75% tax in France- ruled 'unfair' by Constitutional Court.

France's constitutional council has overturned a 75 percent upper tax rate on incomeabove $1.32m, which was due to be introduced in2013 by the socialist government.

The council's decision on Saturday, made in response to a motion by oppositionconservatives, is a huge blow to President FrancoisHollande who had made the rate his flagship taxmeasure as he sought to have the rich contribute moretowards reducing the budget deficit.

The government had estimated the 75 percent tax rate couldraise around $400m a year as it battles to bring down the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling ofthreepercent next year in the face of stalled growth.

The Constitutional Council, which rules on whether laws areconstitutional, said in a statement that the way the upper ratewas set to be imposed was unfair in the way it would affectdifferent households.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/12/20121229102021538304.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-29/french-court-says-75-percent-tax-rate-on-wealthy-is-unconstitutional

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

France's constitutional council has overturned a 75 percent upper tax rate on incomeabove $1.32m, which was due to be introduced in2013 by the socialist government.

The council's decision on Saturday, made in response to a motion by oppositionconservatives, is a huge blow to President FrancoisHollande who had made the rate his flagship taxmeasure as he sought to have the rich contribute moretowards reducing the budget deficit.

The government had estimated the 75 percent tax rate couldraise around $400m a year as it battles to bring down the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling ofthreepercent next year in the face of stalled growth.

The Constitutional Council, which rules on whether laws areconstitutional, said in a statement that the way the upper ratewas set to be imposed was unfair in the way it would affectdifferent households.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/12/20121229102021538304.html

75% always was too high. But the reasoning of the council here is somewhat flawed. If their concern is that the tax is unfair because it affects different housholds differently, then it follows that the entire progressive tax system would be unconstitutional.

BossPerson

The Al Jazeera article does not outline the reasoning which has nothing to do with the progressive system. Here is a much better article:

Hollandes plan would have added extra levies of 18 percent on individuals incomes of more than 1 million euros ($1.32 million), while regular income taxes and a 4 percent exceptional contribution for high earners would have been based on household income, the court said today in an e-mailed statement. As a result, two households with the same total revenue could end up paying different rates depending on how earnings are divided among members of those households, which runs counter to a rule of equal tax treatment, the Paris-based court said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-29/french-court-says-75-percent-tax-rate-on-wealthy-is-unconstitutional

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

France's constitutional council has overturned a 75 percent upper tax rate on incomeabove $1.32m, which was due to be introduced in2013 by the socialist government.

The council's decision on Saturday, made in response to a motion by oppositionconservatives, is a huge blow to President FrancoisHollande who had made the rate his flagship taxmeasure as he sought to have the rich contribute moretowards reducing the budget deficit.

The government had estimated the 75 percent tax rate couldraise around $400m a year as it battles to bring down the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling ofthreepercent next year in the face of stalled growth.

The Constitutional Council, which rules on whether laws areconstitutional, said in a statement that the way the upper ratewas set to be imposed was unfair in the way it would affectdifferent households.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/12/20121229102021538304.html

75% always was too high. But the reasoning of the council here is somewhat flawed. If their concern is that the tax is unfair because it affects different housholds differently, then it follows that the entire progressive tax system would be unconstitutional.

SUD123456

The Al Jazeera article does not outline the reasoning which has nothing to do with the progressive system. Here is a much better article:

Hollandes plan would have added extra levies of 18 percent on individuals incomes of more than 1 million euros ($1.32 million), while regular income taxes and a 4 percent exceptional contribution for high earners would have been based on household income, the court said today in an e-mailed statement. As a result, two households with the same total revenue could end up paying different rates depending on how earnings are divided among members of those households, which runs counter to a rule of equal tax treatment, the Paris-based court said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-29/french-court-says-75-percent-tax-rate-on-wealthy-is-unconstitutional

of course i dont exclusivly follow them. But they are very good when it comes to international issues. Plus their role in the arab spring was key (aljazeera arabic that is).

Better than Al arabiyah as well.

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]AlJazeera is a cvnt network, do not give it any traffic or publicity Boss.BossPerson

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Inconsistancy

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Wasdie

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

The government had estimated the 75 percent tax rate couldraise around $400m a year as it battles to bring down the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling ofthreepercent next year in the face of stalled growth.

BossPerson

:lol: I thought this supposed to be the big fix for France's deficit problems.

