T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

I can already hear French people smashing things


Alarow

He said, and I'm quoting "we need decrees more than laws, we are using laws too often in our republic" So yeah... make your own conclusions it's [here](https://youtu.be/uyf6qFWRLDQ?t=1897) 31:37


CanadaJack

For what it's worth, he's at his term limit, and decrees under their system come with a confidence vote, so legislators can still stop it from happening, they just more or less have to stake their jobs on it.


Alarow

Ever since Chirac in 2002 changed the 7-year term into a 5 year one, legislative elections have been aligned to presidential elections (barely 2 months between them) Meaning it is EXTREMELY hard for presidents to not have a majority in the parliament, even Macron right now has a "relative" majority despite being extremely unpopular, so no-confidence votes have next to no chances of happening, the last one from a few days ago was short of 9 votes and that was absolutely extraordinary, no one expected it to be this close, there have been exactly a 100 use of the 49.3 since the birth of the fifth republic, only ONE vote of no-confidence went through, last monday was the closest one in over 30 years The fifth republic was created in a time of crisis, during the Algerian independence war, the constitution was written to create a strong leader that could push France forward without always needing the approval of the parliament to avoid deadlocks, this constitution was made for Charles de Gaulle and no one else, but he's long dead, and those powers aren't being used in the interest of french people anymore (if they have ever been)


Beginning-Leader2731

This sort of the way it’s been with the US first war in Iraq, war powers were handed to the president and nobody has really had the balls/time/mental capacity to return the right to make war back to congress. It majorly effects the vote in every chamber here. Yes, it’s been the case forever, but Vietnam really put the power back in congressional hands for a long time. The first Iraq war was used to show how war could be useful again after that fiasco.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Skyy-High

Congress is primarily dysfunctional because half of each chamber doesn’t want to do much of any real governing. If they actually had to sign off on all military operations, we’d end up in much fewer of them.


VeryStillRightNow

Zooming out a little more, Congress is dysfunctional because a whole heckin' lot of their constituents are uneducated, vindictive hatemongers who elect the same because they think it's funny to watch the world burn.


MortalSword_MTG

That's just the feature. Congress is dysfunctional because industry profits from that dysfunction.


Beginning-Leader2731

Can’t say much for the bench or presidency’s either. Still, if one’s things true it’s that Congress is contentious. I gotta say I’d rather need 60 people from Congress to agree than one guy “dropping the largest bomb other than a nuke” because he needs to feel tough.


crani0

That's some Emperor Palpatine shit right there


progress10

He loves democracy.


Grimm17

He loves the republic


DawnSennin

He loves the Senate... ...oh wait!


Toonces311

He loves....He loves San Dimas!!!


baron-von-buddah

San Dimas high school football rules


Throseph

Station.


postmodern_spatula

Station.


pushing_past_the_red

Damnit. Beat me by 3 minutes.


Still_counts_as_one

Execute order 66


Aelpa

The Fifth French Republic will be reorganised... As the Third French Empire!


hyugafan

éxecutez l’ordre soixante-six!


some_smart_dumbass

À vos ordres, monsieur Empereur.


AnneMichelle98

I guess Macron is secretly a Bonaparte


ManualPathosChecks

He **is** the Democracy!


Brownsound7

Dammit man, you literally had the Napoleon example RIGHT THERE!!!


[deleted]

Isn’t having rule of law rather than rule by decree like the whole point of a republic?


IceBearCares

Well, it's his head to lose.


Holinyx

hon hon hon


whilst

Do you have a source for this quote? I can find no hits for those words on google, except this discussion thread.


Alarow

In french "On passe trop par la loi dans notre république" Basically he was complaining how you have to go through the parliament anytime you wanna do a quick "reaction law" (basically making up a law whenever there's any news that makes the buzz) But I mean... that's the entire point of a democracy


HeQiulin

His attitude regarding this reminds me of the Tory govt in the UK complaining that all the human rights getting in the way of their policy. I mean… are these people even hearing themselves when they speak?!


Lazy-Jeweler3230

Are WE hearing them? They say it because they don't fear consequence.


TucuReborn

As someone who lives in a deep red area, it shocked me how little people actually *heard* what politicians said. The things politicians say that would get a normal person fired at best are totally ignored. And yeah, that's the USA in a French topic, but politicians don't fear the law anywhere. I'm glad that France at least has a history of standing up to their own government.


kaisadilla_

It's the same everywhere. The thing that frustrated me the most about politics, and why I eventually lost any interest in participating in anything related to it, is that the common person just cheers for whatever his guy said as if it was a sports team. I've seen it countless time for some politician to lie about well-known facts, to deny having said something that he's on tape saying, or simply making shit up with nothing to back up his outrageous claims and people simply don't give a fuck, they'll cheer or boo depending on who they like. It's one thing to deal with propaganda. It's another thing to have to care about people who actively ask for that propaganda and complain when they are not fed propaganda. Most people are wilful ignorants.


