Skip Nav
Nobody Told Me How Much Motherhood Would Hurt
The 13 Moms You Meet on the PTA
7 Things Your Kids Will Remember About You When They're Grown Up

Angelina and Brad Get Financial Benefits From France

Maybe We Should We All Move to France?

If you want to spark a debate, just gab about America's health and child care systems. While many countries offer new mothers a year of maternity leave, most American women get three months maximum. And in regard to financial benefits, there are few. The child tax credit offers parents a small relief, but for most, it is negligible. In France, however, it's a different story.

Even two of the world's most famous and wealthy movie stars, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, are eligible for relief from the French government. While I can only assume they would reject it, People reports:

They are technically eligible for a "nanny payment" of $975.84 a month, not to mention an "orphan allowance" of $508.97 for each of their three adopted children. The grand total, $2,592.81, would be payable by check each month.

The total of their child care assistance is high due to the number of children they have, but I am still impressed that people of their stature would qualify for such aid. In addition to noshing on baguettes, wine, and cheese, France sounds like such a nice place to raise a family.

Join The Conversation
chocolatine chocolatine 8 years
Roarman and Lainetm, you're right, I should have expressed myself clearer: I'm not saying that people shouldn't have children, only that the government shouldn't pay people 60% of their salary while they work 0 hours for up to three years, while taking a huge cut from people who work 40+ hours/week. This is unfair to the taxpayers who will not be able to claim the same benefit for themselves (if they are unable or choose not to have children). I can also repeat some things I wrote to MartiniLush for anyone who is interested: In Germany, where I live, childless singles are in the "worst" tax category. We pay the highest percentages out of anyone (even married childless people), even though living costs are highest for us. It is assumed that being single is a temporary status, but for many people it isn't. If I don't meet a man I want to marry and have children with, I'll be paying loads of money for the rest of my working live, without getting any of the benefits associated with marriage & family. I maintain that taking years off work to look after children is a luxury, not a necessity. People who want to do it should fund it out of their own pockets.
Katya1967 Katya1967 8 years
There's a reason why everyone -- not just Brad and Angelina -- want to live in France. Soon it will only be for the rich and then the decline will begin because no worthwhile place can be desirable without all classes represented, and treated decently,
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 8 years
Amen to what a few of you have said. But the problem goes beyond taxes, it sets the womens movement back decades. If a woman of 25 went in to apply for a job with the exact qualifications of a man of 25 the employer would hands down pick the man. Why? Because ALL women would be seen as potential risks for lost time and money.
hartsfull hartsfull 8 years
Ok, I just couldn't read all of them. But choclatine :notworthy: :medal:
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 8 years
Roarman, you beat me to it, I was going to point out that with no children there will be no doctors, police, grocers, etc. Raising the next generation benefits all of us. Although it's a "choice", it's also a benefit to society, like public libraries or education. I still think this program is excessive, particularly if it doesn't apply to all citizens equally and equitably.
Roarman Roarman 8 years
Chocolatine-I have to agree with Martinilush, it is not clear what you are trying to state. You keep talking about rearing children as a choice, which it is, but Martinilush is completely correct in that without these children there would be noone to sustain a society, we are all going to get old. And I am not trying to say Yay for "pro creators" and I don't think Martinilush was either, but that is how a society continues, by people pro creating. When you are older and not working, you will need some type of services, that the younger working population, through taxes, will be contributing to. The point is, in places like France and Sweden, all citizens at some point will benefit from these National programs, not just those having babies.
hausfrau hausfrau 8 years
Whats worse is that Brad and Angie probably claim themselves as US citizens meaning they don't even pay the taxes in France! How does that work? Or do they claim themselves as French citizens? I wish these people would pick a country and stick to it.
Brendelwoman Brendelwoman 8 years
"The total of their child care assistance is high due to the number of children they have, but I am still impressed that people of their stature would qualify for such aid." I don't understand why Lil is impressed that rich people would qualify for this aid. To me it is repugnant.
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
awww, thanks, syako! you know that i love you, too! :hug:
syako syako 8 years
(martini, I love you! You're so reasonable and actually listen to varying viewpoint!) :gift: Sorry, but I just really like this gal! ;)
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
You know, I didn't get why Chocolatini didn't like this, so I PMed her and I got a lot more info. After that, I am with her - she told me a lot more info that could make your hair curl! :-( And what Cotedazur posted makes it seem extremely unfair - everyone pays the same taxes, but not everyone get to take advantage of these benefits, only those in the government working sector get this. That definately isn't fair!
Vespa Vespa 8 years
