Superchef Alain Ducasse flees France

France has just lost one of its greatest chefs. Alain Ducasse, the holder of 14 Michelin stars and a worlwide restaurant and hotel empire, has given up his French citizenship for the privilege of becoming a Monégasque, we hear today.

In other words Ducasse, 51, whose interests turn over about 160 million euros a year, has gone into tax exile across the border in Monaco. He could have chosen Switzerland and kept his citizenship but Ducasse, a southerner by birth, has ties to Monaco, where he owns the three-star Louix XV.

Monaco imposes no income or wealth tax on its residents -- provided they are not French. In the 1960s, the late President de Gaulle got tired of deserting tax payers so he forced a deal on Prince Rainier under which French citizens in Monaco must pay their full whack to the Paris treasury. The wheeze for French would-be exiles is to become a Monaco citizen -- a privilege accorded very sparingly. Prince Albert II has just granted this "sovereign order" to Ducasse, who renounces his French nationality in return. There are only 6,000 Monaco citizens (in a population of 32,000) and there is a long waiting list for French candidates. 

The move is not wonderful for the image of a celebrity whose brand name is synonymous with French haute cuisine from New York to Tokyo. Ducasse's most recent restaurant openings are at the London Dorchester and the "Jules Verne" restaurant in the Eiffel Tower in Paris, which I wrote about here. Next October, he is opening a a third restaurant in Japan --  "Le comptoir de Benoît in Osaka.

Ducasse's flight from France does not look good for President Sarkozy's "come home" appeal to his country's thousands of tax refugees. After taking office a year ago, Sarko imposed a 50 percent cap on personal taxation. This meant that no-one had to pay more than half their annual income in to the state.

Because of the wealth tax plus steep income and social security taxes, many high earners and very well off people moved over the past two decades to London, Brussels and other capitals as well as the traditional haven Switzerland. They are not returning in noticeable numbers, mainly because the wealth tax remains and they do not trust their country to reverse policy at the drop of a hat.

Sarko has maintained the Impôt sur la Fortune (ISF) as the 26-year-old annual tax is known (the exiles call it Incitation à Sortir de France). The tax gathers relatively little income and drives capital abroad but the public supports soaking the rich, so scrapping it is politically unacceptable.

Looking back at the Jules Verne opening, I was reminded how Ducasse boasted of his pride in bringing the finest French cuisine to the Eiffel Tower, that most Parisian of symbols. Fine Monegasque cuisine does not sound quite the same.

Update Tuesday: Ducasse has been on the radio (RTL) this morning saying that he is taking up Monaco citizenship because of his great attachment to the principality. He said that he was obviously not fleeing for tax reasons because his companies would continue to pay corporate taxes in France. The fact that he would be paying no income tax and no wealth tax in Monaco were mere details, he insisted. "My personal saving will be very slight... absolutely ridiculous compared with what I would save if I put my companies offshore."  The "very slight" of Ducasse (presumably several million euros a year) is obviously not what ordinary mortals would consider very slight.  

Comments

[azloon]

Charles, i think you're over-dramatizing this ('monagasque cuisine').

the guy just wants to start making money he can spend before july first of each year ('tax relief day' in france with a 50% maximum bracket). it doesn't affect his cooking.

is the swiss option as 'selective' and hard to get as monaco's?

are there tax strategies in france allowing citizens like carlita to avoid paying the maximum tax rate on their french earnings? does she have income from italian investments which are free of french taxes? is tax cheating common in france, and what of the penalaties for tax fraud?

[I was just having a bit of fun, Azloon. For non-Americans (who pay US taxes worldwide), Switzerland is the favourite tax refuge. You don't have to be a citizen, just a resident, but getting that is hard. You win residence with a lot of money on the basis of negotiation with the canton you choose. On France and tax evasion, yes it's high and there are also many legal loopholes to bring down overall taxes. For instance you don't have to pay wealth tax on assets that you use for your business (like a farm) or on the value of your primary residence. As a French resident -- soon to be French citizen too -- Bruni is expected to pay taxes in France on her worldwide income and wealth. CB]

[PDSoutherner]

This guy is a great businessman who has brought honor to France. Pity he has to give up his citizenship to earn a decent living.

[richard.jones]

The Swiss option is that he will pay Swiss tax, not French tax. There is a reciprocal non-double tax agreement,
Becoming a Swiss national will not be so easy, but what he can do on the Swiss tax front is pick a low tax commune (tax at three levels - commune - most, canton - a fair bit , federal - very little (defence mostly), and then give them a large capital sum for some communal infra-structure project (build an old people's home?). Then he should be OK, his communal tax will be nominal, but he'll never be as wildly 'non-taxable' in CH as he will be in Monaco.

[dot king]

"Pity he has to give up his citizenship to earn a decent living." PDSOUTHERNER

"Ducasse, 51, whose interests turn over about 160 million euros a year, has gone into tax exile across the border in Monaco. "
(CB article)

I just wanted to put those two sentences together, see how they looked.

The key words for me are: "decent living" and "about 160 million euros a year".

No further comment on that, but I think he looks a lot older than 51.
Perhaps he bought up some advance years?

[Romain]

He could also consolidate his companies profits in a Monegasque holding, if not already done. Another benefit is taxation on inheritance, much lighter in Monaco, very heavy in France. May be that last point is the biggest deterrent for rich families who don't want to see their hard earned assets plundered by the taxman.

[John Styx]

The ISF mainly soaks middle class people who would not be considered as "rich" in any other country than France. Got a family-sized flat in Paris or Lyons? Welcome to the ISF. The goal may be to promote the adequacy of patrimony and income (if you're not rich enough to upkeep the family castle, just sell it). Somehow, I doubt it.

Some figures. The ISF gathered about EUR 3.5bn in 2006. There were approximately 475,000 people paying the ISF as of 2006 and 400,000 as of 2005. Most of the growth originates in the lower patrimony groups whereas the higher groups dwindle. According to the Mariani report of 2004, the ISF explains one tax exile per day. According to a report published in 2005 by the Finance Commissions of both Houses, the ISF "cap's cap" ("plafonnement du plafonnement") causes one third of total tax exiles.

[richard.jones]

'Spose somewbody has to do this- 'we all hope M. Ducasse is not too "broken up" about his move away from France'.

[Doremi]

Food inflation must be denting his revenues, he has taken the sensible option to go where he will be able to charge a fortune for a chicken breast with " sucs de cuisson". For others food inflation mean starvation. He is very lucky.

[Denis RICHARD]

He is no longer Ducasse but Du se casse !

[Daisy]

Maybe he was worried he'd have to go cook for the Bruni-Sarkozys if he wanted to keep his job/business.

[Julien]

The reactions on Le Monde website (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/reactions/0,1-0@2-3224,36-1061674,0.html) are pri-ce-less.

[Eva]

J'aimais bien Ducasse d'abord parce que ses restaurants sont d'une grande qualite , ensuite parce qu'il fait travailler beaucoup de jeunes chefs dans ses etablissements . Je suis triste et decue qu'il renonce a sa nationalite francaise et s'installe a Monaco pour ne pas payer d'impots. Ce ne doit pas etre l'argent qui lui manque , pourtant !

[Fernandez]

Thanks Julien -

The Le Monde readers seem to be in as much of a pique as the Libe readers.

I wonder if everyone called in sick today?

[Daniel Strohl]

Julien,

"The reactions on Le Monde website ... are pri-ce-less"

Yes, indeed! I was not able to proceed further than the first page (out of 4 or 5). Consternant! Et Le Monde a (avait) la réputation d'être le journal de l'intelligentsia - ou alors c'est un commando informatisé du facteur de Neuilly qui a pris d'assaut le site ...

Ceci dit, je comprends que l'on ne soit pas d'accord avec ce que Ducasse a fait - mais de là à vouloir lui enlever la
légion d'honneur ... Pourquoi, tant qu'à faire, ne pas aussi le dégrader devant le front des troupes?

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Tu passe ... tu lache ... tu casse ...Monsieur Ducasse. Attention la Toute Va table! and excuse my French.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Charles: I've researched a bit the issue of Swiss residence, and my understanding is it is quite easy to get if you are an EU national.

This is a pdf of one of their official brochures (and will take a little while to load):

http://www.bfm.admin.ch/etc/medialib/data/migration/schweiz_-_eu/broschueren.Par.0008.File.tmp/blau_fr.pdf

Again on the basis of my understanding, the negociation with the authorities you're talking about only occurs if you're a high net worth individual, and want to escape the regular rate of taxation.

