Gérard Depardieu - Tax dodger

[leicsmac]

Whether or not the lefties think taxing the big earners at a very high rate is the right thing to do, while there is freedom of movement and trade, it will never work. It's unworkable. Many many many socialist type policies just don't work in the world we live in. Ie a competitive global environment comprised of various nation states with varying policies.

Nail on the head.

Hence, as I have repeatedly said...until humanity gets over the idea of the nation state and arbitrary borders (and by extension nationalism any any sense apart from the sporting one) and considers everyone to be just human, the status quo will persist.

And the cynic in me says that won't ever happen. Many people with influence would let civilisation collapse before acting collaboratively with people they don't like, because they'd have a good chance of continuing to be top of the heap.

[ADK]

I don't agree with either "the left" or "the right", its amazing how people arnt able to manage anything other than binary opinions.

[The People's Hero]

Nail on the head.

Hence, as I have repeatedly said...until humanity gets over the idea of the nation state and arbitrary borders (and by extension nationalism any any sense apart from the sporting one) and considers everyone to be just human, the status quo will persist.

And the cynic in me says that won't ever happen. Many people with influence would let civilisation collapse before acting collaboratively with people they don't like, because they'd have a good chance of continuing to be top of the heap.

I'm afraid that's all pie in the sky. We only get one life (I'm atheist also I should point out) and I intend to do the best I can happiness wise for myself and my family within the constraints of living in the real world.

You are of course right, but it just won't happen.

[leicsmac]

I don't agree with either "the left" or "the right", its amazing how people arnt able to manage anything other than binary opinions.

Right. Polarised, entrenched opinion is bad. Really, really bad. There's always two sides to a debate.

I'm afraid that's all pie in the sky. We only get one life (I'm atheist also I should point out) and I intend to do the best I can happiness wise for myself and my family within the constraints of living in the real world.

You are of course right, but it just won't happen.

Perhaps I'm now switching to my idealistic side, but surely any system can be changed if enough people get behind it. It doesn't just have to be accepted.

As for the bolded part - Why for your family? Why not just for yourself?

No need to answer that - rhetorical question.

But it's interesting to see that the vast majority of people have emotional connections to people by virtue of knowing them and interacting with them. And charity work and donations also show that the suffering of strangers can move us too.

So, at a fundamental level, most people do have sympathy and empathy for others. But (most of the time) in a world where status is directly linked to money (thus making it the most important thing) people are still subject to the evolutionary principle and do not want to part with their cash because it will affect their own status. Fair enough.

[Jon the Hat]

Right. Polarised, entrenched opinion is bad. Really, really bad. There's always two sides to a debate.

Perhaps I'm now switching to my idealistic side, but surely any system can be changed if enough people get behind it. It doesn't just have to be accepted.

As for the bolded part - Why for your family? Why not just for yourself?

No need to answer that - rhetorical question.

But it's interesting to see that the vast majority of people have emotional connections to people by virtue of knowing them and interacting with them. And charity work and donations also show that the suffering of strangers can move us too.

So, at a fundamental level, most people do have sympathy and empathy for others. But (most of the time) in a world where status is directly linked to money (thus making it the most important thing) people are still subject to the evolutionary principle and do not want to part with their cash because it will affect their own status. Fair enough.

It's sweet that you think we are dealing with polarised political opinion. The cynic in me says we are actually dealing with self interest

[leicsmac]

It's sweet that you think we are dealing with polarised political opinion. The cynic in me says we are actually dealing with self interest

Aye, perhaps I should have made myself clearer. The whole left/right thing on this forum (in a load of different threads) is entrenched polarised political opinion. This particular thread is about self-interest.

And I don't believe self-interest is bad either - everyone has to make their own way, everyone wants to make some dough and as I've said before it'd be a funny damn world if we were all the same. And being rich is nice, I'm sure - but I wouldn't know.

At the same time though, I do believe the current system is broken by virtue of concentrating far too much accumulated wealth for little effort in the hands of just a few people. As someone mentioned before, working hard and putting 100% into everything is these days no guarantee of a good income (or even a living wage).

[Jon the Hat]

I'm afraid that's all pie in the sky. We only get one life (I'm atheist also I should point out) and I intend to do the best I can happiness wise for myself and my family within the constraints of living in the real world.

You are of course right, but it just won't happen.

It seems to go hand in hand with common sense...

[The People's Hero]

Progress and the good of humanity relies partly on the principle of self-interest.

Human beings are also inherently social creatures and charitable beings too. Lets not underestimate the role though that the easing of one's conscience plays in the performance of charitable acts.

I run a charity and am an ambassador for another and I would happily and quite openly confess that much as it does do good and both are hugely worthwhile causes, I draw a lot of satisfaction from it and it probably does ease my conscience since my professional duties probably do not qualify as altruistic or for the public good.

[MC Prussian]

If I was taxed at 75%, I'd think about moving someplace else, too.

Just not Russia.

I only have to look across the border, to Germany, to see millions of people moaning for spending 40 to 50% of the little money they're earning on taxes.

