Hello, I’m surprised to find no messages on this topic. Reading what is indicated, I get the impression that professional sellers on Vinted should be concerned, unless I am mistaken? What do you think?
Hello,
I might be mistaken, but this is for sole proprietorships offering services, not sales of all kinds.
But if it works, URSSAF will be quick to standardize it…
They want to scrape, bleed… pump dry so much… that they will implement new obligations.
2 Likes
Indeed, the question is probably not « if » but « when. » The state loves these centralized bottlenecks through which money flows, and which it can force to act as a branch of its administration. These companies are private on paper, and yet they declare your income, they can block it, and soon transmit it directly to the state. We will all work for Big Brother who will decide how much of our income he allows us to keep for our own use. Everything in the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state, something like that… But hey, I’m probably being a bit paranoid.
3 Likes
you are not being paranoid. Orwell’s 1984? everyone should read that book.
1 Like
It takes a lot of money to pay for public services, doesn’t it? Americans who chose to privatize their healthcare system pay much more each for insurance for a lower quality service, except for the rich. And education? defense? Police? Justice? Who should pay for them? Do you think there are already enough resources?
So the state legitimately collects money from industrial and commercial activities. Its objective should be to do so in the most efficient way possible, right? Or do you want the state to pay an army of tax officials to pore over the declarations of everyone who made €10,000 in sales on Vinted in one year?
The simplest thing is to require platforms to provide this data, right? That’s rational and efficient operation, that’s how the state should function.
What is not normal is that 13,000 of the richest households pay no taxes.
Now, I agree with that, we do need taxes for all the public services that every French person uses.
But too many taxes KILL taxes…
I’ve always agreed to pay them, but at a level I can afford… not by taking everything or almost everything.
You have to stop increasing them or find new ones… multiplying them every year…
If only the state acted like a good entrepreneur.
When you are in difficulty or about to be… do you increase your selling prices? at the risk of driving away your customers… or do you take the time to calmly see if you can reduce your overheads, your expenses? and especially how?
(the question is for everyone, not specifically for Frenchsacha)
We can see it clearly… there are completely abusive expenses in France…
So, certainly, this will cause discontent, but at some point, you can’t always increase taxes and increase expenses.
Why do you think « the 13,000 households », which you talk about so often, (you’re jealous of them, actually… come on, admit it 
) make sure to pay as little tax as possible in France?
Because they are like everyone else… they don’t want their money to be « stolen »…
Most taxpayers, rich or less rich, try to reduce their taxes when they can legally do so.
Don’t tell me you’d want the state to increase your own taxes or charges even more?
You don’t pay enough?
And besides, I don’t know if you have an accountant… but you certainly ask them how to reduce your taxes… while paying a portion…? no?
Personally, I ask him to reduce them as much as possible, while telling him that I still want to pay a portion…
Hey, everyone has to contribute… not just the same people…
Okay, it’s not really the subject, but we’re talking about contributions… so 
If you’re in buy/sell arbitrage, the state levies 12.3% of turnover in social security contributions. Does that take everything or almost everything from you?
Because the law is made by and for the rich, and these idiots the French vote for it, on top of that!
What is unacceptable, in terms of taxation, is injustice: of course no one wants to pay taxes if the 13,000 richest have the ability not to pay any! 
The state is perfectly capable of making them pay, just as it makes those who sell on Vinted pay, it’s a matter of will!
But that’s not what the media tells us, which are owned by the richest! They tell us that it’s good that the rich are not taxed because their wealth will trickle down to us. 
So yes, it’s normal to pay taxes, otherwise don’t complain that repeat offenders like Jérôme Barella are at large and that people are dying in non-air-conditioned hospitals, but no, it’s not normal for the richest to have the option to escape taxes. No one should be able to escape them, and everyone should pay according to their means.
I want to say that in principle, pay-as-you-earn why not? But then if they do that, they will have all transactions directly declared to them. In that case, what is e-reporting for? It’s especially the accumulation of layers that becomes a pain.
Moreover, with the trust I have in Vinted on these kinds of issues (they already can’t even declare VAT themselves or issue invoices to customers), I’m already anticipating bugs in their declarations, we’ll have to check everything, and fight if there’s a problem.
Thanks Sacha for these 10 questions to which you already seem to have very certain answers. As life is short and this is not initially the purpose of this forum, I will not elaborate on each of them (entire books have been written to do so). Nevertheless, I might have others to throw back at you, the goal not being to start a debate but to give a glimpse of an alternative point of view.
We need money to pay for public services, don’t we?
What do we call a public service? A service funded by taxes, as opposed to a « private service » which would be funded by voluntary payments? In other words, if I offer a service for a stated price and customers voluntarily come to pay that price, it’s a nasty private service, but if I go (or vote to send someone else) to point a metaphorical (or not) gun at people who haven’t asked for anything to force them to pay the price I decided I wanted for the service I decided they needed, is that a public service? I’m not sure this notion of public service has any moral high ground…
The Americans who chose to privatize the healthcare system
That’s a shortcut that borders on outright falsehood. The law forces Americans to take « private » insurance, with insurance companies being obliged to comply with endless layers of legislation dictated by the state and therefore unable to truly behave like private companies. This is called corporatism, not privatization.
much more expensive than in France for insurance for lower quality service
This still sounds a lot like the famous propaganda around the ‹ carte vitale ›… Have you ever rigorously verified this information?
What about education? Defense? Police? Justice? Who should pay for them?
