Report says Tax Breaks hurt the French Economy

carmen510

Deity
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
8,126
Location
NESing Forums
France 24: Tax Breaks hurt French Economy, report says

According to a new 6,000-page report given to members of parliament, fewer than half of all tax deductions on the books benefit France’s economy. Still, ministers are reluctant to close the loopholes.

Two-thirds of France’s tax breaks are ineffective or only slightly benefit the economy, an official report has said. These legal tax deductions deprive the government of €39.7 billion each year, the report added, according to a leading French daily.

The 6,000-page document said it carefully studied all the 538 tax deductions on the books in France. These include both breaks on income tax payments and reductions in social taxes, such as unemployment tax. It said 19% of them were ineffective and 47% scarcely useful.

“Changing [the tax breaks] could help simplify the tax code, and lead to a fairer distribution of public spending,” said the text by France’s General Inspectorate of Finance (IGS), a government auditing group that depends on the finance ministry, according to the right-leaning Le Figaro newspaper.

Many of the tax deductions deemed inefficient in the IGS’s study are likely to be questioned when lawmakers pass France’s next budget in September, and some promise to be the subject of heated debate in parliament.

Among the most costly to the state are the tax breaks on financial investments in France’s overseas territories and on hiring nannies, home nurses and cleaning staff. The report said these loopholes mainly benefitted France’s richest households.

The findings, presented to MPs by the office of Prime Minister François Fillon on Friday, came at a time when President Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservative government has asked for greater fiscal discipline and tried to launch a national debate on reducing the public debt.

But despite the report’s recommendations, France’s recently appointed finance minister, François Baroin, did not immediately jump at the opportunity to get rid of all the fiscal loopholes the IGS said could be hurting France’s economy.

While some "inefficient" tax breaks are already on the finance ministry’s chopping block, others could prove difficult to get rid of. The more controversial ones include a tax exemption on overtime pay and deductions on pensioners’ incomes.

Lifting taxes on overtime pay was a key measure introduced by President Sarkozy as part of his highly publicised plan to let French workers “earn more by working more”. But this key campaign promise was delivered in 2006, before the global recession forced employers to drastically cut back on employees.

"The thing to understand is that this tax exemption is difficult to justify in times of high unemployment because companies may prefer to use overtime rather than hiring," said Mathieu Plane of the French Observatory of Economic Conditions, a university research group.

Doing away with this specific tax break, whose effects the IGC said were questionable, could be seen as an indictment of Sarkozy’s economic policy less than a year away from the 2012 presidential election.

Rubbing out a 10% tax deduction in pensioners’ incomes could also be potentially harmful for Sarkozy, whose reform to raise the retirement age remains one of the most unpopular moves of his tenure.

The report said that closing a tax loophole on investments in France’s overseas territories and Corsica could add €4.7 billion annually to state coffers. Officially, these deductions exist to spur investment and check the economic isolation of places like the islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique in the Caribbean.

But according to Plane, in practice, the deduction does little to create economic growth. “It is clear that these investments are largely a cover for tax exemption,” he told FRANCE 24.

Breaks for hiring domestic workers were also criticised by the IGS for only benefitting France’s wealthiest. These cost France €6 billion each year, the group said.

However, some counter that, while expensive, this fiscal measure does help fight unemployment. "Some 3.5 million people employ more than 1.7 million workers in their home,” said the Federation of private employers (FEPEM) in a statement issued on Monday.

On the same day, Valerie Pecresse, France's budget minister, told Europe 1 radio that the government "would continue employment subsidies," suggesting this tax break, like many others, would not be reviewed.

Commissioned by the prime minister’s office, the report took over a year to complete, Le Figaro reported.

Do you think such tax breaks and exemptions should be axed, in order to increase government revenues and eliminate loopholes?

If these tax breaks and exemptions are removed, how will this affect the French economy?

Should the United States conduct similar reviews of tax exemptions? What do you think would come out of such a report? Do you see any similarities between the situation in France and the situation in the United States, in relation to government revenues and public finances?
 
I expect you'd find similar effects in any economy. All these tax breaks are popular because people and companies can lobby for them more easily than a government outlay. And popular with politicians because they can easily do people favors without "spending public money". And it can all be justified under the fake "letting people keep their own". But there really isn't much reason to believe many of these things would be effective for the economy as a whole. You could probably wipe out nearly all loopholes and lower rates a bit and get better results.
 
I expect you'd find similar effects in any economy. All these tax breaks are popular because people and companies can lobby for them more easily than a government outlay. And popular with politicians because they can easily do people favors without "spending public money". And it can all be justified under the fake "letting people keep their own". But there really isn't much reason to believe many of these things would be effective for the economy as a whole. You could probably wipe out nearly all loopholes and lower rates a bit and get better results.

This post just oozes wisdom.
 
Why does everything have to be about "the economy". how about the citizen whose money it was to begin with? Justify the absolute necessity of every single tax or abolish that tax.
 
The public justifies the expenditures through who they elect. Given the level of expenditures the voter decides on, taxes have to equal that.
 
I expect you'd find similar effects in any economy. All these tax breaks are popular because people and companies can lobby for them more easily than a government outlay. And popular with politicians because they can easily do people favors without "spending public money". And it can all be justified under the fake "letting people keep their own". But there really isn't much reason to believe many of these things would be effective for the economy as a whole. You could probably wipe out nearly all loopholes and lower rates a bit and get better results.

