French President wants to tax millionaires at 75% of their income- too much?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"][quote="WhiteKnight77"]

If the two of you are talking about taxes here in the US, then both of y'all are wrong.

WhiteKnight77

No we aren't

Then you miss this part on the Tax Table where those figures come from:

The Tax Rate Schedules are shown so you can see the tax rate that applies
to all levels of taxable income. Do not use them to figure your tax. Instead,
see the instructions for line 44.IRS

Source

If you figure the percentages out, someone paying taxes on $100,000 is only paying 21.6% while the person paying taxes on $100,001 is paying 28%.

Just looking at the Tax Computation Worksheets shows you what people are paying over X dollars depending on if you are filing single, married jointly, married separately or head of household.

You're reading comprehension is terrible. It doesn't mean that the tax rate applies to all taxable income, it means that it shows the rate for each level. You pay the rate for each dollar within each tax bracket. Not the rate for the highest tax bracket for all of your income. Look at the damn calculations. Also look at the wiki article. It's take straight from the tax code.

Seems totally fair to me.

Historic tax rates in the US reached 90% for the highest tax bracket but no one seems to realize that. Current tax rates in the US are abysmally low for the rich.

Historic US tax rates

1950-1963, the highest bracket was over 90%.

You're reading comprehension is terrible. It doesn't mean that the tax rate applies to all taxable income, it means that it shows the rate for each level. You pay the rate for each dollar within each tax bracket. Not the rate for the highest tax bracket for all of your income. Look at the damn calculations. Also look at the wiki article. It's take straight from the tax code.

Guybrush_3

My reading comprehension is just fine. I can understand the meaning of do not use.

People eaning up to $10,000 of taxable income will pay $1,071 or just a hair more than 10% in taxes (the tax tables have the personal exemption already applied to them).

$20,000 = $2,571 or ~13%

$30,000 = $$4,071 or ~13.5%

$40,000 = $6,119 or ~15.3%

$50,000 = $8,619 or ~17.2%

$100,000= $21,610 or ~21.6%.

$100,001 = 28% or $28,000.28, but once the personal exemption is applied, $21,617.

Note, these figures are for single persons who are filing their taxes for 2011.

Too high of taxes makes people look for ways to avoid taxes resulting in those taxes working even less.

It's way too much, but you get what you vote for. People clearly voted for such radical positions, so they ought to support the positions they voted for.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

You're reading comprehension is terrible. It doesn't mean that the tax rate applies to all taxable income, it means that it shows the rate for each level. You pay the rate for each dollar within each tax bracket. Not the rate for the highest tax bracket for all of your income. Look at the damn calculations. Also look at the wiki article. It's take straight from the tax code.

WhiteKnight77

My reading comprehension is just fine. I can understand the meaning of do not use.

People eaning up to $10,000 of taxable income will pay $1,071 or just a hair more than 10% in taxes (the tax tables have the personal exemption already applied to them).

$20,000 = $2,571 or ~13%

$30,000 = $$4,071 or ~13.5%

$40,000 = $6,119 or ~15.3%

$50,000 = $8,619 or ~17.2%

$100,000= $21,610 or ~21.6%.

$100,001 = 28% or $28,000.28, but once the personal exemption is applied, $21,617.

Note, these figures are for single persons who are filing their taxes for 2011.

Actual tax rate of the person making 100,001 ~21.6% not 28%. Excuse me, your reading comprehension is fine. It's math that you don't understand. I will explain it to you because you obviously don't get what's being done. go to page 86. Look at that formula. (a) x (b) - (c) =taxes owed. Where (a) is the amount you made, (b) is the percent you are being taxed in that tax bracet (28% for $100,000-174,400) and (c) is difference between 28% and the PErcent that you paid on each previous tax bracket. If this were incorrect and the tax you paid ont the entire amount 100,000 would be higher than if you made 99.900

Seems fair. Rich people getting that way by screwing everyone else over.

bigfoot2045

It's way too much, personally I think anything above 40% is too high, let people have the majority of their wealth.

