President François Hollande is vowing to impose a 75 percent tax on the portion of anyone’s income above a million euros ($1.24 million) a year.
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350.
A 2007 study by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated effective tax rates for various income groups.
For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.
For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.
For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.
Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.
I think I understand the impetus behind the 50% unjust cut off. The feeling at that point is that you are working more for the government than yourself. That seems reasonable to me. I'm undecided... the rich should obviously pay their share, but "fuck the rich" is not a very considered strategy.
Ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles.
( written in response to a 95% marginal tax rate on the highest earners in 1960s Britain )
You can't pretend like people don't rationally react to high tax rates by finding ways to shelter income. Its just a matter of degrees. At 50% I'm probably a lot less interested than I am at 95%.
His total tax as a percentage of his adjusted gross income was 20 percent, which is much lower than mine.
2) Sure, but then you can have lower marginal tax rates in general. That's really what the havens and the dodging ends up doing any way - but just for the most sophisticated tax payers. That's really why its unfair.
If a greater % of gross income is taxable income then marginal tax rates can be lower. Its really really simple. Most of the differences between gross and taxable are difference the wealthy benefit from, not the poor and middle class.
Money is just the most marketable commodity -- it's a natural outgrowth of barter. If Joe the Cobbler has shoes, and you have chickens, he might take chickens in payment for shoes because he knows that Hank the Blacksmith wants chickens, and he'll be needing nails to make more shoes.
Some commodities are more popular than others, and a few commodities (primarily copper, silver, and gold) ended up being desired by enough people that everyone else started accepting them. Voila, money, and a much more modern economy. (barter is terribly inefficient.)
I think I understand the impetus behind the 50% unjust cut off. The feeling at that point is that you are working more for the government than yourself. That seems reasonable to me. I'm undecided... the rich should obviously pay their share, but "fuck the rich" is not a very considered strategy
Re: one world tax via WTO. Consider a tiny country surrounded entirely by water and built only on sand. The citizens want to raise their living standards, as is the case for the entire human race. They have no natural resources of value to sell. They have only one way to attract capital, and that is by making it cheap for capital to move there. Liberalism demands those people give up their only competitive advantage over better resourced nations. In short, a one world tax is iimpractical and immoral.
How does one sovereign state shut down a business in another sovereign state, without bullets?
tax havens don't work like that.
Tax havens don't work by round tripping money and turning taxable income into non-taxable income. Most tax havens function by preventing income and capital gains from ever being taxable. I live in Country A, own Asset B in Country B, The entity I own Asset B with exists in Country C that doesn't charge me tax on the money I repatriate into Country C. I've already paid the taxes due in Country A on the money I used to buy Asset B. As long as I never take the money from Country C to Country A or B I do not have a taxable liability. Here's the thing - this is legal
I can't imagine it would require much to convince the 16 million people of Burkina Faso that they will see a huge payday if only they set themselves up as a tax haven.
The problem with K2 isn't the tax haven, its the UK tax code tho. The UK Tax Code is an absolute joke.
The point I'm trying to make is that the problem isn't the tax havens, its the tax codes that allow people to profit from them.
« Older McKayla Maroney is not impressed. (Single Link tum... | Throughout the west, prospecto... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt