What does this mean ??????

[idun]

I have just listened to them talking about this on the news tonight :-

Taux record de prélèvement obligatoire en 2013: 46,3% du PIB

And I simply do not understand, so does anyone know and what meaning does it have in ordinary people's everyday lives. And if you know, could you keep the answer in simple terms please.

Thankyou

[EuroTrash]

I believe PIB means gross domestic product.

So I take the headline to mean that in 2013 the total amount of taxes collected by the government amounted to nearly half of France's GDP. Which is a record.

As to its meaning in everyday life, well mainly it just confirms what we know already, that taxes in France are too high.

If that helps at all.

[YCCMB]

I know, a tax by any other name......but "tax" includes Social charges, and I think it's those which have raised the total, rather than taxes which, as long as you aren't Gerard Depardieu , are not so bad.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Wow.

Wasn't there an article somewhere that you don't actually start being able to keep the money that you earn until around July in France? Everything you earn before then just gets taken by the government. I feel that's just ridiculous.

[WendyG]

No, a Frenchman told me this recently.   Apparently it used to be May before.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Great incentive to want to work, n'est pas???

[idun]

I thank you all.  That is what I thought it meant, but then when I thought about it, it just sounded tooooo much. And they had said it was a record, and so it is, but dear me, talk about hitting people hard.

[NormanH]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]I know, a tax by any other name......but "tax" includes Social charges, and I think it's those which have raised the total, rather than taxes which, as long as you aren't Gerard Depardieu , are not so bad.[/quote]

But that distinction is a bit academic in that most people working in France pay both...

[Lehaut]

[quote user="Mr Ceour de Lion II"]Wow.

Wasn't there an article somewhere that you don't actually start being able to keep the money that you earn until around July in France? Everything you earn before then just gets taken by the government. I feel that's just ridiculous.

[/quote]

Its13 May for the UK, 26 July for France and 8 Aug for Belgium.

[YCCMB]

I know, Norman, I know...as do people in the UK, where the taxes , AFAIK, are higher, but the social charges much lower.

Some time ago, there was much made of the fact that Tracey Emin (of whom my opinion is not printable) announced with some fanfare that she was considering moving to France "because taxes are much lower than the UK". Clearly, her maths is even weaker than her spelling.

All I know is that running a tiny business in the UK costs me not a lot more than a tenner a month in NI contributions. Doing the same in France would not be financially viable, I suspect.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Tax freedom day for me in the US is 9 April :)

[Lehaut]

[quote user="Mr Ceour de Lion II"]Tax freedom day for me in the US is 9 April :)

[/quote]

And the day for when you have paid for your health care?

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

18 days later. That's for me and the wife.

[Holedigger]

"Tax freedom day for me in the US is 9 April :)"

Since we're including social charges how would you consider the prospect of needing medical attention in the US compared to in France?

Generally I think you do get a feeling of getting some value for money from the French tax and social charges.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Absolutely fine. I have insurance. As per my previous post, my insurance adds an extra 18 days if you want to include that. Not happy with Obamacare though, that looks very bad and will sadly add to the tax days for very little value.

I'm not sure you get true value for your money though, especially with socialist governments who spend, spend, spend.

[Holedigger]

The US health system is the most expensive in the world but was only ranked at position 38 in the world by the WHO. French socialist governments have at least got something right here.

France and the US have different social objectives, expectations and attitudes. I don't think that dick-waving about how little tax some people pay brings much to the table.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Yep, I agree, the French do have a better system than the US when it comes to healthcare. Obamacare is likely to make it even worse and more expensive. But it's all the other things that you pay for in tax in France that tends to make it harder to bare. I wouldn't mind paying up to 25% if it included healthcare, but any more than that is a tad too much. Governments have a bad record when it comes to spending other people's money, I would prefer to be in control of my money myself. I spend it more wisely.

