French Presidential Candidate Proposing 100% Tax On The Rich

Title says it all.

Link is here if you wish to view the article.

This tax would be on incomes over 400,000 euro which is $425,000. These income brackets are currently taxed at 45 percent.

Thoughts on tax rates for the rich? What do you think the tax system should look like and why? Think this is going to work out if he gets elected? I saw in the article that

President Francois Hollande proposed a 75% top tax rate in 2012, but the proposal was rejected by the French courts.

so I wonder if this can even get passed.

Happy Tuesday monkeys, keep on the grind.

Consulting Case Interview Course

  • 2,037 questions across 209 consulting firms. Crowdsourced from over 600,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Exclusive Cases developed by a McKinsey Associate and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring consultants just like you.

Comments (82)

Apr 18, 2017

I hope the idiotic French elect this guy so their already overly socialist society completely deteriorates, I feel like that's the only way they'll learn. These asshats are blaming the EU for their shitty economy when their regulations and laws have made it impossible to do business there. Let those fuckers eat cake.

    • 17
Best Response
Apr 18, 2017

are you sure this is BobTheBaker, and didn't just leave your laptop unattended at a Starbucks?

Apr 18, 2017

I was shocked too

    • 1
Apr 18, 2017

I am not a socialist. It is on record that I believe Bernie Sanders would've been worse for our economy than Donald Trump.

    • 3
Apr 19, 2017
C.R.E. Shervin:

are you sure this is BobTheBaker, and didn't just leave your laptop unattended at a Starbucks?

LOL, there have been, like, 5 threads in a row where BobTheBaker has produced the only rational thoughts in the thread. Gotta give the (proverbial) devil his due.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

I hope the idiotic French elect this guy so their already overly socialist society completely deteriorates, I feel like that's the only way they'll learn. These asshats are blaming the EU for their shitty economy when their regulations and laws have made it impossible to do business there. Let those fuckers eat cake.

Do you realize that:
-the EU is responsible for plenty of that regulation you complain about
-the EU is the biggest responsible for tax avoidance in places like Luxembourg (made a tax haven by the current President of the European Commission Juncker)
-most French don't blame the EU anyway since they want to remain in it

Granted, Melenchon's proposal is idiotic and will result in pretty much everyone with a 400k plus income leaving France as it happened before with a similar proposal, but he's hardly the main problem.

But yeah boohoo 'entitled' European workers who won't work 14 hours a day for 2 cents like the Chinese. Globalization is the problem and if you think 'people will learn' by bankrupting France for a stupid tax you are delusional. They'll just hunt the tax dodging capital owner and put him through the guillotine.

    • 2
    • 4
Apr 19, 2017
neink:

But yeah boohoo 'entitled' European workers who won't work 14 hours a day for 2 cents like the Chinese. Globalization is the problem and if you think 'people will learn' by bankrupting France for a stupid tax you are delusional. They'll just hunt the tax dodging capital owner and put him through the guillotine.

Don't the French have a 35-hour work week?

Apr 19, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

neink:But yeah boohoo 'entitled' European workers who won't work 14 hours a day for 2 cents like the Chinese. Globalization is the problem and if you think 'people will learn' by bankrupting France for a stupid tax you are delusional. They'll just hunt the tax dodging capital owner and put him through the guillotine.

Don't the French have a 35-hour work week?

They do, which should be scrapped without making such a fuss about it.

Apr 19, 2017

Which Melenchon wants to change to a 32 hour work week...

Oh yeah, he also wants to reduce the retirement age to 60

Apr 19, 2017

Lol Globalization is the problem, keep telling yourself that bro. The Germans are reaaaally struggling with globalization and those EU regulations right? The ridiculous worker protections, massive welfare state that basically encourages not working, and ridiculous corporate tax rates have nothing to do with it.

    • 3
    • 1
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

Lol Globalization is the problem, keep telling yourself that bro. The Germans are reaaaally struggling with globalization and those EU regulations right? The ridiculous worker protections, massive welfare state that basically encourages not working, and ridiculous corporate tax rates have nothing to do with it.

Lmao. Germany has a massive welfare state.

The only reason they do well is because they have a devalued currency compared to the Deutschemark, which boosts their export.

And saying ''globalization isn't the problem'' means you have learned nothing from Brexit and Trump.

Good luck with it. Do you really think ''populism'' is going to disappear by ignoring it, calling everyone racist/sexist or even socialists like you did?

''Hey guys, what are you all mad about? Everything is great!''

LOL

    • 1
    • 4
Apr 19, 2017

Are you telling me that because a lot of people BELIEVE globalization is the problem (Brexit/ Trump) it is ACTUALLY the problem? That is a terrible argument. Germany's unemployment rate is 4%, France's is 10%. Both in the same EU.... When the fuck did race/ sexism get mentioned here? Take that straw man shit elsewhere. Fact is France's problems are of their own doing and the scapegoating going on is part of the problem. If they want to address their issues they should take a cold hard look at their employment policies/ unemployment benefits and corporate tax rate. Blaming globalization is putting a band-aid on a bullet hole.

    • 5
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

Are you telling me that because a lot of people BELIEVE globalization is the problem (Brexit/ Trump) it is ACTUALLY the problem? That is a terrible argument. Germany's unemployment rate is 4%, France's is 10%. Both in the same EU.... When the fuck did race/ sexism get mentioned here? Take that straw man shit elsewhere. Fact is France's problems are of their own doing and the scapegoating going on is part of the problem. If they want to address their issues they should take a cold hard look at their employment policies/ unemployment benefits and corporate tax rate. Blaming globalization is putting a band-aid on a bullet hole.