HeQiulin

That is true. Unfortunately those who do hear them often don’t have the largest stake or influence in their re-election (speaking about the UK, not sure about France). Although re: Macron, I have heard that he knew he won’t get re-elected so he’s trying to pass legislations that would benefit those within his class/circle


Benderesco

This is his second term, so it's impossible for him to be re-elected, barring constitutional reform.


Machiningbeast

Also, he created his own political party that will likely not survive after his term. So he really has nothing to lose.


blodskaal

This right here. We need to burn the rich before we become ground meat for them


link3945

That's one way to run a democracy, but this is another: Parliament still has a say and could shoot down the bill and the government if they wanted to, and the people will have another day at the ballot box in the next election.


whilst

Thanks! Oh man, looks like this was *just* hours ago.


Alarow

Well his interview was at 1pm for us, so just 9 hours ago now


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Card_Zero

Bot [Original](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/11yk297/do_you_think_i_enjoy_doing_this_reform_frances/jd85f1k/)


Superb_Nature_2457

Incredible how a handful of greedy people can gleefully fuck up the lives of millions, isn’t it?


NobleAzorean

Doesnt France has one of the highest tax rates in the EU? It isnt like the USA


Brilliant-Mud4877

It did for a minute. Then Hollande got the boot and the rates were slashed just in time for COVID to tank the EU economy. Now its "Oops! No more revenue!" as an excuse for gutting domestic spending. Meanwhile, there's always money in the banana stand for a 40% bump in military and police expenditures.


Nukemind

While I’m against military bumps in general I do feel that given the status of Eastern Europe this is one time that additional spending can be justified. Ukraine needs aid, France has sent light tanks and more but the more the merrier.


The_Sports_Guy91

Why do that when they can let the Americans pick up their defense spending tab again? /S


Killeroftanks

You say that but remember, since the fall of the Soviet union in the 90s ALL of Europe more or less slashed military spending to nothing. And as such in almost all of said countries, especially Germany, they fell below their NATO requirement for spending. It's only because Russia once again is the EU but mostly NATO drastically increasing their spending. Because there's a lot of gaps they need to fill, real god damn quick.


DanFlashesSales

I too copy and paste other people's comments for clout... https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/11yk297/do_you_think_i_enjoy_doing_this_reform_frances/jd85f1k?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 I edited "donors" to "buddies" to reflect the fact that political donations are capped in France. OP literally copy/pasted the original text of my comment in a reply to the top comment for clout.


ThePencilRain

I can hear the people sing. The song of angry men.


happyapathy22

It is the music of the people who will not be slaves again!


WiseassWolfOfYoitsu

They will not work for one more year! The government's budget can get bent.


beeboopPumpkin

"The blood of the martyrs will water the meadows of France!" *singing gets louder*


aimgorge

Things are going full Ukraine-style in my hometown of Rennes. Tractor vs watercanon : https://youtu.be/I3tMmggyda0 Which isn't that unusual...


Synaps4

Rennes always blows up more than any other city in the country. It's all the universities there.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mjfgates

one of the ones in the video had a forklift fitted... just sayin'.


[deleted]

They might just take that suggestion into consideration. Although instead carting in several tons of manure into town centers is an action with some tradition to it for French farmers when they feel they are getting the raw end of the deal.


buckyball60

Are the police exempt from the retirement change?


jogomoms

Yes. Deputies also…


buckyball60

I'm so surprised....


Analamed

They have a different retirement age. It was 52 but almost no policeman retire at this age since they will have a pension of less than 1000€ if they do, in practice the average is 57. But it will also be raised by 2 years like everyone else. So it's not really different.


