Me, there is something that I never understood, I must be particularly stupid!
What is the point of aligning the millions when you only have 24 hours a day to spend them, they are no longer useful ... And there, even if we pay taxes, a lot, the lifestyle doesn’t is not changed, it continues to accumulate, to make it what?
The poor in service
Ayrault letter Depardieu (French tax)
- elephant
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6646
- Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
- Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
- x 7
On the one hand, the luxury industry is not lacking in resources: you can live modestly and be satisfied with just one car: I believe that the new Bugatti exceeds 2 million euros
You can buy a few vines, but it's more expensive in some well-known towns.
On the other hand, and this is a big defect in most taxation: from a certain amount, money is a tool. But if you are taxed excessively like our European states do, you don't have enough left to invest . in the highly competitive context in which we currently live, it's embarrassing
An excellent thing would be to be able to declare that a certain amount is set aside for a certain purpose (exclusively for investment in Belgium, for example) and thus immunize these sums. (Under control, of course)
This already exists in part in corporate taxation, but not enough. (immune reserve regime)
You can buy a few vines, but it's more expensive in some well-known towns.
On the other hand, and this is a big defect in most taxation: from a certain amount, money is a tool. But if you are taxed excessively like our European states do, you don't have enough left to invest . in the highly competitive context in which we currently live, it's embarrassing
An excellent thing would be to be able to declare that a certain amount is set aside for a certain purpose (exclusively for investment in Belgium, for example) and thus immunize these sums. (Under control, of course)
This already exists in part in corporate taxation, but not enough. (immune reserve regime)
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
Re: Letter to Ayrault Depardieu (French tax)
Tagor wrote:Remundo wrote:
For a wine estate, not everything is outside ISF, especially the "castle" ...
I'm talking about the vines not the castleRemundo wrote:
For a wine estate, everything is not outside ISF, especially the "castle" ... For the rest (the land), you need a rental with uninteresting scales of 18 years to claim 75% exemption.
my parents have champagne vines ... as well as my whole family !!
I lived a lot of inheritance and donation it seems to me that I know the problem well enough
so I don't persist if isf on the vines
You can persist, but do not sign ...
Solidarity wealth tax (ISF) for holders GFV shares
The partial exemption of ISF is limited to only shares of GFV with fixed capital when the land is rented by a long-term lease (at least 18 years).
of a wine estate
The partial exemption from ISF is only valid for areas given for long-term rental (at least 18 years).
In both cases, under these conditions, the ISF exemption is equal to 75% for the fraction of the value of the shares or the domain not exceeding € 76 and 000% beyond. Assuming a capital of € 50, the exemption will relate to: (100% x € 000) + (75% x (€ 76 - € 000)) = € 50
Only € 31 (€ 000 - € 100) will be taxable at the ISF
Source: The Individual
0 x
Beyond the divergent and opposite opinions, is expressed, with some nuances ready, an almost unanimity on the postulate that the merit (artistic creation or other) must necessarily be rewarded with money.
1- I do not see this need, or rather I see it only too well since it is part of a global perspective of collective belief.
2- it's a circular reasoning, I have talent, so I earn money, so I have talent ...
3- in all logical rigor, the most appropriate talent to achieve this objective is that of making money ...
It is easy to deduce from the precedents that talent, real or not, is second compared to the primacy of gain which, in any case is, in its abstraction, pure quantitative.
There is therefore a (false?) Basic naivety in wanting to estimate the qualitative in terms of quantitative ...
1- I do not see this need, or rather I see it only too well since it is part of a global perspective of collective belief.
2- it's a circular reasoning, I have talent, so I earn money, so I have talent ...
3- in all logical rigor, the most appropriate talent to achieve this objective is that of making money ...
It is easy to deduce from the precedents that talent, real or not, is second compared to the primacy of gain which, in any case is, in its abstraction, pure quantitative.