IMF Lagarde confirmed that since the beginning of globalization in the 90s, the Western middle class has shrunk.
So it's not even about believing. It's a fact. The majority of people are worse off.
http://www.dw.com/en/davos-the-crisis-of-the-middl...
If that to you is not evidence of unhealthy system, then there's no point in further debate.

As for France, it has a stronger currency than it should be, which results in exporting less, and if business export less, they hire less. Textbook economics.

You can't put together a country with a strong currency and a country with a weak currency and expect them to work fine.

    • 2
Apr 19, 2017

There's a difference between correlation and causation. I'm going to stop going back and forth with you. You seem to believe the tax rate and employment policies in France are not the major causes of their issues, rather it is globalization. Okay. I'm moving on.

    • 2
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

There's a difference between correlation and causation. I'm going to stop going back and forth with you. You seem to believe the tax rate and employment policies in France are not the major causes of their issues, rather it is globalization. Okay. I'm moving on.

So, let me guess, the middle class of not just France, but the whole Western world is worse off since globalization started, meaning it's not a ''correlation'' within a single country, but it's observable in multiple ones.

But we should focus of not well defined ''taxation and employment'' policies on a single country compared to a something that is observable across multiple countries, hinting it's not ''country specific'' as you argue, basing your entire reasoning on ideological preferences.

Classic.

    • 2
Apr 19, 2017

Dude there is massive variation WITHIN the west when you discuss stuff like youth unemployment and overall unemployment. Compare Germany/ US/ UK to Spain/ France/ Italy. The former have relatively lax employment policies and reduced corporate tax rates compared to the latter which have idiotic employment policies. The former have much lower unemployment rates than the latter. The American middle class has been declining since the 60s, before NAFTA and before China entered the WTO. What you call ideological preferences I call data and evidence. France has a shit economy because of France's policies, Germany has a much better economy because of Germany's policies. THEY BOTH HAVE TO DEAL WITH GLOBALIZATION YET THEY'RE OUTCOMES ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT. It's like I am arguing with some uninformed Bernie voter here it's ridiculous.

    • 2
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

Dude there is massive variation WITHIN the west when you discuss stuff like youth unemployment and overall unemployment. Compare Germany/ US/ UK to Spain/ France/ Italy. The former have relatively lax employment policies and reduced corporate tax rates compared to the latter which have idiotic employment policies.

The former have much lower unemployment rates than the latter.

I can play the game as well:
Germany: undervalued currency, better off.
US: right currency, middle class deep crisis, 'populist revolt'
UK: same as US, right currency, middle class deep crisis, 'populist revolt'

Spain: overvalued currency, high unemployment.
France: overvalued currency, high unemployment.
Italy: overvalued currency, high unemployment.

But yeah, we should ignore correlations amirite?

BobTheBaker:

The American middle class has been declining since the 60s, before NAFTA and before China entered the WTO. What you call ideological preferences I call data and evidence.

Yeah because people were moving up in the social scale, not down like now. You can see that in quintiles breakdowns. For the past 25-30 years, for 80% of Americans real wages have been stagnating. They were growing before that.

BobTheBaker:

France has a shit economy because of France's policies, Germany has a much better economy because of Germany's policies. THEY BOTH HAVE TO DEAL WITH GLOBALIZATION YET THEY'RE OUTCOMES ARE VASTLT DIFFERENT.

This was mighty Germany in 1999, the year of fixed exchange rates before the introduction of the Euro.
http://www.economist.com/node/209559
And you can easily see from the following years data that as soon as fixed exchange rates are introduced, the Germany export explodes, while France/Spain/Italy ones collapse. This is just the effect of fixed exchange rates, it's immediate, overnight and easily observable, not depending on taxation or employment policies.

BobTheBaker:

It's like I am arguing with some uninformed Bernie voter here it's ridiculous.

Oh cute, ad hominems, that's what you do when you are losing a debate.

    • 2
    • 4
Apr 19, 2017

So your basic argument comes down to exchange rates? I mean Germany's currency is only undervalued now because they instituted policies that made their economy stronger while France and the like has instituted policies that have systematically diminished their economy. You are confusing the effect with the cause. Wage stagnation has been occurring in the US since 1980, before NAFTA and before China's entry to the WTO.

From your article:

"Another big reason not to invest is the cost of hiring and firing workers. Holger Schmieding, senior European economist at Merrill Lynch, thinks that Germany has got itself caught in a vicious circle. The welfare state is largely financed by payroll taxes, half of which are paid by employers and half by individual workers. As welfare costs have swollen, non-wage labour costs have shot up too, from 36% of gross wages in 1990 to a painful 42% last year. This encourages companies to shed workers, reducing payments into the welfare system while ratcheting up the benefits that must flow out.

Mr Schmieding thinks that Germany's high costs relative to what it produces help to explain why unemployment has risen from cycle to cycle since the 1960s. German workers may be productive, but not enough to justify costs that are running at 50% above levels in any other G7 country. Getting rid of workers is costly too. Severance pay is typically a month's salary per year worked, plus generous retirement pay-offs for older workers. "The jobs market doesn't really deserve to be called a market," says one disgruntled company manager."

TLDR: Hiring and firing was too hard (like France now) which was a major contribution to their downturn. The article continues to discuss more ways that Germany "protects workers" at the expense of businesses then ends on the hope for reform. Germany seems to be the poster-child for what France needs to do as they actually reformed their policies yet you ignore this to scapegoat globalization.

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

So your basic argument comes down to exchange rates? I mean Germany's currency is only undervalued now because they instituted policies that made their economy stronger while France and the like has instituted policies that have systematically diminished their economy.

