By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Richest Man in France Seeks Belgian Citizenship

crissindahouse on 09 September 2012
Kasz216 said:
crissindahouse said:

but why belgium? they have the second highest tax for rich in europe or not? ask swiss, they always like to get the rich from countries around them lol

A lot of beglians speak french?

sure but i still wouldn't flee because of high taxes to the country with the second highest tax-rate (for rich) if i could go to my neighbour country switzerland and don't forget, 20% of switzerlands population also speak french as first language. maybe it's not possible for him because his company is in france and he has to go to an eu country?



Around the Network
huiii on 09 September 2012

@Kasz216 a lot of swiss people do too

French is actually one of the national languages of switzerland and the second most spoken afer german



killerzX on 09 September 2012
the2real4mafol said:

It just shows how pathetic the rich, can't even handle a simple tax increase. I agree 75% is a bit much, but it's what you have to do, if you are in debt. I think 50 to 60% tax on the rich is fairer. Even the 45% tax on those who earn above £150,000 I think is fair, better than the ridiculously low taxes of America. Maybe, Hollande is a bit nuts on this.

But either way, a bad economy usually caused by moderates (liberals and conservatives) normally leads to the far left (communists) or far right (fascists) getting power, nearly always. If people aren't happy with Hollande, they just vote in the fascist Le Pen next time, who were 3rd in this year's election!


wait... are you telling me you are glad to pay taxes, and that you dont seek out any exemptions or deductions? you pay the full rate no questions asked?

 

the bolded doesnt even make any sense



theprof00 on 09 September 2012

Yeah 75% is simply way too much.

But oh, that poor, poor man! He'll never reach 4th richest man in the world paying those tax rates. That's what this is all about right?
I mean yeah that tax rate is ridiculous, but this is a global financial crisis, and he's concerned that he's not making enough personal income?



SamuelRSmith on 09 September 2012
theprof00 said:
Yeah 75% is simply way too much.

But oh, that poor, poor man! He'll never reach 4th richest man in the world paying those tax rates. That's what this is all about right?
I mean yeah that tax rate is ridiculous, but this is a global financial crisis, and he's concerned that he's not making enough personal income?

Isn't that everybody's concern?



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 09 September 2012
theprof00 said:
Yeah 75% is simply way too much.

But oh, that poor, poor man! He'll never reach 4th richest man in the world paying those tax rates. That's what this is all about right?
I mean yeah that tax rate is ridiculous, but this is a global financial crisis, and he's concerned that he's not making enough personal income?

Right. If you have enough to live "comfortably" that is with a roof over your head, food of your choice, and the core creature comforts of consumer society. Everything else is just greed.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 09 September 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
the2real4mafol said:

It just shows how pathetic the rich, can't even handle a simple tax increase. I agree 75% is a bit much, but it's what you have to do, if you are in debt. I think 50 to 60% tax on the rich is fairer. Even the 45% tax on those who earn above £150,000 I think is fair, better than the ridiculously low taxes of America. Maybe, Hollande is a bit nuts on this.

But either way, a bad economy usually caused by moderates (liberals and conservatives) normally leads to the far left (communists) or far right (fascists) getting power, nearly always. If people aren't happy with Hollande, they just vote in the fascist Le Pen next time, who were 3rd in this year's election!


Why should they be expected to pay a tax increase? They've already had to go through countless loops, and perform thousands of tricks, at the state's will, to become successful. In doing so, they've created jobs, and provided goods and services that people want. These people are beneficators to humankind, and should not be punished for being so.

45% on people earning over 150,000k? I tell you something, my parents are over that bracket, and they're paying WAY over 45%. You forgot to include the fact that the personal allowance is removed at 100,000. Also, national insurance, sales taxes, import taxes, capital gains, fuel duty, alcohol duty, air travel taxes, property taxes, road taxes, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that the price of everything you buy is increased by all the taxes that the producer had to pay. I'd say that the amount that goes to the taxman is closer to 100%, than 45% (one of my dad's friends worked it out once, he said that around 87% of his income went to the taxman... but, hey, it's fine, he's a millionaire.)

Also, you said that "it's what you have to do, if you're in debt". That's bollocks. It makes sense if this guy was responsible for the debt... but, judging by his actions here, he's probably not a big Government guy... why should he have to beholden to the burden of other people's wants? Nothing more than theft.

