Monday, January 16, 2012

Camille Landais on the Proposed Reform of "le Quotient Familial"

The reform proposed by the PS is reasonable, Landais argues, and the reaction of the UMP has obfuscated the issue:
Ce qui mine la progressivité de l'impôt sur le revenu, c'est surtout qu'on a sorti du barème quasiment tous les revenus du capital. Et le fait qu'un tas de revenus du capital échappent littéralement à l'administration fiscale.
Le quotient familial, en revanche, fait partie des choses qui minent le consentement à l'impôt. Car personne ne sait exactement comment il marche et quels sont ses effets sur la redistribution. Ce que vous recevez pour un enfant dépend à la fois de votre revenu (plus il est haut, plus le gain est fort) et du rang de cet enfant dans sa fratrie... Les gens perdent de vue que le quotient familial profite bien plus aux gens aisés qu'aux autres.
Landais also has interesting comments on the social VAT and the Tobin tax.

2 comments:

Kirk said...

Hmm, I'd like to know exactly what he means here:


Ce qui mine la progressivité de l'impôt sur le revenu, c'est surtout qu'on a sorti du barème quasiment tous les revenus du capital. Et le fait qu'un tas de revenus du capital échappent littéralement à l'administration fiscale.

Two things: first, you pay the CSG on pretty much all interest or other "capital" income; there's no escaping that, with the exception of speciifc types of defiscalized investments, mostly related to retirement. (He even says later: la CSG, elle, touche tous les revenus, y compris ceux du capital.)

Second, you have to declare all such income on your tax form, so I think he's just making things up. Unless you cheat on your taxes - by expatriating your income - I don't see how one would avoid this. Banks and other financial institutions send copies of your fiscal information to the tax office at the end of the year.

I think this guy is just making stuff up...

Merlin said...

I am not sure I understand why taxation has to be "progressive".

If you want to tax income from capital, just tax the real income. All the rest has already been taxed once and people are entitled to maintanin their taxed capital in real terms.

In theses days of low returns and high inflation (relative), I am not sure you get more than what you already get.

Finally I would say that if you take two citizens, one "fonctionnaire" with a steady income and garanteed cash flow until death, the other with a variable salary and the need to save for rainy days, pretty quickly you turn savings into "capital" and with the help of progressivity and capital income taxation, you overtax him vs the bureaucrat.

No wonder everybody wants to be a fonctionnaire in this blessed country. Better pay, better benefits, total income security,less tax.