The Deutschemark was the strongest continental european currency from the post war to the euro.
The euro gave Germany a massive competitive devaluation they needed and the effect are observable in any trade balance chart of the Eurozone.

BobTheBaker:

You are confusing the effect with the cause. Wage stagnation has been occurring in the US since 1980, before NAFTA and before China's entry to the WTO.

From your article:

"Another big reason not to invest is the cost of hiring and firing workers. Holger Schmieding, senior European economist at Merrill Lynch, thinks that Germany has got itself caught in a vicious circle. The welfare state is largely financed by payroll taxes, half of which are paid by employers and half by individual workers. As welfare costs have swollen, non-wage labour costs have shot up too, from 36% of gross wages in 1990 to a painful 42% last year. This encourages companies to shed workers, reducing payments into the welfare system while ratcheting up the benefits that must flow out.

Mr Schmieding thinks that Germany's high costs relative to what it produces help to explain why unemployment has risen from cycle to cycle since the 1960s. German workers may be productive, but not enough to justify costs that are running at 50% above levels in any other G7 country. Getting rid of workers is costly too. Severance pay is typically a month's salary per year worked, plus generous retirement pay-offs for older workers. "The jobs market doesn't really deserve to be called a market," says one disgruntled company manager."

TLDR: Hiring and firing was too hard (like France now) which was a major contribution to their downturn. The article continues to discuss more ways that Germany "protects workers" at the expense of businesses then ends on the hope for reform. Germany seems to be the poster-child for what France needs to do as they actually reformed their policies yet you ignore this to scapegoat globalization.

He's writing in 99 when fixed exchange rates had been around for 6 months. In a hindsight, his analysis proved to be wrong. All Germany needed was a competitive devaluation.

And France just needs to leave the EU and rebuild from scratch its monetary system and banking system.

    • 1
    • 1
Apr 19, 2017

You really fucking believe a simple currency devaluation was what changed Germany from 10% unemployment (still lower than France at the time) to 4%? Man you are eager to scapegoat globalization.

Here is an academic paper on the subject: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-C/U2014/388/jepDustman.pdf
Select quote: the share of German workers covered by any kind of union agreement has sharply declined, and the number of firm-level deviations from industry-wide union agreements has sharply increased since the mid 1990s. Overall, these gradual changes within the system led to an unprecedented decentralization of the wage-setting process from the industry level to the firm level. The decentralization in wage setting in Germany is in contrast to many of its neighbors (hi France) where the statutory minimum wage is often high (relative to productivity), where union wages and work hour regulations apply to all firms in the industry, and where institutional change therefore requires broad consensus along the political spectrum.

He also mentions the Hartz reforms where Germany basically got rid of the stupid shit most of Europe still does through legislation as a contributing factor (although not the main factor).

Lastly: Some argue that the adoption of the common European currency is a main factor that has helped Germany to improve competitiveness. Again, we believe that the arrival of the euro may have been a contributing factor, but not the main one (you seem to believe it is the ONLY factor). I agree with you on France needing to be able to devalue it's currency according to its economic standing (the main issue with the EU is loss of monetary policy ability by individual countries) but that, again, is a Band-Aid on a bullet hole.

In short: France needs to reform it's labor markets to improve their economy, leaving the EU is a marginal and scapegoating solution.

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

You really fucking believe a simple currency devaluation was what changed Germany from 10% unemployment (still lower than France at the time) to 4%? Man you are eager to scapegoat globalization.

Here is an academic paper on the subject: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-C/U2014/388/jepDustman.pdf

Select quote: the share of German workers covered by any kind of union agreement has sharply declined, and the number of firm-level deviations from industry-wide union agreements has sharply increased since the mid 1990s. Overall, these gradual changes within the system led to an unprecedented decentralization of the wage-setting process from the industry level to the firm level. The decentralization in wage setting in Germany is in contrast to many of its neighbors (hi France) where the statutory minimum wage is often high (relative to productivity), where union wages and work hour regulations apply to all firms in the industry, and where institutional change therefore requires broad consensus along the political spectrum.

He also mentions the Hartz reforms where Germany basically got rid of the stupid shit most of Europe still does through legislation as a contributing factor (although not the main factor).

Lastly: Some argue that the adoption of the common European currency is a main factor that has helped Germany to improve competitiveness. Again, we believe that the arrival of the euro may have been a contributing factor, but not the main one (you seem to believe it is the ONLY factor). I agree with you on France needing to be able to devalue it's currency according to its economic standing (the main issue with the EU is loss of monetary policy ability by individual countries) but that, again, is a Band-Aid on a bullet hole.

In short: France needs to reform it's labor markets to improve their economy, leaving the EU is a marginal and scapegoating solution.

I'm aware of the Hartz reform, and yet the boost to the German export starts straight from Jan 1999, before them. It's the Euro.
You can argue that the Hartz reforms magnfied the effect, and that is something I can agree on.

Apr 19, 2017

Bottom line is France can leave the EU if it wants and that may help marginally due to currency depreciation, but if that country wants to truly improve they need to examine their labor and tax laws. I understand that, politically, telling people they need to work more and have less job security isn't palatable but unless someone over there starts making the hard decisions their economy will continue to decline. Globalization or no globalization.

Apr 21, 2017

The US has the most overvalued currency in the world and doesn't have high systemic unemployment. Long-term unemployment is not a function of currency variation (though it could lead to temporary shocks). The natural rate of unemployment is a function of frictional and structural unemployment. France has very high base frictional unemployment because it does not have a dynamic labor market. Individuals voluntarily remain unemployed for longer periods of time due to the social safety net. Certain price rigidity (minimum wage, unionization, other government mandates, such as a 35 hour work week) make the French labor market less elastic/flexible to changes in exogenous demand/supply conditions. This yields involuntary unemployment which persists for extended periods of time and locks individual's out of the labor market going forward (the labor market 'passes them by,' so to speak). Textbook economics.

There is a relationship between globalization, rising incomes and lower unemployment. Unfortunately for your argument, it's a positive one. The development in Asia, particularly South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, most clearly demonstrates this point. in 1990, 37% of the global population lives in extreme poverty. Today, that number is less than 10%.

The problem for the west is that globalization is making the world more competitive, and entitled westerners, who had it so good for so long, aren't able to compete. Their economies are too rigid; their debt markets are too saturated; their schooling systems are too outdated and they lack the competitive drive. This is what's fueling the anti-trade, economic nativism of the Sanders/Trump/Le Pen movements.

[EDIT] If I can make an analogy: Democratic Socialism artificially converts a growing economy into static, steady-state cash cow. Through taxation and regulation, the return on new investment is arbitrarily depressed. The country's capital stock is 'frozen' so to speak. Rather than reinvesting income, it is distributed to stake holders. Due to the political system, the returns do not go to investors but are rather distributed to laborers. Due to the perverse incentive structure, over time the investment isn't sufficient to even maintain the existing capital stock. The result is a slow and gradual decline. This is what we're seeing in the west.

    • 1
Apr 21, 2017

Melenchon is polling at 18% and Marine at 22%. Melenchon is a borderline communist asshat and Le Pen is pushing to LOWER the retirement age/ maintain the 35 hr work week while taxing foreign workers and imports. The French are doomed.

Apr 21, 2017
Esuric:

The US has the most overvalued currency in the world and doesn't have high systemic unemployment. Long-term unemployment is not a function of currency variation (though it could lead to temporary shocks). The natural rate of unemployment is a function of frictional and structural unemployment. France has very high base frictional unemployment because it does not have a dynamic labor market. Individuals voluntarily remain unemployed for longer periods of time due to the social safety net. Certain price rigidity (minimum wage, unionization, other government mandates, such as a 35 hour work week) make the French labor market less elastic/flexible to changes in exogenous demand/supply conditions. This yields involuntary unemployment which persists for extended periods of time and locks individual's out of the labor market going forward (the labor market 'passes them by,' so to speak). Textbook economics.

There is a relationship between globalization, rising incomes and lower unemployment. Unfortunately for your argument, it's a positive one. The development in Asia, particularly South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, most clearly demonstrates this point. in 1990, 37% of the global population lives in extreme poverty. Today, that number is less than 10%.

The problem for the west is that globalization is making the world more competitive, and entitled westerners, who had it so good for so long, aren't able to compete. Their economies are too rigid; their debt markets are too saturated; their schooling systems are too outdated and they lack the competitive drive. This is what's fueling the anti-trade, economic nativism of the Sanders/Trump/Le Pen movements.

Yes, the middle and working class of Asia are the winners of globalization, because of outsourcing.
Basic free market lesson everyone learns at university, there are winners and losers in the system. The current system sees the permanent losers in basically 80% of the Westerners which is why they are revolting.

What you are advocating with the words ''flexibility'' and all that frivolous vocabulary used by economists is essentially impoverishing even further that 80% until they are as poor as those of developing countries, a race to the bottom. Now, you are willingly waging economic war on a sizeable chunk of people and they are starting to fight back, yet you whine because they fight back. Talk about entitled schmucks!! God, I'm as anti-Marxist as Reagan, but you guys are trying really hard to make it relevant again. This is sheer class war

Not to mention that the only supporters of globalization in the West are the biggest entitled schmucks of them all, those who got their first job because of daddy's contacts, just like the access to elite education. Yet they demand that everyone who didn't enjoy their class priviledge to compete with third worlders.

Now you can disagree with my analysis as much as you want, I don't care, ignore it all together and just answer to my last question. The fact is, you are forcing people to choose between ''getting poorer and poorer'' with your economic reforms or tearing down the whole globalization system, starting with the EU and the banks. What do you think people are going to vote?

Apr 19, 2017
neink:

Lagarde confirmed that since the beginning of globalization in the 90s, the Western middle class has shrunk.So it's not even about believing. It's a fact. The majority of people are worse off.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Labor competition from developing countries was inevitable. "Globalist" domestic public policies may have nothing to do with inflation-adjusted wealth stagnation. It could just be that there is more economic competition for Western countries than existed in decades past.

Apr 19, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

neink:
Lagarde confirmed that since the beginning of globalization in the 90s, the Western middle class has shrunk.So it's not even about believing. It's a fact. The majority of people are worse off.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Labor competition from developing countries was inevitable. "Globalist" domestic public policies may have nothing to do with inflation-adjusted wealth stagnation. It could just be that there is more economic competition for Western countries than existed in decades past.

And people are voting accordingly. Globalization means lower prices for Westerners but also lower income. Since the middle class is shrinking, then the trade off isn't worthy it, meaning better to go back to higher prices and higher income.

If the trade off isn't worthy then people will obviously vote to pull the plug, aka protectionism.

And no, correlation doesn't mean causation, it doesn't also mean you can ignore it or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017

Voters take the easy way out and scapegoat all the time. Frankly, idgaf how the uninformed populous votes (ppl in the USA actually believe Trump will bring back manufacturing when 80% of the losses have been due to automation lol). Let France engage in protectionism with no view towards reforming what really matters, they're economy will go further down the tubes.

    • 2
Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

Voters take the easy way out and scapegoat all the time. Frankly, idgaf how the uninformed populous votes (ppl in the USA actually believe Trump will bring back manufacturing when 80% of the losses have been due to automation lol). Let France engage in protectionism with no view towards reforming what really matters, they're economy will go further down the tubes.