At some point of course, 75% actually doesn't matter if you're talking the uber ultra rich, for example taxing Bill Gates 75% actually wouldn't affect his lifestyle at all, but honestly he does more good with all his excess money than would the government.

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

Seems fair. Rich people getting that way by screwing everyone else over.

shadowchronicle

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

Seems fair. Rich people getting that way by screwing everyone else over.

shadowchronicle

The 50's had some of the lowest unemployment in history with a 90%+ income tax for money made in the top bracket. Trickledown economics is a myth.

[QUOTE="shadowchronicle"][QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

Seems fair. Rich people getting that way by screwing everyone else over.

Person0

While I agree this whole concept of "rich businessmen creating tons of jobs " is way overblown, it is still their money, and just because someone isn't creating jobs isn't a good enough reason imo, to instill a ludicrous tax rate.

[QUOTE="shadowchronicle"][QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

Seems fair. Rich people getting that way by screwing everyone else over.

Guybrush_3

The 50's had some of the lowest unemployment in history with a 90%+ income tax for money made in the top bracket. Trickledown economics is a myth.

Trickledown economics is definitely a highly idealized principle.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="shadowchronicle"]I'm sorry but who has the money to make jobs? Rich people.TacticalDesire

While I agree this whole concept of "rich businessmen creating tons of jobs " is way overblown, it is still their money, and just because someone isn't creating jobs isn't a good enough reason imo, to instill a ludicrous tax rate.

75% is a bit high. They should probably keep it closer to 50%-60% like most semi socialist nations. However much I dislike the rich, they still need to be able to earn enough money to benefit the economy.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="shadowchronicle"]I'm sorry but who has the money to make jobs? Rich people.TacticalDesire

While I agree this whole concept of "rich businessmen creating tons of jobs " is way overblown, it is still their money, and just because someone isn't creating jobs isn't a good enough reason imo, to instill a ludicrous tax rate.

Actual tax rate of the person making 100,001 ~21.6% not 28%. Excuse me, your reading comprehension is fine. It's math that you don't understand. I will explain it to you because you obviously don't get what's being done. go to page 86. Look at that formula. (a) x (b) - (c) =taxes owed. Where (a) is the amount you made, (b) is the percent you are being taxed in that tax bracet (28% for $100,000-174,400) and (c) is difference between 28% and the PErcent that you paid on each previous tax bracket. If this were incorrect and the tax you paid ont the entire amount 100,000 would be higher than if you made 99.900

Guybrush_3

For example, take a guy making $99,999 a year versus a guy making $100,001 per year. (Assuming the tax bracket changes right at $100,000) The guy making less per year actually winds up with substanitally more take home or after tax money right?

danjammer69

Then even according to the math, there isn't much difference between the two tax brackets as they are comparable at that level. That extra 2 dollars is not getting taxed any higher or lower and it is on the whole amount, not what is above a certain amount.

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] So does the government.... The difference is rich people like to hold on to the money and not create jobsPerson0

While I agree this whole concept of "rich businessmen creating tons of jobs " is way overblown, it is still their money, and just because someone isn't creating jobs isn't a good enough reason imo, to instill a ludicrous tax rate.

Obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc is obvious.

Please insert coins and try again.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

While I agree this whole concept of "rich businessmen creating tons of jobs " is way overblown, it is still their money, and just because someone isn't creating jobs isn't a good enough reason imo, to instill a ludicrous tax rate.

coolbeans90

Obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc is obvious.

Please insert coins and try again.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Overblown a lot

-Sun_Tzu-

Obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc is obvious.

Please insert coins and try again.

Which is p. close to irrelevant w/o argument for causation considering the number of factors that go into things like employment.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc is obvious.

Please insert coins and try again.

coolbeans90

Which is p. close to irrelevant w/o argument for causation considering the number of factors that go into things like employment.

