French court rejects 75% tax on millionaires
President Francois Hollande’s 75 percent millionaire-tax is unconstitutional because it doesn’t guarantee equality for taxpayers, France’s top court ruled.
Hollande’s plan would have added extra levies of 18 percent on individuals’ incomes of more than 1 million euros ($1.32 million), while regular income taxes and a 4 percent exceptional contribution for high earners would have been based on household income, the court said today in an e-mailed statement. As a result, two households with the same total revenue could end up paying different rates depending on how earnings are divided among members of those households, which runs counter to a rule of equal tax treatment, the Paris-based court said…
The constitutional court lowered a series of other tax increases, calling them excessive or saying they also violated equality of treatment for taxpayers. The tax rate on stock options and free shares was lowered to a maximum of 64.5 percent from a rate of as much as 77 percent. The marginal tax rate on a type of private retirement benefit, known as “retraites chapeau,” was cut to a maximum of 68.34 percent from a planned rate in 2013 of 75.34 percent.
Looking at France’s wealth tax, the court said that unrealized gains couldn’t be included in assessing the tax because it ignores the requirement to take into account a payer’s ability to meet his obligations.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Mon dieu!
/Jean Roberts
Ted Torgerson on December 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM
In an embarrassing turn of events, Boehner had already agreed to the 75% increase before realizing it was France.
Panther on December 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM
*ROTFLMFAO*
BigGator5 on December 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Well if that is an accurate description of the provision, I wouldn’t mind seeing in the US Constitution.
vegconservative on December 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM
By that rationale, shouldn’t progressive taxation itself be considered unconstitutional?
steebo77 on December 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM
I was thinking the same thing. How do you legislate the fair amount?
hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Question is, does GD stay in Belgium.
(Obviously I can’t speel his name. Don’t even ask.)
hawkdriver on December 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM
I’m surprised they didn’t just ignore the constitution. We do, and both of them are roughly the same age.
platypus on December 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Barky: “Yo Francoise, brother. Don’t pay your Constitution no nevermind – it was probably written by a bunch of crackers like ours was.”
CorporatePiggy on December 29, 2012 at 11:51 AM
The Frogs are getting a clue? Or are they sniffing glue?
tommy71 on December 29, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Hee.. The ZOMG evvvilll rich tax was even too much for the French.
Illinidiva on December 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Because a tax rates of 60%+ on pensions and equity incentives doesn’t really constitute ‘theft’ nor does it effect job creation
phreshone on December 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Liberals love what many European nations do, so here is their chance for another time to mimic “more enlightened” society.
Will this be a European constitiutional inspiration SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg will want to cite and support? Makes me wish Specter lived a little longer, so we could also ask him to chime in.
Shaughnessy on December 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Wait, they have a special hat just for retreating? And it’s a retirement benefit?!? Quelle surprise! Of course, my French might be a little rusty……
Actually, the current French Constitution was adopted in 1958. The 1791 constitution didn’t last more than a couple of years.
GWB on December 29, 2012 at 12:45 PM
So now what will Gerard Depar-dieu???
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Ooo la la!
BobMbx on December 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM
A progressive tax code, i.e., different rates, violates equal protection?
Wow, that will drive liberals batty. Equal application of the law versus different tax rates.
It’s like holding two pieces of meat before a dog. They don’t know which one to grab.
SteveMG on December 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM