bitflag

Intel has also made a similar blunder by trying GPUs and abandoning them (they got there early with the i740, then Larrabee). Saving a few dollars by gutting emerging products line has cost them billions

Oh please explain to me how marginal rates work... 🙄

If your marginal tax rate is already 30% and you decide to earn an extra $1, that $1 will be taxed at 30% and you get $0.70 in your pocket. That's what "marginal" means.

Studies find happiness stops being related with money at some point (5000€ per month if I remember correctly). Maybe we can stop listening to rich people and just studies about happiness…

But humans don't base their entire life on studies, otherwise nobody would ever smoke, drink, go on holidays (dangerous and costly!) or have children (ruinous and time consuming). Societies have to be built based on the reality of humans, not some ideal human. The history of every communist experiment shows that it doesn't work.

Taxing more rich people is also making them pay for their part in climate change

That's a moral argument, not an economical or ecological argument. If climate change is what you want to fix, you need a carbon tax, not taxing the rich. (this will end up somewhat taxing the rich too, but as a side-effect)

it should be able to switch if it wants to

Again it's a moral argument. France is part of the EU, it needs to trade and commerce with the world, it is heavily in debt and relies on foreign investors to pays the bills. You can't just ignore the world, shut down every border and run your own little economic experiment. This will fail like it always has.

What is important isn’t the taxe rate, but the fact that, even with high taxe rate these people still manage to have a greater income that most of the population.

That's not how people who studies and works hard to reach incomes in the 100k€'s think. Societies where people are just paid what the government think they need have existed, they all failed because ultimately money DOES motivates people quite a bit.

I talk about rich company owners (top 1% rich)

Those won't be replaced, they'll just move across the border (every single country around France has lower taxes) and enjoy lower taxes while still being shareholders of their French business. Except when they need to invest, they'll likely look around their new host country because that's where they are.

You don't replace an experienced neurosurgeon or a star footballer like that. And even if you find such person, they'll look at the tax rate and see that they can sell their skill in another country just as well. As for companies, they'll set up shop abroad and ship the final product across the border.

Unless you run a country with closed borders like North Korea, your economic base and talents will "leak".

Il en faut malgré tout bien, de l'isolant, et cette entreprise là propose d'en faire en France. Le seul résultat de cette opposition c'est qu'on va la construire en Allemagne ou en Espagne, le matériau prendra la route et les emplois et taxent bénéficieront à un autre pays.

Why would anyone take over with the same tax issue? Those jobs will move.

And yet they still do pay way more taxes than the average middle-class taxpayer. In France, the top 10% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Effective total tax+contribution rate for the very top 0.001% is still over 36% on taxable income or 26% on "economic income" (their company profits)

So yeah that's a lot of taxes that go away when those taxpayers leave. The whole "please leave DGAF" spiel surely feels good to say but the reality is that this is shooting yourself in the foot.

This is without even talking about the loss of investment, jobs and consumption.

Au final la taxation à 90% n’est pas si visible que ça, je m’attendaità bien pire.

Elle est fixée à partir de 400k€ et le graphique s'arrête avant, donc c'est un peu normal que tu la vois pas...

Par ailleurs le rôle de la CSG met le bordel car selon certaines déclaration, ça fait partie du taux de 90% mais ça peut clairement pas faire partie des autres taux, sinon ça serait une grosse baisse d'impôt.

“Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory

It's not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that's what marginal rate means, it's the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there's no point since it will bring no income after taxation.

Même si c'est fait de façon parfaite, ça sera toujours moins efficace et ciblé que de distribuer du pouvoir d'achat aux ménages qui en ont vraiment besoin via une subvention quelconque (la prime d'activité par ex, où un crédit d'impôt pour les plus faibles revenus). Là on va plafonner le prix de l'essence ce qui avantager pas mal ceux qui ont le réservoir de 90 litres d'une Lamborghini.

Et puis y'a une contradiction fondamentale à parler de décroissance et à garder le prix de l'essence artificiellement bas...