The left-wing French coalition hoping to introduce 90% tax on rich

submitted by MicroWave…

Multiple parties are jockeying for position in the aftermath of France's seismic snap election. The leftist New Popular Front (NPF) insists its ideas should be implemented.

France's left wing New Popular Front (NPF) - now the largest group in parliament - has called for a prime minister who will implement its ideas including a new wealth tax and petrol price controls.

The leftist alliance secured the most seats in the recent French elections but fell short of the 289 needed for a majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house of parliament.

President Emmanuel Macron's Together bloc came in second and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) party finished third.

France's parties are now jockeying for position and it's unclear exactly how things will shake out, but the NPF has insisted it will implement its radical set of ideas.

Log in to comment



This is a bit of a misleading summary.

Melenchon speaks for his own party, France Unbowed (LFI), not the entire NFP alliance.

The NFP as a whole has not declared support for Melenchon's position, although his party controls 71 (~41%) of NFP's 180 seats in the National Assembly.

Macron has already indicated that he will not allow Melenchon to become Prime Minister, and the entire NFP will be aware that they must select a more moderate leader to represent them if they expect to gain enough support from the centre to operate as a minority government.


Thx stranger, so hard to get news from a single source if you're not a specialist on the topic


Macron has already indicated that he will not allow Melenchon to become Prime Minister

Good news for LePen, I guess.


It's not just Macron or Ensemble, even within the NFP some parties don't want Melenchon from what I understand. At least the PS (Parti Socialiste, but they're actually just social democrats) which has 59 seats and therefore the second most seats in the NFP doesn't want him to be prime minister.


a new 90% tax on any annual income above €400,000

Lmao. Probably not gonna happen but based af


I think it's a great target to aim for. That's an unfathomable income to most people, so it should at least have popular support

Something Burger 🍔

It will not. People will vehemently defend the rich.


Some will, but there's an ever growing movement against gross wealth inequality. When simply buying groceries becomes a struggle for more and more people, that's usually a telltale sign that the working class is going to start getting angry at the insatiable greed of those at the top.


If there ever will be fight in line for bread, french will do french thing


The most likely thing that will happen is the rich renouncing citizenship and leaving the country.


renouncing citizenship

Renouncing voting rights? Good.


Don't get me wrong, I don't like this too, but let's be realistic. The rich wield political influence through their funding of various media and propaganda groups, which tends to have a big effect on a population. Then again this is France, and maybe my American cynicism is bleeding through...

unexposedhazard , edited

Deleted by author


Taxes don't work like that. It's only the portion above a level that's taxed at that level.


In the US you could absolutely fall into a new range where certain deductions no longer apply, so you could make that extra little bit of income, then lose out on deductions totaling more than your increased income.

It’s not as simple as the progressive tax brackets look at first glance.


That’s what the standard deduction is for unless you are talking about a very narrow range of only freelancers/business owners


Tax brackets don't lower income from the bracket before them. If you had 123net/177gross, and got a raise to 200 gross, you would only pay 45% on that 23k difference between 177 and 300. Thus going to 137net/200 gross.


Progressive taxation so nothing lowers your net income. That scale seems quite sensible really, and you'd even have more than the 100k because again progressive taxation. And honestly 100k net is already an obscene amount of money for a single person.


Love it. Wealthy in France is 200k, anyone who makes over 400k is uberwealthy

unexposedhazard , edited

TLDR im dumb


It doesn't even work like that: only the "extra" revenue above 400k would be subject to the 90% tax, everything below that would still be subject to standard tax rates


I wonder what the upper limit of the 400k tax bracket is?


even if you just barely go over the limit and have to live with a tenth of those 400k

Progressive taxation doesn't work like that, the 90% tax bracket in this case would only apply to the income someone earned over €400K. Everything they earn under that amount is taxed at much lower rates, the same rates as people who have lower income

unexposedhazard , edited

The current max tax rate in france is 45% + 3% for the portion exceeding 250k. (4% for exceeding 500k)

So ignoring the 3%, at 400k you would be taxed at 45% leaving you with 220k?

And at 1M it would be those 220k€ + (remaining 600k€ @ 90% = 60k)

So a total of 280k€ after tax?

I dont earn anywhere near that much so i never bothered to understand how this stuff actually works.


The math is a bit more complicated since there are multiple tax brackets below 400k, but that's the general idea yeah

MNByChoice , edited

Yes. That is the correct math.

Some tax codes have deductions and such, so the actual amount kept could be a little higher.


TLDR im dumb

You are a saint in my eyes.


Worked fine in America during it's "great" days that all these Trump voters seem to yearn for


Funny how they want to 'mAkE aMeRiCa GrEaT aGaIn' but don't want any of the policies that made America great, just the shitty racist ones that made life awful for non-white males. I'm just waiting for them to further limit it by land holding or wealth at some point..... Really take us back to when we were 'really great'


That was only on earned income and with a starting point so high that at some point only one person ever reached it.


That was before the explosion of jet travel. Now the rich fly around in their private jets to operate their businesses all over the world. They take advantage of the fact that governments can’t coordinate their taxes very well.


The NFP proposal would make the top 10% French pay more tax and the rest 90% would pay same or less tax. They want to introduce more tax "slices" to make it adjust more progressively with higher income.


Yea 400k won’t happen, I could see something in the low millions being palatable to populace at large


Seriously, that's how much a doctor makes while carrying $300k in student loans. Yes, these are US numbers, and I'm sure France has both lower salaries and much lower or no student loans. But the point stands that $400k is a really high salary but not necessarily wildly wealthy if you are paying more in student loans than you do for your house.

What this will accomplish is force newly rich people to stay in their class while the wealthy class people get no change at all since they don't have a high salary. The wealthy stay wealthy while the poor have no chance to become wealthy, only merely rich.


Student loans are tax deductible (in the US at least). So if a large portion of your salary is paying off loans you don’t get taxed on that portion at all.


