PSG wage bill

[cookster]

Guys when you report stories try to check right cause the dailyshit and most medias spread lies and bullshit before any checking !!!!!!

This tax will be applied fonly or 2 years.

the clubs who pay the tax not the players

PSG is the most affected club by the tax

It doesn't mean the club will pay 75% of any +1 salary since there is a limitation related to turnover so overall PSG will pay something like extra 20 m€ in 2 years it will be arround 40€

At the moment the league and other clubs are protesting against it but now it passed in parliament.

PSG is keeping quiet, since QATAR has many business and affairs in France and both countries have a sort of special agreement concerning tax, so qatari citizens and investors pay less taxes than others...

Beside that PSG is doing everything possible to increase the Club revenue, their objectif as stated is to reach 500 m€ revenue by 2015 or 2016

So a Qatari citizen pays less tax than a French, in France?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Guys when you report stories try to check right cause the dailyshit and most medias spread lies and bullshit before any checking !!!!!!

This tax will be applied fonly or 2 years.

the clubs who pay the tax not the players

PSG is the most affected club by the tax

It doesn't mean the club will pay 75% of any +1 salary since there is a limitation related to turnover so overall PSG will pay something like extra 20 m€ in 2 years it will be arround 40€

At the moment the league and other clubs are protesting against it but now it passed in parliament.

PSG is keeping quiet, since QATAR has many business and affairs in France and both countries have a sort of special agreement concerning tax, so qatari citizens and investors pay less taxes than others...

Beside that PSG is doing everything possible to increase the Club revenue, their objectif as stated is to reach 500 m€ revenue by 2015 or 2016

Even the rags with there money making power do not turn over 500 miillon a year unless the owners pull of another over priced shady sponsorship I cannot see that happening

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2013/07/21/why-paris-saint-germains-financial-statements-qualify-as-fiction/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmaho ... s-fiction/</a>

 

[momo88]

Thiago Silva anyone?

No sir he get arround 12m€ (NET) a year and even if this tax is 99 % he will still get his salary and the club who will pay the tax check what i stated before.

only employees who pay the tax and there are limitations its more complex than the "dailylie" presented

Ps: Im not not saying im ok with it, but just saying the medias should tell the whole story instead of making bubble buzz<br /><br />-- Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:37 pm --<br /><br />

You guys realize that the tax don't really affect players directly right ?

It's the clubs that will pay it and it can't be more than 5% of a club total income. Some people seems to have totally miss that point when they see psg players leaving...

PSG will have to pay 20m/year and that's all. The reality is that PSG is surely the only club in france(well, with monaco obviously) that don't give a fuck about this tax. 20m is peanuts for them. Nike just extended their contrat with them from 5m to 25-30m/y. Here you go 75% tax.

OM, Lyon, Lille and all club with some ambitions in France are the only teams affected by this tax.

Spot on !! right

Monaco will not pay a penny

 

[OmFever]

Are you saying that no matter how many players PSG have, they have a ceiling of 20m Euros contributable towards the taxman?

If so that's FFP fucked in an instant because sure to enforce it, every club across Europe has to play by the same rates/rules.

It's what they'll have to add to the current tax bill. The wages tax affected by the 75% rule can't exceed more than 5% of the club total income. (400+m for PSG)

 

[momo88]

Guys when you report stories try to check right cause the dailyshit and most medias spread lies and bullshit before any checking !!!!!!

This tax will be applied fonly or 2 years.

the clubs who pay the tax not the players

PSG is the most affected club by the tax

It doesn't mean the club will pay 75% of any +1 salary since there is a limitation related to turnover so overall PSG will pay something like extra 20 m€ in 2 years it will be arround 40€

At the moment the league and other clubs are protesting against it but now it passed in parliament.

PSG is keeping quiet, since QATAR has many business and affairs in France and both countries have a sort of special agreement concerning tax, so qatari citizens and investors pay less taxes than others...

Beside that PSG is doing everything possible to increase the Club revenue, their objectif as stated is to reach 500 m€ revenue by 2015 or 2016

So a Qatari citizen pays less tax than a French, in France?

well i didn't formulate right , Qatar public companies, Qatar royal family who invest in France don't pay any penny tax on gain (only Kuwait have similar advantage in France) + Qatari citizen don't pay what is called ISF here in France (Fortune Tax)

 

[bluemoondays]

Reading some of these posts, seems too many people have been brainwashed by Tories. Which is understandable, repeat something long enough, people will start believing it is true.

