French Government Plans 75% Tax Rate on the Rich

[BigBadBrian]

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow-to-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?_r=2&hpw)

PARIS — The call to Vincent Grandil’s Paris law firm began like many others that have rolled in recently. On the line was the well-paid chief executive of one of France’s most profitable companies, and he was feeling nervous.

Some rich citizens have already left. In recent years, the actress and model Laetitia Casta, the chef Alain Ducasse and the singer and actor Johnny Hallyday all moved away to avoid high taxes.
President François Hollande is vowing to impose a 75 percent tax on the portion of anyone’s income above a million euros ($1.24 million) a year. “Should I be preparing to leave the country?” the executive asked Mr. Grandil.

The lawyer’s counsel: Wait and see. For now, at least.

“We’re getting a lot of calls from high earners who are asking whether they should get out of France,” said Mr. Grandil, a partner at Altexis, which specializes in tax matters for corporations and the wealthy. “Even young, dynamic people pulling in 200,000 euros are wondering whether to remain in a country where making money is not considered a good thing.”

A chill is wafting over France’s business class as Mr. Hollande, the country’s first Socialist president since François Mitterrand in the 1980s, presses a manifesto of patriotism to “pay extra tax to get the country back on its feet again.” The 75 percent tax proposal, which Parliament plans to take up in September, is ostensibly aimed at bolstering French finances as Europe’s long-running debt crisis intensifies.

But because there are relatively few people in France whose income would incur such a tax — perhaps no more than 30,000 in a country of 65 million — the gains might contribute but a small fraction of the 33 billion euros in new revenue the government wants to raise next year to help balance the budget.

The French finance ministry did not respond to requests for an estimate of the revenue the tax might raise. Though the amount would be low, some analysts note that a tax hit on the rich would provide political cover for painful cuts Mr. Hollande may need to make next year in social and welfare programs that are likely to be far less popular with the rank and file.

In that regard, the tax could have enormous symbolic value as a blow for egalité, coming from a new president who has proclaimed, “I don’t like the rich.”

“French people have an uncomfortable relationship with money,” Mr. Grandil said. “Here, someone who is a self-made man, creating jobs and ending up as a millionaire, is viewed with suspicion. This is big cultural difference between France and the United States.”

Many companies are studying contingency plans to move high-paid executives outside of France, according to consultants, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents — who are highly protective of their clients and decline to identify them by name. They say some executives and wealthy people have already packed up for destinations like Britain, Belgium, Switzerland and the United States, taking their taxable income with them.

They also know of companies — start-ups and multinationals alike — that are delaying plans to invest in France or to move employees or new hires here.

Whether many wealthy residents will actually leave and companies will change their plans, of course, remains to be seen. Some of the criticism could be political posturing, aimed at trying to dissuade the government from going through with the planned tax increase.

But some wealthy people left after Mr. Mitterrand raised taxes in the 1980s. And more recently, the former Victoria’s Secret model Laetetia Casta, the restaurateur Alain Ducasse and the singer Johnny Hallyday caused a stir by moving to countries just across the border to escape the French treasury’s heavy hand.

There is no question Mr. Hollande is under fiscal pressure. He has pledged to reduce France’s budget deficit, currently 4.5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, to 3 percent by next year, to meet euro zone rules.

The matter of how best to hit that target, though, is as much a political question as a fiscal one. Mr. Hollande was elected in May on a wave of resentment against “les riches” — company executives, bankers, sports stars and celebrities whose paychecks tend to be seen as scandalous in a country where the growing divide between rich and poor touches a cultural nerve whose roots predate Robespierre.

Half the nation’s households earn less than 19,000 euros a year; only about 10 percent of households earn more than 60,000 euros annually, according to the French statistics agency, Insee.

There is currently no plan to change the tax rates for most people, which is 14 percent for the poorest and 30 percent for the next rung. For higher earners — people with incomes above 70,830 euros a year — the tax rate will soon rise to 44 percent, up from 41, in a change that was already set before Mr. Hollande’s election.

A tax accountant in Paris with many wealthy clients, Steve Horton, has calculated that a two-parent, two-child household with taxable annual income of a bit more than 2.22 million euros ($2.75 million) now has after-tax take-home pay of about 1.1 million euros ($1.35 million) under France’s current tax system.

