3 ms·

While I agree with your point, in the particlar case of Paris, France, this kind of argument might not be particularly persuasive. There are already laws in pl

While I agree with your point, in the particlar case of Paris, France, this kind of argument might not be particularly persuasive. There are already laws in place for the employers to pay at least half of the monthly / yearly card of their employees (of course, this is considered income and taxed as such) [0]. As these cars allow unlimited journeys over the whole network (with two exceptions, one is a local train at Orly airport and the second I can't remember), it could be argued that transit is already fairly cheap for most "cheaper workers". Of course, this also applies to "expensive workers" (a software engineer friend of mine has his transit paid to 100%). There's also reductions for the elderly and a bunch of other categories. In the end, aside from tourists and occasional users, I think a good chunk of the population already has some kind of subscription, so the cost of maintenance argument might make more sense. I can't find the source, but I remember reading in a local paper that ticket sales were around 1/3 of the Paris' transit authority income. I don't remember whether the cost of the ticket systems was discussed. This was in the context of the regional elections (which more or less control the TA) that are happening right now, with one candidate wanting to push for free transit. --- [0] https://www.urssaf.fr/portail/home/employeur/calculer-les-cotisations/les-elements-a-prendre-en-compte/les-frais-professionnels/les-frais-de-transport/trajet-domicilelieu-de-travail/prise-en-charge-obligatoire-des.html https://www.urssaf.fr/portail/home/employeur/calculer-les-co...

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
> There are already laws in place for the employers to pay at least half of the monthly / yearly card of their employees (of course, this is considered income and taxed as such) [0]. As these cars allow unlimited journeys over the whole network (with two exceptions, one is a local train at Orly airport and the second I can't remember), it could be argued that transit is already fairly cheap for most "cheaper workers". Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer? In slovenia, the employer has to pay for the cheapest available transport for a worker (basically cheapest public transport or some percentage of a price of a liter of gasoline per km), but that money is given directly to the worker - which means a lot of people get money for a bus/train ticket but use their cars, because it's faster.
- baud147258 5y ago
  > Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? I'd say it depends. Where I work, it's automatically paid and I can do whatever I want. In other cases I remember people having to keep the used train ticket in order to get reimbursed.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  > Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer? You either pay for it yourself and show the proof to the employer who then pays you (kind of like an expense) or the employer does everything for you. I was in the first situation, a friend is in the second. You never get the cash upfront to do as you please though, and on the payslip it has a dedicated line.
GuB-42 5y ago
> of course, this is considered income and taxed as such It is not, it is an expense and therefore, it is not taxed. There are some subtleties though. If you don't detail your expenses when doing your taxes, the 50% your employer has to pay is not considered revenue (but whatever extra you get is). However, if you explicitly declare public transport as an expense, then it becomes revenue, because otherwise, you'd be deducting it twice.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  You seem to be correct. I think I was confused because I was getting reimbursed 100%.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

> There are already laws in place for the employers to pay at least half of the monthly / yearly card of their employees (of course, this is considered income and taxed as such) [0]. As these cars allow unlimited journeys over the whole network (with two exceptions, one is a local train at Orly airport and the second I can't remember), it could be argued that transit is already fairly cheap for most "cheaper workers". Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer? In slovenia, the employer has to pay for the cheapest available transport for a worker (basically cheapest public transport or some percentage of a price of a liter of gasoline per km), but that money is given directly to the worker - which means a lot of people get money for a bus/train ticket but use their cars, because it's faster.

baud147258 5y ago
> Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? I'd say it depends. Where I work, it's automatically paid and I can do whatever I want. In other cases I remember people having to keep the used train ticket in order to get reimbursed.
vladvasiliu 5y ago
> Do they actually pay you money, and you're free to buy or not to buy the ticket? Or do you actually have to buy the ticket and/or get it provided by the employer? You either pay for it yourself and show the proof to the employer who then pays you (kind of like an expense) or the employer does everything for you. I was in the first situation, a friend is in the second. You never get the cash upfront to do as you please though, and on the payslip it has a dedicated line.

GuB-42 5y ago

> of course, this is considered income and taxed as such It is not, it is an expense and therefore, it is not taxed. There are some subtleties though. If you don't detail your expenses when doing your taxes, the 50% your employer has to pay is not considered revenue (but whatever extra you get is). However, if you explicitly declare public transport as an expense, then it becomes revenue, because otherwise, you'd be deducting it twice.

vladvasiliu 5y ago
You seem to be correct. I think I was confused because I was getting reimbursed 100%.