5 ms·

That's what you get when 60%+ of the wealth generated in the last two years went to the top 1% and you ask the bottom 80% to work two years longer to cover for

That's what you get when 60%+ of the wealth generated in the last two years went to the top 1% and you ask the bottom 80% to work two years longer to cover for an imaginary deficit fyi taxing the 40 richest people in France 2% more would cover the same amount of money as having the entire active population work 2 more years. edit: since it's not clear, I'm talking about pension related debt (the main argument of the french government for raising the retirement age), obviously not the national debt/deficit edit2: ah and 25% of the poorest workers are already dead by 62 https://www.liberation.fr/resizer/J5W0vs_DrAdsjx5xHUxhhC_otnc=/arc-photo-liberation/eu-central-1-prod/public/FAT33WUA5FGOVAS6NAASRWUNSU.png https://www.liberation.fr/resizer/J5W0vs_DrAdsjx5xHUxhhC_otn... and 30% of people above 60 are unemployed because nobody hire seniors https://lemagdusenior.ouest-france.fr/article-78-combien-francais-vivent-sans-emploi-ni-retraite-50-ans.html https://lemagdusenior.ouest-france.fr/article-78-combien-fra...

earlyam 4y ago
I don't doubt you, but do you have a source? I don't know anything about the economics of France and I'm kind of interested now.
- lm28469 4y ago
  https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... https://www.tf1info.fr/economie/reforme-des-retraites-2023-y-a-t-il-urgence-a-combler-le-deficit-selon-le-cor-2246516.html https://www.tf1info.fr/economie/reforme-des-retraites-2023-y... https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 https://linsoumission.fr/2023/01/16/retraites-milliardaires-deficit/ https://linsoumission.fr/2023/01/16/retraites-milliardaires-...
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    The total net worth of all of French billionaires is ~half a trillion dollars, so it could only cover the 30 billion per year pension deficit for about 15 to 20 years if you seized 100% of their wealth (and somehow didn't cause disastrous economic side effects in the process). Not seeing anything in your first two links to support your claim, not going to bother with the other two links. I just really wish the "eat the rich" UBI crowd wasn't so innumerate.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > 30 billion per year pension deficit > I just really wish the "eat the rich" UBI crowd wasn't so innumerate. It was +3.2b in 2022, + 0.9m in 2021, with a slight deficit predicted in the short term and equilibrium from 2030s (average scenario) tl;dr : it's not a big deal, and certainly not the real reason of the change in retirement age
  - earlyam 4y ago
    Thanks
compiler-guy 4y ago
France's deficit is not imaginary. Yes, taxing the right people the right amounts (and successfully getting them to pay) would solve the problem, but the hole that needs to be plugged is 100% real.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > France's deficit is not imaginary The deficit due to the pension system*, even the governmental agency in charge of it said so
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    So there is a hole?
    - lm28469 4y ago
      According to Macron, yes. According to the people in charge of determining if there is one, no
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  There is no hole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL1wT8jxVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL1wT8jxVU. The French government based their diagnostic on a report by the COR (their advisory board) but that report had only one (among many other) scenarios where they might be a hole. The President of that board said it very clearly in his Senate hearing (above)
HideousKojima 4y ago
No, this is what happens when you make almost the entire population dependent on the state for retirement, it makes changes and cuts difficult and limits the options the country has to adapt to changing economic, demographic, and other circumstances. Kind of like how at the start of COVID in the US there were arguments like "We can't close down schools because poor kids won't be able to get their free school lunches." Edit: I looked it up and the net worth of all of France's billionaires is ~half a trillion dollars, so even if you seized it all it would basically cover the French government's budget deficits for a grand total of two years, assuming they were actually able to seize it all and it didn't have disastrous economic side effects. That's France's total deficit, not sure how much of that is directly attributable to the pension system.
- yoyohello13 4y ago
  Yes, much better to leave them to their own devices. Then the state is free to just let those inconvenient poor people die.
  - fvdessen 4y ago
    The guy you replied to didn't advocate to leave people to their own devices but to have a retirement system that is a healthy mix of different sources of revenue / investments rather than 100% from the state.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      And similarly I wasn't saying to not feed poor kids, I was saying that by making it dependent of physical schools it limits the ability of the country to adapt and make changes like remote learning, responding to a pandemic (though I'm doubtful school closures accomplished much if anything in that regard), etc. Flexible ways to accomplish the same or similar goals are preferable to enshrining one specific way of doing so in law.
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  Don’t worry, those free school lunches won’t last for much longer at the rate things are going.
