Comment by p4bl0 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by p4bl0 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You want me to argue?

> taxes are killing (+60%)

Taxes are NOT 60% for business, it's 30%. It can go up to a bit less than 60% on personal incomes. That is if your are extremely rich. In 2012, the average taxation was less than 6%. The 45% slice of imposition (which to date is the highest) applies only if you earn more than 500,000€, and only on your incomes above that threshold.

For instance if you earn 1,000,000€ you will pay 458,140.05€ of taxes on incomes, which is a bit less than 46%. To get up to 60% of taxes on incomes, you have to be immensely rich, you won't be suffering from your contribution to society.

> the State is bordering on insanity

Your personal (and imho, stupid as fuck, even if I don't particularly like our government) opinion.

> social security doesn't reimburse much anymore and yet you're forced to pay for it+a private insurance

This couldn't be more wrong. I don't have a private insurance (nor what we call a "mutuelle" to be clear), I only have the minimum public social security. I went to the hospital twice last month, and both time got a small surgical act in addition to the consultation of a doctor (she's one of the best in her domain, worldwide, fwiw). This cost me 21€ the first time and 7.5€ the second time. Most of the medicine I had to take after that were reimbursed almost entirely. This is not a special case, this is the rule.

> firing people is extremely costly, you can end up paying someone for years even though he's not doing anything anymore.

Other people responded to that one. But I may add that if you end up paying people for years after they stop working for you it's either for a non-competition contract or that you fired people without being able to give a reason. Too bad for you, workers are a bit protected in this country.

> you can get sued for firing someone and the judge will side by default with the employee, most judges here are communists/far left to begin with or at least socialist if you wish.

Let me laugh a bit I'll come back when I'm done.

Your next paragraph is pure speculations and is plain wrong. No the richest didn't leave. A few cunt like Depardieu left and made a lot of noise about it, but that's all. But if you want to leave, feel free, nobody will stop you.

> Taxes are NOT 60% for business, it's 30%.

Oh come on, you know that when you sum up all taxes and regulations, it costs way more than 30%, it's more like 50% minimum.

> It can go up to a bit less than 60% on personal incomes.That is if your are extremely rich

How naive, when you make 2000€, you cost 4000€ to your employer. That means your real salary is 4000 € minus 50% that goes through taxes that your employer pays but really he's passing the costs on you unless you think he's paying you a free meal. So that's 50% already for everyone, then you have to subtract 20 to 30% on the 2000€. So yeah, my 60% is pretty accurate.

> Your personal (and imho, stupid as fuck, even if I don't particularly like our government) opinion.

First of all, no need to be so rude. Second, it is being insane. Their answer to everything is more tax even though this is killing the economy. It's clear now that France is governed by a theocracy, a new serfdom where God is Public spending, the clergé is the public workers that pay no taxes and get to retire early with big salaries and lots of privileges and the Tiers état is the people paying for the rest. http://leblogalupus.com/2013/10/09/charles-gave-la-france-es...

> a doctor (she's one of the best in her domain, worldwide, fwiw). This cost me 21€ the first time and 7.5€

So one of the best doctors is paid 21€ and 7.5€? Wow, that's less than flipping burgers at your local burger joint. Do you do consulting at this price too? Anyway, this is an anecdotical evidence of yours. It's a fact that Securité social does not reimburse much any more and yet you still have to pay for it and get a private insurance on the side. This is well documented http://www.securite-sociale.info/

> it's either for a non-competition contract or that you fired people without being able to give a reason. Too bad for you, workers are a bit protected in this country.

See, this is where we disagree. It is my company, my private property. I should be able to do as I please with it as long as don't mess with other's freedom, this is a constitutional right in the declaration of human rights, private property is sacred. I should be allowed to employ and stop employing whoever I want, whenever I want. This is why there is so much unemployment in France, it's so hard and costly to fire people that we'd rather not employ them. You think you're helping workers but you're not, you're creating more unemployment. Countries like Switzerland that don't have such "protection" have much less unemployment.

> A few cunt like Depardieu left

Are you serious? The richest man in France has left and many of the top richest famillies have left: LVMH, Lacoste, Peugeot etc. Not only that but most of our artists and sports men have left. Anyone who creates lots of wealth has left the country. Don't you see a wrong pattern here? How blind can one be. http://www.latribune.fr/vos-finances/impots/fiscalite/201112...

> It is my company, my private property. I should be able to do as I please with it as long as don't mess with other's freedom, this is a constitutional right in the declaration of human rights, private property is sacred.

No you should not, and no, that's really not what the declaration of human rights is about.

When you create a french company your create a “personne morale”, a legal entity, an entity on its own, that is viewed more like a living entity and not like an inanimate object. You do have rights on this entity, but you do also have obligations, not the least of which is to follow the law.

So no, just because you want to you can't employ underage kids for instance.

And just because you want, you can't just fire people at will without reasons.

One could argue that laws could be improved, but that's really not the point you're making.

