"Hollande says the 75 percent tax he plans to impose would hit about 3,000-3,500 people and raise around 200-300 million euros a year."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/10/us-france-election...
The tax is going to hurt a few super high earners such as a few soccer stars, a few pop stars, some investment bankers etc. The figures I have seen are more at 1,000 than 3,000.
So, it will be harder for PSG to attract the best soccer players of the world, and some CEOs, investment bankers etc. will take wage cuts or move, but apart from that I doubt it's going to have any noticeable effects. It's certainly not going to lead to mass exodus of talents from France.
American hockey players (or coaches) playing for Vancouver often choose to live at Point Robers to avoid paying Canadian taxes.
Also things are more complicated for French citizens in particular, because Monaco and France have a tax treaty (dating to the 1960s) aimed at making it harder for French citizens and companies to use Monaco as a tax haven. Essentially Monaco agrees to tax French people/entities at the current French tax rates, rather than the usual Monaco rates, in a range of situations that fit the heuristic of using Monaco as an address of convenience (vs. bona-fide living / doing business there).
Soccer players have to live where they play and their teams have to be located somewhere too. So taxes are paid based on that location.
HOWEVER:
Most soccer players negotiate post-tax income. So rather than them earning less, their employers will end up paying them a lot more to garantee that income.
Edit: And during most of the 60s, the 70s and all the way up to 1981 the US had a 70 percent marginal tax rate which kicked in at much lower thresholds, even when adjusted for inflation: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxfoundatio...
But the Swiss rejected it, probably because the government told them to vote against it (the gov always hands out brochures "recommending" how to vote). I suppose they got manipulated by the classic manipulation-by-fear strategy: "If you don't let our CEO's rip you off, we'll destroy your economy by going elsewhere." Of course they found their way of communicating this only between the lines (and not explicitely), which makes it very powerful b/c you can't call their bullsh#t.
We need more education.
Socialist politicians prey on the wealthy with support of the majority. It's a dangerous game to be playing. Class wars are coming. When the wealthy must defend themselves, they will shield behind corporations, the overlords of the populace.
You can see it. Human nature is causing societal drifts, leading to political shifts. Democracy is battling oligarchy, and oligarchy is winning.
A revolution is coming.
Previous results are not indications of future success.
Can you illustrate us?
I am from Spain, in 1936 we had a civil war and a million people dead. The country got devastated for decades. And the wealthy, which was much better prepared and organized, won.
What you call plutocrats are only a very small part of the population. I also have family from eastern European countries, and communism was the worst thing that happened to them. There they had plutocrats of the public with more power than any capitalism could give(they could ruin your life or your families in an instant as everything was controlled by a selected few).
It doesn't require much of a cognitive leap to understand that a healthy, educated, and stable populace comes at a price. Is it possible that such inflammatory tax gestures are more a statement against the perceived predatory corporate vampirism than practical income generation means?
Treating companies them as autonomous, indivisible entities just plays into an "us vs. them" narrative, complete demagoguery. We should remember that everyone involved here is a person, and most of them aren't rich. When we take that into account it becomes clear why targeted taxes on salaries, on consumption and on capital gains might be a better option.