kwere 4y ago
Or maybe the poorer parts of society should stop trying to be overeliant on the tax levied on a minority of skilled earners (so no trust fund kids) creating welfarism/populism, breaking the fabric of society (as in ancient Rome),incentivizing emigration/delocalization of taxbase; and try to be more selfsufficient from a budget stanpoint, like having a self-funded pension system, that in France case would be increasing contribution, raising retirement age, linking pension output to having kids (to stabilize age pyramid) here France revenues brakdown: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf
- lm28469 4y ago
  So what the US is doing ? I don't feel like they're doing much better, especially for the bottom 30%
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    They aren't doing any better, and for the same reasons.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > the same reasons. Which reasons ? Both systems are about as opposed as you can imagine without straight up walking out of capitalism
      - forgetfreeman 4y ago
        Yes, keep going...
        lm28469 4y ago
        You're the one making vague arguments, I'm not going to do your homework
  - kwere 4y ago
incrudible 4y ago
Wealth was not generated, prices rose. Those are valuations, they did not come out of the pockets of the workers. A wealth tax would suppress those prices, not to mention capital flight. It just does not work. If it did, everyone would do it.
- lm28469 4y ago
  So I pay my gas twice as much as 5 years ago, the dude selling the gas gets twice as much money, but nothing changed ? ok http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27887.jpeg http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27887.jpeg
  - incrudible 4y ago
    The gas supply did in fact change, as did demand. Even a small shortage can drive prices up dramatically, because gasoline is critically important.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      Prices yes, you're looking at _profits_ though
      - incrudible 4y ago
        If you have a 5% profit margin and the price doubles, so do your profits. Of course you could lower your profit margins and pass up on the opportunity of the decade.
        lm28469 4y ago
        I mean yeah if you're view of the world is so distorted that a war is an "opportunity"... That's exactly what's wrong and why people protest against this system so you're making my point
        4y ago
boole1854 4y ago
> fyi taxing the 40 richest people in France 2% more would cover the same amount of money as having the entire active population work 2 more years. My back-of-the-envelope calculations: Sum of wealth of top 40 richest people in France: 556 billion [1] Annual income of top 40 richest people in France, assuming 10% growth of wealth: 56 billion 2% additional tax on that income: 1 billion Size of active working population of France: 40.8 million [2] Size of about-to-retire population: 1 million (guess based on [3]) Annual pension cost per retiree: 18000 [4] Direct pension savings by delaying retirement by 1 year: 18 billion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by_net_worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTFRQ647N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTFRQ647N [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/464032/distribution-population-age-group-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/464032/distribution-popu... [4] https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/Practical/Everyday-Life/When-do-French-people-really-retire-and-what-is-the-average-pension https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/Practical/Everyday-L...
- lm28469 4y ago
  Feel free to contact oxfam: https://www.oxfamfrance.org/rapports/nouveau-rapport-la-loi-du-plus-riche/ https://www.oxfamfrance.org/rapports/nouveau-rapport-la-loi-...
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    Where in your link does it say taxing the ultra wealthy would be enough to cover the pension shortfall? I'll give you a hint: nowhere.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > Oxfam France a calculé que seulement 2% de la fortune des milliardaires français suffirait à financer le déficit attendu des retraites.
      - danaris 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
legitster 4y ago
Money is only superficially the issue. Your currency is only as valuable as there is a market of goods and services to spend it on. Even if you ate the rich and took all of their money, all you've done is created inflation because the actual value of the economy hasn't shifted. An economy is more about the "stuff" than the money - even Marx would have agreed with as much. So this is only ostensibly about funding a deficit - this is just as much a measure to prevent a GDP freefall from a shrinking aging working population.
- Levitz 4y ago
  Yes. But money is how stuff gets done. It's not an immediate effect, but give people money to people who want food and more food will be purchased, which in turn increases the production of food.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Only if the cost to produce food is below the sales price. There is not an infinite "grow more food" capacity. The cost to produce 5% more food may be more than 5% of current costs.
  - legitster 4y ago
    This is the same idea behind trickle down economics, but I don't think reality really works this way. Simply giving people money does not inherently create economic growth.