The top rate of tax in france isn't for the regular folk, it is for RICH people. That revenue generated by taxing people who can EASILY AFFORD to be taxed heavily goes into public services that will benefit society as a whole.

Its so sad actually where the culture has turned into "do something against the majority, it is expected, but do something against the few well off, well how fucking dare you".

Although as pointed out the very rich just fuck off and you then get 75% of fuck all

I don't think he's thought this through.

I'm sure they had a similar level of tax in UK in the 70's. What happened was every billionaire, most millionaires and pretty much every celebrity on a decent wedge left UK to go and pay tax at a lower rate in another country or they moved en masse to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. So, instead of getting 50% of someone's salary the government ended up with 0%. At the time it was labelled as the 'brain drain' on UK.

Nowadays, with the internet, high speed broadband, video-conferencing, cheap air flights etc. people on these big wages (and some not so big) can pretty much live where they like. A friend of mine moved to Cyprus where the top rate of tax is something like 10% - not sure if he got caught in their banking fallout though :). Another person I know moved to Spain, he just catches a flight from near Barcelona when he has to be in for meetings. I work from home 90% of the time now, handling everything by email, conference calls and very infrequent (1-2 days/month) trips to an office. I could easily go to live in Spain or some other European country with a decent airport nearby and could probably get to London where most of my meetings are in less time (or similar) than it currently takes me (nearly 4 hours). I've lived and worked in 3-4 different countries but I happen to like where I live and for family reasons can't move abroad, although I may consider it in a few years........

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Although as pointed out the very rich just fuck off and you then get 75% of fuck all

I don't think he's thought this through.

I'm sure they had a similar level of tax in UK in the 70's. What happened was every billionaire, most millionaires and pretty much every celebrity on a decent wedge left UK to go and pay tax at a lower rate in another country or they moved en masse to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. So, instead of getting 50% of someone's salary the government ended up with 0%. At the time it was labelled as the 'brain drain' on UK.

Nowadays, with the internet, high speed broadband, video-conferencing, cheap air flights etc. people on these big wages (and some not so big) can pretty much live where they like. A friend of mine moved to Cyprus where the top rate of tax is something like 10% - not sure if he got caught in their banking fallout though :). Another person I know moved to Spain, he just catches a flight from near Barcelona when he has to be in for meetings. I work from home 90% of the time now, handling everything by email, conference calls and very infrequent (1-2 days/month) trips to an office. I could easily go to live in Spain or some other European country with a decent airport nearby and could probably get to London where most of my meetings are in less time (or similar) than it currently takes me (nearly 4 hours). I've lived and worked in 3-4 different countries but I happen to like where I live and for family reasons can't move abroad, although I may consider it in a few years........

Some people want a twentieth century tax system for the present day because it makes them feel like they're punishing the rich, but it is actually counter-productive for the reasons you have identified.

Tax systems will need to evolve to meet our changing world as much as any other system has to. They do not and cannot operate in a vacuum. Due to the increasing mobility of labour, consumption and assets will have to form the mainstay of tax revenues in the years ahead, I reckon, as much as the King Canutes of this world would say otherwise.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I don't think he's thought this through.

I'm sure they had a similar level of tax in UK in the 70's. What happened was every billionaire, most millionaires and pretty much every celebrity on a decent wedge left UK to go and pay tax at a lower rate in another country or they moved en masse to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. So, instead of getting 50% of someone's salary the government ended up with 0%. At the time it was labelled as the 'brain drain' on UK.

Nowadays, with the internet, high speed broadband, video-conferencing, cheap air flights etc. people on these big wages (and some not so big) can pretty much live where they like. A friend of mine moved to Cyprus where the top rate of tax is something like 10% - not sure if he got caught in their banking fallout though :). Another person I know moved to Spain, he just catches a flight from near Barcelona when he has to be in for meetings. I work from home 90% of the time now, handling everything by email, conference calls and very infrequent (1-2 days/month) trips to an office. I could easily go to live in Spain or some other European country with a decent airport nearby and could probably get to London where most of my meetings are in less time (or similar) than it currently takes me (nearly 4 hours). I've lived and worked in 3-4 different countries but I happen to like where I live and for family reasons can't move abroad, although I may consider it in a few years........

