On: French affluent flee the tax on super-rich

[maigret]

I'd wonder how many films Depardieu got famous for haven't benefited any tax money from public financing. And how many would have been possible at all without it.

[gambiting → maigret]

During his lifetime he paid almost 150 million euros in taxes, so more than most of us will ever pay - so I think he can go wherever he pleases. And yes, even as a completely non-rich person, I think that the French 75% tax is absurd by every possible measure.

[maigret → gambiting]

You don't answer my point - which is that the high taxes helped him get rich in the first place.

[abrown28 → maigret]

The point is is it doesn't matter how he got rich. He is rich and can afford to flee the higher tax bracket. You can argue it's wrong or immoral of him to do so but none of your arguments will induce him to stay and pay the tax. You try to squeeze the class with the most means and mobility and they just slip through your fingers.

[maigret → abrown28]

Yes he is free and we are. He has the right to do so, and others have the right to criticize him for that.

[hnwh → maigret]

what is your real point? So what how he got rich?

[varjag → maigret]

Perhaps we should also contemplate how much return on investment would have France seen on the public money had Depardieu not starred in those films.

[maigret → varjag]

Good point.

[Markinhos → maigret]

I don't think that gives the French goverment the right to tax the 75% of his income

[maigret → Markinhos]

Of course it does. Government is elected and has to the right to do whatever is constitutional and gets approved by both assemblies.

[Markinhos → maigret]

It can, in the same way the South African goverment could discriminate by race during the Apartheid.

That something is constitutional doesn't mean it is morally acceptable

[maigret → Markinhos]

I wouldn't compare letting someone with "only" at least 250000 Eur/y in income anything similar to apartheid.

[Markinhos → maigret]

Of course is not similar, but the point is only because it is legal and the goverment can do it, does not make it right.

[lvh → maigret]

He was making a valid analogy: both events satisfied your requirements. Where do you draw the line? What is the differentiating factor between them?

[cheradenine01 → maigret]

That's an argument against public film financing, not in favour of higher marginal taxation on the wealthy.

[hamax → cheradenine01]

How so? Didn't we all profit from it? Even(or especially) if he's taxed 75%.