in Europe.
Yeah, it’s not FUD.
It’s really gotta be a 100% tax (that is, a hard cap) or nothing. Wealth that slowly whittles away will tend to move elsewhere.
In Norway they transfer their assets to their kids and send them to live in Switzerland for them.
I see fud used on a semi regular basis. It’s fear uncertainty and doubt. And I don’t think most people know that.
I wasn’t sure, but I was worried that’s what it was
but in the case where someone’s wealth is based on their skilled labor they do have a much easier time just leaving. If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.
Nice one
Does no one here understand how incone taxes work? The 90% rate is on annual income over €400,000. Average annual income in France was €41,000.
I think the guy you’re responding to is more talking about the distinction between income and capital gains, with income making up far less of the wealthy’s worth than existing investments.
But yes, a lot of people also have no concept of how tax brackets work.
Right. Someone with a networth of many millions may only have a yearly income of $100k. Sometimes far less. Different tax systems can also have different definitions of income. Is inheritance income? Are growth stocks that you haven’t cashed in yet income? Are stock dividends income? You can answer yes or no to any of these, but however you answer, you can still structure the tax system around those answers to come to an equitable arrangement.
The end result is that basically no one will be subject to this tax bracket.
It is high enough that everyone at that level will mainly get their real income from stock/loan which aren’t salaries.
Having this tax bracket or not having it is, basically the same for the super wealthy. The real method to tax them is through capital tax, not income.
Based
