The problem in France is that 60% of the govt budget goes to boomer benefits. To 15% of the population that's also the wealthiest demographic.
The average French boomer makes more than the average salary in retirement benefits. They're making more money than the people working 40 hours a week to support them.
And the only solution offered is "fuck over younger generations by raising retirement age". When that just makes the benefit skew toward the boomers more extreme, as young people will be stuck paying for lavish benefits they never get.
The proper way to fix everything is to cut retiree benefits around 20%. Not future retiree. Current ones.
But France cannot do this because the geriatrics hold most of the wealth and power. So young people are trying to burn it all down.
Wild. As a young person, I do not support regressive economic systems or policies at all, they specifically screw me over. You think French youth would understand this too.
Yes, the Senior discount at your local diner should be an under 25 discount.
Sorry to be cynical, but Macron did exactly what the french population wanted : abandon the pension reforms. They told him very clearly, with millions in the streets in 2018/2019.
Now people are unhappy with the result : no money to fund anything else.
And who do they want to vote for now? Populist parties that promise to lower the retirement age.
This is almost all western democracies right now. A redistributive democracy is going to turn into a battle over who gets the treasure. The people will always vote for less taxes and more subsidies because it's the locally rational thing to do. It's what Madison warned us about, only right now the warring demographics are grouped by age.
The issue is that there's nothing putting a limit on what can actually be spent and there's no consequences for essentially promising free money to get people to vote for you.
All European countries are in the delusional space that Greece was before the crash. Voting for lots of free stuff but the money to pay for it is not there. They pretend the rich can pay but somehow its only the very richest they want to pay and there are just not enough of them and never were.
Its going to go the same way that Greece did.
Its France right now but its all of them sooner or later.
One way out of it is to increase economic activity but to do that you have to loosen the death-grip of regulation and people would protest against that too.
This. I suggest this for social security. 0 cpi benefits or half cpi benefits till its solvent. So instead of a 20% haircut in 2032 we get 1-2% haircuts until 2032 and then its a 5% cut. Current people feel it. And future ones arent as screwed by tax increases for luxury boomer communism
all capitalism can offer anymore is austerity and war for the masses coupled with decadence and obscene wealth for the tiny wealthy/corporate/billionaire/epstein class
The Soviet Union also collapsed under its own weight due to unpopular wars and immense budget constraints due to their enormous social services and war spending - that is how the world works, there are limited resources to go around and the mechanisms driving an developed economy is quite multi-faceted as we can see with France’s budget constraints right now.
I suddenly understand why I meet so many young professionals in Québec who moved here from France. As bad as it is here, the ones who can are all bailing out for greener pastures.
It's similar in a lot of places. The biggest voting democratic being post economic is really causing problems. The UK has a similar issue.
In America all of the boomers vote for their own generation and have been doing so since 1992. So their political halls of power look increasingly like an old folks home.
> In America all of the boomers vote for their own generation and have been doing so since 1992. So their political halls of power look increasingly like an old folks home.
Boomers are 20% of the population. And split almost 49/51 on Trump/Harris.
They are about 31 percent of the electorate. They are a very powerful cohort. Possibly the most powerful in the history of America given that their longevity.
US lucked out a bit here that Reagan implemented cuts back when it was politicslly feasible, and our old people vote right wing, so we havent seen any large expansions of social security.
France never had a Reagan and the French were able to shut down attempts at reform when the population was young enough for it to be less painful.
If every time you got a paycheck you were required to hand 7% of it over to someone "so they can save it for you until later, but it's ok, you're entitled to it, it's an entitlement" and then when later arrives they say "lol no you only get 80% of what we promised you, we gave the rest to those guys instead" you wouldn't be the slightest bit mad?
Canada has half the problem. OAS isn't great. But it's nowhere close to the problem that France has. Imagine the OAS situation across every public pension and you get France. We should be more grateful for what Paul Martin did with CPP in the 90s.
Paul Martin (and Chretien for empowering Martin) need to be a role model for governments across the world right now. They did the tough work and set the country up for almost 20 years of solid success.
There is a bit of a revisionist history on the impact of those cuts and balancing the budget. Yes, austerity was needed, and yes Martin is about as good as a Finance Minister as Canada has ever had, but the reduction of the transfer payments is a big reason that Canada's healthcare is severely underfunded right now.
People always are quick to remind people that Healthcare is a provincial responsibility, but I am also quick to remind people that when Healthcare was initially founded, it was 50/50 split on funding. After a bunch of cuts and transfer payments over the decades, the number the Federal government chips in is only 22%, and many provinces are begging to just get back at 25% again.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to use the acronymn OAS in the context of France you better make sure you're clear about not meaning "Organisation armée secrète"
Because there's no such thing as a private pension there, and they all worked and paid taxes.
The system is the problem. There is no option but to have the government pension. Like the rest of the west, the older generation is a big voting block now due to an aging population.
Pension reform is unpopular at all ages. Nobody wants their parents left poor. France needs to find a middle ground.
If they worked and paid in they can get their pensions from all the assets the state built up on those years. No need to put their hands into young people’s pockets.
The UK has the same issue: boomers “paid in” but running up huge debts. Now they expect under 60s to pay those debts. And pay them a pension. And cover a bunch of other free shit for them.
Exactly. At this point it’s like people ran up credit card debt, made minimum payments, and somehow think those payments not only covered the spending but make them shareholders deserving of a dividend from the credit card company.
“I paid in all my life” no you didn’t bro, that’s why the debt ballooned and all the assets were sold off while you were “paying in”
It is relevant in a pay-as-you-go system. If you are dependent upon subsequent generations to fund your retirement, then you need to vote appropriate policy into place to allow the economic and social conditions to exist that can fund your retirement.
Otherwise the system collapses on itself as it can't pay the costs.
Heck, even in other countries it's a problem. Group of elders is increasing and the group of people paying for that group is decreasing. (Belgium)
Thats very problematic. Younger group has to work longer, elders don't want pensions cut or don't want to work longer.
It's a problem in the UK, too, but our system is different enough the big block is political will. There's specific help for those who struggle. The pension can be tackled.
Well, we do have PER but it is relatively recent and it's a big shift to get people onboard to fund private pension. It's also hard to open if your salary is lower due to mandatory deductions, so less disposable income to contribute to PER. That said more younger people are opening them. I feel that a lot of people here made fun of countries with private systems (it's cultural I guess), but it's likely in their future too...
Younger people are working and paying (more) taxes but will never see those benefits. Why do they have to ensure the elderly generation get looked after by shooting themselves in the foot?
The simple fact is France can’t afford it’s current expenditure, and debt is becoming increasingly expensive. That cannot be sustained.
Quando i tassi gli vanno al 6-7% va la che lo trovano il compromesso.
Scusa ma pensano di essere affidabili, standosene a pancia per aria. Quando le cose prendono una brutta piega purtroppo sono lacrime e dolore
There is a 401(k) equivalent, but it's not super popular for various reasons, one of them being the mandatory PAYG systems already shuffling big money. For ordinary salaried workers, there is something ressembling a three-pillar system but with both the first and the second pillar being PAYG.
> The average French boomer makes more than the average salary in retirement benefits. They're making more money than the people working 40 hours a week to support them.
Is it really true? Almost all sources I can find say it is not.
Correct but literally none of that is what the protesters are protesting about. Nor would they. There is no support for pension reform there, the protesters side with the boomers on that issue.
If they had their own currency they could devalue and keep the pension at the same nominal amount. Most boomers wouldn't notice. It's the euro straitjacket that is the issue
> If they had their own currency they could devalue and keep the pension at the same nominal amount. Most boomers wouldn't notice
"hey we can cut benefits in a sneaky way and they're too stupid to know we're reducing their real income"
I mean a political policy of "they're too stupid to find out" isn't really the best. ALSO you're forgetting they are indexed to price inflation. So if you debase your currency via inflation, not to mention france is a tiny country so imports are a must, well prices will simply go up.
Then you have an inflation spiral PLUS a debt crisis on your hands :D
Same thing happening in Canada. Younger generations are being sacrificed for Boomers. Boomers are also the largest voting block, so it’s impossible for either party to make meaningful changes. Young people have a right to protest, but it’s much more effective to simply organize themselves, make their positions clear, and vote as a block. I wish it would happen.
Nah. 401k was designed to boost the stonk market because 50% of it is owned by 1%ers.
Look at the new Trump accounts. Takes $1000 of everyone's tax dollars and dumps it straight into all the oligarchs companies (mostly into top 20 megacorps in index, most owned by far right nutjobs).
The main consequence of 401k has been tying the fate of plebs to Wall Streets gambling machine. It's the whole reason for corporate welfare aka "too big to fail".
They could trade off the European stock market or something, but it is the most profitable financial instrument for unsophisticated investors. You still have bond saving accounts as well, though they typically offer less return.
Having a pay as you go pension system is unsustainable when you have falling demographics. Raising the age just benefits the 10-1%rs, since they tend to live longer than everyone else on average, even in European countries.
Yes, but the "rich" they want to pay are some "ultra richs" that have nowhere near enough cash flow to sustain the cost of what the protesters are asking for, even if the state took literally everything. Economic illiteracy at its finest.
Or, you know, lower some high pensions, increase taxes on retirees OR make them start later. Like literally every single european country had to do. Every single one.
For example did you know that in france there is a 10% tax break (max 4400€) for retirees? And that both the populist far left and populist far right voted last week against removing it?
But I would prefer system change. I don't like what you're offering. Much better world be to take up the program of the old masters: the abolition of private property. We have enough infrastructure to take care of our old and our young. It's a matter of using it rationally. I don't think you can comprehend that, but that's okay. The riots imply it.
"Even if the rich pay that closes about 3% of the deficit and the other 97% are untouched."
"Well... It's a start and then we just see and we should tax the rich anyways"
This sums up pretty any discussion on Reddit related to taxing the rich. 0 problems solved, but at least "it's a start". The idea that taxing the rich might be a good idea (I don't know) but is also completely useless fiscally does not compute for the average Redditor.
Even if that worked out (Which I highly doubt), future investment and human capital would probably steer clear of France. Look at what’s happening today. Investors are souring in real time over civil unrest, so imagine what your proposals would do. Finally, the reason given to raise taxes would not be seen as a good one, because the reason would really be “we the people refuse any budget cuts or future adjustments”.
Reading this forum, if nothing else at least we have moved past the “govt deficits are a universal good” and “debts literally don’t matter” phase of collective insanity.
Ask the same question in r/france and you'll get some different answers. Some started asking if there weren't Russian bots that made the debt suddenly become important, but it seems like these people have failed to follow the rates at which the French bonds have surges just this last month
/r/france is run by a team of moderators who are very far left. Anyone who voices a view that’s too contrary will easily be moderated and banned for no good reason.
As the Far left candidate in France say "debt isn't an issue, we can just cancel a part of it" 🤡
They can but about half of Frances debt is hold domestically. Canceling that will probably also result in protests when people notice that their bank is suddenly bankrupt or their whatever investment fund suddenly significantly drops in value.
Argentina called to tell everyone how much it hurts after you do a debt default
They are still paying the price now. They have to buy debt at something like 12% which is double what a stable economy without history of default would pay. So they are forced to live within their means - a thing that a country like France shows no political ability to do
You can only explain to people that some magical pool of money from "taxing the rich" doesn't exist to the extent that they imagine. At some point they need to try to put their fantasies into reality and touch the stove.
It would be great to learn to read; I’m only targeting the idiots who think a state can fund its operations, expenditure and social welfare for years on end solely through debt.
That sort of thing is called treating yourself to a standard of living higher than what you earn, at the expense of future generations.
Those in favour are either too stupid to understand this or simply hypocritical and selfish.
You may want to come down to earth instead of doing gatekeeping like this.
Everyone knows how debt works, do you think your insight is anything mind-blowing?
The problem is larger than that and is more distributional, as is often the case. The problem is not people not being ready to give up their comfort, that's their lack of comfort in the first place. And not only it is always them who are supposed to make the sacrifices and not the wealthiest classes; they do not even see where the money goes, because their schools, hospitals, public services... are all going to ruin. Pure and simple. You expect them to just sit and be happy about that?
"57% of GDP", yes, okay. Why not do less? But that's not the problem. The real problem is, if it is true, where is all this money going? Because truly that is not obvious at all. It is reasonable to ask the gouvernement why they give tax cuts to the wealthy while there are rats in fucking schools.
Moneys goes to the pensions, stop acting like you don't know where it's going, Macron tried to fixed it twice, the same people crying today blocked the first one and prevented him to do enough the second time.
Yes, the most generous pensions in the world are lacking comfort, sure! /s
France never spend as much in schools budget and hospitals. Issue is a lot of it are taken for schools pensions
The pension system was paid for. Thats how it works. You pay $1 today when you work, to get 1-2$ when you don't, after taking into account interest and taxes. I don't see why you would throw blame on retirees who have contributed their whole life to get the comfort they deserve at old age.
>Macron tried to fixed it twice, the same people crying today blocked the first one and prevented him to do enough the second time.
They were not the same people and you are wrong, in both cases the reform was put on hold first by covid, and later it was adopted by 49.3. Granted, it was suspended this year not because of protests but as a concession during parliamentary debates.
The pensions in France are also a distributional problem, they are generous as an aggregate but unequal depending who you are. Many old people are living under poverty standards and that's also a social fact of France.
For the rest of your points, also distributional. If the spending in education/health are so great, why are there closed beds, teachers shortages, deteriorating buildings, etc? Everyone in France can see the public services are worse and worse, that's not a collective hallucination; hence the question "where does the money go?" in the first place.
Also pensions are 14% of GDP; out of the claims of 57% of GDP for total public spending, that's still a lot of %age unclaimed for. Still a lot of money missing. Yes it is a big part of budget but it doesn't answer the question of who bears the adjustment and where are the dozens of billions/year that were granted to the wealthy through tax cuts (I actually know the answer, like anyone, truly).
In fact you yourself ask the proper question, there's a discrepancy between social spendings and the reality on the ground. That's a genuine PE inquiry and I'm not sure why you would evacuate the question on the pretext that people are stupid.
Well public debt has recently skyrocketted as a result of massive corporate aids, with 0 economical benefit. Spending has only very slowly increased, and public service has effevtively been left-out and has not kept on with inflation. So no, money has gone to big companies, do not pretend you know something about France. I’m tired of this bs propaganda. No single fact.
Of course, I'm not saying the repeal of tax cuts are a solution for public debt. That's not what I implied.
Just saying that on the ground it makes a big difference when you ask the poorest have to make all the sacrifices while the wealthiest have such tax gifts from the state.
Economic literacy is not common amongst the people who make these demands. If they knew anything about the state of the French economy they would be demanding economic reforms to be able to get some better education in the future. Instead they’re demanding that the government spends even more money. Insane.
You can’t be serious? Anybody working in finance should be the first ones to know the bond desks moving billions in flows and such gives zero fracks what a bunch of bots, or anyone else rants about on Twitter or whatnot.
I am... This people would even say a country that spends more than 55 per cent of its GDP on public expenditure and more than 30 per cent on welfare spending is a neoliberal hellhole.