Only if you make below $85k/year. People making $400k aren't able to deduct the payments on their $300k loans. Also, the limit is $2500/year in interest. People with $300k in loans pay that much every other month in interest.


Still good though, imo the win is that a big chunk of representatives are saying this is what the country wants.


Even if they do implement such tax, I wonder how many ways there are for rich people to avoid paying those taxes. They tend to be very good at skirting around such things. They even pay people who are professionals in the field of tax-around-skirting.


I hope it gets done so they can fund social programs. But the rich will flee to Germany

bolexforsoup , edited

Maybe I’m just not used to the income needed in major cities in France, but that seems like pretty high tax rate for the income in major cities like Lyons or Paris. Can someone give me a little context? Does France do graduated brackets like the US? If that’s the case then I could see this being pretty fair.


They do. Someone with a salary of €400,000 would take home approximately €242,000 after income tax.

Up to €10,777: 0% tax rate
From €10,778 to €27,478: 11% tax rate
From €27,479 to €78,570: 30% tax rate
From €78,571 to €168,994: 41% tax rate
More than €168,994: 45% tax rate

According to The EIU, the cost of living in Paris is similar to San Francisco.


That seems like quite a bit of one’s income, but on the flipside France has a lot more social services and such than we get here in the US, so I guess I have to consider that side of it.

Uruanna , edited

Does France do graduated brackets like the US?

Is there any place that does taxes without brackets, just flat "pass this number and suddenly lose half of everything"? Does that even exist outside the imagination of Americans who have never understood or looked at taxes? Brackets should be the definition of income taxes, is it not? It's not an economic tariff applied regardless the volume of merchandise passing a frontier.

bolexforsoup , edited

Jesus dude calm down I am just asking what the basic structure of the French tax system looks like. I don’t live in France, there is not a whole lot of reason for me to know.


It's still just a fraction of the top 1%. Even $400,000 in the US would put you in the top 1%, nobody needs more than this amount of money, ever.


To be clear the 90% tax is an *income tax*, which is actually not unprecedented as other commenters note. Melenchon has talked about 100% but I guess the other parties negotiated him down.


Actually, 90% income tax for the top incomes was common in western countries in the 50s.

CanadaPlus , edited

Just 90% has the pro that you'll actually collect revenue. Nobody's paying out money that doesn't reach the intended party even a bit. However, I feel like 100% would be worth it just for the paradigm shift in the way we think about society - that maybe there should be limits to how "special" you can get, and that that's not spooky communism but simply realism about our mortal condition.

ObjectivityIncarnate , edited

On paper, yes, in practice, no.

In the US, at the time that marginal tax rates got that high, the amount of things you could deduct was also MUCH higher. Truth is, nobody ever actually paid 90% back then.


So the thing about this is that, even if the things wealthy people can deduct means that they rarely pay the 90% marginal tax in practice, the fact that the government is using the tax code to coerce them into doing certain things instead of hoarding their money is still massively beneficial. The current regime abdicates a tremendous degree of the government's ability to tell the rich what to do with their money, and that is a major contributor to our society's seeming paralysis with respect to doing things.


That sounds like the era. KISS was not a principle appreciated by economic legislators until the later 20th century. Mercantilism died slow.


Honestly, they should probably leave income alone and just double down on the wealth tax.

Wage-based taxation has always been an awkward way to target the rich.

I have very different feelings about someone from a poor background who went into massive debt to develop their skills and become a top earner vs. someone who inherited a fortune and doesn’t put any effort beyond checking their bank balance periodically.

Plus, there is the “won’t they just leave?” argument. Which is mostly FUD, but in the case where someone’s wealth is based on their skilled labor they do have a much easier time just leaving. If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.


The moving part is very real for the ultra rich in Europe.


In Norway they transfer their assets to their kids and send them to live in Switzerland for them.


Yeah, it's not FUD.

It's really gotta be a 100% tax (that is, a hard cap) or nothing. Wealth that slowly whittles away will tend to move elsewhere.


Does no one here understand how incone taxes work? The 90% rate is on annual income over €400,000. Average annual income in France was €41,000.


I think the guy you're responding to is more talking about the distinction between income and capital gains, with income making up far less of the wealthy's worth than existing investments.

But yes, a lot of people also have no concept of how tax brackets work.


Right. Someone with a networth of many millions may only have a yearly income of $100k. Sometimes far less. Different tax systems can also have different definitions of income. Is inheritance income? Are growth stocks that you haven't cashed in yet income? Are stock dividends income? You can answer yes or no to any of these, but however you answer, you can still structure the tax system around those answers to come to an equitable arrangement.


The end result is that basically no one will be subject to this tax bracket.

It is high enough that everyone at that level will mainly get their real income from stock/loan which aren't salaries.

Having this tax bracket or not having it is, basically the same for the super wealthy. The real method to tax them is through capital tax, not income.


I see fud used on a semi regular basis. It's fear uncertainty and doubt. And I don't think most people know that.


I wasn't sure, but I was worried that's what it was


Wage-based taxation has always been an awkward way to target the rich.

Is it wages or is it income? Income covers much more than wages, and in a good system one would account for everything without loopholes. A comprehensive income tax that catches everything would go pretty far.

Wealth tax can be dicey, in theory. It would require a sell-off to actually have money that can be used to pay taxes, and the sell-off would change the value of the assets. For example, the S&P 500 is "worth" 46 billion dollars. That's more than twice the "money" that exists total, it's literally impossible to actually manifest all of that to dollars, so most of the "worth" cannot be "realized".


but in the case where someone’s wealth is based on their skilled labor they do have a much easier time just leaving. If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.

Nice one


If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.

Sell it to a holding company incorporated abroad. Own shares of that holding company instead.


Sounds great, now how are they proposing to tax the wealthy. You know, those people who have a jet set lifestyle but no *income* to tax?


The answer would be *of course* they have income, and we have to adequately recognize it as such.