earlyam 4y ago

I don't doubt you, but do you have a source? I don't know anything about the economics of France and I'm kind of interested now.

lm28469 4y ago
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly... https://www.tf1info.fr/economie/reforme-des-retraites-2023-y-a-t-il-urgence-a-combler-le-deficit-selon-le-cor-2246516.html https://www.tf1info.fr/economie/reforme-des-retraites-2023-y... https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595 https://linsoumission.fr/2023/01/16/retraites-milliardaires-deficit/ https://linsoumission.fr/2023/01/16/retraites-milliardaires-...
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  The total net worth of all of French billionaires is ~half a trillion dollars, so it could only cover the 30 billion per year pension deficit for about 15 to 20 years if you seized 100% of their wealth (and somehow didn't cause disastrous economic side effects in the process). Not seeing anything in your first two links to support your claim, not going to bother with the other two links. I just really wish the "eat the rich" UBI crowd wasn't so innumerate.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > 30 billion per year pension deficit > I just really wish the "eat the rich" UBI crowd wasn't so innumerate. It was +3.2b in 2022, + 0.9m in 2021, with a slight deficit predicted in the short term and equilibrium from 2030s (average scenario) tl;dr : it's not a big deal, and certainly not the real reason of the change in retirement age
- earlyam 4y ago
  Thanks

compiler-guy 4y ago

France's deficit is not imaginary. Yes, taxing the right people the right amounts (and successfully getting them to pay) would solve the problem, but the hole that needs to be plugged is 100% real.

lm28469 4y ago
> France's deficit is not imaginary The deficit due to the pension system*, even the governmental agency in charge of it said so
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  So there is a hole?
  - lm28469 4y ago
    According to Macron, yes. According to the people in charge of determining if there is one, no
rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
There is no hole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL1wT8jxVU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsL1wT8jxVU. The French government based their diagnostic on a report by the COR (their advisory board) but that report had only one (among many other) scenarios where they might be a hole. The President of that board said it very clearly in his Senate hearing (above)

HideousKojima 4y ago

No, this is what happens when you make almost the entire population dependent on the state for retirement, it makes changes and cuts difficult and limits the options the country has to adapt to changing economic, demographic, and other circumstances. Kind of like how at the start of COVID in the US there were arguments like "We can't close down schools because poor kids won't be able to get their free school lunches." Edit: I looked it up and the net worth of all of France's billionaires is ~half a trillion dollars, so even if you seized it all it would basically cover the French government's budget deficits for a grand total of two years, assuming they were actually able to seize it all and it didn't have disastrous economic side effects. That's France's total deficit, not sure how much of that is directly attributable to the pension system.

yoyohello13 4y ago
Yes, much better to leave them to their own devices. Then the state is free to just let those inconvenient poor people die.
- fvdessen 4y ago
  The guy you replied to didn't advocate to leave people to their own devices but to have a retirement system that is a healthy mix of different sources of revenue / investments rather than 100% from the state.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    And similarly I wasn't saying to not feed poor kids, I was saying that by making it dependent of physical schools it limits the ability of the country to adapt and make changes like remote learning, responding to a pandemic (though I'm doubtful school closures accomplished much if anything in that regard), etc. Flexible ways to accomplish the same or similar goals are preferable to enshrining one specific way of doing so in law.
throwaway5959 4y ago
Don’t worry, those free school lunches won’t last for much longer at the rate things are going.