That household would end up with 780,000 euros, or $966,000, if the Hollande tax took effect, Mr. Horton says. (The same family, with comparable income in Manhattan, would take home $1.55 million, the dollar equivalent of 1.25 million euros, after paying federal, state and city income taxes, he calculated.)

Taxes are high in France for a reason: they pay for one of Europe’s most generous social welfare systems and a large government. As Mr. Hollande has described it, the tax plan is about “justice,” and “sending out a signal, a message of social cohesion.”

That struck a chord with voters angry about the wealth divide. And it is supported by some economists, including Thomas Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, who has conducted studies indicating that high earners will not work less hard if taxed more. But some say France could send out the wrong signal.

“People have an acceptable amount of taxes they are willing to pay,” said Mr. Horton, the accountant, “and if it goes above that, they will move somewhere that’s more reasonable.”

“The thing French politicians don’t seem to understand or care about is that when you tax away two-thirds of someone’s earnings to appeal to voters, productive people who can enrich businesses and the economy won’t come — or they will just leave,” said Diane Segalen, a corporate headhunter.

She said she had been close to sealing a deal for a seasoned executive in London to join one of France’s biggest companies earlier this year, when Mr. Hollande made his 75 percent vow.

“When the guy heard that, he said, ‘I’m not coming,’ and withdrew from the process,” said Mrs. Segalen, the head of the Segalen et Associés, a consulting firm.

For Mrs. Segalen, the proposal is the latest red flag in a country that has long labored under the image of being a difficult place to do business. France has a 33 percent corporate tax rate — the euro zone’s second-highest, after Malta’s 35 percent. That contrasts with the 12.5 percent rate in Ireland, which has deliberately kept a lid on corporate taxes as a lure to businesses.

“It is a ridiculous proposal, but it’s great for us,” said Jean Dekerchove, the manager of Immobilièr Le Lion, a high-end real estate agency based in Brussels. Calls to his office have picked up in recent months, he said, as wealthy French citizens look to invest or simply move across the border amid worries about the latest tax.

“It’s a huge loss for France because people and businesses come to Belgium and bring their wealth with them,” Mr. Dekerchove said. “But we’re thrilled because they create jobs, they buy houses and spend money — and it’s our economy that profits.”

[BigBadBrian]

Liberals, Bleeding Hearts, and other morons on the left, is this what you want?

[Nickdfresh]

No, I want them to pay what middle class earners pay and have their bullshit tax shelters rescinded...

Besides, it's only a "proposal," not becoming law....

[binnie]

I am certainly on the left, but I think any tax rate above 50% on individuals is too much.

In the UK it works like this (I may be slightly out here as the bands move quite a lot):

£ 0-8,300 : no tax.
£ 8,300 - 43,000 : 22.5% tax
£ 43,000 - 150,000 : 40% tax
£150,000 and more: 45% tax (previously 50% but recently lowered).

Admitedly, that doesn't take into accout national insurance. Consequently, the more you earn the more you pay in tax (in theory) and those at the very lowest incomes pay little tax. To put it into persepctive, the average full time wage in the UK is £26,000 per year, which equates to around £3982 in income tax and a further £1942 National Insurance. It's only really when you start to get over £43,000 that it starts to hurt. Personally, I have no problem with the 40-50% tax rate. I do, however, think that the boundary for the 40% is too low - £43,000 doesn't go too far these days given house prices etc. But it's not likely to be raised any time soon.

The issue with higher rate tax payers is that there are so many loopholes to avoid paying it. The French can try and implement 75% at the higher end, but they'll find that many people who earn that kind of bank - over $1million for fuck's sake - suddenly register their companies elsewhere, or re-negotiate their contracts so that they are not employees but consultants.

[WACF]

Wow....22.5% then a jump to 40%...that is nuts.

People below the poverty line should be exempt from tax.

[Angel]

People below the poverty line should be exempt from tax.

I agree 100%. I'm not paying any taxes right now, but that's only because I'm in school.

[jhale667]

Blah, blah blah, I'm a miserable fuckbag filled with hatred of myself and others...

Here's a question for the heartless zealot conservatard idiot... are you OK with Wrongney's plan to raise YOUR taxes to give yet another tax break to the wealthy?

[binnie]

Wow....22.5% then a jump to 40%...that is nuts.

People below the poverty line should be exempt from tax.

The question is what defines the poverty line? At what point does someone's income drop them into that category?

