[jonp888]

I do wonder what the French population actually want as a solution to the unsustainable debt and huge proportion of tax revenue(second highest in the EU) spent on social benefits.

Clearly they recognise a need for reform because they vote for politicians who run on a reform platform. Yet as soon as said reformer tries to change anything at all, it's back to the barricades.

Reduce benefits? Riot!

Increase tax rates? Riot!

Extend the retirement age? Riot!

Increase immigration? Riot!

[ajb]

From an Anglo-Saxon perspective that's what it looks like, but I think you are missing a cultural difference. In France, the state does not have the legitimacy that it does in the UK and US. In the UK parliament, not the people, is sovereign; this is more or less the practical situation in the US as well, despite lip-service to popular sovereignty.

In France, the people maintain the right to distruptively object to government actions and laws. What seems to us to be a criminal act may have (depending on circumstances) more popular legitimacy than the laws themselves. Or it may not, depending.

[bwb]

France is in trouble because people don't want to face the math. It's going to take a leader to push through changes nobody wants and somehow make them feel good about it. Hard bit.

Also, the USA is in the same spot. Although better as their tax burden is so low, so raising it higher is easier when it comes to the math side of things.

[maeln]

> France is in trouble because people don't want to face the math.

I disagree, a lot of people here are quite aware that we are in very difficult financial situation, from all side of the political spectrum. The main issue is that there is a very big disagreement on how to solve it (i.e how/who to tax more, and where to cut spending). And with a fragmented national assembly, everything is at a deadlock right now.

[astrolx]

"The math".

We don't have issue with the math, we just disagree on what to fund to balance things out.

An example, 200+ billion euros are given yearly to large companies as tax breaks and the like, without the government asking anything in return. The senate had a report about it recently [https://www.publicsenat.fr/actualites/economie/un-cout-annue...].

Another example, the military and defense get a huge increase in budget. schools, hospitals, research, nearly every public service get a budget cut instead [ https://www.force-ouvriere.fr/non-aux-44-milliards-d-economi...].

[FirmwareBurner]

>An example, 200+ billion euros are given yearly to large companies as tax breaks and the like, without the government asking anything in return.

Man, that must feel like the rug pull of the century for French taxpayers, given that despite these tax breaks, French companies like Airbus and ST are incorporated in the Netherlands and paying(more like, NOT) taxes there instead of France.

I'd be pissed too, and I'd want my money back.

Unless of course the purpose of those tax breaks was actually to keep some jobs in France and not see more of them move to cost efficient places like eastern Europe or north Africa.

[vladvasiliu]

They probably pay much less tax there. That's the whole point, they wouldn't go through the whole trouble for nothing.

[FirmwareBurner]

Sounds like eliminating the NL's ability to give secret sweetheart deals to major billion dollar corporations that also benefit from tax breaks in other countries, would fix some of these problems.

If you build/design your products here then you use EU's trained labor, EU's infrastructure, EU's legal system, EU's defense, etc. then you should pay your fair share to support these facilities that help you be a billion dollar corporation.

[bwb]

I have not seen any solutions by either the left or the right that mathematically solve it. In fact, the last time I checked, the far right was advocating for a lower retirement age and increased spending.

The left seems to want things we all want, but we're unsure how to afford them. They never seem to have math to back it up as taxes can only go up so much, and they are already some of the highest as a percentage of GDP in the world.

Can you point me to a real proposed solution by either side?

[fngjdflmdflg]

>[Taxes] are already some of the highest as a percentage of GDP in the world.

Is this the right metric: "Tax revenue (% of GDP)"?[0]

If so, France ranks 28 at 23.1% of GDP. The highest non-island developed country is Denmark at 31.4%. Denmark's GDP per capita is 1.5x France. New Zeland's GDP per capita is similar to France and their GDP to tax rate is 29.6% which is the fifth highest. Does New Zeland face similar problems as France? I think I agree with your implication that simply increasing the tax to GDP ratio is not a magic bullet.