Basically, if you're Alain Ducasse, you go and tell them: I'd love to relocate in your marvelous country, and I'm looking at investing xxx million Swiss francs there to build a new restaurant; also I'll need a nice house with a hefty rent, and, as you can imagine, my day-to-day spending will be somewhat higher than your regular Albanian petty thief's.

However, since I'd be bringing a sizeable amount of extra taxes to your wonderful town of xxx, I'd like very much if we could keep it to a reasonable level.

It also seems to me that ordinary Swiss people are not entirely happy with the privilege, and that as a result it has been recently cut back to a degree.

Regarding French wealth tax, one's primary residence is not exempt. There used to be a 20% rebate on its value, which has been recently increased to 30%.

But, if you fall in a taxable wealth bracket, you still have to pay every year a fraction of a capital which cannot be invested and therefore produces zero revenue.

That's the reason why the state had to devise one of their devilishly complex usines à gaz, in order to alleviate the burden for people who have a taxable home but very modest revenues.

So now we have exceptions to the general rule of the wealth tax, plus exceptions to the exception (because at some point politicians felt that the filthy rich could escape through the loophole), and then, a little later, a new, added exception, because the exception to the exception had the effect of neutralizing the first, original exception.

I hope I'm making myself perfectly clear.

Of course, scrapping the wealth tax altogether (the collection costs outweigh the cashflow to the Treasury) would be too simple. And therefore, terribly un-French.

You have to be a Spaniard -- and a socialist -- to do just that.

[richard.jones]

Monsieur Blackstep or Black Market,

Swiss residence is fairly easy for EU citizens of the first 15 EU member countries, not so easy, although Malta, Slovenia seem OK for the next 10 and there are bilateral codicils on acceptation from Bulgaria and Romania until 2012.

[dot king]

Regarding ISF: it is applied somewhat unfairly in that it is at least in part, calculated on the value of any property you might own.
For example, your département might suddenly become fashionable and frequented by "les pipol", causing property "values" to soar.

This very phenomenon led to (usually elderly) natives of the Île de Ré, living sometimes from birth in simple cottages "confort à prévoir" suddenly finding their extremely humble abodes were of an astronomical value no longer in keeping with their subterranean (by comparison) revenues. And were ISF taxed as such.

[richard.jones]

M. Marchenoir,

I think you'll discover if you dig a bit deeper that 'communal Swiss tax deals' have appropriated the following stances: -
1) You need to talk really big bucks. I would suggest talk starts at 500 million€.
2) It will only work if the offer is for something altruistic and of long-term value - Decasse bringing a restaurant won't do but an educational fund for the village children???
3) Generally more difficult in cantons running a large tax deficit - Vaud, Neuchâtel, 2 or 3 Swiss German cantons.
4) The deal works on the following list of national priorities:-
- Neighbours - France, Germany, Austria, Italy.
- Other members ('cos of the 'strong' bilats) of the first 9 EU members - BE, DK, HL, IR, LU, UK.
- Remaining members of first 15 EU
- GR, SP, PG, FN, SW.
4) Any deal is kept much quieter now! Visible things like buildings tend to be avoided, if possible, and are certainly not named the Michael Schumacher Old Folks Formula 1 Driving School.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Mr. Jones: no insults brooding on my name, please.

Funny the number of people out there making poor puns around Marchenoir / black market. Are you a practioner, Mr. Jones, for such fantasies springing up to your mind?

[Daniel Strohl]

Robert,

"You have to be a Spaniard -- and a socialist -- to do just that"

May be we should make a deal with the Spaniards - they send us their PS, we send them our PS. But I am afraid that the Spaniards would (understandably) not accept the deal :))

[Mauvezin]

Regarding ISF....
*********
Puisse le bruit du départ d'A Ducasse , plus connu que de nombreux entrepreneurs,devienne le signal de la suppression de cet impot stupide et sectaire !

[TB]

Every American should read this article very carefully. France's European Socialism is exactly what Mr. Obama wants to import to the US. The wealth tax would be on the table in his first 6 months in office. 50% top tax rate would be levied against the wealthiest Americans. Re-distribution of wealth is the bottom line..... instead of raising everyone up let's pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of social justice. As an American, I want to know what took Ducasse so long to flee the involuntary confiscation of his property?

