However at this time the law has changed

The debate on the tax shield and the ISF departed during the economic crisis. But how can we oppose the principle of the tax shield when a bit of common sense and a minimum of knowledge of the subject and the functioning of the economy Unless, of course, to the radical ideological choice of bulk rejected the market economy to replace by knows how collectivist adventure in high risk, in which case we must then assume clearly and openly these ideological choices. In reality, in the period of crisis that we face and the France is confronted with the heavy challenges, the tax shield becomes more than ever essential.

Who co-founded the company Business Objects, I have personally faced the effects of the measure which was to benefit the wealth solidarity tax. I was out of nothing with my partner, we had resigned from our stable jobs in a large American group to create our company with our 10,000 euros each savings. I had worked hard for seven years, travelling constantly to the four corners of the world and putting parentheses all social and family life. After seven years, we were present in more than 50 countries and we had given to the France and Europe one of its few world leaders in the information technology, a sector of the future completely dominated by the Americans. At this time, I wanted to deal with a little more of my family, as principle that, when children, it has the duty to deal with. However, at this time, the law has changed. The ISF has been removed. I found myself having to pay a tax equivalent to between two and four times my income, so impossible to pay. It was more calculated on the basis of 90 the virtual heritage consisting of shares of a young still fragile technology company, whose value fluctuated constantly in ratios of one to ten, I couldn't sell and that did me were nothing. Taxing a non-liquid capital, worth nothing and at a level two to four times higher than the income of the taxpayer is already very daring. But when, in addition, it is virtual, it reached a level of injustice and unfairness somewhat unique in a State of law, democratic and developed, that is said, moreover, be the homeland of human rights.

I fought through growth more, that I founded in an attempt to change this situation, and I eventually go to create the equivalent of growth more at European level failing to change this situation. I found there of many entrepreneurs French of all ages pushed out France mechanically by this measure absurd after giving their countries in companies of all sizes, across all industries, having created hundreds, even thousands of jobs, and enter into the coffers of the State of tax and social flows massive through VATcompanies, professional tax, payroll tax and taxes on the wages of their employees.

In a France facing massive for years of unemployment and exclusion levels and more and more difficult to finance yawning deficits, the establishment of mechanisms for systematic relocation of entrepreneurs (the creation of jobs and social and fiscal flow professionals) is contrary to the vital interests of the country and reflects a dangerous masochism whose first victims are always the most vulnerable. This is the reason for which I do not understand that it can to oppose the tax shield, unless, of course, deny the role of entrepreneurs and to be able to replace them with a model also proven, effective and also profitable for the community.

With the crisis that we know at present, the France has more than ever need of these French. The exit from the crisis by the top, the creation of new jobs to replace those who are condemned to disappear in old industries, the filling of gaps through encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship and not by contrast, mass punishment of these values for the benefit of neighbouring countries. The world faces increasingly undeniable climate change and the progressive depletion of fossil fuels. This challenge is also a great opportunity for a country like the France, which has a real tradition of innovation. The country could know a new industrial revolution, a new era of growth and prosperity. However, if the France chooses that moment to send an also negative message to the main community able to trigger this revolution in our country, then it runs the risk of Miss this great opportunity, job and decline as antan the Spain and the Portugal, who, according to historians, switched side first industrial revolutions largely because of the persecution of the Jews. The Portuguese Jews like the Pereire (Pereira) brothers, refugees in France, have helped trigger the first industrial revolution in our country. Certainly we Europeans, but intelligent Europeans, not to the point of taking us to the benefit of our neighbours.

Last comment on the tax shield: some argue that a shield to 50 of the income precludes the application of new taxes to taxpayers who benefit from. But this is precisely the object of the shield to avoid taxation in excess of this threshold. The substantive question is whether it is acceptable for a democracy, the rule of law, a country developed, to collect more than 50 of the income of a citizen in the year. Yet far from dangerous Liberals, the Germans responded to this issue and accordingly enshrined this principle in their Constitution. An example to follow.