In general, the data here is really interesting. Germany and the US have a pretty similar value, both averaging at about 11% in recent years. I would have assumed that Germany would have a higher rate. I wonder if this data is misleading somehow or if my assumptions were just wrong here. I guess one variable missing here is government debt, which is not a tax but is still used to pay for government expenses.

[0] Global: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?most_...

France over time: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?most_...

[vladvasiliu]

I'm not familiar with the situation of New Zealand with respect to Australia (its neighbours). But the problem in the EU, is that there are a few countries (Ireland and the Netherlands inside the Union, and Switzerland which is right next door and enjoys many advantages and no constraints) which charge way less tax than the "central" EU countries. So companies have a tendency to set up their HQs in those countries.

I'm not one to cheer for absurd taxation (which is a French specialty), but I understand why this setup does ruffle some feathers in France.

[disgruntledphd2]

> I'm not familiar with the situation of New Zealand with respect to Australia (its neighbours). But the problem in the EU, is that there are a few countries (Ireland and the Netherlands inside the Union, and Switzerland which is right next door and enjoys many advantages and no constraints) which charge way less tax than the "central" EU countries. So companies have a tendency to set up their HQs in those countries.

Speaking as an Irish person, this is definitely true and tax is a big reason for a lot of the multinationals we have here.

However, also note that the Irish people have one the highest debt per capita, basically incurred to pay off debts to EU/UK banks during the financial crisis. If you mutualise debt, and do the capital markets union then you could 100% fix this (but the political will definitely isn't there for that).

[nwellnhof]

The 11% number for Germany (and probably the whole table) is completely wrong. I guess it only shows federal taxes which are about 40% of all taxes including state and municipal taxes. So total taxes are roughly 24% of German GDP.

[fngjdflmdflg]

Ah, I did wonder how state level taxes were being accounted for, seems like the answer is they aren't. I guess I could have looked that up before posting. The values here[0] are markedly different. It shows Germany at 45%, France at 51.53%, US at 29.21% and Denmark at 50%. So I was way off the mark there, although I did think something seemed very off with those numbers. France is the 10th highest in the world, with many of the countries above it being tiny island countries or countries with vast oil reveres relative to their size like Norway and Kuwait. With this being the case, it does seem hard to imagine that more taxes will fix everything.

[0] Government revenue, percent of GDP - https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/rev@FPP/

Also relevant: Government expenditure, percent of GDP - https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/

[disgruntledphd2]

> In general, the data here is really interesting. Germany and the US have a pretty similar value, both averaging at about 11% in recent years. I would have assumed that Germany would have a higher rate. I wonder if this data is misleading somehow or if my assumptions were just wrong here. I guess one variable missing here is government debt, which is not a tax but is still used to pay for government expenses.

Lots of German spending is devolved to the regions, maybe your figures are missing that?

[concinds]

The correct number is 48%, not 23%. I doubt even the US is that low.

[bwb]

In 2023, France’s tax-to-GDP ratio was 43.8%, the highest among the 38 OECD countries.

[imtringued]

Here is the solution:

https://www.dieter-suhr.info/files/luxe/Downloads/Suhr_Struc...

https://www.dieter-suhr.info/files/luxe/Downloads/Suhr-Godsc...

The transaction cost approach means that the profit motive isn't a barrier either. If anything, you can make money off of solving the problem. That in itself is probably the ultimate proof that communism is wrong, because it turns communism into a self-hating ideology. Imagine being a communist controlling 1/3 of the world and deciding that you would rather see your "empire" crumble rather than convert the last 2/3 through irresistible persuasion/temptation. Not just that, but you literally start a campaign against the idea of doing so. You'd rather doom yourself than admit being a little bit wrong for even more power.

[creer]

There are plenty of people on every side of the problem. But it takes very few people to paralyze the country. (Even that is relative, it's not like nothing can run during these episodes. But the elected government certainly feels like they can't go forward.)

[lormayna]

> a lot of people here are quite aware that we are in very difficult financial situation, from all side of the political spectrum

According to the votes that Le Pen and Melanchon are supposed to get, I would not say "a lot of people".

