Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on September 28, 2012, 11:05:45 AM
-
An interesting fact from the story that i did not know: Anyone in the EU can pick up and move to another country tomorrow, and immediately be subject only to that country's tax. Not so in the U.S.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/28/why-frances-75-income-tax-rate-is-going-to-be-so-disastrous/
That’s our e2 again there. The problem is that the US case is unique, not representative. For the US tax system is based upon citizenship while everyone else bases it upon residence. If you have a US passport then you are subject to US taxation (you might not have to pay any because of a low income, but you’re still subject to those tax laws). It doesn’t matter where you live in the world you still cough up to Uncle Sam. The only way out of this, the only way to “avoid” such US taxation is to give up your US citizenship. At which point the Feds will charge you all of the tax you would ever have paid anyway. So avoiding US taxation by leaving the country isn’t really an option: there is no “exit” possibility as the economists like to say. This will clearly and obviously lower that e2 value, the amount of avoidance that anyone can do in the face of higher tax rates.
-
Cue mass exodus of millionaires from France in 3... 2...
-
Cue mass exodus of millionaires from France in 3... 2...
I don't think the neighbors will be shunning the refugees or their monay.
-
Apparently the reportedly richest person in France already said "no thanks" and has, or will, vamoose.
-
The article I saw said it applied to income over 1 million Euros and also included a 45% tax bracket for income over 150,000 Euros.
IMO, the 45% will probably be a bigger hit on those people than the 75% will be. However, I don't know what sort of loopholes exist in France's tax laws.
-
Egalite'!!!
-
Apparently the reportedly richest person in France already said "no thanks" and has, or will, vamoose.
Yeah, I read he was headed for Belgium.
-
Isn't he the sunglasses guy? How are the French going to look cool?
-
List of the richest French people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_people_by_net_worth)
-
The article I saw said it applied to income over 1 million Euros and also included a 45% tax bracket for income over 150,000 Euros.
IMO, the 45% will probably be a bigger hit on those people than the 75% will be. However, I don't know what sort of loopholes exist in France's tax laws.
Deductions for purchase of white flags, room and board for German house guests, and capital costs of ineffective fortifications.
-
:rofl:
You only left out manufacture of awkward weapons systems of uneven quality.
-
Deductions for purchase of white flags, room and board for German house guests, and capital costs of ineffective fortifications.
Wait are those the flags with or without the red and blue stripes that attach with velcro?
Ahh, its so good for France to be back to normal where they have a worse leader than we do, though that bar keeps getting lower and lower.
-
Wait are those the flags with or without the red and blue stripes that attach with velcro?
Ahh, its so good for France to be back to normal where they have a worse leader than we do, though that bar keeps getting lower and lower.
Everybody LIMBO!
-
Maybe Obama should move there so he can pay his fair share to the government.
-
So, how long until France adopts anti-emigration or other laws to prevent those selfish rich folks from avoiding paying their fair share?
-
Deductions for purchase of white flags, room and board for German house guests, and capital costs of ineffective fortifications.
:mad: grrrrrr
-
:mad: grrrrrr
What, little bit of historical satire somehow painful? :laugh:
-
I knew it was meant to be a joke, but I'm tired of the misrepresentation of what happened. It is a discredit to the French, British, and Low Countries soldiers who fought and died. It also happens to discredit the Wehrmacht which means people underestimate what they were and what they did and thus lose the chance to learn the lessons they need from the campaign.
-
That’s our e2 again there. The problem is that the US case is unique, not representative. For the US tax system is based upon citizenship while everyone else bases it upon residence. If you have a US passport then you are subject to US taxation (you might not have to pay any because of a low income, but you’re still subject to those tax laws). It doesn’t matter where you live in the world you still cough up to Uncle Sam. The only way out of this, the only way to “avoid” such US taxation is to give up your US citizenship. At which point the Feds will charge you all of the tax you would ever have paid anyway.
Sorry if this ii thread drift...quoting from the article: what does the last sentence above mean? Are they talking about previous unpaid tax obligations on previous income? I assume a lot of wealthy people have money (and future income) outside of the US, and if they moved and renounced their citizenship, there wouldn't be a damned thing the IRS could do about it. Help me understand that.
-
Also, I'm reasonably sure I read somewhere that there are ways for US citizens to legally not pay any taxes to the IRS if they move abroad.
