The Student Room Group

Francois Hollande elected as new French president

Scroll to see replies

Reply 140
Original post by Macabre
Not too sure whats going on, but as far as im aware he really did win the election.

More importantly combined with the results of the greek election we have the beginning of the single currency collapse, and about time.

The collapse will be excrutiating, and plunge all of us into very harsh times indeed, but is necessary in that countries can finally go back to their own currencies and start trading at the correct level of interest for their economies and be able to devalue, the huge problem that struggling countries like greece are suffering without at the moment.

The euro project must be abandoned, or more chaos will ensue, and the EU, especially Germany's ignorance of the situation, can no longer be tolerated.

Trade between europe is essential in order for all countries to prosper and be at peace with one another, but a currency and flag which no one needed should finally be consigned to history.


It doesn't have to be that way - the ECB could start operating like a proper central bank as an alternative. The problem is that the Euro was not set up as a proper currency - it was a sort of "pretend" currency in some ways, in that it never had (as the crisis has shown) real central bank backing and governmental control.

Maybe it was too grandiose a project, but Germany also has a lot to lose by letting it go - maybe Germany will soon see sense at last and start getting real about how to run it. It will mean that Germans can't just have things all their own way though - access to the privileged markets to sell their goods and zero-risk for the debts those markets run up.

The real threat to all of us in Europe remains the way our corporations are using China as a cheap labour pool, exporting our capital to Asia and removing our skills, whilst at the same time our cowboy financial institutions plunder our pensions and savings.
Original post by zara55


The real threat to all of us in Europe remains the way our corporations are using China as a cheap labour pool, exporting our capital to Asia and removing our skills, whilst at the same time our cowboy financial institutions plunder our pensions and savings.
This is far too dramatic. There are underlying trends but the capital base of Europe is much stronger. The problems of the last few years resulted from monetary policy which was too loose and then tightened too quickly. The answer is for the Germans and the ECB to allow a moderate increase in inflation which will erode the value of the debt, and then increase economic growth with infrastructure projects. Most government spending in an advanced economy comes straight back to the government in taxes anyway. The problem with Greece (and to a lesser extent Italy and Spain) is not government spending but corruption. So the answer is political with Germany, France and UK needing to follow expansionist policies and integrating the EU more thoroughly using the lever of debt to insist on political reform in Italy, Greece, Spain in the direction of accountability. Remember that just one generation ago Spain and Greece were dirt poor banana republics with fascist political leadership and endemic corruption from top to bottom. Italy was not much better. Why do people expect they will change overnight.
Original post by Zalachenko
15% tax income tax, Alps in the winter, lakes in the summer. What else could anybody want?


I was more talking about Britains industry and being a leading financial hub but otherwise fair point :tongue:
Original post by Tasha1986
But where is the evidence that the rich will flee if their taxes are put up? they haven't been doing the vital investing that the champions of austerity say will disappear if we change tactics anyway.


With a 75% income tax? Who on earth who is movable with his job would stay?
Reply 144
Original post by Zalachenko
With a 75% income tax? Who on earth who is movable with his job would stay?


Sigh. It's a 75% tax on incomes OVER 1 MILLION EUROS. Stop propagandising.

In fact, the US and Britain used to have very similar (even higher) tax rates in the 50s/60s/70s and their economies steadily expanded throughout most of those periods, the rich still got richer, just at a lesser pace and people enjoyed a better quality of life because public services, infrastructure and amenities were better.

The US, which has become the poster child for low taxes, has such chronic declines in public infrastructure now that many experts are using phrases like "third-world" to describe it. In some states, the major roads are becoming unusable and public hospitals are near collapse.
Original post by zara55
The 75% kicks in on earnings over a million Euros a year, so your concern is that those earning more than e1m will go? They will already have most of their money with your trader friends in Zurich or Monaco anyway, so what difference would that make exactly?