Borrowing money against stocks? Income. Capital gains on high value or nonessential assets (e.g. non-primary residences and stock)? Income.

Actual money has to come in at some point to manifest that lifesytyle and that is obviously income.


I've always thought that it would make sense to tax borrowing money against something, but you need to have a way to account for it being paid back with either yet to be taxed assets, or already taxed assets.


Has 100 million in bank.

Leveeages 10m to buy a house.

Sells stock to pay off loan monthly.

Now in this case we can tax the 10m (maybe at a different rate) but if they sell the stock to pay off the loan it should take into account the tax they paid on the loan.

Also if they pay the loan off with already taxed money (cash in an account) that loan then needs to have its tax refunded in some manner.

It can get pretty messy, but if the law only triggers when you do this over a certain threshold, those people would be able to afford the tax people to sort it out.

Buelldozer , edited

The easy way around the problem is to tax loans that *aren't* being used to purchase an asset. This is the "living expenses" loan hack that the ultra-wealthy use and it absolutely needs to be removed.

Your example is a bit different because the wealthy person is selling stock to make the mortgage payment. In this case they should already be paying capital gains taxes on those sales. If they aren't then figure out why and fix the tax code.

We can tie the two situations together by considering the annual sum of all stock sales and non-asset purchasing loans as regular income and thus subject to income tax, minus any capital gains taxes already paid.

That easily closes both of the common loopholes that the ultra-wealthy use while leaving us normal people untouched. The ultra-wealthy would suddenly be paying income taxes on the money they are spending to maintain their lifestyle, same as the rest of us are.

NotMyOldRedditName , edited

Sorry I meant in my example they took out a loan, not a mortgage.

Better rates that way probably.

But it's the same problem even if it's living expenses.

You borrow 1m to live off of and pay income tax on it.

You then sell stocks to close out the loan and pay capital gains tax

You've now paid tax twice.

Edit: that's what it needs to be able to account for which might get messy

CanadaPlus , edited

Stock dividends? Oh, you bet that's income. Income should be delta wealth, simple as.

Borrowing money against stocks? Income.

I actually take issue with this one, though. Debt doesn't just disappear, until you (or someone else) pays it back, rich or poor alike.

Edit: It doesn't but apparently in the US specifically the taxation isn't the same.


At least in the US dividends already count as normal income and taxed at the rate of wages, as far as I know.

On the debt, I'd say the remedy for that is some sort of tax credit on repayment, depending on how the repayment goes. So if you are using real income to pay a debt that has already incurred tax liability, then that real income is exempt to avoid the double taxation.

CanadaPlus , edited

They're not in Canada, I'm pretty sure. Which is messed up.

Is there something I can read on leveraging stocks as a loophole? I've never heard of it. Every financial advisor will tell you to avoid long-term debt if at all possible.


Here's something talking about the loophole:

And some talking about some ways in which it can be leveraged:

In short, by borrowing, the tax code *assumes* that long term the proceeds of the loan will be disposed of in an appropriate tax way. However there are so many ways to be slippery about repayment that it's hardly a guarantee. So it may be wise to shift to pessimistically assuming long term shenanigans at borrowing time and taxing the proceeds as income, with tax breaks around "sane" repayment to handle the intended "avoid double taxation" behavior.

Flying Squid

I will enjoy hearing about how the rich will just move away from their fancy mansions on the Riviera and their suites in Paris to avoid paying this tax and then seeing it not happen.


Some of them, sure, but I wonder how many would consider it worth the price. This is an income taxe I'm assuming, so it's not like they'd lose out on actual wealth, investments, etc.

It might be worth it if even just half stay and pay the taxe.

Flying Squid

That was my point- they won't leave. They like living there too much. That's just always the excuse when such taxes are proposed for not doing them. "The rich will all just leave."


If it's successful presumably other places will start to follow suit. Somebody's gotta go first tho.

Flying Squid

It wasn't done nationally, but the U.S. state of Massachusetts did it recently and it was quite successful.

Once again, the rich people with their Boston penthouses and Cape Cod beach homes didn't want to leave.

They raised $1 billion off of the relatively small number of rich people living in that state when the U.S. as a whole is taken into account.

There's just no question to me that such taxes work. And the more places you implement them, the harder it will be to escape them.


I never understood this argument. As a middle class person, I would highly prefer if all rich people left.

They are the ones hording the wealth.

Wealth is generated by applying labour to natural resources, that process doesn’t really include rich people, they just gate the resources.


While I agree, they most certainly will still try their damnedest to avoid it. From illegal stuff like tax fraud, to trying stuff like officially "moving" their workplace to a tax haven, while still living in France. There would definitely be more class warfare to be had, even after this were to pass (which they of course will fight tooth and nail against)

Flying Squid

No doubt. The rich can afford to pay people to find every loophole and take advantage of everything they can take advantage of. But I'm still glad this is happening.


And it doesn't have to work perfectly to be worth it. Even if through rich-person fuckery they manage to stuff their (overseas) mattresses with hidden income, I'd bet the net result would be more €€€ in the public coffres.


Ah I misunderstood. I see we're in total agreement.

Still glad I made my comment, if only as a foil against general doomerism.


Even if rich leave, so what? They dont have to pay taxes for shit and what little they do have to pay they will just avoid anyway.


Real estate prices go down a little? It's hard to see a downside.


I think I’ve had this conversation with you before. Anyone who uses the “they’ll just leave” argument as a reason not to do it simply isn’t arguing in good faith.

This is a good start, for sure, but it should not be the end at all. The wealthier people get, the more effort they put into hiding/keeping that wealth.

Income/wealth/property/capital gains taxation is a balancing act. You want everyone paying their share; and everyone simultaneously agrees with that notion, while wanting to pay the absolute least for themselves. I would also argue that people need to see the benefits of that taxation in the form of maintained infrastructure and properly funded services. If it all just goes into the pockets of, e.g., the US military industrial complex, people will be less inclined to pay taxes at all.

