There are a couple of dimensions to this argument. First of all, it's easy to accuse someone of being 'uninformed' when they make a statement with which you don't agree, simply because two people will get their information from different sources, each obviously citing the sources which lend credence to their argument. The reality is that we are all uninformed because the true facts are hidden, or at best, distorted.
It is hypocrisy when anyone who has 'left wing' views can launch an attack on someone with 'right wing' views with impunity, but as soon as someone with right wing views speaks out they are accused of being bigoted, racist, capitalist, fascist ....... We live in times when it appears that the accumulation of wealth is seen as an evil. In that context, I'm not criticising Mr. Hollande for being a wealthy man, even though the extent of that wealth is unknown, but rather for pretending to be a socialist, for vowing to 'redistribute wealth more equitably' which I believe is part of the credo of such people. That translates roughly as taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the rest. The wealthy, then use various tax avoidance instruments to reduce their tax liability. This is perfectly legal and acceptable, but not when the person concerned purports to be a socialist, and particularly when he is a public figure in a time of austerity.
If everybody paid the same percentage of their income that would seem to me fairer than having taxation on an incremental basis. The higher earners would still pay more, but in the same proportion. People should be taxed in relation to their ability to pay those taxes.
It remains to be seen whether Hollande's spending can be financed, but it does seem to be causing concern throughout the Eurozone, as many news articles will show. Also, in a relatively short time, the GBP/EUR has shifted from 1.19 to 1.245. That is pretty significant, specially given that the Pound is not in good shape either.
And finally, in the same way as it seems fine for 'lefties' to attack 'righties', why is it that as soon as a white person says something that could potentially be construed as 'racist' to use that awful word, there's an outcry, but the reverse doesn't apply?
If everybody paid the same percentage of their income that would seem to me fairer than having taxation on an incremental basis. The higher earners would still pay more, but in the same proportion. People should be taxed in relation to their ability to pay those taxes.
This is the thing, wasn't that tried in places like Estonia? It sounds good, but doesn't always mean it's a good deal. Take Slovakia as an example. Sure, the "flat tax" of 19% sounds good, but that is kinda taken back by higher employers' contributions (higher, even, than Belgium) and "national insurance" contributions by everyone (again, higher than the Belgian equivalent) leading to a tax burden that means "Tax Freedom Day" there is later in the year than in Finland. All in all, the Central and Eastern European flat rate tax countries end up paying a tax burden that is almost the same as the average across Europe. Also, it can mean that most people lose out as their taxes would rise when compared to the progressive tax system.
What does work, however, is not squeezing the rich until they squeak, that was shown in the UK in the 70's when the Tories slashed the top rate of tax and that led to the Gov getting HIGHER tax revenues due to less money being shifted overseas to avoid taxes.
Sure, the rich get richer. But that tends to spread through society as they create wealth and employment as tax regimes work more in their favour. Squeezing them so they move everything overseas works the opposite way.
We live in times when it appears that the accumulation of wealth is seen as an evil. In that context, I'm not criticising Mr. Hollande for being a wealthy man, even though the extent of that wealth is unknown, but rather for pretending to be a socialist, for vowing to 'redistribute wealth more equitably' which I believe is part of the credo of such people. That translates roughly as taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the rest. The wealthy, then use various tax avoidance instruments to reduce their tax liability. This is perfectly legal and acceptable, but not when the person concerned purports to be a socialist, and particularly when he is a public figure in a time of austerity.
further to that tableview, punitive taxation drives wealth away along with economies and economic capability.
unfortunately, taxation has become become so partisan and politically driven it is, no has affected state economics, along with overt public spending.
the uk has got itself into an o situation over the past years, of 'negative taxation' where benefits are paid to lower salaried people in order to compensate for increased income taxes, it simply has become a farce.
yes a 'flat tax' is more equitable across the population, where poor or wealthy tax is paid as percentage of the income. i know some people who if they put in more work to earn more, end up paying more tax and taking home less than if they did less work.
it sems that the uk itself is driven by politics of envy rather than by wealth creation and progress.
politicians have trie all kinds of rhetoric and ideologies tinkering around the edges, but it seems that the ones that 'pay' is the man in the street, no matter what.
what we need is politics and economies based on fact, not ideologies otherwise the whole of europe and those exposed to the risk will end up in the same place as the PIIGS.
what the problem is Hipocrisy. To dictate to others a set of rules they must obey, pay taxes by, and have their lives governed by, while being exempt.