[greenhearth]

Just redistribute the resources, cap prices and let the economy prop up itself. The rich have to give it up for sake of stability and greater good. I'm sure they will understand lol

[potato3732842]

English government: "we have revoked all your rights and outlawed tea"

English people: "oh bother, guess I'll just watch football"

French government: "we are levying a .0053% tax on stinky cheese"

French people: "we are on our way to the capitol with rocket launchers and we will light on fire every speed camera we encounter on our way"

They're like Europe's Portland but without the prevalence of piercings and hair dye. Beautiful really.

[0b110907]

The french have really nailed protesting, see the BBQ adapted to be rolled along tram tracks to ensure you can stave off hunger mid protest: https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/tjmw8s/fr...

[verzali]

Rights whatever, but they'd never get away with outlawing tea.

[Woodi]

Ok, that is first thing for me to want to be tourist into UK :)

[inetknght]

> I do wonder what the French population actually want as a solution to the unsustainable debt and huge proportion of tax revenue(second highest in the EU) spent on social benefits.

Fewer rich people would be my guess.

[logicchains]

Total French private wealth is around $15 trillion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_pri... ), French government spending is around $1.8 trillion/year. Even if the French government were to tax 100% of that wealth, it wouldn't be enough to cover 10 years of spending. Fundamentally the French economy isn't producing enough to support the current level of pension spending, due to a continuously falling ratio of workers to retirees. No amount of taxing anyone could produce enough money to plug that hole.

[aurareturn]

  Fundamentally the French economy isn't producing enough to support the current level of pension spending, due to a continuously falling ratio of workers to retirees.

Do we think this is why French government added so many immigrants in recent times?

Of course an influx of immigrants will cause other issues. But if wealthy people need more population to keep their wealth up, I don't think they care.

[alephnerd]

It's not about wealthy people alone. You need staff to clean retirees sh!t (literally) in a country where the median age is 42.3 and rising.

France overspent in the 2000s and 2010s due to populist politics, and now the chickens have come to roost. Something needs to give in France, otherwise it'll become an Italy 2.0.

[vladvasiliu]

> Do we think this is why French government added so many immigrants in recent times?

It's part of the official discourse.

[triceratops]

This is simplistic nonsense regularly blurted out by opponents of wealth taxes. It supposes that assets are converted by some alchemy into pallets of cash. The government then piles the pallets up into a big vault and feeds them into a furnace every year until it runs out. And then it's all gone forever.

That's not how things work.

Seriously think through what implementing this would look like. Go through the steps at a high level instead of just adding up 3 numbers and declaring it will never work.

I don't think any government should take over all private wealth. It would be a gross human rights violation and an economic disaster. But this argument against it severely lacks logic and rigor.

[triceratops]

Downvoters: You're proving my point by refusing to engage with logic.

[vdupras]

10 years of covering 100% of spending? That sounds like a really sweet deal to me, and more than enough to invest into the nation enough to go back to a balanced budget in that time frame.

I mean, try it with yourself. Imagine that you take your current salary, keep it for 10 years, and have 100% of your spending covered? How life changing would that be to you? Probably a lot.

[creer]

Who do you propose to sell all that stuff to?

[zdragnar]

...for 10 years. After that, you're back in the hole that you were in before, but without anything to draw on. They're currently taking in the equivalent of $500 billion but spending $1.8 trillion, with a GDP of $3 trillion.

Understand that the non-wealthy wouldn't get anything new, it would just be a continuance of their current services and benefits. They've have 10 years to increase their GDP by 50% to get the tax revenue to get to a balanced budget. That's simply not happening without obscene inflation, with the corresponding increase in government spending on goods and services, keeping them out of whack.

[returningfory2]

What happens on year 11?

[CamperBob2]

When has that ever helped?

[vdupras]

The French Revolution is generally regarded as a good move. It did get rid of a lot of rich people.

