Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Depardieu, Putin and the Tax Man

by BINOY KAMPMARK

What will a man do to avoid tax?  Become Russian for one, or the cultural ambassador for Montenegro, the prelude to obtaining another means of escaping the homeland’s rapacious tax regime. France’s Gérard Depardieu, having failed to teleport himself via a spaceship timed to arrive at the world’s end, decided to do something distinctly terrestrial – adopt a new citizenship.

The bogeyman here is François Hollande, the French president who won the general election on a platform stacked with promises of increased taxation for the super rich, notably his 75 percent on those earning more than a million Euros.  The grand and conspicuously aggrandised Depardieu took issue with it. How dare his talent be treated this way?  The creators are always attacked by mindless managers and paper pushers.

Come to think of it, Depardieu has taken issue with much of what the French state has done to him, or at least according to his own account.  The decline of his health was occasioned by a hospital infection he got after one of several operations he received after the motorbike crash of 1995.  His son, Guillaume, died in 2008 at the age of 37 after years of agony and a leg amputation (Guardian, Jan 12).

The response to Depardieu has ranged and raged but some advice has been dished his way, including the odd piece of admiration.  For one, a near hagiographic piece came forth from Rich Lowry in the National Review (Jan 1).  Depardieu’s remarks to the prime minister on his departure – that he was “leaving because you believe that success, creation, talent – difference, in fact – must be punished” – were roundly approved.  “He is right.  May he – dare we say it? – prosper in his new home.”  Depardieu, read through the American Right’s astigmatic eyes, had a genuine, sincere wish – “to keep some meaningful portion of his income.”

There is, however, little reason to be enraged with Depardieu’s ethical gymnastics. If anything, there is much to commend in his almost barmy bravura.  No, he is not expressing a socially responsible position, but can actors ever claim to be responsible in anything other than their vocation?  To elect them (yes, the hand of Ronald Reagan is still warm with its legacy) can prove disastrous.  To demand that they become pure figures of virtue is a foolish expectation.

People do and will avoid tax, from the rich and powerful, to the not so rich and somewhat powerless.  In this, there is nothing new.  What is significant here is that a figure like Depardieu is, at the end of the day, an illusionist who deserves less misplaced rage.  He doesn’t pull any strings or control puppets.  He, in truth, is the marionette, the mouthpiece, the court jester.  Pay him, and he will perform.

In this, we have an old problem suggested by Plato in explaining why he would exclude actors from his ideal Republic.  You simply can’t trust, or take too seriously, a person who is never himself.  The profession of mimesis and imitation suggests that the actor is always, by definition, someone else.  Depardieu off the screen has certainly shown himself to be foolish, the promoter of causes not all together clear. In Grozny last October, he shouted with some merriment “Glory to Kadyrov” on his visit to the Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, one of the region’s blood soaked and less savoury characters.  Well, it was the warlord’s birthday after all.

Depardieu has profited by the despotic whim of Putin’s government, and both have deigned to use each other.  While it is true that the queue for Russian citizenship is short (more Russians are happy to become U.S. citizens), Depardieu rocked to the front with the good grace of the Kremlin, receiving the nod of approval on January 3.  Putin, himself something of a thespian, no doubt sees the Depardieu stunt in broader public relations terms.  The Frenchman is not merely an exotic species, but a possible public relations platform.  Russia has a flat tax rate of 13 percent, a potential hook for the wealthy.  Nor will those fortunate ones have to necessarily live in Russia to become Russian tax payers.

As with so much with Putin and the Depardieu exercise, the reality behind the image is distinctly darker.  When one leaves the stage, the facts stack up in a different order.  The Russian hook’s catch of the wealthy is bound to be small.  Capital is actually leaving Russia, rather than coming in, finding refuge in investments in Miami, New York and London.  The Russian Central Bank has revealed that $80 billion flowed out of the country in 2011, over twice the rate than 2010 (CNBC, Jan 3).  The “flat” tax rate conceals the fact that wealthy Russians are asked to pay higher rates of protection money – in the political sense.

The figures who do have such power to make or break tax systems are the ones who should trouble us.  They are the silent pillagers of the greater good.  Rupert Murdoch’s embrace of the Stars and Stripes was a case in point. He left the bosom of Oz to take up the capitalist robes of Uncle Sam in 1985, thereby enabling him to comply with US laws prohibiting foreign ownership of television stations.  Never has a mogul been more transparent about his amoral proclivities.  Patriotism is always dispensable, but that need not matter – he does not “avoid” tax but “minimises” his burdens.  Every tax system is complicit with its supreme abusers.

As for Depardieu, he may be getting ahead of himself. The French Constitutional Council has already declared Hollande’s temporary 75 percent tax on earnings over 1 million Euros as “confiscatory”.  Even in France, where the socialist can not only find sanctuary but feast, there are limits to the zeal of any tax regime.

Depardieu is no hero, but nor is he a singular villain.  He is merely an actor. To vest political and cultural potential in a figure who dabbles in matters off the stage and the screen is to invest in an illusion.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]