Terry Richards wrote:
>> ruequisling@europe.com wrote:
>
>>> I know many
>>> people in business in the area some of whom run very large
>>> businesses. Your optimistic assesment of France is not matched by
>>> the views of the populace in Northern France. You try employing
>>> people when you are paying as much to the State as you are to your
>>> employees.
>
> "John of Aix" wrote in message
> news:4820efe7$3$854$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>
>> You never pay as much to the state as you pay to employees, if you
>> do you are in complete illegality as you are paying way under the
>> minimum wage, the Smic, which is around 8.6 euros per hour these
>> days, so cut the crap could you.
>
> Actually, if you take the employer and employee contributions, it's
> almost exactly 50%. In other words, the French state gets about as
> much as the employee takes home. I'm self-employed under a "portage"
> arrangement and, therefore, pay both employee and employer
> contributions. I estimate my month's take-home as 50% of my billing
> and I'm rarely more than 1 euro off.
Yes but that is not as claimed, that employers pay as much to the state
as they do to their employees, for they do not.
> You can quibble about who is paying the employee contribution but, at
> the end of the day, the employer is the only one bringing money to
> the table so it's not entirely unreasonable to say that they are
> paying both.
If that is your logic then you can also say they pay the employee's
food/housing.tax/leisure bills. It is nonsense.
> I have, in the past, turned work away as I was too busy to do it
> myself. I could easily keep an employee busy but the overhead and
> bureaucracy involved have made me decide not to do that. This is a
> small, but real, example of how "strangled" the French economy is.
I'd agree that bureaucracy in France is way too heavy, nevertheless the
final result is that people have better social protection, better social
services, better transport and many other things. You get what you pay
for.
|