[ThrowawayR2]

I would genuinely love to hear more of an explanation from French people about why the French Revolution was considered a success. As best I understand it, the French Revolution of 1789 did succeed in removing the monarchy but devolved into le règne de la terreur where the leaders were guillotining each other and various political enemies for about ten years(?) before Napoleon became the new monarch. Perhaps it can be viewed as a stepping stone in the decades long process to modern France but the short term outcome of the French Revolution seems pretty objectively terrible to me.

[vdupras]

I stated this as a matter of course (as in, we'd see broad support for absolute monarchy in France if that wasn't the case), I have no insider information, I'm not even French. It seems I need to clarify "good move".

If your question is "was the Terror awful?", I'm sure you'll have a near totality of french people agreeing with you. If you ask "in retrospect, was the Terror awful enough so that the French nation would have been better off without its Revolution?", then I don't think you'll get many agreement.

The deaths associated with the Terror were plentiful, that's true, but this period was also carefully framed by the bourgeois class who took power afterwards. In terms of deaths, it's around 40k people. The american civil war was 700k deaths. Before Trumpism, would any american say out loud that abolishing slavery wasn't worth it?

[AnimalMuppet]

The revolution/terror only killed 40,000 people? Great. Now do Napoleon, who was a direct and immediate follow-on. That was a million people.

[ThrowawayR2]

Thank you for the explanation.

[rsynnott]

I mean, clearly it wasn't an _ideal_ outcome, and at least in theory it could have skipped the Reign of Terror and Napoleon. But also, clearly, after those (and, really, even during Napoleon) it left the average French person in a far, far better place than they would have been under the near-feudalism of the old system.

Very few countries get out from under totalitarianism without significant bloodshed. The US had its revolution and civil war. The UK had a bunch of civil wars. Germany had _both World War 1 and World War 2_ (it didn't take the first time). You could call the Reign of Terror actually comparatively mild; it only killed about 25,000 people, so far fewer than the comparables.

I do wonder if the fall of the Iron Curtain, which is the big glaring _exception to the rule_, revolution-wise, and also the most recent large-scale example, has misled the younger generations on this.

[everfrustrated]

And yet there have been 5 French Republics since then.

[CamperBob2]

Wow. What in the world are they teaching kids in school these days?

[vdupras]

Do you know of a french person who wants to return to the Bourbon rule? me neither. They like that they live within a republic. A revolution was necessary to achieve this. Hence my parent comment.

[AnimalMuppet]

But the revolution didn't achieve this. The revolution achieved the Terror, and then Napoleon, and then back to the Bourbon monarchy! (I mean, I guess they did at least get constitutional limitations on the monarchy...)

[CamperBob2]

And naturally, you expect to come out on the winning side of this "revolution," right?

[throwaway894345]

Seems to be working pretty well in the Scandinavian countries.

[rsynnott]

Interestingly, while Denmark has very low wealth inequality, Norway's is only middling, and Sweden's is the highest in Europe, in the same range as the US, Brazil and Russia. The Scandinavian countries have very low _income_ inequality (post-transfers).

Income equality is probably more important than wealth equality in terms of quality of life, but wealth inequality isn't nothing.

(Also you have to be a bit careful with wealth inequality figures, as they can be distorted by local practices; for instance in some countries where defined benefit pensions are standard, such a pension, even though clearly valuable, may not be assessed as wealth, and in some countries it may be common to have a long-term/effectively life right to a fixed-cost rental, which again, is wealth-like, but probably not assessed as wealth.)

[spwa4]

You mean the ones who are selling so much oil they put a lot of it in a sovereign wealth fund? Sure.

I think the real question is how to make it work without oil money coming in. Without the constant extra help from foreign countries that money buys. France has some, but not much. Certainly not enough to cover all state expenses and have left over.

[FirmwareBurner]

They have A LOT of rich people.

The thing is people don't care about how many rich people there are out there, as long as they can get a good life out of their labor (good job, good house, etc) but since capitalism has optimized these out of the reach for most people nowadays, then they start to blame rich people for everything, with the definition of the word 'rich' here being very fluid, ending up to mean just about everyone who has more than they do, and not just your Bezos, Musk and Saudi kings, so any taxes on the "rich" ends up only on the hard working middle class again.

