Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "What Does Le Pen Actually Plan To Do? - TLDR News" video.

@striker8795 So France is the most taxed country in the world according to you, and yet it can't pay for all these benefits? So how are you going to pay for more benefits with a lower taxes? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
91
@MikeS_PP If EU laws and core values can be ignored by just putting the opposite in a national law, the EU can't exist. If a country doesn't like to follow EU laws (in which they have a say), they should leave the EU or try to have the law changed on EU level.
16
So you rather have the rich becoming richer and the poor to suffer more? Because that is what scrapping the inheritance tax would do. Besides, any kind of wealth transferance gets taxed. If you can only tax it once, there wouldn't be anything left to tax after a few years.
8
If anything in order to stand up to the US you need a strong Europe, the opposite of what Le Pen will do. The only thing Le Pen's foreign policies would lead to is either bigger dependence on large countries (US, Russia, ...) or just isolationism and not caring about what happens elsewhere, something that didn't exactly benefit the US pre-WW2.
5
It is in a large part her appealing benefits proposals. This has been a common thread against Macron, that he couldn't improve the lives of people struggling financially and that he wants to reform the social-economic structure in such a way it wouldn't be actually in favour of many groups (like pension age, farming, ...). The thing is, France already spends most on the social-economic benefits in all the OECD countries if I remember correctly, so any problems aren't going to be fixed by just increasing it even more. Essentially Le Pen is using wing populist policies (without caring if she can actually achieve that) and right wing populist policies on defense. Either or both appeal to a lot of people.
4
@striker8795 And yet I can't find years where France has the highest tax rate, can you cite me some sources and years?
3
@striker8795 And yet that same OECD puts Denmark higher than France in total tax rate in 2021. Also What is more interesting is the fact that France spends most on social policies of any OECD country.
2
@00dude3 Only if it is done incorrectly. If done correctly you first and foremost would use a progressive inheritance tax, secondly you'd make sure there are no loopholes. If you've done that, surely it is better to keep an inheritance tax where people inheriting 100k for example pay 30-40k, while people inheriting 100million pay for example 70 million? Remember if you eliminate that tax, you need to either increase tax elsewhere or decrease spenditure, both of which would likely be not in the interests of the poor and middle class, since social plans are most likely cut first and tax on the middle class also will be one of the first to be raised. Rich people inheriting a lot of money will just keep increasing that wealth and then pass on more wealth to their children who again will increase that wealth even further. Wealth creates wealth is a quite correct statement. Why? Because people who get such large inheritances can invest it in companies, stocks, ... and do this with the help of expensive experts. Moreover they have the opportunity to hire the best accountants to evade as much taxes as possible too. In the end an inheritance tax is essential to not have the gap between rich and poor spiral out of control. But as with all things, it needs to be done correctly.
2
Well, if look further than just her social promises, that is pretty much what her manifesto screams.
1
@UCRCGpyFupwLoWw5er5MmBeQ The result of raising and lowering taxes is not a zero-sum gain. You can lower taxes and increase government revenue. The theory is that lower taxes increases productivity and thus income, but this takes time, longer than Trumps presidency. Any increase of the income due to the increased economy is an after effect of Obama era policies. Moreover time after time it has been proven that this trickle down theory holds no merit in the end. He lowered taxes across the board which increased government revenue to the highest levels in US history at the same time lowering unemployment to the lowest levels in US history (before the pandemic). The unemployment under Trump just followed the same trend already happening during the later years of the Obama administration. Moreover I believe under Trump the definition of unemployment as used by the government was also changed in his favor. The real unemployment under Trump right before the pandemic had just reverted to pre-2008 economic crisis levels, again, following the curve that started under Obama. After the great depression, it also took around 10-15 years to revert back to normal levels. Also if we compare 2016 Obama revenue vs 2019 Trump revenue, accounting for inflation, 2016 saw a greater revenue than 2019. Government revenue almost always increases year after year in absolute numbers due to an increase in inflation. If we compare it to the GDP, in 2019 government revenue was equal to 16,1% of GDP, while this was 17,4% in 2016. Moreover when we look at the deficit, Obama's deficit in 2016 was around $585 billion dollar, Trumps in 2019 was $984 billion. Even accounting for inflation or GDP increase it would be (a lot) higher under Trump. Moreover Trumps tax cuts actually will automatically increase taxes for the middle class after few years, to a higher level than before, only keeping taxes for business lower than before.
1
@striker8795 Except that the huge part of the taxes are levied not to repay the debt but to pay social assistance, allowances and all state aid. Which even more shows that France can't afford higher social spending or lower taxes. 25% of our GDP is devoted to the payment of aid. Actually social spending is 31% of GDP according to OECD numbers for 2019. But you have no idea because you don't live in this country. This is a bullshit argument. French people don't automatically have a better understanding of all their taxes, definitely not compared to other countries, so in the end they'd still have to research it. Where? The internet ofcourse, which obviously is also accessible for people outside France. Anyway, taxes are high in France, doesn't matter if they are highest or not. The fact that taxes are already high to pay for current benefits and Le Pen wants to increase those benefits even more shows that either taxes will have to increase, things remain the same or benefits get cut. In any scenario Le Pens plans are essentially fairy tales meant to mislead people.
1
@teaser6089 There was a commenter that invoked his policies to 'prove' that you can lower taxes while increasing government revenue, his comment seems to since have dissapeared. I am assuming you are refering to my second to last comment right? Or did I mention him elsewhere too that I can't see? Any bold text in my comments is what the other commenter said first and that I reacted to, just so you know.
1
@dalibornovakovic93 1) this isn't at all going to bring in enough money, just a fraction of the needed funds. 2) people are not going to like that they work, but don't get any benefits/securities. Especially the highly educated workers are likely going to act on this and move to another country, and these are exactly the kind of immigrants you want to have. 3) If it were to save so much money (which again I seriously doubt), that also means a lot of people would lose benefits, which will cause great unrest. Even if we are very generous and say that on average such a person would lose around 20k in benefits annually (which is highly overexaggerated), we'd be talking about 2,5 million people losing benefits, or around 3-4% of Frances population. The yellow vests movement will be nothing compared to what this would cause. Even if I lower the total cost of Le Pen's program to 10 billion (which is even lower thna Macrons, so unlikely), we are talking about 500k people losing 20k annual benefits, that still is an insane number.
1
@Sombre____ Only if you also cut or streamline existing benefits, Le Pen promises to significantly increase benefits. Both is impossible.
1
@Sombre____ LMAO, politicians would be happy if they can lower taxes without touching benefits, it increases the chance of them getting re-elected. But sure, vot for Le Pen and see your hope gets pushed into the ground or France's debt grow to unsustainable numbers.
1
Forcing someone to wear a scarf is not okay, but forcing someone not to wear a scarf is? That is essentially what a head scarf ban would come down to, just being hypocrite.
1