Issuing debt in your own currency gives you the ability to not be forced into a hard default, and “manage” your yields if you so choose.
It still matters, it’s just that at what point do does the specter of defaulting, cancelling debt, and stopping yield curve control/suppression seem like the lesser evil and people talk about openly as an option vs. the other distortions and dysfunction it is causing.
If I could use the GIF of Hank Hill smoking a dart with a look of satisfaction here, I totally would. The 'debt doesn't matter' era of pop econ coming to an end is actually such a relief to me as a sessional econ/econ history instructor.
I vividly remember MMT being brought up and pushed everywhere as the best thing since sliced bread with many people claiming it was the superior method to anything some Austrians thought of.
Well, some of these people either don't know what they're talking about but are still parroting something Keynesian views (they might not know it), or they're leaving out a required/complementary caveat that completes the idea: debt burden ratios should not reach a critical point where financial health deteriorates and growth is strangled.
These people who do know this but leave it out assume (incorrectly) that leaders are competent and rational agents, looking after a government or business's health/best interests, when they sometimes aren't. The current US administration/leadership is not competent, and not rational, at least if their goal is to keep the US financially healthy and to generate growth.
Some have argued it is a conspiracy to destroy the country, which is also possible -- but it's likely multiple factors, where they are incompetent, aren't rational/don't care/are too corrupt and self-interested, and possibly want to destroy the US's economic/political/military power for whatever reason -- even unconscious or barely latent desire to destroy human beings, and perhaps themselves, which comes from a place of malicious psychopathology. If there is a conspiracy, it's not some grand plan that is being masterfully implemented, but likely happens to align with their self-interest/corruption and contempt for others.
The debt doesn't matter as long as you haven't reached (or exceeded) a critical debt-to-income ratio threshold (for individuals), or a critical debt-to-revenue, or even debt-to-profit, ratio threshold for government or businesses, where it becomes overleveraged, debt overhang, or insolvency. This also means your expense on interest payments/servicing debt has reached such a critical point that it has become your largest expense (or one of them), and that financial health is deteriorating and growth is restricted/strangled. The debt servicing burden has become so high that it leads to a 'zombie' company or Minsky Moment (which some would argue the US government has reached/is now guaranteed to reach). Again, this assumes competence and rational agency (again, rational interest in the health of the country or business and people in it).
In the highly improbable event that I am ever elected to the US Congress, I will absolutely make it point to hammer home in every speech that US federal outlays should not exceed more than 25% of GDP. And while it might be tempting to spend more than that, this will actually make everyone poorer in the long run.
Debt doesn’t matter only when you can rob other countries without real retaliation. Aka back to colonial free for alls. And even back then you still had to answer to your peer countries regarding debt unpaid.
Not sure why some nowadays have the delusion that debts don’t matter.
And the extreme left and right will lie to the public with solutions that are just not feasible or that will make the situation even worse. Most of what they want to do is not even in French national interest, but of course no one cares. Maybe the reality check is what both the political class and the public need.
What do we want?! Radical moderation!! When do we want it?! As soon as is reasonable!! Why do we want it?! Steady and mature governance that accounts for a wide variety of challenging factors!!
Tax wealth.
Yeah I know they tried it, yadda yadda ... capital flight yadda yadda ...
You can bind the tax on the wealthy to citizenship. If they renounce French citizenship, you can make them pay a very high exit tax. A lot harder to avoid such measures and I bet they would rather pay a few percentages of wealth tax every year than to go through that.
Only America taxes overseas income. France does not. French have no incentive to renounce citizenship. If they wish to not pay as much in taxes they will simply take their business elsewhere. If they do not wish to pay as much income tax they can choose to live outside of France 6 or more months out of the year.
High exit tax implies they were captive. They never were lmao
The good times for Europe are ending. Time for less vacations and instead time to work more to produce something of value and become self reliant again. Paying pensions, selling luxury goods, and hoping Eastern Europe acts as your meat shield from Russia isn’t a sustainable economic model nor societal model for that matter. But Europeans will scream their human rights are being abused if they don’t get 4 hour lunch breaks and mandatory 3 months of time off.
I'm not exactly suprised, "the good times" are ending simultainously in a lot of countries all over the world, maybe it's because of the same few reasons.
The same reason, and it's called energy scarcity. The US suffers less from it because they have a lot of oil and gas along with the exorbitant privilege from the USD.
In Europe domestic energy is mostly nuclear power plants, North Sea oil and gas, and maybe offshore oil and gas from French Guiana's EEZ if serious exploration starts there one day.
Bullshit, you have shown you have literally no understanding of European economies and issues. The issue is not definitely not that people work too little. In most European countries the average number of hours worked per week is comparable to numbers in the US (although, it is true that they are usually slightly lower). The issues of economies in Europe are high energy prices, inflexible capital markets, lack of innovation and bureaucracy. The fact that France is running unsustainable welfare state financed by debt does not mean that Europeans work too little. It is incredibly disrespectufl to the people who are working shifts and can barely afford living (yes, those are in the US as well)
What you say about working hours is right, but the original comment is also kind of right. He should say productivity instead of worked hours, though. Productivity in Europe is going in the shitter compared to USA for >1 decade now.
You can work 2400 h/year, but if your job is serving mojitos, your productivity will remain terminally low
Yes, you are right, but I think we are talking about the same thing. You just used the word productivity which is often defined as production per capita. I mentioned the reasons why GDP growth has been weak which also more or less explains why productivity has grown little.
Productivity means little if all the productivity gains go to the owner class, or worse: an owner class outside the country.
Case in point: the US, where the poor must work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, while the rich coast around on the backs of other people's labor.
Are you illiterate ? I clearly wrote "in most European countries" which combined with the word comparable means that there are unsurprisingly countries with lower hours worked per week. By comparable i mean +-10 % compared to the US.
Btw. I did not look exactly at the data before making my original post, but this wikipedia link confirms what i wrote there
Eastern Europe is doing a lot of heavy lifting for your "most European countries" when that list clearly shows nearly all of Western Europe significantly working less than the US. 10% is significant, that's 4 weeks less work per year, and you have Germany working over 30% less.
Thanks for the insult, it clearly shows your intelligence!
You are literally using straw-man arguments. There is no point in having a debate if I clearly mention most European countries and you respond only with western and call my argument blatantly wrong. Citing a source that confirms what I said as well. It just looks like you are unable to understand what i wrote, you should not be surprised when I ask of you are illiterate.
High energy prices are largely because the EU has been very reluctant to exploit its own fossil fuel reserves, preferring to instead leave the dirty business of extraction to foreign countries.
What’s there to understand? You have huge welfare systems you can’t afford. Your GDP growth is stagnant. Your options are cut spending and grow more. That requires more work and less government services.
Because your are mixing several countries together and are making completely wrong conclusions. First of all, yes, there are a few countries that have unsustainable welfare benefits such as France. But there are countries with healthy growth and significant social programs (Denmark, sweden and norway). So the welfare programs are not necessarily issues if managed correctly. I already mentioned the real issues behind slow growth, maybe i could add having no tech sector and semiconductor industry. Obviously, there are more smaller reasons why European economies stagnate but a lot of them are connected to the points I have already mentioned.
I agree with you, that governments need to cut spending ( so does US government with debt comparable to France, or they can increase revenue), but I do not believe that this would lead to economic growth because you do not solve real structural issues behind current stagnation.
Big reason why it works in Denmark, Sweden and Norway is they are smaller nations by population and much more homogeneous with high levels of trust. Japan and Nordics are often sighted as the most pleasant places to live, but people tend to ignore a glaring similarity (might be the only similarity) - how homogeneous it is. Because of that, there is high societal trust between people not to abuse the system.
It’s not just PTOs or great work hours, but rather low GDP growth and productivity across Europe due to the increased defense spending (as an result of U.S defense pull back/pressure), Chinese manufacturing, and Russian fuel constraints, ailing population growth, immense local pressure from immigration influxes, etc - European countries will likely have to reckon with cutting social services to an significant portion if they want to keep the system sustainable because a lot of these are factors are serious problems that Europe can’t tackle alone.
When the barbarians were at the gate, Europe was done for as soon as they opened the gates.
It would not surprise me in the least if most of the France protestors are from Islamic countries. These are the ones most likely to not have jobs and to be on benefits.
Its taboo to even discuss in here and most likely bannable. Its wild to me that there is no word on immigration on here.
He is openly racist but he is right that immigration from African and muslim countries is problematic to say the least. We cannot overlook that and call everyone who point to these issues as racist because it just leads to increased support for radical parties
The root here is not just immigration, but also marginalization of immigrants and poverty, which lead to ghetto and create a siege mentality of us vs them. Then, this communal mentality is exploited by either religion or radical doctrines to create unrest and chaos.
If you want immigrants to assimilate well, the key is always access and mobility. Sometime these can be natural if immigrants themselves come from money. For example many Chinese immigrants to the US are not rioting because they already come from money and can translate these resources into access into workplaces and mobility.
But we happens to live in a time of economic crisis where access and mobility are both limited if not lost.
Why are they leaving? How did France become an economic powerhouse? Where does our precious minerals that we use for our technology come from? Answers given lead to imperialism. Y’all ignore to the detriment of society. Something something coming home to roost.
The looting and rioting also imposes extra costs on the state for repairs, clean-up etc, which adds to the deficit. It's pathetic. Whole nation of spoiled toddlers tearing itself apart.
The French deficit is measured in trillions. Repairing the damage done will be negligible comparatively and if this is wrong, it reflects poorly on the underlying systems, not the French people.
And not to think of the reputation implications it has, especially on tourism. It certainly doesn't inspire for a romantic weekend in Paris. Or for the image of luxury and refinement that all the luxury sector lives on
What “years and years of austerity”? French government spending as a % of GDP is 57.7%, just about as high as it’s ever been since 2009. There was a slight decline in the years leading up to covid where spending was pulled back to a Spartan 55.3% of GDP, but covid ended that.
Some budgets can be cut without protesting. But it somehow always has to be hospitals, schools, unemployment benefits, it's always the common folk that must go through the austerity measures while there's always somehow money available to create new tax cuts for the rich.
Even with yearly cuts to social services, Macron can't balance a budget. This crisis was a long time coming, now we all have to deal with the consequences of his poor management. Blaming the protesters is akin to looking at the finger when french people are pointing at the moon.
France’s taxes are nearly 45% of GDP, that is already an extremely high rate of taxation.
The cuts you’re referring to are likely the SDF being replaced with the IFI, yes? The SDF tax was abolished because it caused capital flight, resulting in a 7 billion annual shortfall. France revised it with the IFI in 2018, which is a real-estate focused tax on the wealthy.
Either way, the “wealth tax” only ever contributed a tiny amount of France’s taxes. At peak in 2017, it was responsible in 4.1B in tax revenue of the ~1,100B total. That’s about 0.4% of all taxes.
Today, the IFI tax brings in ~2B of 1,561B total.
The “tax cuts for the wealthy” have resulted in fractions of a percent of difference, essentially meaningless for France’s financial issues.
Exactly this. People ask why France doesn’t just tax the rich. They do, they tax them a lot. Capital flight is a real issue and one that France has had to deal with extensively. The “Just tax them and if they want to leave they leave” perspective doesn’t work if your wealth taxes cause so much capital flight you’re actually pulling in less money after implementing the tax.
macron tried to tackle the french pension problem and france burned down paris.
france didnt have a budget surplas pre interest for decades man. this isnt macrons fault. its the fault of france as a whole. they already pay very high taxes. cuts need to be the next step.
The police has been getting massive budget increases every year under Macron in order to acquire military grade equipment which has been used to maim protestors, including a lot of kids these past weeks.
It's getting another >3% increase in the provisional 2026 budget.
You're right its a waste of money because the French arnt using the equipment. If they were actually using it the criminals would stop as they would fear for their well being. You seriously think this anarchy is good for France? Their stock market amd bonds are in free fall amd they will be semt back decades in economic progress the way its going
The French are known for backing down and surrendering. Muslims are known for doubling down so maybe thats what you are referring to. But I guarantee you if the rioters started getting fucked up theyd cower down real quick. You sound like someone that has never gotten into a serious physical situation. If you ever got beat up bad im sure you learned some kind of lesson.
Because muslims cant be french right ? And french are white flag frogs obviously, that's why we're known to be the rioting country, the good old surrendering culture.
When I see Muslims carrying around non French flags im confused on the nationality, I sincerely apologize. If you have an Algeria flag wrapped around you I should assume they are French born citizens
Macron has lowered or removed a lot of taxes, and created a bunch of tax cuts that only benefit the wealthiest people. Specifically, 62 billion a year in lost earnings since Macron's presidency started, according to the government itself.
He can increase the taxes back to the levels they were before his presidency started. Bringing back the wealth tax would be a good start. People would not riot against that.
You mean the French wealth tax from 1982-2018 that:
- Is estimated to have cost the French government an average of €7bn per year in tax revenue?
- Is estimated to have reduced yearly GDP growth on average by 0.2% (which is not insignificant given that France has grown by under a precent several times)?
- Is estimated to have resulted in over €200bn of capital flight between 1988-2007?
- Led to an estimated 60,000 tax-paying millionaires+ leaving France from 2000-2018?
Is that really the direction you would advocate for France to take? How is making the current situation worse going to fix the current situation? Who cares if (everyday) people wouldn’t riot over the wealth tax being brought back. They are apparently too stupid to understand the consequences. Won’t stop them from rioting over the effects of bringing back a wealth tax they demanded though …
You think a one-time exit tax is going to stop people from leaving?
You don’t want that capital and talent leaving, even if you could tax a portion of it. That is a one-time payment. You are just begging for these people to pack up their families and businesses and take that economic activity elsewhere. That can’t be replaced by taxing overseas individual incomes. You lost those businesses and the economic activity they create. That will do wonders for the French budget and deficit, I’m sure.
Redditors are obsessed with being keyboard Robin Hoods, and any reality check is met with accusations of boot licking. In the US, the megarich already pay ~40% of the taxes, and the top 10% nearly cover 75%. France is strikingly similar.
The call to bring back the wealth tax and get back the money Macron distributed to the ultra wealthy is backed by plenty of economists. Olivier Blanchard, former head economist of the IMF was one of the authors of the 2025 Zucman Tax project which was meant to restore a bit of fiscal justice in France. This proposal was later backed by seven economics nobel prizes laureates.
Argue with them, not me. Or with Cristobal Young, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman, Joel Slemrod, and other economists who have recently written books and studies on the topic of wealth flight, using data collected before and after Macron cut the wealth tax, to prove that it is completely unrelated to taxation of wealth.
Billionaires flee no matter what, no matter how many concessions we make to them. Might aswell get something on their way out. An exit tax is better than nothing.
It's on me for expecting people to actually understand economics on an economics forum. Read books. Study academics. I have no further time to waste on this drivel.
Yes, just keep trying the same failing strategy over and over again simply because several economists have attached their name to it 😵💫
The data shows that over its 3 decades, France’s wealth tax was a net negative to every major economic indicator. I’m not sure why you want to follow people that keep advocating for the same failed policy over and over again. That’s insanity.