It works the other way, too. At what point does someone become 'rich'? Many people who I consider to be 'rich' probably wouldn't consider themselves to be. Let's use the UK £26,000 average income as an example - if someone earns double that (£52K, 200% of the average) are they 'rich'? Certainly be a statistical definition, but not a social one, surely? Treble it - £76K, 300% of the average. It's a high wage by anyone's definition, but still not as much as the most basic doctor gets paid. So are all doctors 'rich'? I'm guessing that they wouldn't think so, or the lawyers and accountants who make similar amounts.

The point I'm making is that everyone can agree with 'tax the rich' and 'exempt the poor' becomes 'rich' and 'poor' are emotive terms. But those statements don't really mean all that much when you break it down. The definitions are purely arbrtrary.

[vandeleur]

What boils my piss about tax , and it's a shitty subject at the best of times is two fold .. One ,this is the biggy .these companies like voda phone , Barclays etc ... Enormous companies paying little taxes ... But they have sleazed themselves so far into the systems hierarchy that they daren't touch them . And two these fuck off millionaire celebrities who are using loop holes that aren't designed for working people so were obviously designed to allow these people to squirrel away there filthy lucre ..... And the Ones that are caught are the tip Of the ice burg , And I know the argument is u would do it if you could get away with it but am not sure I would .
Everyone is screaming the economic system is in melt down and there isn't any money to fix it but the solutions are apparent except no government has the courage to face it .

[Satan]

Liberals, Bleeding Hearts, and other morons on the left, is this what you want?

If a Devil remembers correctly, the US was doing rather well, economically speaking, when your Republican President Mr. Eisenhower had a tax rate of 91% on the rich. Built the Interstate Highway System, didn't he?

Your country is in desperate need of infrastructure building on that level right now, but the money isn't there to pay for it, because corporations and bastards like Willard Mittens Romney are not paying their fair share.

[Satan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5CCRI1vdwE

[WACF]

The question is what defines the poverty line? At what point does someone's income drop them into that category?

It works the other way, too. At what point does someone become 'rich'? Many people who I consider to be 'rich' probably wouldn't consider themselves to be. Let's use the UK £26,000 average income as an example - if someone earns double that (£52K, 200% of the average) are they 'rich'? Certainly be a statistical definition, but not a social one, surely? Treble it - £76K, 300% of the average. It's a high wage by anyone's definition, but still not as much as the most basic doctor gets paid. So are all doctors 'rich'? I'm guessing that they wouldn't think so, or the lawyers and accountants who make similar amounts.

The point I'm making is that everyone can agree with 'tax the rich' and 'exempt the poor' becomes 'rich' and 'poor' are emotive terms. But those statements don't really mean all that much when you break it down. The definitions are purely arbrtrary.

I guess what I am looking at for brackets is that £43000 is a tad under $67000 CDN....40% is high.

I totaly understand higher incomes can take a higher tax threshold but....a jump like that attacks people that may have made a choice of being a police officer, fire fighter, nurse, miners ect...versus working at the lumber yard 9-5.

I just don't agree with it being so high.

These are Canada's Federal rates for 2012

•15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
•26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
•29% of taxable income over $132,406.

Much more palatable for my tastes...

As far as determining what the poverty line is I don't have a good answer.

If you remove low income people from the tax roll though you may create less working poor...and like Angel commented...students trying to get ahead.
There is a situation too where some people at the bottom end just do not see the point of working...we need to give a hand up rather than push down.

You posed a good question.

[vandeleur]

Canuck brackets seen fairer than uk ones ...... But am guessing the grass is always greener

[binnie]

I guess what I am looking at for brackets is that £43000 is a tad under $67000 CDN....40% is high.

I totaly understand higher incomes can take a higher tax threshold but....a jump like that attacks people that may have made a choice of being a police officer, fire fighter, nurse, miners ect...versus working at the lumber yard 9-5.
.

I agree, but the money has to come from somewhere and I'm a lot better off than most (at the moment).

For reference, in the UK you would have to be a pretty senior nurse to make that kind of bank. Also, a middle-ranking police officer or fire fighter would be at that level, but not lower levels. Teachers wouldn't make it unless they went into management at some level.

But yes, higher taxes do penalise those who are successful. That being said, I think most people can stomach 40% because of what we get back re: healthcare and other government services.

