France has announced a massive redistributive tax program which would send the top tax rate soaring and increase taxes broadly on the top 10% of society.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has said that nine out of 10 citizens will not see their income taxes rise in the new budget.
He has confirmed that there is to be a new 75% tax rate for people earning more than 1m euros (£800,000; $1.3m) a year.
The 75% rate would be on income earnings, but there will also be a wealth tax on holdings above 1.31 million euros, and a cap on tax deductions, as well as a reduction on the tax burden at low incomes.
So the best way to think of this is as a redistributive tax plan. You could alternately call it left-wing austerity, and I wouldn’t agree with the austerity label totally but for the fact that France also plans to cut spending back, and overall the budget has been called “France’s toughest single belt-tightening in 30 years.” That comes not from an analyst, but President Francois Hollande.
The question would be why. France now carries a public debt burden of around 91% of GDP. This isn’t great, but it hasn’t affected their borrowing costs at all. During the Presidential campaign, Hollande swore off austerity in favor of growth. Now he appears to be backsliding, and these kind of pullbacks in the budget don’t make a ton of sense in an environment where the country can still borrow. Hollande would no doubt respond that the Eurozone carries dangers all its own, and the bond market could turn to France and make trouble quickly.
Taking the other side, the redistributive nature of this progressive tax plan is right in line with research on how to best eliminate the negative effects of inequality. I suppose it would have been possible to design it in a more revenue neutral way, but the increases in revenue will presumably go out the door in benefits in a way that is highly weighted to the poor, so the transfer policies remain intact. And with all we’re learning about the damage caused by inequality, including the threat of financial crises, shifting the tax burden has highly desirable effects. For all the whining from the rich in France, they not only probably won’t leave the country, but they won’t change their spending patterns all that much, either. That means that the negative effects of this will be far more muted, while the positive effects of tax reductions on the poor will be more outsized.
Compare this to America, which hit its highest level of income inequality in 2011. Not only does this have social consequences in terms of the lack of cohesion of society and the rise of an insulated meritocracy prone to failure, it creates this glut at the top which does nothing to promote a better economy. If you truly want to grow an economy “from the middle out,” as the President likes to say, you have to engage in policies that can actually achieve that, and among them is progressive taxation. There are also plenty of pre-tax policies that could be pursued, which Dean Baker consistently talks about in his book The End of Loser Liberalism. But a high top marginal tax rate certainly has an influence on pre-tax income. And this becomes a political economy issue as well, as those with the most money, power and influence get there thanks to generous tax policies.
The French system is generally set up so that the budget announcements by the ruling party can be put into action, for the most part. So this will be an interesting experiment, a throwback to a previous time when top marginal tax rates were high. Let’s see how that interfaces with the neoliberal consensus.





19 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
How much of the “austerity budget” besides the high rates for the wealthy is a bit to keep the IMF/ECB at bay? At least placate them while mostly keeping his campaign promises?
Love it. Boomerangs back on all the neocons who bought media and pols to complain about deficits at the same time they were the “tallest hogs at the trough.”
U.S. Marginal tax rates on the 1% were north of 90% during the Eisenhower administrations.
Top Marginal Tax rates 1916 – 2011
Whoodathunkit? Sanity in France while in the US, the bankers are free to rape and pillage.
I have long since had a lot of respect for the French regarding their appreciation of good food, but in almost no other respect.
Now they are earning my deepest respect. I’m sure they were losing sleep all over France because of my attitudes, lol.
I believe it’s premature to call this announcement anything more than just that.
I don’t see it going anywhere.
Hollande is in their pocket and is about as socialist as Merkel.
I will beleive it when I see it. Until then this is just Schneiderman again. Hey look, bunnies …
(My emphasis)
This confuses me. Is it a typo? I would think it would be an ‘insulated plutocracy’, not meritocracy. If not a typo, could you please expand a bit on the choice of phrasing here?
zut!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19754016
28 September 2012
France budget: Taxes favoured over spending cuts
“France has unveiled its budget for 2013, avoiding big austerity spending cuts in favour of higher taxes on the wealthy and big businesses.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault confirmed that there is to be a new 75% tax rate for people earning more than 1m euros (£800,000; $1.3m) a year.
But he insisted that nine out of 10 citizens will not see their income taxes rise in the new budget.
The government plans to raise 20bn euros in extra revenue.
That compares to 10bn euros in spending cuts.
The emphasis on tax rises is a policy of the new French President Francois Hollande that is against the prevailing mood of Europe where countries from Ireland to Greece are slashing spending to try to placate investors and lower borrowing costs.”
“Measures in the budget include:
A new 75% tax on the richest earning more than 1m euros
A 45% income tax rate on incomes over 150,000 euros a year
A freeze in government spending, excluding debt repayments and pensions
The elimination of a ceiling on “l’impot de solidarite sur la fortune”, or wealth taxes, so that assets of more than 1.3m euros will be taxed at 1.5%
The reduction of tax exemptions for loan payments by large corporations
Capital gains and dividends will now be subject to the income tax regime
”
Ya, this all sounds rosy and hopeful, but go check out the BBC’s take on it. They’re livid and are saying this is a mistake.
Don’t assume for 1 second that Hollande is on the side of the 99. His recent talks about the need for Greece to continue austerity is in line with following the orders of the 1%.
This is not Hollande. This is something else.
And once again, check out the livid pro-business take on this and other articles on the subject.
No chance this stands.
The 1% own that country just like the rest of the Euro (and the world). They will sink it one way or another. And they own most of the politicians, ie. those who make the laws, and they will make sure this idea “fails”.
But who am I? I could be wrong. Sadly, recent history supports my cynical and reality-based view.
Non, I think you are wrong here. Not because the French Socialist Party necessarily really WANTS to redistribute wealth, but because they know that if they don’t, bad things could happen to them. Really bad things. It’s their history, you see.
“Every French politician lives under the shadow of the guillotine.”
–Clemenceau(I think)
And the rich in France may whine, but they’ll go along with it. They know what can happen, too. It’s in their DNA; they feel it in their gut.
That’s a big difference between Europeans and Americans. America has never had a real class-based revolution. They have. Our politicians and ruling classes don’t think it can ever happen here.
They are very mistaken.
So this is why Hollande’s popularity is slipping.
People don’t like fast drastic change, and the poorer folks continue to expect to be screwed, one way or the other.
As for the Barbarian’s comments, I think the elites in America know very well it can happen here, why else all the drones coming to Amerika?
My gods! That crap with TransCanada down in Texas is enuff to curl MY hair and most everyone doesn’t even know about it.
In my day, what happened to one American happened to us all; we stuck up for each other. Now they’d be called communist bastards who got what they deserved for getting in the way of JOBS! N’er you mind yo drinkin’ water and crops!
I’m experiencing culture shock nearly every day any more
Am re-reading Ellen Meiksin Wood’s The Origins of Capitalism (terrific); she notes that capitalism developed differently in different places, that the reach of draconian Anglo-style capitalism was far from inevitable, that its continuing success is quite unlikely.
English capitalism wiped out the English peasantry, which made forced wage labor (to EAT) more inevitable. The peasantries–to this day–remain in Europe, are springing back up everywhere (file under FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, why food and where we get it is so damned central).
The French and France continue to retain important differences, both systematic and in outlook, to help point to “other possible worlds.” Vive LES differences!
C’est très vrai.
Kudos to Hollande. He has put forth a progressive package, what you would expect of a socialist. What you see is what you get. The tax increases on the top 10% exceeds the cuts in spending 2 to 1. So it is not even an extremist proposal. We’ll see if Hollande pushes to enact it; my guess is that he will, and that this is not all talk.
What you would expect of a socialist President. At least Hollande is what he says he is.
Contrast that with the situation here in the U.S. with the crooked Obama. Where you THINK you elected a Democrat, Obama, and you get…….a Republican on economic issues.
A Republican (Obama) who appoints Republicans to chair Bowles Simpson and pushes for cuts to ss, Medicare and Medicaid, and MORE tax cuts for the rich and for corporations. Huh? It is like, wtf?
I may add, A Republican (Obama) who pushes for cuts to the federal budget weighted 3 to 1 in favor of spending cuts, not tax increases. (Contrast this with Holllande’s, which is weighted 2 to 1 in favor of TAX INCREASES. Now, that is a center left proposal.)
Obama’s is not even center right. That is a rightwing proposal, rather than a left of center proposal.
I can’t seem to find what the 75% rate is an increase from. Does anyone happen to know? Is this a monocle popping increase, or was it already pretty high?
But to lessen the stigma of “evul soshulism,” the best way to talk about it is to call it recirculative.
There is nothing “redistributive” about a progressive tax rate. It is pure utilitarianism. The high income earners are the ones who gained the most from the rule of law and economic system of a democracy like France.
It is no different than charging high prices for the super luxury cars. The $50,000 cars are not twice as good as $25,000 cars, and the $100,000 cars are not four times as good as the $25,000 cars.
And the high tax rates that we once had in the US promoted the public-private partnership of medical research and basic science and education and entertainment. At the highest tax rate of 90%, it costs the high income earner only $100,000 to establish a $1,000,000 scholarship fund at a small college or build a science building for that same small college to provide a solid science education at a liberal arts college.
High tax rates in a progressive tax system like we have promote a sense of community, recognizing even the wealthy benefited from the well rounded labor force and their consumer power in the US as a consequence of our tradition of private public institutions.
Put in a 80 Democratic Senate and 350 Democratic House, and Obama will be happy to be more aggressive.
But to propose large tax hikes and also spending hikes would result in a 60 Republican Senate and 300 Republican House plus Romney-Ryan.
I’m probably missing something, but isn’t some nominal redistribution what a “progressive” rate creates? No one is shouting “communism” in a crowded theater, but if everyone is taxed at the same rate that is one thing. If the rich man is taxed more greatly. . . Such a progressive rate–I also understand–helps to offset the many other advantages, in using resources that in the end below to all of us, that capital arrogates. But that is redistribution, that is how you at least give part of the undocumented charge to nature back to people.
Not an expert, so tell me where I am wrong. . .
Ayep.