More ad hominems.

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017

While I agree that automation is the biggest killer of US jobs, cheap labor and lax environmental regulations in other countries is also a culprit. Even if you are correct, that leaves 20% being attributable to outsourcing.

Every voting block demands to be listened to. Not sure why you think low/medium skilled workers should be ignored or told to deal with it.

Furthermore, if we all accept that automation will only increase and "uninformed" Americans need to deal with the fact that low skilled jobs are gone, why one earth are we encouraging low skilled workers to immigrate here (especially those with low education levels and English not being their primary language)?

We have sympathy for low skilled Central Americans coming to the US for work, but no sympathy for low skilled Americans (including blacks and other minorities) who cannot find work in the country that they and their families have paid taxes into.

Apr 19, 2017

Environmental regulations were addressed in the trans-pacific deal that Trump killed. Not saying they should be ignored, just that they should be presented viable solutions rather than pipe dreams like bringing back coal. That shit is lip service and the appearance of caring about their issues not actually caring. Automation has taken away cushy $50-$60k per year jobs with fat pensions, not all low-skilled labor, the low-skilled labor immigrants perform are generally the stuff citizens like those in the industrial Midwest would balk at, like picking tomatoes. It doesn't provide the salary or fat pension they're accustomed to. I have plenty of sympathy for those left behind by globalization but the solution is a better safety net and more focus towards re-training, not protectionism.

Apr 19, 2017

1) Jobs are automated when the cost of labor exceeds the high upfront cost of investing in machinery. Illegal immigrants work for artificially low wages and inhibit investment and automation.

Illegal's inhibit automation and in return, they use services that citizens could use.

2) Coal is used around the world. With filters, coal is largely clean. Renewables are great, but they are not the base load power. Reality is, fracking killed coal because of cheap natural gas. That being said, coal should not be rendered extinct because of government regulations.

You continue to ignore the fact that low wages and environmental arbitrage account for a good number of jobs lost. Even if we can bring back 500K or more jobs, that is still an important win. Far better than just saying "retrain" and moving on.

Additional safety nets are not the answer. That is a move towards the endless welfare state of Europe. You fix this by bringing back jobs, encouraging companies to employ Americans.

Look at the math. Either way we are paying. Whether we subsidize people who are forever unemployed or we subsidize companies so they employ Americans, we are paying. Difference is you have people working, feeling accomplished and producing something. Free to vote however they want. Or you can have people forever ties to government largess. Voting for whatever party guarantees their hand out.

Apr 19, 2017

We've gone back and forth on this man. I disagree with protectionism because it is not a long-term solution and there is no guarantee it will benefit our nation as a whole (much evidence says the opposite). You think differently. My coal example was about the economics (like you said with fracking) not environmental. Either way we as a developed nation should care enough to worry about our environment (clean coal is a myth). Idk if I agree with you on immigrant work slowing automation, much of what they do right now is expensive to automate. Since we can't force China/ Vietnam/ Bangladesh wages to rise the only answer would be tariffs to make up the difference, we all know the harm those would bring. Obama tried to address the environmental arbitrage going on in the Asia pacific region and republicans killed that deal.

Apr 19, 2017
neink:

And people are voting accordingly. Globalization means lower prices for Westerners but also lower income. Since the middle class is shrinking, then the trade off isn't worthy it, meaning better to go back to higher prices and higher income.

If the trade off isn't worthy then people will obviously vote to pull the plug, aka protectionism.

<

p>And no, correlation doesn't mean causation, it doesn't also mean you can ignore it or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

Ok, so how does that work in practice? Does France slap a tariff on Chinese and German goods? What happens when China and Germany turn around and slap a tariff on French gods? You can't legislate your way back in time. France can't thrive simply by producing goods for the French (and the same thing is true for all countries). Globalism is an immutable reality, and it's economically impossible to go backward. You can't go back to 1960's France unless you go back to 1960's China. It's really that simple.

Besides, the French are way too lazy to work in labor-intensive manufacturing facilities. Can you imagine the entitled French population actually laboring?

Apr 19, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

neink:And people are voting accordingly. Globalization means lower prices for Westerners but also lower income. Since the middle class is shrinking, then the trade off isn't worthy it, meaning better to go back to higher prices and higher income.If the trade off isn't worthy then people will obviously vote to pull the plug, aka protectionism.<p>And no, correlation doesn't mean causation, it doesn't also mean you can ignore it or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

Ok, so how does that work in practice? Does France slap a tariff on Chinese and German goods? What happens when China and Germany turn around and slap a tariff on French gods? You can't legislate your way back in time. France can't thrive simply by producing goods for the French (and the same thing is true for all countries). Globalism is an immutable reality, and it's economically impossible to go backward. You can't go back to 1960's France unless you go back to 1960's China. It's really that simple.

Besides, the French are way too lazy to work in labor-intensive manufacturing facilities. Can you imagine the entitled French population actually laboring?

Who says I can't? Leave the EU, embargo Germany, the German business can't sell anymore, they have to fire people, the German state loses revenue from taxation on sales and consumption, unemployed people riot and the myth of the hard working German is gone. Last time something similar happened they blamed Jews.

As far as leaving the EU, it's entirely doable and it should be a priority for European countries anyway, this EU is a total failure.

Also, immutable? This is actually the second wave of globalism, the first one ended up in the first world war.

This retoric of ''globalization'' is inevitable is merely the same salse of ''communism is the future''. Seen it before, didn't work. It's wishful ideological thinking of those who gain from the system and ignore it's not working for the most. And ''the most'' are coming for you.

