Multiple parties are jockeying for position in the aftermath of France’s seismic snap election. The leftist New Popular Front (NPF) insists its ideas should be implemented.

France’s left wing New Popular Front (NPF) - now the largest group in parliament - has called for a prime minister who will implement its ideas including a new wealth tax and petrol price controls.

The leftist alliance secured the most seats in the recent French elections but fell short of the 289 needed for a majority in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.

President Emmanuel Macron’s Together bloc came in second and Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) party finished third.

France’s parties are now jockeying for position and it’s unclear exactly how things will shake out, but the NPF has insisted it will implement its radical set of ideas.

  • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think it’s a great target to aim for. That’s an unfathomable income to most people, so it should at least have popular support

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        4 months ago

        Some will, but there’s an ever growing movement against gross wealth inequality. When simply buying groceries becomes a struggle for more and more people, that’s usually a telltale sign that the working class is going to start getting angry at the insatiable greed of those at the top.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          If there ever will be fight in line for bread, french will do french thing

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        4 months ago

        Taxes don’t work like that. It’s only the portion above a level that’s taxed at that level.

        • jumjummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          In the US you could absolutely fall into a new range where certain deductions no longer apply, so you could make that extra little bit of income, then lose out on deductions totaling more than your increased income.

          It’s not as simple as the progressive tax brackets look at first glance.

          • bolexforsoup
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s what the standard deduction is for unless you are talking about a very narrow range of only freelancers/business owners

            • jumjummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              There are other deductions that no longer come into play after a certain income. If I recall correctly, mortgage interest, child tax credits, and some medical deductions.

              • bolexforsoup
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                OK but owning a house and having children are both choices, so I’m not exactly sure I see what’s so unfair about not having those certain deductions. Medical is the only one I agree is legitimate here so fair point

                • jumjummy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Not sure what choice has to do with what I was saying. Of course those are choices, but my point was that there are certain inflection points with income where post-tax income can actually go down.

                  • bolexforsoup
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I just don’t equate not receiving tax deductions with being taxed more, especially when the deductions aren’t available to everyone (i.e. home ownership and kids). There is a fair bit of nuance here being glossed over IMO.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        4 months ago

        Tax brackets don’t lower income from the bracket before them. If you had 123net/177gross, and got a raise to 200 gross, you would only pay 45% on that 23k difference between 177 and 300. Thus going to 137net/200 gross.

      • LwL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        Progressive taxation so nothing lowers your net income. That scale seems quite sensible really, and you’d even have more than the 100k because again progressive taxation. And honestly 100k net is already an obscene amount of money for a single person.