Depardieu has, according to himself, paid millions of Euros in taxes over the decades, so in some respect, I can understand his notion.

But I wouldn't shake hands with Putin.

[Guest]

Well it is when you are partly paying for it with going to matches and subscribing to sky sports and everything else the average football fan gets ripped off for.

And when was the last time you saw Balotelli do that? Any other profession and he would have been fired years ago, obviously he is the exception, but no other profession would reward inconsistency and poor performance as handsomely as football.

Do you REALLY think that Balotelli could scrub a loo - and even if he did do you think he could do a good job of it?

[Captain...]

If I was taxed at 75%, I'd think about moving someplace else, too.

Just not Russia.

I only have to look across the border, to Germany, to see millions of people moaning for spending 40 to 50% of the little money they're earning on taxes.

Depardieu has, according to himself, paid millions of Euros in taxes over the decades, so in some respect, I can understand his notion.

But I wouldn't shake hands with Putin.

Well this is where national pride and to an extent nationalism should kick in, Gerard is a national hero and infinitely more famous in France than here, he should be proud to be French and they should be proud he represents them on a global level, but if he has lost that feeling of pride, if he has lost his love for the country, if he has lost respect for the government for what they are trying to do and he sees his tax money contributing to a society he doesn't agree with basically he sees France as no better than Russia, so why not give less money to the cheaper of to equal evils.

On a side note though, in this case, and for income tax brackets in general, what is wrong with a disincentive to work? Say in Gerard's case if he makes 1 film a year he hits the top bracket, and any subsequent films are taxed at the higher rate, why not just make one film a year and let other less famous, less well off, less expensive actors make the other films, rather than Gerard making 5 films a year and getting taxed to buggery. What this disincentive for the rich to work does is create jobs for the less rich. Is that a bad thing?

[The People's Hero]

Well this is where national pride and to an extent nationalism should kick in, Gerard is a national hero and infinitely more famous in France than here, he should be proud to be French and they should be proud he represents them on a global level, but if he has lost that feeling of pride, if he has lost his love for the country, if he has lost respect for the government for what they are trying to do and he sees his tax money contributing to a society he doesn't agree with basically he sees France as no better than Russia, so why not give less money to the cheaper of to equal evils.

On a side note though, in this case, and for income tax brackets in general, what is wrong with a disincentive to work? Say in Gerard's case if he makes 1 film a year he hits the top bracket, and any subsequent films are taxed at the higher rate, why not just make one film a year and let other less famous, less well off, less expensive actors make the other films, rather than Gerard making 5 films a year and getting taxed to buggery. What this disincentive for the rich to work does is create jobs for the less rich. Is that a bad thing?

Whilst that is true to an extent, the point feels a bit forced and certainly goes against what is actually more of a concept than an individual example.

If there was no incentive for people to get promotions, to make their own companies more successful etc etc, you find people don't work so hard, innovation suffers, investment suffers. A company owner making just below an extortionate tax bracket will not employ or train more staff, won't invest in new equipment or buildings since he (or I suppose she?) is happy with the income they have and there is little incentive to work harder etc etc.

I'm not sure I've made that point very well, but it could have knock on effects on those entering higher education etc etc.

[MooseBreath]

Assuming there were equally capable substitutes waiting in the wings then fine. But in most cases the existence of equally capable substitutes would mean the 'original' didn't get paid so much in the first place.

[Guest]

I don't have Sky and football tickets, unlike taxes, are not compulsory.

If that was the case with everyone then Balotelli wouldn't be getting the cash. Do you actaully ever see him play? I don't get your point.

The market decides. You may not like it, you might not think it's fair, but it's the only system that works.

There are many systems that could work just as well as this system.

You are missing the point. You are still better off with a 99% tax rate, but where is the fairness and the incentive to work for that? GD might decide 25% of his fee isn't worth it and give up. What if all our greatest talents did the same?

Well he would be working until he reached the upper tax limit and then he'd stop. The someone else could have a job helping to reduce unemployment.

Fair play to Gerard i would do the same.

Would you also piss in the aisle of a plane because you couldn't be bothered to wait in the queue?

The man is a pig, whether he is a good actor or not, he can and will be replaced.

Assuming there were equally capable substitutes waiting in the wings then fine. But in most cases the existence of equally capable substitutes would mean the 'original' didn't get paid so much in the first place.

In acting there are always equally good actors waiting in the wings - they are just not so well known.

[MooseBreath]

If that was the case with everyone then Balotelli wouldn't be getting the cash. Do you actaully ever see him play? I don't get your point.

There are many systems that could work just as well as this system.

Well he would be working until he reached the upper tax limit and then he'd stop. The someone else could have a job helping to reduce unemployment.

Would you also piss in the aisle of a plane because you couldn't be bothered to wait in the queue?

The man is a pig, whether he is a good actor or not, he can and will be replaced.

In acting there are always equally good actors waiting in the wings - they are just not so well known.