    • 3
Apr 19, 2017

Wow. Wow. Really?

neink:

Who says I can't? Leave the EU, embargo Germany, the German business can't sell anymore, they have to fire people, the German state loses revenue from taxation on sales and consumption, unemployed people riot and the myth of the hard working German is gone. Last time something similar happened they blamed Jews.

You do realize that economic wars are not unilateral, right? A French embargo against Germany is not just economic warfare, that's a literal act of war. Your position is bordering on the insane.

neink:

As far as leaving the EU, it's entirely doable and it should be a priority for European countries anyway, this EU is a total failure.

I support leaving the EU. That is an entirely separate issue from globalism and protectionism.

neink:

Also, immutable? This is actually the second wave of globalism, the first one ended up in the first world war.

What? WWI had nothing to do with economic globalism. In fact, most historians struggle to even give a real explanation for WWI. Ironically, you could make the case that protectionism helped lead to WW2.

neink:

This retoric of ''globalization'' is inevitable is merely the same salse of ''communism is the future''. Seen it before, didn't work. It's wishful ideological thinking of those who gain from the system and ignore it's not working for the most. And ''the most'' are coming for you.

Not only is globalization inevitable, it already exists and has existed for thousands of years. In fact, the most powerful nations in history have always been international traders.

Apr 19, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

Wow. Wow. Really?

neink:
Who says I can't? Leave the EU, embargo Germany, the German business can't sell anymore, they have to fire people, the German state loses revenue from taxation on sales and consumption, unemployed people riot and the myth of the hard working German is gone. Last time something similar happened they blamed Jews.

You do realize that economic wars are not unilateral, right? A French embargo against Germany is not just economic warfare, that's a literal act of war. Your position is bordering on the insane.

So, let me guess, a system that destroys the lives of 80% of the Western population is sanity now?

Dances with Dachshunds:

neink:
As far as leaving the EU, it's entirely doable and it should be a priority for European countries anyway, this EU is a total failure.

I support leaving the EU. That is an entirely separate issue from globalism and protectionism.

neink:
Also, immutable? This is actually the second wave of globalism, the first one ended up in the first world war.

What? WWI had nothing to do with economic globalism. In fact, most historians struggle to even give a real explanation for WWI. Ironically, you could make the case that protectionism helped lead to WW2.

There are multiple causes for WW1. And it's hardly ''protectionism''. The fact is certain countries were winners from free trade, certain countries were losers, the losers resorted to protectionism.

The strongest arguments for protectionism actually come from Germany from that period. Look up Friedrich List work.

Dances with Dachshunds:

neink:
This retoric of ''globalization'' is inevitable is merely the same salse of ''communism is the future''. Seen it before, didn't work. It's wishful ideological thinking of those who gain from the system and ignore it's not working for the most. And ''the most'' are coming for you.

Not only is globalization inevitable, it already exists and has existed for thousands of years. In fact, the most powerful nations in history have always been international traders.

We don't need this kind of globalization for international trade. International trade existed long before ''globalization''.

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017
neink:

So, let me guess, a system that destroys the lives of 80% of the Western population is sanity now?

The only practical way of implementing your intellectually bankrupt protectionist philosophy is to embargo neighbors, which would lead to open warfare. Yeah, I would call that insane. And for countries like the U.S. that run a trade deficit but run a gigantic foreign investment surplus--what would happen to that capital that generates American wealth?

neink:

There are multiple causes for WW1. And it's hardly ''protectionism''. The fact is certain countries were winners from free trade, certain countries were losers, the losers resorted to protectionism.

<

p>The strongest arguments for protectionism actually come from Germany from that period. Look up Friedrich List work.

I love this historical revisionism. Are you seriously suggesting that free trade and globalism caused World War I? That's factually and demonstrably wrong. As I said, you could actually make an argument that protectionism contributed to World War 2 as it contributed to a global economic depression in the 1930's.

neink:

We don't need this kind of globalization for international trade. International trade existed long before ''globalization''

Ah, new definitions to fit your philosophy.

Apr 19, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

neink:So, let me guess, a system that destroys the lives of 80% of the Western population is sanity now?

The only practical way of implementing your intellectually bankrupt protectionist philosophy is to embargo neighbors, which would lead to open warfare.

You think modern Germans can or even want to fight? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. It's even illegal for the German constitution and they'd rather batter themselves to death before attacking another country.

Dances with Dachshunds:

Yeah, I would call that insane. And for countries like the U.S. that run a trade deficit but run a gigantic foreign investment surplus--what would happen to that capital that generates American wealth?

neink:

The only reason the US can run with that trade deficit is the fact that the Dollar is right now the international currency. Not everyone can do that. Actually only one country can.

Dances with Dachshunds:

There are multiple causes for WW1. And it's hardly ''protectionism''. The fact is certain countries were winners from free trade, certain countries were losers, the losers resorted to protectionism.<p>The strongest arguments for protectionism actually come from Germany from that period. Look up Friedrich List work.

<

p>I love this historical revisionism. Are you seriously suggesting that free trade and globalism caused World War I? That's factually and demonstrably wrong. As I said, you could actually make an argument that protectionism contributed to World War 2 as it contributed to a global economic depression in the 1930's

Trade imbalances contributed to WW1 and that is indeed the result of free trade.
Of course you'll have free trade thinkers, saying 'derp protectionism caused WW1'. That is ideological interpretation. It's as valid or invalid as Marxism or similar ideologies.

Nonetheless it was never my intention to go full protectionist. You asked if it was doable and it is entirely doable, even desiderable in some cases. The only countries however that should be totally embargoed are worthless tax havens like Luxembourg. Trade with Germany would be fine if we went back to national currencies that would correct most of the imbalances of today.

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017

Kill the communists.