Nowhere in these articles is the claim that additional taxes can pay for the deficit. So any additional tax, even with maximum return, won’t solve this problem. The problem is with spending.
Because USA doesn’t tax its citizens 45% so most don’t flee. And even if they “flee” they don’t get taxed until they make more that $100,000 a year which is a lot of money (in France- for example)
You're complaining about "cutting essential services" when France has basically the highest taxes among developed countries. Stick to reality rather than fantasy.
EDIT: Bluestreaked appears to be a bot, I got got good. I suggest against engaging.
So are we just ignoring that it resulted in reduced tax revenue for the state, loss of capital (which supports jobs and infrastructure build outs), and reduced GDP growth over decades that could have helped (with that additional capital) the economy to outgrow debt issuance for social and other governmental programs?
Please provide those answers rather than your typical argumentative nonsense. Even when provided data you still go off on your nonsensical emotional rant. What else would I expect from a bot.
Because it caused capital flight leading to shortfalls. Less revenue was brought in after it was implemented. Millionaires left, meaning no wealth tax from them as well as not VaT, no income tax, no money in the economy.
This paper is outdated and has been methodologically contested for years. Current research shows capital flight was more modest than what Pichet found, so modest in fact, that we are talking of less than 1% of the wealthiest tax payers. Flight capital is marginal, you just don't leave countries like that when your wealth is tied to said country (turns out lots of those guys assets are real estate, for ex).
And the loss of revenue is around 4/4.5bn, not 7.
Even if you take the 7bn as granted, it is absolutely dwarfed by the other taxes that were cut since Macron has power. We're talking dozens of billions that were lost to society with weak and contested evidence of the broad economic pay-off that we hear oftentimes.
So that budget downfall being 4.5 billion is still bad. That means you lost revenue after implementing this tax. That is bad, you realize that right? And your claim is unfounded anyways.
Change the subject all you want, re-adding a wealth tax would be monumentally stupid. This is a spending problem
literally every point you have made is wrong, France cant raise taxes it already has some of thw highest rates in the EU. It cannot reign in govt spending because evrytime they try the people burn the city. The wealth tax was repealed because it resulted in a loss of net tax revenue as high earners left France.
the solution is to, raise retirement age and reduce benefits - but that is unpalatable hence the riots
Macaron has been attempting government reforms for a while. In France government spending reforms will require touching different types of social welfare programs, pensions, and subsidies.
France already has one of the highest tax receipts as a percentage of GDP out of OECD. It is at like 43.5%.
This means in general people across France are getting taxed pretty heavily. On the upper income levels the tax rates are about ~45% when you are making 180k euros or more. They have high taxes on any type of capital gains/investment income between 31% and 36% (includes real estate sales). They also have a wealth tax on real estate on assets exceeding 1.3m euro.
From there you have additional consumption taxes which the amount you pay is relative to how much you spend.
So why do you say they do not tax enough?
Every time a reforms has been attempted the general populace has rejected it. This could range from reforms proposed today or to the agricultural reforms several years ago.
The social programs that have been created over the last century were created with the idea of a positive demographic pyramid. As we proceed through the 21st century that is no longer the case. Demographics have changed and it is very possible in the mid to long term, next 30 to 50 years, that the weight of these programs will financially burden future generations that have yet to be born.
You’re right! It’s neoliberalism’s fault! On an unrelated note, France’s government spending is 57% of GDP and you think it should be higher, apparently.
Government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP basically hasn't moved since Macron came into power. You're grossly overestimating his "tax benefits for the rich".
He did try to decrease government spending, and it cost him his majority. Because of people like you protesting.
Man the numbers really dont look like simply taking money from the rich you guys will be fine. Why is the far left so extremely concerned over that when your country, france, would still be deeply fucked?
Is there really a general believe that they are all so rich that if you just split up you all gonna be fine? Not asking about your opinion per se but what you see around in those circles?
Anytime their government tries to make a modest reform they take to the streets. Pensions are near 15% of their gdp and even their young shit themselves at potential cuts. No one to blame but themselves
The French are spoiled and want to have it all the ways. They want the government to invest in the young while retiring with a generous pension at age 60 while working 35 hours a week with 1.5 months of annual vacation.
French government spending is well over 57% of GDP. But if anyone mentions the possibility of cutting that back to even 56%, they're labeled a traitor with cries of "austerity!" The French want the government to make up money out of nothing to spend.
The thing is that most of the time a pension reform is proposed, it disproportionnally touch smaller pensions already at the breaking point, or raising retirement age without proposition to push companies to employ beyond 50 yo+ (which they really don't like), which again disproportionnally touch lower strates. It's not that it would not necessarly to be done, but before it a lot could be done on caping higher ones or the way it's calculated for exemple.
That the same idea with unemployment benefits. It's an independant fund, well managed by worker and not in the red, but in deficit because the gov force it to pay things it doesn't control and pick in it, and then the solution to this so called 'deficit' is always reducing benefits rather than stopping using it as a piggy bank right and left.
People feels that there is a lot of thing that can be done first, a lot of it simply rolling back deliberate sabotage made the last 20-30 years, before hitting the lower and low medium class.
Tldr: people would be more understandable about hard reforms like rising retirement age if basic management changes and rolling back deliberate fiscal and public service sabottages from last few governments were applied first.
There would still be opposition to it, I'm 100% sure of it too.
But I think (in all honnesty just my 2 cents bar🍺 thoughts) that it make it worse and help the opposition to be able to reach a significantly larger part of the population/support.
The students are not protesting against pension cuts... They're protesting against education system cuts done to keep the lofty pension payouts stable.
The problem is if they try to do pension cuts, the pensioners and soon-to-be pensioners all lose their shit. They are happy to destroy the future for the young if it makes their retirement more comfortable.
The current protests started as schooling issues. Now they are just general complaints often unrelated. But the last pension reforms caused mass protests.
The young people are not protesting against pension reform right now, but they have in the past (including last time I was in Paris lol) - and as long as pension reform is delayed, education budget cannot feasibly be boosted.
I get that US conservatives are desperate to make this whole thing about 'haha France's socialist pension programs are causing riots' but in reality, Macron passed a lot of tax cuts primarily for businesses and the wealthy. The French see the tax cuts and they see the cuts to education and other public programs and realize that things aren't adding up. If the country truly cared about budgets, the budget cuts would go alongside tax INCREASES.
I'm not an American, and not a conservative - just someone who can put together some basic figures.
A generous estimate of the drop in revenue as a result of replacing the ISF with IFI and introducing PFU is ~8 bn. That is if we essentially assume the changes had no impact on retention of high earners, investment etc.
France pays ~420 billion annually in pensions alone, with an overall ~145 billion deficit and ~3.6 trillion national debt. It pays 74 billion a year in debt servicing alone.
Even amongst European social democratic countries with generous welfare states, France is a case of its own.
That being said, even though it's political theatre rather than a solution, some kind of taxation of the wealthy at the same time as serious pension reform is likely the right political move. While revenues are likely to be neutral or very modest, and are guaranteed not to plug the gap in public finances, but public perception matters.
The question isn't the protests. The question is how the government responds.
Will they have more sensible policy? Or will they just promise more spending for young people without touching the massive pensions and restrictions, making the debt problem even bigger? Nobody knows for sure but the markets now think the latter is more likely than they did before.
Macron's style so far has been to throw massive amounts of money at any unrest, instead of making meaningful changes.
I'm predicting he'll eventually give up and spend money we don't have towards education budgets + some fuel prices subsidies, then leave whoever comes after him with an even bigger debt issue to deal with. He's never truly cared about budgets, and it's his last year in power.
The "protestors" (looters, rioters, thieves, vandals) are the ones smashing up stores, setting historic buildings on fire, and costing the state milions in repair costs alone.
France, especially the french left, glorifies violence to an extent that is frankly worrying, looking on from the outside.
Over the weekend, the rioting scum tried to break into the Louvre. How would smashing up an art gallery help anyone or anything? Does it improve the fiscal situation of the french state to have some loser piss on the Mona Lisa or tear other priceless paintings to shreds?
I was protesting near the Louvre on Saturday. Nobody wanted to break into it. In fact, protesters have taken over the Louvre today, all they're doing is blocking the entrance. Nothing is being looted, nor is there any threat of looting the Louvre whatsoever.
So the town hall fire in Limogesbwas ok then? Since you have it all under control and accidents don't happen in these riots, it must have been on purpose, right?
Videos of stores near the Louvre getting their windows smashed, for sure.
Videos of people attempting to break into the Louvre itself to pillage it, certainly not. I was there and it did not happen. Lots of extreme police brutality around the museum though. You're repeating your propaganda to an ocular witness, bad try.
I have not made any such claims. Nor have I defended the looting.
You made the claim that the Louvre itself was under threat of being looted. I am calling you out on this specific lie. I was there, and at no point was the Louvre under threat. The looting was purely directed at symbols of excess wealth, in this case at luxury shops near the Louvre, which are symbols of the ultra wealthy the rioters are pissed at.
You also claimed that "there is video". No such video exists. The Louvre itself was safe all along, it took more damage from all the tear gassing and flashbang grenades than from any protester, there wasn't even graffiti on it. Respect for the Louvre is universal, anyone trying to breach it would get stopped by the crowd iself. That's why the Louvre protest today is not stepping inside the museum, only blocking its entrance. We don't want anyone getting inside.
Get your news from better sources. You are being lied to, and repeating lies.
Yeah, right. There was a whole bunch of privately run small businesses destroyed (including one grimly hilarious face-eating leopards moment by some lefty activist trying to tell the scum that she'd supported them, why were they harming her shop). A video game / trading card shop run by single guy.
So is "The looting was purely directed at symbols of excess wealth, in this case at luxury shops near the Louvre, which are symbols of the ultra wealthy the rioters are pissed at". Unless you want to amend it as "the looting was purely directed at symbols of excess wealth around the Louvre. Lootings elsewhere were not"
The military stay out of protests. They are not police, their role around the Louvre is exclusively to deal with possible terrorist threats (as per plan Vigipirate). They let us in and out of the courtyards without batting an eye.
Even today while the Louvre is being blockaded, they are not intervening. In fact, it's reassuring to have them around, the riot police acts much nicer when there's military eyes around.
I just want to indicate to you that "macronomics" was not a typo of "macroeconomics", but rather a combination of "Macron" (the president) and economics. Similar to Reaganomics in the US.
I do not know the details of Macrons economic policies.
Macron and his predecessor borrowed immense amounts of money during the era of low interest rates last decade, now the interest rates have increased and are knocking at the door.
The issue is Macron has used this money in ways that created no long term wealth for french people: mostly tax cuts for the rich and subsidy packages to quell unrest, with no attempts to balance budgets. His political strategy to refuse any negotiations with other parties led to the collapse of his few attempts at making actual useful improvements to our budgets.
Now that we are reaping what he sowed, Macron somehow does not get much of the blame for the conditions he has created. We are protesting against this, and people worldwide are blaming the protests instead of the conditions that led to those protests.
Macron basically did not cut spending at all and tried to placate critics with increased spending in several key areas - only in France would he get treated as an anarcho-capitalist for attempting extremely modest pension reform.
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Government spending as a share of GDP is the same today as it was in 2017 when Macron won his first election. It had some ups and downs, but is currently sitting at nearly net zero change from Macron's first day in office.
There is very old Aesops fable where Golden goose is killed due to greed of its owner. You don't just tax wealth you tax talent and future wealth creation as well. Why should a talented smart hardworking French engineer live and work in France when he could move to a place where he is taxed less?
How would you stop people from shooting themselves in the foot? There have been green initiatives that have back fired badly and costed Europe quite a bit. It isn't just the capital that moves.
The solution would be an actual proper full European federalisation, so that the economy can be unified, and so that you can have speicific states work on specific matters.
But the average European's arrogance will prevent that from happening. France could be in the middle of being invaded and people would be protesting against the bombs falling instead of banding together on facing the problem.
Can trying working for the money and spend less perhaps? That's what I do if no one wants to lend me money: take up more jobs and cut back on expenditures.
The rich have gotten richer and the poor have seen no meaningful positive change to their quality of life.
So they build a system that protects them, but that system is fragile and will fail once people reach their breaking point. And that’s what you’re seeing now. Eventually people will stop playing the game and turnover the board. This is only the beginning.
You can bind the tax on the wealthy to citizenship. If they renounce French citizenship, you can make them pay a very high exit tax. A lot harder to avoid such measures and I bet they would rather pay a few percentages of wealth tax every year than to go through that.
This thread in a fascinating glimpse into how fucked up a lot of people’s understanding of the world is. France spends an insane amount of its budget on social services, and people just aren’t educated enough to understand it and choose to riot instead.
These aren’t really benefits. They’re overspending by a ton and are screwed long term unless they do something about it. The average pensioners is better funded than the average working person.
I don’t believe that. You could say the same thing before French Revolution, and look how that turned out for the poor (they benefited).
When the poor are getting poorer, they have nothing left to lose. It’s not my choice to make, but given the ones in front of them, I can see how that seems attractive. And given what we see in France now, that’s the option they’re choosing.
Uhhh no, the Reign of Terror, Napoleonic France, and several decades of French monarchy came after the French Revolution - and in this case, France has higher social spending per share of GDP then the Soviet Union for crying out loud and some of the highest human development indexes in the entire world, it just looks like pure entitlement and chaos if you want to compare this to literal famine, massive inflation, and unimaginable opulence from the French Revolution to the modern day.
Ok you’ve named some of negative things that came after but there was also the abolition of feudalism (1989) , declaration of rights (1989) and tax reforms. Yes shity things happened afterward too, but overall they were experienced more prosperity and equality after.
You also can’t compare what the Soviet Union has or doesn’t have, because the average French citizen , doesn’t know or doesn’t care. All they know is their current quality of life. Saying “don’t protest cuz yall have it better than this guy over here in Somalia”, they don’t give AF, it’s not relevant to the conversation despite it being true.
This is where the wealthy/corporate/billionaire/epstein class should be: unnerved if not outright scared. As austerity(which is what these protests were borne of) increases and worsens the collective mood, these laborless, parasitic sacks just enrich themsleves, laughing all the way to the bank. Time for some of them to consider the luigi experience and if people are out there thinking it might be right for them
That isn’t a viable option for the people of France. It is a violation of the social contract. Insoluble problem that capitalism is unequipped and unmotivated to solve in a way that won’t bring even more people out into the streets
How can you keep spending more money than you make if no one will lend it to you?
The issue France is facing is simple math at this point.
If you continue to spend more than your income, eventually your lenders will refuse to lend you more and/or demand higher interest rates to cover their risk.
Then you are forced to cut spending whether you want to or not.
Which will violate the social contract and even French people will join the protests. This is an insoluble problem that capitalism cannot solve, unless, of course, it is able to spark a world war.
The French problems are well known by now, but who is willing to make the hard political choices?
Cut the pensions that are funded by debt.
Clamp down on companies so they don't over run the ruling class. Impound their CEO's passports and prevent them from leaving the country.