[Terry]

Milton Friedman discusses in detail tax avoidance and not just by "the rich". If you set taxes at the ridiculous level of 50%, you should expect taxpayers to avoid paying their taxes by any means. People in cash businesses do not report their total income. When you set the tax rates so high, people take the risk of committing illegal tax evasion to keep their hard earned money. Friedman writes that when people's tax rates are lower, then they are more likely not to want to take the risk. Tax receipts actually increase.

P.J. O'Rorke has a very good book on the subject ironically called "Eat the Rich". The notion is many love having the rich pay everything for them.

Did Mr. Ducasse get 80 million euros in government services last year?

[richard.jones]

My apologies to M. Marchenoir, I didn't realise he took himself so seriously.

[Sandrine]

"plus connu que de nombreux entrepreneurs,devienne le signal de la suppression de cet impot stupide et sectaire !"

Moi il me plait bien cet impôt stupide et sectaire ! Je trouve ça sympa que les riches donnent un peu pour la communauté. S'il n'y avait pas cet impôt, pas sûr qu'ils le fassent volontairement, on a les riches les plus radins du monde ! Quand je vois ce que font les Bill Gates ici aux States, j'enrage de voir nos nantis aussi "lazy" !!

Pas de panique Mauvezin, on y arrive au "chacun pour soi et Dieu pour tous" !

[sally tisserand]

When is he leaving?
I have booked for net Wednesday, my lovely daughter's 18th.

[qwerty]

Calm down everyone - I heard on the radio at lunchtime that Ducasse has declared he will continue to pay taxes in France, he's becoming monégasque for sentimental reasons only.
That's really stupid of him: (1) he has done at least as much for the French image as France has done for him, (2) he has created 1000 jobs and correspondingly taxpayers, some of whom are in France (3) I gather that most of his income is derived from his foreign operations and, when in France, from his foreign clients. No normal French person can afford his restaurants. He's entitled to a tax break.

However I agree with Sandrine that the French rich are the stingiest in the world. See what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are doing with their excess cash.

I don't agree with teh person who commented that Obama would introduce a French tax regime in the US - no way any American would even think of that. Don't forget that the French rightwing parties are FAR more to the left than the US democrats. In fact, I wonder if the concept of left & right even exists in the US or in the UK.

[No qwerty, he pulled the wool over the eyes of the French media with his interview on RTL this morning. He tried to bury the fact that he is not going to pay any income tax or wealth tax by talking about his company's corporate tax only. There is not the slightest doubt that he is taking up Monaco citizenship purely to escape his personal taxes. Otherwise he would just remain a Monaco resident and save the fuss over renouncing his French citizenship. CB]

[PAUL]

Which government introduced the ISF tax?....
[The government of François Mitterrand (Socialist) in about 1981 when it took office, from my memory. Correct me if I'm wrong. CB]

[John Styx]

Robert, "Of course, scrapping the wealth tax altogether (the collection costs outweigh the cashflow to the Treasury) would be too simple."

The collection costs part is a urban legend. The ISF is a net contributor. It just doesn't yield much. Also, someone actually suppressed the ISF. Mr Chirac. He is convinced it cost him the 1988 elections. Apparently Mr Sarkozy shares that belief.

Sandrine, les riches paient aussi l'impôt sur le revenu. Personnellement, je pense qu'il faut choisir : on taxe le revenu ou le patrimoine. Pas les deux. Si l'on met de côté les questions culturelles, les riches ont une activité philanthropique importante aux États-Unis parce que 1) la taxation des héritages est très élévée 2) la législation sur les fondations est très favorable.

[John Styx]

Charles, the Mauroy cabinet created the "Impôt sur les grandes fortunes" (best known as IGF) in 1982, under the presidency of François Mitterand. The ISF under its current name dates back to 1989.

[Sandrine]

"I didn't realise he took himself so seriously."

lol, si vous saviez...

"he pulled the wool over the eyes of the French media"

Nice expression, ça vient de "woolite" ?

