The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
No, and I do not have time for re-researching all your figures. But what matters is how many are unemployed, and that is not pretty reading in France.
"All studies suggest that the 35-hour week directly created 400,000 jobs, and contributed to the generally more upbeat mood in France"
Do you have a couple of links to those studies?
What upbeat mood in France? Where do you find that?
12% of the population in poverty, nearly 9% unemployment, is that an upbeat mood? The fact that you can point to cases of happily employed people doesn't disprove the cases that many are not. It just underscores that France is a two-tier society with some in privileged positions and some left out in the cold. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, couples with 12% poverty and 9% unemployment. Far from ideal.
Wealth tax: What matters is that the capital and activity disappearing from France because of it exceeds the tax it would have collected. I know from first hand about that person who nearly stayed away because of that tax. I have seen estimates of the cost of the wealth tax, although it's virtually impossible to prove what the situation would have been without the wealth tax. I know from the concrete example that I would have lost income from an important client if he had stayed away because of the wealth tax had he not found the exoneration. I'm one of the little guys who are losing out because that tax keeps certain clients away. Who pays the taxes that France needs to function when the wealthy ones go away or don't come? The little guy! How do you explain that France is nearly the only western country that still has a wealth tax, while even socialist countries like Denmark and Sweden are scrapping it? That tax is nothing but an envy tax that the socialists need to keep in place for dogmatic reasons. In absolute value, it represents very little tax and the revenues could easily be replaced by other taxes that are less provocative. The psychological impact of the wealth tax is much higher than the real cost to the few who pay it. I'll never ever pay that tax but I want to see the back of it asap. Think about it!
"You want anectode? As a banker, I am paid more in Paris than in London, for the exact same job, after tax, housing and school costs."
And so what? What is the point you want to prove with that?
Maybe you have endless time to dig up facts, but I have a business to run that the state is trying to smash up, sorry. "social model" go to hell!
Wealth tax: What matters is that the capital and activity disappearing from France because of it exceeds the tax it would have collected.
France is consistently in the top 5 for Foreign Direct Investment, one of the most used indicators as to the attractiveness of a country for capital:
(note that UK's numbers in 2005 are inflated by the 140bn reorganisation of Shell, which was structured as a 'purchase' of Shell UK by Shell Netherlands)
For a complete picture, because I care about getting the facts straight, here's the two way numbers, on aggregate for the past 10 years:
France also has one of the biggest outflows of capital. Should this be counted under "successful internationalization of the big French corporations" , or under "capital flight"? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Socialism (97-02) sure does not seem to have discouraged foreign investors. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But wealth tax is as you know now paid by corporations but by individuals. I don't get the idea of discouraging wealthy individuals from staying in France with their capital, not least since the wealth tax revenue is negligible in the big picture.
When they move or don't come to France, it's not only the wealth tax they don't pay, it's also income tax. The activity they don't generate in France or that is lost when they leave France means less employment and less taxes on salary and turnover.
If the wealth tax were beneficial for a country, it's very strange indeed that almost no one else has it.
Wrong again.
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 1 comment
by Oui - Nov 26 56 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 30 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 23 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 20 20 comments
by epochepoque - Nov 16 32 comments
by gmoke - Nov 15
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 13 43 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 21 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 304 comments
by Oui - Nov 2656 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2317 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2020 comments
by epochepoque - Nov 1632 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 1343 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 9125 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 5139 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 3215 comments