There is therefore a (false?) Basic naivety in wanting to estimate the qualitative in terms of quantitative ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
- chatelot16
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6960
- Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
- Location: Angouleme
- x 264
I also think that we give too much money to some for not much, but the problem is not the
it's like when we tell a child who does not eat what is on his plate think of those who are hungry ... absurd, whether we eat or throw it does not change anything for those who lack
the same goes for the rich, that we leave them alone or that we crush them with tax it does not make a penny more for those who have difficult end of me
the exessive wealth of some is the result of a poorly managed society ... that some quit France is only a consequence of this mismanagement ... whether he leaves or remains does not change this mismanagement that continues to wreak havoc otherwise more serious
we are in a country that is getting poorer and that is not capable of making everyone work
not only the state is not able to make everyone work, but in addition it despises those who succeed otherwise despite the sticks it puts in the wheels to all those who try to work
it's like when we tell a child who does not eat what is on his plate think of those who are hungry ... absurd, whether we eat or throw it does not change anything for those who lack
the same goes for the rich, that we leave them alone or that we crush them with tax it does not make a penny more for those who have difficult end of me
the exessive wealth of some is the result of a poorly managed society ... that some quit France is only a consequence of this mismanagement ... whether he leaves or remains does not change this mismanagement that continues to wreak havoc otherwise more serious
we are in a country that is getting poorer and that is not capable of making everyone work
not only the state is not able to make everyone work, but in addition it despises those who succeed otherwise despite the sticks it puts in the wheels to all those who try to work
0 x
- elephant
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6646
- Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
- Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
- x 7
Chatelot 16 said:
Yep, it's easy to please the people.
I continue to think that an alternative between tax and productive investment should be proposed: maybe then the rich would make the brains of their collaborators work and play their relationships to make them pay. The initiation of a virtuous circle, in a way ...
But with strict standards: quality jobs, and control that there are no communicating vessels. too easy to sink a business, to create another one that recovers customers)
not only the state is not able to make everyone work, but in addition it despises those who succeed otherwise despite the sticks it puts in the wheels to all those who try to work
Yep, it's easy to please the people.
I continue to think that an alternative between tax and productive investment should be proposed: maybe then the rich would make the brains of their collaborators work and play their relationships to make them pay. The initiation of a virtuous circle, in a way ...
But with strict standards: quality jobs, and control that there are no communicating vessels. too easy to sink a business, to create another one that recovers customers)
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
- Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
Just my 2 euro cents not objective at all (necessarily):
Not so unanimously (at least that's not what I would have wanted to say, if I had expressed myself on this subject)
Besides, I did speak of a potentially fatal risk (so it's not money ... or else it's the purse or life). But the debate is nevertheless very interesting!
It is a concept that goes beyond understanding for those who have experienced it in different artistic forms! Towards him, necessity does not have the same semantic correspondence (not always ...): because many are those who ignore everything.
Belief is a pejorative notion in this context (and since the wave of creationism even worse, but we are deviating ...).
For the artist, the creator (I speak subjectively: good, true, sincere) money or merit are not an end in themselves, but it is the artistic approach / research / intention, more than the sometimes the work itself! And at least the work as a central perspective!
Quantify the "subliminal" with money? Who could say what it would look like? And vice versa?
Is that when the “new management” went through there?
We understand the reasoning, but this scale is of variable geometry, since who can say that someone has talent? And how to define it case by case ...?
Relatively impossible mission. On the other hand, to protect a work, in principle one could do it, except that one does not apply it.
And the explosion of the internet has ratiboised the creation that has become commonplace (everyone can publish and exhibit to hundreds of millions of individuals, even if no one is watching: since the creation of value is lost in the midst of billions of dung. ..). From where partly the current level of mediocrity? Who was not high before ...
If it's "the work»Which is the finality, we get by, but then it is not circular but a perpetual restart.
[...] it obviously depends on which angle we take!
But there there is possibly confusion between "way" and "but».
If neither talent nor gain is an end in itself, the quantitative can only be erased in favor of a kind of "subjective qualitative".
Is the main thing there?
Of the current psychosociological considerations, one that has escaped because it is culturally slipping, it is:
- the huge problem of self-esteem among "artists";
- the intractable disease of society of wanting to frame this at all costs;
That's the potentially deadly cocktail. Or rather when the uninitiated to the Art, have a power which exceeds their artistic attributions and that they exert it against the “unhappy artist”(In the form of censorship) who awaits the sentence between the slaughterhouse from his box or the opposite of being propelled to the top of the poster!
See "TVfacts"Genre" Star Academy "allegedly based on some talent, they are the macrocosmic reflection of this global collective belief, built around an illusion of what would represent the artistic world seen by the average citizen amha (although as seen in the Western mentality, but it is perhaps even worse sometimes elsewhere ... and sometimes not, as in Brazil, or artists like Hermeto Pascoal, consider that art should not be found in museums, but in all our acts of everyday life).
And it is probably because the "uninitiated" confuse the qualification of talent in the foreground and the intrinsic value of the work in the second, that the confusion arises! While to place the work as the main perspective, the notion of talent must also be erased, amha.
Ahmed wrote:Beyond the divergent and opposite opinions, is expressed, with some nuances ready, an almost unanimity on the postulate that the merit (artistic creation or other) must necessarily be rewarded with money.
