The French beheaded their king. Do they want to behead the richest of them? One might think that it is in the order of things and words. "King" in Latin rex, and "rich" that just in Gallic rix (as Vercingetorix), share the same etymological family. Both mean "powerful". To cut down?
Francois Hollande and plans to impose 75% income in excess of one million euros, at the risk of appearing confiscatory and unconstitutional. Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tax the tax exiles, threatening implication of deprivation of nationality, and is also limited vis-à-vis the Constitution. The both are attacking a minority that is the envy. Paradoxically, the rich more concerned about public opinion that the poor in the Hexagon. Poor little rich girl, sang Claude François.
Who do we speak? In the U.S., the debate on the "1%" has become a dominant theme of the 2012 presidential campaign. It was launched by the movement Occupy Wall Street ("Wall Street deal"), with the slogan "We are the 99%" ("we are the 99%"). It is stigmatizing growing inequality. Today, 1% of the population accounts for 17% of national income, according to statistics from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), IRS. This proportion more than doubled since the early 1980s throughout the country. It even reaches 44% in the city of New York, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute, an independent body to observe the living conditions of the city.
To be part of the "top 1%" across the Atlantic, he had declared to the tax authorities .927 343 dollars of income in 2009 (before various exemptions, ie "tax loopholes"), about 265, 000 euros. In France, the club's ticket is much more modest. According to INSEE, it was enough for a single person to have a "stated income" of 88 200 euros in 2008 (latest figures available) to be among the 602 most successful French .500 (1% of the 60.250 million population metropolitan France which reports income). Paradoxically, the threshold is proportionately much lower for a couple (132 euros exactly .300), as INSEE reason in what he calls "consumption units". Example, a two-person household accounts for only 1.5 units of consumption: statisticians feel they have less to spend, if only because they share the same roof
. The rich must prove they are effective and useful
The "rich French", the "very high income" in the language of INSEE (at least 7 .350 euros per month for a single), are three times less than Americans. The main reason is that in France the club "of 1%" focuses 7% of national income annually, instead of 17% across the Atlantic, where the overall wealth of the country is also higher (by about a quarter capita) low fee payday advance. Another major difference from both sides of the Atlantic, nine-tenths of the French who are part of the "top 1%", ie 540, 000, with annual sales revenue of less than 239, 000 euros, according to INSEE. This does not allow them to figure in the American Club!
More and more observers believe the criterion of 1% insufficiently selective and that the group is too heterogeneous. It would be more appropriate to focus on the cream of the crop, "one thousandth" of the highest incomes, we believe more in the United States. We are 99.9%, "headlined last fall Paul Krugman, columnist featured in The New York Times, also Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008.
In doing so, it intends to develop two arguments. First of all this "super-elite" – whose annual revenues are on average 5.3 to 7.5 million – has seen its resources after tax increase by 400% since 1979 (increase in real terms, net of inflation and after taxes). But for the average American, who is in the exact middle of the income distribution, purchasing power has increased by just 21%.
Paul Krugman denounces especially the claim of "super-elite" to justify its gains by descréations job. "Very few of them are innovative type of Steve Jobs," he said. He noted that 18% are from finance, 12% are lawyers or real estate industry, "professions where there is no evidence of a clear link between income and contribution to the economy." The rich must prove they are effective and useful. Today more than ever when growth just to leave.
The debate is as old as time. "What the rich have they more than others?", Asked in the 1920 F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of The Great Gatsby. "Money," replied his friend Ernest Hemingway. As if the wealthy had neither merit nor talent. The opposite attitude is that of the famous parable of the talents: "The master gave five talents to one of his servants, who knew them for profit and is rewarded, while those who did not receive that one hastens to bury in the earth … "This is the origin of the word" talent ". He pointed coins, it became "the gift that is made fruitful." The ability to create jobs for example.
ALSO READ:
"A fine of 5% on undeclared foreign assets (with the individual)
ALSO READ:
"Estimate your ISF (with the individual)