Some people want a twentieth century tax system for the present day because it makes them feel like they're punishing the rich, but it is actually counter-productive for the reasons you have identified.

Tax systems will need to evolve to meet our changing world as much as any other system has to. They do not and cannot operate in a vacuum. Due to the increasing mobility of labour consumption and assets will have to form the mainstay of tax revenues in the years ahead, I reckon, as much as the King Canutes of this world would say otherwise.

I posted in the Cellar before that tax revenue from the rich actually dropped when the top rate was changed to 45% to the tune of about £3 billion over the first 6 months, which as you have both pointed out is counter productive

 

[squirtyflower]

I don't think he's thought this through.

I'm sure they had a similar level of tax in UK in the 70's. What happened was every billionaire, most millionaires and pretty much every celebrity on a decent wedge left UK to go and pay tax at a lower rate in another country or they moved en masse to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. So, instead of getting 50% of someone's salary the government ended up with 0%. At the time it was labelled as the 'brain drain' on UK.

Nowadays, with the internet, high speed broadband, video-conferencing, cheap air flights etc. people on these big wages (and some not so big) can pretty much live where they like. A friend of mine moved to Cyprus where the top rate of tax is something like 10% - not sure if he got caught in their banking fallout though :). Another person I know moved to Spain, he just catches a flight from near Barcelona when he has to be in for meetings. I work from home 90% of the time now, handling everything by email, conference calls and very infrequent (1-2 days/month) trips to an office. I could easily go to live in Spain or some other European country with a decent airport nearby and could probably get to London where most of my meetings are in less time (or similar) than it currently takes me (nearly 4 hours). I've lived and worked in 3-4 different countries but I happen to like where I live and for family reasons can't move abroad, although I may consider it in a few years........

Some people want a twentieth century tax system for the present day because it makes them feel like they're punishing the rich, but it is actually counter-productive for the reasons you have identified.

Tax systems will need to evolve to meet our changing world as much as any other system has to. They do not and cannot operate in a vacuum. Due to the increasing mobility of labour, consumption and assets will have to form the mainstay of tax revenues in the years ahead, I reckon, as much as the King Canutes of this world would say otherwise.

i've been advocating a tax on consumption only for donkey's years

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm sure they had a similar level of tax in UK in the 70's. What happened was every billionaire, most millionaires and pretty much every celebrity on a decent wedge left UK to go and pay tax at a lower rate in another country or they moved en masse to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. So, instead of getting 50% of someone's salary the government ended up with 0%. At the time it was labelled as the 'brain drain' on UK.

Nowadays, with the internet, high speed broadband, video-conferencing, cheap air flights etc. people on these big wages (and some not so big) can pretty much live where they like. A friend of mine moved to Cyprus where the top rate of tax is something like 10% - not sure if he got caught in their banking fallout though :). Another person I know moved to Spain, he just catches a flight from near Barcelona when he has to be in for meetings. I work from home 90% of the time now, handling everything by email, conference calls and very infrequent (1-2 days/month) trips to an office. I could easily go to live in Spain or some other European country with a decent airport nearby and could probably get to London where most of my meetings are in less time (or similar) than it currently takes me (nearly 4 hours). I've lived and worked in 3-4 different countries but I happen to like where I live and for family reasons can't move abroad, although I may consider it in a few years........

Some people want a twentieth century tax system for the present day because it makes them feel like they're punishing the rich, but it is actually counter-productive for the reasons you have identified.

Tax systems will need to evolve to meet our changing world as much as any other system has to. They do not and cannot operate in a vacuum. Due to the increasing mobility of labour, consumption and assets will have to form the mainstay of tax revenues in the years ahead, I reckon, as much as the King Canutes of this world would say otherwise.

i've been advocating a tax on consumption only for donkey's years

It would have to involve some tax on assets too imo e.g. property, higher CGT etc.. - to keep spending levels up - which the economy needs to keep growing.