[binnie]

Canuck brackets seen fairer than uk ones ...... But am guessing the grass is always greener

I think that's the case.

What pisses me off about UK tales more than anything else are sales taxes. They are unfair because they hit lower earners disproportionately, and I think it makes the price of life ridiculous. Lower VAT and fuel duties would be my 'magic wand' moment.....

[MUSICMANN]

Here's a question for the heartless zealot conservatard idiot... are you OK with Wrongney's plan to raise YOUR taxes to give yet another tax break to the wealthy?


Romney hasn't even laid out his tax plan yet. You're basing this off of a Democratic backed/tax group that set models up and on conjecture came up with a hypothesis. Obama is going around using this as a straight up fact which it's not. If Obama gets his way, he will raise taxes on the rich and continue to keep moving the percentage up, until it runs the wealthy and business owners right out of the country. Once that happens, who do you think will have to carry the tax load, the middle class.

[Satan]

Fact is that the so-called "job creators" http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d095.gif aren't creating any jobs at all, and haven't created any actual living wage jobs in years.

Or - like Mittens himself - any jobs they have created have been in India, China, or some other third world sweatshop Heavenhole where they can pay $6.66/per day.

When tax rates on corporations and the rich were more reasonable, the rich put money back into their businesses to avoid paying taxes, but at least they were contributing to the economy because there were actual living wage jobs, and at least the folks working those jobs paid taxes.

Now the rich are sitting on the money, dodging the taxes, and the people working for $6.66/hr at WalMart don't make enough money to pay taxes, which means NOBODY is actually paying for the fucking government to function correctly.

And 30 years of results tells us that this ain't working.

[LoungeMachine]

Romney hasn't even laid out his tax plan yet. .

Sure he has.

It's the Ryan Plan

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Fact is that the so-called "job creators" http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/d095.gif aren't creating any jobs at all, and haven't created any actual living wage jobs in years.

.

The only true "job creators" is the middle class

:gulp:

[BITEYOASS]

Last time I checked, these tax cuts for the wealthy weren't helping to create jobs.

[Blaze]

Romney hasn't even laid out his tax plan yet. You're basing this off of a Democratic backed/tax group that set models up and on conjecture came up with a hypothesis. Obama is going around using this as a straight up fact which it's not. If Obama gets his way, he will raise taxes on the rich and continue to keep moving the percentage up, until it runs the wealthy and business owners right out of the country. Once that happens, who do you think will have to carry the tax load, the middle class.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

[Seshmeister]

I guess what I am looking at for brackets is that £43000 is a tad under $67000 CDN....40% is high.

I totaly understand higher incomes can take a higher tax threshold but....a jump like that attacks people that may have made a choice of being a police officer, fire fighter, nurse, miners ect...versus working at the lumber yard 9-5.

I just don't agree with it being so high.

These are Canada's Federal rates for 2012

•15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
•26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
•29% of taxable income over $132,406.

Much more palatable for my tastes...



Ahhh but you are not comparing like with like there.

The UK does not have local income tax which Canada has at what 10% on top of all those? In the UK 2/3rds of local government spending comes from the central(federal) government the other 3rd from a a local tax based on the price of your house which is usually around $3k a year.

Once you add it all up there isn't a huge difference between the UK, Canada and the US who are all quite low by Western standards.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

When I found this out I was quite surprised at how much Americans get ripped off because they don't get universal healthcare for their money, I guess because so much gets pissed away on defence.

[MUSICMANN]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf




If people would actually read and not assume, they would come to a very different conclusion on Romney's tax plan.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/08/romneys-tax-plan-is-a-winner/print

[bueno bob]

I make a fair amount of money, basically towards the upper end of the middle class spectrum - enough to raise a family of 5 people and 2 dogs on and have cash in the bank afterwards. Over the last ten years, I've had a few issues about the "dwindling economy"...I think I've been lucky...I've steadily raised my stature and upgraded everything over the last seven or eight years or so, slowly, but surely. Should I be taxed higher? Yeah, absolutely. Nobody has managed to raise any argument to me yet explaining why they shouldn't...but as far as THAT kind of a tax rate is concerned, I think the realms of 75% should be reserved for guys like the Koch brothers, the Murdochs, the Gates, professional athletes, Hollywood's A-Listers...sorry, call me crazy, but nobody needs hundreds of millions of dollars, let alone billions. There's just no logical reason to have or need that much money, and no one individual person should ever need that much money.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't know much about French politics, but I'm betting this is largely a faux political stance to assuage the socialist base there and probably won't ever happen...