Bad economies are caused by monetary policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Panic of 1837, in a pre-monetary policy world



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

SamuelRSmith on 09 September 2012
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
the2real4mafol said:

It just shows how pathetic the rich, can't even handle a simple tax increase. I agree 75% is a bit much, but it's what you have to do, if you are in debt. I think 50 to 60% tax on the rich is fairer. Even the 45% tax on those who earn above £150,000 I think is fair, better than the ridiculously low taxes of America. Maybe, Hollande is a bit nuts on this.

But either way, a bad economy usually caused by moderates (liberals and conservatives) normally leads to the far left (communists) or far right (fascists) getting power, nearly always. If people aren't happy with Hollande, they just vote in the fascist Le Pen next time, who were 3rd in this year's election!


Why should they be expected to pay a tax increase? They've already had to go through countless loops, and perform thousands of tricks, at the state's will, to become successful. In doing so, they've created jobs, and provided goods and services that people want. These people are beneficators to humankind, and should not be punished for being so.

45% on people earning over 150,000k? I tell you something, my parents are over that bracket, and they're paying WAY over 45%. You forgot to include the fact that the personal allowance is removed at 100,000. Also, national insurance, sales taxes, import taxes, capital gains, fuel duty, alcohol duty, air travel taxes, property taxes, road taxes, etc., etc. Not to mention the fact that the price of everything you buy is increased by all the taxes that the producer had to pay. I'd say that the amount that goes to the taxman is closer to 100%, than 45% (one of my dad's friends worked it out once, he said that around 87% of his income went to the taxman... but, hey, it's fine, he's a millionaire.)

Also, you said that "it's what you have to do, if you're in debt". That's bollocks. It makes sense if this guy was responsible for the debt... but, judging by his actions here, he's probably not a big Government guy... why should he have to beholden to the burden of other people's wants? Nothing more than theft.

Bad economies are caused by monetary policy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Panic of 1837, in a pre-monetary policy world


"In summation, Temin was right to notice that the inflation of the 1830s began in 1830 not in 

1833.  However, he is wrong to absolve President Jackson and the state banks of all blame for the 

monetary and credit inflation of the decade.  The incorporated, fractional-reserve banks of the 

states were the chief cause of the inflation previous to the panic, and Jackson's state-bank 

depository system was a secondary cause.  Temin is also wrong to blame the Panic of 1837 

merely on changing market conditions abroad.  Had the United States had a sound banking and 

monetary system founded on 100 percent specie reserves, the fall in cotton prices and the drying 

up of British credit would have been a mere temporary inconvenience and certainly would not 

have led to a calamitous panic, followed by a brief recovery and then a second panic and a four 

year business contraction.  "

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/trask1.pdf



Zuhyc on 09 September 2012
crissindahouse said:

but why belgium? they have the second highest tax for rich in europe or not? ask swiss, they always like to get the rich from countries around them lol


The middle class and smaller businesses have a huge tax burden. Large corporations barely pay any taxes. Somewhere in the 200xs a law was created to decrease the tax burden on companies and stimulate job growth. However the law is full of loops that are heavily abused. I don't know the details.

Oh, and Belgium has a goverment for almost a year now!



theprof00 on 09 September 2012
Mr Khan said:
theprof00 said:
Yeah 75% is simply way too much.

But oh, that poor, poor man! He'll never reach 4th richest man in the world paying those tax rates. That's what this is all about right?
I mean yeah that tax rate is ridiculous, but this is a global financial crisis, and he's concerned that he's not making enough personal income?

Right. If you have enough to live "comfortably" that is with a roof over your head, food of your choice, and the core creature comforts of consumer society. Everything else is just greed.

Is it possible for you to think in terms other than black and white?

I want people to be successful and make lots of money. Success promotes success. The question HERE SPECIFICALLY, is at what point should there be a balance between the stability of one's own economy, and the capability to buy several jets. This guy likely makes about 3b a year after all is said and done.

Typical sensationalist response though. You'll drum up tons of support from the middle with an attitude like that. As republicans are really going to learn this election, their job is to entice the undecided, the middle. Painting an opposing idea in an obviously spun way only turns them off. Work on that.