ANTI-CHINESE RACISM ON THE STAND
Budget. Michel Sapin wants to make security rhyme with austerity
CGT Air France. All the violence dooms them.
Justice: how the Macron law grants out impunity to bosses
No Terrorists, But Lunatics
Austerity Spoiled Economic Growth Over Last Six Months
OECD Pits Active Workers Against Retirees
“We Never…!”: The French Bourgeoisie’s Shameful Collaboration With the Nazis
Socialist Party Seeks to Close Ranks Behind European Budget Pact
The Cult Film and Documentary Maker Chris Marker Has Passed Away
Workers’ Rights Notably Absent From the French Government’s Plan For the Car Industry
The CGT Calls Mittal’s London Olympic Honors "Obscene"
With Emmanuel Macron as President, What to Expect?
Yellow Vests: The Rich are ever more Rich, and we are Abandoned
LEFT. THE PCF MOBILIZES "FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR MONEY"
INSTITUTIONS. « IL FAUT ASSAINIR LE SYSTÈME DE FINANCEMENT DE LA DÉMOCRATIE »
Red Vests or Yellow Vests, We must be more Numerous to Win
European Council. Manipulations around the necessary fight against anti-Semitism
The Luxury of Another Political Stance, To Believe in What You Say and Do ... But Damn, it’s Hard!
Saturday, December 8. Government censorship in the street
FABIEN ROUSSEL . A MORALE OF STEEL FORGED IN THE MINING BASIN
The logic of the "Friendly Amendments", compared with the logic illustrated in the case of Olivier Dartigolles with his "Hostile Amendments". There are two opposing approaches to amendments!
Congress. The PCF Enters the Heart of the Debate
The Communists Reshuffle Their Cards, One Month Before Their Congress
ORIGINAL FRENCH ARTICLE: Un tour de passé-passe fiscal au benefice des patrons
by Max Staat
French Bosses Might Profit from a « Green » Fiscal Trick
A real hold-up might well be taking place before us.
Translated Saturday 25 July 2009, by and reviewed by Bill Scoble
The planned carbon tax is meant to make French people compensate for that portion of the local tax on businesses (Taxe Professionnelle) that is shortly to be slashed. Is a hold-up actually taking place before our eyes? The question is well worth asking in view of the first concrete provisions that have been made public to reform the local tax on businesses; indeed, the main benefit of those provisions will go to businesses; in addition to that, the first recommendations concerning the carbon tax will hit consumers mostly.
The link between the two proposed reforms owes little to chance, for it has its origin in statements Sarkozy made earlier this year. In order to “lighten taxes on businesses” so as to protect jobs and job creation, he proposed “doing away with the local tax on businesses”, and seeing the general outcry among local councillors, immediately declared that this tax would be replaced with the carbon tax. Besides the fact that a tax cut (whether an exemption from the local tax or from the employers’ social contribution) has never dissuaded any firm from laying off workers or relocating production when shareholders’ interests are at stake, many councillors’ associations observed that replacing the local tax on businesses with the carbon tax would imply shifting the tax burden onto French households. Indeed 30 to 40% of that carbon tax might be borne by them.
To be sure, the government’s current propositions for the reform of the local tax on businesses are no longer a simple repeal of the tax; nor do they simply replace it with the carbon tax. Sarkozy’s government intends to cancel a large portion of the tax, that which targets plants and real estate, and replace it with a tax on the added value (VAT) with progressive rates depending on turnover. This pleases the French employers’ association (MEDEF), for it means all the benefit will go to them. As for the jobs….
Indeed, those provisions will clearly not suffice to compensate for the fiscal losses incurred by local governments. These losses will have to be compensated for by state subsidies the relative value of which, as experience has taught local councillors, decreases year after year. This is bound to affect the diversity and the quality of local public services as well as the level of household taxes, to compensate for the losses.
But to increase state subsidies, the government - since it refuses to
increase the public deficit - needs new tax revenues. And new revenues are levied on French people and not on businesses, Sarkozy’s pet priority. Hence the carbon tax, which should be paid in part by households, and which will partly contribute what businesses will no longer supply thanks to the reform of the local tax on businesses. And so the two reforms add up right, following Sarkozy’s plan: fewer taxes for firms means more taxes for households.
