"His ideas include a 100% fat-cat tax, where the state will confiscate any earnings over £300,000. He wants a return to full pensions for everyone from the age of 60, a 20% increase in the minimum wage, a cap on maximum salaries and the nationalisation of big energy companies. He says the US is the biggest international threat in the world."

interesting

4/22/2012 1:46:30 AM

4/22/2012 1:59:55 AM

I couchsurfed with a guy in France who supported him. Luckily I didn't find out until shortly before I left, otherwise we probably would have just argued the whole time.

4/22/2012 5:47:16 AM

Those are some terrible ideas.

4/22/2012 11:51:32 AM

c'est terrible, cette idees

4/22/2012 12:35:44 PM

if the state is just going to take anything over 300k, no one will have a salary of over 300k and will take other measures to avoid this. dumb motha fucka.

4/22/2012 2:53:31 PM

Which, within the realm of legal activity, means that all that shaved income will reduce prices, and increase wages on everyone else. Fair share.

4/22/2012 3:47:07 PM

4/22/2012 3:57:34 PM

Or France suffers epic brain drain as their most qualified workers move to Germany or Italy or the UK.

4/22/2012 6:20:08 PM

so it will 300k salary, company provided car(s), company living reimbursement (company funded mortgage/rent), company expense account for food, company reimbursement for child education expenses, etc. You'd have to be higher then a kite at a tool concert to think that would the country a better place.

4/22/2012 6:23:58 PM

I don't see how any of these policies would address the biggest glaring loophole that French firms already use to avoid paying full labor costs: they simply hire young people on as "contractors" and "interns", teasing them with the never fulfilled promise of a permanent job. Since nearly all companies run like this, they're trapped.

4/22/2012 6:31:11 PM

he got 10% the socialist got 27% the obama/romneyist got 26%, the gingrich got20% and the ron paul centrist got 10 %.

Looks like sarkozy is going to win again once he combines his 27% with the 20% from the right. Its unlikely that the center would vote socialist.

4/22/2012 10:17:00 PM

Quote :

"so it will 300k salary, company provided car(s), company living reimbursement (company funded mortgage/rent), company expense account for food, company reimbursement for child education expenses, etc. You'd have to be higher then a kite at a tool concert to think that would the country a better place. "

The US once had a 90% rate on income above a certain level.

The 100% tax is a dumb idea, but it's not really unprecedented or unworkable.

Most really rich people make a pathetic amount of their income from wages already, so the money generated from a 100% would be minimal, and it would corral earnings from the very-wealthy to a few avenues that are easier to monitor/tax.

4/22/2012 10:42:06 PM

Quote :

"Most really rich people make a pathetic amount of their income from wages already"

Not exactly pathetic.



Nonetheless, we should note that the very top percentile is a lie. There are lots of hedge fund managers and others of that sort there, and they have special carried interest rules that allow them to receive payment for managing someone else's capital and then classify that income as capital gains. It's something that basically everyone who knows about it recognizes is a complete political gift to the rich, but most people don't know about it... so it's still there. Because of this, I think the graph dramatically underestimates the contribution from wages.

http://soc101.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/income-distribution-rich-richer/

I mean, how much of a CEO's income is capital gains? And now how much of his income do you think is honestly from capital gains?

4/22/2012 11:49:02 PM

Quote :

"Or France suffers epic brain drain as their most qualified workers move to Germany or Italy or the UK."

that's definitely what i would do if i could otherwise command a higher salary than that.

4/23/2012 12:29:43 AM

^ unless you had a wife or kids that for one reason or another wanted to stay in France.

And i'm not sure if "brain drain" is relevant when it's not scientists, engineers, and educators that are paid the high salaries, but instead businessman and politicians.

4/23/2012 12:38:11 AM

Naturally, the real concern is flight of capital out of the country. It's probably illegal anyway...

To say nothing of the fairness, if everyone in the US making >$500k per year in ordinary income could just no longer make that amount, I would personally go about life tomorrow with no ill effects whatsoever.