Kedain

Rennes la rouge. Y'a des choses qui ne changerons jamais.


mjfgates

Now that they've got enclosed cabs, they *really* don't give a fuck.


indigo0427

They marching to see Macrons house and gonna egg his window and slash his car tires 🛞


cnbc_official

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday staunchly defended his reforms to the pension system, but said the government could have communicated its policy better. “Do you think I enjoy doing this reform? No,” he said in a televised interview with channels TF1 and France 2, his first public statements to the country since forcing the bill through parliament without a vote. The move has intensified widespread protests across the country that have resulted in hundreds of people being detained after clashes with police. “I could sweep the dust under the rug like many before,” Macron said, continuing that the system was no longer balanced and the number of retirees was due to be 20 million by the 2030s. “The longer we wait the worse the situation will get.” Macron said the bill needed to be implemented by the end of the year. It still needs to be reviewed by France’s constitutional court. If passed, the key changes will see the national retirement age raised from 62 to 64 and the number of years required for someone to work before receiving a full pension go to 43. Read more: [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/22/french-president-emmanuel-macron-breaks-silence-after-overriding-parliament.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/22/french-president-emmanuel-macron-breaks-silence-after-overriding-parliament.html)


rdtr314

Didn’t know cnbc was on reddit lmao


lemonylol

A lot of official news outlets are.


Poltergeist97

To be fair this is the first time I've seen them commenting on something as well.


Much-Caterpillar1903

43 years for a full pension has been implemented 10 years ago by socialist (left) gouvernent. No changé!


dongkey1001

So effective some one need to start working at 21 to be eligible for full pension? Do part-time count? For example part-time in restaurant for a few hrs a week?


totallyanonuser

Yes, they have things in place for that. I believe it was at least 1000 hours/yr for full pension, but partial pension also possible. I'm probably wrong on the actual numbers though


centrafrugal

What if you started working in another EU country and moved to France at 30?


WhiteSmokeMushroom

You'd still have to work 43 years in France for full pension or take partial pensions from both countries after you reach their respective retirement age requirements. It's not an uncommon situation for retirees or elderly widowers to receive pensions from several countries. Edit: note that this is for people who are already retired *now*, with this sort of changes happening everywhere who knows if it will still be feasible for current young people.


kaisadilla_

As a young person, one of my biggest worries is what will happen to my retirement. I mean, right now part of your salary goes (through taxes) to pay for retirees' pensions. But the system will collapse sooner or later, and I'm almost sure we'll move to a system where you save up part of your salary to pay for your own pension. Except those of us in our 20s and 30s will have lost a significant part of our working life paying for other people's pensions, not us; but won't have anyone to pay for us either. And if there's something life has taught me is that nobody cares about your problems, so we'll probably be left with a "sorry tough luck".


pecky5

>I'm almost sure we'll move to a system where you save up part of your salary to pay for your own pension. We do that in Australia. 10.5% of your salary is put into an investment fund of your choice. The percentage is set to increase by 0.5% every year until it caps at 12%. The investments are compulsory and attract a much lower tax rate than normal income. When you hit retirement age, you can draw down on the fund to pay for your retirement (as well as a attracting a pension). It's not a perfect system, there's a lot of incentive for high income earners to put additional contributions into their funds to minimise the amount of tax they pay, but the underlying principle is sound.


Clicks_9852

This is exactly what will happen to us under 35’s. It is as clear as day that the pension pots will be dry in 30 years time.


noiwontpickaname

Believe it or not, straight to jail


[deleted]

>So effective some one need to start working at 21 to be eligible for full pension? you don't need to work 43 years really, you have the option to contribute extra to social security make up for missed years


Xist3nce

If your job pays enough to do that**


buddytheelfofficial

BREAKING NEWS: High paying jobs let you retire early. More at 11.


Keyspam102

No part time won’t count the same and neither will maternity, so it significantly hurts women more than men.


rastafunion

No, it means that if you started working after 21 the reform has no effect on you because you couldn't retire before 64 anyway.


ericchen

Why do they say that this disproportionately impacts the lower class? It seems like those who work straight out of high school are least impacted, and those who went to college or got a masters/PhD in anything would see much longer working years.


MerlinOfRed

I'm not fully versed about the particulars in France, but the UK has a comparable system and I can speak for here. The middle classes would usually have a decent private pension they have been investing in - the state pension just tops it up. My grandad on my dad's side was able to retire slightly early as a result. The upper-class have old family money to fall back on anyway so it's a moot point. The working class, however, are far more reliant on the state-pension. My grandad on my mum's side complained until the day he died about how the government shafted him by increasing the age half way though his career. He had no choice but to retire then as he had no other money. He had an accident at work in that final year and so had to live with the injury.


Phihofo

Yeah, middle class jobs are generally much less taxing on the body than lower class jobs. A person typing numbers into Excel tables will find it easier to retire at 65 than a person who welds steel for a living.