Flying Squid

Entirely possible. I've certainly discussed this topic multiple times. And yes, agreed, we need to do a lot more to curb excessive wealth.

Buelldozer , edited

Why would they move? This is an income tax, not a wealth tax and the wealthy typically have relatively little "income". Sure they may have a net worth of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of millions but their "incomes" (as defined by tax codes) can be surprisingly low.

Look at the CEOs like Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos whose salary was a single US dollar. They were incredibly wealthy but had nearly no normal income.

So unless you jigger the tax code to capture the work arounds the wealthy use this income tax will hardly touch them. It will only catch high *wage* earners, like a software dev working FAANG or something.

Flying Squid

I guess that's an argument for also having a wealth tax.

Because most of them still won't move. Paris will not become a less desirable city to live in.


I guess that’s an argument for also having a wealth tax.

I think it would be easier if they rewrote the tax code so that everything (loans, stock sales, etc) counted as regular income and was subject to taxes.


Paris will not become a less desirable city to live in.

Was it ever desirable?

Flying Squid

The city of light? The city of love? Famed for its art and culture and cuisine? Full of beautiful architecture?

No, no one ever wants to go there.


Have you ever been there or just seen the photos?

jumjummy , edited

Problem is that the Uber wealthy have all sorts of extra tax vehicles that even the 400k/year income folks don’t have. With various holding companies owning the various assets you use (e.g your car, house, etc.) your on-paper income can be quite a bit lower. Throw in various deductions and that’s how you get super wealthy people paying less taxes than “regular” people. Progressive tax rates already exist, and while this increases the percentage at these incomes, unless it addresses all the other loopholes, this will conveniently miss the 1% and instead impact high earning professionals.


Besides, the mere fact of implementing those tax rates makes high end luxury homes less valuable, because rich people from abroad will have less incentives to want to move there. So, if rich French people want to move from a very expensive home in France to a very expensive home in Germany, the new one will have to be less luxurious, because they won't be able to sell the old one for that much. , edited

This does actually happen more than you think - it’s why all the world’s football and tennis stars miraculously decide to move to Monte Carlo as soon as they hit the riches. Which is exactly why we need a coordinated tax policy at an EU, EEA or global level, to make sure that you can’t just choose a neighbouring country and pay an order of magnitude less.


"Radical set of ideas"

Rational set of ideas.


Radical means change or far from the norm, so when the system we live in is crazy then radical often is rational. The terms are not opposed.



"Petrol price controls"


There is a slight argument to be made in order to stabilize transportation because people depend on the shipping of goods. However, there should be a differentiation between the shipment of necessities and luxuries. Ultimately this could come in the form of a higher tax on consumer goods and other for hire services.


I don't think that's what they're getting at.


Or price controls at all.


We need to fix the price of croissants, vote for count Binface!


Macron would probably sooner dissolve the republic and declare the third empire than allow this to happen, but I wish the NPF good luck.

As Macron likes to say: “Souverän ist, wer über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet

OsrsNeedsF2P , edited

a new 90% tax on any annual income above €400,000 (£337,954)

Sexy, but as other commenters mentioned before, taxing existing wealth is more sexy


That's true, but taxing wealth is significantly harder than taxing income or financial transactions (including inheritances).


Inflation is probably the easiest way to achieve that. You just have to be careful that wages rise along.


That's another reason for increasing minimum wages, as they try to do.


Agree, focus on those loopholes that allow folks to have, for all intents and purposes, "income" without it actually counting. If you have spending money now that you didn't have in a spending form before that point, well that's income and we just need to make sure we cover all those scenarios that folks have figured out to "not count".

CanadaPlus , edited

I imagine *gross* violations would be easy enough to detect - assuming it's something you actually use, anyway. Your buried treasure might be safe.

Evotech , edited

This type of taxation I would say is a version of the Ultimatum game. If the taxation is too high, they simply move and then you get nothing

It has to be high enough, but not so high that they just move to Switzerland


Exit taxes for chuds.

bitflag , edited

Exit taxes are "one shot". You pay them when you move out and then enjoy a lower taxation level for the rest of your life. Not much of a deterrent, at best a last ditch attempt at grabbing a few more dollars as your highest tax payers leave.


Or you could make them so high that they are de facto an appropriation of funds.

bitflag , edited

You can't because the French Constitution and Human Rights guarantee the right to private property and a fair and proportional taxation. And that's likely similar all over the western world.


You could tax based on citizenship, could make it the same €400,000 limit so it doesn't effect normal expats and lower the rate a bit. Yeah the ultra rich can just buy citizenship in another country but many have at least a smidgeon of patriotism and won't want to lose there citizenship.


Only the US and Eritrea are stupid enough bullies to tax on citizenship. Terrible f'cking idea.


And only the US actually collects on it, because they are so at the heart of the financial world they can strongarm banks to report on their US clients.


It is actually an excellent idea, because it ensures billionaires don't just move to Switzerland to evade taxes.


Income and gains should only be taxed in the jurisdiction they are earned. Only stupid Americans with a world view that consists of one country would argue otherwise. That's literally what tax is for. Not to fund your country in your absence.

Wanderer , edited

Petrol price controls is a terrible idea.

Why not subsidised (free) public transport, more cycle lanes more cycle parking, subsidised electric bikes, mandated EV charging.


Lots of places in France are so remote and sparsely populated that public transport does not work there, at least not yet. It may or may not work once autonomous vehicles are fit for rural areas, but this may take a while.


Give them money then. Don't give them cheap petrol.


Because motorists hate anything that would help them. Why would you not want a separate bike lane as a motorist? It reduces congestion and gets the cyclist you hate so much off the road at the same time! It's a win win!


In my experience, people tend to not want things that don't benefit them directly.

If they don't use the bike lanes they don't want them to take up what could be a car lane they would use.


Controlling Fossil Fuel prices can prevent other private entities from driving up inflation of commodities. It doesn't have to be permanent, you could effect a set goal for 6 years, evaluate the results every 6 weeks, and tweak the pricing to prevent inflation/deflation cycles.

