I heard Gilles Smadja, Chief of Staff to the mayor of Nanterre, yesterday on the Figaro Live channel between three kids who were stuck for lack of open schools. He learnedly evoked the taxation of the rich from whom we could take 70, 80 90% even without putting them on the straw! For him, it would be necessary to tax at 90% anything that exceeds 400,000 euros per year.
So obviously at the counter of the bistro in my little Norman corner, an income of 400,000 euros, we call that an “American” income, a local expression to speak of wealth. Yet there is no justice, nor any moral reason to steal 90% of a person’s income just because they earn too much!
The problem, again, is not those who earn too much, but those who do not earn enough.
The more you tax the rich, the more you cultivate the poor. I say it and say it again. Apart from North Korea, France is the country where we tax the middle classes as well as the rich people the most. 400,000 euros for example, these are the annual fees of a good dental surgeon. So his activity cannot be relocated, these patients are here, but if we take too much from him, this little rich man who is not a billionaire, he will end up leaving and going to scratch his teeth elsewhere, in Portugal or at Monaco. You will have fewer dentists, less care, and more without teeth.
If they are really rich, you will never take 90% from them because otherwise it will jeopardize large groups and thousands of jobs, and they can easily relocate abroad. Hence Biden’s idea of a global tax.
The IMF wants to tax the rich!
The idea of the IMF, as you can see in this article from France Bleu, is to put a temporary tax on the rich.
Since nobody thinks they are rich and everyone thinks that the rich is the other and that objectively there are indeed 99% poor and 1% rich, this is a fairly popular measure with which you take little risk of demonstrations of protests.
But that the 99% of poor do not rejoice too quickly at the idea of going to mow in packs the 1%.
This measure recommended by the IMF has very little chance of giving anything really significant in France since we are already the most taxed country in the world and in the OECD.
This idea is therefore essentially for other countries where the fiscal room for maneuver is considerable because they are clearly less taxed than in our hexagonal latitudes.
Once again, beyond a certain tax threshold, we cultivate from the poor the more we tax the rich who are less and less numerous and less and less rich since they are copiously mowed.
The creation of wealth and the fight against poverty require education, instruction, knowledge and knowledge. When a type is not very fute-fute genetically speaking as we say, some are well endowed others not and while waiting for the transplant of neurons we are unequal in front of the intelligence, but the world does not only need first of the class, one can with instruction, education, and knowledge also do great things with the second, third and even the last! For this, we still need to have a collective ambition for all our children and so that everyone can have a place ensuring the conditions for their happiness. Tax is only the easiest part of equality, that which consists in taxing the one who has a little more, it is easy, inglorious, and above all it does not answer the real question “how does it succeed?” to create wealth? »Vast debate!
De-globalization with Biden sauce
Still on these tax stories, Biden wants a global tax as I told you two days ago to avoid tax optimization.
In my attic, I like to call my cat a spade.
It is not tax optimization, it is tax dumping.
So you have two ways of thinking about globalization.
The one that has been, the one that we have suffered for years now, namely that our countries are opened to all winds, even to “partners” who have neither social rights, nor social minimums like us and even less taxation. As a result, we are obviously totally dumped in this lost global competition. We close our factories, we relocate and we find ourselves naked like worms and obviously having set up the conditions for a totally deflationary economy structurally speaking.
Either, we have a globalization where fiscal and social dumping, and we can even add environmental, is made impossible by common tax rates, by social minima shared by countries that trade together and exclude those that do not apply these minimum rates.
Obviously, nothing can be done without the United States in this world.
If today globalization is dysfunctional it is because there is no convergence on these rates (tax and social).
If you have a convergence with a few points of leeway and you have customs duties or penalties imposed on those who do not respect them, then the current globalization will become “functional”.
But it will not be the same, and the companies that make a lot of money because they produce cheap there and sell very dearly here will leave a hell of a lot of feathers there. Stock market prices also.
What I wanted to submit to you as a line of thought is that de-globalization according to Trump (customs duties for all countries at low costs) or de-globalization à la Biden (imposing identical tax rates everywhere) it amounts to to the same consequences and the same results. The method changes. The purpose remains the same.
This is a really very interesting first step, and the economic impact of this desire is considerable and very little commented on for the moment. Behind this crusade on taxes, there will also be that on social dumping. It’s inevitable.
Are we going to see global convergence as a prelude to real global governance as well?
The coming months will provide us with valuable information on this development, which could well turn into a real revolution. For the best or for the worst.
It is already too late, but all is not lost. Prepare yourselves !