4/23/2012 12:43:11 AM

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/06/french-election-results-2012/

5/6/2012 2:56:11 PM

^^yeah, working as a server you dont have to worry about that, even including the tips you didnt claim

5/6/2012 3:00:40 PM

This could get interesting. Let's see how an alleged "socialist" deals with the budget when there are no more freebies to give out.

5/6/2012 3:08:26 PM

I think this is more like $420,000... and he wants to give it to the government, because the government knows best. This will lead to more corruption. Even if with the best intentions, it will not end well.

5/6/2012 3:15:07 PM

^^Hollande doesn't plan to give out "freebies" and his party is more like a social-democratic party than an old-style socialist party.

5/6/2012 3:46:32 PM

If the Illuminati has chosen Hollande for France it only makes sense that they would choose democrats in the U.S.

5/6/2012 4:39:00 PM

Quote :

"The US once had a 90% rate on income above a certain level."

Ah, that mythical 90% tax rate.

5/7/2012 8:55:11 AM

Quote :

"Hollande doesn't plan to give out "freebies" and his party is more like a social-democratic party than an old-style socialist party."

Freebies probably is the wrong term to use. Hollande is anti-austerity in a climate where austerity is the only option, no matter how shitty it is.

Instead, France has voted to take the U.S. strategy: pretend there isn't a problem. Prosperity can be handed down by the issuance of government debt. The only problem is that France, like all EU member states, can't issue debt unilaterally. Any debt has to be approved through a grueling process, and ultimately, it has to be approved by Germany. I don't think Germany is willing to bail out the entire EU or France. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. does, though.

In any case, we'll get to file this under "more proof that socialism doesn't work" in a few years. And, then, you'll all get to claim that it wasn't real socialism. Technically, you'll be right, but the standard of living for the average french citizen will have gone down nonetheless.

[Edited on May 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2012 11:15:08 AM

Quote :

"In any case, we'll get to file this under "more proof that socialism doesn't work" in a few years."

We get to file it under "more proof that austerity doesn't work" right now, unless you would care to explain to us how it actually did work. Revisionist history is a bit tougher to to create when it is more current.

5/7/2012 12:15:12 PM

How do you think "austerity" is supposed to work? You think things get better when austerity is ushered in?

Austerity results when the government becomes overextended. It's the hangover to a session of binge drinking. Avoid the binge drinking and you can avoid the hangover.

5/7/2012 12:19:52 PM

The goal is to create some sort of recovery, right? The recovery that has not come? Or is it simply to make people suffer for thier crime against the free market? It has done a pretty good job at making people suffer, so if that is the only goal, it was resoundingly successful.

5/7/2012 12:22:45 PM

A recovery can't be created. True recovery will come when bad debt is allowed to leave the market.

Sorry, you can't pin this on the free market. That's what France will try to do, no doubt, but economic reality will beat them into submission.

5/7/2012 12:25:47 PM

Quote :

"True recovery will come when bad debt is allowed to leave the market."

That's circular reasoning: When does the recovery come? When bad debt leaves the market. When does bad debt leave the market? When recovery comes.

Quote :

"That's what France will try to do, no doubt, but economic reality will beat them into submission."

It's working well for the US.

5/7/2012 12:32:25 PM

Quote :

"That's circular reasoning: When does the recovery come? When bad debt leaves the market. When does bad debt leave the market? When recovery comes."

No, the recovery does not come when the bad debt leaves the market. When debt is liquidated (bankruptcy), things get bad. A ton of capital is freed up to be used for productive purposes. That's when growth begins to pick up.

5/7/2012 12:58:57 PM

You just added two steps into the same circle, it's still circular reasoning.

5/7/2012 1:55:47 PM

You don't understand what circular reasoning is. You're actually saying that I'm using a tautology - recovery is when debt is liquidated, therefore debt is liquidated when recovery comes.

I'm actually not saying that, though. I'm saying that true recovery cannot come while capital is tied up in the form of bad debt. We probably disagree on what constitutes a recovery, though. You think that the United States has been "recovering" since 2009.

5/7/2012 2:01:35 PM

Quote :

"We probably disagree on what constitutes a recovery, though. You think that the United States has been "recovering" since 2009."

