French Elections 2012

[ahinton]

"a 100% tax on earnings over £300,000"? Who on earth would or even could take that seriously?!

[Simon]

Good links, Calum. I especially agree with George Soros about the damaging effects of ... flawed monetary union ...

Indeed. As I've noted on here on more than one occasion.

[Nick Armstrong]

I'm really sorry, Caliban. I hadn't realised that we were only allowed to post as long as we agree with the views of the OP. I didn't understand that the forum is simply so that like-minded people of left-of-centre views could have the opportunity to comment on various subjects, free of any opposing argument.

Mea culpa.

And there we have it. A sarcastic, points-scoring answer illustrating my point precisely.

[Lateralthinking1]

"a 100% tax on earnings over £300,000"? Who on earth would or even could take that seriously?!

Britain. 100% is an outrageously low rate compared with 1947 and 1967:

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.

In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Source - HMRC

As for our horrendous national debt in 2012, it is far less severe than at any time between 1918 and 1970. It is currently 63% of GDP compared with 180% in 1949. In Japan it is currently 194%.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

way to go Lat

if the debt deficit knot is as toxic a national emergency as we were led to believe at the outset of this government then the schoolboy politics that have been played with tax are intolerable ... if indeed it is a one off very bad level of deficit [not the same as debt] we should temporarily impose very high rates of tax on higher incomes and reduce spending to immediately address the deficit ... ...the Atlee Government did so and some of the higher rates lasted well into Thatcher's era

additionally without regard to other policy choices it is a matter of evident fact that there remains indulgent expenditure and poor stewardship of the taxpayers money by national and local government £50bn per annum would not be an unrealistic target [fraud, defence spending, IT, general laxity etc ] it is not in the least apparent to me what this coalition is doing to save that sort of amount with any urgency ...

economic growth , earning our way out of the pits and creating wealth to address the debt is the only available real option .... getting to it is the rub ... i do not see how cutting the 50p does that at all .... or in any way constitutes a 'growth policy' .... nor do i see how printing £££ to give to banks does much ...why not print £££ to pay off PFI?

[ahinton]

Britain. 100% is an outrageously low rate compared with 1947 and 1967:

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.

In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Source - HMRC

As for our horrendous national debt in 2012, it is far less severe than at any time between 1918 and 1970. It is currently 63% of GDP compared with 180% in 1949. In Japan it is currently 194%.

Well, it's France under discussion here, not Britain, but the examples that you give - which are shameful in the extreme - are from a long time ago and constitute theft plain and simple; they would also presume that the taxpayer can afford to stump up considerably more than his/her income and, if unable to do so, would effectively be in default and avoiding tax on nothing at all. In any case, anyone in such a position would rescehdule their "income" so as not to attract such absurd rates of tax. There can be no justification for such rates of tax and, were they ever introduced, thoe liable for them would simply either refuse, or be unable, to pay them.

Also, whilst I take your point about national debt as a percentage of GDP, that's not the only statistic againstg which it should be measured in order to form conclusions about its severity.

[Simon]

And there we have it. A sarcastic, points-scoring answer illustrating my point precisely.

Dear me, Caliban. Hoist with your own petard, I think.

YOU accuse ME of points-scoring!

In my initial post on this thread, I stated some sensible points and opinions that people could, if they wished, disagree with. The major point about Greek debt would be difficult to counter, of course - and I even mentioned an economist not of the right who had made that very point.

Now, I know that some prefer to blame corporations and banks for every economic woe, and seem to believe that countries can just pay for every social programme they want without worrying about where the money comes from. But this is at the very least open to question.

But nobody has questioned any of the points that I made, openly and logically, in my post.

Instead, I have been abused - and it's been suggested that I don't post if I disagree. I don't mind these comments, but I naturally counter them - and yes, I do that, on occasions, rather sarcastically.

But for you to accuse me of fault when you have yourself made no attempt whatsoever to counter my points, but rather have merely criticised the fact that I disagreed, is simply hypocrisy, I'm afraid.

[Nick Armstrong]

Dear me, Caliban. Hoist with your own petard, I think.

YOU accuse ME of points-scoring!

