French clubs to strike after government proposes increase tax rate for "high earners" to 75%.........

Pretty much what the title says. The French government has set out a new proposal to tax anyone living in the country who makes over €1m at a rate of 75%. The top clubs in Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 have said they will strike and have no matches played between Nov. 29th and Dec. 2nd. The clubs are worried that the high tax rate will prevent them from signing top players and competing with the rest of Europe. Ligue 1 leaders PSG, meanwhile, likely find this to be nothing more than a minor annoyance since there is no tax rate for which the club's owners can't compensate.

To me this is crazy. Maybe they're just trying to attack rich football players but at the same time they will drive out major players in their economy, surely?

75% is excessive to say the least.

This is often inaccurately reported. It's not technically taxing anyone earning over 1M at a rate of 75%, it's taxing what they earn over 1M at that rate. Earnings up to 1M will still be taxed the normal rate.

A major talking point in last year's presidential campaign, so in that sense I'm pleased to see Hollande and his government have had the courage to go through with it. He's not really done a huge amount to be proud of so far, with the most honourable exception of the same-sex marriage laws, and even those were somewhat tarnished by the "objection de conscience" caveat, and I must say I'm a tad disappointed with their work so far...

Moving on, I suspect it will mean a fair few players leaving, though as you say PSG will just chuck more money at them. Overall though, I imagine hindsight will be most useful in telling us if this is inded a good idea.

All it means is that if the big spenders want to keep their big name players, they'll have to pay them more salary (a lot more) to keep ahold of them.

75% is a disgrace, but if the French government guaranteed it was only for, say, 2 years, to help the economic recovery, then both the clubs and the players should be okay with it.

I don't think 70% of the players give two Poopie about the French economy Azzy.

I never said they did, did I? I said they'd be able to handle it. The clubs don't want to be forced into spending millions of euros each year to cover the contracts they signed the players to. Some players might take it on the chin for two years (as Arshavin did when he came to Arsenal), others the club will have to increase their wages for.

Looking at the BBC coverage, it's the institutions (clubs) that will be liable for it (I assume in the same way as employers NI) it was going to be for the individuals but high profile complaints/protests (including Gerard Depardieu's re-location over the border to Belgium) forced the government to change their plans.

They also go on to mention Monaco won't be affected due to their unique (unfair?) position (tax free principality but playing in the French league)

PSG in the firing line most I guess, but suspect even that would be small fry to their owners.

Who will surrender first? (Duty will enjoy that)

It should make FFP a problem for them though.

Oh the French

Why should footballers be taxed any different than the rest of the population?

Wellington wrote:Why should footballers be taxed any different than the rest of the population?

That isn't the argument. It's just that football challenging the proposal made the news. I bet the majority of high earners in France feel the same as the footballers.

Great economic policy, London is cleaning up off the back of it as our real estate and private education markets are going crazy off the back of fleeing French high achievers.

I guess the French clubs' biggest complaint though has to be in regards to Monaco who player in the French league but enjoy tax-exempt status in Monaco so can give a player £300k a week for a total cost of £300k a week, to compete on the same level PSG would need to offer many more times that.

Well then PSG need to re-locate to Monaco. Them's the breaks.

If Wales decides to let Swansea and Cardiff off of their taxes, I'd have no problem letting them compete in the EPL still. It's not like Monaco are ripping up trees so far in Ligue 1.

Great idea to tax any earnings OVER 1 million at 75%. People starve on the street and yet we seem to think it is ok for people to be earning millions so that they can afford to buy a new ferrari every month.

Make the world a fairer place and it will be a better world for everyone.

How much tax do you pay on your earnings, C_S?

Duty281 wrote:75% is excessive to say the least.

is it?

I suppose they need those extra millions so they can drive their ferraris through the streets of paris driving past the homeless who are starving on the street.

WIll they be blockading the stadiums and setting fire to club mascots much like French farmers do to sheep when they blockade the ports?

Will this garner as much sympathy for their plight as it generally does for the farmers?

And what are they actually protesting about? That they are not earning enough money because everything they earn OVER 1 million is taxed at 75%.

