Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tax Us More, say Wealthy Europeans
German group latest to volunteer for higher contributions, saying country could raise €100bn in two years with a 5% wealth tax
First it was Warren Buffett announcing that he and his chums had been "coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress".
Ferrari chairman Luca di Montezemolo has said it is only right that the rich contribute more. (Photograph: Thomas Lohnes/AFP/Getty Images) Then Liliane Bettencourt, France's richest woman, who was at the centre of a tax scandal last year, signed a letter along with 15 other billionaires begging to make a special contribution to the treasury to help drag France out of the financial crisis.
Even an Italian got in the action, with the boss of Ferrari saying that as he was rich, it was only "right" that he stump up more cash.
Now, as both France and Spain consider introducing a wealth tax, a group of 50 rich Germans have joined the "tax me harder" movement by renewing their open call to Angela Merkel to "stop the gap between rich and poor getting even bigger".
The German group, Vermögende für eine Vermögensabgabe (The Wealthy for a Capital Levy) is the latest manifestation of a feeling among some well-off individuals that the spare cash in their bank accounts might be able to ease, if not solve, the financial crises threatening to cripple their countries.
"None of us are in Buffett's or Bettencourt's league," said the founder, Dieter Lehmkuhl, a retired doctor with assets of €1.5m (£1.3m). "We're a broad church – teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs. Most of our wealth is inherited. But we have more money than we need."
The group's manifesto claims Germany could raise €100bn (£88.5bn) if the richest paid a 5% wealth tax for two years.
On Monday, Lehmkuhl said he was renewing his call, first issued two years ago, to Merkel's government to rethink its taxation policies. Currently the richest Germans are taxed a maximum of 42%. The previous chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, lowered the top tax rate from the 53% ceiling set by his predecessor, Helmut Kohl.
"I would say to Merkel that the answer to sorting out Germany's financial problems, our public debt, is not to bring in cuts, which will disproportionately hit poorer people, but to tax the wealthy more," said Lehmkuhl. "We are always hearing about savings packages, but never tax rises. Yet tax increases are a way out of this mess. That's where the money is: rich people.
"Something needs to be done to stop the gap between rich and poor getting even bigger."
Under his group's plans, the new tax would only affect individuals with more than €500,000 in capital wealth. All money over that ceiling would initially be taxed at 5% for the first two years and thereafter at 1% or more.
Last week in France Nicolas Sarkozy proposed a similar idea: a temporary tax on the very rich. This would arrive in the form of an "exceptional contribution" of 3% on taxable earnings for those earning above €500,000. It will probably only last until 2013.
The initiative has been attacked as an empty stunt before it has even kicked in – even by some in his own party. The left deemed it a smokescreen to hide the fact that Sarkozy has given away billions of euros in tax breaks to the rich while this new measure will yield only €200m. Chantal Brunel, an MP for Sarkozy's own ruling rightwing UMP party, said that there must be higher permanent tax levels for "big fortunes" because "the rich must participate more".
In Italy too, one of the country's richest citizens has come forward to offer to pay more tax – but only if Silvio Berlusconi's government embarks on a wide-ranging programme of neo-liberal reform.
Luca di Montezemolo, the multimillionaire Ferrari chairman, made his offer in an interview with the centre-left daily La Repubblica earlier this month.
Montezemolo, 63, who has long been suspected of harbouring political ambitions, said he wanted to see the government raise cash by means of property sales and reductions in the perks of Italy's pampered politicians. "Then, but only then, a contribution on the part of members of the public is needed," he said. "You have to begin by asking it of those who have most, because it is scandalous that it should be asked of the middle class."
He said that even before the markets were swept this month by concern over Italy's giant public debt, he had proposed a surtax on annual incomes of between €5m and €10m. But it had met with a "deafening silence".
In Spain, the Socialist government is reported to be considering the reintroduction of a wealth tax scrapped just three years ago. Experts say the tax on assets, not including a first residence, would produce upwards of €1bn of revenue from just 50,000 rich individuals. Finance minister Elena Salgado is on record as saying she regrets the demise of the tax.
Alfredo Pérez Rublacaba, the new Socialist candidate for prime minister at the 20 November general election in Spain, has already pledged to hike taxes on the rich if elected.
