Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Wealthy Leaving France to Belgium, Avoid New Taxes

by James Denison / December 16, 2012 3:06 AM PST
Good for him.

"The "Cyrano de Bergerac" star recently bought a
house in Nechin, a Belgian village a short walk from the border with
France, where 27 percent of residents are French nationals, and put up
his sumptuous Parisian home up for sale.Depardieu,
who has also inquired about procedures for acquiring Belgian residency,
said he was handing in his passport and social security card. "
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Wealthy Leaving France to Belgium, Avoid New Taxes
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Wealthy Leaving France to Belgium, Avoid New Taxes
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Good for Belgium also.
by Kees_B Forum moderator / December 16, 2012 3:15 AM PST

Belgium needs the tax he'll pay there.

Gerard Depardieu (that's the actor) reportedly said he already paid 145 million euro (that's 200 million dollar) taxes in France in his life. So, because the taxes were well below 100%) I think he kept enough for himself to live comfortably. Don't you think it's somewhat greedy to want still more?


Collapse -
France has increased
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 3:23 AM PST
In reply to: Good for Belgium also.

the taxes to 75%......would you work for a quarter of every dollar? California just increased their State tax to 13%....add to that the Obamacare taxes (23 or more of them as of Jan 1), the Federal income tax, the State sales tax, the county/city tax, etc., it's no wonder so many of the wealthy in that state and businesses are all leaving in droves.

Collapse -
RE: would you work for a quarter of every dollar?
by JP Bill / December 16, 2012 3:26 AM PST
In reply to: France has increased

Work a non-union job...you'll keep every penny you earn.

You won't make enough to pay taxes.

Collapse -
France wouldn't have to
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 4:00 AM PST

take 75 cents out of every dollar of working people if they did away with the freebies......the previous President (Zarkoze) was doing away with many of them, and Hollande (new Prez) promised to reinstate them all if elected. People voted for the freebies......soon there won't be enough people left in the country to pay for them. Sound familiar?

Collapse -
That's okay Toni, they don't. It's a progressive tax system
by Ziks511 / December 16, 2012 6:23 PM PST

Even Depardieu doesn't actually pay 75%. He pays 20% on the first segment of his income, and then it increases in steps until the final segment is taxed at 75%.


Collapse -
Would you ...
by Kees_B Forum moderator / December 16, 2012 4:08 AM PST
In reply to: France has increased

work, say, 9 months for M$ 10 if you could keep M$ 2.5? Or would you prefer tp do nothing and earn $0? Your choice, of course, but I know what I would choose.

For Obamacare, I read in http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/ that a 3-person family with an income of $100.000 will pay a tax of $2,025 and that it will never be higher than $9,459. That's very far from the 23% you mention (and becomes a smaller and smaller percentage if you earn more and more, because of that $9,459 maximum).
It even will be zero if you take an insurance, and never be more than that. So, in effect, your average costs are zero, since insurance is a zero-sum game (on the average, you pay what you use).


Collapse -
That's 23 new taxes
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 5:03 AM PST
In reply to: Would you ...

not 23%........whole new ballgame.......and it will definitely affect the middle class that he campaigned on that he was 'protecting' from that rich Romney.

If I had earned and invested my money into somethings that would give me more money than my paycheck, I shouldn't be penalized by my government for risking what belonged to me in the first place. While I have a responsibility to pay taxes to the Federal government to PROTECT this nation, I feel the majority of my tax burden should be going to the state I live in instead since my state's officials know better than some Fed politician what my state needs.

Collapse -
RE: risking what belonged to me in the first place
by JP Bill / December 16, 2012 5:55 AM PST
In reply to: That's 23 new taxes

When you invest.....you risk...unless you're James.

Collapse -
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 7:25 AM PST

so IF I'm risking my own money, the government should have no authority to take any additional taxes (or at the most, they should only be 'entitled' to $3000) on my new found investment returns.......since by IRS law, I can only deduct the maximum of $3000 as a loss.