I really can't see how anyone can sympathise with footballers who earn more in 1 day then some people will earn in 3 years

75% is excessive. Going to be difficult for the poorer teams to attract half-decent talent. 40k a week translates to about 2 mil a year gross, but you're netting less than a million, in a sport where longevity is not guaranteed. Makes Germany a very good looking prospect.

Will be interested to see the effect this has on their other sports. Roland Garros will need to probably bump it's prize money by a (possibly) unsustainable amount to keep up with the other four Slams.

also the "If I came be rich, no one" argument is generally sad...

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:75% is excessive to say the least.

is it?

I suppose they need those extra millions so they can drive their ferraris through the streets of paris driving past the homeless who are starving on the street.

These people still EARN that money, whilst other people are happy to pay it for them. It is the entertainment business after all.

It'll just drive most of the top French players away to Monaco/Spain/Germany/England.

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:75% is excessive to say the least.

is it?

I suppose they need those extra millions so they can drive their ferraris through the streets of paris driving past the homeless who are starving on the street.

These people still EARN that money, whilst other people are happy to pay it for them. It is the entertainment business after all.

It'll just drive most of the top French players away to Monaco/Spain/Germany/England.

You have been brainwashed by the rich in society into thinking certain jobs are harder than others and thus should be paid a lot more. It is something that the super rich and powerful have driven into the minds of people over hundreds of years so that the rich and powerful remain rich. Society needs poor people so that there can be rich people.

On another issue don't let the fact that some people have earnt their money be used as an excuse to allow a society where people are dying on the streets from the cold because they are homeless whilst some people own 15 houses, of which 14 lay empty 11 months of the year.

TopHat24/7 wrote:How much tax do you pay on your earnings, C_S?

.............................................

Physician, heal thyself!!

kingraf wrote:75% is excessive. Going to be difficult for the poorer teams to attract half-decent talent. 40k a week translates to about 2 mil a year gross, but you're netting less than a million, in a sport where longevity is not guaranteed. Makes Germany a very good looking prospect.

Will be interested to see the effect this has on their other sports. Roland Garros will need to probably bump it's prize money by a (possibly) unsustainable amount to keep up with the other four Slams.

TBH I struggle to see how anyone can claim "netting less than a million" to be a real handicap, I mean who on earth needs 1M per year to get by?? It's not as if these guys life ends after football either, they just have a more "normal" life. For once, I agree with C_S on this one, with conditions in France what they are (I live here), I really don't mind seeing rich people chip in a bit more. Worth mentioning also (something that oddly doesn't get reported much) that taxes have gone up for pretty much everyone in France recently. So yes, on this one I struggle to find much sympathy with footballers.

On the second paragraph, taxes don't work the same way in France as in England (hence why Nadal doesn't like the England tax system, as it basically loses him money, but doesn't say anything about France). Pretty sure the RG prize money won't be hit by the new law (unless it's won by a French tennis player actually living in France, and they aren't too many decent ones about...)

Champagne_Socialist wrote:a society where people are dying on the streets from the cold because they are homeless whilst some people own 15 houses, of which 14 lay empty 11 months of the year.

Humans have been dying in the streets for tens of thousands of years. Adam and Eve didn't have a house. If everyone earned the same, paid the same, and had the same, crime would still occur, people would still be clever/stupid, some would still be attractive/ugly. I am totally against economic equality.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

kingraf wrote:75% is excessive. Going to be difficult for the poorer teams to attract half-decent talent. 40k a week translates to about 2 mil a year gross, but you're netting less than a million, in a sport where longevity is not guaranteed. Makes Germany a very good looking prospect.

Will be interested to see the effect this has on their other sports. Roland Garros will need to probably bump it's prize money by a (possibly) unsustainable amount to keep up with the other four Slams.

TBH I struggle to see how anyone can claim "netting less than a million" to be a real handicap, I mean who on earth needs 1M per year to get by?? It's not as if these guys life ends after football either, they just have a more "normal" life. For once, I agree with C_S on this one, with conditions in France what they are (I live here), I really don't mind seeing rich people chip in a bit more. Worth mentioning also (something that oddly doesn't get reported much) that taxes have gone up for pretty much everyone in France recently. So yes, on this one I struggle to find much sympathy with footballers.

