The "taxes on the rich" is only a part of the tax debate since they amount to a very little part of the national wealth. Even of the rich were taxed to 90% it would improve the resoources of the state minimally. "Taking from the rich to give to the poor" sells politically but allows politicians from all tendencies not to cut into the pork or to do needed reforms. Because that would piss off the nomenclatura and imply that you might not be reelected.
On the spending side, of course it's right to want efficiency. But the complaint that, in France, the State wastes huge sums of money is an old saw of the right. I heard Bayrou bring it out last week on TV. After saying he would make education a priority (good, I agree, and Bayrou is credible on education), he was asked how to pay for it. Reduce spending elsewhere, there's so much waste, he said. All that paperwork. Do you know you need an authorisation from the prefecture to hold a Vide-grenier? (Kind of car trunk sale).
He didn't get a follow-up question, more's the pity, on just how much he thought he would gain (to pay for major investment in education) by doing away with the prefectoral authorisation for Vide-greniers. The truth in all this is that the State would only save money by massively reducing public service jobs. That is something no candidate, Bayrou included, is going to promise. Especially as there is no guarantee of the private sector taking up the slack on the job market, nor any guarantee of greater public-service efficiency afterwards.
You've mentioned 50% administrative costs in French healthcare before, I think. Can you point us to a source for it?
You don't need an authorisation to have a yard sale in France as a private person. It goes through normally an association (like a sport one, neighbourhood association etc...) which have a general authorisation. The problem is that the system is often misused by professional salesmen to evade tax. So I don't what Bayrou meant, but he probably didn't mean to finance efficiency with that measure. I suppose it was an example and a bad example. He could have taken "the formation professionelle" (mostly education given to unemployed) thet costs round 60 billions Euros yearly and has proven completely inefficient.
France has 2000 billions Euros in debt The deficit of the trade balance is 30 million Euros the state cannot longer collect enough money with taxes to provide the basic public services, next year it will have to borrow 20% of the expense.
the latest socialist response is to tax the French abroad ! I thought that DSK was more intelligent than that. One thing is sure, he lost about 250 000 votes.
Regarding the cost of the administration of healthcare in France I am pretty sure of my statement, I'll try to find a link soon.
Sweden had relatively the same problem than France 1995 and was nearly bought by Soros. They kicked about one third of their civil servants. It saved them.
Année Dette publique en % du PIB Déficit public en milliards d'euros Déficit public en % du PIB Dette publique en milliards d'euros
1978 21 % -4,5 -1,3 % 72,8 1979 21 % +0,3 +0,1 % 82,8 1980 20,8 % +0,7 +0,2 % 92,2 1981 22 % -10 -2 % 110,1 1982 25,3 % -14,4 -2,5 % 145,5 1985 30,3 % -21,4 -2,9 % 227,7 1986 30,9 % -25,2 -3,1 % 249,3 1990 35,3 % -24 -2,3 % 363,6 1992 39,8 % -48,8 -4,4 % 440,1 1994 48,9 % -63,1 -5,5 % 564,8 1995 55,1 % -65,5 -5,5 % 657,9 1996 57,6 % -49,8 -4,1 % 707,2 1997 58,5 % -37,8 -3 % 742,5 1998 58,7 % -34,6 -2,6 % 778 1999 58,2 % -23,6 -1,7 % 795,3 2000 56,7 % -21,1 -1,5 % 817,2 2001 56,3 % -23,2 -1,5 % 842,5 2002 58,2 % -48,8 -3,2 % 901,8 2003 62,4 % -66,6 -4,2 % 994,5 2004 64,4 % -60,6 -3,7 % 1069,2 2005 66,6 % -49,3 -2,9 % 1138,4 2006 (estimation) 64,6 % -42,6 -2,7 % 1152 'wikipedia) the deficit has steadily increased under the Mitterand years and the Jospin years. No difference.
even if it isn't 60, we are NOT talking about subventions to enterprises.
- The pork in Sweden before its bankrupcy 1995 was cut by their first right wing government (Carl Bildt) in 50 years. It wasn't sufficient, the social-democrats who won again 1996 had to fulfill the same policies. Remember that Sweden 1994 couldn't pay the interest rate on its debt any longer.
let me state something clearly : I don't defend the right here. I just try to see where the problems are. And it's obvious that France has an archaic administration compared to the Nordic countries. When I came back from Sweden 1999, I found myself proppelled back to the sixties arriving here... paper work, 36 different administrations doing the same thing... I couldn't believe my eyes...
For me the rethoric of those who more ore less defend this system (défense du service public mantra) is the same rethoric from the Swedish communists, not from social-democrats.
Both type of FRench governments tolerate a level of cheating and threats from unions, lobbies etc.. which would never been accepted in any Nordic country, Germany or even the UK. The mentality "somebody is going to make so I don't pay my parking fines" is everywhere...
Failing to say the reality is often fatal.
But look at when debt increased the most: 86-88 93-97 02_06
All Chirac/right wing governments.
Who stands a better chance of getting value for money from government? Those that value the output of government, or those that use it as an endless source of subsidies? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Generally, it's often been remarked here on ET that it is easy to say: look, Sweden does this, Denmark does that, look at Finland! But much harder to show how systems that have evolved in small, tight, consensual economies like those can readily be transposed to a much bigger economy like the French (British, German, Italian). We should just kick out a third of public servants is the kind of reactionary panacea you can hear in any French town at the bar of the Café du Commerce. It's not a serious proposition.
Yes, percentages matter for purposes of comparison. But you can't evacuate the rest.
