I think i need to leave...The U.S.

Don't move to France: except if the next government radically change its economics, social politic and some totally inefficient public companies, it'll become a Communist country.
That's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it.

By being too social, economy is slowed down => to increase social revenues, middle-class and upper middle-class are slaughtered by taxes + companies are slaughtered by taxes as well => companies are less competitive => unemployment + prices rise => buying power is reduced for all classes and unemployed (the social goal isn't achieved) => economy is slowed down...
That's the old doctrine, that everything will be better in a country if rich people pay less taxes, if you let private actors run hospitals and prisons, take as much money out of the government, and cut it down to what it was under Luis XIV.

I don't buy it.

I admit that communism shouldn't be the goal, it's a great idea for humanity, but that's it, an idea. It does not work.

But even considering calling high taxes and social care for communism is silly.
 
That's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it.

That's the old doctrine, that everything will be better in a country if rich people pay less taxes, if you let private actors run hospitals and prisons, take as much money out of the government, and cut it down to what it was under Luis XIV.

I don't buy it.

I admit that communism shouldn't be the goal, it's a great idea for humanity, but that's it, an idea. It does not work.

But even considering calling high taxes and social care for communism is silly.


FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY HOPE YOU WILL READ THIS AS I PUT EFFORTS TO DO THIS


From 1980s governments tried to perform a wealth levelling. The problem is the way it has been done led to a levelling down.

Let's have some figures:

* Evolution of the RMI candidates (RMI is the main "salary" for unemployed people):
1989: 396 000 persons
2005: 1 266 400 persons !


* Legal full-time: from 39 it became 35 hours => increase of man power costs = 14.3% !!!

Hopefully we have courageous workers:
Bosch, V?nissieux
In 2004, the company previewed a layoff of 300 employees, justifying it by the inefficience due to those 35h, and that social costs were 20% more than in Italy. The employees accepted to work 36h still being paid 35h. As a result, it allowed to recruit 240 employees the following year. :+1: to those employees


* The RMI, combined with other social assistances, is about the same amount as the minimal salary (social assistances included), about 1200 to 1300 euros.

Since the follow-up of unemployed people is very bad (it used to be 1 appointment per semester, no justification of job seeking needed; for 2-3 years it tends to a monthly appointment), do you think this encourage people to go to work?

Quotes from some people I met:
"I'm doing a full-time plus a(n illegal) partial-time, otherwise I'd better be home and earn the same"
"Why would I work? I earn at least as much stayin' home!"
...
"I own a small shop and make 2000 euros per months. My wife doesn't work therefore our couple has social assistance. If she works and earn minimal revenue, she won't have those assistance and our revenue taxes will strongly increase, such that we would earn less money."

Someone doing a partial-time + social assistances earn LESS than an unemployed


To earn more than the minimal revenue, which is equivalent to unemployment, many employees are seeking for extra hours in the company they are working for. However those extra hours are highly taxed for both the company and the employee, and even so those extra hours are strongly limited per company (depending on its activity) :cry:


* The growing rate of French economy is lower than most other's EU country. Why?



Public companies

I don't criticize all public public companies, EDF-GDF (Electricity and Gas) are doing a wonderful job for example, in hospitals they are lacking employees therefore employees work as hell: it's not rare for nurses, doctors and medicine students to do 70 hours a week, as well as more than 48 consecutive hours.


However we have many in which employees are really taking the mickey out of us:

Public transports:
- We have an usual strike from drivers every october, for whatsoever reason (more money, less hours, less "difficult" job).
- Drivers used to make strike to complain their job is hard and that they work too long, however it has been reported that subway drivers were working only 32h while it was legally 39h
Now imagine yourself living in Paris. There is an anti-car politic down there (whose goal is to reduce pollution - doesn't work since jams remain longer and there are much more polluing 2-wheelers - and favor peds/cycle). You're a good guy therefore you choose to use public transports. Imagine your disappointment when a strike happens (which occurs quite often and concerns ALL public transports at the same time). And I'm not talking about the economical consequences of a 9 million inhabitants capital being half-paralized!!!