[bueno bob]

The only true "job creators" is the middle class

:gulp:

If I'm not buying shit, then it's not being sold.
If it's not being sold, then it stops being viable (music stores, anyone?)
If it's not viable, then the people who sell it to me can't work.
I create jobs.

[binnie]

If I'm not buying shit, then it's not being sold.
If it's not being sold, then it stops being viable (music stores, anyone?)
If it's not viable, then he people who sell it to me can't work.
I create jobs.

And if you're not confident in the economy, you won't buy shit. And employers won't take the chance on expanding, and so on.....

Economics comes down to confidence more than almost anything else. Most of us don't really understand it, and the more the media and talking heads discuss recession, the longer we'll be in one.

[Satan]

If I'm not buying shit, then it's not being sold.
If it's not being sold, then it stops being viable (music stores, anyone?)
If it's not viable, then the people who sell it to me can't work.
I create jobs.

Exactly.....

and that's why "supply side economics" is, and always has been a goddamned lie. It's the demand that drives the REAL economy. Always has, always will.

[bueno bob]

Exactly.....

and that's why "supply side economics" is, and always has been a goddamned lie. It's the demand that drives the REAL economy. Always has, always will.

I also place a lot of the blame on the media itself. Like binnie mentioned, a lot of the "economy" (fickle bitch that she is) depends on what people THINK about it. A good economy doesn't really get people terribly excited, but a bad one does. Everybody slows down to look at a train wreck, right? The media tells you the economy is bad - you believe it, because they must be telling the truth. So you don't buy stuff - you save what money you have. You're not pumping anything into small or large business any more than you absolutely have to, so as a panic measure, those corporations start killing jobs, outsourcing overseas to cheaper labor and shutting down locations to save their own money...and that's where capitalism eventually fails. Unless the media decides to convince us the economy is better (which they probably won't), it's going to keep on this way.

That's why I try to tell people how great the economy is. I'm doing my part!

[WACF]

Ahhh but you are not comparing like with like there.

The UK does not have local income tax which Canada has at what 10% on top of all those? In the UK 2/3rds of local government spending comes from the central(federal) government the other 3rd from a a local tax based on the price of your house which is usually around $3k a year.

Once you add it all up there isn't a huge difference between the UK, Canada and the US who are all quite low by Western standards.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

When I found this out I was quite surprised at how much Americans get ripped off because they don't get universal healthcare for their money, I guess because so much gets pissed away on defence.

Gotcha...so then you do not have like a provincial tax?

Here every province taxes at a different level...the Feds then use Federal Transfer Payments to help even out the provinces...

[binnie]

No provincial taxes here.

We pay a council tax, which is determined by the value of your house. It is usually around £1000-£1500 per year.

[BigBadBrian]

Here's a question for the heartless zealot conservatard idiot... are you OK with Wrongney's plan to raise YOUR taxes to give yet another tax break to the wealthy?

Before you make jackass statements like the one above, Mr Shortbus, why don't you actually find out what his plan actually is instead of believing the lies of your boy's campaign TV ads?

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obama-lying.jpg

[BigBadBrian]

If a Devil remembers correctly, the US was doing rather well, economically speaking, when your Republican President Mr. Eisenhower had a tax rate of 91% on the rich. Built the Interstate Highway System, didn't he?

Your country is in desperate need of infrastructure building on that level right now, but the money isn't there to pay for it, because corporations and bastards like Willard Mittens Romney are not paying their fair share.

FORD, even you can't honestly believe taking 91% of a person's income, no matter how wealthy they are, is moral....right?

Besides, there were mega tax shelters back then...even more than there are now.

How else did the Kennedy Criminal Empire get so wealthy?

[BigBadBrian]

Sure he has.

It's the Ryan Plan

:gulp:

Go back to your village...idiot.

[BigBadBrian]

The only true "job creators" is the middle class

:gulp:

More idiocy. It figures. :gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Exactly.....

and that's why "supply side economics" is, and always has been a goddamned lie. It's the demand that drives the REAL economy. Always has, always will.

