Wealth Tax Stages Comeback in France

cawacko

Well-known member
There are people who want this in America.

On the surface the idea of taking from the very rich has obvious appeal. But as always, the devil is in the details. Will it drive out investment, fall short of revenue promises, and end up hurting the economy? History suggests that’s what will happen. In fact France had a wealth tax for decades and scrapped it in 2017 because it was driving out investment. Interesting that they now want to bring it back.



Wealth Tax Stages Comeback in France

Economist’s proposal to adopt a hefty wealth tax has strong support in poll as public finances deteriorate


France’s slide into political and fiscal dysfunction is generating a groundswell of support for a sweeping wealth tax that would represent a radical break from the pro-business agenda of President Emmanuel Macron.

The proposal is the work of French economist Gabriel Zucman, a former adviser to U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He wants to impose a 2% tax on the assets of people with net wealth of 100 million euros, equivalent to $118 million, or more.

Macron and his center-right allies have long dismissed the idea of a wealth tax as a “soak-the-rich” relic of France’s socialist past. France’s business leaders have objected to Zucman’s proposal, including Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of French luxury giant LVMH, who said it would be “deadly for our economy.” Some economists say the tax could hurt investment and economic growth.

With Macron’s government scrounging for billions in cost-savings to rein in its budget deficit, however, Zucman has seized the moment to demand a contribution from France’s billionaires and centimillionaires as a matter of “fiscal justice.”

Much of the country backs the economist. A recent Ifop poll shows that 86% of respondents support the Zucman tax, including 75% of voters for Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party and 92% of Macron’s supporters.

The strong public support is notable in a country where voters agree on little else. The National Assembly is deeply fractured between Macron’s ranks—who typically oppose any tax increases—and lawmakers on the far-right and far-left who want to maintain or even expand public spending levels. The gridlock has depleted France’s finances, driving up its borrowing costs and transforming every budget vote into a referendum on the government.

Instead of narrowing France’s fiscal hole with the €44 billion in public spending cuts—equivalent to about $52 billion—pushed by François Bayrou, the prime minister who lost his job in a recent parliamentary vote, Zucman says it is high time the taxman reached into the pocket of some of the country’s wealthiest citizens. He estimates his proposal could raise €20 billion annually, although some economists say it wouldn’t raise nearly that much.

“It will be very difficult to ask people to make any kind of sacrifice as long as billionaires pay so little tax,” Zucman said in an interview.


Suddenly, there is talk of “fiscal justice” everywhere. The governor of the Bank of France recently said “some measures of anti-fiscal optimization on big fortunes would be justified. For the belt-tightening to feel acceptable it has to feel just.”

When a half-million protesters poured onto city streets across France last week, many carried placards that read: “Yes to the Zucman tax: billionaires pay up.”

Sébastien Lecornu, the new prime minister and a close Macron ally, is counting on support from a group of Socialist lawmakers, to pass a budget by the end of the year. At the top of the lawmakers’ list of demands is the Zucman tax.

Zucman, a fresh-faced 38-year-old, aims to push his movement far beyond French shores. Last year, he presented a technical document on his tax at the Group of 20 Nations summit in Rio de Janeiro.

“I think that if France adopts it, we would greatly increase our chances of it becoming European fairly quickly and, ultimately, global,” Zucman said.

Zucman says France’s wealthiest are paying far less in taxes as a percentage of their income than regular wage earners. France tends to tax income from labor more heavily than dividends and other income earned from assets. The Paris-based Institute of Public Policies says the richest 0.0002% in France pay an effective tax rate of 26%, compared with 46% for the richest 0.1% of households.

Under Zucman’s new plan, France’s four wealthiest families would pay around €9 billion in taxes, economists say.

“This is clearly not a technical or economic debate, but rather a clearly stated desire to destroy the French economy,” Arnault, the LVMH chief executive and one of the world’s wealthiest men, said in a statement.

A recent report by the French Senate, where conservatives are in the majority, said the current tax structure was concentrating wealth among France’s richest households. In 1996, France’s 500 wealthiest families accounted for 6% of gross domestic product. In 2024, they accounted for 42% of GDP, according to French magazine Challenges.

Opponents to Zucman’s proposals are lining up in France’s tech industry, where startups valued in the billions-of-euros generate limited revenue. That makes it hard for founders to foot a souped-up tax bill.

“I wouldn’t be able to pay it, obviously,” said Arthur Mensch, the chief executive of Mistral, Europe’s leading AI developer, when a TV interviewer asked him about paying €24 million in annual taxes under Zucman’s proposal.