In the US, Buffett has been mocked for his admission in the New York Timesthis month that he felt bad about only paying $6.9m in tax last year, 17.4% of his taxable income, while his staff paid an average of 36%.
He suggested income and investment tax rates should be raised on those making more than $1m in taxable income– 0.2% of people who filed tax returns in 2009. The article attracted fierce criticism. "Warren Buffett, hypocrite," was the headline in the New York Post. "He cares more about shilling for President Obama – who's practically made socking 'millionaires and billionaires' his re-election theme song – than about kicking in more himself," the paper said.
Harvey Golub, former chief executive of American Express, told the Wall Street Journal: "Before you 'ask' for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2tn you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely."
Additional reporting by Angelique Chrisafis, John Hooper, Giles Tremlett and Dominic Rushe
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



17 Comments so far
Show AllWell, that just proves they're all communists. Those ebil rich people who don't toe the plutocrat lines....
/nuttyness
Of course there will be those who say, why not just give the money to the state if you think you have too much of it?
Really the answer to that is that 'donations' to the state by living people can be seen to be bribes. If I gave the government of a nation money out of the 'goodness' of my heart you can be sure that I'd be expecting something in return for that money. I think that's the reason that these rich people are starting to speak out and demand higher taxes. Good for them.
good analysis
The Right Neo Fasisct Corporations won't like that....
Remember Maggie Thatchers policy in the 80's ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whe I read this kind of stuff from Europeans (and presumably east Asian CEOs feel similarly), it becomes even more apparent that the western hemisphere, even Canada to a good extent, suffers a terrible cultural affliction. It is not suprising that the heritage of savagely robbing two continents from its native people would breed a class of wealth and power seekers with absolutely no sense of responsibility to their fellow citizens. Ayn Rand and Freidman sure found fertile ground for their nutty notions here.
well said
This probably explains the influx of immigration to the Americas. The well-connected folks in the old country will continue to get theirs.
note: The upwardly mobile in the new world order now begin as community organizers.
"Tax us more" - Let's start by taxing them at all. It is time to tax capital itself. Income tax rates don't matter. Income has a way of morphing into capital without ever being taxed - even at death. If we don't start taxing capital itself the peoples of the world will become chattel. That means you. The two tenths of one percentile will become gods.
From History: In Machiavelli's "History of Florence," the "Catasto" was introduced in 1427. The "Catasto" was a progressive tax. The tax was, (Quote from "History of Florence"), "...equalized according to the means of each citizen..." Immovable and movable property was assessed and taxed at a fixed rate. The wealthy were offended by the new tax. Of the wealthy class, Giovanni de' Medici alone declared himself in favor of the tax.
What brought about the "Catasto" was that, (Quote from "History of Florence"), "The war had continued from 1422 to 1427, and the citizens of Florence were so wearied of the taxes that had been imposed during that time, that they resolved to revise them, preparatory to their amelioration."
(Quote from "History of Florence"): "...The real grievance had not been mentioned: for those who were offended with the Catasto, regretted they could no longer involve the city in all the difficulties of war without injury to themselves, now that they had to contribute like the rest; and that if this law had then been in force they would not have gone to war with King Ladislaus, or the Duke of Filippo, both which enterprises had been not through necessity, but to impoverish the citizens."
As long as the two tenths of one percentile among us, like Warren, can shelter their income and "involve this country in all the difficulties of war without injury to themselves", "We the People" will be poor. As long as people like Warren are allowed to report less than one tenth of one percent as the income on a $45 billion dollar investment portfolio they have no skin in the game and can only profit by foreign adventurism.
From History: In the final days of the Roman Republic at the conclusion of their civil wars. Caesar tried to implement agrarian reforms. He was murdered and empire was born shortly there after. The oligarchy refused to give up any of their accumulated wealth and power. The Republic fell. The Roman people lost their freedom.
[For the history buff: It is interesting to note that Rome like Athens was a bourgeois democracy. The people elected the children of this wealthy person vs that wealthy person to their senate. Just like today. In 1400's Florence, the people had direct democracy and had a choice between freedom, real democracy, and a prince to rule them. The Catasto was voted in by the people and the wealthy could do nothing about it. Florence had an actual democracy. Democracy is feared by the super wealthy. What if the people just up and one day voted their wealth away? War is the usual result.]