In the case of banks and other too big to fails though it would be a huge net benefit to countries like the UK and France if they were to "leave" and headquarter in Zurich, Qatar or Dubai. Our taxpayers would then be relieved of the huge threat they represent the next time their casino operations fail and they demand a cash injection of 50% of our GDP to "rescue" them.

I said "leave" in inverted commas because it's always just the *headquarters* that "leaves" - sometimes not even the real HQ, but just a shell operation, a couple of computers and an accountant behind a buzzer in Luxembourg. This is apparently enough to convince our manipulated tax authorities that they are no longer in the country, even though their big money-making operations still are.

The banks now are analagous to mafiosi or criminal empires and many of their activities aimed at us "customers" are similar to organised criminal operations like drug smuggling or vice rings.


Exactly. Where's this hostility coming from?

I'm saying this is a bad policy by the new government, what about those that DO have to keep up with these rates (i.e. surgeons, dentists, and other workers who have to work in France because they're workplace is there), how is that fair for them? If for every £1MM they earn the government decides to take 75%? No incentive to work.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the global consequences if the government hadn't 'rescued' certain financial institutions post-2008. Concerning these 'shell operations', that is no secret. It's called cost reduction from a business point of view, I mean, what is the purpose of businesses? To make money right? Why pay a huge corporate tax when you can easily pay a lot less?

That's just out of order. Is your hate so big that you're actually comparing financial institutions to criminals? What do you have to support such a claim? For me it's survival of the fittest. It's hilarious that it's always those from outside are the ones criticizing the immense profits they make and how successful they are at what they do.


oh wow, judging a country on how much a pint is, great indicator there.

and also well done for providing an unbiased factual site, oh wait no you didnt do that either
Reply 147
Original post by zara55
Sigh. It's a 75% tax on incomes OVER 1 MILLION EUROS. Stop propagandising.

In fact, the US and Britain used to have very similar (even higher) tax rates in the 50s/60s/70s and their economies steadily expanded throughout most of those periods, the rich still got richer, just at a lesser pace and people enjoyed a better quality of life because public services, infrastructure and amenities were better.

The US, which has become the poster child for low taxes, has such chronic declines in public infrastructure now that many experts are using phrases like "third-world" to describe it. In some states, the major roads are becoming unusable and public hospitals are near collapse.
You've said everything.

I would add that this victory is bringing a fresh wind to the entire Europe: what if other countries decided to increase tax rates too? What if we realised that this fiscal policy is actually fair (the exact rate of 75% can be discussed though)? Do you think that the wealthiest would indefinitely move on across the world? In my opinion, it's only a matter of will, nothing else.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Rastagong
You've said everything.

I would add that this victory is bringing a fresh wind to the entire Europe: what if other countries decided to increase tax rates too? What if we realised that this fiscal policy is actually fair (the exact rate of 75% can be discussed though)? Do you think that the wealthiest would indefinitely move on across the world? In my opinion, it's only a matter of will, nothing else.


Fair? How is this policy fair? If people are smart enough and work hard to earn more than £1MM, why should they pay that much tax? If it was fair, everybody would pay the same. Unless you earn below a certain figure of course.
Reply 149
Original post by LemonLizards
Much harder to do with a bigger in terms of both size and economy power, and one of the biggest and strongest nations in the EU.

We'd all like to be like Scandanavia :biggrin:, but not sure it's really possible for countries such as UK, France, Germany etc. If that happened the whole of the eu would be pretty much screwed.


Ok this always gets said but what is actually harder with making it happen to countries that are bigger?

In terms of physical size Sweden is about twice that of the UK and Denmark is about half the population density of the UK so it doesn't seem like physical size or population density have that big an impact.

Now in terms of Economic power if you put the four mainland European Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland & Denmark) together you get a GDP which is of similar size as that of the uk (1.4 Trillion$ vs 2.25 Trillion$). And it shouldn't become impossible to do if the countries merged.