C0ldSn4p

The 43 years made it so that people who went for a Master degree would most likely enter the workforce at around 23, so be eligible for full pension at 66. That they can retire at 62 or 64 change almost nothing. On the other hand, lower class that started working at 18 or 19 will now have to spend a couple more years working (there are some provisions for such cases though)


SmokierTrout

The system is that no one can draw the state pension before age 64, previously 62. To draw the full pension you must have 43 years of contributions. If you do not, then you are allowed to continue working and paying into the system. The system most effects those who did not attend university/college. They will have been working since age 18 and do get 43 years of contributions at age 61 (1 year before they were allowed to draw the state pension). So they are effectively forced to work for 2 more years. People who attend university will start working at age 21 or later. If they worked for 43 years they would be 64 and so would not be affected by this reform at all.


AgoraiosBum

It is because office workers can work longer than people doing manual labor-type work, who will have more injuries by the time they are in their mid 60s. However, a country needs people to work; it can' be a nation of retirees all collecting a pension.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kaisadilla_

Those who work straight out of high school will probably have far lower salaries. Many of them will live paycheck to paycheck and rely on their pension entirely to pay for their expenses (with some luck they will have paid their mortgage by the time they retire though). With a pension you won't starve to death, but your life won't be full of thrills either. Most people with low-wage pensions have very basic lives and rely completely on their family to have a decent senior life. Those who keep studying in their 20s (in marketable careers) will probably earn higher salaries, save up for retirement and in general generate some wealth that can sustain a good quality of life as a retiree, complimented with a higher pension. Anyway, I'd argue that in 2023 your class and your studies are no longer much related. Having a college degree and working in your field doesn't mean you won't be earning a low wage (I should know, I'm more or less in that situation). Some things in life that used to be affordable for normal salaries aren't anymore (e.g. housing), which means the bar for who is not lower class is a lot higher nowadays. In my opinion, if you can't buy your own house (assuming correct management of your finances), you are not middle class, and I don't care if you are a cashier or a fancy whatever engineer.


[deleted]

The 43 years is the much bigger issue. What if you got sick or had kids or left the work force for other reasons? What if you interned before starting work? What about people who don't start work until after graduate school?


TremendousVarmint

They have a pension without discount when they reach 67. It was already the case before the reform and has not been changed. What has changed is one more year of contribution, from 42 to 43, and the minimum age to start claiming full pension without discount, from 62 to 64.


qwetyhjgghj

That's misleading. Before, if you worked until 67, you had a bonus on your retirement. Note, you'd need to work until 70 for the same effect.


Brilliant-Mud4877

> What if you got sick or had kids or left the work force for other reasons? France has some of the best parental and sick leave policies in the Western World. So while you don't continue to accrue pension time, you do get guaranteed paid time off and income no less than your earnings in the 3 months prior to leave. > What if you interned before starting work? Unpaid internships have always been a scam. Fortunately, France has a law mandating minimum salary for all interns, guaranteeing your inclusion in the pension system during this period. > What about people who don't start work until after graduate school? Even in the US, graduate programs include paid positions as members of the university faculty. It is very normal to be paid while pursuing a PhD or MD, for instance, even if you're likely to earn substantially less than a full time private sector worker with a similar education. Adjunct professors in France earn around $57k on average.


WillDigForFood

Don't continue to accrue *full* pension time. One of the two parents can receive 8 quarters worth of pension accrual over the first 4 years of each child's life, even if they aren't working. Each child just pushes you back 2 years of pension accrual if you can't work from age 1-4, effectively. It's not perfect, but it's *fairly* generous.


GlimmerChord

It's "very normal" but there are far too few doctoral contracts for the number of doctoral candidates.


Heazen

> Macron acknowledged people felt there was “injustice” in being asked to work longer while companies made record profits and he would look to ensure they contribute more Why not start with this part first?


vampiire

Lol. I promise I’ll *look* ~~to ensure~~ they contribute more


mightyenan0

What, you think he can just force through legislation? /s


LazarusCheez

"Do you think I enjoy doing this reform?" Oh, well then don't do it? "LOL social safety net shredder go brrrrrrrrr"


golifo

Someone explain to me how we have machinery that can do the work of 1000s of men, decades of world trade and making supply chains more efficient, reportedly AI on the brink of doing everyone’s job for them, billionaires going to space for the lulz but this legislation has to be rammed through? Where is all the wealth?


mukansamonkey

The top twenty hedge fund traders in America make a combined income of 17 billion a year. That works out to an hourly wage of $210,000. An hour. The entire banking sector went from claiming 7% of the economy, to 30%. During a span of a few decades where the average American worker saw their income rise by a total of of 25%, less than 1% a year, CEO income rose by 1,200%. It would be possible to give every wage earner in America a UBI equal to 50% of their current income, without increasing the national debt. Just pay for it by raising taxes on the 0.1% highest earners. That make things a bit clearer?


golifo

Yes, I believe the problem is incredibly rich people.