Why is it your right to determine how much someone should earn? Why do you, and people like you and C_S, get to force others to adhere to your own moral paradigm??

That's called communism and it has never worked and only resulted in mass poverty, death and even holocaust.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:75% is excessive to say the least.

is it?

I suppose they need those extra millions so they can drive their ferraris through the streets of paris driving past the homeless who are starving on the street.

These people still EARN that money, whilst other people are happy to pay it for them. It is the entertainment business after all.

It'll just drive most of the top French players away to Monaco/Spain/Germany/England.

You have been brainwashed by the rich in society into thinking certain jobs are harder than others and thus should be paid a lot more. It is something that the super rich and powerful have driven into the minds of people over hundreds of years so that the rich and powerful remain rich. Society needs poor people so that there can be rich people.

On another issue don't let the fact that some people have earnt their money be used as an excuse to allow a society where people are dying on the streets from the cold because they are homeless whilst some people own 15 houses, of which 14 lay empty 11 months of the year.

Where have I said this job is hard? It isn't, but they will continue to EARN that money whilst people remain entertained by what they do - playing football.

Taxing these people won't do much for the homeless situation either - it'll just go to the French government.

eh? I'm not saying it's my right to determine how much someone should earn?? I'm just saying I don't think taxing millionaires more than those who are struggling to make ends meet is a particularly deplorable stance. People can still earn anything, I really don't see where that came from.

I most certainly don't adhere to the Communist idea of shared wealth, which is completely stupid. You have to remember that the French government offers public services such as decent public transport, healthcare, hospitals, education etc. and that these operations are always going to be run at a loss (unless they get privatised, but then they're not nearly as efficient). I don't particularly agree with this reform, but I don't have much sympathy with millionaires complaining that they're not earning enough.

But you are determining how much someone should earn though, you are determining their net wage. You're picking a figure you think is acceptable and then saying tax them as hard as needs been so whatever their gross wage is, their takehome fits my moral paradigm.

Also, this:

unless they get privatised, but then they're not nearly as efficient

is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Unless the public sector in France is remarkably different to the UK.

People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

I agree.

TopHat24/7 wrote:But you are determining how much someone should earn though, you are determining their net wage.  You're picking a figure you think is acceptable and then saying tax them as hard as needs been so whatever their gross wage is, their takehome fits my moral paradigm.

Also, this:

unless they get privatised, but then they're not nearly as efficient

is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Unless the public sector in France is remarkably different to the UK.

I don't think that's what I'm saying, I'm saying I don't feel much sympathy with the people this tax is "affecting". Ultimately in France income tax rate is a fairly gradual increase from 0% (those who basically don't earn enough to live off anyway) to I think 50 or 60% for the wealthiest (I think Sarkozy brought in the "bouclier fiscal" to limit the rate to 50% but can't remember exactly - not my area of expertise). This new law just adds another layer for the very wealthy. I'm not saying "tax them as hard as needs be" at all...

Regarding your second point, "efficient" wasn't the best word to use, but there's no doubt the trains run better in France than they do in the UK for instance. What I really meant was they are run as a public service, which I think is a good thing; for example, there are trains which go to and from out-of-the-way places fairly regularly, despite this obviously costing more than it brings in; pharmacies have to be reasonably spaced out per population so that everyone can have access to medicine, etc.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

so basically if you're unfortunate enough to get fired, you spend the rest of your life doing "manual labour"?

Yeh, as mean and harsh as I am, even I think Azzy's gone over-board with that one!

Fully agree with a progressive tax system and, whilst I think tough reform is greatly needed, a suitable efficient and truly fair welfare system is something we should be proud to have as a country.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:But you are determining how much someone should earn though, you are determining their net wage.  You're picking a figure you think is acceptable and then saying tax them as hard as needs been so whatever their gross wage is, their takehome fits my moral paradigm.

Also, this:

unless they get privatised, but then they're not nearly as efficient

is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Unless the public sector in France is remarkably different to the UK.