Collapse -
So you believe that all capital gains
by Roger NC / December 16, 2012 8:10 AM PST
In reply to: Right....

should be tax free?

Perhaps not even accounted for and reported?

Not even considered if the individual gets some benefits or aid from some government entity?

Collapse -
(NT) You can carry excess of $30K over you know.
by Roger NC / December 16, 2012 8:16 AM PST
In reply to: Right....
Collapse -
If any tax on capital gains
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 8:31 AM PST

is levied it should be by the state the corporation exists in and not by the Feds. Corporations and companies risk private monies, most of the time, via investors or personally in order to get started, and many go out of business within the first six to twelve months....but the losses are limited so why should the profits be taxed for anything more than the limitations of the losses?

As for the $30K carried over......that's gone if the owner dies before it's all carried over year by year...it can't be used by the estate any longer, and then the heirs to the estate get hit with the estate tax. If there is ANY greed involved, it's by the Federal government.

Collapse -
So those that make a living on the stock market
by Roger NC / December 16, 2012 9:24 AM PST

should pay no federal income tax?

What happen to everyone should have skin in the game?

I'm not sure about the equity of it, but I've accepted the idea of a lower tax on capital gains, but no tax?

And you missed a bigger inequity, you pay capital gains on a home sale, but as I recall you get nada for a capital loss on your home.

Re the state a corporations exists in, come on, corporations put one office building in the state or country now that has the best reguations for them, even if they make almost nothing in that state. Why do you think so many large corporations, esp banks, are incorporated in Delaware while doing their business all over the US, with only the smallest percentage of it occuring in Deaware?

You happy with a corporation that dominates an industry in your state only paying taxes in Delaware? Or would you actually in effect do away with national and international corporations? Would you require business to separate their books by states, income and outgo? profit and loss by state, not by company?

Collapse -
I believe
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 6:41 PM PST

the Feds are only entitled to a tax that secures our country since that is actually the only requirement of the Federal government according to the Constitution. All other taxes levied should be at a state level, and if that means that companies who have branches all over the US, such as banks and auto makers need to keep separate books for each state, so be it. If franchises work that way, why not? I think it would far easier for large corporations to have their profit/loss figures separated by states in order to spot troubled areas faster and make changes than doing it all through one corporate office. That would work out better for each state's income as well. As it is now, they already divide that branch's payroll easily (a branch is located in NC, but some employees live in VA across the border so different tax rates are deducted and reported).

As for capital gains on your home.....the only way to reduce the gains tax when you sell is to keep all receipts for improvements (new roof, new addition, new carpeting, etc) that are permanent to the home and deduct them from the difference between your original purchase price and your sale price. That lowers your capital gains obligation. I personally think it's ridiculous that a home owner pays not only the additional real estate taxes every year as the property value increases, but then gets hit by the Feds at the end when the house goes up for sale or into an estate. The Feds had nothing to do with me buying the place and maintaining it, struggling to make the payments and insurance/real estate taxes, etc. but can step in and claim a chunk of it later on. It wasn't on Federal lands so how do they have the right to stake a claim on it?

As for people making a living off playing the stock market.........did the Feds give that person the money to play with in the first place? If not, they have no right to what I personally have risked.......or at least no more than the $3000 they would let me claim as a loss. Do the Feds treat those losses on your tax form the same as the gambling losses if you went to Vegas and lost your money? No......they treat stock market risks as if it were 'earned income' for the most part.

Collapse -
I'm sorry, Toni, but you're so wrong. There has long been
by Ziks511 / December 16, 2012 7:33 PM PST
In reply to: I believe

There has long been taxation in excess of the 1798 minimum which you want to return to. And since it has all been legislated properly, and challenges have been turned away by the Supreme Court since the 20's.

What you read in your Tea Party screeds is not the truth, it is the extreme opinion of a small extremist group who, were they to take power, would quickly reverse themselves in order to govern without the people rising up to force them from office.