[QUOTE="Mochyc"]As a french person and an economist, I find this completely idiotic. It's not as if the french entrepreneurial spirit was low enough. Why should people start an innovative and potentially successful company in France when they'll be taxed 75% if they can just move a few hundred kilometers away and be taxed much less? My father (an entrepreneur) is already thinking of moving to London, and there is absolutely no chance I will be starting my own company in Paris.whipassmt

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't think he's trying to show any causation. That graph just crudely shows that there's no real correlation between taxes on the rich and job growth. -Sun_Tzu-

Which is p. close to irrelevant w/o argument for causation considering the number of factors that go into things like employment.

Umm, ofc it can be a causal relationship. However, as long is it's not the only one (and there are MANY, and they could theoretically vary in extent -and possibly direction - dependant on other numerous factors and interrelationships b/w variables, etc.), that graph means positively nothing WRT causal relationships.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Which is p. close to irrelevant w/o argument for causation considering the number of factors that go into things like employment.

coolbeans90

Umm, ofc it can be a causal relationship. However, as long is it's not the only one (and there are MANY, and they could theoretically vary in extent -and possibly direction - dependant on other numerous factors and interrelationships b/w variables, etc.), that graph means positively nothing WRT causal relationships.

Umm, ofc it can be a causal relationship. However, as long is it's not the only one (and there are MANY, and they could theoretically vary in extent -and possibly direction - dependant on other numerous factors and interrelationships b/w variables, etc.), that graph means positively nothing WRT causal relationships.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Right, there are a number of factors that go into things like employment, which goes into what Person0 is saying. The people arguing for causation are the people saying that any tax increase on the wealthy will necessarily cause a rise in unemployment (and vice versa). What that graph shows is that you can't draw that line between point A and point B. It's not a causal relationship. MannyDelgado

Umm, ofc it can be a causal relationship. However, as long is it's not the only one (and there are MANY, and they could theoretically vary in extent -and possibly direction - dependant on other numerous factors and interrelationships b/w variables, etc.), that graph means positively nothing WRT causal relationships.

Umm, yeah, there are obviously other factors that more influential, WHICH I THOUGHT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. This isn't really news, though, b/c the "top marginal rates" are grossly misleading - the effective top tax rate was never 90%, or anywhere close to it. WHICH MAKES THIS GRAPH ALMOST ALL THE MORE MEANINGLESS.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Umm, ofc it can be a causal relationship. However, as long is it's not the only one (and there are MANY, and they could theoretically vary in extent -and possibly direction - dependant on other numerous factors and interrelationships b/w variables, etc.), that graph means positively nothing WRT causal relationships.

-Sun_Tzu-

O

point conceded

reading comprehension

especially rates where they are rite now, and the relatively minuscule (3% or something, iirc) proposed change in rates

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Umm, ofc it can be a causal relationship. However, as long is it's not the only one (and there are MANY, and they could theoretically vary in extent -and possibly direction - dependant on other numerous factors and interrelationships b/w variables, etc.), that graph means positively nothing WRT causal relationships.

coolbeans90

O

point conceded

reading comprehension

especially rates where they are rite now, and the relatively minuscule (3% or something, iirc) proposed change in rates

Sun - 1

Beans - 0

dat OTcar will be mine and mine alone in due time

TBH, you are prob a better debater than me BUT THIS WAS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE CASE OF MY WORK

this is lazy sunday beans

Too high of taxes makes people look for ways to avoid taxes resulting in those taxes working even less.

edinsftw

well its their income not their total wealth

god dang 75%. Sorta yes and sorta no. really depends on the person.

most rich people make most of their money through captainal gains which At least in U.S gets tax at a lower rate which is soo messed up.

tax for income in u.s range from 15-35% depending what class you in. but captainal gains all get hit with 15%

Well USA did just fine with 90% rate from 1940s-60s and still 70% until Reagan tax cuts. Also approx. the same time we started taking in lots of debt. Hmm...