kwere 4y ago

Or maybe the poorer parts of society should stop trying to be overeliant on the tax levied on a minority of skilled earners (so no trust fund kids) creating welfarism/populism, breaking the fabric of society (as in ancient Rome),incentivizing emigration/delocalization of taxbase; and try to be more selfsufficient from a budget stanpoint, like having a self-funded pension system, that in France case would be increasing contribution, raising retirement age, linking pension output to having kids (to stabilize age pyramid) here France revenues brakdown: https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-france.pdf

lm28469 4y ago
So what the US is doing ? I don't feel like they're doing much better, especially for the bottom 30%
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  They aren't doing any better, and for the same reasons.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > the same reasons. Which reasons ? Both systems are about as opposed as you can imagine without straight up walking out of capitalism
    - forgetfreeman 4y ago
      Yes, keep going...
      - lm28469 4y ago
        You're the one making vague arguments, I'm not going to do your homework
- kwere 4y ago

incrudible 4y ago

Wealth was not generated, prices rose. Those are valuations, they did not come out of the pockets of the workers. A wealth tax would suppress those prices, not to mention capital flight. It just does not work. If it did, everyone would do it.

lm28469 4y ago
So I pay my gas twice as much as 5 years ago, the dude selling the gas gets twice as much money, but nothing changed ? ok http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27887.jpeg http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27887.jpeg
- incrudible 4y ago
  The gas supply did in fact change, as did demand. Even a small shortage can drive prices up dramatically, because gasoline is critically important.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Prices yes, you're looking at _profits_ though
    - incrudible 4y ago
      If you have a 5% profit margin and the price doubles, so do your profits. Of course you could lower your profit margins and pass up on the opportunity of the decade.
      - lm28469 4y ago
        I mean yeah if you're view of the world is so distorted that a war is an "opportunity"... That's exactly what's wrong and why people protest against this system so you're making my point
        4y ago

boole1854 4y ago

> fyi taxing the 40 richest people in France 2% more would cover the same amount of money as having the entire active population work 2 more years. My back-of-the-envelope calculations: Sum of wealth of top 40 richest people in France: 556 billion [1] Annual income of top 40 richest people in France, assuming 10% growth of wealth: 56 billion 2% additional tax on that income: 1 billion Size of active working population of France: 40.8 million [2] Size of about-to-retire population: 1 million (guess based on [3]) Annual pension cost per retiree: 18000 [4] Direct pension savings by delaying retirement by 1 year: 18 billion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by_net_worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_billionaires_by... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTFRQ647N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTFRQ647N [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/464032/distribution-population-age-group-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/464032/distribution-popu... [4] https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/Practical/Everyday-Life/When-do-French-people-really-retire-and-what-is-the-average-pension https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/Practical/Everyday-L...

lm28469 4y ago
Feel free to contact oxfam: https://www.oxfamfrance.org/rapports/nouveau-rapport-la-loi-du-plus-riche/ https://www.oxfamfrance.org/rapports/nouveau-rapport-la-loi-...
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  Where in your link does it say taxing the ultra wealthy would be enough to cover the pension shortfall? I'll give you a hint: nowhere.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > Oxfam France a calculé que seulement 2% de la fortune des milliardaires français suffirait à financer le déficit attendu des retraites.
    - danaris 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

legitster 4y ago

Money is only superficially the issue. Your currency is only as valuable as there is a market of goods and services to spend it on. Even if you ate the rich and took all of their money, all you've done is created inflation because the actual value of the economy hasn't shifted. An economy is more about the "stuff" than the money - even Marx would have agreed with as much. So this is only ostensibly about funding a deficit - this is just as much a measure to prevent a GDP freefall from a shrinking aging working population.

Levitz 4y ago
Yes. But money is how stuff gets done. It's not an immediate effect, but give people money to people who want food and more food will be purchased, which in turn increases the production of food.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Only if the cost to produce food is below the sales price. There is not an infinite "grow more food" capacity. The cost to produce 5% more food may be more than 5% of current costs.
- legitster 4y ago
  This is the same idea behind trickle down economics, but I don't think reality really works this way. Simply giving people money does not inherently create economic growth.