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.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Worked fine in America during it’s “great” days that all these Trump voters seem to yearn for

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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’

      • bitflag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

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

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        400k is a monthly salary of 33000€ You can live very comfortably from a tenth of that where i live in germany, which is a notoriously expensive city. So yeah even if you just barely go over the limit and have to live with a tenth of those 400k, you would still be completely fine.

        This is all ignoring already saved up wealth ofcourse.

        TLDR im dumb

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Plopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    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?

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        E.g

        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@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            • jj4211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Here’s something talking about the loophole: https://equitablegrowth.org/closing-the-billionaire-borrowing-loophole-would-strengthen-the-progressivity-of-the-u-s-tax-code/

              And some talking about some ways in which it can be leveraged: https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20220928/avoid-capital-gains-taxes-like-a-billionaire-using-buy-borrow-die-strategy

              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.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Fascinating. Old paintings as a way of hiding wealth make sense - that is subjective value - but you can look up stock prices in near-real time. Uncle Sam just has a really weird way of defining a transaction, probably do to something in deep US history.

                If we’re rearranging the whole tax code in this hypothetical, I’d just write it in such a way the IRS is allowed to tax gains even if there’s no “realization”, or at least taxes heirs just like the deceased. If not, I guess it’s a matter of what you can get legislative support for, and what the article suggests would be a reasonable kludge.

                • jj4211@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Problem with taxing unrealized gains is that there’s a fair argument that unrealized gains are, largely, fictitious. For example if Musk said, today, “I am selling all my stock, give me 250 billion now”, he would not get 250 billion dollars, because there isn’t 250 billion dollars of money actually primed to buy Musk’s stock.

                  Analagous, if your house went up by $150k, then they said “oh, you ‘earned’ $150k, you owe $80k”, your only way to cover that would be to sell the house, which isn’t fair because you were living in it, not using it as a financial instrument. However, if you borrowed $150k and used it to buy a couple of corvettes based on that equity increase, well that’s weird but maybe ok depending on how you ultimately pay back that $150k you borrowed, but at least in the short term, you made $150k appear out of thin air, which might be janked in the long term…

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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

    • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • Contravariant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

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

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        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@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

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

        • bitflag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

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

            • bitflag@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Lmao, human rights of private property my ass. Personal property is not the same as private property. Fair proportional taxation is 99 % at some bracket.

  • noevidenz@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

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

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      Good news for LePen, I guess.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

  • steeznson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • steeznson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

    • marble@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • steeznson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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!

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

        • marble@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

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

    • bamfic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • bitflag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • bitflag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            “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.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              • bitflag@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Oh please explain to me how marginal rates work… 🙄

                If your marginal tax rate is already 30% and you decide to earn an extra $1, that $1 will be taxed at 30% and you get $0.70 in your pocket. That’s what “marginal” means.

          • steeznson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              • steeznson@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                I think we agree about the nature of scientific enquiry, how it is all based on inductive reasoning and cannot provide the certainty of mathematics. Additionally, it looks like we agree that the Laffer Curve has been used to justify bad policy in the past.

                However, I don’t think that the theory has been debunked in the way you are describing. There is broadly a difference of opinion between Keynesian economists who are skeptical of the theory and then Supply-Side economists who endorse it; and then a whole spectrum of views in the middle from Behavioural economists or other schools of thought who are more ambivalent.

                Academics who do support the view have done empirical studies over the years that they believe suggest that the Laffer Curve is real, see:

                • Romer & Romer, 2007: The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks
                • Mertens & Ravn, 2013: The Dynamic Effects of Personal and Corporate Income Tax Changes in the United States
                • Trabandt & Uhlig, 2009: How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited

                It’s a matter of live debate in the field regardless of your opinion of the theory.

                • orrk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  However, I don’t think that the theory has been debunked in the way you are describing

                  sure, you have listed a few papers, and having skimmed some of them I’m a bit iffy to their relevance mainly as to what numbers they take as indicators what of and at least one had an issue where one of the more prominent indicators they picked is heavily influenced by other outside activity more so than the taxes.

                  but here’s the thing, if it was just wrong all the time, it would have predictive power, the fact that it sometimes seems to be correct, and other times it being counter to predictions or being mostly non changing means that it’s not a useful model, and a useless model is trash, and honestly I’m highly skeptical of supply side economics, it has produced relatively little in terms of economic stability, nor sustainability.

                  personally, I’m more inclined towards Post-Keynesian demand side economics, and unlike supply side economics, they have actually made predictive models that actually have predictive power

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

  • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • eskimofry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Gotchya.

          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.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  And here I thought it had something to do with treating people a certain way because of the color of their skin. /shrug.

                  Call it whatever you want but it’s morally disgusting to treat anyone a particular way due to immutable traits.

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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.

    • englislanguage@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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!

      • CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • maniii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

  • eskimofry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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 devoid of any intelligence. 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.

    You morons should stop salivating and start eating more dried fruits.

    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.

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

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

    • Tujio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Argument is correct.

      Tone is asshole.

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

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • intelisense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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?

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • eskimofry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

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

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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: https://equitablegrowth.org/closing-the-billionaire-borrowing-loophole-would-strengthen-the-progressivity-of-the-u-s-tax-code/

      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.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

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