While you control the transport costs, you can now plan on how much energy it is consuming to do the logistics. Even setup renewables for the remote regions with medium to large capacity backups ( not just chemical batteries, but pumped storage and other practical solutions ).

You could increase the buffer between different urban zones, commercial, industrial, heavy commercial, dense residential, suburbian. - Energy storage densities. - Vehicular traffic densities. - Public transport frequencies. - Private traffic exemption zones. - Cycling/Pedestrian infrastructure. - Rent-controlled segmentation. - Recreational facilities , maintenance and usage.

All of these things can be measured, calculated, even funded by simply controlling the Fossil-fuel prices.

Imagine 10 or 20 stadiums with Extra-Large battery backups, only on game-nights the full bank would see utilization, rest of the time, half or even quarter of the load can be saved up for fluctuations. In emergencies the stadium provides power, safety, shelter and communal support.

So many things can be planned around transportation and logistics. Fossil-fuel literally drives a lot of the traffic. Measure, calculate and control that and you have a reliable method to make sensible common sense decisions. Transparent for all citizens to see the data and the correlation. Accountable for every cent.

Queen HawlSera



Hell yes. Finally policy suggestions which make sense. Autocratphiles masquerading as communists are mad at this turn of events??


Have you no idea how capitalists function?

Actual communists are more intelligent than this.

Its just hilarious seeing 400k being wealthy my man. The really wealthy don't take a salary and instead have corporations and trust funds that pay them minimum salary and more stocks and shares. They then leverage these stocks and shares using cheap loans from their bank buddies for very low interest tates.

Income tax is a tax on the working class, not the capitalist class.


AVERAGE annual income in France (the one that gets skewed by a handful of people making exorbitant incomes) is €41,000. Over half of people in France make less than 1/10th the €400,000 mark. This tax doesn't affect anyone that actually works for a living


This tax doesn’t affect anyone that actually works for a living

The average general surgeon in France makes around 230,000 euros before bonuses and all, so there are surgeons out there making 400k euros. I'm pretty sure they work for a living. You also underestimate how hard highly paid corporate executives work. You might not VALUE their work, but most of them work their asses off (even if what they are doing is counterproductive or stupid or worthless).

This tax doesn't affect very many people who work for a living, but the people who are wealthy enough to actually not work for a living at all will not be affected either, since this isn't a tax on wealth.

boredtortoise , edited

Does the french suggestion separate income types? It's very preferable to tax non-working high wealth & income even more than salary income.

Capitalists usually aim the tax pressure towards median salary income, and less for stocks, or property. The regressive model should be switched to progressive taxing.


No true Scotsman. The evidence is right in front of you but you don't want to see it.


All i am saying is that if you tax working people its not actually doing what it said on the tin: taxing the rich. Rich people don't work for their income. Their money works for them.


I agree with you about that part, the part I'm criticizing you for is your continued belief that 'real' communists are intelligent even though the comments here are filled with their shoddy reasoning and inability to learn from reality

TheObviousSolution , edited

The real problem isn't the income the rich receive, it's their tax avoidance methods that never show up as any income. This effectively puts a barrier on anyone who isn't being a scummy shithead from ever reaching their level, it creates a safe harbor for billionaires to laugh from at anyone who ever reaches their level of influence, power, and wealth and might become their competitor if they do not do so in the manner of their oligarchic decades of experience within their inner circle.

This only convinces idiots, and is about as cluelessly meaningless populist legislation as anything fooling far right fascists. Literally ask yourself, who is the rich, because I can guarantee you it will only affect anyone from low to middle income classes who manage to find any wealth without seeking the horde of tax lobbyists true billionaires have.

Case in point, want to know what "rich" is for this piece of legislation? 90% tax on anyone who happens to earn above €400,000 (£337,954) for that year. I doubt this will even affect people earning above €400,000 *every* year because they have enough wealth and experience with paying the sort of tax advisors that will help orient them into tax avoidance. Billionaires are laughing at this measure.

I would not be surprised if this suggesting could be traced back to "think tanks" coming with this sort of bullshit that only caters and convinces the ignorant while shielding the actually rich. I realize most people will see this as a good thing because they see this as affecting "the rich", but it really and truly does nothing against the real problem, and I would not even mind it if it wasn't a sign that nothing will be done about billionaire and corporate tax avoidance schemes and that they are only trying to cater to a sentiment.

BlueMagma , edited

Have you seen the word "income"anywhere here ? ISF (Impôt sur la fortune) is tax on wealth, this law would say that if someone is rich we take some of its money. We use to have it in France before Macron removed it. Also the same leftist group is advocating for more funding towards fighting tax evasion amongst the wealthy.

EDIT: my bad the article does talk about income tax, point still stand, NFP still advocate for the ISF


So basically, it only makes sense when we pull back from the specifics right back into the ideological narrative. Again, the problem is tax avoidance. TAX. AVOIDANCE. Tax evasion is a problem but about as much as a criminal, it is not the norm that needs to be addressed.


What is the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance ? Genuinely asking, I thought they were the same, might be a language barrier, English is not my native language.

TheObviousSolution , edited

Tax evasion is illegally trying to avoid taxes. Tax avoidance is making use of legal loopholes to legally not have to pay any taxes. Those companies and billionaires that are responsible for the greatest wealth inequality in the world, they are not amassing that wealth illegally, they make sure the system won't come after them, either through tax advisors or through tax lobbyists. Usually "tax evaders" are the people who manage to get rich without the experience or the con men who don't know when to stop like Trump.

BlueMagma , edited

I see, in french "Evasion fiscale" refer to both legal and illegal practices, which does create confusion sometimes when talking about it. We have other terms to clarify like "fraude fiscale" and "optimisation fiscale" but evasion is synonymous to both. When french NFP party talks about fighting "evasion fiscale" they mean they plan to fight both. Maybe the distinction got lost in translation.