And if I want a massage, a yoga class, and 3 guard dogs, who will pay for them? Do I have the right to threaten my neighbor to give me a share of his income to finance what I want, on pain of locking him in a cage? Do the ends justify the means? In short, these questions fall under utilitarianism, and the postulate that a need in one person creates an obligation in another to serve them to provide what they need is at best unproven and at worst amounts to forced labor.
So the state legitimately collects money from industrial and commercial activities.
If we consider that funding oneself using the threat of violence and coercion is legitimate… I’m sure you don’t apply that standard to private individuals, so why this double standard towards state officials? Are they gods?
Its objective should be to do so as efficiently as possible, right?
The Mafia’s objective is to conduct its criminal affairs as best as possible.
Or do you want the State to hire an army of tax officials to scrutinize the declarations of everyone who made €10,000 in sales on Vinted in 1 year?
No.
The simplest thing is to oblige the platforms to provide this data, isn’t it?
Simple, efficient, imposed, obliged… And what about consent in all this? Are people cattle to be milked to refill the coffers of daddy state, their lord and savior? Certainly, pointing a gun at your neighbor to steal his wallet is simpler than behaving like an independent, respectful adult, I’ll grant you that, if simplicity is the criterion.
This is rational and efficient functioning, that’s how the State should work.
I should force my clients to pay the price I’ve decided for the products I’ve decided on, and lock them in my basement if they refuse. That’s rational and efficient, that’s how a business should work. After all, if it’s rational and efficient, why shouldn’t I force others to conform to my will?
I will be told that the state is not a business, and I will point out that precisely the difference between these two institutions is that one has clients who pay voluntarily while the other has victims who hand over money under duress.
What is not normal is that 13,000 of the richest households pay no taxes.
Do you know who else pays no taxes? Civil servants. They are paid by taxes, i.e., by money taken under threat from all the people who, themselves, receive their income through agreed payments. Don’t be fooled by the « taxes » they pay on paper; they receive a sum from taxes and only return a portion of it. And there are far more than 13,000 of them.
Anyway, all this was surely just an extension of my extremist turbo-liberal paranoia.
You are referring to the situation that prevailed under the Ancien Régime. The king set taxes, and people paid them. Since the Revolution, what prevails is precisely consent to taxation, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1789.
I quote Wikipedia here: « In practice, each year, the national representation authorizes the State to collect taxes by voting on Article 1 of the finance law. »
We are in a democracy: no one is forcing French people to pay taxes, contrary to what you say: they have chosen to do so. You can engage in politics, run for election, and the day your point of view becomes the majority, taxes will be abolished in France.
So, if we pay taxes in France, it’s because we have collectively chosen to do so. Individually, some may not agree, but they still have to pay; the rule applies to everyone.
There are also people who would like to have sexual relations with 10-year-olds. In a libertarian society as you defend it, they could do so, but in a democratic society like France, they cannot because the majority has decided so.
In France, we don’t do what we want individually; we do what we want collectively.
To get back to the original topic… as far as I know, Vinted, as a platform, will be concerned and it’s planned for 2027. Professional accounts will be concerned by this source-based withholding tax and instead of declaring the turnover to URSSAF for micro-businesses, as is the case today, and paying the money, the platform will do it. Vinted will deduct the money directly from sales and pay it to URSSAF. The declaration to URSSAF will still exist, but it will be pre-filled. The system is designed to avoid oversights, errors, fraud (especially!), to simplify the lives of micro-entrepreneurs and to automate contributions. The State wants platforms to become official collectors. In my opinion (and this is just the subject of my thoughts and a bit of internet research), Vinted’s aggressive policy of restrictions/blocks is directly linked to the arrival of legal obligations in 2027 (source-based withholding tax + electronic invoicing + strengthening of DAC7). It seems logical and consistent to me that Vinted is cleaning up the platform. Since 2023, Vinted has been meeting its DAC7 obligation (your identity, your sales volume, your number of transactions, your income, your bank details: the tax administration already has this information. Its goal: to identify professionals hiding behind a personal account). With electronic invoicing, Vinted will have to identify professional sellers, ensure invoice compliance, and prevent professional sellers from selling without a SIRET number. The separation between professionals and individuals must be clear. With source-based withholding tax, Vinted will have to detect professional sellers, automatically deduct contributions, and pay them to URSSAF. Vinted must therefore identify hidden professional sellers now. If we look at what’s happening: disguised professional sellers are being targeted, especially those with high volumes, regular sales, new products, buying and reselling, multi-accounts linked to the same IBAN, multi-accounts (professional + personal) with the same phone number, same address, same IBAN, same device, same IP address, and lastly, accounts generating too many disputes. So anyone with a professional account (or not) and one or more personal accounts for buying and reselling new or second-hand products (bought on Vinted and resold on Vinted) will be targeted, those who sell the same product multiple times or with color variations will be targeted, those who bypass the rules (creating new accounts after being blocked, using VPNs, manipulating reviews, off-platform transactions) will be targeted. It’s scary like that, isn’t it??? 
Again, this is just the subject of my thoughts and a bit of internet/AI research. What do you think?
e-invoices are for B2B transactions, the only situation that could be problematic is a professional buying from a professional. Even for Vinted invoices, it’s not a big deal since it’s between French companies.
For now, it seems very ineffective, and yet all it would take is hiring people to browse Vinted to easily catch hundreds of them per day, as so many do it without any discretion.
We really need to stop with these AIs 
.
1 Like