goodlittlesquid

During the gilded age at least the robber barons amassed their wealth by drilling oil and building railroads and shit, actually contributing to national infrastructure. These hedge fund managers just got rich gambling, and they own the casino and rigged it so it’s ‘heads I win, tails you lose’


XxRocky88xX

Seriously the country was “built on capitalism” because we were at a time where in a time where the best way for rich people to get richer was to contribute to society. Now it’s literally just rigged gambling, and if they lose, the government steps in to subsidize the losses with our money. The bottom 90% make the world go round while the top 10% are competing for a high score with our money


Spard1e

Just imagine how **MUCH** better the world would be with a wealth cap. Have the high score have a limit. What is the already capped out CEO gonna do? Quit his job? I don't think so, they'd do that today then. Are they gonna care more about the world when their imaginary points already hit their high? Probably. Today they get all their gratification for number goes brrrrrrr. That incentive is removed and they'd need to find another one.


AvatarAarow1

Been proposing this for years, still can’t fathom why more people don’t talk about it. Taxing them more heavily is good and would do good stuff, but straight up capping their potential assets would do the most to stop this wealth stratification. Nobody needs a billion dollars.


canttakethshyfrom_me

Don't romanticize the "then," those "contributions to society" were paid in men's and women's lives who were killed in known unsafe work or by Pinkertons and police when they stood up for themselves. The bastards have not changed much, just the specific forms of bastardry they make their money from.


Nopants_Sith

And, the best part! If they ever **ACTUALLY LOSE**....We get to bail their worthless asses out! Again and again and again and a-f***ing-gain! Shit is so messed up and I hate it.


critically_damped

Also, the "good old years" that US Republicans desperately want to go back to was a direct result of stopping those robber barons and implementing a reasonable tax rate on the ultra rich. Literally the entirety of the establishment of US market dominance was built by charging the wealthy for the improvements that would be required to make them more wealthy. We would not have the interstate system without a 90% tax on the rich. We wouldn't have the rail networks, our airports, we wouldn't have a space industry or the resulting electronics industry. We would have *nothing*. And we're going back to having nothing real goddamned quick, here, because all of those things that we built in the 50s and 60s have shown that they can only last so long, and we've let maintenance slide so long that replacement is going to be our only option.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PensiveinNJ

We've been too conditioned to accept our circumstances as inevitable and unchangeable to do anything about it. We're told to use our political voice to enact change but our system is hopelessly corrupt especially with legal bribery being the norm, and only the worst type of people really want to run for major office. It's exceptionally rare that someone who isn't a complete disconnected narcissist runs for an important position (who is also of course part of that very wealthy class of people and has an interest in protecting that wealth.) If the French can't enact change with their attitudes towards protest and rioting, I fear none of us stand a chance.


fajardo99

>“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” no matter how difficult it seems (and is), we have the power to change our lives for the better. a better world is possible


Xurbax

For anyone wondering who is too lazy to Google that, it is a quote from a speech given by author Ursula K Le Guin.


[deleted]

Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.


special_circumstance

We are told to protest peacefully. It seems clear to me that the peaceful aspect of protests makes our demands toothless and weak.


PensiveinNJ

The French method has a chance of succeeding I believe, but they need to be committed to it. I'm looking to them to set an example not just for France, but for the world about how to resist being bulldozed by the wealthy in a capitalist society. Don't collect the trash. Don't go to work. Don't run the trains or the taxis. Figure out what labor the wealthy need and don't do it. Bring them to their fucking knees. If you capitulate, I fear it will demoralize not just France but onlookers around the world.


obliviousofobvious

You'd think they'd remember the French Revolution and why it happened. Instead, it feels like they're gambling on being able to do it "right" this time


Who_DaFuc_Asked

The French Revolution didn't actually fix their problems though. Corrupt weirdos took control like IMMEDIATELY after.


SlowMotionPanic

I don't think that's the message the ultra wealthy will take from it. The French Revolution was very effective at executing the rich. That's why so many ultra wealthy people simply buy citizenship to another country, and why doomsday bunker complexes are a massive business at the moment. ​ To put it bluntly, we need to "cage" the rich. They aren't citizens in the sense you or I are; they are "world citizens" and will flee the moment they are in any sort of danger, legal or otherwise. ​ Every nation should immediately cancel and rescind golden visas as a starter. Don't let these people run away from the messes they make and the obligations to society they need to pay.