Back in the 50s and 60s after WW2 the UK had a 95% tax band for the highest earners. This was due to the country struggling to pay off its debts to the USA after WW2. The Beatles even wrote their song Taxman about it in 1966.

Ultimately there is a problem with these super high taxbands whereby countries that try them will often encounter something called the Laffer Curve whereby overall tax take decreases as the tax rate increases. This isn't even necessarily tax evasion, all it takes is for wealthy people to be suitably motivated to avoid taxes.

In the UK now if your income breaches £100k then you are paying a higher rate of tax on everything earned over that amount but also you lose the £12.5k tax free allowance that all citizens are entitled to. Overall breaching £100k leads to you paying a marginal rate of tax of 60% even if you don't earn much over it. Because of this high earning jobs often let you put money into salary sacrifice pension schemes to avoid breaching the £100k mark. It only becomes worthwhile earning over £100k when you reach the region of ~£130k, which is substantially more. Essentially the system encourages tax avoidance by having this cliff which people who are behaving like rational agents will do anything to avoid. If it were less punative then some economists argue that the government would raise more money.

AwesomeLowlander , edited

That's just a bad implementation, then. Tax brackets are progressive for a reason, having a cliff like that should be an obvious no no.

Not to say you don't have a point, because you do, but the govt could fix that particular issue very easily.


That's uh.... pretty fucking dumb.

How the fuck did anyone think a cliff like that would be smart.

steeznson , edited

It's especially bad with the recent inflation here causing fiscal drag. People are being dragged into higher tax brackets by their incomes rising in line with inflation (if they are lucky) but the tax bands are remaining at their pre-inflation levels so in real terms we are taxed more while earning less.

I think "the cliff" ended up being introduced in better times when £100k was an extremely good salary. It still is a good salary but it seems like when they introduced the policy they were likely thinking that folks earning it were making so much that it wouldn't be worth their while to put the effort into avoiding it. However with recent cost of living challenges the demand for avenues to avoid the cliff rose and employers started to respond by offering schemes like the salary sacrifice pension one I mentioned in order to keep their employees happy.

Edit: There are many ways to avoid taxes such as creating your own limited company, paying for your lifestyle as a business expense and then only paying corporation tax on those expenses (currently 20% in the UK). At the same time you draw a "salary" from your own company which is substantially lower than what you would be getting if you include the expenses and then pay income tax for a lower band. The reason most people don't do this - aside from the obvious moral implications - is that it's usually more effort than it's worth for them. At a certain point though, tax avoidance becomes so worthwhile that the temptation is too great for many to ignore.


You make it sound like a cliff, but you lose £1 of the £12.5k allowance for every £2 over £100k you earn. You don't suddenly lose the whole allowance at £100,001.


That's interesting - I had read it being described as a cliff in various places online where people were discussing personal finances. Double checked now and you are right that it is less of a cliff than I'd thought. Good to know in case I ever get close to that tax bracket!


Oh yeah, those personal finance places all want to talk about the laffer curve, right up until you remind people how high the X value would be. Then, as if by magic, they dont want to talk about them anymore.

To me, those places always seems full of AstroTurfing for the idea of lowering taxes for rich people. There might be some good stuff in there but I would take them main political thrusts made with about as much salt as you can find.

Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age or a neoclassical economist what economic problems tax breaks for the rich *won't* fix.

To much money to spend on health care?

Tax breaks for the rich.

To little money to spend on healthcare?

Tax cuts for the rich.

Just the right amount of money to spend on healthcare?

Just the right time to cut taxes for the rich.


I think you do lose child care benefits or something at that point (I can't remember, I don't have kids)


Laffer Curve is junk economics from Ronald Reagan's propaganda team. Cannot take seriously any argument that relies on it.


It's not. If you accept that :

  • Taxing at 0% brings no tax revenue
  • Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue

Then you accept that between those two extremes there's a tax optimum that for a given rate gives the most tax revenue. This is the Laffer curve.


no, it is propaganda. I mean, "Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue" is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory, even more so in a progressive tax system (please look up what the even means, statistically believing in the Laffer curve also comes with a ton of other misconceptions about financial policy)

also some history to the Laffer curve, it is an unproven theory that basically always get trotted out by the wealthy to argue for lowering taxes, tho it ironically has been shown to have no predictive power whatsoever.


“Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory

It's not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that's what marginal rate means, it's the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there's no point since it will bring no income after taxation.


you're not very economically literate, are you? overtime pay is not taxed at the marginal tax rate, that's not what that is.

the marginal tax rate is the maximum rate your income will end up at, that does not however mean that all your income is taxed at the rate.

as a very simplified example, assume you have the tax brackets - $0-$1000 is 10% - $1001-$2000 is 20% - $2001-$3000 is 30% etc...

and you earn $2500, the taxes you will pay are $1000 at 10% -> $100 the next $1000 at 20% -> $200 and the last $500 will be taxed at 30% -> $150

meaning, in this example, you are paying $450 at a marginal tax rate of 30% on $2500. now overtime can bump you up, for example, imagine you work a LOT over those 40h and earn $3200, now you're in the next tax bracket due to your earnings.

also, the whole point is to deny all income above a certain level, or do you really think your boss deserves 3000 times your pay? because he certainly isn't working 3000 times harder than you are.


All economic theories are unproven, approximations about how economists think people might behave. There's a reason it is often referred to as the 'dismal science'. Quite often they are based on counterfactuals and projections of what might have happened.

The Laffer Curve is not a rule which always reflects reality but it has explanatory power in certain situations, since logically there has to be a point where avoiding taxes becomes more appealing than paying them.

Regan, et al deploying the theory as part of their political rhetoric - potentially in bad faith - shouldn't discredit the concept itself because doing so would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's an ad hominen attack against an economic theory; a bit like saying capital controls are always bad because President Xi in China frequently uses them.


ok, so scientifically speaking "proof" is a mathematical concept only, physics doesn't prove shit, chemistry doesn't prove shit, no other science proves shit.