Last week Zucman dropped in on a tech conference in Paris, where he debated tech founders as well as Philippe Aghion, a prominent economist at the Collège de France.

“You’re going to turn France into a tax prison,” Aghion told Zucman.

Yahya Fallah, founder of the AI startup OpenAleph, said Zucman faced “a philosophical and cultural battle.”

“We are determined to make sure this doesn’t go through,” he said.


Collecting any wealth tax could prove challenging. Wealthy French have a history of winning exemptions when previous governments have attempted to target them.

In 1981, France introduced a wealth tax, which applied a levy of up to 1.25% on the assets of the wealthiest households. That threshold was set at households with a net wealth of €1.3 million or more when Macron abolished it in 2017. The wealthy responded by placing their assets in holding companies that categorized their assets as exempt because they were “work-related.”

Macron was swiftly branded “president of the rich” after he abolished the previous wealth tax. His government has so far rejected Zucman’s new tax but is now saying France’s wealthiest families should contribute more to help fix France’s budget deficit.

“There’s this question of fiscal justice, of sharing the burden. We must work on this,” Lecornu told a French newspaper. “But be careful with work-related assets, because that creates jobs and economic growth.”


 
There are people who want this in America.

On the surface the idea of taking from the very rich has obvious appeal. But as always, the devil is in the details. Will it drive out investment, fall short of revenue promises, and end up hurting the economy? History suggests that’s what will happen. In fact France had a wealth tax for decades and scrapped it in 2017 because it was driving out investment. Interesting that they now want to bring it back.



Wealth Tax Stages Comeback in France

Economist’s proposal to adopt a hefty wealth tax has strong support in poll as public finances deteriorate


France’s slide into political and fiscal dysfunction is generating a groundswell of support for a sweeping wealth tax that would represent a radical break from the pro-business agenda of President Emmanuel Macron.

The proposal is the work of French economist Gabriel Zucman, a former adviser to U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He wants to impose a 2% tax on the assets of people with net wealth of 100 million euros, equivalent to $118 million, or more.

Macron and his center-right allies have long dismissed the idea of a wealth tax as a “soak-the-rich” relic of France’s socialist past. France’s business leaders have objected to Zucman’s proposal, including Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of French luxury giant LVMH, who said it would be “deadly for our economy.” Some economists say the tax could hurt investment and economic growth.

With Macron’s government scrounging for billions in cost-savings to rein in its budget deficit, however, Zucman has seized the moment to demand a contribution from France’s billionaires and centimillionaires as a matter of “fiscal justice.”

Much of the country backs the economist. A recent Ifop poll shows that 86% of respondents support the Zucman tax, including 75% of voters for Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party and 92% of Macron’s supporters.

The strong public support is notable in a country where voters agree on little else. The National Assembly is deeply fractured between Macron’s ranks—who typically oppose any tax increases—and lawmakers on the far-right and far-left who want to maintain or even expand public spending levels. The gridlock has depleted France’s finances, driving up its borrowing costs and transforming every budget vote into a referendum on the government.

Instead of narrowing France’s fiscal hole with the €44 billion in public spending cuts—equivalent to about $52 billion—pushed by François Bayrou, the prime minister who lost his job in a recent parliamentary vote, Zucman says it is high time the taxman reached into the pocket of some of the country’s wealthiest citizens. He estimates his proposal could raise €20 billion annually, although some economists say it wouldn’t raise nearly that much.

“It will be very difficult to ask people to make any kind of sacrifice as long as billionaires pay so little tax,” Zucman said in an interview.


Suddenly, there is talk of “fiscal justice” everywhere. The governor of the Bank of France recently said “some measures of anti-fiscal optimization on big fortunes would be justified. For the belt-tightening to feel acceptable it has to feel just.”

When a half-million protesters poured onto city streets across France last week, many carried placards that read: “Yes to the Zucman tax: billionaires pay up.”

Sébastien Lecornu, the new prime minister and a close Macron ally, is counting on support from a group of Socialist lawmakers, to pass a budget by the end of the year. At the top of the lawmakers’ list of demands is the Zucman tax.

Zucman, a fresh-faced 38-year-old, aims to push his movement far beyond French shores. Last year, he presented a technical document on his tax at the Group of 20 Nations summit in Rio de Janeiro.

“I think that if France adopts it, we would greatly increase our chances of it becoming European fairly quickly and, ultimately, global,” Zucman said.

Zucman says France’s wealthiest are paying far less in taxes as a percentage of their income than regular wage earners. France tends to tax income from labor more heavily than dividends and other income earned from assets. The Paris-based Institute of Public Policies says the richest 0.0002% in France pay an effective tax rate of 26%, compared with 46% for the richest 0.1% of households.

