Riots in France caused by police shooting 17-year-old: 40,000 officers will be deployed; 180 people arrested around the country, 170 officers have been injured
The authorities said that 180 people had been arrested after protesters burned cars and buildings for the second night in a row in response to the killing of a 17-year-old driver by a police officer.
Lower taxes, subsidies, avoiding government prices hikes, public policy regarding police action - all sorts of things - this article explains it pretty well
From 62 to 64, and they rioted. For comparison Canada retirement age is 65 and many is states is 67. Your statement implies that the French retirement age is an outlier and it's really not.
If you're talking about the recent policy, the protests did not fix that. The president ignored public opinion, the labor unions, and then ignored Parliament, who voted against the measure, and forced it through. It'll be interesting to see if that ends up permanent. If macron lasts longer than the new retirement age.
This is like making fun of a fireman using a bucket of water that's twice as large as your bucket to put out a house fire.
They pay twice as much in taxes. Vs the ludicrous cost of most basic citizen necessities in the United States .
Pay twice as much in taxes, you get affordable/basically free healthcare and adorable/basically free higher education(medical school is 2k a year in France). Affordable, reliable long-distance transportation/physical transportation infrastructure, a living and functional social security, but sure. Careful of those taxes you could pay that would cover all basic human necessities plus all major financial concerns until you croak.
As an example, instead of paying $3,000 in taxes per year, you could pay $6,000 in taxes per year, and you would be free to pursue any education you liked, including medical school, for $1000-$2000 per year instead of paying 30k per year just to learn core classes. Good thing you saved that 3k during tax season.
Thank you, this is my point: Other countries are doing healthcare and education better than the US, cheaper for everyone, with less bureaucracy and better results.
The US would save almost half a trillion a year by switching to Medicare for all.
It's absolutely cheaper, unless you're pretending that taxes are your only expense.
Want to get a be a doctor in the US? 50k to 60k. vs. public education, 1k-4k a year.
Just by going to school in the US, you are crippling yourself financially. Chronic illness? Financially crippling. Car crash injuries? Root canal?
French socialized medicine? A nominal fee for far better healthcare.
Saving a few thousand a year does not offset the tens of thousands of dollars US college students pay every semeste, nor devastating medical debt for anyone with common illnesses, nor millions list in crumbling transportation infrastructure, nor the paltry social security that seniors cannot live on, nor the complete lack of combat veteran support for medical care or housing. Three thousand a year does not cover a fraction of any of these costs in the for-profit US systems.
Ever maintain your car? What is more cost-effective? Changing the fluids and filters annually or buying a new car annually?
The savings are mathematical fact proved for decades by every country using socialized services.
Mercedes - luxury brand that you pay more for and receive lower quality parts and service. That's the healthcare system you already pay for.
But we can pretend they are a good brand for your sake.
The "Mercedes" in this case costs as much as a Toyota Corolla beside everyone chips in.
Veterans could also get a "Mercedes". Your children, your relatives, could each get the "Mercedes".
Your main argument for paying more money is that you don't want to help people. You're paying many times more money for similar or worse services for no reason other than to deprive others.
Sounds a lot like "it's not my problem until it actually affects me personally".
I don't know why people want to avoid paying as little taxes as possible when it basically improves the infrastructures/services in their own communities.
Sounds a lot like “it’s not my problem until it actually affects me personally”.
That is, fundamentally, the definition of "my problem". If I'm not effected, it isn't my problem, simply by nature of not effecting me. Not exactly sure what point you're trying to make with it.
I don’t know why people want to avoid paying as little taxes as possible when it basically improves the infrastructures/services in their own communities
Because I have little interest in community services and infrastructure.
I mean, when you consider the US government spends more (almost twice as much) on healthcare per capita than most countries with free healthcare, you're literally paying more taxes for it AND you have to shell out 50k$ when something bad happens.
Your only argument is "Taxes bad" even when we're talking about a system that would actually cost less taxes, just because it has a side effect of also helping less fortunate people.
Nah what I'm saying is that most states' taxation rates are pretty close to what you'd get in other developed countries.
Except pretty much every other developed country has cheap healthcare and education. The US is truly alone in this, and it shows, because the US also has some of the worst inequalities of the modern world.