Do you really think that the American public would tolerate the gutting of Social Security? There's absolutely no chance they would. Bush tried, and couldn't get anywhere, and he didn't push it because opposition was clearly so enormous. You think by the end of Obama's term they'll countenance the reversal of Affordable Health Care, what you call Obamacare? There's no chance of that either. Obamacare is the first step on the way to European style Comprehensive Health Care encompassing everyone and the considerable reduction of for-profit hospitals, and the Insurance Industry's involvement in dicatating Health Care. I expect a two tiered system like that in Britain, with Private Care for those who can afford it, or for people employed by companies who offer extra Insurance to cover it, for the better paid employees.


Collapse -
My great grandfather
by James Denison / December 17, 2012 4:46 AM PST

....didn't get any pension from the federal govt, nor was social security around till almost 20 years after he died, but he got a pension from the state of Florida for his service in the Confederate Army.

Collapse -
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 6:45 PM PST

My son-in-law just came back from Vegas last week.......he goes every year with a large group of people he works with. He won $12,000....the casino cut him a check with a 1099 form for tax purposes. He then proceeded to lose half of it back to the casino (oh well)....did the casino give him another receipt showing his losses for the same tax purposes? Nope.....so how does he now prove he had losses in order to claim them? The Federal government has rigged the game always in their favor and it doesn't matter if you are risking your own money. They only see it as money they can tap and take and then spend.

Collapse -
RE: so how does he now prove he had losses
by JP Bill / December 16, 2012 7:36 PM PST
In reply to: Gambling

so how does he now prove he had losses in order to claim them?

You may deduct gambling losses only if you itemize deductions. However, the amount of losses you deduct may not be more than the amount of gambling income reported on your return. Claim your gambling losses on Form 1040, Schedule A, as a miscellaneous itemized deduction that is not subject to the 2% limit.

It is important to keep an accurate diary or similar record of your gambling winnings and losses. To deduct your losses, you must be able to provide receipts, tickets, statements or other records that show the amount of both your winnings and losses.

Document Your Deduction!

A running diary of the dates he gambled, the amounts wagered, amounts won, and any expenses incurred. You don't need the casino or racetrack to sign off on the record you keep, you just need to document how much you bet and the payouts you received.

If betting on the lottery is your thing, then hold on to your ticket stubs. The court is very clear that the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to demonstrate s/he sustained any losses.

Provided you've kept good records, you can deduct your gambling losses. But you don't do this by subtracting them from the total amount of your winnings. Instead, they are considered a "Miscellaneous Itemized Deduction." This means that your gambling losses won't reduce your tax bill unless they, and the other items you list under "Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions" (such as tax return preparation fees and home office expenses) add up to more than 2% of your Adjusted Gross Income.

Furthermore, you can only deduct losses up to the amount of your winnings- you can't deduct losses over and above the amount you win. For instance, if your total gambling winnings amount to $2000 and your losses add up to $2,500, the maximum amount you can list as a Miscellaneous Itemized Deduction is $2,000.

Collapse -
So you pay taxes
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 10:43 PM PST

on the income you won, but can only claim losses up to that same equal amount even if you lost more than you won. How is that 'fair share'?

And slot machines, roulette tables, card tables, etc. don't have 'receipts' that you can document. Try keeping track at a card table of your bets...wins and losses....on a calculator or paper/pencil and you'll get hauled in for 'card counting' suspicions.

When I used to play bingo at a bricks and mortar site, they would also sell 'scratch off' tickets as a 'side'........many times, I would see women who won big at bingo itself or on those scratch tickets, and have a trash bag with them that they would put all their losing scratch tickets into and if they didn't feel they had enough to cover the win, they would actually go to the trash barrels and grab out hundreds more to put into their bags (losing tickets from other buyers), so they could then file their taxes, claim the winnings but also claim 'their' losses. You don't have that ability in a casino to 'snake' the system, but you also don't have the ability to actually record legit losses without having casino security all over you faster than lightning hits.