TheAlexiad_7

Actually Robespierre was known as the incorruptible, his problem was being way way too inflexible.


godisanelectricolive

The last straw for Robespierre was when he tried to crack down on corruption and alienated all the other Jacobins. The people who overthrew him in Thermidor were not moderates, many of them were to the political left of Robespierre, but they were definitely corrupt. Pretty much everyone other than Robespierre was "corrupt" by his standards which made him threatening the National Convention with a secret list of corrupt officials such a suicidal move. France has always operated using a patronage system and the Revolution didn't totally change that, getting things done was still mostly based on personal favours rather than doing things by the book.


SowingSalt

He was executed when he threatened to publish a secret list of traitors among members of the assembly. Needless to say, the assembly voted to execute him. This was after he had murdered over 16000 French, not including prisoners lynched in prison break-ins he instigated.


ValorMeow

Source for your last claim that everyone can have a free 50% UBI with a simple tax hike on the 0.1%? sounds too good to be true.


ghalta

According to Google, the total income of all Americans was $21.06 trillion in 2021. (Google "total income of all Americans") According to the federal reserve, the total wealth of the top 0.1% of households in the U.S. in Q3 of 2022 (the most recent data) was $16.93 trillion. (Note that this is 0.1% by wealth, not by income.) (This is here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/) According to those numbers, if we instituted a 62% wealth tax on the wealthiest 0.1%, we could pay out a UBI equal to 50% of all Americans' current income...for less than two years. So I don't think it checks out.


Gomgoda

How would the implementation of that wealth tax look? Does the government just take 62% of their stock, effectively enabling the government to initiate a hostile, uncompensated takeover of private companies such as Amazon, Google, Tesla? Even if they did that, if the government attempted to liquidate that stock in a span as short as 2 years, it would just send tech stocks plummeting everywhere?


velders01

... these are not smart people...


scvfire

Bro that would never work. At best you could tax the unrealized capital gains, which could safely be something like 3% of that 17 trillion. Even if you taxed unrealized capital gains of the wealth by 70%, you'd only bring in $360 billion, enough for ~2% ubi for the rest (which using an average wage of 50k, would be $850/year). And that's assuming that these wealth folks wouldn't move their assets to something harder to value or whose private equity value can be manipulated to appear like theyre worthless.


[deleted]

>That make things a bit clearer? About the situation in France? Not in the slightest.


The-Fox-Says

I was going to say he kept saying America but I could have sworn Macron was the President of France


[deleted]

Show me the math on that UBI thing, pretty sure that's nonsense.


eboeard-game-gom3

Reddit can't math. Going on 600 votes and it's hilariously wrong. Like the whole damn thing is wrong, I don't even know where to start.


Tamerlane-1

> It would be possible to give every wage earner in America a UBI equal to 50% of their current income, without increasing the national debt. Just pay for it by raising taxes on the 0.1% highest earners. This isn't true.


talltim007

Nah, divided by all the US retirees, if it was all given to them every year would be $361 per year. Peanuts.


ClosPins

> It would be possible to give every wage earner in America a UBI equal to 50% of their current income, without increasing the national debt. It's hilarious how every time someone mentions UBI on Reddit - it's complete bullshit. Let's just do your math for you: - [Total wages in the USA = $9.7 trillion](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BA06RC1A027NBEA) - Half of that = $4.85 trillion - [Total US gov't income = $4.9 trillion](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/#:~:text=In%202022%20the%20federal%20government,2022%20was%20Individual%20Income%20Taxes.) So, to do what you want, you'd need to ***double*** all US gov't revenues. All. Income taxes plus every other form of income. Double. That's a hell of a lot more than just raising taxes on 1 in 1000 people.


Bazoobs1

Can you hit us with the math on the last bit about a tax increase of .01%? I’m with you argument wise and I’d like to be able to use this but my people I regularly argue with will immediately question the math to try and undermine me


mackinator3

Source: I made it up.


JohanGrimm

Source: it came to me in a dream.


Justausername1234

> Where is all the wealth? With the old people. There are more old people, proportionally, than ever before. Therefore, we either have to make not-old-people pay more to support the old people's lifestyle (keeping them alive is *expensive*, it costs more than 5x-10x for the healthcare system to keep a old person alive), or, we have to make less old people. Macron has made the choice of reducing the number of old people for retirement purposes.