Apr 19, 2017
BobTheBaker:

Let those fuckers eat cake.

***macarons

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Apr 18, 2017

I never wanted to live in France anyways.

Apr 18, 2017

I have no desire to either, however it is still interesting.

Apr 18, 2017

Very interesting. The French never cease to amaze me.

Apr 18, 2017

Looking at Europe should be all the evidence one needs to never vote Democrat again. Taxes will never be high enough and a fair share will always mean paying more.

Apr 18, 2017

There is an equilibrium to taxes and my personal opinion is the rich/ corporations pay too little in the U.S. and pay too much in countries such as France. America should probably be more socialist and (much of) Europe should probably be more capitalist.

    • 2
    • 3
Apr 18, 2017

Interesting take... I think some U.S. companies (if not most) are guilty of dodging taxes and finding ways out of paying proper taxes. If all corporations honestly filled out taxes and paid the govt. without the use of off shore tax shields, I think we would not need tax structure reform for corporations. However I fully support businesses using all resources to be as profitable as possible, which I get may be a tad hypocritical but "hey thats politics" -Charlie Kelly

Apr 18, 2017

When you combine all the taxes a person pays, you can easily get to 50%. The top 20% pay about all the taxes in this country.

If you want to discuss what we spend our money on, cool, but paying 50% or more of what you earn is a travesty. Maybe if we didn't spend a trillion on defense and killing random muslims we could have nice things and cut taxes.

Apr 18, 2017

Rich people who pay 50% have bad estate planners and accountants. Ofc the top 20% pay most of the taxes, much of the rest of the country can't afford to do so. I think getting rid of many corporate/ personal tax loopholes and reevaluating all the stupid shit we pay for would improve this country (mostly the poor's quality of life) dramatically.

    • 2
Apr 18, 2017

Our govt. budget and spending is atrocious.

    • 1
Apr 18, 2017

I second your call for a Flat Tax!

Apr 18, 2017

Federal, state and city crush you. Sales tax is high in many places. You pay taxes on every single thing (cable, hotels, cell phone, plane tickets, alcohol, etc).

Taxes should be continually reduced. Instead we have them continually increased. Government theft at its finest.

France is the future. Bernie and Hillary advocated policies that could only be supported by more taxes. Every city and state that has Democrats in power push for more tax. Bag tax in Chicago, soda tax in philly. It never ends.

Apr 19, 2017

I hear you but I think most of what you gripe about is at the middle-class/ upper middle-class level. I don't think this applies to the top 1-3%. The rich avoid taxes like no other, I would know being in PWM. In all fairness the middle class are getting fucked in all this b/c they can't employ the tax avoidance measures employed by the rich and corporations. On an effective tax rate basis there is no way Apple should be paying less than John Doe who makes $60k a year. Apply the same to the Trumps and Romneys of the world.

Apr 19, 2017

I agree. The rich can up and move if possible. The fair share crew will always find people who have more than their voting block to come after.

But I think it's human nature to minimize or avoid taxes. Just look at people going over state borders for booze or gas (if able), school clothing tax holidays, ordering online, etc. People have an innate desire to keep what they earn.

Sadly, when you look at the vast majority of our budget, it's military, SSI and Medicaid/care. I see zero cuts in any of those three and a steady increase in guaranteed social programs (college, health insurance, income). The seeds of France have been sown and once you give something it is politically impossible to take it away.

Apr 20, 2017

@TNA it makes you wonder when people will ever learn? High taxes on those Godless rich people isn't going to magically make things better.

A lot of the people who are struggling (warning: sweeping generalization being made) IMO are in the position they're in because of the decisions they made.

No one told you to bust out 5 kids, buy a home you couldn't afford the mortgage on, drop out of high school and work at McDs, etc.

Yet these people want the government to step in and essentially subsidize their livelihood for the decisions they made.

Point is people need to take responsibility for themselves and quit relying on the government to solve all there problems. Government, like Reagan said IS the problem! (and no I'm not advocating for anarchy).

    • 2
Apr 20, 2017

"no I'm not advocating for anarchy"

Why not?

Apr 20, 2017

Out of touch elitists are out of touch for a reason. You're 100% right though. People make fundamentally stupid decisions which cause their calamity. If people want the government to rob Peter to pay for Paul, being their adult parents, then they should accept government parenting.

And when you have a child that cannot wear a condom, show up to work on time, or not spend money frivolously, the parent should punish them and enforce them.

Apr 19, 2017

Yeah, freedom sucks. Greece invented Democracy. Wouldn't it be nice if we had 50% unemployment too?

    • 1
Apr 19, 2017

What. The. Fuck. Is. This. Post.

Apr 19, 2017

Sorry, should have quoted, " America should probably be more socialist"

Do you even Liberty, bro?

    • 2
Apr 18, 2017
TNA:

Looking at Europe should be all the evidence one needs to never vote Democrat again. Taxes will never be high enough and a fair share will always mean paying more.

"Fair share". This shit is straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

I assert that Ayn Rand was a genius; she was absolutely correct.

    • 1
    • 2
Apr 18, 2017

Giving away money means that the economy and country sees an exodus. If this happens, I'd happily pick up the empty French land for pennies. French are always bending over and running like cowards.

    • 3
    • 1
Apr 18, 2017

Think that would halt consumption and productivity once you hit the threshold potentially affecting GDP

Apr 19, 2017

It's disheartening to me that the communists murdered around 100 million people in the 20th century and less than 30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union a communist-backed candidate can get somewhere around 1/6 support of the French electorate. Although it should be noted that you can find 20% of the population in any country who believe in incredibly bizarre things, from conspiracy theories to pseudo-science.