I don't understand this. You are implying that Hollande is exempt.
Please say from what and how as I haven't heard any such rumours and don't think he would be liable to any special taxes at this level of income/wealth ( possibly the ISF* but depends how/when houses valued and how owned )
*ISF = Impot sur la Fortune = wealth tax
Last edited by AlpineSkier; 12th May 2012 at 08:47.
I don't understand this. You are implying that Hollande is exempt.
Please say from what and how as I haven't heard any such rumours and don't think he would be liable to any special taxes at this level of income/wealth ( possibly the ISF* but depends how/when houses valued and how owned )
i sincerely apologise for the lack of detailed response. i'm just on the way out to meet a friend for coffee so am otherwise engaged in 1. getting my a$$ dressed and 2. waiting for th wife to finish geting herself ready.
i humbly apologise and beg forgiveness in the short reply, lacking in detail due to other circumstances.
I believe it would make more sense if he had invested in government debt instead of his house, it would make him a better citizen I think.
But we have to keep in mind 2 points:
1-most of his wealth (75%) comes from his house he bought 25 years ago and increase its value dramatically (well, millions of french, european people are in this case), value of his house today being at 800 000 Euro. That's not the price he bought it 25 years ago. However he doesn't have this money: he has not sold his house. The price will continue to increase over the years like it does for all of us: millions of french citizen have more wealth than our new president. In addition he his officially the poorest president we ever had, that's a FACT.
2-Francois Hollande is a social democrat, left wing sure, but not communist, he never said nobody shouldn't have any personal wealth like a personal house. He wants to balance wealth between wealthy person and poor ones. And he doesn't understand how some person can win BILLIONS when basic hard worker hardly make 1300 Euros a month.
Left wing, right wing, we need both to be a democracy, I don't really like countries with only one official party at the head of the state...
Finally, he believes that austerity programs only is not enough, we need in addition economic growth plans. If you think about it 2 seconds, he is completly right when you see that today the austerity programs in Greece, Spain and UK mainly have killed any economical growth and brought in recession, increasing the debt at the same time. In those 3 (at least) countries the medecine is more dangerous than the sickness. He woke up Europe which believed until today that the less you spend the less you have debt, well political economy is slightly bit more complex than that and a balance has to be found and avoid the recession to kill all of your austerity efforts.
his house he bought 25 years ago and increase its value dramatically (well, millions of french, european people are in this case)
Oh really ?
a) property values in Spain, and not just built-for-tourists, have all fallen drastically (I've owned property in Spain for 19 years);
b) friends in Germany (Hessen) report property prices stable, not increasing (I owned property in Germany for 20 years);
c) Friends in France (Aude) report price of their property has only increased by the amount they have invested in renovation work;
d) Other friends in France in "tourist" region report prices have fallen.
e) Have been told of houses in Greece abandoned when owner moves away or dies as market is dead.
To my certain knowledge, of the places I visit in Europe ONLY Paris and London have and are still experiencing rises in value of property. Of these the €5 million plus market in London is showing the biggest boom. (Source FT).
I really would query that "millions" word. Sure, we are all sitting on potential goldmines, but can't realise them yet, because in every case I know about where people would like to sell their properties, HOUSE PRICES HAVE NOT RISEN BUT FALLEN. And more so when priced in the collapsing euro, having originally purchased in the good old Deutschmark.
Anyone living in Europe who knows differently, I would be very interested to hear of it.
OFSO: I hear you, the housing bubble has been quite sever in some countries since 2008.
However we talk about 25 years here.
In France, those past 10 years (including the today' crisis) has been mad and price have increased dramatically. The price are incredibely higher in 2012 than in 2002, while the salaries have been almost stable. Those past 25 years, overall, have been a tremendous good deal for the owners.