-
Also, I'm reasonably sure I read somewhere that there are ways for US citizens to legally not pay any taxes to the IRS if they move abroad.
Yeah, it's called "drop your citizenship and never come back."
-
You'd think Switzerland would be a good fit for some of them, but I read up on the requirements to obtain citizenship there. Well, they don't like immigrants there so much. Maybe the super-rich will go to Germany. =D
-
I knew it was meant to be a joke, but I'm tired of the misrepresentation of what happened. It is a discredit to the French, British, and Low Countries soldiers who fought and died. It also happens to discredit the Wehrmacht which means people underestimate what they were and what they did and thus lose the chance to learn the lessons they need from the campaign.
I've always considered such jibes to be aimed more at the leadership than the rank and file. As to that learning from history stuff. I've seen darn little evidence of that being of any interest to the current crop of world leaders.
-
I knew it was meant to be a joke, but I'm tired of the misrepresentation of what happened. It is a discredit to the French, British, and Low Countries soldiers who fought and died. It also happens to discredit the Wehrmacht which means people underestimate what they were and what they did and thus lose the chance to learn the lessons they need from the campaign.
The first was referring to prior wars, and was a joke.
The Germans DID occupy France, so a joke regarding their room and board expenses is valid, and doesn't refer to any perceived or actual military capability or the sacrifice of theirs,
The last, well, are you making the argument that the maginot line WAS effective? And I don't mean "effective because it forces them to roll through the Ardennes and kill Belgians instead of going directly from Germany to France while not actually resulting in substantial delays of the advance because dammit, those Germans won't take armored units though woods..right?"
Not only that, I didn't refer to the British, Belgian, or Dutch at ALL.
Basically, chill out, not only has the French as a bunch of smelly flag waving surrender monkeys been around since, well, like the beginning of time, as most of European history (napoleonic wars and various british/french "who's island is it" times notwithstanding) is basically "people from the east (usually those organized imperalistic ones with harsh consonants and extraordinarily long compound words) invade France...repeat"
As for discrediting the Wehrmacht? Where did you pull that one out of?
-
1871 anybody?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kurt-brun.ch%2FFotoalben%2F06-09%2FBingen_Ruedesheim%25208.bis%252017.%2520Juli%25202009%2Falbum%2Fslides%2FDas%2520Niederwalddenkmal%2520in%2520ganzer%2520Pracht..jpg&hash=ea62453008787ee2484e6fe0ef5c29a84a2ca4cd)
;)
And the wealthy French are going to Britain.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afd4b39e-c9e5-11e1-a5e2-00144feabdc0.html
-
The first was referring to prior wars, and was a joke.
The Germans DID occupy France, so a joke regarding their room and board expenses is valid, and doesn't refer to any perceived or actual military capability or the sacrifice of theirs,
The last, well, are you making the argument that the maginot line WAS effective? And I don't mean "effective because it forces them to roll through the Ardennes and kill Belgians instead of going directly from Germany to France while not actually resulting in substantial delays of the advance because dammit, those Germans won't take armored units though woods..right?"
Not only that, I didn't refer to the British, Belgian, or Dutch at ALL.
Basically, chill out, not only has the French as a bunch of smelly flag waving surrender monkeys been around since, well, like the beginning of time, as most of European history (napoleonic wars and various british/french "who's island is it" times notwithstanding) is basically "people from the east (usually those organized imperalistic ones with harsh consonants and extraordinarily long compound words) invade France...repeat"
As for discrediting the Wehrmacht? Where did you pull that one out of?
It's more underestimating what they accomplished. By saying the French rolled over blinds a person to what one can learn. The Maginot line worked tactically but not strategically and they had what they thought were good reasons for building the thing.
In short the planners didn't account for the fact that the speed of war had increased. Not their fault really, it even took the Germans awhile to figure it out and only because Guderian kept pushing it. Also they thought it would be trench warfare again and a fortress is better than a trench any day. So it came down to what would they build, more armored divisions that can be ordered away or destroyed before being fully mobilized or something that couldn't? Well, they went with the giant concrete boxes.
The Germans had virtually no success in reducing the fortifications and most of them surrendered after the rest of France was lost. A section near Lyon was still fighting a week after the fall and the German commander could only get them to surrender by threatening to use his siege mortars on the city.
