Is the wealth tax based on land ownership?
There should be a plan to replace nuclear.... A PLAN (like replacing it by the end of the life of the reactor). If it's just shutting down a reactor, that's stupid
Economically, the age of 60 anywhere is untenable
Wealth tax was overall, well sorta, it was complicated (because wealth tax are really hard to implement).
The green don't make plan, look at Germany. They would have rush to shut them all down. There's also no reason to replace them, nuclear complement renewable perfectly.
From 62, whereas Macron had aimed to raise it to 65. That's hardly "crazy".
The Ecologistes only favour moving from nuclear onto renewables. Not onto fossil fuels. If any phase-out would require an increase in fossil fuels, then the Greens would support a delay until it wouldn't.
Then that was a problem of implementation, not principle. The super-rich are the single largest source of largely untapped revenue. The majority of that money is economically inactive, and we're talking billions. Taxing it makes absolute economic and moral sense.
62 is already crazy, 60 is economic suicide.
The problem is that the wealth of rich is untapped, or rather, hypothetical money. Look at it this way, someone make a company, make it public and create share of it, the share price explode and now the company is worth trillions, government comes in and tax the unrealized gain for (lets say) 100 millions. That's no different than the central bank printing 100 millions, its creating money that doesn't exist and injecting it into the economy. And eventually the market would price in the wealth tax which would depreciate the value of share by quite a lot, people would move to other system to hold their wealth, system that would be harder for average people to take advantages of (it would also destroy the retirement of millions). The only good use of wealth tax is to force inactive asset back onto the market (ie land based) but land based tax are really complicated to implement and their own bag.