submitted 5 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 212 points 5 days ago

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

Lmao. Probably not gonna happen but based af

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 119 points 5 days ago

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

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 39 points 5 days ago

It will not. People will vehemently defend the rich.

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 38 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 41 points 5 days ago

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

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 27 points 5 days 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'

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days 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.

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 32 points 5 days ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] noevidenz@infosec.pub 44 points 4 days 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.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

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

Good news for LePen, I guess.

[-] trolololol@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

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

[-] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 4 days 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.

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 102 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 18 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 58 points 5 days ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 80 points 5 days ago

"Radical set of ideas"

Rational set of ideas.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 22 points 5 days 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 83 points 5 days 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.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 20 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago

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."

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 56 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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 19 points 5 days ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 49 points 5 days 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 12 points 5 days 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 5 days 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.

[-] englislanguage@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 4 days ago

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

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 20 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 4 days ago
[-] steeznson@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days 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.

[-] awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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.

[-] marble@sh.itjust.works 20 points 5 days 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago

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

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
1108 points (98.9% liked)

World News

37466 readers
2035 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World


We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.


founded 1 year ago