[Puffer Fish]

A man in Normandy France discovered 100kg of gold coins and bars hidden in a house he inherited from a dead relative.

Now he will have to pay 45% percent of it in inheritance tax to the French government.

The government might take an even higher percentage of that if they cannot prove the dead relative paid income taxes on that accumulated wealth during his lifetime.

https://sputniknews.com/art_living/2016 ... asure-tax/


So, how many of you here approve of this? How many of you want taxes in your country to be like how they are in France?

[Saeko]

Inheritance tax should be 250%.

[B0ycey]

So, how many of you here approve of this? How many of you want taxes in your country to be like how they are in France?

Approve. I think people need to understand we have to collect tax somehow and I would rather them tax some lucky bugger who found a bunch of gold he was unaware of then someone who is on minimum wage who will never inherit the house he is renting.

[AFAIK]

Inheritance tax should be much higher than 45%

[Skynet]

High taxes cripple the economy therefore France is in deindustrialisation process.

[Steve_American]

High taxes cripple the economy therefore France is in deindustrialisation process.

Sir, please explain how the US did so well from 1940 until 1972 with the highest tax rate being 90% then dropping to 77% in about 1965, plus or minus 5 years.
This was for 35 continuous years. It can't have been a fluke, because this in like 3 eleven year business cycles.

These were the best years any nation has ever had, or likely ever will have because of ACC aka AGW.
.

[Skynet]

I meant overtaxation in France in general, not just inheritance tax.

1940-1972 there was no globalisation. Now can the rich simply move their capital to an low-tax country and live and die there.

[Rancid]

Nazi gold?

[wat0n]

Sir, please explain how the US did so well from 1940 until 1972 with the highest tax rate being 90% then dropping to 77% in about 1965, plus or minus 5 years.
This was for 35 continuous years. It can't have been a fluke, because this in like 3 eleven year business cycles.

These were the best years any nation has ever had, or likely ever will have because of ACC aka AGW.
.

Tax avoidance was rampant in the 1950s. Here's an example of Hollywood playing that game:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

And more generally the effective rates for the rich were only somewhat higher than in the mid 2010s (42% vs 36%), this according to Saez & Zucman:

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the- ... -not-high/

[Steve_American]

Tax avoidance was rampant in the 1950s. Here's an example of Hollywood playing that game:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

And more generally the effective rates for the rich were only somewhat higher than in the mid 2010s (42% vs 36%), this according to Saez & Zucman:

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the- ... -not-high/

I take it that you didn't see, didn't believe, or ignored here the recent reports that the rich now pay less than 3% on their gains in wealth, which is not the same as income and especially 'taxable income'.

I think tax avoidance by the rich is more 'rampant' now.

The US doesn't need the money of the rich. It can create more. If the rich leave and renounce their citizenship, nothing can be done. If they remain citizens, they still owe taxes.

IMHO, the problem isn't that they the US needs their money. The problem is the inequality. The super rich are so rich some have their own space programs, otherrs are funding military deployments inside the US, and all can easily buy Congress. Etc.
.

[wat0n]

I take it that you didn't see, didn't believe, or ignored here the recent reports that the rich now pay less than 3% on their gains in wealth, which is not the same as income and especially 'taxable income'.

I think tax avoidance by the rich is more 'rampant' now.

The US doesn't need the money of the rich. It can create more. If the rich leave and renounce their citizenship, nothing can be done. If they remain citizens, they still owe taxes.

IMHO, the problem isn't that they the US needs their money. The problem is the inequality. The super rich are so rich some have their own space programs, otherrs are funding military deployments inside the US, and all can easily buy Congress. Etc.
.

The rates you mentioned were income tax rates. Wealth is taxed at much, much lower rates than 77% or 90%.

[Fasces]

Approve. A meritocratic and egalitarian society won't enable hereditary estates. What is this, 1066?

[Godstud]

Taxable as any income. They already do this in Canada. 45% is about normal.

High taxes cripple the economy therefore France is in deindustrialisation process.

Please support this claim. high taxes were the source of America's success in the 1950s.

1940-1972 there was no globalisation. Now can the rich simply move their capital to an low-tax country and live and die there.

They have always done that. There was ALWAYS Globalization, which is a part of Capitalism.

Swiss Bank accounts and banks in the Caiman Islands, aren't NEW, you know.