It would appear as if some of the wealthy whom actually know what 'noblesse oblige' means and are not blinded by adherence to the faith of Ayn Rand have finally decided to put some of their more sociopath like fellows on the spot. Thus it not surprising that Rupert Murdoch press mouthpieces like the New York Post is in full counter-attack mode. What the narrow-visioned elite narcissists fail to perceive is that the wealthy Europeans (along with Warren Buffet) see the big picture: Third World style wealth inequity and tax structures are recipes for social disaster as they are propped up by brittle regimes, and when they do down (and history has shown that no regime lasts forever, and as technology advances, so too does the pace of history), the fallout is bloody and indiscriminate. Societies with more equal wealth distribution tend be more socially and economically elastic and much less prone to violent wrenching revolutions where the 'peasants are out with their pitchforks' & 'aristocrats are being guillotined in the town square.'
"and as technology advances, so too does the pace of history..."
I see very little evidence to support this notion. The remarkable and rather depressing thing about modern times since my childhood is how static they have been. Over the last 40 years, since the early 1970's, after a bit of progress, social progress has been either static or undergoing a gradual retreat, albeit more rapidly in the past few years. Compare this to any other 40-50 year period in the past few hundred years. from 1820 to 1865, the abolition of slavery went from from the nutty notion of a few wild eyed idealists to fully accelted reality. From 1890 to 1935, the workers struggle to organize and bargain collectively for decent pay and working conditons went from brutal suppression to fully protected by law. In Europe, from 1789 to 1830, several european nations went from absolute monarchy by divine right to constitutional, democratic rule...
And technologically, nothing has changed in the monumental ways that it did over other 40 year periods. Aside from the gadgets in people pockets and on desks, little has changed in the past 40 years compared to other 40 year periods, when aviation, the automobile, spacecraft, energy production, electrification, suburbanization, compeltely changed (often not for the better) the very landscape and skies.
If one interprets the pace of history as it moving along forward, then no, technology has not; but that is a narrow selective picking of the statement in only one aspect is flawed reasoning. 'The pace of history' reflects how fast events move along, and though you poo-poo computer technology, it has revolutionized life ways in a manner inconceivable 15 years ago.
Warren Buffet and his ilk haven't done JACK SHIT to help, in ANY significant way, this horrible, festering, godforsaken country, America. It is they who ARE the problem: Covetous, Greedy, Stingy, Tight-fisted, Rapacious PRIMATES.
We are a working class family and no one has to tax us more, or ask us to help those in need.
These rich folks are so full of crap.
Just open their eyes to what's around them- they will find plenty of ways to give- to world or local causes- pay better to staff in their employ (do they have benefits?), tip generously those who wait on them. If they really want to contribute, it's not rocket science.
is this Nader's novel come to life?
Here is David McGraw's Open Letter to Warren Buffet, FYI:
By David DeGraw
Dear Warren,
If you are truly sick and tired of the “mega-rich” being “coddled” by a “billionaire-friendly Congress,” as you said in your recent NY Times editorial, why don’t you back up your words with some real action and put your money where your mouth is?
As you well know, though you may not admit it publicly, there is a system of political bribery in place that allows the “mega-rich” to control our political process, thus creating the “billionaire-friendly Congress” you claim to be against. Through campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door the “mega-rich” are able to dominate and corrupt government policy.
If you are serious about what you say, it seems obvious that you would financially support politicians and organizations that seek to change these government rigging processes. Saying that you want to be taxed more by a paid off government, without changing the system that allows this corruption in the first place, sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me.
While you are at it, if you truly believe in free market competition, you must surely want to break up the “too big to fail” banks that have now rigged your beloved “free market.” Clearly, you can’t have free market competition when a few global financial institutions have consolidated so much wealth and power that they can crash the economy and then get paid off politicians and the Federal Reserve to throw trillions of dollars at a select few and rig the “laws” and “regulations” in their favor. That’s clearly not a free market based on fair competition. Once again, this a symptom of the system of political bribery.
So Warren, what do you think? Are you going to support efforts to make these urgently needed changes, or are you just making meaningless statements to ease your guilty conscience?
If you are truly concerned about the future of America, you should be fighting on these fronts.
I sincerely hope you are a man of your word.
If you would like to discuss these issues further or publicly debate them, please have your people get in touch with me.
Thank you for your time,
David DeGraw
Email: David[@]AmpedStatus[.]com
Bingo.
We have a winner.