Don't remind me. In the Netherlands, we have a heavy mortgage interest rate reduction which is hugely popular, despite it increases housing prices and allows the highest incomes to deduct so much they have less tax liabilities than lower incomes.

Democracy can be such a ******ed political system if the voters are uninformed enough.
 
Why does everything have to be about "the economy". how about the citizen whose money it was to begin with? Justify the absolute necessity of every single tax or abolish that tax.

How is it their money to begin with? If a person earns a certain amount of money under a capitalist system, it is not necessarily rightfully deserved.

Consider a shopkeeper who sells trout. If demand is such that he sells 10 trout, he makes $100. If demand is such that he sells 12 trout, he makes $120. Does that mean that his $100 or $120 is rightfully deserved? Is merit determined by certain things that could easily be named "random chance"?

What about a second shopkeeper who wants to open the same business, but gets to it just a bit too late, and is now out of a job - at least for a week or two. Does the first shopkeeper rightfully deserve the entire $1000-$1500 he has more than the second shopkeeper?

Consider two factory workers doing the same jobs, but in different areas earning different amounts. Are the exact sums they make rightfully theirs to begin with, regardless of the amount?

How about a corporation that pays tons in taxes to a government that provides various services that ensure political stability, economic stability, military protection, and so on. Is the amount paid in taxes the corporation's to begin with? Or is it an appropriate levy for services rendered?
 
How is it their money to begin with? If a person earns a certain amount of money under a capitalist system, it is not necessarily rightfully deserved.

Well, from a detailed picture no. Because - as you pointed out - there is a certain amount of chance involved. However, by the big picture, it usually is. If certain economic activities do not yield a profit and only loss, no matter how hard you try, you might want to reconsider what you are doing. And that is basically why capitalism is usually the best system, just not the perfect system.
 
Why does everything have to be about "the economy". how about the citizen whose money it was to begin with? Justify the absolute necessity of every single tax or abolish that tax.

I agree with the first sentence.

I'd change "Absolute" necessity to "Reasonable" necessity. Technically we don't NEED any government to exist, but life would be far worse.

I think a better idea is "If the tax isn't both fair and reasonably necessary to run a small but efficient government, eliminate it."
 
In a way, it kind of makes sense. Say there's Company A and Company B. Company A gets a tax break while Company B doesn't. Since Company A gets to keep more of their initial profits, they don't have to work as hard as Company B, who has to work harder to keep their profits.

Company B has to hire more people to make the same profits as Company A, thus putting more spending money into the hands of people to spend money on products other companies produce, whereas Company A can get away with hiring fewer people, thus putting less spending money into people who'll buy less goods that'll result in less sales for other companies.
 
Why does everything have to be about "the economy". how about the citizen whose money it was to begin with? Justify the absolute necessity of every single tax or abolish that tax.

When are theese stupid plebs gonna understand whats good for them, huh? They NEED a 90% tax rate on there income they just don't know it yet! :rolleyes:
 
When are theese stupid plebs gonna understand whats good for them, huh? They NEED a 90% tax rate on there income they just don't know it yet! :rolleyes:

You only have the ability to make that money because of what the government does. So since you would not be making that money without the government, why don't you accept that you have to pay for the government?


tax breaks hurt the economy or the treasury?


Either or both, depending on which you are talking about. A lot of targeted tax cuts can distort the economy in ways that have negative results.
 
From the article:

It said 19% of them were ineffective and 47% scarcely useful.

100%-19%-47% = 34%.

So, 34% of the tax breaks were > scarcely useful? And 47% were scarcely useful? Unless my math is wrong, then these tax breaks seem more useful than not useful.

What's this article lobbying for, anyway? From what I can tell, the statistics seem to favor tax breaks.
 
Tax breaks hardly ever make any economic sense: They only exist to appease popular opinion and nothing more. Period
 
Please stop using the terms "small and big government." They're meaningless buzzwords.

This is simply and fundamentally untrue. Unless you assume that Nazi Germany had the same size government as the United Kingdom during that period, there are definitely differences.

When are theese stupid plebs gonna understand whats good for them, huh? They NEED a 90% tax rate on there income they just don't know it yet! :rolleyes:
:lol:

But people won't put the bill on themselves, they'll put it on other people. Generally the rich. Unless they are rich, then they sometimes want to put it on the poor.
 
You only have the ability to make that money because of what the government does. So since you would not be making that money without the government, why don't you accept that you have to pay for the government?

When did I say otherwise?
Seriously you gotta stop the strawmanning, anything less then Cutlass level taxation and spending and regulation = somalian anarchy.
 
From the article:



100%-19%-47% = 34%.

So, 34% of the tax breaks were > scarcely useful? And 47% were scarcely useful? Unless my math is wrong, then these tax breaks seem more useful than not useful.

What's this article lobbying for, anyway? From what I can tell, the statistics seem to favor tax breaks.

I'm guessing that "scarcely useful" would mean the amount of money "spent" produced a negligible benefit which did not justify the costs.
 
Seriously you gotta stop the strawmanning
This from the guy who wrote
When are theese stupid plebs gonna understand whats good for them, huh? They NEED a 90% tax rate on there income they just don't know it yet!
Oh the irony.
 
Top Bottom