[wat0n]

I take it that you didn't see, didn't believe, or ignored here the recent reports that the rich now pay less than 3% on their gains in wealth, which is not the same as income and especially 'taxable income'.

I think tax avoidance by the rich is more 'rampant' now.

The US doesn't need the money of the rich. It can create more. If the rich leave and renounce their citizenship, nothing can be done. If they remain citizens, they still owe taxes.

IMHO, the problem isn't that they the US needs their money. The problem is the inequality. The super rich are so rich some have their own space programs, otherrs are funding military deployments inside the US, and all can easily buy Congress. Etc.
.

Also, it's unlikely there are nearly as many loopholes as there used to be in the 1950s, because the tax code is now simpler and with less venues for avoidance. It's why the 1986 reform managed to lower tax rates while keeping tax revenue constant.

[Steve_American]

Also, it's unlikely there are nearly as many loopholes as there used to be in the 1950s, because the tax code is now simpler and with less venues for avoidance. It's why the 1986 reform managed to lower tax rates while keeping tax revenue constant.

YMMV, but IMHO, there are more loopholes now. I think this because Congress is now owned by the rich AND there has been 40 or 50 years of economists teaching that it is best for everyone if every person is selfish to the maximum amount they can be. Hiring lobists to add loopholes is *not* illegal and using them is not either. The super rich are almost all sociopaths now, so they see nothing wrong with this.
.

[wat0n]

YMMV, but IMHO, there are more loopholes now. I think this because Congress is now owned by the rich AND there has been 40 or 50 years of economists teaching that it is best for everyone if every person is selfish to the maximum amount they can be. Hiring lobists to add loopholes is *not* illegal and using them is not either. The super rich are almost all sociopaths now, so they see nothing wrong with this.
.

You could read some of the examples of loopholes from the 1950s in the LA Times article.

You really didn't think people were somehow all nice and willing to pay taxes back then, do you?

[Steve_American]

You could read some of the examples of loopholes from the 1950s in the LA Times article.

You really didn't think people were somehow all nice and willing to pay taxes back then, do you?

I didn't say that there were no loopholes in the 50s. I'm not going to try to prove it either way, because I'm not an expert. It is just my opinion, YMMV, and apparently it does.

The lurkers wiill have to decide for themselves. One article which likely was written to slant the result proves nothing. Warren Buffet famously said over 10 years ago that it wasn't fair to him that his Secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. Here I'm assuming he meant take (for both) total dollars of all Federal taxes paid / total income, and compare the resulting percentage. Or maybe taxible income.

No, I didn't think the rich liked paying taxes in the 50s, but maybe they like it less now.
.

[wat0n]

I didn't say that there were no loopholes in the 50s. I'm not going to try to prove it either way, because I'm not an expert. It is just my opinion, YMMV, and apparently it does.

The lurkers wiill have to decide for themselves. One article which likely was written to slant the result proves nothing. Warren Buffet famously said over 10 years ago that it wasn't fair to him that his Secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. Here I'm assuming he meant take (for both) total dollars of all Federal taxes paid / total income, and compare the resulting percentage. Or maybe taxible income.

No, I didn't think the rich liked paying taxes in the 50s, but maybe they like it less now.
.

If you want to look at the effective tax rate, then currently the top earners paid only a little bit less in 2014 than in the 1950s (36% vs 42%).

[Steve_American]

If you want to look at the effective tax rate, then currently the top earners paid only a little bit less in 2014 than in the 1950s (36% vs 42%).

With all due respect (here little), you seem to be claiming that Warren Buffet's Secretary was paying over 42% of his/her income in Federal taxes.
I refuse to believe that without evidence.

I, therefore, doubt that the super rich are actually paying 42% of their income to the Federal gov.

But then, maybe I don't know what you mean by 'effective tax rate'.
.

[wat0n]

With all due respect (here little), you seem to be claiming that Warren Buffet's Secretary was paying over 42% of his/her income in Federal taxes.
I refuse to believe that without evidence.

I, therefore, doubt that the super rich are actually paying 42% of their income to the Federal gov.

But then, maybe I don't know what you mean by 'effective tax rate'.
.

Read the second link I posted. It cites a paper from Saez and Zucman, the guys who are acting as the intellectual support for wealth taxes (Zucman worked for Elizabeth Warren).

Effective tax rate is simply taxes paid/income.