In my initial post on this thread, I stated some sensible points and opinions that people could, if they wished, disagree with. The major point about Greek debt would be difficult to counter, of course - and I even mentioned an economist not of the right who had made that very point.

Now, I know that some prefer to blame corporations and banks for every economic woe, and seem to believe that countries can just pay for every social programme they want without worrying about where the money comes from. But this is at the very least open to question.

But nobody has questioned any of the points that I made, openly and logically, in my post.

Instead, I have been abused - and it's been suggested that I don't post if I disagree. I don't mind these comments, but I naturally counter them - and yes, I do that, on occasions, rather sarcastically.

But for you to accuse me of fault when you have yourself made no attempt whatsoever to counter my points, but rather have merely criticised the fact that I disagreed, is simply hypocrisy, I'm afraid.

Your disapproval is reassuring, Simon. Enjoy the thread.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is however a very interesting election race in France whatever one's views of the policies on offer


and the economic conundrums are not easy nor simple

[teamsaint]

I can't see him, or his party doing very well in my local constituency if they venture over this side of the water......
His manifesto sounds like a good, if cautious, start though!!

[Lateralthinking1]

Whilst there is some evidence that fiscal mismanagement and ridiculous borrowing and spending was not wholly to blame for some of the debt problems in some EU countries, even Krugman would maintain that the major cause of the Greek debt was simply a largely unfettered and massive increase in pay and pensions to a bloated pubklic sector - primarily, one could suggest, to keep them voting for the government of the day. A bit like Blair/Brown did here, actually, which is why there was no money left for the Coalition.

Simon, while there might be something in your point about Blair/Brown expenditure, your comments about pay and pensions distort the true picture. GPs certainly benefited in pay. Senior managers in the public sector did very well. But the salary for a civil servant on a basic executive grade was just over £6,000 in 1985. 12 years later, before Blair, it was around £18,000. A further 13 years later, at the end of the Brown Government, it was around £25,000. The majority of civil servants are either there or on lower pay.

Throughout the 25 years, pay was negotiated by Governments to a lower level on the grounds that there were preferential pensions. Under Thatcher and Major, any increase in pay had an impact on pensions ultimately to be paid. Brown broke that link as Chancellor. Not only did he freeze pay in some years and keep increases to 1%-3% in many. At a certain point, he declared that any increases in pay would be divided into two sums - the pensionable and the non-pensionable. It became a regular wheeze to make much of any tiny increase non-pensionable. Those were the kinds of realities that the public rarely got to hear.

I asked the question about Greece to tease out some facts. For example, does anyone honestly believe that Greece has a better health service than that of most European countries or that its housing and road network are superior? I don't. I have only been there once - to Athens in the 1990s - but that was far from the impression I had. I am not saying that Greece did not live beyond its means. I am saying that the severity of its problems wouldn't have occurred without gross irregularities in international finance. This is not to excuse its politicians and economists. There are very few in that category of any nationality who didn't take a blase view of what was going on. Any future security depends on profiling out fantasists. I'm not hopeful that will be done.

As for S and P, I take the point about the role of policeman but credit ratings should be given by an international political body, preferably with elected representatives. Again, this won't happen but their faceless and nameless members appear to have just too much power. My apologies for not writing here about France but I wanted to address matters that had been raised, Lat.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

if as is now being commonly supposed the euro is the real problem and a new French president of the Left ditches it wow! Hollande will have to do a deal with Melenchon to secure his endorsement for the second round .... watch that space ...

and if France goes Left where does that leave Austerity George & Big Bro Dave? .... events innit .....

[aeolium]

There is also the small matter of the Greek elections, Calum. That could well produce a majority opposed to the recent bailout deal, in which case it is all up in the air again.

Here is a recent Grauniad view on options re the euro.

[amateur51]

Your disapproval is reassuring, Simon. Enjoy the thread.

Lovely stuff Calibs but if you get any closer he'll put you on iggy

[MrGongGong]

Lovely stuff Calibs but if you get any closer he'll put you on iggy

and we all know what THOSE pants look like !

(too cryptic for you ? USE the search facility )