Not so unanimously (at least that's not what I would have wanted to say, if I had expressed myself on this subject)
Besides, I did speak of a potentially fatal risk (so it's not money ... or else it's the purse or life). But the debate is nevertheless very interesting!
Ahmed wrote:1- I do not see this need, or rather I see it only too well since it is part of a global perspective of collective belief.
It is a concept that goes beyond understanding for those who have experienced it in different artistic forms! Towards him, necessity does not have the same semantic correspondence (not always ...): because many are those who ignore everything.
Belief is a pejorative notion in this context (and since the wave of creationism even worse, but we are deviating ...).
For the artist, the creator (I speak subjectively: good, true, sincere) money or merit are not an end in themselves, but it is the artistic approach / research / intention, more than the sometimes the work itself! And at least the work as a central perspective!
Quantify the "subliminal" with money? Who could say what it would look like? And vice versa?
Ahmed wrote:2- it's a circular reasoning, I have talent, so I earn money, so I have talent ...
Is that when the “new management” went through there?
We understand the reasoning, but this scale is of variable geometry, since who can say that someone has talent? And how to define it case by case ...?
Relatively impossible mission. On the other hand, to protect a work, in principle one could do it, except that one does not apply it.
And the explosion of the internet has ratiboised the creation that has become commonplace (everyone can publish and exhibit to hundreds of millions of individuals, even if no one is watching: since the creation of value is lost in the midst of billions of dung. ..). From where partly the current level of mediocrity? Who was not high before ...
If it's "the work»Which is the finality, we get by, but then it is not circular but a perpetual restart.
Ahmed wrote:3- in all logical rigor, the most appropriate talent to achieve this objective is that of making money ...
[...] it obviously depends on which angle we take!
But there there is possibly confusion between "way" and "but».
Ahmed wrote:It is easy to deduce from the precedents that talent, real or not, is second compared to the primacy of gain which, in any case is, in its abstraction, pure quantitative.
There is therefore a (false?) Basic naivety in wanting to estimate the qualitative in terms of quantitative ...
If neither talent nor gain is an end in itself, the quantitative can only be erased in favor of a kind of "subjective qualitative".
Is the main thing there?
Of the current psychosociological considerations, one that has escaped because it is culturally slipping, it is:
- the huge problem of self-esteem among "artists";
- the intractable disease of society of wanting to frame this at all costs;
That's the potentially deadly cocktail. Or rather when the uninitiated to the Art, have a power which exceeds their artistic attributions and that they exert it against the “unhappy artist”(In the form of censorship) who awaits the sentence between the slaughterhouse from his box or the opposite of being propelled to the top of the poster!
See "TVfacts"Genre" Star Academy "allegedly based on some talent, they are the macrocosmic reflection of this global collective belief, built around an illusion of what would represent the artistic world seen by the average citizen amha (although as seen in the Western mentality, but it is perhaps even worse sometimes elsewhere ... and sometimes not, as in Brazil, or artists like Hermeto Pascoal, consider that art should not be found in museums, but in all our acts of everyday life).
And it is probably because the "uninitiated" confuse the qualification of talent in the foreground and the intrinsic value of the work in the second, that the confusion arises! While to place the work as the main perspective, the notion of talent must also be erased, amha.
0 x
Re: Letter to Ayrault Depardieu (French tax)
Remundo wrote:You can persist, but do not sign ...
I persist and sign:
it is enough to inquire with notaries and to make
A lease with the operator
0 x
2 explanations according to which it would be possible to pay 85% and more of taxes:
http://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/S-informer/France/Peut-on-payer-85-d-impots-sur-ses-revenus-_NG_-2012-12-17-888878
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/12/17/l-impossible-calcul-de-l-impot-de-gerard-depardieu_1807490_823448.html
But, finally, Depardieu is not the first and will not be the last to leave France for tax reasons.
Aznavour had already left for Switzerland under Giscard;
And then Belgium (this is not the case with Switzerland) is indeed part of Europe where the circulation of goods and people is ensured: I therefore do not see where the problem is.
Our policies are not blamed either when it comes to garnishing their pockets:
http://www.politique.net/
http://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/S-informer/France/Peut-on-payer-85-d-impots-sur-ses-revenus-_NG_-2012-12-17-888878
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/12/17/l-impossible-calcul-de-l-impot-de-gerard-depardieu_1807490_823448.html
But, finally, Depardieu is not the first and will not be the last to leave France for tax reasons.
Aznavour had already left for Switzerland under Giscard;
And then Belgium (this is not the case with Switzerland) is indeed part of Europe where the circulation of goods and people is ensured: I therefore do not see where the problem is.
Our policies are not blamed either when it comes to garnishing their pockets:
http://www.politique.net/
0 x
Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 141 guests