Increase the minimum work hours to produce ever so slightly more. Bring down the Unions.
Spend more time and resources on R&D.
Force the immigrants to work, disperse their enclaves and integrate them into society.
Crack down on rioters with heavier handed tactics.
Sieze the means of production.
Chinese because of low birth rate is increasing rhe amount of pension each year.
Chinese youth have high amount of unemployment. Wtf are you talking about?
At the rate the French are going, the youths will be working the rest of their lives to pay off the debts of their boomers. And good luck trying to pay that off working 35-40 hours a day.
The Chinese are under a mountain of debt, their economy is propped up only by the state and they won't have much of a population left by 2100. Who cares about them?
Either ways the French needs change but 1) the EU isn't helping, 2) the US is making it worse, 3) the Chinese are making it worse, 4) Russians are making it worse and 5) the French are making it worse. It's honestly amazing.
CommercialHour6660 | 7 hours ago
The problem in France is that 60% of the govt budget goes to boomer benefits. To 15% of the population that's also the wealthiest demographic.
The average French boomer makes more than the average salary in retirement benefits. They're making more money than the people working 40 hours a week to support them.
And the only solution offered is "fuck over younger generations by raising retirement age". When that just makes the benefit skew toward the boomers more extreme, as young people will be stuck paying for lavish benefits they never get.
The proper way to fix everything is to cut retiree benefits around 20%. Not future retiree. Current ones.
But France cannot do this because the geriatrics hold most of the wealth and power. So young people are trying to burn it all down.
JustConversation7847 | 7 hours ago
Young people came out to protest anyways when the government tried pension reforms
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
Yeah thats the thing. Young people im France also oppose benefit cuts for boomers
Raichu4u | 3 hours ago
Wild. As a young person, I do not support regressive economic systems or policies at all, they specifically screw me over. You think French youth would understand this too.
Yes, the Senior discount at your local diner should be an under 25 discount.
Jamitry1 | 2 hours ago
More like an under 40 discount honestly. The economy has been fucked since 2008 for the normal people who were young adults or younger at the time.
Petrichordates | an hour ago
This exact mindset is the issue. Everyone wants their piece of the special treatment pie.
Historical-Theory-49 | 29 minutes ago
Jaja you think the over 40s are doing any better? We have been destroying the middle class since the 80s.
Clean-Yam-739 | 4 hours ago
Sorry to be cynical, but Macron did exactly what the french population wanted : abandon the pension reforms. They told him very clearly, with millions in the streets in 2018/2019.
Now people are unhappy with the result : no money to fund anything else.
And who do they want to vote for now? Populist parties that promise to lower the retirement age.
Country is fucked beyond repair.
dzyp | 3 hours ago
This is almost all western democracies right now. A redistributive democracy is going to turn into a battle over who gets the treasure. The people will always vote for less taxes and more subsidies because it's the locally rational thing to do. It's what Madison warned us about, only right now the warring demographics are grouped by age.
Historical-Theory-49 | 31 minutes ago
That is what democracy is. People fighting over how govt spends is what politics is all about.
ArxisOne | 23 minutes ago
The issue is that there's nothing putting a limit on what can actually be spent and there's no consequences for essentially promising free money to get people to vote for you.
In_der_Tat | 2 hours ago
Osho's aphorism on democracy seems pertinent.
SnooOpinions8790 | 56 minutes ago
All European countries are in the delusional space that Greece was before the crash. Voting for lots of free stuff but the money to pay for it is not there. They pretend the rich can pay but somehow its only the very richest they want to pay and there are just not enough of them and never were.
Its going to go the same way that Greece did.
Its France right now but its all of them sooner or later.
One way out of it is to increase economic activity but to do that you have to loosen the death-grip of regulation and people would protest against that too.
CommercialHour6660 | 5 hours ago
Because they wanted to cut young people's benefits while leaving boomer benefits that young people are paying for untouched.
roodammy44 | 5 hours ago
The pension reforms were that young people will never be able to retire…
JustConversation7847 | 5 hours ago
There are no pension reforms that won't touch young people
CommercialHour6660 | 4 hours ago
Yes there are. Reduce current retiree benefits so that each age group is projected to get equal benefit from the scheme vs what they put in.
The boomers will get a 20%ish haircut and young people will get an increase.
HumorAccomplished611 | 4 hours ago
This. I suggest this for social security. 0 cpi benefits or half cpi benefits till its solvent. So instead of a 20% haircut in 2032 we get 1-2% haircuts until 2032 and then its a 5% cut. Current people feel it. And future ones arent as screwed by tax increases for luxury boomer communism
LoneWolf_McQuade | 50 minutes ago
So you want to fuck over the women that were expected to be housewives in their generation?
Kurichan77 | 4 hours ago
all capitalism can offer anymore is austerity and war for the masses coupled with decadence and obscene wealth for the tiny wealthy/corporate/billionaire/epstein class
Obsolete af
Hamiltonblewit | 4 hours ago
The Soviet Union also collapsed under its own weight due to unpopular wars and immense budget constraints due to their enormous social services and war spending - that is how the world works, there are limited resources to go around and the mechanisms driving an developed economy is quite multi-faceted as we can see with France’s budget constraints right now.
AsIfItsYourLaa | an hour ago
Get a job
Kurichan77 | an hour ago
I got a job in manufacturing, in america of all places. And I listen to marxist theory on the production line. It all hums and clicks.
bobandgeorge | 4 hours ago
Was that pension reform for current or future retirees?
ColonCrusher5000 | 6 hours ago
You could say the same for most European economies at the moment. France is just the most extreme example.
The boomers have insane wealth skew yet still get the most help. It's kind of insane tbh.
badluser | 5 hours ago
But their parents were in WW2, so they deserve it ! /S
SnooOpinions8790 | 54 minutes ago
Greece got there a couple of decades ahead of everyone and is still paying the price for it.
Tucancancan | 5 hours ago
I suddenly understand why I meet so many young professionals in Québec who moved here from France. As bad as it is here, the ones who can are all bailing out for greener pastures.
Ayangar | 3 hours ago
Which only makes situation in France worse hein?
No-Journalist-9036 | 46 minutes ago
brain drain is reao
just-here-for--porn_ | 6 hours ago
It's similar in a lot of places. The biggest voting democratic being post economic is really causing problems. The UK has a similar issue.
In America all of the boomers vote for their own generation and have been doing so since 1992. So their political halls of power look increasingly like an old folks home.
thewimsey | 6 hours ago
> In America all of the boomers vote for their own generation and have been doing so since 1992. So their political halls of power look increasingly like an old folks home.
Boomers are 20% of the population. And split almost 49/51 on Trump/Harris.
Sea_List_8480 | 4 hours ago
And what is the average age of the Congress and Senate?
just-here-for--porn_ | 21 minutes ago
They are about 31 percent of the electorate. They are a very powerful cohort. Possibly the most powerful in the history of America given that their longevity.
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
US lucked out a bit here that Reagan implemented cuts back when it was politicslly feasible, and our old people vote right wing, so we havent seen any large expansions of social security.
France never had a Reagan and the French were able to shut down attempts at reform when the population was young enough for it to be less painful.
SuchCryptographer310 | 3 hours ago
US Social Security fund runs out in 6 years. I don't know about that luck.....
Petrichordates | an hour ago
Oh no it'll pay out 80% instead of 100%, the horror.
dogs_gt_cats | 39 minutes ago
If every time you got a paycheck you were required to hand 7% of it over to someone "so they can save it for you until later, but it's ok, you're entitled to it, it's an entitlement" and then when later arrives they say "lol no you only get 80% of what we promised you, we gave the rest to those guys instead" you wouldn't be the slightest bit mad?
NudeBeachEnthusiast | 6 hours ago
Hey that sounds like OAS in Canada!!
SuchCryptographer310 | 3 hours ago
Canada has half the problem. OAS isn't great. But it's nowhere close to the problem that France has. Imagine the OAS situation across every public pension and you get France. We should be more grateful for what Paul Martin did with CPP in the 90s.
mcsul | an hour ago
Paul Martin (and Chretien for empowering Martin) need to be a role model for governments across the world right now. They did the tough work and set the country up for almost 20 years of solid success.
Popular-Row4333 | an hour ago
There is a bit of a revisionist history on the impact of those cuts and balancing the budget. Yes, austerity was needed, and yes Martin is about as good as a Finance Minister as Canada has ever had, but the reduction of the transfer payments is a big reason that Canada's healthcare is severely underfunded right now.
People always are quick to remind people that Healthcare is a provincial responsibility, but I am also quick to remind people that when Healthcare was initially founded, it was 50/50 split on funding. After a bunch of cuts and transfer payments over the decades, the number the Federal government chips in is only 22%, and many provinces are begging to just get back at 25% again.
struct_iovec | an hour ago
I'm sorry, but if you're going to use the acronymn OAS in the context of France you better make sure you're clear about not meaning "Organisation armée secrète"
NudeBeachEnthusiast | an hour ago
Sorry, good point
AtomWorker | 6 hours ago
I just looked up the numbers and the average monthly pension payment is roughly €1,666. Average salary is €3,602 and minimum wage is €1,867.
You might still think that's too much, but the average retiree doesn't make more than the average salary.
korben2600 | 6 hours ago
You're citing ~~mean~~ gross, not median net income. They're referencing a study that analyzed OECD data. France was the only country above 100%.
Why French pensioners pocket more than workers
bronzinorns | 5 hours ago
I don't know where your data comes from but the median salary is 2190 EUR and the mean salary is 2730 EUR in France (January 2026)
AtomWorker | 4 hours ago
Median is not average.
bronzinorns | 4 hours ago
But median is a preferred metric when talking about income, especially if you are considering the average person
AtomWorker | 4 hours ago
The guy to which I responded used average, not median.
DeathMetal007 | 6 hours ago
The average salary has to support a higher than average salary pension euro payin for euro payout
chuba000 | 5 hours ago
pretty sure he was referring to this
CollaredParachute | 6 hours ago
What are the after tax values?
Darkone539 | 6 hours ago
Because there's no such thing as a private pension there, and they all worked and paid taxes.
The system is the problem. There is no option but to have the government pension. Like the rest of the west, the older generation is a big voting block now due to an aging population.
Pension reform is unpopular at all ages. Nobody wants their parents left poor. France needs to find a middle ground.
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
The middle ground was gradual cuts starting 20 years ago, but the French protested hard against every attempt at that middle ground.
They have reached a point now where they need large cuts to fix their finances.
Valuable-Ad2028 | 6 hours ago
If they worked and paid in they can get their pensions from all the assets the state built up on those years. No need to put their hands into young people’s pockets.
The UK has the same issue: boomers “paid in” but running up huge debts. Now they expect under 60s to pay those debts. And pay them a pension. And cover a bunch of other free shit for them.
DeathMetal007 | 6 hours ago
It turned from insurance to guaranteed payout above payin. This is the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme.
Valuable-Ad2028 | 6 hours ago
Exactly. At this point it’s like people ran up credit card debt, made minimum payments, and somehow think those payments not only covered the spending but make them shareholders deserving of a dividend from the credit card company.
“I paid in all my life” no you didn’t bro, that’s why the debt ballooned and all the assets were sold off while you were “paying in”
Darkone539 | 6 hours ago
How the state used the money is irrelevant. The pension is not coming from "young people's pockets".
You're basically just crying "old people" and think that's a valid economic argument.
The answer is reform, but nobody in france will accept making pensioners poor. They tried that already.
Dick_Lazer | 6 hours ago
> How the state used the money is irrelevant.
Didn’t Boomers have decades of voting for how the state would use the money though?
AK_Panda | 2 hours ago
It is relevant in a pay-as-you-go system. If you are dependent upon subsequent generations to fund your retirement, then you need to vote appropriate policy into place to allow the economic and social conditions to exist that can fund your retirement.
Otherwise the system collapses on itself as it can't pay the costs.
justtobeherenotsure | 4 hours ago
Heck, even in other countries it's a problem. Group of elders is increasing and the group of people paying for that group is decreasing. (Belgium) Thats very problematic. Younger group has to work longer, elders don't want pensions cut or don't want to work longer.
Darkone539 | 4 hours ago
It's a problem in the UK, too, but our system is different enough the big block is political will. There's specific help for those who struggle. The pension can be tackled.
France has a big single system.
maelle_80 | 6 hours ago
Well, we do have PER but it is relatively recent and it's a big shift to get people onboard to fund private pension. It's also hard to open if your salary is lower due to mandatory deductions, so less disposable income to contribute to PER. That said more younger people are opening them. I feel that a lot of people here made fun of countries with private systems (it's cultural I guess), but it's likely in their future too...
CurrencyDesperate286 | 5 hours ago
Younger people are working and paying (more) taxes but will never see those benefits. Why do they have to ensure the elderly generation get looked after by shooting themselves in the foot?
The simple fact is France can’t afford it’s current expenditure, and debt is becoming increasingly expensive. That cannot be sustained.
Mistery_White_boy | 3 hours ago
Quando i tassi gli vanno al 6-7% va la che lo trovano il compromesso. Scusa ma pensano di essere affidabili, standosene a pancia per aria. Quando le cose prendono una brutta piega purtroppo sono lacrime e dolore
Ploutophile | 2 hours ago
There is a 401(k) equivalent, but it's not super popular for various reasons, one of them being the mandatory PAYG systems already shuffling big money. For ordinary salaried workers, there is something ressembling a three-pillar system but with both the first and the second pillar being PAYG.
KnowerOfUnknowable | 6 hours ago
> The average French boomer makes more than the average salary in retirement benefits. They're making more money than the people working 40 hours a week to support them.
Is it really true? Almost all sources I can find say it is not.
CommercialHour6660 | 4 hours ago
See the other links posted in reply to mine.
Retired boomers average income in France is indeed higher than that of full time workers.
Skeptical0ptimist | 2 hours ago
> 15% receiving 60% of government budget
It seems France has a new 2nd estate.
Petrichordates | an hour ago
Correct but literally none of that is what the protesters are protesting about. Nor would they. There is no support for pension reform there, the protesters side with the boomers on that issue.
PetroSkunk | 3 hours ago
I mean it’s a major issue but no need to inflate the number.
From a quick research the pension budget is 370B€ https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/37945-quel-est-le-budget-consacre-aux-retraites
And total spending is 1600B€ https://dettedelafrance.fr/budget-de-la-france
wt0987 | 2 hours ago
No, 60% of govt spending is for social protection and healthcare overall.
Primary-Signal-3692 | 7 hours ago
If they had their own currency they could devalue and keep the pension at the same nominal amount. Most boomers wouldn't notice. It's the euro straitjacket that is the issue
Willing_Activity_855 | 6 hours ago
> If they had their own currency they could devalue and keep the pension at the same nominal amount. Most boomers wouldn't notice
"hey we can cut benefits in a sneaky way and they're too stupid to know we're reducing their real income"
I mean a political policy of "they're too stupid to find out" isn't really the best. ALSO you're forgetting they are indexed to price inflation. So if you debase your currency via inflation, not to mention france is a tiny country so imports are a must, well prices will simply go up.
