As a French citizen, I find it unsurprising that the usual top comments here are all about numbers. Life expectancy going up, do your part, work work work.
That people are angry is not about the damn numbers. It's about the attitude of a political class that had private restaurant dinners behind closed doors during lockdown times where the population was fined for being out walking their dogs, it's about a president that's been deliberately calling left-leaning ideas of the younger generations about ecology and equality "extreme-left" while joyfully siding persistently with the actual parties created by fascists, it's about a reform that comes in with a justification of a deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions, it's about some of his ministers who take part in all sorts of horrible things and continue to go unpunished, it's about people asking for compassion towards difficult jobs more than for their own selves, and I could go on...
> deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions,
I have no particular knowledge of French macro economic policies, but a tax deduction is not "giving money". It is "not taking money". Your framing assumes that corporate or individual earnings belong to the government and the government can decide to allow the money to be "given" to the taxpayer. Whether that is an appropriate arrangement of private property rights and the relationship between the people and the government is a hotly debated topic, to put it mildly.
Not taking money that otherwise would be taken absolutely is giving money. Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. Also that's conveniently the narrative that Macron's party would adopt were it the other way (read: when they "give" a one-off cheque to students or poor people). Accounting tricks have broad shoulders to take the load off the political bullshit of our era.
>In contrast with stimulus checks, for example, which were given, because even if you earned no money at all you still got them.
At the end of the day, there's no difference from a fiscal perspective between handing a company a $1M check and giving them a $1M tax deduction. While I agree that this is technically a distinction (ie. tax deductions require a tax liability to actually be used, as opposed to cash which can be spent as-is), I don't think it's relevant here because the companies were already known to be making money. Even if they had a bad year and the tax credits could only be used on profits, they'd likely turn a profit sooner or later.
>I think you mean tax credit instead of tax deduction
Tax deductions are equivalent to tax credits once you factor in the marginal tax rate.
>and even then there is a substantial difference from a fiscal perspective.
Specifically... how? Giving a company a $1M check has the same effect on the government's balance sheets as giving them a $1M tax credit, given the assumptions listed in my previous comment.
I agree - not taxing something ordinarily taxed is very much in the vein of "giving" money. I'm a little surprised at the disagreement, but I guess it depends on a persons point of view.
the question comes down to whether or not the money is viewed as the person's, as a part of personal property, or viewed as the government's, as a part of state ownership.
The concern about the framing isn't about looking at the tax code at a particular point in time but instead setting a context for how the tax code and spending priorities evolve over time.
If you start with the idea that the money belongs to the government and you have to ask to get it back (via the legislative process) the discussion is going to be very different than if you start with the idea that the money belongs to the people and there has to be a very strong reason for the government to get any of it (via the legislative process).
You are not robbed as a matter of course. The government takes your taxes as a matter of course. Not taxing you (by giving you a 10k tax deduction, for example) is, in a practical sense, basically identical from the government's perspective as giving away money.
Except that it isn't. If you adopt that framing, you are working with a mindset that the government gets to figure out what to do with your money first and you get the leftovers. That is a completely different mindset than setting the expectation that the the people get to decide (via representatives) what money the government gets and how it should be spent.
Those two mindsets are very different and I would argue is one of the ways that the left and the right are different.
People living in certain parts of the world are robbed regularly as a matter of course; does that mean robbers are giving somebody money if they band together one day and decide to stop robbing that person?
The thing is we are not talking about tax deduction but tax credit and yes it is sometimes literally giving money. In France it even happens that big companies are given money while they layoffs people while they're making a profit and distributing the artificially increased profit to their shareholders…
> left-leaning ideas of the younger generations about ecology and equality "extreme-left"
Whatever the labelling you want to use, but we know for a fact that extreme ecology is going to destroy our country. We saw what happened with French nuclear, we are seeing it in the EU car industry, we are seeing it in French housing. We already know that radical ecology is going to bring social unrest. That the first to suffer is going to be poorest people.
> deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions.
We are still one of the most tax heavy country with the most social contribution in Europe and in the world. Macron is just trying to level the playing field and make France attractive.
> it's about people asking for compassion towards difficult jobs more than for their own selves, and I could go on...
After this reform, we will still be one of the most generous country in the world even for pension and social net even among Europe and even more worldwide.
> Macron is just trying to level the playing field and make France attractive.
... to whom?
> After this reform, we will still be one of the most generous country in the world even for pension and social net even among Europe and even more worldwide.
Not sure why I'm thinking about a frog being slowly boiled alive.
To the people whose job it is to advocate for the privileges of the wealthy. And that is a frightening number of highly-trained, well-paid people.
They are starting with the foundational belief that taking any privileges whatsoever from the wealthy will end in complete catastrophe for all of society. This is, of course, not true, but it's a story that pays well to tell and re-tell. So, it gets told a lot, particularly here in the Anglosphere, and also apparently now in France.
France has been very generous during COVID, has been very generous during the Energy Crisis with the `bouclier tarifaire` that has helped most the poorest. We really have to put that in a world context where most does not get anything during time like this. Can we really say that France is boiling alive its people?
>Not sure why I'm thinking about a frog being slowly boiled alive.
The double entendre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) here is wonderfully funny, I love bilingual jokes.
It is true that this reform (like all others before it, they revolve every 5-10 years in France) is only modifying the system at the margin, so it really is a slow boil.
>That people are angry is not about the damn numbers. It's about the attitude of a political class [...]
