I’ll certainly be back.

Let me first correct some facts:
- Hollande decided to announce taxing at 75% above 1M€ BEFORE running for elections, not because of the associated added revenue. It was a political move to ensure the far-left support and to counter Sarkozy’s claim of supporting middle classes. It was a genial political move, and maybe the one he won the election with. You might say it’s immoral, quite rightly, you might say that it’s anti-economic, more difficult to prove since the base is so small and the exonerations will be so easy to set-up wth the right advice. But saying it was a dumb move to grap more money is just plain stupid. And by the way, this is also a mean to legitimate austerity measures to the other 99,999%
- Hollande did not say he hated “rich people”, but that he “did not liked” them. Which is different. And once, in a debate where he was cornered by a government minister arguing he would be putting pressure on middle class (you know, the same government who raised € 600Billions additional debt and lowered all taxes on super riches). So it is not a manifesto, more a communication error
- the 60% tax on capital gains you’re referring to will not be applied in most cases because of a vast choice of options for exceptions. By the way it was a proposal that was removed in 3 days, (because of media incomprehensions of details and Pigeons demagogic distortion) so you can’t say in the same move that Left is stubborn anti business and receptive to critics
- the pigeons move was built by amalgamating the law on capital gain (who touches a few hundred of people) and a minimal raise of social taxes for free-lance, who are more than a million, and hurled with the wolves to protect the interests of super rich people like you
- Of course not all entrepreneurs do agree with this tea-party movement, especially those who are not saving on social payments to get low-taxed capital gains
- The Avernes are right wing apparatchiks losing their jobs with the government and anonymously spitting their venom to the ones who have won
- Of course there is absolutely no reason why risky gains should be taxed lower than non-risky gains. It is the entrepreneur who should target higher ROI to compensate for risk. How amoral to ask for the State to take a part of this risk by lowering the tax. Typical french reaction of a french entrepreneur asking the state to help him…
- In the end, just remember that if the USA has get richer recently, the median wage has not increased in the last decades. Whereas in France it has. So all your claims that this is bad for the economy are ti be taken for what they are: just a pro domo plea in defense of your own interests

But I think Pigeons and you both miss the root cause of this situation.
My understanding is that French Gov is actually asking startups to pay taxes that large companies do not actually pay. In other words, startups are spoiled their expectations by large companies, which spend lots of money and energy to find out many artifices to avoid taxes.
You want to compare USA and France ? So just compare how Google or Apple do contribute to USA economy, in comparison of any CAC40 company, like Total (whose actual contribution is ZERO. They do not pay any taxes but one symbolic euro).

And btw, you are wrong when you state that Gov members do not have any knowledge or connection to business. Give it a closer look : most – if not all – of heading positions in CAC40 French companies are held by ex-members of Government. Or their very close friends. This is called oligarchy.

This is another difference between France and USA, if you dare the comparison. In USA, you can succeed though your hard work. In France, your success is intimately depending on your connections to oligarchy

In other words, a success story à la Facebook is unlikely to occur in France. The hardest position is France is to lead a small or middle enterprise. Not because of French laws and taxes. But because of politics impregnation in CAC40 closed community, private house.

Business angels are rare in France, as a direct consequence of this economic model.
. But because of t

Why shouldn’t capital gains be treated as income?

I look forward every Monday to the business insights you provide, however I was disappointed in this one.

There is much perhaps to bemoan for much of the state of the French approach to taxation. However, you’re opening opening hook of complaining about treating income from any source as the same for taxation purposes – to the justification at the end that that taxation should reflect risk is unbecoming of a man of your analytical insights.

There are some reasons for taxing capital income differently – mainly that capital is flighty – though it’s it’s an empirical issue as to whether it matters at the personal income level. As you suggest, perhaps it is an issue in a collection of closely located and integrated economies that are Europe. An approach that some governments have little choice over given the behavior of neighbours, but not one that necessarily reflects efficient approaches to raising revenue to pay for services provided by governments.

But the issue of risk?…No – investors are compensated on that front on the expected returns against the level of risk they choose. And on that basis, taxation on that income should not be treated any differently than income from other sources.

cheers

Army captain rushes into the quarters of his commanding officer… “Sir! Sir! The peasants are revolting!”… “Don’t be stupid boy, of course they are…”

Anyhoo… in this part of the world we call what you describe as the Carviar Left as Chardonnay Socialists… and fortunately we don’t have a scraping, grasping Government seeking to tax anything that moves… maybe windows will be next?