The announced death of the ISF and the tax shield ?!

[Christophe]

Honestly, I have never seen a French government that worked so fast:

Wednesday November 17 - 18:06 p.m.

Lagarde confirms the announced abolition of the ISF and the tax shield

These 2 measures = hole of 3.3 billion euros ... Who will pay in a state already bankrupt?

Response elements: http://www.rtl.fr/actualites/article/la ... 7637224598
http://www.lavieimmo.com/fiscalite-immo ... -9427.html

(...)

The unified tax union (SNUI) protests this measure, arguing that it would now be the middle classes who would finance the shortfall in wealth tax. Indeed, the number of taxpayers receiving income from heritage greatly exceeds that of ISF taxpayers. “In 2009, there were indeed 560 ISF taxpayers but more than 000 million tax households received property income and more than 3 million received income from movable capital. The main risk of the envisaged reform is to make a greater number of taxpayers (belonging to both the middle and wealthy classes) bear the tax borne up to now by the wealthiest households, ”affirms the SNUI.

(...)

Frankly delete tax entries as budgetary rigor, I do not understand the Sarkozian policy ... but if we reasoned like that it's been a long time that I would know ...

[manet42]

Well, it's clear, not those who were subject to these two measures ... Otherwise this pseudo reform would be useless.
BARROIN was very clear, the very evening of the reshuffle: "Households subject to ISF pay 43% of income tax, we cannot ask them for more". Small sentence slipped discreetly.

[Remundo]

Hello everyone,

Read this
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%B4t ... de_l.27ISF

to get a little better information than through the misty prism of the journalist or the magma politician.

[Did67]

Certainly, Remundo, but still ???

The 3,8 billion [or 3,3 depending on the sources and the years] paid until then by the very very rich will very likely be paid by a larger base ... because the reform will be done with a "constant budget". ..

And I bet you that not an expat will come back! And even if this were to be the case, the reform will be "planned", calculated and justified with a constant tax base [the same tax structure] by Berçy. If the rich came back, it would be good for Bercy.

So removing the tax shield would have strengthened the taxation of the "very very rich", without any other form of trial. This is what the left wanted.

Removing the tax shield and the wealth tax is to decrease the taxation of the very very rich and transfer to the rich [and perhaps even the less wealthy! We do not know the content of the planned tax reform; we can only guess] ...

So all the same clever on the part of the government. Always the same "tactic": make believe that the reform is a reform of common sense, while it is in favor of an oligarchy of very very rich.

[Remundo]

read well, the wikipedia article is very well done.

Well, basically, if you want to tax the wealthy, you just have to increase the last income tax bracket by a few points (eg spend it between 50 and 55%). it will pass quietly, it will not annoy anyone, the tens of billions will cuber, the tax collection costs will drop (already included by the officials managing the IRPP).

In any case, you have to realize that crushing high income (or wealth) with aggressive taxation is a suicidal economic policy.

Certainly, we will recover a few billion, some repressed Marxists will have fun ...

More we deprive ourselves of tens of other billions who could have returned with fiscal restraint.

We always come back to the rate X plate product. We did not understand in France that maximizing tax revenue results from the best rate x base result.

If the rate increases too much, the base collapses because there is always an avoidance strategy that engages if the rate is violent ... Avoidances are easy and numerous.

When the rate is lower, well it's no longer worth avoiding the slap, since it is no longer there.

Anyway, I can't tell you more. Usually in France, the debate on this is sterile because passion takes precedence over reason.

[Did67]

OK. Now understand what you meant ...

I will not get into this debate. On the principle (plate X rate) completely agree with you. Even if the question seems much broader to me: certain incomes of certain categories are captive, others are not (evaporate better!); some can hire tax lawyers, others cannot; some know the tax loopholes, others don't ...

There, we were (well, I was) to discuss the principle of the abolition of the tax shield which "justifies" that of the ISF. If we maintained the ISF, would one more person move abroad today for that? Those who wanted to have already done so ...

It was a gift to the very very rich while "recovering" the sum from less rich, each happily continuing their avoidance strategies anyway ... What interest in times of lean cows. It does not bring in anything (since the operation is announced at a constant budget), but it is still a gesture in favor of the very very rich ... Is it likely to calm the frustrations of the greatest number ??? Is it likely to bring back fortunes and broaden the plate ??? Personally, quite frankly, I doubt it. Switzerland or Monte-Carlo, it's so much more chic and then all the same their financial opacity so nice ... ETc ... Etc

[Remundo]

the tax shield was created to prevent the aberrations of the ISF: namely that this tax requires a sum based on wealth without taking into account its income.

Thus, with some speculation on the value of land or buildings, some were forced to resign their property to pay the ISF, or at least could not honor their ISF without digging into their current income drastically.

If the wealth tax is abolished, the tax shield as a principle can continue, simply with an income tax whose last installment will be of the order of 50%.

Make no mistake, such taxation still scares off capital and / or people with high incomes. But the situation is healthier with income taxation. It remains to be seen where to place the cursor to keep the largest possible plate ...

[Petrus]

One question: if the wealth tax is abolished, what will prevent the ultra-rich from buying as many buildings as possible, which will remain empty, since they serve only as a financial investment.

This will further aggravate property speculation and the housing crisis.

Unless that is also the aim sought

[jlt22]

Petrus wrote:

One question: if the wealth tax is abolished, what will prevent the ultra-rich from buying as many buildings as possible, which will remain empty, since they serve only as a financial investment.

This will further aggravate property speculation and the housing crisis.

Yes, especially since it is planned to increase the taxation of income from property.

[Christophe]

One question: if the wealth tax is abolished, what will prevent the ultra-rich from buying as many buildings as possible, which will remain empty, since they serve only as a financial investment.

Uh by definition a financial investment generates gains ... and there is indeed a tax on the real estate gain (which should therefore be reinforced).

Unless that is also the aim sought

The real estate crisis (which is, in fact, a real estate Eldorado for some), does not need that to continue to persist I think ...