Well, let's solve that. I'd suggest using GDP, unemployment, average wages, or something like that, I'm assuming you want to use some measure of the amount of debt fairy dust in the air or something

5/7/2012 2:39:49 PM

I think short-term stimulus can help jump start an economy just because it puts people back to work and gets money flowing again. I don't see why building and repairing new infrastructure isn't universally agreed upon as good policy. It just makes sense. It also provides a psychological boost to a demoralized and battered populace. Of course, this works best with a balanced budget approach during prosperous times. But at this point, stimulus spending to put people back to work would probably not tip the scales into total catastrophe. A certain amount of government spending is healthy for an economy because it creates value through social benefits that a purely private economy would not.

But France, and all of Europe for that matter, should not be creating long-term financial obligations for themselves. It is the wrong time to implement new welfare and safety net programs. Increased taxes are also necessary from those most capable of paying. No individual is isolated in a global economy. Everyone needs to take a bite of the shit sandwich. Especially the wealthy who helped create the problem with poor investments and are already back on their feet.

5/7/2012 4:45:17 PM

Quote :

"It's working well for the US."

I'm a little confused by this statement. Kris, what exactly are you referring to? Overall the average citizen (here in the US) is worse off than they were in 2008. Given the ridiculously low growth of the economy and loss in buying power it's a joke to say that we've even left the recession. So on the whole I would say nothing is working well.

5/8/2012 2:46:55 PM

Actually, that's a bit disingenuous. Citizens are worse off than they were forty years ago, after taking inflation into account. We're actually better off than we were in 2009 and 2010 when Obama's economic policies were fully implemented. We have been using stimulus and we're experiencing growth. Europe has been implementing austerity and they're going into recession. Those are the facts.

[Edited on May 8, 2012 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2012 3:35:56 PM

The facts are that our "growth" is below the average growth from the last 60 years. That's hardly growth. Buying power and take home income is down from 3 years ago. That cannot be disputed.

Obviously I don't speak for everyone when I say this but I am worse off than I was 4 years ago, as well as 3 years ago.

5/8/2012 4:03:52 PM

How are you worse off the last three years? You've been gainfully employed the whole time, inflation has been under control (gas was lower in 2009, yes, but that was after it was the highest it's been ever in 2008) and unless you moved to all cash after the market went down your retirement has seen marked growth (period April 30, 2009-2012 has seen the S&P return 19.44%).

What, specifically, are you worse of in?

5/8/2012 4:33:21 PM

My mutual funds are barely above where they were 4 years ago. Below inflation for sure. My income has increased slower than inflation as well. So I'm at a loss as to why you ask, because you already know this.

5/8/2012 4:55:00 PM

Quote :

"I'm a little confused by this statement. Kris, what exactly are you referring to? "

Since the recession, the US has been in recovery, Europe has not. Europe used austerity and the US did not.

Quote :

"My mutual funds are barely above where they were 4 years ago."

Yes, but they would still be going down if you were in Europe.

5/8/2012 7:51:32 PM

The United States has practiced austerity but more at the state level than the federal. Part of the reason the job recovery has been so anemic is the large number of public sector workers let go.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lcvuESsUK6k/T6Phzt3xAeI/AAAAAAAANMI/7noifVxx2xk/s1600/PublicSectorApril2012.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vCEVIJy5zSU/T6PhzcHDnNI/AAAAAAAANL8/TJwHKDPMllY/s1600/PrivateSectorApril2012.jpg

5/8/2012 9:45:58 PM

Quote :

"My mutual funds are barely above where they were 4 years ago. Below inflation for sure. My income has increased slower than inflation as well. So I'm at a loss as to why you ask, because you already know this."

So why do you support politicians who don't have your best economic interests in mind? GDP is growing, but we all know it's going to the top 5% who are already reaping higher compensation than they were in 2008, at the previous peak of GDP. Why don't you support policies that create more even and sustainable growth across the entire economy? Taxing the rich who can afford to pay more and investing that money through government spending would do more to help the economy and relieve the masses than letting billions of dollars sit in their bank accounts at 2% interest. It's not just a quick fix for an ailing economy, it's good economic policy.

Quote :

"My mutual funds are barely above where they were 4 years ago. Below inflation for sure. My income has increased slower than inflation as well. So I'm at a loss as to why you ask, because you already know this."

If this isn't ok, you can always take your money out. No investment is 100% risk-free. You knew this prior to investing. The entire world went through a massive recession. Almost no one came out unscathed. And they ARE, in fact, above where they were 4 years ago. We're not disputing whether this is enough to keep up with inflation, we're debating whether this is growth, which it is. If you want to blame someone for this, blame Bush or Greenspan or Hank Paulson or Countrywide. Don't blame Obama because his policies were implemented after the damage was done.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 1:46 AM. Reason : ]

5/9/2012 1:40:30 AM

Quote :

"Taxing the rich who can afford to pay more and investing that money through government spending would do more to help the economy and relieve the masses than letting billions of dollars sit in their bank accounts at 2% interest."

Taxing everyone to give the money to the rich is not going equalize society.

5/9/2012 10:10:36 AM

Quote :

"Don't blame Obama because his policies were implemented after the damage was done"

You're making the argument bigger and more widespread than it is. I'm talking purely over the duration of Obama's term. And who said I want the rich to get richer? Don't try covering me with a political party blanket statement please.

5/9/2012 10:52:19 AM

Oh, I apologize. Were you not implying that the economy has been shitty from 2008-2012 because of Obama's policies? Usually that's what people who say things like that are getting at. My bad.

5/9/2012 10:57:32 AM

A Corsican on another board I'm on describing the candidates before the first round of the election as to which crook gets to take charge of the crime family.

Quote :

"So far we have in contention: 1-Spastic Nick. The mean short-arsed son of a bitch has been in charge of the organizations interests during the last five years. Basic program: Covering his opponents in shite+keeping power Main + The guy can unchain havoc, mainly in verbal mode, always want more police and enforcement, and he knows how to lick bigger organizations' collective arses, ie the Kraut family. Main - He did a less when in charge, even security-wise and he's still struggling to get rid of his uneducated "bling-bling" bully image and gain any form of respectability. 2-Flamby Francis. Five years after his ex-wife, the living ad for Dukan diet wants to put the Socialists back in charge. Basic program: covering Spastic Nick in shite+conquering power Main + He can build on the general tiredness about Spastic Nick and is as prone as using the police solution as the present boss Main - Is almost as eager as his main opponent when it comes to talk about real issues and looks as energetic as a past-its-date soja yoghurt. [color=#0000FF][size=200]New French Capo[/size][/color] 3-Ilsa Marine. The blonde dominatrix wannabe follows her father's footsteps in what appears like another doomed race to bossdom. Basic program so far: kicking immigrants out of France, killing the euro Main+ She's a woman, always a bankable asset, and can ride the massive discontent wave generated by the EU crisis. Main- She's earmarked as a fascist by anyone left of Spastic Nick 4-GPU Jean-Luc. Good orator, he's nicked the Communist leadership to all Commies and he knows how to move crowds by reviving all their "Great Night" revolutionary fantasies. Basic program: terminating 5th Republic, making rich pay for the poors, outlawing regional languages use Main+ The best French supporter China can dream of. Main- As an autocratic Stalinist nostalgic, he cannot stand anything going against the almighty state he plans for France and is the worst enemy of anything revolutionary. 5-Goody Two Shoes Francis The Béarnais midfielder wants to get past the first run, without much hope of doing so Basic program: not promising anything, just getting things done. He also wants to ratify European Minority Languages Chart Main+ He pinpoints what's wrong in the campaign, is able to stay mainly out of the schoolyard brawl and still wants to overlook the traditional left/right gap Main- Not enough people care 6-Never Say Eva Ex-judge gone mafiosa-apprentice, she tries and get some support to the Green family. Basic program: who knows? Main+ A woman, she can utter as many insults as her male opponents without being deemed aggressive. Main- She forgot she's not a judge anymore and cannot decide for others. Looks like she now loses her balance. 7-Fruitcake Jake French copycat of Lyndon Larouche, without the money. Basic program: denying GCC, "creating a thermonuclear corridor between Earth and Mars via the Moon", "refounding the international financial system" Main+ The main comical attraction so far, he's managed to accuse Lizzie Windsor of drug-trafficking. Main- Knows he'll only get about 0,001% of total votes. 8-Who? Nick Former Spastic sidekick, he decided to run his own organization in 2007 Basic program: Anti EU Main+ he gathers all needed mythical keywords in his presentation: social gaullist defending French sovereignty Main- Nobody knows what it means/gives a damn. 9-Day-glo Red Natalia Heir of six-times unsuccessful runner Arlette, the far-left candidate could do even worse. Basic program "Workers, you're robbed and hard-done by the evil capitalists" Main+ She wants real wealth distribution Main- She shares the same motto with GPU JeanLuc and 10-Workman Phil Another "anticapitalist" candidate, he's a genuine workman, repairing factory machines. Basic program: see #9 and 4 Main- Has acknowledged campaigning was "harder than working in factory" Main+ Will soon be back to an easier occupation"

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

5/9/2012 11:20:02 AM

Why France Has So Many 49-Employee Companies

Quote :

"Here’s a curious fact about the French economy: The country has 2.4 times as many companies with 49 employees as with 50. What difference does one employee make? Plenty, according to the French labor code. Once a company has at least 50 employees inside France, management must create three worker councils, introduce profit sharing, and submit restructuring plans to the councils if the company decides to fire workers for economic reasons."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/why-france-has-so-many-49-employee-companies

Sounds like a great way to encourage job growth.

5/9/2012 1:10:03 PM

I wish we had that. Small businesses are so much better for the welfare of the local community.

5/9/2012 3:04:44 PM

I mean... that's a foolish and noble policy.

I think interaction between upper-level and lower-level employees is healthy. In behemoth corporations executives never see the human cost of poor decision-making. If the assholes at Enron had any sort of interaction with the employees they swindled out of billions, maybe they would have played it differently. Maybe not, but it wouldn't have hurt.

Profit-sharing is positive as well as long as it's not too heavily weighted in either workers favor. That shouldn't be a number decided by government, but by the collaboration between employees in the company. It would increase productivity as every employee has a direct incentive to perform at a high level.

Downsizing is a tough call though. Obviously it's necessary at times, but I don't really think including people in those decisions is a bad thing. If it's a mild downturn and the company has a good atmosphere, employees might be willing to sacrifice and work 35-hour weeks instead of 40 for a few quarters until the company recovers and is ready to grow again or some other temporary reduction in compensation while they're going through hard times. Again, this would increase productivity and comradery in the company as the workers feel more like neighbors than co-workers and everyone would work more towards a common goal rather than feeling like mercenaries. This would be good for the company too as hiring and training new employees is a costly affair.

This policy just seems like government mandated small-scale workers unions inside of companies though. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but obviously it's going to weaken the economy in France because everything, including the price of labor, is tied into the global market now. Particularly in Europe where there are many different nations and governments using the same currency and trading freely. If these were universal policies used all over the planet, I'm sure they're economy would be faring better than it is right now. But that's very idealistic and unrealistic.

I know almost nothing of the French economy aside from high youth unemployment (which makes sense when learning about this policy) and ridiculously long vacations. I would be interested in learning more. To hear about whether the French enjoy working for these companies or whether they would rather move to a more free market system like in the United States. I think companies that treat their employees as human beings and not interchangeable cogs in the machine fare better than more profit-seeking companies. These companies might have lower profits as a result, but they produce more stable, steady growth because they engage in less risk and the tangible benefits they bring to their local communities likely far outweigh the lower short-term profits. Contributing to the local community, happier employees, and more stable families lead to a better overall economy than just high profits. It's possible that these firms might even perform better over the long-term.

I kind of like that policy, but France is kind of hanging itself out to dry on competitiveness by doing this. There is no way it will succeed in the current global economic climate. It's a very progressive policy and I agree that employees should be shareholders in company fortunes as much as anonymous investors are. This should be a goal companies move towards.

5/9/2012 4:16:41 PM