[joelle]

Dot, you're absolutely right about the villagers on the Ile de Ré, which is why Sarko should have exempted PRIMARY residences from ISF. If someone has a second home in such a place, then I suppose if you're really determined to punish the rich for being so sinfully wealthy, go ahead if you must and hit them with ISF, it's a case you can at least argue. But to take the primary residence into account when calculating the "fortune" is really absurd; as you say, many people own nothing apart from a house in which they were born, which the "pipol" have decided is in a desirably fashionable place.

[Mary Fernandez]

Since we're talking taxes, I'll add this for what it's worth:

TAXES CUTS EXPLAINED
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to €100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay €1.

The sixth would pay €3.

The seventh would pay €7.

The eighth would pay €12.

The ninth would pay €18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay €59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by €20." Drinks for the ten now cost just €80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the €20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that €20 divided by six is €3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid €2 instead of €3 (33% savings).

The seventh now pay €5 instead of €7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid €9 instead of €12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid €14 instead of €18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid €49 instead of €59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the €20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got €10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a euro, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get €10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Mary Fernandez]

"I agree with Sandrine that the French rich are the stingiest in the world."

I should think if you managed to get rich in France, you did it by clinging to every penny. After a lifetime of that, it's probably hard to change habits.

Plus, I believe the French are used to the government taking care of the poor and helpless (and the not so poor & not so helpless, and ...).

In America, private individuals and private organizations are expected to do charity (and are actively encouraged by the government via tax deductions for charitable contributions). Most Americans expect the government, in whatever it does, to waste a lot of money and do it poorly. Private citizens spend their money more efficiently and wisely than the government.

See Milton Friedman's 'Four kinds of Money':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQp-5lZToE

[Daniel Strohl]

John Styx,

Je comprends mieux maintenant pourquoi des mécènes américains, fort sympathiques au demeurant, financent ou ont financé des travaux de réfection du Château de Versailles! (émission "Des racines et des ailes" d'il y a un certain temps déjà)

Et inversement, il n'est pas difficile de comprendre pourquoi des mécènes français ne se bousculent pas au portillon (du moins à ma connaissance) ...

Mary,

Excellent!

[Valentin]

Sandrine:
"Moi il me plait bien cet impôt stupide et sectaire ! "

Thats because you dont know how it feels when 15-20% of your money is taken away - let alone 60%. It's more like punishment than tax. Some countries have a flat tax, like 15% for all, and it's quite ok socially speaking: you earn 9000, tax is 1350; earn 90 000, tax is 13 500 - proportionally much more than 1350. Proportional is ok. Exponential is not.

Qwerty:
"Don't forget that the French rightwing parties are FAR more to the left than the US democrats"

That's not quite true. Never been, and now, even less than before.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"My apologies to M. Marchenoir, I didn't realise he took himself so seriously." (Richard Jones)

Yeah. You know. There are a few things I take seriously. Some simple things, like common decency. Not playing games on peoples' names, especially if you're doing it anonymously, behind the Internet.

Not pretending to apologize if you actually mean to offend, either.

It's terribly old hat, I know. I cannot muster the talent you have, pretending to make fun of yourself while actually making fun of others.

With rather unimaginative jokes at that, since this particular one has been made by approximately 1 356 smart-asses since I've been on the Internet.

[John Styx]

Joëlle, to my knowledge there is no 100% exemption for the main residence. There's only a reduction.

The exemption of the main residence would not seem very sound to me. It promotes strategies where you convert your capital into your main residence, as opposed to, say, rent it and do some other thing with your money. Buy yourself a nice, big castle and you're OK ISF-wise. Is that really what the French state wants? I doubt it.

At the risk of sounding heartless... You've got a house on the île de Ré. It's the only real asset you have. It's now worth millions thanks to some fad. Just sell the goddam house and get the cash while you can. Ineffective and unproductive ownership of capital is what the French tax system has been fighting for a century.

[Romain]

"Private citizens spend their money more efficiently and wisely than the government." Mary Fernandez.

Same general belief in France. Private donations to ONGs are huge : Restaus du coeur, Fondation Emmaüs, Secours Catholique, and many others. Charity is a taboo word for some silly reasons linked to secularism. Also, donators are shy to engage on public relations, they leave it to the show business.