Education
- We have also an usual strike from university teachers in October (not the same dates as public transport), sometimes joined by high-school teachers. They paralize traffic and prevent access to the universities from students! Since universities open in october, it delays the beginning of classes for the students. They complain for the same reasons as public transport's drivers. In 2005, it remained during TWO weeks!!! However, they were also demonstrating against a reform.
- We also have an usual palarizing strike (again) from high-school teachers around April-May. Since high school students have a requisite comprehensive exam over the last 3 years in June, you can imagine how pissed-off are students.
- As a first consequence, students from private high-schools are more likely to be admitted in private universities.
- As a second consequence, if 2 alumni, one from public and the other from private university, apply for the same job with the same program, there are 90% chances the company will hire the one coming from private university. (note that it is also strongly affected by the quality of teaching and by students' follow-up, which is better in private universities)
Given that public schools/universities are almost free, and that private schools/universities are moderately to very expensive, do you think this is social?

Some of those high school teachers are really a joke sometimes: they only work 37 weeks a year.
Also they are sometimes asked to do parallel teaching: one Math teacher was asked to assist students in Physics/Chemistry (students with lower grades are proposed to do extra hours, assisted by the teacher of the topic in which they may fail); another teacher, of Physics/Chemistry, was asked to do Math class just for a months, until the new teacher arrives. They both REFUSE those tasks. Apparently they are more concerned about the bottom of their pockets than the education of their students.



Taxes


I never mean taxes of wealthy people must be lowered, I'm against the stupid proportions and the way they re-allocate them.


VAT

19.6% on most products
5.5% on raw food, books, primary residence (bought or built)

Income Tax rating:

2006
euros per year rate
up to 4412 0%
4412 to 8677 7%
8677 to 15274 19%
15274 to 24731 28%
24731 to 40241 37%
40241 to 49624 43%
49624 and up 48%

Do you think it's normal that:
if you earn 9000 you'll have 7290 net whereas if you earn 8000 you'll have 7440 net
if you earn 50000 you'll have 26000 net whereas if you earn 40000 you'll have 25200 net
if you earn 50000 you'll have 26000 net whereas if you earn 200000 (mostly popular artists and footballers) you'll have 104000 net?
It should be a curve rather than levels!



Inheritance tax:

spouse/husband dies: over 76000 euros, 40% inheritance taxes for the remaining spouse/husband
last parent dies: over 50000 euros, 40% inheritance taxes for the children
brother/sister dies: 35% inheritance taxes for the remaining brother/sister
others will have to pay 55% inheritance taxes
There is 20% of the primary residence that cannot be taxed; everything is based on the actual value of goods and property



ISF - solidar tax on wealth: are considered wealth more than 760000 euros of any property owned by the whole family. Any property value exceeding 760000 will be taxed (between 0.55% and 1.50%).
However, ISF + income tax cannot exceed 60%

It seems to be a nice tax, however it has some limits:
- it doesn't take into account marital status or number of children (a couple of 2 "declared" singles owning 500000 each won't pay it whereas a couple owning 1000000 will pay it)
- a 100 square meters flat in is between 413000 and 728000 euros, if you add a secondary residence like an inherited house (for which it has been taxed 0.4x0.8/2, spouse inheritance, + 0.4x0.8, child inheritance, = 0.48 so 48% of its actual value).


Again, I think a proportionally increasing income tax rate would be more appropriate, especially if you take into account that IFS threshold increased from 720000 to 760000 euros between 1999 and 2007 (+5.56%) whereas the average square meter in Paris increased of 6.27% between 2004 and 2005.




Don't get me wrong, I think the most important progress for human being is the social progress. I'm just fed up of this utopian politic/economic system which asserts to be social but isn't technically.

BTW when I meant less taxes on companies, it would be a contract between the companies and the government which reduces the amount of taxes in coordination with employment. Since those employees will pay income and VAT taxes, and that the companies will generate more income so more income tax, the government shouldn't loose money and maybe earn a bit.
 
Last edited:
You obviously have a better understanding of ecconomy than me, but to my mind, it's important to offer those who can't take care of themselves what they need. As for strikes, France has had numerous coservative governments, and the French still went to strike.