Nevertheless, the popularity of a communist candidate in France just reaffirms the veracity of Reagan's comments--"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." With that said, European polling has been atrocious recently, so it remains to be seen how much actual support Melenchon will get on election day.

With regard to the specific issue with taxes, I believe it was Art Laffer who pointed out the obvious--there are two tax rates that produce zero government revenue: 0% and 100%.

Apr 19, 2017

What a fucking assclown.

"It is not our circumstance that controls us, but our thoughts that control our circumstance." -James Allen

Apr 19, 2017

France worries me because they come out with stuff like this to only further their historically socialist ideology and all the while go around scooping up european companies (mostly italian) for their government backed conglomerates, effectively causing those new acquisitions to be hindered by their policies. Hopefully Essilor-Luxottica will be different becuase that truly is a new monopoly but who knows.

Apr 19, 2017

I wonder when the "air breathing tax" for high earners will be implemented.. Warren 2020?

Apr 19, 2017

He has just lost his party the election, Le Pen will now win the election. This is a last ditch effort by the existing government to try and get the votes of the poor. It won't work, the last time they jacked up the tax on the rich they lost national icons to surrounding countries.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 19, 2017

To clarify, what do you refer to regarding losing national icons to surrounding countries? Are you saying that rich people/famous people renounced their citizenship and moved to different countries such as Britain or Germany? Very interested in hearing more about this if you have some insights

Apr 19, 2017

When the last tax hike was proposed there were multiple famous people who just up and moved across the border, granted most of those who moved last time lived close to the border to begin with. If I remember right there were one or two famous heads of fashion companies who threatened to move if the measure passed. The problem the French have is that their people don't even have to renounce citizenship to get out of paying taxes. Most countries in the EU and the world for that matter tax people based on where they work not where they are citizens. The US is not in the majority with the way we do it here. This doesn't mean that French citizens who work in Germany get out of paying things like property taxes for property they own in France they just don't pay income taxes to France.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Apr 20, 2017

Ah gotcha, +1 SB. Going along this track, if the US ridiculously increase income/capital gains taxes, people/funds will simply move elsewhere as well. What Bernie and the rest of his socialist friends don't understand is that unlike in Eisenhower's time with the 90% marginal income tax rate, people 70 years later are much, much more free to move around due to globalization. More people are also willing to move countries altogether than they were 70ish years ago and more people have the resources (among the upper middle/rich class) to do so than ever before. If the tax code comes to close the loopholes to the wealthy and fck them over, then a substantial proportion will simply pack up their bags and move to places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia. As the world becomes more globalized, so to do opportunities expand in this regard as well. Eduardo Savarin is an extreme case, but I suspect that this sort of case, at least among the wealthy will become more normalized if this new wave of populism tries to screw them over

Apr 20, 2017

It doesn't work that way in the US, to escape US taxation you have to give up your citizenship. Which if you are rich you have to go through a whole big process that involves interviews with government agencies, the IRS, etc etc. You have to pay a huge tax fine to let your citizenship go and you have to find a country willing to give you citizenship.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 20, 2017

Sure, but I believe capital gains is not taxed by the US in other countries right?

Apr 21, 2017

Only if those capital gains are taxed in that country, also it is a bit misleading to say the US taxes its citizens abroad. While this is technically true it is only after earnings of like 90k or something like that if you pay taxes in the country you are working in.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Apr 20, 2017

In a perfect world (for France) if you combine Francois Fillon's economic policies and Thatcherism, Emmanuel Macron's looks, and Le Pen's immigration views you'd probably have the best Presidential candidate in a long time.

Refocusing on why France is in such a rut it simply boils down to the fact that the French have never shaken off their views since the French Revolution. Hating those that are wealthy and successful, clamoring for a bigger safety net, along with some rather absurd policies grounded purely in emotion rather than backed by facts and data is why France will continue to suck.

Trying to setup a business and even then, running it while maintaining productivity is a challenge that I don't think a McKinsey consultant would like to take on. In my personal experience the French come off as very entitled and frankly lazy.

You want to work 35 hours maximum, have a pension, free healthcare, almost a month of paid vacation, maternity leave, and still make the equivalent of $65K+ a year?

Yeah fuck that I'd rather open up a manufacturing facility in Singapore where I can get a workforce just as educated (if not more) and willing to work longer hours to get shit done.

France needs a swift kick in the ass and a reality check. Get rid of the bloated bureaucracy, cut down on welfare spending, lower your taxes to a more reasonable level, adopt pro-business policies and get rid of as much red tape as possible, and grow a pair and do something about the Islamic threat in your country.

Attracting investors who realize they can make a profit without burdensome regulations will in turn create investment within the country and help to lower the unemployment rate.

Those that attain a good education (France from my understanding has a system where the system separates the cream of the crop from the deadbeats) WILL find employment and make good salaries (i.e. Germany) and those that can't or simply aren't able to help themselves...you honestly shouldn't give two shits about them anyways.

    • 4
Apr 21, 2017
RedRage:

Yeah fuck that I'd rather open up a manufacturing facility in Singapore where I can get a workforce just as educated (if not more) and willing to work longer hours to get shit done.

Just like the French have the right to totally embargo your company over that.
Have fun selling your shit in Singapore. If you want to sell to 60 million French then you do it at their own conditions.

Apr 21, 2017

@neink in my professional life I've found that trying to chase after the French market is not worth the headaches and the costs. Much happier existing the entire French market and selling to others.

If France wants to turn itself into a pariah state by all means, please do. Although I can imagine Total having a major problem with that (but lucky for us we have contacts in the French government that can make problems disappear).

Apr 21, 2017
Apr 21, 2017
Apr 21, 2017
Apr 21, 2017
Apr 21, 2017