I don't think that's what I'm saying, I'm saying I don't feel much sympathy with the people this tax is "affecting". Ultimately in France income tax rate is a fairly gradual increase from 0% (those who basically don't earn enough to live off anyway) to I think 50 or 60% for the wealthiest (I think Sarkozy brought in the "bouclier fiscal" to limit the rate to 50% but can't remember exactly - not my area of expertise). This new law just adds another layer for the very wealthy. I'm not saying "tax them as hard as needs be" at all...

Regarding your second point, "efficient" wasn't the best word to use, but there's no doubt the trains run better in France than they do in the UK for instance. What I really meant was they are run as a public service, which I think is a good thing; for example, there are trains which go to and from out-of-the-way places fairly regularly, despite this obviously costing more than it brings in; pharmacies have to be reasonably spaced out per population so that everyone can have access to medicine, etc.

This actually reminded me of a very good blog article in the Economist recently:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-13

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

so basically if you're unfortunate enough to get fired, you spend the rest of your life doing "manual labour"?

No, it means you have three options:

1. Find a new job
2. Don't work, and therefore have zero income, or
3. Work for the government on minimum wage to earn your unemployment benefit

The government could then tax and NI you, giving them some of the money back on the pointless unemployment benefit they currently hand out like copies of the Metro.

And anyone not employed by a company or the government should have zero income and therefore not be living in luxury. Anyone found to be having it large while unemployed would clearly be a criminal, so they should be rounded up as such.

There you go, I have solved unemployment, taxation, the benefit system and crime all in one easy to police policy.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:All it means is that if the big spenders want to keep their big name players, they'll have to pay them more salary (a lot more) to keep ahold of them.

75% is a disgrace, but if the French government guaranteed it was only for, say, 2 years, to help the economic recovery, then both the clubs and the players should be okay with it.

That's exactly what it is meant to be. A temporary measure, whether it stays temporary or not is another matter!

The reason clubs are going on strike, however, is because the government has decided that THEY will be responsible for paying this new tax rather than the players.

Several clubs including Bordeaux have said that this will cost them upwards of 8 million euro per year on top of their current outgoings and probably send them out of business.

Further controversy stems from the fact that Monaco (already at a huge advantage compared to other clubs) are exempt from the measure because of their special tax status.

Most critics have said the system will end up unworkable because of the fact that players salaries can change throughout the season so its unclear when the tax point will be.

Can't see why the players aren't being taxed themselves personally, obviously it could cause a lot of talent to leave the French league but when they imposed a similar tax regime in Spain the top talent largely stayed so it could probably work. I don't think I'd be shedding too many tears if Ibra was paying a little more tax on his £300+k a week wage!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:But you are determining how much someone should earn though, you are determining their net wage.  You're picking a figure you think is acceptable and then saying tax them as hard as needs been so whatever their gross wage is, their takehome fits my moral paradigm.

Also, this:

unless they get privatised, but then they're not nearly as efficient

is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.  Unless the public sector in France is remarkably different to the UK.

I don't think that's what I'm saying, I'm saying I don't feel much sympathy with the people this tax is "affecting". Ultimately in France income tax rate is a fairly gradual increase from 0% (those who basically don't earn enough to live off anyway) to I think 50 or 60% for the wealthiest (I think Sarkozy brought in the "bouclier fiscal" to limit the rate to 50% but can't remember exactly - not my area of expertise). This new law just adds another layer for the very wealthy. I'm not saying "tax them as hard as needs be" at all...

Regarding your second point, "efficient" wasn't the best word to use, but there's no doubt the trains run better in France than they do in the UK for instance. What I really meant was they are run as a public service, which I think is a good thing; for example, there are trains which go to and from out-of-the-way places fairly regularly, despite this obviously costing more than it brings in; pharmacies have to be reasonably spaced out per population so that everyone can have access to medicine, etc.

This actually reminded me of a very good blog article in the Economist recently:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-13

Good article, if somewhat overstating the importance of increased taxes in Hollande's unpopularity (Hollande is unpopular for many other reasons), but I guess it is to be expected that the Economist will tend to overstate economic issues. Generally, I think that encapsulates the French psyche pretty well, we're happy to pay higher taxes because they pay for what are really very good public services (for instance, Uni education is virtually free in France), however at the moment we're not particularly happy as taxes are increasing while the quality of said public services is, if anything, decreasing (though I tend to think it's basically the same as before - train prices have risen though).

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

so basically if you're unfortunate enough to get fired, you spend the rest of your life doing "manual labour"?

No, it means you have three options:

1. Find a new job
2. Don't work, and therefore have zero income, or
3. Work for the government on minimum wage to earn your unemployment benefit

The government could then tax and NI you, giving them some of the money back on the pointless unemployment benefit they currently hand out like copies of the Metro.

And anyone not employed by a company or the government should have zero income and therefore not be living in luxury. Anyone found to be having it large while unemployed would clearly be a criminal, so they should be rounded up as such.

There you go, I have solved unemployment, taxation, the benefit system and crime all in one easy to police policy.

but finding a new job takes time, time you wouldn't have if you were working for the government all day every day for minimum wage.

You seem also to be saying that people need to be either employed by a company, or the government. No free-lancing then? how do you define "company" anyway? One of the choirs I sing in employs two people (conductor and pianist), do we count as a company for this purpose?

Technical details would get worked out by civil servants, I'm just telling you how I'd fix the problems we face.

Job hunting can be done after work. I do it, despite working a full day. And you would only do the manual labour if you wanted to - but if you didn't, no money for you.

Any and all freelancers would be forced to set up their own companies. And the choir would only have to be a company if it employed people, so in your case yes, it would.

Always thought I was a leftist, growing up.... 606 has taught me that I'm a very firm centralist. Thank you all!

I always thought I was a right-wing fellow.

I don't need any confirmation do I!

Guest wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

so basically if you're unfortunate enough to get fired, you spend the rest of your life doing "manual labour"?

No, it means you have three options:

1. Find a new job
2. Don't work, and therefore have zero income, or
3. Work for the government on minimum wage to earn your unemployment benefit

The government could then tax and NI you, giving them some of the money back on the pointless unemployment benefit they currently hand out like copies of the Metro.

And anyone not employed by a company or the government should have zero income and therefore not be living in luxury. Anyone found to be having it large while unemployed would clearly be a criminal, so they should be rounded up as such.

There you go, I have solved unemployment, taxation, the benefit system and crime all in one easy to police policy.

You only have to look at countries like pakistan or somalia to see just how great britain is with unemployment benefit. If you want to see people starving in the street due to having no job, no income and no food then go to certain parts of africa.

Also do you think old people who have retired should get unemployment benefits? what about people with a sickness or disability?

Guest wrote:People should be taxed the same regardless of income. Why should someone who is paid £1m be taxed more than someone who earns £20k? Just because they have more money doesn't give anyone the right to take it away from them. Taxation is essentially legalised theft, and I resent any money being given to people without jobs. There should be no unemployment benefit, anyone without a job should report to the nearest government task force centre and take part in manual labour. They can get paid for that work, which then contributes to society again.

People are all taxed the same. Everyone is taxed at 20% for the first 30k and then 40% up to 150k and then 45% on everything above 150k.

If you just had a flat 30% for all incomes that would not be fair. If someone earnt 10,000 they would be taxed 3,000 and left with 7,000 a year to live on whilst someone earning 10,000,000 (10 million) would be taxed 3 million and then left with 7 million to live on. Clearly that is not a fair system because even though the contribution is the same percentage it has hit the poorer family hardest and left them in a vulnerable position.

Also your point about manual labour is laughable. it seems like you are just wanting to punish the unemployed rather than finding a helpful solution to helping them finding employment.

Why are Azzy's post now saying Guest?

Ooooooh, banned????????

Maybe, we need a mod to tell us why

Have asked the question, didn't seem him do anything wrong.....

It normally means his account was deleted.

Sadly the same problem happened with Red. He was a great poster on N&CA but when he had a fall-out on the Rugby board and was banned for a couple of days he threw his toys out the pram and asked for his whole account to be deleted and never came back. Pity.