I don't favor to much taxes, I don't favor to little taxes. But to be honest, I'd much rather favor taxes as a way of taking in money than putting specific taxes on cars and other things. The fact is that taxes can vary, someone who makes much money can get more tax than those who make less. With specific taxes on bits'n bobs everybody needs, it will hurt those with less money hard, those with much money less, or not at all.

That's not fair, in my mind.
 
You obviously have a better understanding of ecconomy than me, but to my mind, it's important to offer those who can't take care of themselves what they need. As for strikes, France has had numerous coservative governments, and the French still went to strike.

I don't favor to much taxes, I don't favor to little taxes. But to be honest, I'd much rather favor taxes as a way of taking in money than putting specific taxes on cars and other things. The fact is that taxes can vary, someone who makes much money can get more tax than those who make less. With specific taxes on bits'n bobs everybody needs, it will hurt those with less money hard, those with much money less, or not at all.

That's not fair, in my mind.


:lol: I see the "Noregic" influence. I know that a car in NL is taxed by a ecolo-tax first (BPM of 43.5%, on brut price), and VATed (BTW of 17.5%, on brut price too), which means the car costs 161% of its brut price. I think it gets closer to 175% in Denmark and even more in Norway/Sweden.


I think we agree on taxes, my point about the companies is that personal wealth may be more taxed, but not too much on companies' wealth, if the gain is reinvested into employment.


By the way, I'm not an economist at all (rather Computer Engineering / Engineering Management), I just search for figures and get them confirmed by different unlinked sources (publications, governmental institutes...).



Here is an interesting doc on buying power in France: http://www.insee.fr/en/indicateur/achatfranc.htm


It's a pity this book, http://www.amazon.com/Sacr%C3%A9s-Fran%C3%A7ais-am%C3%A9ricain-nous-regarde/dp/2841861961 has not been edited in English. It's the story of an american from US countryside who is moved to Paris for his job and depict the French country with his eyes of American.
 
Last edited:
Denmark has the highest prizes on cars in Europe, afaik, car prizes in Sweden is a whole lot lower. We pay roundabout twice as much for an M3 than the Swedes.

Just for fun. A C6 Corvette costs 212 816 USD in Norway.

As for the tax question, that's an interesting tought. The problem is, that many stockholders are less interested in investing more money into corporations so that they may get more money later. Many want money AT ONCE.

:)
 
Denmark has the highest prizes on cars in Europe, afaik, car prizes in Sweden is a whole lot lower. We pay roundabout twice as much for an M3 than the Swedes.

Just for fun. A C6 Corvette costs 212 816 USD in Norway.

As for the tax question, that's an interesting tought. The problem is, that many stockholders are less interested in investing more money into corporations so that they may get more money later. Many want money AT ONCE.

:)

Which is why it should be done with a contract between government and companies/corporations.
 
They should just lower the prizes. I'd even agree for a tax on emissions, but no tax on weight, displacement and power. That's just stupid.
 
nomix please stop.
You are fighting a loosing battle. I am from finland and I fucking hate how the leeches in this country drive Mercs and normal people, like me have to struggle with taxes, jobs and counting pennys. A fucking gypsy doesnt have to worry about those things. He has no fucking job, no respect for me. He doesn't pay taxes but I pay for his food, his Merc and gas.

To make matters worse these people also breed. And I have seen how gypsy parents told a 10year-old girl to lie about her condition to the doctor. "Tell the doc you have agonizing pain in your back so you get blaablaa more money." It... fucking... stinks.
These people do not need help to "take care of them selves". They need to fucking die.

My government leeches off my back more and more and more and more... in the past 7years I think it has become 3times more expensive to live in Finland and salaries have gone up MABY 100? and that is a big maby... however I really think the government is not the problem. The problem is that people just go with it.
 
handouts are never the answer.

?Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime?

and all that. if anything things like welfare and foodstamps should have time limits on them. sure people can hit a rough patch and may need a little help to get back on thier feet, but there are so many people that just don't bother and leech off welfare and foodstamps and such for all thier lives, it's retarded.
 