Population wise they would again be smaller but same order of magnitude. (about 25 vs 60 million)

The main difference I can see is that the Nordic countries have a much higher GDP/person, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done in a larger country.

I may be missing something really obvious though and if I am I would really like to know what it is.
Reply 150
Original post by Zalachenko


That's just out of order. Is your hate so big that you're actually comparing financial institutions to criminals? What do you have to support such a claim? For me it's survival of the fittest. It's hilarious that it's always those from outside are the ones criticizing the immense profits they make and how successful they are at what they do.


Many criminal acts have been committed by the largest banks and they are not being prosecuted because the "authorities" in the US, UK, etc are unwilling to act against them as they control the playing field.

To name just a few of many:

* Massive repackaging knowingly of dodgy debt into "AAA" securities sold as such knowingly by the likes of Lehmans, Goldmans, JPM, Barclays, etc.

* Barclays conspired with Lehmans to help them hide their massive losses with fraudulent transfers in and out of the bank at accounting points. This is widely known and discussed in the media but no SFO action has apparently been taken.

* Repeated scamming of ordinary customers by banks on a huge range of false and oversold products, ranging from PPI to dodgy securities presented as safe bets, to mis-sold and not-needed products (often deliberately aimed at the elderly and confused), high pressure commission-driven selling, etc.

* The global economy on the most extreme crisis day was rescued by emergency cash injections from Standard Chartered derived from its operations in Colombia and Bolivia/Venezuela. Two guesses where that money came from. Effectively the drug trade rescued the world economy via their knowing cash dealers in the banks.

* Goldmans and other leading banks have repeatedly and knowingly lied to corporate customers and institutional customers about derivative values. They have frequently run both sides of shorting operations, retailing their own dodgy derivatives to customers knowing they will fail whilst in another part of the operation shorting them.

There are many, many more.
Reply 151
Original post by Zalachenko
Fair? How is this policy fair? If people are smart enough and work hard to earn more than £1MM, why should they pay that much tax? If it was fair, everybody would pay the same. Unless you earn below a certain figure of course.
It is fair.

First because wealth isn't always the deserved reward of work. You might have noticed that if you studied at Eton, as if by chance, fate will grant you a successful life. I believe that there is a form of social determinism, which implies that we have to show solidarity.

Furthermore, the richer you are, the less your income yields you any (marginal) utility. Then, in time of crisis, why should the poorest ones, whose low income is quite useful to them, be reached first?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that we should chase millionaires, nor that they are the awful criminals who lead the world to its end. :biggrin:
They do stimulate investment, they are citizens, they do belong to our society. Still, in time of crisis, it's fairer to make them contribute first.
I have a feeling that once M. Hollande steps into the Elysée Palace and sees the numbers he's having to work with, he won't be able to deliver on everything he says; much like any nation leader in this day and age, really. The curse of inheriting the crap left behind by the previous administration (and the one before that, and the one before that, etc. etc.)

Let's see how things go once the new administration gets in and starts putting forth new laws in the Assemblée Nationale.
Reply 153
Original post by zara55
Yes, and crucially if he can succeed in influencing Merkel and the Germans to alter course and start spending again and seriously take on the Euro crisis by making the ECB a proper central bank. There are signs already that Merkel may be showing flexibility on the former, but the latter appears to be utterly gridlocked and will probably still lead to some kind of catastrophic failure; my guess is that Greece and possibly even Spain and Italy will end up leaving the Euro and that the Euro will then either unravel or become some kind of Euro 2 with only Germany, Denmark and Austria in one and reversion in the others.

Note his rather optimistic (naive?) assertions that he will effectively nationalise the bond market problem - let's assume this was pap for the left of his party but are they really silly enough and Little France enough to have such grand delusions? It is true that the bond markets are political instruments carrying out global policy moves for Goldman Sachs and JPM, but they are instruments of the US banks and the CIA, not something the French can do anything about.