And heck that's the goverment's estimate, I bet they're not taking into account the taxpayers leaving France to escape those rates.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Inconsistancy

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

Liberte, Egalitie, Fraternite.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Wasdie

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

First, I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment you are arguing.

However, you haven't actually provided any evidence for either of your key words: fairness or wrong.

For instance, one could conceiveably create a cost of service based taxation system whereby your taxes are directly related to your proportionate usage of all the programs, services and benefits that are provided through taxes. Alternatively, you could make many of these things usage based pay as you go.

There certainly would be the potential for some people to pay 75% or greater of their pay to access these benefits and presumably this might occur at a multitude of income levels.

Ignoring the obvious challenges in administering such a system, in theory it would be both fair and right on some levels.

Of course, my example also highlights the issue of using words like fair and wrong/right in the first place as we have to first agree on what those mean in any given context.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

SUD123456

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

First, I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment you are arguing.

However, you haven't actually provided any evidence for either of your key words: fairness or wrong.

For instance, one could conceiveably create a cost of service based taxation system whereby your taxes are directly related to your proportionate usage of all the programs, services and benefits that are provided through taxes.

Ignoring the obvious challenges in administering such a system, in theory it would be both fair and right on some levels.

Of course, my example also highlights the issue of using words like fair and wrong/right in the first place as we have to first agree on what those mean in any given context.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

Storm_Marine

Liberte, Egalitie, Fraternite.

About this type of "fairness". It's not able to be compared so directly.

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5k, at 1m it's 250k. As a % of total income, a poorer person pays more of their total spendable income than a rich person. Let's say at 20k you spend ~100% of your income just to live, while at 250k you'll need maybe 8% of that.

Reward vs Performance, from what I've read/seen(that I can't find...), only in manual tasks did a rewards work 1:1, in cognitive tasks excessive reward either had diminishing or negative returns.

Happiness vs income starts to plateau between 50-100k $

I meant to write if you take 75% tax from...

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]And I don't care about fairness.Inconsistancy

Liberte, Egalitie, Fraternite.

About this type of "fairness". It's not able to be compared so directly.

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5k, at 1m it's 250k. As a % of total income, a poorer person pays more of their total spendable income than a rich person. Let's say at 20k you spend ~100% of your income just to live, while at 250k you'll need maybe 8% of that.

Reward vs Performance, from what I've read/seen(that I can't find...), only in manual tasks did a rewards work 1:1, in cognitive tasks excessive reward either had diminishing or negative returns.

Happiness vs income starts to plateau between 50-100k $

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5kInconsistancy

I think the increasing wage gap around the world is stupid, but driving the wealthy away from your country is even more stupid.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]75% tax on your income at 20k is 5kJohnF111

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Liberte, Egalitie, Fraternite.

Pirate700

About this type of "fairness". It's not able to be compared so directly.

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5k, at 1m it's 250k. As a % of total income, a poorer person pays more of their total spendable income than a rich person. Let's say at 20k you spend ~100% of your income just to live, while at 250k you'll need maybe 8% of that.

Reward vs Performance, from what I've read/seen(that I can't find...), only in manual tasks did a rewards work 1:1, in cognitive tasks excessive reward either had diminishing or negative returns.

Happiness vs income starts to plateau between 50-100k $

Is it even a flat %? Or is a tiered system?

That wouldn't be so bad. If the first million is taxed at a certina rate, and the next 500k are taxed higher, and so on, by the time you get to the 2 million mark everythign above that si taxed at 75%.

Rofl, 400 million dollars, that's like a fraction of the capital flight that they're experiencing every year. Hollande should focus on making Merkel not be a b!tch rather than policies that are as useless and damaging as this.

P.S. I still can't believe that people don't understand something as basic and ever present as tax bracketing. Every dollar/euro earned above 1.32 million will be taxed at 3/4, it doesn't suddenly increase the average level of tax for that income level to 75%. You would not be losing 3/4 of your income unless you were literally making so much money that it would cause virtually no impact to your standard of living.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Wasdie

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

Not suggesting I support this because I don't.. But its awfully silly to discuss "fairness" in a capitalist system when its all about exploitation.. If we are going to talk about fairness with that we might as well talk about the fairness of the entire system in general.. If you don't want to do that, then stop using that term.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]75% tax on your income at 20k is 5kInconsistancy

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

About this type of "fairness". It's not able to be compared so directly.

