> 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.