You say it's "not about the damn numbers", but what does that mean? Does the underlying problem with the numbers not exist? Would the french pension system be fine without such reforms? If not, and reforms are needed, why are is stuff boiling over now? Sure, all the things you listed are legitimate grievances, but it seems counterproductive to get mad at politicians doing painful stuff that needs to be done. It's like getting in a fight with your spouse about how they're "controlling" or whatever, when your house is on fire and you need to evacuate. The only sensible interpretation I can think of is that the people think the reforms are not warranted or there's a better reform that's not being considered, and that's the straw that broke the camel's back and caused people to come out and protest. If that's the case, I wouldn't exactly frame that as "not about the damn numbers".
First off it doesn't need to be done. You're taking a statement from the government as an axiom when it's not one. Secondly, the attitude matters. There is ni trust in the government to not swindle the population, mainly due to Macron's track record and the other mentioned things in my messages. Basically it is not about the numbers, it's about a well crafted narrative led by people who have done everything to wither away the trust given to them, time and time again.
I didn't even get into the minister pushing for the reform doing crosswords during a parliamentary session on his subject, the inflation absolutely exploding in France, the surge of students falling below poverty lines and needing food stamps worse than during covid, the ministers genuinely advising the population to "wear turtlenecks during the winter", the abuse of 49.3 article (similar to Canada's notwithstanding clause) exactly 10 times in order to push laws that were not democratically agreed upon, the fact that the prime minister got a football t-shirt for Christmas that had that very same "49.3" number on it and really appreciated it.
Or the political failure when handling the CCC (citizen's climate convention) that Macron himself created to satisfy people's expectations, and which actually delivered amazingly as a panel of 150 citizens representing all parts of France giving educated and actionable input on what the country should do. The energy prices putting small business owners on the street in a country where nuclear power could have pretty much carried the load but has been grossly mistreated (admittedly by nearly every single president in a long time). The recent Uber papers, where Macron was directly cited, at a crucial time where now most poor jobs in France have literally been called "uberized" in pejorative terms. And that his party calls for "decency" in the mist of all of this.
French people aren't dumb, contrary to what the sneering suits might believe. This was not only poorly timed, but absolutely tonedeaf by the government, and revealing of the amount of contempt they have for people who at a majority reluctantly elected Macron.
This comment is good illustration of why most democratic gouvernements lose support over time. The media collect a list of disappointing behaviors, social media push said content to disgruntled citizens, and the government loses all credibility over time.
The ability for a government to not slip is crucial for slowing the decay.
What's your point? That seeing how we're getting screwed is bad for us?
How about having the government actually do better and be accountable for it instead? How about Macron promising to follow the CCC's recommendations on dealing with the climate crisis and instead throwing it all in the trash?
That you attribute my remarks to some kind of misled social media craze is what's actually messed up in this exchange. And as far as I can tell, the guardian or euro news are far from being simple tiktok ads, but people who refuse to see things will continue to find arguments in bad faith to do so.
This is all dramatic and very tragic, but the numbers don't make sense. It's not something where passion should win over reason. Current and future generations will be screwed if this pension system isn't reformed. If anything Macron deserves applauses for committing political suicide for the greater good
Nobody is getting screwed if this isn't getting reformed, the central committee dedicated to making projections for retirement funds projected a mild deficit by 2070 in only 1 out of 4 of its scenarios. The government gave this money away to the already rich and is trying to bullshit everybody else that "there's no other way". People have had enough of this behaviour, and the strikes on a scale unseen since 95 show it.
This is not true. Numbers aren't alarming at all. And there are many solutions that could be deployed if it were the case. It is a matter of political choice.
As a french citizen, I agree it's not about numbers.
If young people were understanding the numbers, they would go on streets to push for the reform to be adopted.
The problem is, there is an extreme left group, dreaming of the big night of uprising and revolution to install a communist government in France. So they take every opportunity to block the country and mess everything up, even though they're not even concerned by the reform themselves.
There is a silent majority who is in favor of the reform, which will eventually pass, like always.
Your contempt won't do much in the face of an actual majority voicing its disagreement (you know, the majority that Macron did not deserve but got because people feared the extreme right). And your numbers would be wrong unless you chose to ignore the Cor.
Either you don't understand the risks of disregarding the political unrest or you actively want that unrest. Sorry but I'm not keen on having an extreme right president at the next election myself.
you have more at stake in the topic than i do, but as someone still affected by the strikes, i got a few words to retort:
if the way to go about protesting is to choose days as per convenience and to have barbeque on the tram tracks, then feel free to do this on a weekly basis. meanwhile, the people on the grind are being affected by disruption of essential public utilities. just like the roller-skating phenomenon mentioned by another poster in the thread, it is only reinforcing the belief of not relying on others in society for your day-to-day needs.
the way people go about it in this instance is not garnering any sympathy by those who need the most support in society.
That people are angry is not about the damn numbers. It's about the attitude of a political class that had private restaurant dinners behind closed doors during lockdown times where the population was fined for being out walking their dogs, it's about a president that's been deliberately calling left-leaning ideas of the younger generations about ecology and equality "extreme-left" while joyfully siding persistently with the actual parties created by fascists, it's about a reform that comes in with a justification of a deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions, it's about some of his ministers who take part in all sorts of horrible things and continue to go unpunished, it's about people asking for compassion towards difficult jobs more than for their own selves, and I could go on...