But economics, like every other science out there makes models, these models when applied to certain circumstances make predictions, we test these models by testing the predictions they make.

The more accurate the prediction the better and more relevant the model, the issue that economics has is that many people instead of looking at the actual science, take the fictional work and claim it reality, mainly because they believe some propaganda commissioned by really wealthy people, to keep their wealth. the Laffer curve is one such example because it allows rich people to invest into lower taxes and increased privatization.

The Laffer curve isn't bad because Regan used it, it's bad because it has a track record of not having any predictive capability.

Also, there exist mechanisms by what we punish tax evasion, taking the likelihood of tax evasion into account for the purpose of setting tax rates is self-defeating, in the assumption that any persons want the maximum amount of money for themselves would always try to evade taxes, no mater what the tax rate is.

Womble , edited

Funadmentally it makes sense that tax take is 0 at 0% and low (though not neccessarily 0) at 100%, but in practice it only ever used to advocate for lowering taxes no matter what they are set at currently. You never see people talking about governments being on the left side of the Laffer curve and therfore we should raise taxes.

There's also no evidence that I'm aware of that the curve is smooth, single peaked or even single valued and it is also likely highly dependent on myriad other factors, in short it's effectively useless except as a rhetorical device for small-staters to advocate slashing taxes and public services.


Shoot whoever wrote that bill. (Metaphorically)


This is the best summary I could come up with:

France's left wing New Popular Front (NPF) - now the largest group in parliament - has called for a prime minister who will implement its ideas including a new wealth tax and petrol price controls.

The leftist alliance secured the most seats in the recent French elections but fell short of the 289 needed for a majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house of parliament.

President Emmanuel Macron's Together bloc came in second and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) party finished third.

France's parties are now jockeying for position and it's unclear exactly how things will shake out, but the NPF has insisted it will implement its radical set of ideas.

It is possible that President Macron - who called the snap election in a bid to counter the rise of the far-right - could seek a deal with more moderate elements of the NFP.

His government last week suspended a decree that would have diminished workers' rights to unemployment benefits, which has been interpreted as a gesture toward the left.

The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!


I'll accept this as a compromise between reality and my actual position, 100% expropriation of wealth for every kkkrakkker.


Can you expand on what kkkrakkker means?

UnderpantsWeevil , edited

The kkk references an organization common to the American Midwest and Deep South known as the "Klu Klux Klan", most notorious for its domestic terrorist activities aimed at wealthy and well-organized communities of color following the end of the American Civil War. They were also a powerful political caucus stretching across both major American parties for over a century. Often conceived of as a "secret society" with a certain practices bordering on the occult as part of initiation and promotion, the real influence of the organization tended to boil down to its control of state and local police agencies and prosecuting offices.

A cracker is a stale white salty piece of bread, often served with soup or stew.

capital , edited


For a second there I thought they were using it to say they’d take all of someone’s money based on the color of their skin as well as associating all white people with the KKK.


Deleted by moderator


Ah. Just saw the .ml. Good luck with the racism.


i took pleasure reading that aloud and rolling the k's


lol it's like France loves to choose violence every time.


National sport. It's fifth time now. If right would become too hard to fight against, then it will be sixth.


Tax them. Tax the fuck out of their income and wealth.


The problem with high wealth taxes is the same as the problem with nationalizing privately-owned businesses. Even if you're not worried about the people you tax fleeing the country (maybe they can't because their investments aren't mobile) you still have to worry about the fact that no one would build anything in France (even things not currently taxed) if there was good reason to think that France might suddenly decide to seize a large fraction of its value.

(High income taxes aren't as big a deal because wealthy people can restructure their investments in order to avoid most of them, but I wonder whether the lost economic activity is actually worth more to the country than the money raised by the tax.)

Avid Amoeba , edited

Most people who actually build everything do not have significant enough wealth to be affected. France doesn't need someone with significant wealth in order to build something. France can provide the financial capital. We do know that public investment spurs private investment, but private investment isn't strictly required.

Besides, we've already seen plenty examples of countries where people with significant wealth do not use it to build things in low tax destinations, especially where that low tax results in crumbling infrastructure and unstable labor and political climate.

I wonder whether the lost economic activity is actually worth more to the country than the money raised by the tax.

The answer is "yes" it's worth it. Answering "no" puts you in a race to the bottom which leads to dysfunctional economy and eventually some sort of political upheaval, during which wealth and factories are exceedingly likely to be taken away anyways. See history for references. Also every EUR creates more economic activity at the bottom, than the top. The vast majority of the aggregate demand in richer economies isn't comprised from the top 1%. The aggregate demand is what makes it worth making things and what drives significant private investment. Drive it down and there comes a point where no amount of tax cuts can offset it.


Yeah, the person you responded to doesn't understand investment. No one makes investments based on taxes. They make investments based on demand.

That's why people build in NYC which has a million taxes and regulations, while tiny island tax havens have little investment beyond tourism. No, Austin is not the next Silicon Valley no matter how many tax breaks they give out. No, Atlanta is not the next Hollywood.


hell yea

eskimofry , edited

The really wealthy don't take income. Instead they park their wealth in stocks and trust funds and leverage those as collateral for cheap loans from their buddies at the bank.

I thought communists were intelligent but this thread is quite cheery about something that won't even impact any capitalist.

Don't you all know what "Capital"ist means?

An income tax is a tax on the working class.

Edit: I realize calling people morons is a bit too much. Sorry about that. I was just miffed by a few who were cheering on punishing their own class. It's so hard to find class solidarity in this day and age.


I think there is a significant distinction between "regular" working class and "earning above €400,000 per year" working class.


Income from capital can be, and is, taxed differently. In the U.K. there is Capital Gains Tax, for example. Why not adjust this instead of income tax?