:laugh:
Reply 154
Original post by zara55
... - the ECB could start operating like a proper central bank as an alternative. The problem is that the Euro was not set up as a proper currency - it was a sort of "pretend" currency in some ways, in that it never had (as the crisis has shown) real central bank backing and governmental control.

Maybe it was too grandiose a project, but Germany also has a lot to lose by letting it go - maybe Germany will soon see sense at last and start getting real about how to run it. It will mean that Germans can't just have things all their own way though - access to the privileged markets to sell their goods and zero-risk for the debts those markets run up.

The real threat to all of us in Europe remains the way our corporations are using China as a cheap labour pool, exporting our capital to Asia and removing our skills, whilst at the same time our cowboy financial institutions plunder our pensions and savings.


Very good argument however there are a things that concern me. For one Germany practically has control over the ECB, and has been very active in monitoring other countries, like greece and Italy, through it. The Germans have had it all their own way and with Merkel refusing to change tack at all, it seems single currency collapse is all thats left as she point blank refuses for Germans to give more funds.

Your also very right in that were responsible for China growing to the new superpower that they are as well as creating the debt mountain we now sit in. Like any person, when you accumulate too much debt, you must pay it back, but the euro situation means that one of your freinds (Germany) is trying to tell you how to sort your debts and actively force you into doing it their way. Real freinds dont do that which is why the euro project must end in its current form
.
He's not going to raise income tax to 75%

It's something he said pretty much off the cuff, he doesn't have sufficient backing from his party to do it and it wasn't an election promise, not that there's a precedent for French politicians sticking to those.
France will suffer for this unless the guy who won dillutes his schemes for EU domination. :lol:

75% tax rate on people earning 1 million or more? Who the **** does he think did his funding for the presidency?

Normal people?

:lol: Such fail but hey, its france so I dont give a crap.
Original post by HARRY PUTAH
France will suffer for this unless the guy who won dillutes his schemes for EU domination. :lol:

75% tax rate on people earning 1 million or more? Who the **** does he think did his funding for the presidency?

Normal people?

:lol: Such fail but hey, its france so I dont give a crap.


I hate to quibble but campaign finance law in France is incredibly strict, and so the rich did not finance Hollande's campaign - nor did they finance Sarkozy's. Only physical persons are allowed to contribute to campaigns and political parties - corporations and any non-physical entity are forbidden from providing financial support in any way, be that through money or services offered. A physical person may contribute up to €150 in cash or up to €4000 by cheque or online. France instead has state funding for political campaigns. So yes, normal people did fund his campaign.
Reply 158
Original post by Tasha1986
I hate to quibble but campaign finance law in France is incredibly strict, and so the rich did not finance Hollande's campaign - nor did they finance Sarkozy's. Only physical persons are allowed to contribute to campaigns and political parties - corporations and any non-physical entity are forbidden from providing financial support in any way, be that through money or services offered. A physical person may contribute up to €150 in cash or up to €4000 by cheque or online. France instead has state funding for political campaigns. So yes, normal people did fund his campaign.


Correct and so much better than the UK, where foreign tax exiles and hedge funds paid for their own government. A man from Belize who is deeply involved in tax evasion, avoidance and suspicious activities there (he more or less owns the country) paid for most of the current crop of young-right wing Tory MPs for example.
Original post by Tasha1986
I hate to quibble but campaign finance law in France is incredibly strict, and so the rich did not finance Hollande's campaign - nor did they finance Sarkozy's. Only physical persons are allowed to contribute to campaigns and political parties - corporations and any non-physical entity are forbidden from providing financial support in any way, be that through money or services offered. A physical person may contribute up to €150 in cash or up to €4000 by cheque or online. France instead has state funding for political campaigns. So yes, normal people did fund his campaign.


You realy believe the rich and powerful rely on the rule of the plebs to dictate what could possibly harm their vast fortunes and power bases?

Please tell me you're not that stupid. :rolleyes:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending