Same in the US. On my paycheck there are Social Security tax, Medicare tax, State disability insurance tax, State unemployment insurance tax. If it is a mandatory deduction taken out of your paycheck to fund a government project (not the best word, but can't think of the proper word at the moment), even if you get benefits later, it's called a tax.

The US Government tries the same trick.

Social Security is a called an "insurance program" although it is completely unrelated to conventional insurance. The closest financial instrument is a Ponzi scheme, which is illegal under US law.

It is insurance in the sense that it pools the risk. The risk here is "aging" ("Social Security" in the US only covers base retirement, whereas "Social Security" in France covers 5 risks), it only happens to be a risk that realizes 100% of the time, unlike fire insurance for instance.

Nope,that’s not correct. Even in English health insurance is not tax, unemployment insurance is not tax... And by the way what you call ‘charges’ is historically‘cotisations’ (fees).

In my circle of acquaintances, the distinction lies not in what the money is funding (e.g. health care), but in where it's going:

Health coverage goes to some entity that isn't the government and is usually optional, so it's viewed as a benefit and taken into account when computing total compensation.

Unemployment insurance on the other hand is taken out of every paycheck and handed to the government without an opt-out. Yes, of course you get something for it; the whole point of taxes is that society gets something in return. They're still taxes.

Also, you lie and move the goal posts. You really should say that you don’t wanna pay your employees. Fine by me, but be frank about it. I know I’ll be downvoted here, but the truth is this guy doesn’t want to pay his employees and pretends it’s because of additional costs that burden him. He’d rather give them more, if only they were able to spend responsibly. Yet, he doesn’t know the first thing about taxes, fees and lumps them together. I welcome disagreements, but I wish un readers were slightly more rigorous.

I don't get that impression at all. The person you're replying to hasn't done anything more than try to clarify that whatever you want to call the cash being extracted by the French government, a reasonable person in other parts of the world could call it a tax and not miss any important defining characteristics.

With respect to claims of wanting to underpay employees, I don't think that's something anyone is actually arguing for when they talk about unfriendliness toward startups. The French government is levying a high _proportional_ tax to cover _fixed_ fees like health care. This can make sense at a societal level as a form of wealth redistribution, but it's a disadvantage for high earners like those in the software industry. Those employees can earn more in other countries with the same cost to their employers simply because less is taken out of their paycheck, and because the difference is more than enough to cover fixed fees like health care it's a good move for them to do so. The people being disadvantaged aren't startup employees (not passing a moral judgement -- the claim itself just seemed off).