Because capital gains taxes are only taken when a gain is realized. Me selling my 2 shares of Boeing will get taxed capital gains, but the person holding 200,000 shares and using them as collateral for untaxed loans will get no capital gains taxes assessed.

Also because making gains in the market is one of the few ways a working class person can set themselves up for retirement (as fucked up as that is), so raising the tax would hurt them more unless you have a tiered structure like we do for income tax brackets.


The same argument I was trying to make. Any tax is gonna be just cost of business for billionaires and industrialists.


Argument is correct.

Tone is asshole.

Upvote or downvote? I'm not sure on this one.


Sorry about the tone. I was just miffed by a few who were cheering on punishing their own class. It's so hard to find class solidarity in this day and age.


I don't know how France classifies "income", so it could be good at capturing income. It's our own fault when something that is obviously "income" doesn't technically count, in principle a tax system can capture everything that makes sense to count.

In the US, along with wages, interest income and dividend income also count as "regular" income and are taxed appropriately. Capital gains is... weirder and this is the first area ripe for opportunity to reform to capture "rich guy income is different than normal guy income", as long as it is intelligent about it (e.g. if you said, without qualification, all capital gains are taxed like crazy, then suddenly selling your house as part of moving becomes an unreasonable burden, which is why it already has an exemption, but just an example to say vaguely why we have to be careful about capital gains).

Then you get to the borrowing you mention, and I've seen a pretty reasonable approach to capture that as "income", in theory:

TL;DR: Currently borrowing doesn't count as realizing gains, change it so that borrowing counts as "selling" the stock, further mandating that the cost basis of all identical stock is a specific way rather than letting the shareholder pick and choose their most favored cost basis.

I'd be willing to concede some tax break on repayment of such a loan to reconcile "real income" being exchanged for it down the road, but at that point I think it would largely be academic because suddenly there's no point in borrowing against the stock rather than just selling it outright.


Can we get a non Murdoch source on this?

This is not a tax on the rich, it's a tax on the upper middle class.


The... upper middle class....? An income of 400,000 euros? that's 10x the median income.

What tf is rich then?


Policies favoring the rich are always sold as favoring the middle class. If middle class means the rich, then upper middle class means the filthy rich.


People who make money by investing. In the USA, the top 1% earn their income through investments, usually the purchase and sale of stocks. These are not taxed the same as regular income because they made the argument that you can't really tax unrealized gains on investments that are sold, and it takes a while for the gains to actually materialize. Also, they tend to store their money, their liquid assets, in countries with looser tax laws, called tax havens. Much of their net worths are tied up in investments. Businesses, homes, art, classic vehicles, precious metals futures, oil futures, boats, etc.

Assessing the value of all of that is a chore, and they also pay lobbyists to keep the IRS defanged so that they don't have the resources needed to go after the 1%. And don't get me started on how much more speculative the stock market has become. Investors buy stocks, not on the expected dividends they'll receive as a share of the profits of the business, but on their ability to flip the stock and sell it at a higher price to another investor, who is only buying because *they* anticipate flipping the stock. It's like if a whole neighborhood of single family homes gets bought up buy a few house flippers, who make renovations, then put the houses up for sale, and sell to new flippers, who are only buying so *they* can make further renovations, increasing the value of the property again to sell to yet another flipper, ad nauseam.


This is France


Your point? The USA became the model for the western world in many respects after WW2, I would not be surprised if French billionaires make their money the same way American billionaires do.


It's just an extremely usaian thing to do. Mega cringe to see constantly.

400k euro is still like the peak of wealth. Nobody is earning that much reasonably, even if there are even wealthier people doing shenanigans.


People who don't pay income tax in the first place because they are so rich they don't need a normal income. Those need to be taxed more.


I laugh so hard because the headline for me is great news, only now I realized it's sky news so it's supposed to be scaring people


Your instinct to search for a non-Murdoch source is correct, as they are trying to paint the entire NFP as holding the same positions as their most extreme member.

There is little to no chance of Melenchon becoming Prime Minister or having any ability to enact this tax.

However a marginal tax rate of 90% on income over €400k is well above the upper-middle class and would apply to only the wealthiest families, most of whom would still have other avenues to minimise the tax they actually pay.


400'000€ yearly income is not middle class. It is roughly the top 1%. Are you maybe mistaking property for income?

I would have preferred taxing on property instead of income, but as long as interests and profits and other benefits are part of income, it sounds reasonable to me.


The sad thing about high taxes like that is that it can penalize normal people with a normal, high income job. 400k won't probably matter but in my experience, I have a high salary and I don't have the time or even the money to hire a bunch of people to optimize my taxes in a tax free-heaven paradise.

Normal working people shouldn't be taxed like crazy. Corporation is the thing we want to target. Large corporations. They have the mean to evade the laws.

The common man and women does not. Even if you have a small company, you do not have the time or the money to ignore the laws or taxes.

Capitalism isn't made for big corporations. It is made for small company competing with each other. How the fuck the common Man is supposed to compete with Walmart? Like, what??


Oh look, someone who doesn't understand how progressive tax brackets work.

The 90% only kicks in on any money made *over* €400k, bro. That means they're already making that 400k (less whatever the prior tax brackets are), and if they make €400,100 then only that extra €100 is taxed at 90%. This is so far from hurting "normal working people" that I can hardly believe your take isn't a deliberate troll.


I know how tax brackets work. That's exactly how you can optimize your taxes. You try to lower your income as much as possible with all the shenanigans that exists in the law. That's what I'm saying.

If I do 410k and I don't have time to optimize my shit, I'm penalized because very rich bro that owns company and shit can hire other bros to optimize their taxes.


I think “rich” nowadays starts at $1m usd/y. No one really needs more than that. I think 90% is a bit steep, but that leaves a lot of wiggle room for negotiation.

Avid Amoeba

It depends on cost of living. $1M in the US doesn't buy the same as $1M in France.


€920,000 is just fine.

I assume each country would find that sweet spot for themselves. Either way that’s a crap ton of money. After that, taxes should be high.