I can't help but provide a different point of view on Milton Friedman's legacy :

"The movement launched by Friedman, introduced by Ronald Reagan and entrenched under Clinton, faces a profound legitimacy crisis around the world. Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Chicago itself. In mid-May, when university president Robert Zimmer announced the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, an economic research center devoted to continuing and augmenting the Friedman legacy, a controversy erupted. More than 100 faculty members signed a letter of protest. “The effects of the neoliberal global order that has been put in place in recent decades, strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive,” the letter states. “Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world’s population.” (Naomi Klein)

[Mary Fernandez]

Romain -

As an aside, I met Milton Friedman at Stanford in the early 80s. I was working my after school job and he came up to buy something. (I recognized him from some economics movies they used to show in junior high.) I didn't say anything or make a scene, but after he left, I hurried to my supervisor and excitedly** said that Milton Friedman just came to the cash register! My boss deadpanned, "What'd he want - change?"

**I know it sounds ridiculous. He was no George Clooney, but he was famous and I was young.

Romain:

Your "different point of view" actually offers "no point of view". Your quote doesnt say why Milton Friedman's theories are incorrect. It merely says some professors (most likely liberal) are protesting a center on teaching his theories. Your sentiment would be more compelling if it set forth some reasons WHY his theories are wrong.

I also find it very telling that a certain group of professors are trying to stifle learning probably one of the most influential economists that ever lived. I wonder how they'd feel about banning Marx now that his lofty notions have been proven worthless.

[Terry]

I think Stanley Kramer adequately mocked the fairness of redistribution in one of my favorite movies "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World".

Here's the scene. For those unfamiliar with the movie: A bankrobber drives off a cliff which is witnessed by a number of other drivers. Before he dies, he told them where he hid $300K. They decide to try to find the money without telling the police. Immediately, a fight ensues on how to split it fairly.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xm5XUi3tKos

The comment to romain was by moi.

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Foreigners have rarely succeeded in the world of haute couture or haute cuisine in France because the French are the masters and mistresses of both: thus any person opening a resto. in France has to be a gambler.
The above thread is filled with info. on tax. In the wake of the Jack the Ripper murders in London the letters columns of The Times had readers blaming the price of property in the area, the London slums and property as an investment which culminated in most agreeing that 5% return on investment was adequate (Calouste Gulbenkian*** "Mister Five Per Cent" said it first), and the murders were forgotten.
Could it be that Monsieur Duchasse likes to gamble and will be "polishing the horse's hoof" in the foyer of the Hotel de Paris en route to the Casino after a hard day's retirement on the beach?
*** During a court case at the Old Baily, I asked his son, Nubar Gulbenkian (who built the Armenian church in London) "What is the tragedy of Life?" (He is often quoted: "The greatest pleasure in Life for me is to be in a restaurant with a good head waiter while I dine alone."
He replied: "When I was a schoolboy at Eton my father gave me sixpence a week pocket money. The tuck-shop window was full of jam tarts. I was so hungry I could have eaten every trayful, but could not afford it. Now that I can afford to buy the tarts and the shop, my doctor limits me to toying with a lamb chop and a lettuce leaf. That, Mr. Kinsley, is the Tragedy of Life!"

[Valentin]

Anon (Terry?):
"I wonder how they'd feel about banning Marx now that his lofty notions have been proven worthless."

It's not altogether fair calling Marxist anything less than Friedman. As a general principle, it's always better to find a reasonable balance point between libertarianism (be it of left or of right) and dictatorship;
between anarchically-free markets (what is called in France "le capitalisme sauvage" or "la dictature de l'argent") and completely centralized economy.

The balance point is preferable for a very simple reason, that does not require much economical knowledge:
extreme libertarianism, just like totally "free" markets, end up being just a different form of dictatorship from the individual's viewpoint.

[Terry]

Valentin:

The anon comment was me. I was not saying marxism should not be taught. I was marveling how (marxist) professors could actually want to close out another point of view. Im sure they wouldnt like it the other way around. All of sudden, we'd hear cries of "academic freedom".

[richard.jones]

Valentin's issue is central to my long-winded argument about France & UK as the two EU destructors. I really believe that if UK had joined the €, even allowing for their getting the ECB presidency as a 'sweetener' we would have been much further along that road towards a balanced, sustainable market structure (fluctuating over time and condition, of course) between 'le capitalisme sauvage" and 'statist dirigisme'.