>God is Public spending, the clergé is the public workers that pay no taxes and get to retire early with big salaries and lots of privileges and the Tiers état is the people paying for the rest. http://leblogalupus.com/2013/10/09/charles-gave-la-france-es...

Yep, because as any Friedman loving economist (like Charles Gave you're linking to) will tell you, there's only one God and it's the Market.

>So one of the best doctors is paid 21€ and 7.5€?

No, you see, that's the thing about Social Security (you seem to know so much about), that's what the OP paid, the rest was paid to the doctor by the Social Security. This is well documented in http://www.securite-sociale.info/ you should take a look.

>See, this is where we disagree. It is my company, my private property. I should be able to do as I please with it as long as don't mess with other's freedom, this is a constitutional right in the declaration of human rights, private property is sacred.

"There is just one God, and it's private property". Where did you find "private property is sacred" anywhere in the declaration of human rights?

>Are you serious? The richest man in France has left and many of the top richest famillies have left: LVMH, Lacoste, Peugeot etc.

Yep and Apple, Google et al. don't pay any corporate taxes. Surely, the problem is the taxes.

> Yep, because as any Friedman loving economist (like Charles Gave you're linking to) will tell you, there's only one God and it's the Market.

Oh but I love Friedman too. And what's wrong with the market? What else is the market but people freely exchanging goods and services voluntary? What is more peaceful than two people making a voluntary deal? What are we entrepreneurs doing if not that? See Friedman's famous pencil example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlTRau_XgGs

> No, you see, that's the thing about Social Security (you seem to know so much about), that's what the OP paid, the rest was paid to the doctor by the Social Security.

That's my point, 21€ and 7.5€ is what you see, what you don't see is the 60% income tax we all pay to get this. Not really that cheap anymore.

> Where did you find "private property is sacred" anywhere in the declaration of human rights?

omg, really? You haven't even read the first line of the declaration? Here you go:

"dans une Déclaration solennelle, les droits naturels, inaliénables et sacrés de l’homme"

Article 2:

"Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression."

Well, that was easy :) http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/dudh/1789.asp

> Surely, the problem is the taxes.

Good, now you get it.

Finally here's another good one from the 1789 act:

"Un peuple libre n'acquitte que des contributions, un peuple esclave paie des impôts »". A free people pays bills (ie from private companies), a people of slaves pays taxes. Yep, that's from our founding fathers. Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand could not have put it better. Have a nice day citoyen :)

Friedman is a hack ignored by anyone with half a brain. Same with Ayn Rand. They say incredible things, if you don't spend much time thinking about it.

Anonymous coward fivethree says Nobel price Friedman and best sellers Ayn Rand are hacks. Hey people, pay attention, we should ignore these two starting today!

Also the entirety of respected academics in economic, philosophy, and literature. Those guys probably aren't important.

First, you need to decide if the taxes on the salary are paid by the company or by the employee (I believe it's by the employee, since (s)he is a priori the one who do the work creating this wealth), you can't count them twice as you are doing here, it is dishonest reasoning.

Your computation is wrong, because if you make 2000€/month, your taxes on income are closer to 10% than to 30%. Also, I (and many other people), don't see the "charges" (taxes taken on the salary before it is paid to the employee) as a taxes such as the one on incomes because it pays for good and free public school, good and free universities, good and free hospitals, retirement and unemployment systems… If you take all that into account in the computation, it's actually a big win for everyone. Maybe it is not the case for a few exceptions of very rich people who would be even richer, but what's the point of that?

Sorry for being rude, I read your first post as quite rude and was reacting in the heat of the moment.

This government doesn't have anwser to everything, and their answer is not generally "more tax". On the contrary I find that a lot a gifts are made to companies in "crédit d'impôt".

No the doctor is not paid 21€ and 7.5€, that is the point, actually. What I told is not an anecdotal evidence, it is the general rule. If you say the opposite you are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about. The only thing that are not well reimbursed by the Sécurité Sociale is optical and dental, but mutuelles (semi-private or private insurance) are quite good for this.

Also, the website you link about the Sécurité Sociale is pure propaganda.

We agree on one thing here: we are totally disagreeing on what are your rights as a company owner.

Your analogy with god, clergé, tiers-états, etc. is wrong. "the clergé is the public workers that pay no taxes and get to retire early with big salaries". Really? Have you looked at the salary of professor and researcher in France compared to those of engineer in the industry? Do you really live in France?

Concerning the richests:

LVMH: the company is still based in France. Bernard Arnault (who is the 10th worldwide richest man) is still French.

Lacoste: the company is still based in France. José Luis Duran is still French, René Lacoste was too until his death.

Peugeot: the company is still based in France. Philippe Varin is still French. I'm not sure about Thierry Peugeot, maybe you are right and he left.

Other than that, Iliad, Auchan, Dassault, L'Oréal, Hermes, Bollore, Pernod Ricard… I don't see any movements in the French top 30 richest people/company in the past decade.

Now, it's true that they cheat with their taxes, but it's not right and maybe if those big companies, rich person participated fairly to the society effort there would be less taxes on smaller companies…

100% agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com