Now now.
I am not saying that it is wrong to have a socialservice system like Finland does. It isnt like I am at the bottom tho. Education here only costs basically your books. We don't pay tuition fees or what are they.
If only our stupid government would make an effort to make sure that honest, low income people could manage as well as leeches all would be better...
 
Last edited:
Education here only costs basically your books. We don't pay tuition fees or what are they.

Hold on. Where do you think the money that pays the professors and builds teh universities and the programs and whatnot comes from? Your taxes, that's where. So, in essence, you ARE paying for it. And everyone else's.
 
Yeah I realise that. I just think it is good that students don't have to worry about paying their tuition every year or so. Here everyone can go to University and get a better education. It isn't like that everywhere. It is one less headache for students and thats a good thing.
 
I really think everyone should be able to go to colleges or universities, if they're smart enough.

Didn't your present president get in due to surtain donations? So, he took the place of someone who actually was smart. He wouldn't had gotten in if he wasn't rich.

Equal oppertunities, that's my idea.
 
Of course the rich have an easier path, not only in education by in life in general. I received a scholarship at a 'snobby' school and i know what its like (transition between public and private). Its never easy being surrounded by guys who drive Porsche's and RX7/8's. But the surprising thing is, some of them are really smart. (Average International Baccalaureate for last year was over 38!!!!). Its not only in secondary education that they are aided by money, but also at uni. Rich people buy their way into courses they want. (in Australia we dont have private and public uni's, students have to pay for their course).

So, yeah, im with "nomix"- Equal opportunities!:razz:
 
I think that when you have to pay for school yourself you will take it more seriously. I noticed this when I went from K-12 (Kindergarten through 12th grade) to college.
 
If you are able to pay for school, that is true.
 
what I've found out by having to pay my own way thru college and talking to people who attend the school I go to is that literally anyone can go to college in the US if you are smart enough. yes, if you have rich parents who pay for everything it's easier, but that goes for pretty much anything, pretty much anywhere. There are so many grants, loans and funds available to anyone that if you can't find money for school you aren't looking hard enough.

my girlfriend and her best friend had thier first years paid for entirely by a grant because they couldn't afford it, and this year since they make more money at thier jobs they won't be able to get as much, but there is still help available and along with the money they make from thier jobs it shouldn't be a problem.

it can be complicated at first, but most schools have a financial aid form that you fill out, basically telling them who you are, where you come from and how much you make, then they tell you what type of grants and funds you qualify for. There are also other grants that you can go after and compete for. There's a grant for the "best prom dress made from duct tape" for crying out loud, there are tons of ways to pay for school.

not only that but anyone can get a loan for school, and you don't have to start paying it back untill you graduate, and sometimes quite a while after that.

I used to think that publically funded college was the best idea ever(back when I didn't know where my money was going to come from), but now I'm not so sure. I'm not sure it's even needed here. my parents saved up no money at all for my college, it just wasn't important where they come from and they never made enough money. I work my ass off in a shitty warehouse job between semesters so I can have things I want, but if I really wanted to I wouldn't need to work at all thru school.

I wouldn't personally be opposed to some of my taxes going to pay for my school, but then again I'm going to school and I don't know if someone who never plans or needs to go to college should have to pay for my education when there are so many banks, institutions, governments and private persons willing to pay for it anyway.
 
My uni place is commonwealth supported (like every australian citizen pretty much) so it costs me AUD$16,000 for the entire duration. My parents paid it outright so it only costs 80% of that and now I owe them the money, otherwise i'd be paying back the government with an interest free loan once I started earning over a certain amount (35K I think it is)

I don't qualify for any sort of welfare because I live at home with parents who earn to much money :S
 
We have a flat rate fee of ~?3000 every year. This is fixed but people from poorer less well-off families can claim government grants and usually grants from the Uni's as well. You borrow this money with a student loan which you don't have to start paying back until you earn over ?15,000 a year and it is wiped out after about 15 years. University places here don't have anything to do with wealth whatsoever.
 
I forgot to add:

some states(at least one) have free universities already. if you are a citizen of New Mexico you can go to UNM for free.
 
Top