Cheers to everything Michelin said! And everything Chocolatini said! I don't want to fund anyone else's life choices.
Michelann Michelann 8 years
And I'm sorry I spelled your name wrong!
Michelann Michelann 8 years
Choclatine, you almost have it exactly right. Citizens should only pay taxes on things they can't do on their own. Citizens have the ability to work and fund their own child care costs, so they shouldn't pay taxes on that. Citizens can also plan ahead(via savings or insurance)for disasters, medical troubles, and unemployment, so the government should not be paying that. Citizens can not build their own roads. Government can tax me for that.
ufshutterbabe ufshutterbabe 8 years
chocolatine, thank you so much for sharing that perspective with everyone. I can not stand to hear people say stuff like "oh their health care is free..." It is never free, someone always has to pay for it, and that someone is in part, YOU! The more money the government takes from citizens in the form of taxes, the more dependent they are making citizens upon the government. One year of paid maternity leave sounds nice (to those who may want to use it one day), but I'd much rather be in control of more of my own money (and thus, my own decisions) rather than get a "free year" - but lose 60% or more of my income EVERY year!
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
cotedazur - ok, that explanation makes much more sense to me and would be a reason to not like this.
chocolatine chocolatine 8 years
My reasoning is that I don't want to pay for other people's lifestyle choices. If someone wants to stay home for a few years to raise their child(ren), I shouldn't have to subsidize it. Staying at home is a luxury, not a necessity. If I decided to take 2-3 years off work to travel or volunteer, I wouldn't get a penny from the government, and certainly not my job back after I return. My retirement will be taken care of by the government pension that I'm being forced to pay throughout my working live (9.5% of my salary, no less), and private savings. I can take care of my own retirement.
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
But, won't you get medical benefits? Their taxes will pay for that, right? I wasn't trying to be smug, I really just don't understand your reasoning. You seem to want to pick and choose what you get from the taxes you pay. Usually the taxes we pay for social programs are for all society. I most likely won't get Social Security in the US when I retire, but I gladly pay the taxes so that others who are less well off may have some security. It benefits me in the long run and makes for a more just and civil society, IMO.
chocolatine chocolatine 8 years
MartiniLush, I'm not objecting to "any" benefits, only the part where people get paid for not working, when it was their choice not to work. And no, other people's children will not be paying for my retirement, because I'm also forced to pay "retirement insurance" - whatever money I get will have been earned by me. I hate the smug attitude of people who think they're doing the world a favor by having children.
cotedazur cotedazur 8 years
chocolatine (and others), don't forget that France has been struggling with low birth rate issues and a decreasing population since the First World War, so they offer incentives such as these specifically to encourage families to have more children. Also, the benefits only go towards people who are in the public sector, and not those that are privately employed. 'Liberales,' or anyone who doesn't work for the government - doctors, dentists, small business owners, private school teachers, etc. - don't get retirement, maternity leave, insurance, or any of the other benefits. And they still pay the 50 to 60% tax that public employees pay.
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
All citizens can take advantage of having children - either by giving birth or adopting. You may choose not to do it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't something you could have taken advantage of. Besides, you should be happy, they are providing the next generation to pay those taxes for your retirement.
chocolatine chocolatine 8 years
Roarman, you're right in a way. The US citizens have to pay for the Iraq war, and I wouldn't be happy to pay for that either. The point I was trying to make is that I think that taxpayers should only fund those benefits that all citizens can take advantage of, such as healthcare and education. Funding something that favors a part of the population is frustrating to the non-favored part.
MartiniLush MartiniLush 8 years
so really, chocolatine, all you object to is any benefit specifically for those who "procreate"? Just trying to understand you. I guess you do, in a side way, benefit from those having children. Their kids will be the ones paying taxes to support the benefits you agree with when you are old and no longer working.
chocolatine chocolatine 8 years
MartiniLush, disability or unemployment is a hardship that could befall anyone. There is a risk that it happens to me, therefore I'm happy to pay taxes/insurance for that, so that I'll be taken care of if this happens. Procreation, however, is a choice and in many ways an indulgence. I have *nothing* to gain from other people's reproductive choices, therefore I shouldn't be financially supporting them. gaellemj, your currency conversion is incorrect. EUR 740 = US$ 1090.
Roarman Roarman 8 years
My understanding is that France and other countries like it offer many things beyond maternity leave and childcare. Such as healthcare, disability/unemployment, which effect everyone. We have high tax rates here, but don't get much out of them.
Palace of Versailles Tips
Brad Pitt Interview in GQ Style Summer 2017
Unique Work Benefits
Angelina Jolie Talking About Her Adopted Children
From Our Partners
Latest Moms
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds