> Suppose it was easy for all of those high performers
A bit of a nitpick, but an important one. High performers and high earners are not the same thing.
When the Socialist government increased the marginal tax rate to 70% for millionaires, there was a huge capital flight and they lost revenue.
Moreover, this law was actually pretty fair : it was applied on marginal annual revenue over 1M so it meant that you had to be actually a multi-millionaire to be concerned.
Also, to call the French government socialist I'd completely laughable. Maybe in comparison to somewhere like Hungary, sure.
And I may be wrong about it, but I think that he increased taxes all across high-income brackets, not just the absolute top. And that certainly leads to a game-theoretical equilibrium.
To me (and I assume others) the following calculation comes into play:
- for what I pay in taxes, do I get a reasonably good public services back? I am not saying that I want to account for every euro, but I don't want to feel like I did in Brazil, paying 38% effective tax rate and receiving virtually nothing back in public services and still having to pay again for private healthcare, private education for the kids, etc...
- how much money do I have left in the bank after I paid all my expenses and taxes, i.e, what is my saving power?
If I had a 250k€/year brutto income, it wouldn't be too difficult to show that I would be better off in Switzerland (higher CoL, but way lower tax rate) or in Greece (similar tax rates, less return on public services, but way lower CoL). If Germany decided to increase the effective tax rate, this threshold would go down significantly.
I was more responding to that idea: everything is more expensive, and everyone is making a lot less (not just the top quintile). Seems like a bad trade, but that's just my $0.02
[0] https://www.traderjoes.com/home/products/pdp/parmigiano-regg... [1] https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/sainsburys-parmi...
No shit, it’s literally an import from Europe. It’s like comparing California wine prices in Las Vegas vs in Sydney.
> veg. I helped a friend do his grocery shopping in a trader joes
Trader Joe’s is not a grocery store for middle class people. It’s a high end convenience store. Unless you’re really well-off, you only buy a few select items from there occasionally.
If you want to see prices the working/middle class pays, look at the prices at Walmart.
Also, you want to compare the quality of products and you can not base yourself on Walmart for that. The average American eats horribly compared to the European counterpart.
Not anything of quality. Most good wines in California that aren’t nasty blends are California wines at $10/bottle range.
> want to compare the quality of products and you can not base yourself on Walmart for that.
Yes you can. The milks, meats, vegetables, and fruits are fine quality-wise. “Walmart == bad quality” is a meme based on their cheap home goods. The food is fine.
> The average American eats horribly compared to the European counterpart.
Having lives in both places (uk, France, and Italy), the supermarkets in the US are vastly superior. The only reason an American would eat worse is if they chose frozen meals, snacks, or just straight up fast food over what’s in the grocery store.
European food costs more and is of more limited variety. The quality is consistently decent though.
The people who I'm comparing myself to in the US strive to buy imported European food, so that's the comparison I'm going to end up making.
Even basic things like fresh vegetables and fresh meat far more expensive than they are in supermarkets here.
That’s a dumb comparison though. Americans generally eat American cuisine. It’s just as dumb as comparing to imported Chinese food.