Under Zucman’s new plan, France’s four wealthiest families would pay around €9 billion in taxes, economists say.

“This is clearly not a technical or economic debate, but rather a clearly stated desire to destroy the French economy,” Arnault, the LVMH chief executive and one of the world’s wealthiest men, said in a statement.

A recent report by the French Senate, where conservatives are in the majority, said the current tax structure was concentrating wealth among France’s richest households. In 1996, France’s 500 wealthiest families accounted for 6% of gross domestic product. In 2024, they accounted for 42% of GDP, according to French magazine Challenges.

Opponents to Zucman’s proposals are lining up in France’s tech industry, where startups valued in the billions-of-euros generate limited revenue. That makes it hard for founders to foot a souped-up tax bill.

“I wouldn’t be able to pay it, obviously,” said Arthur Mensch, the chief executive of Mistral, Europe’s leading AI developer, when a TV interviewer asked him about paying €24 million in annual taxes under Zucman’s proposal.

Last week Zucman dropped in on a tech conference in Paris, where he debated tech founders as well as Philippe Aghion, a prominent economist at the Collège de France.

“You’re going to turn France into a tax prison,” Aghion told Zucman.

Yahya Fallah, founder of the AI startup OpenAleph, said Zucman faced “a philosophical and cultural battle.”

“We are determined to make sure this doesn’t go through,” he said.


Collecting any wealth tax could prove challenging. Wealthy French have a history of winning exemptions when previous governments have attempted to target them.

In 1981, France introduced a wealth tax, which applied a levy of up to 1.25% on the assets of the wealthiest households. That threshold was set at households with a net wealth of €1.3 million or more when Macron abolished it in 2017. The wealthy responded by placing their assets in holding companies that categorized their assets as exempt because they were “work-related.”

Macron was swiftly branded “president of the rich” after he abolished the previous wealth tax. His government has so far rejected Zucman’s new tax but is now saying France’s wealthiest families should contribute more to help fix France’s budget deficit.

“There’s this question of fiscal justice, of sharing the burden. We must work on this,” Lecornu told a French newspaper. “But be careful with work-related assets, because that creates jobs and economic growth.”


I dont know about france but here in the US taxes are a weapon
 
Can you explain why wealth taxes have failed in other countries, including France, but would work differently here?
Who says they did? We used to have an over 90 percent top tax rate. We built our highway system then. Now we cannot maintain it. It worked fine until the wealthy took total control of the Republicunt party. Now taxes are very low. Estate taxes are almost gone. Schools are starving for money and food. But in America all that money belongs to the super wealthy. They live like kings.
 
Who says they did? We used to have an over 90 percent top tax rate.

No we didn't. That myth has been exploded long ago. Nobody ever paid 90% in real life. Learn the difference between statutory rates and effective tax rates. Back then, most income for the wealthy was via capital gains; capital gains were entitled to an automatic 50% deduction off the top. So find somebody who can do math for you and see what 90% of 50% works out to. And, that is after a zillion other special deductions almost nobody with a real job ever qualified for. When you can write off the solid gold faucets in your company plane's executive bathroom, such things as taxes are pretty much a joke among the wealthy.
 
Last edited:
Who says they did? We used to have an over 90 percent top tax rate. We built our highway system then. Now we cannot maintain it. It worked fine until the wealthy took total control of the Republicunt party. Now taxes are very low. Estate taxes are almost gone. Schools are starving for money and food. But in America all that money belongs to the super wealthy. They live like kings.
High income tax rates in the 1950s aren’t the same thing as a wealth tax. A wealth tax specifically targets assets and was tried in countries like France, Sweden, and Germany. Each of them eventually abandoned it because it raised little revenue and drove out investment. That’s why I asked why it would work differently here.
 
High income tax rates in the 1950s aren’t the same thing as a wealth tax. A wealth tax specifically targets assets and was tried in countries like France, Sweden, and Germany. Each of them eventually abandoned it because it raised little revenue and drove out investment. That’s why I asked why it would work differently here.
How is it different? You seem to approve of this. https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...9AFCD02C9B51D4F7C7B99AFCD02C9B51D4&ajaxhist=0
 
A video on wealth inequality doesn’t answer the question. The article, and my question, is about wealth taxes specifically which counties like France, Sweden and Germany tried and then abandoned because they failed. Why would it work differently here?
You are wrong. The fact is money =power. Look at Musk and see how much power he has. It is ridiculous that a rich man can run parts of the government without ever getting a vote or approval from Congress. We have to stop the money/power grab before it is too late.
 