Then you have an inflation spiral PLUS a debt crisis on your hands :D
catonic | 5 hours ago
I wonder where else we could find this "money" to fill the gap.
badluser | 5 hours ago
Well said.
will_dormer | 5 hours ago
And quite a bit to agriculture
No-Journalist-9036 | 47 minutes ago
at this point any young person in France is a tax farm for the boomers. The bigger the farm, the more for the top
CanadianGenerationX | 12 minutes ago
Same thing happening in Canada. Younger generations are being sacrificed for Boomers. Boomers are also the largest voting block, so it’s impossible for either party to make meaningful changes. Young people have a right to protest, but it’s much more effective to simply organize themselves, make their positions clear, and vote as a block. I wish it would happen.
RareWelder9212 | 7 hours ago
A better idea is getting rid of the pension system entirely and implement a 401k equivalent or bond saving account system instead.
CommercialHour6660 | 5 hours ago
Nah. 401k was designed to boost the stonk market because 50% of it is owned by 1%ers.
Look at the new Trump accounts. Takes $1000 of everyone's tax dollars and dumps it straight into all the oligarchs companies (mostly into top 20 megacorps in index, most owned by far right nutjobs).
The main consequence of 401k has been tying the fate of plebs to Wall Streets gambling machine. It's the whole reason for corporate welfare aka "too big to fail".
RareWelder9212 | 5 hours ago
They could trade off the European stock market or something, but it is the most profitable financial instrument for unsophisticated investors. You still have bond saving accounts as well, though they typically offer less return.
Having a pay as you go pension system is unsustainable when you have falling demographics. Raising the age just benefits the 10-1%rs, since they tend to live longer than everyone else on average, even in European countries.
Aesma42 | 5 hours ago
Nobody protesting is asking for that. They ask "the rich" to pay.
CommercialHour6660 | 5 hours ago
Boomers are the rich by nearly every metric.
Mirageswirl | 4 hours ago
The majority of every large demographic group aren’t rich.
CommercialHour6660 | 4 hours ago
That's fine, because this would only affect rich boomers
axlee | 5 hours ago
Yes, but the "rich" they want to pay are some "ultra richs" that have nowhere near enough cash flow to sustain the cost of what the protesters are asking for, even if the state took literally everything. Economic illiteracy at its finest.
CommercialHour6660 | 4 hours ago
Why are you straw-manning this? The rich has a really wide definition. Not everyone protesting wants 5 billionaires to pay everything
axlee | 4 hours ago
I'm not straw-manning, that's literally the platform of the biggest party behind the protests, LFI.
LegitimatePower659 | 4 hours ago
Then it's time to change the economic system. Then people will be forced to change the economic system. It's really quite simple.
axlee | 4 hours ago
Or, you know, lower some high pensions, increase taxes on retirees OR make them start later. Like literally every single european country had to do. Every single one.
For example did you know that in france there is a 10% tax break (max 4400€) for retirees? And that both the populist far left and populist far right voted last week against removing it?
LegitimatePower659 | 4 hours ago
But I would prefer system change. I don't like what you're offering. Much better world be to take up the program of the old masters: the abolition of private property. We have enough infrastructure to take care of our old and our young. It's a matter of using it rationally. I don't think you can comprehend that, but that's okay. The riots imply it.
Aesma42 | 4 hours ago
Stealing stuff isn't a sign people are against private property.
LuvMeSumFI | 4 hours ago
"Let the rich pay! Then we can afford it."
"Even if the rich pay that closes about 3% of the deficit and the other 97% are untouched."
"Well... It's a start and then we just see and we should tax the rich anyways"
This sums up pretty any discussion on Reddit related to taxing the rich. 0 problems solved, but at least "it's a start". The idea that taxing the rich might be a good idea (I don't know) but is also completely useless fiscally does not compute for the average Redditor.
blibbityblop | 5 hours ago
lol the fix is tax billionaires assets until there’s no billionaires anymore.
golf2k11 | 5 hours ago
They’ll just leave if you try to do that. Then you’d really be screwed
CommercialHour6660 | 4 hours ago
You can make an exit tax and force them to renounce citizenship.
Believe it or not, most billionaires will pay taxes if you give them a good reason to.
golf2k11 | 3 hours ago
Even if that worked out (Which I highly doubt), future investment and human capital would probably steer clear of France. Look at what’s happening today. Investors are souring in real time over civil unrest, so imagine what your proposals would do. Finally, the reason given to raise taxes would not be seen as a good one, because the reason would really be “we the people refuse any budget cuts or future adjustments”.
CommercialHour6660 | 3 hours ago
This is a consequence of the current setup where billionaires have vastly disproportionate wealth and power.
If that wealth was distributed throughout the economy there would still be the same amount of money for investments in different hands.
Money is not going to magically disappear because it's not all tried up in one guys megayacht anymore.
CommercialHour6660 | 4 hours ago
That would help a lot in US. Not in France where wealth inequality isn't nearly as bad
CremedelaSmegma | 7 hours ago
Reading this forum, if nothing else at least we have moved past the “govt deficits are a universal good” and “debts literally don’t matter” phase of collective insanity.
That is a start I suppose.
Arbor4 | 7 hours ago
Ask the same question in r/france and you'll get some different answers. Some started asking if there weren't Russian bots that made the debt suddenly become important, but it seems like these people have failed to follow the rates at which the French bonds have surges just this last month
JeHaisLesCatGifs | 7 hours ago
/r/france is run by a team of moderators who are very far left. Anyone who voices a view that’s too contrary will easily be moderated and banned for no good reason.
As the Far left candidate in France say "debt isn't an issue, we can just cancel a part of it" 🤡
HolyInlandEmpire | 7 hours ago
Oh they absolutely can cancel debt. They are sovereign. Hence the sell-off. And good luck borrowing in the future at a half decent rate if you do.
Rational expectations are a beautiful thing.
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
They would also have to leave the EU and Euro to cancel debt.
Best_Pseudonym | an hour ago
*in theory; they could just break the law
JeHaisLesCatGifs | 7 hours ago
They are stupid as fuck, it's really depressing.
ICEpear8472 | 51 minutes ago
They can but about half of Frances debt is hold domestically. Canceling that will probably also result in protests when people notice that their bank is suddenly bankrupt or their whatever investment fund suddenly significantly drops in value.
SnooOpinions8790 | 47 minutes ago
Argentina called to tell everyone how much it hurts after you do a debt default
They are still paying the price now. They have to buy debt at something like 12% which is double what a stable economy without history of default would pay. So they are forced to live within their means - a thing that a country like France shows no political ability to do
Cadoc | 7 hours ago
I guess making sure people won't lend you any more money is one way to force a balanced budget.
JeHaisLesCatGifs | 7 hours ago
These idiots don’t realise how hypocritical they are when they fund their social progress at the expense of their children and future generations.
What’s sad is that young people don’t realise the economic problem posed by this spending either…
Cadoc | 7 hours ago
You can only explain to people that some magical pool of money from "taxing the rich" doesn't exist to the extent that they imagine. At some point they need to try to put their fantasies into reality and touch the stove.
Chance_Emu8892 | 7 hours ago
"Everyone is stupid but me" kind of statement.
JeHaisLesCatGifs | 7 hours ago
It would be great to learn to read; I’m only targeting the idiots who think a state can fund its operations, expenditure and social welfare for years on end solely through debt.
That sort of thing is called treating yourself to a standard of living higher than what you earn, at the expense of future generations. Those in favour are either too stupid to understand this or simply hypocritical and selfish.
Chance_Emu8892 | 7 hours ago
You may want to come down to earth instead of doing gatekeeping like this.
Everyone knows how debt works, do you think your insight is anything mind-blowing?
The problem is larger than that and is more distributional, as is often the case. The problem is not people not being ready to give up their comfort, that's their lack of comfort in the first place. And not only it is always them who are supposed to make the sacrifices and not the wealthiest classes; they do not even see where the money goes, because their schools, hospitals, public services... are all going to ruin. Pure and simple. You expect them to just sit and be happy about that?
"57% of GDP", yes, okay. Why not do less? But that's not the problem. The real problem is, if it is true, where is all this money going? Because truly that is not obvious at all. It is reasonable to ask the gouvernement why they give tax cuts to the wealthy while there are rats in fucking schools.
JeHaisLesCatGifs | 6 hours ago
Moneys goes to the pensions, stop acting like you don't know where it's going, Macron tried to fixed it twice, the same people crying today blocked the first one and prevented him to do enough the second time.
Yes, the most generous pensions in the world are lacking comfort, sure! /s France never spend as much in schools budget and hospitals. Issue is a lot of it are taken for schools pensions
CGeorges89 | 4 hours ago
The pension system was paid for. Thats how it works. You pay $1 today when you work, to get 1-2$ when you don't, after taking into account interest and taxes. I don't see why you would throw blame on retirees who have contributed their whole life to get the comfort they deserve at old age.
Chance_Emu8892 | 6 hours ago
>Macron tried to fixed it twice, the same people crying today blocked the first one and prevented him to do enough the second time.
They were not the same people and you are wrong, in both cases the reform was put on hold first by covid, and later it was adopted by 49.3. Granted, it was suspended this year not because of protests but as a concession during parliamentary debates.
The pensions in France are also a distributional problem, they are generous as an aggregate but unequal depending who you are. Many old people are living under poverty standards and that's also a social fact of France.
For the rest of your points, also distributional. If the spending in education/health are so great, why are there closed beds, teachers shortages, deteriorating buildings, etc? Everyone in France can see the public services are worse and worse, that's not a collective hallucination; hence the question "where does the money go?" in the first place.
Also pensions are 14% of GDP; out of the claims of 57% of GDP for total public spending, that's still a lot of %age unclaimed for. Still a lot of money missing. Yes it is a big part of budget but it doesn't answer the question of who bears the adjustment and where are the dozens of billions/year that were granted to the wealthy through tax cuts (I actually know the answer, like anyone, truly).
In fact you yourself ask the proper question, there's a discrepancy between social spendings and the reality on the ground. That's a genuine PE inquiry and I'm not sure why you would evacuate the question on the pretext that people are stupid.
bobbyblanc | 5 hours ago
Well public debt has recently skyrocketted as a result of massive corporate aids, with 0 economical benefit. Spending has only very slowly increased, and public service has effevtively been left-out and has not kept on with inflation. So no, money has gone to big companies, do not pretend you know something about France. I’m tired of this bs propaganda. No single fact.
Cadoc | 6 hours ago
A generous (to proponents of wealth taxes) estimate of the annual revenue impact of Macron's wealth + capital taxes in 2018 is ~8bn euro.
France spends 420 billion a year on pensions, and ~75 billion a year on debt servicing.
Reversing those tax changes is probably good politics, but obviously it's not a solution.
Chance_Emu8892 | 6 hours ago
Of course, I'm not saying the repeal of tax cuts are a solution for public debt. That's not what I implied.
Just saying that on the ground it makes a big difference when you ask the poorest have to make all the sacrifices while the wealthiest have such tax gifts from the state.
Kawainess33 | 7 hours ago
Economic literacy is not common amongst the people who make these demands. If they knew anything about the state of the French economy they would be demanding economic reforms to be able to get some better education in the future. Instead they’re demanding that the government spends even more money. Insane.
CremedelaSmegma | 6 hours ago
You can’t be serious? Anybody working in finance should be the first ones to know the bond desks moving billions in flows and such gives zero fracks what a bunch of bots, or anyone else rants about on Twitter or whatnot.
JeHaisLesCatGifs | 6 hours ago
I am... This people would even say a country that spends more than 55 per cent of its GDP on public expenditure and more than 30 per cent on welfare spending is a neoliberal hellhole.
I can't state how dumb they are.
PDXhasaRedhead | 6 hours ago
"France" not "Finance".
CremedelaSmegma | 6 hours ago
Ah, my bad. Need new glasses I guess!
badluser | 5 hours ago
That person is insane.
Chance_Emu8892 | 7 hours ago
r/france loves capital so much despite its leftist image, I am not sure what you're talking about.
evrestcoleghost | 7 hours ago
At least this isn't r/economy
BODYBUTCHER | 7 hours ago
France doesn’t control their currency though, they don’t get the benefit of “debts don’t matter”
CremedelaSmegma | 6 hours ago
Issuing debt in your own currency gives you the ability to not be forced into a hard default, and “manage” your yields if you so choose.
It still matters, it’s just that at what point do does the specter of defaulting, cancelling debt, and stopping yield curve control/suppression seem like the lesser evil and people talk about openly as an option vs. the other distortions and dysfunction it is causing.
BODYBUTCHER | 6 hours ago
The only thing that’s important when you issue your own currency is inflation , everything else is a proxy for it.
Ov3rReadKn1ght0wl | 7 hours ago
If I could use the GIF of Hank Hill smoking a dart with a look of satisfaction here, I totally would. The 'debt doesn't matter' era of pop econ coming to an end is actually such a relief to me as a sessional econ/econ history instructor.
Popular-Row4333 | an hour ago
I vividly remember MMT being brought up and pushed everywhere as the best thing since sliced bread with many people claiming it was the superior method to anything some Austrians thought of.
Putrefied_Goblin | 6 hours ago
Well, some of these people either don't know what they're talking about but are still parroting something Keynesian views (they might not know it), or they're leaving out a required/complementary caveat that completes the idea: debt burden ratios should not reach a critical point where financial health deteriorates and growth is strangled.
These people who do know this but leave it out assume (incorrectly) that leaders are competent and rational agents, looking after a government or business's health/best interests, when they sometimes aren't. The current US administration/leadership is not competent, and not rational, at least if their goal is to keep the US financially healthy and to generate growth.
Some have argued it is a conspiracy to destroy the country, which is also possible -- but it's likely multiple factors, where they are incompetent, aren't rational/don't care/are too corrupt and self-interested, and possibly want to destroy the US's economic/political/military power for whatever reason -- even unconscious or barely latent desire to destroy human beings, and perhaps themselves, which comes from a place of malicious psychopathology. If there is a conspiracy, it's not some grand plan that is being masterfully implemented, but likely happens to align with their self-interest/corruption and contempt for others.
The debt doesn't matter as long as you haven't reached (or exceeded) a critical debt-to-income ratio threshold (for individuals), or a critical debt-to-revenue, or even debt-to-profit, ratio threshold for government or businesses, where it becomes overleveraged, debt overhang, or insolvency. This also means your expense on interest payments/servicing debt has reached such a critical point that it has become your largest expense (or one of them), and that financial health is deteriorating and growth is restricted/strangled. The debt servicing burden has become so high that it leads to a 'zombie' company or Minsky Moment (which some would argue the US government has reached/is now guaranteed to reach). Again, this assumes competence and rational agency (again, rational interest in the health of the country or business and people in it).
mcsul | 6 hours ago
In the highly improbable event that I am ever elected to the US Congress, I will absolutely make it point to hammer home in every speech that US federal outlays should not exceed more than 25% of GDP. And while it might be tempting to spend more than that, this will actually make everyone poorer in the long run.
One-Performer-7961 | 6 hours ago
The populist retardation is so exhausting
huehuehuehuehuuuu | 3 hours ago
Debt doesn’t matter only when you can rob other countries without real retaliation. Aka back to colonial free for alls. And even back then you still had to answer to your peer countries regarding debt unpaid.
Not sure why some nowadays have the delusion that debts don’t matter.
Draxus12 | 6 hours ago
But this is literally true as long as we collective decide ourselves that the market is great.
Hamiltonblewit | 4 hours ago
Not really, only the U.S gets that privilege due to their reserve currency status and low tax rates.
Draxus12 | 3 hours ago
That's not really accurate when you consider that the US can't afford these marlets to collapse given the globalized economy.
EconomistStreet5295 | 8 hours ago
And the extreme left and right will lie to the public with solutions that are just not feasible or that will make the situation even worse. Most of what they want to do is not even in French national interest, but of course no one cares. Maybe the reality check is what both the political class and the public need.
mcsul | an hour ago
What do we want?! Radical moderation!! When do we want it?! As soon as is reasonable!! Why do we want it?! Steady and mature governance that accounts for a wide variety of challenging factors!!
sandwich_estimator | an hour ago
Tax wealth. Yeah I know they tried it, yadda yadda ... capital flight yadda yadda ...
You can bind the tax on the wealthy to citizenship. If they renounce French citizenship, you can make them pay a very high exit tax. A lot harder to avoid such measures and I bet they would rather pay a few percentages of wealth tax every year than to go through that.
Stormblitzarorcus | 20 minutes ago
Only America taxes overseas income. France does not. French have no incentive to renounce citizenship. If they wish to not pay as much in taxes they will simply take their business elsewhere. If they do not wish to pay as much income tax they can choose to live outside of France 6 or more months out of the year.
High exit tax implies they were captive. They never were lmao
BafSi | 16 minutes ago
Switzerland has wealth tax and yet there is plenty of rich people. But capital gain is not taxed, which is nicer for the economy.
just_stretching | 42 minutes ago
Why even let them leave? Just arrest them at gunpoint and force them to fund a ballooning, mathematically unsustainable social welfare society
/s goofy
Historical-Theory-49 | 32 minutes ago
It unsustainable because the rich are not paying taxes. They have gutted the system so thouroughly that even the poors defend them.
callmesnake13 | 26 minutes ago
What if the answer is in between you two
ImConfidentURWrong | 7 hours ago
The good times for Europe are ending. Time for less vacations and instead time to work more to produce something of value and become self reliant again. Paying pensions, selling luxury goods, and hoping Eastern Europe acts as your meat shield from Russia isn’t a sustainable economic model nor societal model for that matter. But Europeans will scream their human rights are being abused if they don’t get 4 hour lunch breaks and mandatory 3 months of time off.
AntiSocial_Vigilante | 5 hours ago
You're being awfully aggressive for no reason
I'm not exactly suprised, "the good times" are ending simultainously in a lot of countries all over the world, maybe it's because of the same few reasons.
Ploutophile | 2 hours ago
> maybe it's because of the same few reasons.
The same reason, and it's called energy scarcity. The US suffers less from it because they have a lot of oil and gas along with the exorbitant privilege from the USD.
In Europe domestic energy is mostly nuclear power plants, North Sea oil and gas, and maybe offshore oil and gas from French Guiana's EEZ if serious exploration starts there one day.
tzzzzt | 7 hours ago
Bullshit, you have shown you have literally no understanding of European economies and issues. The issue is not definitely not that people work too little. In most European countries the average number of hours worked per week is comparable to numbers in the US (although, it is true that they are usually slightly lower). The issues of economies in Europe are high energy prices, inflexible capital markets, lack of innovation and bureaucracy. The fact that France is running unsustainable welfare state financed by debt does not mean that Europeans work too little. It is incredibly disrespectufl to the people who are working shifts and can barely afford living (yes, those are in the US as well)
gatosaurio | 5 hours ago
What you say about working hours is right, but the original comment is also kind of right. He should say productivity instead of worked hours, though. Productivity in Europe is going in the shitter compared to USA for >1 decade now.
You can work 2400 h/year, but if your job is serving mojitos, your productivity will remain terminally low
tzzzzt | 4 hours ago
Yes, you are right, but I think we are talking about the same thing. You just used the word productivity which is often defined as production per capita. I mentioned the reasons why GDP growth has been weak which also more or less explains why productivity has grown little.
gatosaurio | an hour ago
Re-reading your comment, yeah, I think we're saying the same basically.
mmbon | an hour ago
The average american worker works 50 days more per year than the average French worker, if you calculate with 8h days. Per the latest OECD data
Crowsbrain | 3 hours ago
You leave mojitos out of this they’re completely innocent
gatosaurio | an hour ago
As the saying goes... "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men serve mojitos." 😙
vorxil | 3 hours ago
Productivity means little if all the productivity gains go to the owner class, or worse: an owner class outside the country.
Case in point: the US, where the poor must work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, while the rich coast around on the backs of other people's labor.
ConsciousClassroom66 | 5 hours ago
Cite your sources, because a quick search shows you are blatantly wrong. Western Europeans work the least amount of hours per year by a large margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_annual_labor_hours
tzzzzt | 4 hours ago
Are you illiterate ? I clearly wrote "in most European countries" which combined with the word comparable means that there are unsurprisingly countries with lower hours worked per week. By comparable i mean +-10 % compared to the US.
Btw. I did not look exactly at the data before making my original post, but this wikipedia link confirms what i wrote there
ConsciousClassroom66 | 4 hours ago
Eastern Europe is doing a lot of heavy lifting for your "most European countries" when that list clearly shows nearly all of Western Europe significantly working less than the US. 10% is significant, that's 4 weeks less work per year, and you have Germany working over 30% less.
Thanks for the insult, it clearly shows your intelligence!
tzzzzt | 4 hours ago
You are literally using straw-man arguments. There is no point in having a debate if I clearly mention most European countries and you respond only with western and call my argument blatantly wrong. Citing a source that confirms what I said as well. It just looks like you are unable to understand what i wrote, you should not be surprised when I ask of you are illiterate.
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
High energy prices are largely because the EU has been very reluctant to exploit its own fossil fuel reserves, preferring to instead leave the dirty business of extraction to foreign countries.
ImConfidentURWrong | 6 hours ago
What’s there to understand? You have huge welfare systems you can’t afford. Your GDP growth is stagnant. Your options are cut spending and grow more. That requires more work and less government services.
tzzzzt | 6 hours ago
Because your are mixing several countries together and are making completely wrong conclusions. First of all, yes, there are a few countries that have unsustainable welfare benefits such as France. But there are countries with healthy growth and significant social programs (Denmark, sweden and norway). So the welfare programs are not necessarily issues if managed correctly. I already mentioned the real issues behind slow growth, maybe i could add having no tech sector and semiconductor industry. Obviously, there are more smaller reasons why European economies stagnate but a lot of them are connected to the points I have already mentioned. I agree with you, that governments need to cut spending ( so does US government with debt comparable to France, or they can increase revenue), but I do not believe that this would lead to economic growth because you do not solve real structural issues behind current stagnation.
altynadam | 2 hours ago
Big reason why it works in Denmark, Sweden and Norway is they are smaller nations by population and much more homogeneous with high levels of trust. Japan and Nordics are often sighted as the most pleasant places to live, but people tend to ignore a glaring similarity (might be the only similarity) - how homogeneous it is. Because of that, there is high societal trust between people not to abuse the system.
_aliased | 2 hours ago
the bot got banned lolz
_Gobulcoque | 6 hours ago
> Time for less vacations and instead time to work more to produce something of value and become self reliant again.
Sounds like crabs in a bucket mentality to me.
ImConfidentURWrong | 5 hours ago
I’m sure burying your head in the sand and pretending increased spending can go on forever is the answer, surely
_Gobulcoque | 5 hours ago
How does having a few extra PTO days mean a country is pretending increased spending can go on forever?
I'm confident you're wrong.
ImConfidentURWrong | 5 hours ago
You don’t have to convince me. You need to convince the bond market France is borrowing money from.
Hamiltonblewit | 4 hours ago
It’s not just PTOs or great work hours, but rather low GDP growth and productivity across Europe due to the increased defense spending (as an result of U.S defense pull back/pressure), Chinese manufacturing, and Russian fuel constraints, ailing population growth, immense local pressure from immigration influxes, etc - European countries will likely have to reckon with cutting social services to an significant portion if they want to keep the system sustainable because a lot of these are factors are serious problems that Europe can’t tackle alone.
Arengen | 3 hours ago
american mentality: we are number one, if we don't have it then that means it's somehing bad
Lachokrampfo | 4 hours ago
Unemployment is high. If the individual working hours increase, so will unemployment.
TheTimberFactory | 7 hours ago
When the barbarians were at the gate, Europe was done for as soon as they opened the gates.
It would not surprise me in the least if most of the France protestors are from Islamic countries. These are the ones most likely to not have jobs and to be on benefits.
Its taboo to even discuss in here and most likely bannable. Its wild to me that there is no word on immigration on here.
whycarbon | 6 hours ago
you should be oppressed even harder for being openly racist lol
tzzzzt | 6 hours ago
He is openly racist but he is right that immigration from African and muslim countries is problematic to say the least. We cannot overlook that and call everyone who point to these issues as racist because it just leads to increased support for radical parties
Gh13925241166 | 5 hours ago
The root here is not just immigration, but also marginalization of immigrants and poverty, which lead to ghetto and create a siege mentality of us vs them. Then, this communal mentality is exploited by either religion or radical doctrines to create unrest and chaos.
If you want immigrants to assimilate well, the key is always access and mobility. Sometime these can be natural if immigrants themselves come from money. For example many Chinese immigrants to the US are not rioting because they already come from money and can translate these resources into access into workplaces and mobility.
But we happens to live in a time of economic crisis where access and mobility are both limited if not lost.
TheTimberFactory | 2 hours ago
Muslims are not compatible with the West and its Western values.
Asia on the other hand is more compatible with the West.
Ok_Dentist_9133 | 5 hours ago
Why are they leaving? How did France become an economic powerhouse? Where does our precious minerals that we use for our technology come from? Answers given lead to imperialism. Y’all ignore to the detriment of society. Something something coming home to roost.
TheTimberFactory | 3 hours ago
You do realize that immigration is include in economic discussions, right?
This is an economics forum. We discuss PPI, Unemployment figures, etc.
BadFurDay | 8 hours ago
People will blame protestors instead of 10 years of macronnonics making our situation worse, judging by the previous threads.
At least the rich got temporarily richer, right, that's worth ruining a country.
Empty_Football4183 | 8 hours ago
The protests show that the budget cant be cut without absolute anarchy so the "protesting" aka buring and looting has increased the sell off.
MightyHydrar | 8 hours ago
The looting and rioting also imposes extra costs on the state for repairs, clean-up etc, which adds to the deficit. It's pathetic. Whole nation of spoiled toddlers tearing itself apart.
Olin_123 | 7 hours ago
The French deficit is measured in trillions. Repairing the damage done will be negligible comparatively and if this is wrong, it reflects poorly on the underlying systems, not the French people.
yyrkoon1776 | 7 hours ago
You think shutting down entire swathes of the economy for days and burning down infrastructure and investment has a negligible impact?
Foolish.
Arbor4 | 7 hours ago
And not to think of the reputation implications it has, especially on tourism. It certainly doesn't inspire for a romantic weekend in Paris. Or for the image of luxury and refinement that all the luxury sector lives on
Bluestreaked | 7 hours ago
“Oh no I can’t go to France they might protest!” /s
Meanwhile my partner still jokes about all of the protests she saw while living in France.
Arbor4 | 7 hours ago
Well people are living off of that tourism. If the numbers genuinely go down, then there will be less jobs.
badluser | 5 hours ago
Do you think labor unions were effective because they were passive and soft-spoken?
Bluestreaked | 7 hours ago
You think starving the people of the social welfare and functioning system of government needed to survive is sustainable?
These protests didn’t emerge out of nowhere, this is what years and years of austerity bring you
I wonder how many times this pattern will repeat itself before people can admit reality?
Read Clara Mattei
BitingSatyr | 6 hours ago
What “years and years of austerity”? French government spending as a % of GDP is 57.7%, just about as high as it’s ever been since 2009. There was a slight decline in the years leading up to covid where spending was pulled back to a Spartan 55.3% of GDP, but covid ended that.
thewimsey | 6 hours ago
> You think starving the people of the social welfare and functioning system of government needed to survive is sustainable?
And you imagine that this is going on in France?
>These protests didn’t emerge out of nowhere, this is what years and years of austerity bring you
France doesn't have "austerity".
>Read Clara Mattei
Learn something about France.
yyrkoon1776 | 7 hours ago
I didn't make any of these claims.
Bluestreaked | 6 hours ago
Then you don’t understand the dichotomy at play
BadFurDay | 8 hours ago
Some budgets can be cut without protesting. But it somehow always has to be hospitals, schools, unemployment benefits, it's always the common folk that must go through the austerity measures while there's always somehow money available to create new tax cuts for the rich.
Even with yearly cuts to social services, Macron can't balance a budget. This crisis was a long time coming, now we all have to deal with the consequences of his poor management. Blaming the protesters is akin to looking at the finger when french people are pointing at the moon.
Feisty-Boot5408 | 7 hours ago
France’s taxes are nearly 45% of GDP, that is already an extremely high rate of taxation.
The cuts you’re referring to are likely the SDF being replaced with the IFI, yes? The SDF tax was abolished because it caused capital flight, resulting in a 7 billion annual shortfall. France revised it with the IFI in 2018, which is a real-estate focused tax on the wealthy.
Either way, the “wealth tax” only ever contributed a tiny amount of France’s taxes. At peak in 2017, it was responsible in 4.1B in tax revenue of the ~1,100B total. That’s about 0.4% of all taxes.
Today, the IFI tax brings in ~2B of 1,561B total.
The “tax cuts for the wealthy” have resulted in fractions of a percent of difference, essentially meaningless for France’s financial issues.
Alarmed_Guarantee140 | 7 hours ago
Exactly this. People ask why France doesn’t just tax the rich. They do, they tax them a lot. Capital flight is a real issue and one that France has had to deal with extensively. The “Just tax them and if they want to leave they leave” perspective doesn’t work if your wealth taxes cause so much capital flight you’re actually pulling in less money after implementing the tax.
AtomZaepfchen | 7 hours ago
macron tried to tackle the french pension problem and france burned down paris.
france didnt have a budget surplas pre interest for decades man. this isnt macrons fault. its the fault of france as a whole. they already pay very high taxes. cuts need to be the next step.
Empty_Football4183 | 7 hours ago
Name one public service the French are willing to cut?
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Sure, you asked for one, so I'll name one.
The police has been getting massive budget increases every year under Macron in order to acquire military grade equipment which has been used to maim protestors, including a lot of kids these past weeks.
It's getting another >3% increase in the provisional 2026 budget.