Wrong on every point, what a surprise. As for mine, we're not exclusively talking about actors, and yet even if we were you would still be wrong as clearly a major reason why he is hired is due to his appeal, which lesser known actors may not possess

[Guest]

Wrong on every point, what a surprise. As for mine, we're not exclusively talking about actors, and yet even if we were you would still be wrong as clearly a major reason why he is hired is due to his appeal, which lesser known actors may not possess

No merely wrong in your opinion.

Clearly your statement about actors is just more ars talk. There are many actors who get parts over less skilled actors. Now you are confusing celebrity with Skill - try to choose your words more accurately in future.

[MooseBreath]

No merely wrong in your opinion.

Clearly your statement about actors is just more ars talk. There are many actors who get parts over less skilled actors. Now you are confusing celebrity with Skill - try to choose your words more accurately in future.

Yes and his celebrity is part of the reason why equally capable substitutes are hard to find. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

[Captain...]

Whilst that is true to an extent, the point feels a bit forced and certainly goes against what is actually more of a concept than an individual example.

If there was no incentive for people to get promotions, to make their own companies more successful etc etc, you find people don't work so hard, innovation suffers, investment suffers. A company owner making just below an extortionate tax bracket will not employ or train more staff, won't invest in new equipment or buildings since he (or I suppose she?) is happy with the income they have and there is little incentive to work harder etc etc.

I'm not sure I've made that point very well, but it could have knock on effects on those entering higher education etc etc.

But why should we always feel compelled to work harder? I think this is the overall attitude problem with our society, this compulsion to always work harder, work more, earn more, why can't we just reach a level where we can comfortably provide for ourselves and our family and once that level is attained just ride it out, working at a steady constant, even reducing the hours you work, because you are so comfortable in your job you don't need to work so hard to achieve the same results, happy in what you do and what you earn rather than busting a gut to earn that extra 2% to have that bigger house, the extra car, the holiday in a more exclusive resort.

I don't believe innovation will suffer as people will always try and create something new, that is human nature and driven by something other than money, the application of it is driven by money, but innovation will always happen, but I don't see any harm in a small business, being content at being a small niche business and not trying to expand continuously until it reaches breaking point and then breaks. I am a big fan of Dragon's Den and I see countless businesses on there that are turning over a tidy little profit, for example making home made cakes, and want investment to expand into a franchise business and the response is always the same, it won't work, your niche is the home made angle of it, you can't franchise that out an expand it as you will just lose everything you have worked so hard for.

[leicsmac]

The Protestant Work Ethic.

Thanks an awful lot to whoever came up with that one.

[Zingari]

The Protestant Work Ethic.

Thanks an awful lot to whoever came up with that one.

It was probably the good men of the clergy that dreamt that one up.

You know , those feckers that work 1 day a week

[Jon the Hat]

No merely wrong in your opinion.

Clearly your statement about actors is just more ars talk. There are many actors who get parts over less skilled actors. Now you are confusing celebrity with Skill - try to choose your words more accurately in future.

You seem to think skill is the only reason people are well paid. Reputation & the confidence that brings, fame & market appeal are all important factors in a huge range of jobs. In the movie example, people go to see great actors the like, if you took half of them out of the equation, you might see the film industry nose dive. That is not good for anyone.

[Guest]

You seem to think skill is the only reason people are well paid.

No I don't. It was moose who claimed that.

I think skill isn't even the major reason people get paid well. As can be shown by the failure of so many people who are paid well.

[pSinatra]

You seem to think skill is the only reason people are well paid. Reputation & the confidence that brings, fame & market appeal are all important factors in a huge range of jobs. In the movie example, people go to see great actors the like, if you took half of them out of the equation, you might see the film industry nose dive. That is not good for anyone.

http://youtu.be/gDW_Hj2K0wo

I know it's easy to put up a Bill Hicks video, but marketing in the entertainment industry is out of control. GD is an average actor who was fortunate enough to have been born with a unique appearance & nothing else. He got his 'lucky break', a break that thousands of other actors are looking for.

That goes for football. We are sold the idea that the Premier League is "the greatest league in the world". It has less & less to do with football, more & more with making money. Hollywood blockbuster adverts for games between West Ham & Wigan!!? Leicester against Derby on a Thursday night!! Football 24 hrs a day. It has been taken from us & placed in the hands of marketing & those only interested in money.

The same for music & the same for the film industry. There are some of us who are intelligent enough to make an informed decision & decide for ourselves what is good & what is bad......but unskilled & untalented people are making vast amounts of money, applying tax loopholes & running off to countries with lower tax barriers because £10 million in the bank is not enough for them......they want more.

[MooseBreath]

No I don't. It was moose who claimed that.

Was is? Where? My posts are still in the thread. Maybe you can point out exactly where I made that claim?

Or maybe not because I didn't. You're either incredibly dense or just a complete tosser, infact probably both

[Guest]

Was is?

You're either incredibly dense or just a complete tosser, infact probably both

I do have trouble understanding your English. And I'm in the position in life that you dream of being.