Gérard Depardieu leaves France to avoid Hollande's taxes

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

http://www.cato.org/blog/gerard-depardieu-goes-john-galt

Sorry if there was already a thread on this, and sorry for the possibly biased link (within the link there are "balanced" links)

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Well people that favor the EU and freedom of movement certainly shouldn't be upset or shocked by this.

You are seriously blaming the EU for fiscal exile? Never knew the lack of Schengen agreements has ever prevented a rich asshole from leaving to a tax heaven.

Although you have to admit that virtually any country outside of France is a tax haven in the eyes of the French these days.

That's true... And the saddest thing is that France isn't even close to taxing the uber-rich nearly as much as they should be.

Well if this is the reaction to a 75% marginal tax rate, I shudder to think what the reaction would be if France taxed "the uber-rich nearly as much as they should be."

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Well people that favor the EU and freedom of movement certainly shouldn't be upset or shocked by this.

You are seriously blaming the EU for fiscal exile? Never knew the lack of Schengen agreements has ever prevented a rich asshole from leaving to a tax heaven.

Although you have to admit that virtually any country outside of France is a tax haven in the eyes of the French these days.

That's true... And the saddest thing is that France isn't even close to taxing the uber-rich nearly as much as they should be.

Well if this is the reaction to a 75% marginal tax rate, I shudder to think what the reaction would be if France taxed "the uber-rich nearly as much as they should be."

No, I'm fine with the current French marginal tax rate (of course, it could and ideally should be higher than that... but 75% or 95% doesn't make much of a difference to me). However, it's worth noting that the French system to collect taxes is pathetically inefficient and easy to cheat. The current income tax, which is collected using this archaic system, generates as much revenue as a 8% flat tax (the CSG) which is collected in more modern and rational ways. And even when you don't cheat, it's ridiculously easy to avoid paying your fair share using exemptions, deductions and loopholes of all kinds. Tax rates might be important, but they only tell a very small part of the story.

Would you be okay with Romney style tax reform then (lower rates, less loopholes and deductions)? Something tells me you can't have less loopholes/deductions without lower rates.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

@Han: Of course I agree with closing/capping loopholes and deductions, it's a great idea that should be a major piece of any serious tax reform. However, a 35% top rate is already insanely low (it's one of the lowest among developed countries) and bringing it down further at the moment when we're talking about budget austerity, as Romney pledged, is absurd. There's also the fact that Romney's plan has been proven to be unworkable by several independent studies (at least, unworkable without taking a certain number of highly unpopular and economically detrimental measures).

I meant the general principle of Romney's plan, which has been endorsed at least once by the Economist (not Romney's specific plan, but the broad idea of lowering rates and simplifying the tax code; even the Simpson-Bowles commission supported this idea). It's probably true that Romney wouldn't have been willing to go far enough in eliminating loopholes and deductions to make his tax plan work (assuming that we're not taking into account job growth that would hopefully arise from tax reform), but that doesn't meant that the idea is wrong in principle.

Also, we accept the Keynesian argument that government intervention is necessary during a recession to stimulate aggregate demand, why would raising taxes on anybody be a good idea? There's an argument to be made that the harms would be outweighed by the gains and that we have no other choice but to raise taxes on the rich because of our deficit, but that doesn't mean that raising taxes on the rich is positive for the economy in and of itself (and for example, ending the Bush tax cuts on the rich wouldn't only force them to pay "a little more": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/07/would-millionaires-pay-little-more-taxes-under-oba/). The fact that Obama and the Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class implies that they do indeed buy the argument that lower taxes are better. As Charles Krauthammer said, if the Clinton tax rates were so great, why not just go back to such rates for everybody?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

On Depardieu:

Wow. Just wow.

What makes Depardieu's move any morally different from union workers that strike because their wages aren't high enough? Both are nonviolent responses to policies that do have a negative effect on people (whether those losses are offset by gains in societal utility is of course, subject to debate).

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

He should be permanently banned from entering the country until he pays all taxes he's avoided by leading it. That's the sensible solution to this sort of problem.

Anti Globalism, anti freedom of movement nonsense.

I'd characterize it as anti-race to the bottom more than anything else, although it's admittedly not very sensible as policy.

Anyway, anybody who would flee their country just to avoid a change in tax policy that makes them slightly less fabulously rich is really no great loss.

Because letting people keep more of their money is totally racing down to the bottom #slightlyplatitudinalonmypartbutstill