Empty_Football4183 | 7 hours ago
You're right its a waste of money because the French arnt using the equipment. If they were actually using it the criminals would stop as they would fear for their well being. You seriously think this anarchy is good for France? Their stock market amd bonds are in free fall amd they will be semt back decades in economic progress the way its going
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
The police are the ones who set the violence level.
If they escalated, then the violence of the protesters would escalate too.
The french are not known for backing down against police brutality.
Empty_Football4183 | 7 hours ago
The French are known for backing down and surrendering. Muslims are known for doubling down so maybe thats what you are referring to. But I guarantee you if the rioters started getting fucked up theyd cower down real quick. You sound like someone that has never gotten into a serious physical situation. If you ever got beat up bad im sure you learned some kind of lesson.
Mormuth | 7 hours ago
Because muslims cant be french right ? And french are white flag frogs obviously, that's why we're known to be the rioting country, the good old surrendering culture.
Empty_Football4183 | 7 hours ago
When I see Muslims carrying around non French flags im confused on the nationality, I sincerely apologize. If you have an Algeria flag wrapped around you I should assume they are French born citizens
Kawainess33 | 7 hours ago
Hmm, I’m sure protests and riots everyday will result in budget cuts to the police force.
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
How much would that save?
Lighthouse_seek | 5 hours ago
French police and military combined is 4% of gdp, less than education which is 5
And from the riots we're seeing clearly the police are underfunded
rabbitfoot89 | 7 hours ago
In a democracy you get the politicians you deserve.
CosmicQuantum42 | 7 hours ago
Increasing taxes is not an option. Given that this is true, what’s the solution.
That_Mad_Scientist | 7 hours ago
Given that I have concluded there is no alternative, you have no alternative
Logic
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Macron has lowered or removed a lot of taxes, and created a bunch of tax cuts that only benefit the wealthiest people. Specifically, 62 billion a year in lost earnings since Macron's presidency started, according to the government itself.
He can increase the taxes back to the levels they were before his presidency started. Bringing back the wealth tax would be a good start. People would not riot against that.
This is a situation of his own making.
Various-Gazelle4713 | 7 hours ago
You mean the French wealth tax from 1982-2018 that:
- Is estimated to have cost the French government an average of €7bn per year in tax revenue?
- Is estimated to have reduced yearly GDP growth on average by 0.2% (which is not insignificant given that France has grown by under a precent several times)?
- Is estimated to have resulted in over €200bn of capital flight between 1988-2007?
- Led to an estimated 60,000 tax-paying millionaires+ leaving France from 2000-2018?
Is that really the direction you would advocate for France to take? How is making the current situation worse going to fix the current situation? Who cares if (everyday) people wouldn’t riot over the wealth tax being brought back. They are apparently too stupid to understand the consequences. Won’t stop them from rioting over the effects of bringing back a wealth tax they demanded though …
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Then create an exit tax and keep taxing citizens who flee to tax heavens unless they renounce their citizenship.
The USA does it, why shouldn't we?
Various-Gazelle4713 | 7 hours ago
You think a one-time exit tax is going to stop people from leaving?
You don’t want that capital and talent leaving, even if you could tax a portion of it. That is a one-time payment. You are just begging for these people to pack up their families and businesses and take that economic activity elsewhere. That can’t be replaced by taxing overseas individual incomes. You lost those businesses and the economic activity they create. That will do wonders for the French budget and deficit, I’m sure.
Rock-n-RollingStart | 7 hours ago
Redditors are obsessed with being keyboard Robin Hoods, and any reality check is met with accusations of boot licking. In the US, the megarich already pay ~40% of the taxes, and the top 10% nearly cover 75%. France is strikingly similar.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
The call to bring back the wealth tax and get back the money Macron distributed to the ultra wealthy is backed by plenty of economists. Olivier Blanchard, former head economist of the IMF was one of the authors of the 2025 Zucman Tax project which was meant to restore a bit of fiscal justice in France. This proposal was later backed by seven economics nobel prizes laureates.
Argue with them, not me. Or with Cristobal Young, Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman, Joel Slemrod, and other economists who have recently written books and studies on the topic of wealth flight, using data collected before and after Macron cut the wealth tax, to prove that it is completely unrelated to taxation of wealth.
Billionaires flee no matter what, no matter how many concessions we make to them. Might aswell get something on their way out. An exit tax is better than nothing.
It's on me for expecting people to actually understand economics on an economics forum. Read books. Study academics. I have no further time to waste on this drivel.
Various-Gazelle4713 | 7 hours ago
Yes, just keep trying the same failing strategy over and over again simply because several economists have attached their name to it 😵💫
The data shows that over its 3 decades, France’s wealth tax was a net negative to every major economic indicator. I’m not sure why you want to follow people that keep advocating for the same failed policy over and over again. That’s insanity.
DeathMetal007 | 5 hours ago
Nowhere in these articles is the claim that additional taxes can pay for the deficit. So any additional tax, even with maximum return, won’t solve this problem. The problem is with spending.
Natural_Jello_6050 | 6 hours ago
Because USA doesn’t tax its citizens 45% so most don’t flee. And even if they “flee” they don’t get taxed until they make more that $100,000 a year which is a lot of money (in France- for example)
Danne660 | 4 hours ago
If they are willing to create an exit tax then what prevents them from increasing the exit tax in the future?
If they make an exit tax people will leave the country to get out before the exit tax goes even higher.
Bluestreaked | 7 hours ago
Oh no not capital flight /s
Let’s just cut all essential services showing how much we value making the rich capitalists happy over the vast majority of the country
HolyInlandEmpire | 7 hours ago
You're complaining about "cutting essential services" when France has basically the highest taxes among developed countries. Stick to reality rather than fantasy.
EDIT: Bluestreaked appears to be a bot, I got got good. I suggest against engaging.
evrestcoleghost | 7 hours ago
Can't pay for services without capital
Bluestreaked | 7 hours ago
Empty complaint when the government refuses actions to do actions to raise capital
Macron has spent years cutting taxes on the wealthy
Various-Gazelle4713 | 7 hours ago
So are we just ignoring that it resulted in reduced tax revenue for the state, loss of capital (which supports jobs and infrastructure build outs), and reduced GDP growth over decades that could have helped (with that additional capital) the economy to outgrow debt issuance for social and other governmental programs?
Bluestreaked | 7 hours ago
There are answers to those problems you just don’t like them because they hurt the capitalist rather than the working class
Various-Gazelle4713 | 7 hours ago
Please provide those answers rather than your typical argumentative nonsense. Even when provided data you still go off on your nonsensical emotional rant. What else would I expect from a bot.
thewimsey | 6 hours ago
>Oh no not capital flight /s
Oh no, not an idiot who doesn't understand why that is a problem.
Or wants to ignore it because it, you know, kills the argument you would want to make if you weren't too busy shitposting.
Rufio69696969 | 7 hours ago
The wealth tax was repealed because it hurt more than it helped, as is the case with most wealth taxes. More stupidity
Chance_Emu8892 | 7 hours ago
How did it hurt more than it helped? You need to be precise when you display such thesis as these.
Kawainess33 | 7 hours ago
When wealth taxes become so high that they cause capital flight or stop investment from other economies it becomes more of an issue than a benefit.
I don’t know if that’s what happened in France, but that’s what usually causes these taxes to be taken down.
Rufio69696969 | 7 hours ago
Because it caused capital flight leading to shortfalls. Less revenue was brought in after it was implemented. Millionaires left, meaning no wealth tax from them as well as not VaT, no income tax, no money in the economy.
Estimated 7 billion euro shortfall
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1268381
Chance_Emu8892 | 7 hours ago
Yes, of course you're quoting Pichet...
This paper is outdated and has been methodologically contested for years. Current research shows capital flight was more modest than what Pichet found, so modest in fact, that we are talking of less than 1% of the wealthiest tax payers. Flight capital is marginal, you just don't leave countries like that when your wealth is tied to said country (turns out lots of those guys assets are real estate, for ex).
And the loss of revenue is around 4/4.5bn, not 7.
Even if you take the 7bn as granted, it is absolutely dwarfed by the other taxes that were cut since Macron has power. We're talking dozens of billions that were lost to society with weak and contested evidence of the broad economic pay-off that we hear oftentimes.
Rufio69696969 | 7 hours ago
So that budget downfall being 4.5 billion is still bad. That means you lost revenue after implementing this tax. That is bad, you realize that right? And your claim is unfounded anyways.
Change the subject all you want, re-adding a wealth tax would be monumentally stupid. This is a spending problem
maxtheninja | 7 hours ago
literally every point you have made is wrong, France cant raise taxes it already has some of thw highest rates in the EU. It cannot reign in govt spending because evrytime they try the people burn the city. The wealth tax was repealed because it resulted in a loss of net tax revenue as high earners left France.
the solution is to, raise retirement age and reduce benefits - but that is unpalatable hence the riots
Geedeepee91 | 7 hours ago
Yes when austerity is required it is the common people that lose the social benefits. It's exactly what needs to be done
Natural_Jello_6050 | 7 hours ago
What’s a difference between protesting and rioting? Cause it looks like riots
BadFurDay | 6 hours ago
Optics.
It's a protest when you agree with it, a riot when you disagree with it.
Natural_Jello_6050 | 6 hours ago
The store owners that got looted might disagree but sure.
thewimsey | 6 hours ago
No.
It's a protest when you are protesting.
It's a riot when you are burning and looting.
1500 businesses were burned in Paris, and for some reason you're defending that.
Lighthouse_seek | 5 hours ago
What do you propose cutting then? Because something will have to be cut. French taxes are so high that capital flight is happening
SleepingRiver | 7 hours ago
Macaron has been attempting government reforms for a while. In France government spending reforms will require touching different types of social welfare programs, pensions, and subsidies.
France already has one of the highest tax receipts as a percentage of GDP out of OECD. It is at like 43.5%.
This means in general people across France are getting taxed pretty heavily. On the upper income levels the tax rates are about ~45% when you are making 180k euros or more. They have high taxes on any type of capital gains/investment income between 31% and 36% (includes real estate sales). They also have a wealth tax on real estate on assets exceeding 1.3m euro.
From there you have additional consumption taxes which the amount you pay is relative to how much you spend.
So why do you say they do not tax enough?
Every time a reforms has been attempted the general populace has rejected it. This could range from reforms proposed today or to the agricultural reforms several years ago.
The social programs that have been created over the last century were created with the idea of a positive demographic pyramid. As we proceed through the 21st century that is no longer the case. Demographics have changed and it is very possible in the mid to long term, next 30 to 50 years, that the weight of these programs will financially burden future generations that have yet to be born.
Thadlust | 7 hours ago
You’re right! It’s neoliberalism’s fault! On an unrelated note, France’s government spending is 57% of GDP and you think it should be higher, apparently.
The_Admiral_ | 7 hours ago
Government spending is higher than in the Soviet Union and that is somehow not communism? Right, but it is 57% of the way towards communism.
m0nty555 | 7 hours ago
Bro if we spend few more euros all problems will go away. Obviously, none of that will be invested.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Macron has not decreased government spending either, despite his promises to do so.
Every budget cut he makes is accompanied by tax benefits for the rich.
That's what we are protesting against.
Other_Safe_4659 | 5 hours ago
Government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP basically hasn't moved since Macron came into power. You're grossly overestimating his "tax benefits for the rich".
He did try to decrease government spending, and it cost him his majority. Because of people like you protesting.
jv1095 | 5 hours ago
Man the numbers really dont look like simply taking money from the rich you guys will be fine. Why is the far left so extremely concerned over that when your country, france, would still be deeply fucked?
Is there really a general believe that they are all so rich that if you just split up you all gonna be fine? Not asking about your opinion per se but what you see around in those circles?
Rufio69696969 | 8 hours ago
Anytime their government tries to make a modest reform they take to the streets. Pensions are near 15% of their gdp and even their young shit themselves at potential cuts. No one to blame but themselves
uses_for_mooses | 7 hours ago
The French are spoiled and want to have it all the ways. They want the government to invest in the young while retiring with a generous pension at age 60 while working 35 hours a week with 1.5 months of annual vacation.
French government spending is well over 57% of GDP. But if anyone mentions the possibility of cutting that back to even 56%, they're labeled a traitor with cries of "austerity!" The French want the government to make up money out of nothing to spend.
blackstafflo | 7 hours ago
The thing is that most of the time a pension reform is proposed, it disproportionnally touch smaller pensions already at the breaking point, or raising retirement age without proposition to push companies to employ beyond 50 yo+ (which they really don't like), which again disproportionnally touch lower strates. It's not that it would not necessarly to be done, but before it a lot could be done on caping higher ones or the way it's calculated for exemple.
That the same idea with unemployment benefits. It's an independant fund, well managed by worker and not in the red, but in deficit because the gov force it to pay things it doesn't control and pick in it, and then the solution to this so called 'deficit' is always reducing benefits rather than stopping using it as a piggy bank right and left.
People feels that there is a lot of thing that can be done first, a lot of it simply rolling back deliberate sabotage made the last 20-30 years, before hitting the lower and low medium class.
Tldr: people would be more understandable about hard reforms like rising retirement age if basic management changes and rolling back deliberate fiscal and public service sabottages from last few governments were applied first.
Rufio69696969 | 7 hours ago
Yeah I don’t believe people will magically be more amenable to these reforms if targeted the specific way you say.
The opposition isn’t rooted in logic to begin with
blackstafflo | 6 hours ago
There would still be opposition to it, I'm 100% sure of it too.
But I think (in all honnesty just my 2 cents bar🍺 thoughts) that it make it worse and help the opposition to be able to reach a significantly larger part of the population/support.
artbystorms | 7 hours ago
The students are not protesting against pension cuts... They're protesting against education system cuts done to keep the lofty pension payouts stable.
The problem is if they try to do pension cuts, the pensioners and soon-to-be pensioners all lose their shit. They are happy to destroy the future for the young if it makes their retirement more comfortable.
Rufio69696969 | 7 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_French_pension_reform_strikes
The current protests started as schooling issues. Now they are just general complaints often unrelated. But the last pension reforms caused mass protests.
Cadoc | 7 hours ago
The young people are not protesting against pension reform right now, but they have in the past (including last time I was in Paris lol) - and as long as pension reform is delayed, education budget cannot feasibly be boosted.
artbystorms | 7 hours ago
I get that US conservatives are desperate to make this whole thing about 'haha France's socialist pension programs are causing riots' but in reality, Macron passed a lot of tax cuts primarily for businesses and the wealthy. The French see the tax cuts and they see the cuts to education and other public programs and realize that things aren't adding up. If the country truly cared about budgets, the budget cuts would go alongside tax INCREASES.
Cadoc | 7 hours ago
I'm not an American, and not a conservative - just someone who can put together some basic figures.
A generous estimate of the drop in revenue as a result of replacing the ISF with IFI and introducing PFU is ~8 bn. That is if we essentially assume the changes had no impact on retention of high earners, investment etc.
France pays ~420 billion annually in pensions alone, with an overall ~145 billion deficit and ~3.6 trillion national debt. It pays 74 billion a year in debt servicing alone.
Even amongst European social democratic countries with generous welfare states, France is a case of its own.