Fact is that Francois Hollande couldn't afford his own house if he had to buy it today, this is the case of many europeans who bought a long time ago. Fact is that he will never sell his house, so will never have this money. Despite this consideration, he still is the poorest president we ever had, including his personal expensive house that represent 75% of his wealth.
It may be beguiling voters, but the Left in the Labour Party and across Europe is refusing to acknowledge harsh economic truths.
The presence of Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, on a protest march in London yesterday was emblematic of the wider denial that has gripped the Left across Europe. She joined an estimated 20,000 off-duty police officers who were unhappy with changes to their pensions and working practices. Arguably, it was unwise for the police to choose the same day that public sector unions staged a one-day strike against government spending cuts. But like many other state employees, they are being encouraged by Labour to believe that austerity is unnecessary or unfair.
Miss Cooper was a member of a government whose profligacy and reckless expansion of the state rendered the nation’s finances ill-equipped to cope with the calamity that engulfed the financial system in 2008. The same was true of most of the “entitlement” economies of Western Europe, where people were led to believe that they could borrow to consume, retire early on a good pension and that the state would always look after them. This pernicious myth was perpetuated by another: that an army of wealthy people stood ready to be tapped for money whenever the high levels of public spending bled the Exchequer’s coffers dry.
Not only were massive debts run up, but they continue to accumulate despite the cuts programme – compounded by pressure on health and welfare budgets caused by an ageing population. Yet the Left’s response to these realities has been to ignore them. In Greece and France, socialist parties have successfully preached an anti-austerity message that is simply delusional. Indeed, had Labour won the last election and failed to cut spending, they would have presided over interest rate rises triggering a recession even worse than the one we are now in.
In truth, the penny may finally have started to drop among public sector workers here in Britain at least. Yesterday’s strikes were less widespread than the stoppages last autumn – three quarters of civil servants turned up for work. Moreover, official figures showed that trade unions are continuing to lose members – 143,000 last year, with the biggest decline in the public sector – suggesting that many state employees may have woken up to the fact that the world as they have known it has gone forever. And yet as the elections in Europe have demonstrated, the Left’s refusal to acknowledge harsh economic truths is beguiling to voters, who understandably fear for the future. Politicians like Miss Cooper, who incite people to bury their heads in the sand, are not only behaving irresponsibly – they are prolonging the economic agony they claim to want to halt.
This probably originated in the US but..........maybe this is how Hollande will increase French " productivity " ( after all, their bureaucracy is " world class "...)
and the inevitable result. ( part 1, as too many images for 1 post )
NOW What does this closely resemble??? Talk about Mirror Image!!!
And this is why we have added over 200,000 new goverment employees in the past two years, and no one can explain why we are still in a recession. It's not a good time to be an ant.
If Greece leaves the Euro they will have no way of paying back the billions they have been given, so the money will have ended up in a bottomless pit. We will see poverty and strife throughout the region. Oh, isn't that what the European Union was meant to prevent?
Stuckgear: I have read your article from The Telegraph (I love this news paper!).
Basically, this is a UK paper that wants to give lessons to France on economy.
Keep some facts in mind when reading it: Sir Cameron has adopted important austerity mesures last year and this year, much more important than the ones in France, some even consider there are no austerity politic in France right now, public spendings being more than half the GDP.
RESULT:
-1- In May, 2012, UK has more public debt than France, while 2 years ago it had less than France.
-2- In May, 2012, UK has more annual deficit than France (which means more public debt to come).
-3- In may, 2012, UK is in recession, France is not (Recession means more public debt to come despite austerity mesures).
Even face to face watching the fact right in the eyes, The Telegraph still write this kind of bullcr@p??? Comon! The UK public debt is sky rocketing towards 100%, UK in recession, and The Telegraph is giving economical conferences to France??? Is that a kind of a joke? We have a saying for that in France: voir la paille dans l Why do you see the speck that is in your brother`s eye, but don`t consider the beam that is in your own eye?
Spending less is a priority in Europe, but violent austerity mesures as a unique cure doesn't work in the countries that adopted it like Greece, Spain or UK. Francois Hollande is right on.
Already forgot?
If you observe the economies those past 10 years, Italy is catching you up, slowly but surely, and The Telegraph explaining the others countries how economy works?
( after all, their bureaucracy is " world class "...)