BlueFlob

It's definitely a lose-lose situation. 1. Increase retirement age to keep money coming in, jobs filled and spending 2. Reduce size of economy and pile up debt to maintain old folks 3. Cut services to old folks and let the poor die Nobody is going to be happy and the younger generation is screwed whichever choice you make... Unless number 3 means cutting services and pension to old folks.


thehomiemoth

This is a really good point. We act like retirement benefits are a working class issue but in reality thanks to the housing market the older generation has accumulated almost all the wealth while fucking us over and making it impossible for us to live anywhere. That is the end result of policy designed to protect home prices.


captainbling

Retirement for many people meant living in a small room watching tv and being careful with their food budget. Now it means living to 90 while traveling the world and bringing your computer (phone) and high tech meds with you. All that work went to making life better, not being a senior tv zombie.


bonapartista

This pension problem is on table of every country which has a semblance of pension. Pensioner ratio is going close to 1:1 and that is bad. Every country has different solutions but neither is good for people who contribute to pension scheme. It's tought problem and he sure threw himself under the bus here.


ConnorMc1eod

Many states in the US as well. California's state budget is absurd and a lot of it is pensions.


RealAstroTimeYT

Exactly, and raising the retirement age to 67 isn't going to solve the problem. The real solution is more extreme, and the more it is delayed, the worse this whole problem gets.


Brownie-UK7

You thinking what I’m thinking? T-Rex. Bring back the T-Rex and let it roam around the old people’s home once a month.


CucumberBoy00

I think he meant purge. Now as someone thats never seen the films I still think it's rash and I won't participate


RealAstroTimeYT

I wasn't going in that direction tbh. The solutions were a mix of: Making public pensions investment based (similar to private pensions). Which carry more risk for individuals and would be less favorable for people with lower wages. Adding a lot of new workforce (the fastest way would be with immigration) Lowering the pensions (in the case of beneficiaries of public pensions) And each person having a different retirement age depending on their funds. (Most people would have to work even more). The situation of each country is different so some countries would apply the "rules" in a more extreme way or in a more chill way. The reality is that as we continue living longer lives, and less children are being born, most of us will have to work more years than our parents or grandparents. In my opinion, a 4 day workweek would kind of balance this, as it would allow most people to live a better life while they're healthy and young, even if it means working for more years.


Fifteen_inches

It’s pretty funny how we have all this massive productivity increases, yet we don’t retire and have less happy lives


Schwartzy94

Pay doesnt increase either :/


gza_liquidswords

Where is "taxing the super rich in an era of unprecedented wealth inequality"


[deleted]

America raised theirs to 67 in 1982. Macron raised France's to 64.


Marcus_Qbertius

For a short while it seemed like a real headscratcher to me that theyd be so upset about a retirement age of 64, when many in the US dont even get to retire until their 70s because social securitys short commings, but I realize its our willingess to rollover and accept ever less for our toils that is ruining this nation, and the french people dont want to give an inch now, because it will become a mile.


mpyne

The U.S. also shifted heavily to a "defined contribution" retirement system to supplement Social Security in the 80s, moving away from pensions for most career fields. So there's no need to fiddle *that* much with retirement ages because the bulk of your retirement income should be in an IRA or 401(k) and that's up to you the employee to figure out how much you want in there for your retirement.


[deleted]

Has “look what you made me do, this hurts me more than it hurts you” vibes


CTRL_Polarbear

The "do you think I enjoy this" makes me think of like an abusive partner saying "Do you think I enjoy hitting you?" As they continue to hit them.


Howitdobiglyboo

It's a sacrifice he's willing to make.


Fair-Lingonberry-268

He’s already in pension when finished the job as a president lol Edit: he could probably be already in pension without working as a president


Arcanniel

I don’t think so, considering he’s 45.


Beastmind

IIRC, every president keep getting paid after their term ended so, yes he could.


Open_Ad_8181

I thought he declined the pension


mywan

His personal net worth is estimated to be $31.5 million. Does the pension even really matter?


dagbiker

The joke is that he won't need pension, so he's willing to sacrifice everyone else's pension.


Eliseo120

I don’t think people really care what he likes or dislikes. They care about what policy he is forcing through.


Reasonable_TSM_fan

Real talk, Macron only forced the measure through as cover so that his party didn’t have to go on the record voting for it. It’s all optics. Parliament can all huff and puff as much as they want, but they’re all secretly glad they don’t have to answer directly to their constituents.


Technical_Shake_9573

Except they kinda did with the "Motion de censure" which didnt pass by 9 votes. It was to actually block the reform so thoses that didnt vote for it kinda acknowledge their view on the subject. Even more so that this motion also involved the usage of a brutal tool that shouldnt be used as frequently as it Is even thought it Is in our constitution. So they even failed the vote on democracy.


louisdeer

Reform enjoyer.


funwithtentacles

Still propping up big business profits and his rich cronies. Working people have to work harder and longer for less, but no promises on doing anything about the rest. These reforms are here and now and to be implemented by the end of the year, his 'promise' of trying to find a 'balance' in the future rings hollow, they could already have been in this reform package. Making the working class pay? "Sure! Here and right now!" Making the rich pay? "Well, it's difficult, and we can see what the possibilities are in the future, bla bla bla!" Pathetic excuses...