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5k, at 1m it's 250k. As a % of total income, a poorer person pays more of their total spendable income than a rich person. Let's say at 20k you spend ~100% of your income just to live, while at 250k you'll need maybe 8% of that.

Reward vs Performance, from what I've read/seen(that I can't find...), only in manual tasks did a rewards work 1:1, in cognitive tasks excessive reward either had diminishing or negative returns.

Happiness vs income starts to plateau between 50-100k $

Kinthalis

Is it even a flat %? Or is a tiered system?

That wouldn't be so bad. If the first million is taxed at a certina rate, and the next 500k are taxed higher, and so on, by the time you get to the 2 million mark everythign above that si taxed at 75%.

I thought that tax bracket was pretty pointless anyway. Anyone who makes that much money could simply move to a different country.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Inconsistancy

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

Laihendi

First, I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment you are arguing.

However, you haven't actually provided any evidence for either of your key words: fairness or wrong.

For instance, one could conceiveably create a cost of service based taxation system whereby your taxes are directly related to your proportionate usage of all the programs, services and benefits that are provided through taxes.

Ignoring the obvious challenges in administering such a system, in theory it would be both fair and right on some levels.

Of course, my example also highlights the issue of using words like fair and wrong/right in the first place as we have to first agree on what those mean in any given context.

LMAO.

Again you show no understanding of collective action problems and free ridership.

At least you are consistent:D

75%?
LOooooooooooooooooooool

i'm just glad i live in california

I don't think there is a rate that's too high, but the tax money has to be spent responsibly and efficiently. the current tax rate in any society would seem unimaginable to our ancestors, but of course as society progress, new acceptable levels are mading set. Unless you can claim you made all that money as an isolated individual in a segregated world, you're responsible for the society around you, as for how much responsibility you have? That differs from country to country and differ because countires are in different development stages. Higher tax rate is not always the answer, especially when the money is not spend in the right place, but screaming tax rate being too high all the time is just counter productive.

Well, it is a truly socialist country. Puts things in perspective for the American debate on taxes. I guess 75% is too high if you feel that the benefits you get back from the state are outweighed by what you put in.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Wasdie

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

About this type of "fairness". It's not able to be compared so directly.

75% tax on your income at 20k is 5k, at 1m it's 250k. As a % of total income, a poorer person pays more of their total spendable income than a rich person. Let's say at 20k you spend ~100% of your income just to live, while at 250k you'll need maybe 8% of that.

Reward vs Performance, from what I've read/seen(that I can't find...), only in manual tasks did a rewards work 1:1, in cognitive tasks excessive reward either had diminishing or negative returns.

Happiness vs income starts to plateau between 50-100k $

Inconsistancy

Somebody failed hard at math.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Wasdie

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

I thought that tax bracket was pretty pointless anyway. Anyone who makes that much money could simply move to a different country.

UnknownSniper65

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Wasdie

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

ShadowDeathX

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

Inconsistancy

Whats the point of even working for 75% tax?AutoPilotOn

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"]Whats the point of even working for 75% tax?Pirate700

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

toast_burner

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

Good news.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

DroidPhysX

My question is why Hollande gives a crap about the EU's deficit levels in the first place.

75% is high and won't work, simply because the people who are moderately affected by this in France are already running off to Belgium. It was kind of a dumb move and predictable outcome really.

However, it's not as bad as it looks from an ideology standpoint. You'd think the wealth would get shared rather than hoarded by a few individuals with this sort of taxation. An approach sort of like, share it, or the government takes it to better invest it. In turn, it would be leading to more disposable income and higher life quality to those earning lower wages as well as middle class. It seems however the government fails to provide those rich people with opportunities other than grabbing it for themselves.

Also, a common mistake people often make is to think that taxes are a flat percentage of total income. In reality, it's a progressive percentage on the income earned after a bracket is reached. A person earning 1 million pays the same taxes as someone who earns 50k a year, until they earned 50k, then they go above into the next tax bracket and pay taxes for the money they earn in that bracket until the next one and so on.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

75% isn't "always too high", there's actually no positive correlation with lower top marginal tax rates and gdp growth.

Inconsistancy

Would you like 75% of your paychecks to just go away? This is a question of fairness. I don't care how much somebody makes, taking 3/4ths of their income away is just wrong.

This doesn't answer his question, would you want 75% of your paycheck taken in taxes each week?