[YCCMB]

Thing is, you could easily and (IMO) justifiably compare French or US healthcare with the option open to UK residents of obtaining private health insurance. The fundamental difference being that, in the UK, if you want to do so you can, but you don't have to. AFAIK, it's possible to obtain private healthcare more cheaply in the UK, you don't have to worry about exemption for pre-existing conditions because those are still treated on the NHS if not covered, the level of care and service for private healthcare is certainly as good as (if not better than) you'd get in either France or the US, and you're paying for it by choice rather than having no alternative. And if you prefer not to opt for private healthcare, you're getting treatment on the NHS for the cost of a proportion of your NI contributions, which is, as we all know, a fraction of the cost of your contributions plus top-ups in either of the other two countries.

[Holedigger]

Today the US government is being shut down by a petulant Congress over the prospect of affordable healthcare.

Never mind, people can use their own money to make passports, run courts and manage the national parks.

That wouldn't be the French way but then, we do pay more tax.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

The French would simply go on strike.

Now you can see why Americans don't like paying much tax, because of the ineptness of the idiots in charge.

And this is exactly why people don't want healthcare in the government's hands.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Mr Ceour de Lion II"]

And this is exactly why people don't want healthcare in the government's hands.

[/quote]

Obviously I got it wrong when I read about Obamacare. I

thought it was about health insurance companies not being allowed to refuse

people insurance, not differentiating between men and women, not putting premiums

up if you have a long term health problem or in short reducing their ability to

rob people of their hard earned money with crippling premiums which lead to

massive and often obscene profits. Likewise to stop pharmaceutical companies

from charging well over the top for drugs and putting the ill second to

profits.

Certain groups in the UK point to the wealth of Tory party

members and MP’s and how they only look after the rich. Watching the senators last

night on Capital Hill I thought the Tories looked quite left wing in

comparison. Clearly they would rather grind the country in to the ground (note

that it needs much grinding) than save the lives of its own people.

Then I look at the photos of the thousands of people still

living in mobile homes because their houses still have not been rebuilt after hurricane

Katrina.

Perhaps these things should be in the hands of the government. It would certainly make them more accountable to the people who at least can vote them out of office when the time comes. Perhaps thats why they don't want control of these things, frightened of loosing their seat, easier to say 'not my doing' and live off the gravy train just like UK PM's and their expences.

[Pommier]

As the saying goes 'society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable' and if I was disabled, sick or unemployed, I wouldn't want to be an American citizen.

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

Well, the poorest do get excellent healthcare. As do the rich. It's the middle class that has to pay for it all. Obamacare ensures the middle class keeps paying. Obamacare ensures that premiums and taxes will go up. Health insurance under Obamacare will be worth very little. The best healthcare companies aren't even in the system. Top corporations and politicians have opted out of it. Small businesses will suffer because of it, as higher taxes and premiums will be put on them. There will be job losses as businesses aim to get below the 50 employee threshold where businesses become responsible for their employees healthcare. Those that don't provide it will be fined, but the fines will be less than the cost of coverage. More tax will be applied to people, and premiums will go up because of the extra burden. It should be one way or the other, not both.

It sounds like many have read the "good" points about Obamacare. I too thought it might be good, but looking deeper and deeper into it, I realise I will be better to keep with my own insurance.

The healthcare system over here does need a big overhaul. Obamacare doesn't do that.

Keep the taxes low, (particularly on small business), get more people employed, and let them afford their own care. This system seems to only try to cure the cancer, rather than prevent it. Get more of those 47% of non tax payers working by dropping tax rates down, and many problems should ease.

Obama would have been better off trying to attack the high costs, which would in turn lead to a drip down effect of lowering the premiums. Then insurance would become affordable, as it was in the early days.

Not saying the republicans are any better, but look at the cock up in Washington right now. How anyone would want to put their health care in those hands. And it's the same the world over. Except more expensive (taxwise). The simple fact is, America can't afford Obamacare right now.

Healthcare is something that should have nothing to do with the federal government. I believe it should up to the individual states to sort out themselves. It's too big an issue for federal.