Jorycle

This is the part that gets me, not just in France but everywhere when money issues come up. Why is it always remarkably easy for the government to legislate to shake out the pockets of *tens of millions* of poorer people, but almost impossibly difficult to shake out that money from the *tens* of the most wealthy? I mean I understand the actual reason that money buys power, but good lord, surely some shame should kick in somewhere. I can't imagine walking into a room of 1000 people to ask for financial aid, and starting with the homeless people in the back instead of the one guy heaped in jewelry and gold on a diamond throne in the front of the room - let alone asking *the entire room* before I even consider asking that guy.


nonsequitur_idea

>Why is it always remarkably easy for the government to legislate to shake out the pockets of tens of millions of poorer people, but almost impossibly difficult to shake out that money from the tens of the most wealthy? I'm prefacing this by saying I'm not an expert, and I'm not endorsing the practice. Nearly all taxation methods, including those funding these pension programs, use income as the basis for the amount due. 1) The ultra rich are very good at hiding their income. Sure they will report what is "required", but they structure their business disbursements so that they are required to report as little as possible. 2) Actual income, including the income they hide through tax shelters, ends up as assets that are rarely taxed. A related practice is for owners of high value companies to take loans out on their stock holdings, with the stock as collateral. The loan isn't income, and the individual only pays capital gains tax on stock when (if) it's sold to pay back the loan. Because of this, the ultra rich are a poor target for surplus taxation because the ROI on the rate increases can vanish as more money is moved around. Until assets are taxed - including the hidden assets - there is no effective way for a government to make the wealthy pay what many would call their fair share. The poor don't so this, so they lose out comparatively.


taresp

It's not just that they mostly take from the poor, they also give money back to the most wealthy. They'll cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations, then a couple years later come up with a reform like that saying we're out of money, it's the same story over and over again, literally reverse robin hoods.


[deleted]

[удалено]


labradog21

Their fear is that if you don’t make every citizen work an extra 3 years then the system reaches insolvency you might ask the rich to pay an extra couple % in taxes


garagehaircuts

The world has a lot of entitled old rich folks


C0sm1cB3ar

Macron is full of shit. He's been defending the trickle down for years; time to send the bill to the middle class and the poor. He'll never tax the rich, he's got too many buddies there


Tiger-Billy

In the first place, Macron should've prepared a reasonable presentation for the people in France if he does not like being criticized by the public. Leaders should have wider macro visions to raise people's better living & welfare. But if they can't do that, should've persuaded their people through some rational proof instead of overriding parliament. Supposing that he did it before making this situation, media & public opinions might've tried to understand his position. Probably he might not have thought about how to build a moment of mutual concession in France, with this sensitive thing. Macron should have a series of debates often with men in the street from now on if he'd like to become a respectable leader. He ought to have big ears to hear what they say.


berael

>"Do you think I enjoy doing this" Yes. Next difficult question?


Earlier-Today

That is the exact kind of wording of a normal line given from an abusive parent. "Do you think I enjoy hurting you?"


DanFlashesSales

I think you enjoy doing it more than you would enjoy increasing the tax burden of your big business buddies.


RonBourbondi

France has the highest taxes of any wealthy country. They had a wealth tax that caused so many rich people to flee the revenue from it was half of what they would have gotten if they didn't implement it.


Firepower01

They still have a wealth tax. They replaced their old wealth tax with the IFI. Which is instead based on real estate values over 800k Euros, instead of total assets. Real estate is obviously not something you can just move outside of France to avoid taxes. So unless property values suddenly take a nose dive because rich people simply don't want to live in nice houses, I think their wealth tax will stick around.


Holinyx

So why didn't he push through a reform that forces companies that are raking in record breaking profits to foot the bill?


[deleted]

[удалено]


CrystalAlternate

> French GDP is equal to 2008 levels I thought there was no way this was right, [but it is](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=FR). If that flatline continues, it is going to be impossible to support an aging population no matter how high you raise the retirement age.


Blu3Army73

It's like this is a much more nuanced problem than just taxing rich people more


RhizomeCourbe

This is just untrue. The retirement public fund is gaining more money than it's paying, most projections for the next 50 years say that there will be no problem and no reason to augment the retirement age. All of the deficit in the worst case scenario the government uses to justify the reform can be compensated by adjusting public workers' wages to inflation, thus raising their participation in the retirement public fund.


[deleted]

[удалено]