Now yes, the leadership was bad. It was fighting the wrong style war with mostly untrained troops and with a serious lack of material and they were a week behind from the very first day of the fight as there mobilization process was predicated on it taking the Germans 9 days to reach France through Belgium etc. and it only took three. The tactical leadership was lacking, but then they were using an obsolete doctrine.
So yes, the French lost. As would have the US given the same conditions because no one saw what was coming. Even the Germans were worried it wouldn't work, beating up on the Poles was one thing, France was another thing entirely. Also it took 40 days. A lot of people forget that. Even with all their handicaps it took the Germans 40 days to finally beat them.
To sum up: France gets unfairly dissed when no other army in the world at that time would have stopped the Germans.
And I am so chill you can keep a side of beef on me for a week.
-
I was thinking Patton said something similar about fighting the Germans later in the war. He felt they spent so much effort building fortifications for defense that they would have been better off training. He commented on huge expanses of concrete that had little purpose and large defensive structures that took a lot of time to build but only took a squad of infantry a couple hours to flank and destroy from the rear. Of course, by that time, I think most of the crack soldiers from earlier in the war were gone.
I've heard similar comments on the Atlantic wall shore defenses.
-
Training was a serious problem.
Veterans of The Great War were exempt and there was no continuity in training units. That is when a person went to train there was no guarantee that the people he trained with last time would be with him this time. Also the training time was so short that a lot of the time they were just being kept caught up on new weapons. They got very little field time, not that that would have mattered given what was coming for them but maybe there would have been better unit cohesion and that might have delayed the Germans by a day or so.
Procurement was a shambles as well they only had half the AT mines their ToE called for and most of those didn't get set so maybe having more would have just meant more loot for Jerry to re-purpose. And they went with slower infantry tanks instead of having faster exploit-capable armor. In fact they turned down tank designs that went to fast.
Their bureaucracy let them down, but they had the system they had so that power would be spread out to prevent another Napoleon but instead they got a Hitler.
-
And to bring this back form my derail.
What if this tax and the results are intended to wreck France. Who benefits?
-
Also, I'm reasonably sure I read somewhere that there are ways for US citizens to legally not pay any taxes to the IRS if they move abroad.
Even dropping your citizenship doesn't work - they won't give you a lengthy return visa if you don't keep paying.
US expat tax is even more draconian than US domestic tax. I don't mind paying taxes- what outrages me is the lack of service for my payments.
-
The Maginot Line was never fully built to design (which is why the Germans actually pierced it at several locations), and they had failed, for political considerations, to extend it to cover the Belgian border.
The main problem was the lack of a national will.
-
Eventually, I see most of the European wealthy moving to the more well-developed Latin American nations like Columbia or Costa Rica, where their tax rates are lower and money buys more influence.
Truth be told.....I see more American wealthy doing the same thing, eventually.....
-
Also, I'm reasonably sure I read somewhere that there are ways for US citizens to legally not pay any taxes to the IRS if they move abroad.
Yeah, it's called "drop your citizenship and never come back."
And forfeit any assets you may have left here, which may include pensions drawn on US companies and Social Security.
-
"They" need our money. Can't exist without it.
And they aren't going to let it go.
That applies to secession as surely as expatriation.
-
"They" need our money. Can't exist without it.
And they aren't going to let it go.
That applies to secession as surely as expatriation.
I was listening to this guy
http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-Secession/dp/1451616651/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349125948&sr=1-1&keywords=secession
being interviewed IIRC by Andrew Wilkow.
He made the argument that the only way a peaceful secession could go down is if the North kept Texas. He said it was economically unfeaseable otherwise and would certainly result in some kind of military action. Interesting to hear a liberal talking about secession as if its a good thing for once.
-
I'm not sure how Texas would feel about that. Would they settle for just Austin?
-
I'm not sure how Texas would feel about that. Would they settle for just Austin?
I could get on board with that notion
-
If if happens, it won't be along neat cartographic lines; that would entail a lot of difficult intra-national migration. We may just see, as elsewhere on this planet, autonomous or semi-autonomous states or regions.
-
Even dropping your citizenship doesn't work - they won't give you a lengthy return visa if you don't keep paying.
US expat tax is even more draconian than US domestic tax. I don't mind paying taxes- what outrages me is the lack of service for my payments.
You don't get to be a parasite. You're too good a host.