You are wrong. The fact is money =power. Look at Musk and see how much power he has. It is ridiculous that a rich man can run parts of the government without ever getting a vote or approval from Congress. We have to stop the money/power grab before it is too late.
Only you can explain why, but you are dodging the question.

The thread is about a wealth tax. France, Sweden and Germany have all tried wealth taxes and then removed them because they failed.

Maybe you can’t answer this, but the question is why would it work in America when it didn’t work in any of those countries?
 
You are wrong. The fact is money =power. Look at Musk and see how much power he has. It is ridiculous that a rich man can run parts of the government without ever getting a vote or approval from Congress. We have to stop the money/power grab before it is too late.
should bankers be able to run part of the economy with out approval from Congress?
 
You are wrong. The fact is money =power. Look at Musk and see how much power he has. It is ridiculous that a rich man can run parts of the government without ever getting a vote or approval from Congress. We have to stop the money/power grab before it is too late.

Yeah, we need more commie faggot Muslim Democrats like Obama, who have never had a real job in their life, and get elected by buffoons like you because they're 'black n stuff'.
 
There are people who want this in America.
I know all three of them personally.

On the surface the idea of taking from the very rich has obvious appeal.
Only to Marxists who wish to quash all happiness in the world.

Will it drive out investment
Of course.


fall short of revenue promises,
Of course. Once you run out of other people's money to steal, you won't meet any revenue protections.

and end up hurting the economy?
... more like end up KILLING the economy.

History suggests that’s what will happen
History suggests that's what will happen every time.

In fact France had a wealth tax for decades and scrapped it in 2017 because it was driving out investment.
That's what Marxism does. It's not like it's somehow a surprise.

Interesting that they now want to bring it back.
They probably don't.

One must assume that anything written in a MSM news article is simply not the truth.
 
Nobody ever paid 90% in real life.
Even today, if you trip the AMT limit, and you can get over a 100% marginal tax. The "reward" for an extra dollar in income is $5k less in take home income.

I make it sound worse than it is. First, marginal tax rates are not as important as they sound. I will gladly pay 100% on my last dollar, if I pay nothing on the rest of the dollars. Second, if you are paying 90% taxes in say Northern Europe, you are doing very well, and even 10% of that makes a great lifestyle.

What gets brutal is when effective tax rates go above 100% in places like newly communist mainland China, or for Jews in Nazi Germany. That is when you know they are out to exterminate you.
 
Back then, most income for the wealthy was via capital gains; capital gains were entitled to an automatic 50% deduction off the top.
Actually, this is sort of true. It was not automatic, was not on all capital gains, and was not a deduction, but effectively was sort of like all this.

You could elect to take a 50% exclusion on capital gains income, if the capital gains was on assets held for over six months, and was not part of a compensation, or incentive package. So if you made a particularly good, and fast investment, or were getting compensated with capital gains, you were on the hook for the full taxes. And if not, you could elect to not have the exclusion, and pay a lower tax rate.

I used to know the difference between a deduction and an exclusion, but do not remember anymore. There is a legal difference, which is sometimes important.

Anyway, there are people who made quick, great returns, and paid 90% marginal tax rates on them.
 
High income tax rates in the 1950s aren’t the same thing as a wealth tax. A wealth tax specifically targets assets and was tried in countries like France, Sweden, and Germany. Each of them eventually abandoned it because it raised little revenue and drove out investment. That’s why I asked why it would work differently here.
Many countries in Northern Europe, including Germany, have had some good luck with an extremely high capital gains tax. It incentives not taking profits, and instead reinvesting in the business. Germany had people who would be considered billionaires today who were making upper middle class income, and so paying much lower taxes than you would expect a billionaire to pay. It did make the economies of Northern Europe less dynamic, which was harmful.

The problem with a wealth tax is it can tax people who have not taken any income from their company. Imagine an entrepreneur who invests everything he has into his startup, both work and money. The company looks good, but has not made a profit yet, so he is taking nothing from it. Someone invests $1 billion into the company for 10% of the, valuing the company at $10 billion. That billion went to building capacity for the company, so the entrepreneur got nothing at this time. The entrepreneur is still on the hook for taxes with no way to pay them.

It works better in small tax haven economies like Liechtenstein. There they are dealing with people who have liquid assets, and are happy to pay lower taxes to store them.
 
Property taxes are a form of wealth tax. You are required to pay on the value of land, whether or not it generates income. This works out well, because it encourages development of land.
 
Back
Top