I think it is more morally wrong to have people earning 1 million dollars a year while others struggle to eat. So 75% tax is a good start. A more equal society is more moral and has less social problems.kuraimen

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

Seems fair. Rich people getting that way by screwing everyone else over.

shadowchronicle

And where does that money come from? That's right, from the huge middle class that buys products created by companies.

I'm sorry but who has the money to make jobs? Rich people.nunovlopes

god dang 75%. Sorta yes and sorta no. really depends on the person.

most rich people make most of their money through captainal gains which At least in U.S gets tax at a lower rate which is soo messed up.

tax for income in u.s range from 15-35% depending what class you in. but captainal gains all get hit with 15%

k2theswiss

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I think you're missing the point, and are going after the wrong people as a result of that. There are many people in this thread and in general who believe that any tax hike on the rich would necessarily increase unemployment and that any tax break on the rich would necessarily lower unemployment. All the graph does is show that the relationship between the two is dramatically overblown. -Sun_Tzu-

O

point conceded

reading comprehension

especially rates where they are rite now, and the relatively minuscule (3% or something, iirc) proposed change in rates

Sun - 1

Beans - 0

Not enough. [spoiler] in all seriousness, I wouldn't know what the ideal tax rate would be for the super rich. I just know that we really should let the bush/obama tax cuts expire [/spoiler] l4dak47

End result: all the millionaires will simply just take their stuff and go elsewhere. France will suffer as a result due to decreased consumption and potentially decreased investment.GhoX

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Actual tax rate of the person making 100,001 ~21.6% not 28%. Excuse me, your reading comprehension is fine. It's math that you don't understand. I will explain it to you because you obviously don't get what's being done. go to page 86. Look at that formula. (a) x (b) - (c) =taxes owed. Where (a) is the amount you made, (b) is the percent you are being taxed in that tax bracet (28% for $100,000-174,400) and (c) is difference between 28% and the PErcent that you paid on each previous tax bracket. If this were incorrect and the tax you paid ont the entire amount 100,000 would be higher than if you made 99.900

WhiteKnight77

For example, take a guy making $99,999 a year versus a guy making $100,001 per year. (Assuming the tax bracket changes right at $100,000) The guy making less per year actually winds up with substanitally more take home or after tax money right?

danjammer69

Then even according to the math, there isn't much difference between the two tax brackets as they are comparable at that level. That extra 2 dollars is not getting taxed any higher or lower and it is on the whole amount, not what is above a certain amount.

You really are dense, aren't you? The two dollars is infact being taxed at a higher rate. It's being taxed at 28% while the other 99,999 are being taxed at 28% minus the difference between the 28% and the percentage of each previous tax bracket (that's where the $6,383.00 came from, do you think they just pulled that number out of their asses or something?) They do it like that to make the math easier. Notice how the number you subtract from the next tax bracket is even higher at $15,103.00. That's the difference between 33% and the percent of the previous tax brackets on the first $174,400.

Why? So he can use the money to buy wine and frog legs?

Mike-uk

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]I'm sorry but who has the money to make jobs? Rich people.MannyDelgado

Hey it wasn't me that said that

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="nunovlopes"]I'm sorry but who has the money to make jobs? Rich people.nunovlopes

Hey it wasn't me that said that

You're right though, most of these the people posting in this thread know nothing about economics.

You have to put you're self in the shoes of a millionaire, what would happen if people constantly wanted to take more of the money you made? Even raising capital gains will hurt people, because the reason it's at 15% is because of the huge risk people take when investing into the stock market.

This includes people who invest that aren't rich. If you raise it to lets say, 35%, that would absolutely kill investments and hurt the economy even more.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Not enough. [spoiler] in all seriousness, I wouldn't know what the ideal tax rate would be for the super rich. I just know that we really should let the bush/obama tax cuts expire [/spoiler] LJS9502_basic