Not entirely. This is a mere oversimplification. FORD, doesn't that outfit you work for offer economics classes? If not, here's a good economics book for you:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31dAaWOs9cL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465022529/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344503388&sr=1-1&keywords=sowell+economics

[Seshmeister]

FORD, even you can't honestly believe taking 91% of a person's income, no matter how wealthy they are, is moral....right?


1 Tim. 6:17 Tell those who are rich not to be proud and not to trust in their money, which will soon be gone, but their pride and trust should be in the living God who always richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment. 1 Tim. 6:18 Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and should give happily to those in need, always being ready to share with others whatever God has given them. 1 Tim. 6:19 By doing this they will be storing up real treasure for themselves in heaven--it is the only safe investment for eternity! And they will be living a fruitful Christian life down here as well.

[ashstralia]

1 Tim. 6:17 ...

who are you, and what have you done with sesh?

[binnie]

^^^^^

True, but even that doesn't say 75%!

Plus, tax isn't the only way of being charitable. If I was ever in the £100mill club, I'd be pissed at those types of taxes (I'm guessing most people would be). That being said, I'd probably spend most of my time supporting charities etc. Maybe I lack imagination, but once you've got a big house, some cool cars and a holiday home, what the fuck else are you going to spend it on. I reckon I'd get more wellbeing from helping others than writing the chancellor a big cheque every year.

[Seshmeister]

Yeah but almost all of the rich people in the world don't think like that, and that's why they are rich.

Most give 1% or less - shallow cunts.

https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/SundayTimes%20Giving%20List%202012.pdf

[Seshmeister]

who are you, and what have you done with sesh?

Just showing the usual complete disconnect between the so called Christians and their superstition manual.

[ashstralia]

orright. carry on then.

are there any rich french people?

[Seshmeister]

There are rich people everywhere.

This tax thing is a a bit of a moot point because if you are wealthy you just spend a bit on avoiding paying tax.

It's only the people in the middle that pay tax.

[ashstralia]

bono and bob will fix it for the next generation. from their country estates and swiss chalets.

[Seshmeister]

Indeed.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/05/16/whys-bob-geldof-so-tetchy-about-his-tax-affairs/



Why’s Bob Geldof so tetchy about his tax affairs?

May 16 2012

The Week has a fascinating report, from which I borrow the following (edited) highlights:

BOB GELDOF lashed out at a reporter this week after he was asked about his tax arrangements, bizarrely demanding to know how many irrigation ditches her salary had built.

Geldof, who was in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa for the World Economic Forum, was interviewed by Times journalist Lucy Bannerman. Their encounter appeared to go very well at first, with Geldof talking about the huge changes that have taken place in Africa since Live Aid in 1985.

Then Bannerman asked him about his tax status. After confirming that he is a non-dom and can legally avoid income and capital gains tax on international earnings, Geldof laughed off the Sunday Times Rich List estimate of his worth (£32 million).

When pressed on how much tax he actually paid – the justification for the question being because his big idea, aid, can come from taxes – Geldof exploded.

“I pay all my taxes,” he shouted. “My time? Is that not a tax? I employ 500 people. I have created business for the UK government. I have given my ideas. I have given half my life to this.”

In a bizarre, heated exchange Geldof jabbed his finger repeatedly at Bannerman and demanded to know how many irrigation ditches she had built with her salary.

The tirade ended with Geldof yelling: “How dare you lecture me about morals”, before being led away by his entourage.

Actually Bob, lots of us would like to lecture you on your tax morals if you don’t pay in full what somebody else living in the UK might owe. I stress we don’t know whether you do or not, but you had the option of saying you do and got angry instead, which makes me think you’ve got something to get angry about.

And candidly, in that case Lucy Bannerman was absolutely right to question you as she did. Paying tax in the right place at the right time is a principle inextricably linked to solving the problems of poverty in Africa – and elsewhere. You can build as many ditches as you like. But candidly if you set an example by tax avoiding then you undo all your good works.

It’s your choice though Bob. You’ve no need to get angry. You can just either drop the non-dom claim or pay up instead. It’s not hard.

[ashstralia]

'how dare you lecture me about morals'!!!! from a luxury car.
withnail & i..
genius.

[BITEYOASS]

BigBadBrian should shut the fuck up since he is neither French, nor rich.

[Seshmeister]

Yeah that's the real irony, they've really done a job on him.

He's like a turkey pushing himself to the front of the queue at Xmas because he was told one day he may have a really nice dinner...