[creer]

Many french people, like in most other places, don't give a shit who gets cut or increased as long as it's not them. These people will try and paralyze the country because it's effective and the elected government will reliably back off from whatever was objectionable. Sarkozy, a long time ago, ran for president specifically against that, proposing that the country run that gauntlet once and for all. To solve that problem. He was elected on that platform - so it's not like there isn't support for it. Then he backed off like everyone else.

[logicchains]

The population isn't homogeneous. The fundamental problem is that the average age of the population keeps increasing, meaning fewer and fewer working people per retiree. This means young people's quality of living gets worse and worse as they have to support more and more non-working people via pensions. Given the opposition to mass immigration, there doesn't seem to be any feasible solution in the near future.

[maeln]

Well, you will never make 65 million people agree with each other.

> Clearly they recognise a need for reform because they vote for politicians who run on a reform platform.

Meh. Macron, and his party, was not really running on a reform platform. He was the typical, business centrist candidate.

And the national assembly is very divided right now, and the government is systematically from a minority party (so neither from the left union, or the extreme right RN), which are not running on a reform platform (quite the opposite).

There is proposition about reforming taxes to taxes the wealthiest, something with some popular support, but no party that support this kind of reform as the power to make it happen right now.

We are in a deadlock since the dissolution of the national assembly by Macron, and we probably will be until the next presidential election, or a new dissolution that would give a big majority to one party which would pretty much ensure them control of the government.

The french system is really not made for a fragmented assembly. This is not what you can find in more parliamentary system where coalition form the government. A fragmented national assembly is basically a deadlock in France's fifth republic system.

[lucianbr]

Why? What exactly makes it possible or impossible to have a coalition government, in your opinion?

A naive look tells me if a majority can agree to support a government then it can work, and it not not. What "system setup" helps or hinders a majority made up of different parties? To me it seems the important part is the willingness of parties to compromise. Which may or may not be there regardless of the "system setup".

[maeln]

> Why? What exactly makes it possible or impossible to have a coalition government, in your opinion?

Mostly because it is a different system. The parlement in France doesn't elect the government. The president choose the prime minister, and the prime minister form the government.

The parlement can, at basically any point, vote to "censor" the government, effectively terminating it if a majority is reached (they do stay in position until a new government is formed, but can only take care of the "affaire courante", i.e simple daily affairs, no big laws, reforms, policy changes, ...).

Indirectly, this means that the parlement can have a lot of power over who will be in the government. If one party has an absolute, or almost absolute, majority in the parlement, it more or less mean that they can decide who shall be in the government.

Due to the way our election works, the party of the president usually has the majority in the parlement. This is even more true since Chirac changed the duration of the presidential mandate to match the duration of the parlement mandate (and their elections are very close). This usually give a lot of power to the president, effectively making him the sole judge of who shall be in the government (since he choose the prime minister and the parlement member of his party follow his lead).

But what we have right now is a very unique situation. Nobody has even close to an absolute majority in the parlement. The left "union" (which is not really united, but that's another story) control roughly ~33% of the seat, the extreme right party control ~21% of the seats, the presidential party control ~15%, and the rest are various centrist and right wing party.

The issue is that there is no way to get a solid absolute majority with this assembly. For the left, even if they were to compromise heavily and add as much center-right as possible in their coalition, it would barely give them a majority, and the government would have to compromise so much, it would piss off all their voters, which would be a political suicide for the next presidential election. Nobody want to ally with the extreme right except a few members of some right party, which would never give a majority (and the RN would only go to the government if they don't have to make any important compromise, for the same reason). So, you have to remove the two biggest block. And so, even if all the other party would somehow make a coalition (which is more or less the government we had since the assembly dissolution), it would still give less than ~45% of seats in the parlement, not enough to ensure that your governement would not be censored (which is what is happening, we've had like 3 or 5 government since the dissolution, i can't even remember all of them).