It makes no sense to me that the Feds have the ability to tax your personal risk, including a home you purchase. Nor does it make sense to me that a vehicle bought new has a state sales tax on it, but also has the sales tax attached to it again when you sell it. A vehicle can change hands many times during its lifetime, and the State taxes it every single time over and over.....and then the county every year can also charge a 'personal property tax' on that vehicle. You pay a fee for a yard sale permit and now some areas are actually making you collect sales tax on the used items you already paid a sales tax on when you purchased it new and are now paying a sales tax on something you sell or if you purchase something used from someone else's yard sale. You are charged a sales tax on used items when you purchase them in a consignment store, a Goodwill, a Salvation Army, etc.

When does the taxing end? Cuz it doesn't even end when you die.....it just means your heirs have to pay it now.

Collapse -
RE: When does the taxing end?
by JP Bill / December 16, 2012 11:20 PM PST

As far as winnings while gambling goes...it ends when you move to Canada...No taxes on winnings up here.

Collapse -
(NT) You're not, and taxation isn't a penalty.
by Ziks511 / December 16, 2012 6:25 PM PST
In reply to: That's 23 new taxes
Collapse -
You're changing the subject.
by Kees_B Forum moderator / December 16, 2012 6:36 PM PST
In reply to: That's 23 new taxes

There's nothing to indicate that Depardieu earned most of of the income he paid 145 million of taxes from, from an investment, let alone a risky investment. My guess is that most of it was from a paycheck for doing his acting work.

So let me repeat the question you asked me (and I answered) and I asked you (and you didn't answer): ".....would you work for a quarter of every dollar?" In other words: If you would get offered M$ 10 for 9 months work (acting in a movie), under the condition that you could keep M$2.5 for yourself and had to pay M$ 7.5 to the state, would you accept that offer or prefer to stay home and earn $0?


Collapse -
I would change the offer
by TONI H / December 16, 2012 7:07 PM PST

If I knew the contract was going to 'offer' me $10M but actually only 'pay' me $2.5, I would instead tell them to offer me the pay in yearly increments that would keep my tax obligation to a minimum....spread the wealth by spreading the payments. Treat me like a credit card payment. NO government is worth 75% of MY income......and if I couldn't make that deal, I would move to a country that is more tax friendly, take the offer, and commute to the job site and back home.

Collapse -
(NT) a wise answer.
by James Denison / December 17, 2012 4:48 AM PST
Collapse -
Hello, Kees. When you can take a break from
by drpruner / December 21, 2012 11:34 AM PST

disputations, can you tell me how the French/Flemish thing is going? I notice there was finally a government formed. There has been sectarian violence in the past; I hope it doesn't start again.

Collapse -
(NT) I remember when the top tax rate was 91%
by Diana Forum moderator / December 16, 2012 5:15 AM PST
In reply to: France has increased
Collapse -
(NT) In the 50's, America's economically most successful decade.
by Ziks511 / December 16, 2012 7:36 PM PST
Collapse -
and one in which
by James Denison / December 17, 2012 4:50 AM PST

govt power grew exponentially, as the federal govt was reluctant after the war to give power back to the states it had enjoyed during the war. Instead those funds were turned against the ones who paid it in ill advised social engineering projects, many which we still labor to pay for today.

Collapse -
Had to be making over 3 million a year in '50s dollars
by Steven Haninger / December 16, 2012 7:49 PM PST

for the premium rate and something over 400000 for the 80 or so % rate. I don't know what those numbers equate to in relation to today's higher earners but there were not too many paying those rates in the '50s.

Collapse -
(NT) You mean the top 1%?
by Diana Forum moderator / December 18, 2012 9:31 PM PST
Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Free trip to the Grand Prix

Don't miss your chance to win a trip to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco for you and a plus-one.