That being said, even though it's political theatre rather than a solution, some kind of taxation of the wealthy at the same time as serious pension reform is likely the right political move. While revenues are likely to be neutral or very modest, and are guaranteed not to plug the gap in public finances, but public perception matters.
Rufio69696969 | 7 hours ago
Taxes are like 50% of gdp. One of the highest taxed countries in the world. You’re just hurting your economy at that point
Natural_Jello_6050 | 7 hours ago
Hey guys- remember Redditors that say “we only work 30 hours a week and have 2 months annual paid vacations! Americans are evil!”
Natural_Jello_6050 | 7 hours ago
Exactly. Students rioting cause this and then middle aged will riot cause of that and then farmers gonna riot cause of reasons etc etc.
Jealous_Bowler3093 | 6 hours ago
You have the highest government spending on social services in the developed world.. France is a left wing failure
boothbbenjoyer | 3 hours ago
they would rather become a third world shithole than admit it
sveinn_j | 6 hours ago
Reducing left-wing politics to government spending is an… interesting point of view.
HolyInlandEmpire | 7 hours ago
The question isn't the protests. The question is how the government responds.
Will they have more sensible policy? Or will they just promise more spending for young people without touching the massive pensions and restrictions, making the debt problem even bigger? Nobody knows for sure but the markets now think the latter is more likely than they did before.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Macron's style so far has been to throw massive amounts of money at any unrest, instead of making meaningful changes.
I'm predicting he'll eventually give up and spend money we don't have towards education budgets + some fuel prices subsidies, then leave whoever comes after him with an even bigger debt issue to deal with. He's never truly cared about budgets, and it's his last year in power.
MightyHydrar | 8 hours ago
The "protestors" (looters, rioters, thieves, vandals) are the ones smashing up stores, setting historic buildings on fire, and costing the state milions in repair costs alone.
France, especially the french left, glorifies violence to an extent that is frankly worrying, looking on from the outside.
Over the weekend, the rioting scum tried to break into the Louvre. How would smashing up an art gallery help anyone or anything? Does it improve the fiscal situation of the french state to have some loser piss on the Mona Lisa or tear other priceless paintings to shreds?
TheTimberFactory | 7 hours ago
The protestors aren't even French!
BadFurDay | 8 hours ago
I was protesting near the Louvre on Saturday. Nobody wanted to break into it. In fact, protesters have taken over the Louvre today, all they're doing is blocking the entrance. Nothing is being looted, nor is there any threat of looting the Louvre whatsoever.
Get your news from better sources.
Ish_Joker | 7 hours ago
So the town hall fire in Limogesbwas ok then? Since you have it all under control and accidents don't happen in these riots, it must have been on purpose, right?
MightyHydrar | 7 hours ago
Buddy, there is video.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Videos of stores near the Louvre getting their windows smashed, for sure.
Videos of people attempting to break into the Louvre itself to pillage it, certainly not. I was there and it did not happen. Lots of extreme police brutality around the museum though. You're repeating your propaganda to an ocular witness, bad try.
MightyHydrar | 7 hours ago
Yes yes, it's the meanie police that made the assholes loot and smash everything someone else had carefully built.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
I have not made any such claims. Nor have I defended the looting.
You made the claim that the Louvre itself was under threat of being looted. I am calling you out on this specific lie. I was there, and at no point was the Louvre under threat. The looting was purely directed at symbols of excess wealth, in this case at luxury shops near the Louvre, which are symbols of the ultra wealthy the rioters are pissed at.
You also claimed that "there is video". No such video exists. The Louvre itself was safe all along, it took more damage from all the tear gassing and flashbang grenades than from any protester, there wasn't even graffiti on it. Respect for the Louvre is universal, anyone trying to breach it would get stopped by the crowd iself. That's why the Louvre protest today is not stepping inside the museum, only blocking its entrance. We don't want anyone getting inside.
Get your news from better sources. You are being lied to, and repeating lies.
MightyHydrar | 7 hours ago
"solely directed at excess"
Yeah, right. There was a whole bunch of privately run small businesses destroyed (including one grimly hilarious face-eating leopards moment by some lefty activist trying to tell the scum that she'd supported them, why were they harming her shop). A video game / trading card shop run by single guy.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Again, I am talking about the area I was in, around the Louvre.
You made a claim about the Louvre itself. That claim was a lie.
ishtar_the_move | 7 hours ago
So is "The looting was purely directed at symbols of excess wealth, in this case at luxury shops near the Louvre, which are symbols of the ultra wealthy the rioters are pissed at". Unless you want to amend it as "the looting was purely directed at symbols of excess wealth around the Louvre. Lootings elsewhere were not"
maxtheninja | 7 hours ago
The Louvre is protected by armed military patrols lol
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
The military stay out of protests. They are not police, their role around the Louvre is exclusively to deal with possible terrorist threats (as per plan Vigipirate). They let us in and out of the courtyards without batting an eye.
Even today while the Louvre is being blockaded, they are not intervening. In fact, it's reassuring to have them around, the riot police acts much nicer when there's military eyes around.
Happy_Little_Fish | 7 hours ago
have you considered protesting in places less likely to be exploited by criminals?
Vusiwe | 7 hours ago
What were the macroeconomics that ruined the country?
I’m actually asking, not being sarcasti
Im from further west, they don’t tell us anything over here about you over there
R-GiskardReventlov | 7 hours ago
I just want to indicate to you that "macronomics" was not a typo of "macroeconomics", but rather a combination of "Macron" (the president) and economics. Similar to Reaganomics in the US.
I do not know the details of Macrons economic policies.
BadFurDay | 7 hours ago
Macron and his predecessor borrowed immense amounts of money during the era of low interest rates last decade, now the interest rates have increased and are knocking at the door.
The issue is Macron has used this money in ways that created no long term wealth for french people: mostly tax cuts for the rich and subsidy packages to quell unrest, with no attempts to balance budgets. His political strategy to refuse any negotiations with other parties led to the collapse of his few attempts at making actual useful improvements to our budgets.
Now that we are reaping what he sowed, Macron somehow does not get much of the blame for the conditions he has created. We are protesting against this, and people worldwide are blaming the protests instead of the conditions that led to those protests.
Jealous_Bowler3093 | 6 hours ago
"subsidy packages to quell unrest" yeah money going to social spending.... Anytime he attempted cut's he's met with protests.
Cadoc | 7 hours ago
Macron basically did not cut spending at all and tried to placate critics with increased spending in several key areas - only in France would he get treated as an anarcho-capitalist for attempting extremely modest pension reform.
mcsul | an hour ago
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Government spending as a share of GDP is the same today as it was in 2017 when Macron won his first election. It had some ups and downs, but is currently sitting at nearly net zero change from Macron's first day in office.
Electronic-Tension-7 | 14 minutes ago
There is very old Aesops fable where Golden goose is killed due to greed of its owner. You don't just tax wealth you tax talent and future wealth creation as well. Why should a talented smart hardworking French engineer live and work in France when he could move to a place where he is taxed less?
How would you stop people from shooting themselves in the foot? There have been green initiatives that have back fired badly and costed Europe quite a bit. It isn't just the capital that moves.
ItsTheSlime | 8 minutes ago
The solution would be an actual proper full European federalisation, so that the economy can be unified, and so that you can have speicific states work on specific matters.
But the average European's arrogance will prevent that from happening. France could be in the middle of being invaded and people would be protesting against the bombs falling instead of banding together on facing the problem.
NextGen-Panic | 7 hours ago
"Won't someone think of the investors!"
It's not the "bonds market" that's wavering, it's people's fiat in the ability of governments to prove this is WORTH IT.
And they are failing.
So what's left besides the People declaring worldwide War on Corruption & Fraud?
[OP] laxnut90 | 7 hours ago
France can't keep spending if no one will lend them the money.
That is why the bond market matters here.
AngelousSix66 | an hour ago
Can trying working for the money and spend less perhaps? That's what I do if no one wants to lend me money: take up more jobs and cut back on expenditures.
[OP] laxnut90 | an hour ago
That's what France needs to do:
Increase income (i.e. taxes) and/or decrease expenses (i.e. government spending).
They are already one of the highest tax countries in the world, so they will likely need to decrease spending.
FaultRoutine3520 | 6 hours ago
Did the rich forget about the French Revolution?
The rich have gotten richer and the poor have seen no meaningful positive change to their quality of life.
So they build a system that protects them, but that system is fragile and will fail once people reach their breaking point. And that’s what you’re seeing now. Eventually people will stop playing the game and turnover the board. This is only the beginning.
[OP] laxnut90 | 5 hours ago
Most of France's wealthy left the country the last time France tried to do a wealth tax.
France is part of the EU, so moving countries is relatively easy.
sandwich_estimator | an hour ago
You can bind the tax on the wealthy to citizenship. If they renounce French citizenship, you can make them pay a very high exit tax. A lot harder to avoid such measures and I bet they would rather pay a few percentages of wealth tax every year than to go through that.
BobaLives01925 | 4 hours ago
This thread in a fascinating glimpse into how fucked up a lot of people’s understanding of the world is. France spends an insane amount of its budget on social services, and people just aren’t educated enough to understand it and choose to riot instead.
FaultRoutine3520 | 4 hours ago
How do you think they got there?
BobaLives01925 | 3 hours ago
A lack of understanding of trade offs and poor information environments, among other factors
FaultRoutine3520 | 2 hours ago
No, they got there by rioting.
France has all those benefits because they protest, loudly.
BobaLives01925 | 2 hours ago
These aren’t really benefits. They’re overspending by a ton and are screwed long term unless they do something about it. The average pensioners is better funded than the average working person.
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
A revolution in France would hurt the poor the most. France has a robust welfare and worker protections system. That disappears if the system breaks.
FaultRoutine3520 | 5 hours ago
I don’t believe that. You could say the same thing before French Revolution, and look how that turned out for the poor (they benefited).
When the poor are getting poorer, they have nothing left to lose. It’s not my choice to make, but given the ones in front of them, I can see how that seems attractive. And given what we see in France now, that’s the option they’re choosing.
Hamiltonblewit | 4 hours ago
Uhhh no, the Reign of Terror, Napoleonic France, and several decades of French monarchy came after the French Revolution - and in this case, France has higher social spending per share of GDP then the Soviet Union for crying out loud and some of the highest human development indexes in the entire world, it just looks like pure entitlement and chaos if you want to compare this to literal famine, massive inflation, and unimaginable opulence from the French Revolution to the modern day.
FaultRoutine3520 | 4 hours ago
Ok you’ve named some of negative things that came after but there was also the abolition of feudalism (1989) , declaration of rights (1989) and tax reforms. Yes shity things happened afterward too, but overall they were experienced more prosperity and equality after.
You also can’t compare what the Soviet Union has or doesn’t have, because the average French citizen , doesn’t know or doesn’t care. All they know is their current quality of life. Saying “don’t protest cuz yall have it better than this guy over here in Somalia”, they don’t give AF, it’s not relevant to the conversation despite it being true.
Kurichan77 | 7 hours ago
This is where the wealthy/corporate/billionaire/epstein class should be: unnerved if not outright scared. As austerity(which is what these protests were borne of) increases and worsens the collective mood, these laborless, parasitic sacks just enrich themsleves, laughing all the way to the bank. Time for some of them to consider the luigi experience and if people are out there thinking it might be right for them
[OP] laxnut90 | 6 hours ago
France doesn't have enough wealthy people to tax in order to pay for the insane levels of spending they have.
Their tax rate is already 55%.
The last time they tried steep wealth taxes, the wealthy just left the country.
France is part of the EU, so people can move easily.
FaultRoutine3520 | 6 hours ago
If they fail to do anything, people will revolt.
Danne660 | 4 hours ago
If they do anything about it people will also revolt.
FaultRoutine3520 | 4 hours ago
C’est la vie
Kurichan77 | 3 hours ago
Quite the existential pickle capitalism is in!
Kurichan77 | 6 hours ago
Yeah, that’s a capitalism problem and honestly I don’t see how capitalism is gonna get itself outta this one
[OP] laxnut90 | 5 hours ago
You could cut the spending.
That is the only way lenders would start giving France more money at a reasonable interest rate.
Kurichan77 | 5 hours ago
That isn’t a viable option for the people of France. It is a violation of the social contract. Insoluble problem that capitalism is unequipped and unmotivated to solve in a way that won’t bring even more people out into the streets
[OP] laxnut90 | 5 hours ago
How can you keep spending more money than you make if no one will lend it to you?
The issue France is facing is simple math at this point.
If you continue to spend more than your income, eventually your lenders will refuse to lend you more and/or demand higher interest rates to cover their risk.
Then you are forced to cut spending whether you want to or not.
Kurichan77 | 4 hours ago
Which will violate the social contract and even French people will join the protests. This is an insoluble problem that capitalism cannot solve, unless, of course, it is able to spark a world war.
[OP] laxnut90 | 4 hours ago
People can join the protests all they want.
That just makes lenders even less likely to lend money.
And when no one will lend the money, the spending gets cut regardless.
A social contract means nothing if it requires money you can not earn or borrow.
Kurichan77 | 4 hours ago
Sounds like a real jam for capitalism
People are sick of the austerity and if that’s all capitalism can offer as a solution,, the people will usher it into the trashcan
Damaramy | 4 hours ago
And who owns the dept? If France refuse to pay who is damaged? Local funds/ppl or foregn?
[OP] laxnut90 | 3 hours ago
What you are describing is known as a default. If France defaults, no lenders would lend them money in the future.
Which means France would be immediately forced to cut spending to whatever it earns in tax revenues.
Kurichan77 | 2 hours ago
Seems like an intractable problem inherent to capitalism. It’s getting harder and harder to deny its obsolescence
Wide_Lock_Red | 5 hours ago
Its a problem for France. There are many countries that manage way better under capitalism and attract investment instead of driving it away.
Kurichan77 | 5 hours ago
Inflation and austerity are in a race and societies beyond France will hit a boiling point
AngelousSix66 | 5 hours ago
The French problems are well known by now, but who is willing to make the hard political choices?
Cut the pensions that are funded by debt. Clamp down on companies so they don't over run the ruling class. Impound their CEO's passports and prevent them from leaving the country. Increase the minimum work hours to produce ever so slightly more. Bring down the Unions. Spend more time and resources on R&D. Force the immigrants to work, disperse their enclaves and integrate them into society. Crack down on rioters with heavier handed tactics. Sieze the means of production.
Make Marx proud! Just like the Chinese!
Reasonable_Fold6492 | 3 hours ago
Chinese because of low birth rate is increasing rhe amount of pension each year. Chinese youth have high amount of unemployment. Wtf are you talking about?
AngelousSix66 | 2 hours ago
At the rate the French are going, the youths will be working the rest of their lives to pay off the debts of their boomers. And good luck trying to pay that off working 35-40 hours a day.
The Chinese are under a mountain of debt, their economy is propped up only by the state and they won't have much of a population left by 2100. Who cares about them?
Either ways the French needs change but 1) the EU isn't helping, 2) the US is making it worse, 3) the Chinese are making it worse, 4) Russians are making it worse and 5) the French are making it worse. It's honestly amazing.