This is an unprecedented situation in France and basically the achilles heel of the fifth republic. Our system cannot function without a clear majority in the national assembly, and the way the assembly is divided right now makes any majority coalition impossible (or a political suicide).

[lucianbr]

> Nobody has even close to an absolute majority in the parlement.

If the parliament would elect the government, the situation would be exactly as problematic as it is now. I don't see how the fact that the president chooses the prime-minister has any impact on the stability of the system.

You have pointed out a lot of true things, but none of them seems to be a your-system-specific-cause of the current instability.

I don't understand how a 30-30-30 split would work any better if parliament elected the government instead of the president. They would still be unable to reach any agreement, including an agreement on who to put in the government.

[RestlessMind]

A lot of people complain about American FPTP system. But it seems that the French system, with a final round of top 2 in case no one gets clear majority, isn't any better. I am also familiar with the Indian system which gives rise to coalition politics which has its own problems.

[disgruntledphd2]

The French system is a bit weird, but I think that parliamentary systems with proportional representation tend to work better, as they represent minority interests and basically force compromise, which is good for societal health (but on the downside, ensures that basically nothing controversial ever happens).

[ratelimitsteve]

There are actually several French people and if one of them votes for austerity while the other protests it that doesn't actually make both of them hypocrites.

[ok123456]

Why should people meekly accept austerity or acculturation?

[alephnerd]

The alternative is going bankrupt, thus leading to forced and callous austerity by the IMF and ECB - just like what Greece faced. That would solve the problem as well, but French voters would have no say or autonomy.

French voters need to get it in their head that they need to accept their government tightening belts, otherwise they will have no say on what gets cut.

[ok123456]

No. People are tired of socialism for billionaires and corporations, and the law of the jungle for everyone else.

[icepush]

What they want is for the government to write off the debt, but good luck actually getting it.

[port11]

Perhaps ending or cutting the laughable 211 billion euros as subsidies to businesses?

[hamilyon2]

Chaos agents promote cooperation

[cAtte_]

this is called goomba fallacy.

[warkdarrior]

> Increase tax rates? Riot!

Somehow the tax rates for top 1% never go up.

[JumpCrisscross]

> tax rates for top 1% never go up

Genuine question: what is the effective tax rate on France's top 1%?

[sam_lowry_]

Unlike in the US, French top 1% are usually families that span dozens of households that run unrelated businesses. The staple of the French top 1% is the Mulliez family that counts >1000 members. The most prominent family members run Decathlon, Auchan and Leroy-Merlin, others handle equally important land and B2B businesses, the offspring get juicy jobs at McKinsey or spawn startups in what's the hot thing of the moment. I am sure there are a few you Mulliez running AI startups right now.

It's really impossible to say what's the effective tax rate of these people. Their real wealth is not in the money, of with they have plenty, but rather in endless opportunities.

[alephnerd]

> Their real wealth is not in the money, of with they have plenty, but rather in endless opportunities.

That's not solvable with tax policy. The solution to that is DEI, but HN froths at the mouth when those 3 letters are pronounced.

[sam_lowry_]

> The solution to that is DEI

Funnily, France already tried that in 1789.

[bwb]

income tax is 45% on all income above 177,106 Euros

[Ruphin]

The effective tax rates on high income individuals is likely much less. There is a large correlation between income and wealth, and wealth increase through asset appreciation is largely not taxed, or at best taxed at much more favorable rates than general income tax.

Tax on income is not the problem, it's tax on wealth gained through asset value increase.

[bwb]

That is why you have capital gains, which is ~30% in France.

Investment income is flat taxed.

And inheritance taxes, which are very high in France.

If you want to increase taxes, consider taxing income more and capital gains at a progressive rate. Although I haven't seen good data on effects of say a 70% capital gain tax, might hurt th,e economy. I did some reading on this subject last month and the sweetspot was around 20% to 35% on that classification of income.

Do you want to take people's wealth and cap it? IE, nobody is allowed more than $5 million? What are you advocating for instead?

