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.
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)
* 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.