[verzali]

I think the proposal from the left is a 2% wealth tax annually on wealth above €100 million. I suppose that is what they are referring to.

[logicchains]

Total French private wealth is around $15 trillion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_pri... ), French government spending is around $1.8 trillion/year. Even if the French government were to expropriate the entirety of private wealth, it wouldn't even be enough to cover 10 years of spending. Fundamentally the French economy isn't producing enough to support the current level of spending, due to a continuously falling ratio of workers to retirees.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Even if the French government were to expropriate the entirety of private wealth, it wouldn't even be enough to cover 10 years of spending

America's $6.75tn budget [1] would blow through our $140tn private wealth in 21 years. Even Norways $0.11tn budget [2] blows through its $1.6tn of private wealth in 14 years.

Perhaps the better metric is deficit as a fraction of private wealth? If that looks unsustainable, the problem is in publicly-held assets and services.

[1] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_budget_of_Norway

[ta1243]

French private wealth has increased $2,300 billion since 2020 according to that page.

In the last 5 years French public debt has grown $750b [1]

Had that growth in wealth been taxed at the rate income was taxed (45%), that would have seen France's debt decrease - even with the covid mess.

[1] https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/france/national-govern...

[ta1243]

You are implying the top 1% of wealthy people in france is related to income tax?

[bwb]

I don't understand this one?

You tax income, you tax capital gains, you tax dividends. If you want more money, you increase those taxes.

[tehjoker]

> huge proportion of tax revenue(second highest in the EU) spent on social benefits.

This is the goal not the problem.

[bwb]

Somewhat agree, but the problem is that debt is at 110% and taxes are about maxed out. At some point, you go outside the Laffer curve, and then your economic engine is stunted (which maybe France already has?).

[throwaway894345]

How can you tell when taxes are about maxed out? What's stopping France from increasing its marginal tax rate or creating a new tax bracket? Is the idea that people will move elsewhere in the EU with lower tax rates?

[bwb]

Every tax system has a point where extracting more means less economic activity. I think that also applies to paperwork and all the hoops you jump through. I wish I knew where it was, I think that is a big debate :)

But at some point, people give up, they don't start businesses, and if they do, they form them in the USA. Or they move nearby, a lot of French people went to Belgium the last time taxes increased a lot.

[throwaway894345]

That makes sense to me, but if we don't know where that point is, how can we say that France has reached it? I'm not trying to suggest France has or has not--I don't know the French economy well enough to have an opinion. I also wonder if "economic activity" alone is worth maximizing for--like certainly more economic activity is better than less, all else equal, but I think we also want to minimize inequality (maybe we want to maximize for median household income or something?).

[bwb]

I don't know, I wonder the same thing. And does that number change based on culture? And what parts? And how many new businesses are starting up in France and adding good jobs?

I know that the French economy isn't doing great. And it would likely slide further if government spending slows down, but I'm unsure of the extent of that impact. But I wonder how much of the problem is the sheer volume of paperwork and numerous taxes that consume hours to complete, monitor, and review when you get audited.

I think the government should optimize for a lot of things (well-being, good health, outdoor, fun, no pollution, etc etc), but ultimately, you need money to pay for those things, and to pay for guns to keep Russia (or someone like them) from invading and taking them.

[yoz-y]

That does happen.

[throwaway894345]

My question wasn't rhetorical, I'm not expressing an opinion, I'm trying to understand what the parent meant by "maxed out".

[yoz-y]

Anecdata but several of my colleagues moved to other countries (Poland, Switzerland, US…) specifically citing high taxes as the reason.

The middle class is disproportionately squeezed.

Also one thing to consider is that most comments here talk about income tax. On top of that you need to also count all other taxes.

Let’s say the company pays a US style salary for you, around 300k from that your actual gross salary will be only 200k from which the taxable salary will be 160k. That 160k is what you will be paying the income tax on (around 40k)

This is the real reason salaries are lower here compared to the US even though the cost of employment is similar.