France General Discussion II: Living under Marxism

[Antonio the Sixth]

Excellent idea ! Now that France is back to normality, it's time to resume the general thread to discuss about political events.

As for the reshuffle, no meaningful stuff (apart from Bricq's de-facto firing which hints that the environment really isn't exactly Hollande's priority). LOL @ the obvious pandering toward the French abroad. The PS suddenly discovered about them after they gave it 8/11 seats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The new parliamentary groups are as follows :

- Gauche démocrate et républicaine 15 members (10 FG, 5 overseas left-wing MPs) presided by André Chassaigne.

- Socialiste, républicain et citoyen 295 members (of which 279 socialists and 16 "apparentés", ie dissidents and miscellaneous overseas MPs) presided by Bruno Le Roux.

- Radical, républicain, démocrate et progressiste 15 members (12 PRG, the lone MUP guy and Thierry Robert, the MoDem guy elected in Réunion) presided by Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg.

- Ecologiste 18 members (17 EELV plus the UDB guy) presided by François de Rugy.

- Union des démocrates et indépendants 29 members (centrists of all kinds, NC, URCID, AC, independent Radicals, overseas right-wingers and other various rightists) presided by Jean-Louis Borloo.

- Union pour un mouvement populaire 196 members (185 UMP, 11 "apparentés") presided by Christian Jacob.

9 MPs don't belong in any group (the 3 far-rightists, the MoDem's Jean Lassalle, an overseas left-winger, a MPF, a DLR and two more independent right-wingers).


Claude Bartolone (PS) easily won the election to the presidency, with 298 votes (52%) against 185 (32%) for UMP incumbent Bernard Accoyer. The greens apparently refused to vote for Bartolone because they were pissed off at not getting the presidency of a commissions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Where can I find a detailed overview of the non-obvious people's group status? (The assembly website I suppose...)

Yup. See this : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/qui/declarations-groupes.asp

BTW, poor Falorni is in the radical group too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are some bizarre things indeed. MUP in the radical group, PSG in the commie one, GUSR in the non-inscrits... And the UDI is indeed a pretty silly bunch. It seems pretty clear that they desperately tried to gather as many non-UMP righties as they could without caring about policy proposals. So, the centrists will be useless as always.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The austerity will probably be quite bad. The government is already getting out the syrup: it has announced the legalization of gay marriage and adoptions for 2013.

Yeah, the first measures seem quite harsh, but I think most French people saw that coming. Only the commies are faking outrage and call Hollande a traitor. Yet, for now at least, all his campaign promises seem to be going to be kept.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ayrault is making his general policy speech right now.

First actual issue he mentions is public debt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A relatively "aggressive" speech. He is constantly slapping Sarkozy and the past government.

A pretty "serious" speech too, not lyrical at all (except a few times at the beginning when he talked about patriotism and all the fluff).

MPs are so childish. The majority applauds constantly, the opposition boos constantly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hurray ! They will repeal the local governments reform !! Gaël will be happy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Back to lyricism for the conclusion.

WTF, opposition MPs are leaving ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hurray ! They will repeal the local governments reform !! Gaël will be happy.

That's cool I guess. But I hope that they won't just accept the stupid and redundant status-quo, and that they won't treat decentralization as allowing useless regions to build some stupid park in the middle of nowhere. I'm curious as to what alternative they will come up with, just as I'm curious about the introduction of PR and the quasi necessary redistricting which comes along with it.

Yeah, I hope they will do something serious. Getting away with Départements and giving their competences to regions could be useful, IMO. Suppressing préfets or drastically reducing their power should too. But both of course will never happen.

Considering that all three maps we have had so fare have been gerrymandered by the right, seeing some left-wing gerrymandering should be interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's pretty clear Cameron despises Hollande. I don't know if there was a big deal in the UK, but his comment about welcoming french fiscal exilees in Britain due to Hollande's proposed tax reforms didn't play very well here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You can say what you want about Hollande, but he's got a wonderful wit.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Légion d'Honneur has been exploited for political (and personal) purposes since its creation. Seriously, do right-wingers want us look back at Sarkozy's appointments ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The correct spelling is Fion, of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL, I wasn't even aware these riots were going on. Since I came to SF I haven't been following any French news. Well, wow. I think I need some more info to comment on the events, but from what I gather it seems like big stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19261885

There's something about Valls which really reminds me of Sarko, although it's probably just me.

There's also something about Hollande that really reminds me of Sarko.  At least, the way he's been governing.  Just not as forcefully, but with the same aims and philosophy in mind. 

He might not be as left-wing as we'd like him to be (even then, it's early to judge), but this is objectively false. Or at least, indicates that your criteria for "ideological similarity" are very loose.

[Antonio the Sixth]

BTW, the government's approvals apparently have been plummeting in the past weeks. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems that it has to do with high gas prices and poor economic numbers (and the government's perceived lack of action).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hollande unveiled his tax plan yesterday.

After the worrying hesitations of the past weeks, this doesn't seem too bad. The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains, a cap in tax loopholes, a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

Still, however, it fails to address the structural issues of the French taxation system. Sigh...

And I hear the richest guy in France has applied for Belgian citizenship.

To put it with Libération: Casse-toi, riche con.

Lots of criticism can be addressed to Libération, but one thing is for sure: their titles are awesome.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The main burden will really be on the wealthier, with a progressive taxation of capital gains...a rise in the weath tax and in the highest income tax brackets.

And these are somehow good things, to be welcomed?

For those who care about the millions of people who would actually suffer if the this burden was imposed on them rather than on those who can afford it... yeah.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first question should be if this burden should be placed on anyone, but ultimately it's a question of fairness. If rich people are paying a smaller percent of their income than poor people, raise their taxes (or lower poor people's taxes) -- it's unfair. But the opposite is also unfair, and the fact that rich people can handle it doesn't make it any better. That said, those who are so poor that such a tax rate would call their survival into question should have a lower rate...but rich people should not have a higher rate, and it strikes me as really awful that you're celebrating people being robbed.

To state my ideology more broadly, income inequality is not a problem. Poverty is a problem. (I will be pissed if someone quotes the first sentence out of context on one of the Deluge threads on Forum Community.) The fact that some people don't have enough money to survive is a problem. They deserve help. The fact that some people have more than enough isn't. All of society, not just rich people, should bear a section of the burden of supporting poor people. There's a reason that taxes are in percents, not flat amounts of cash -- so that it's fair. It would be unfair to demand the same amount of $ from the middle-class as the rich. It would also be unfair to demand a higher %. Call it regressive if you want. In fact, if a higher tax rate on the 1% than literally everyone else is progressive, I'll revel in the label.

Since you're making it a "justice" issue, I have to say I find it really hard to justify the current inequalities of incomes based on merit. In other words, Steve Jobs is not worth one million of your average workers. But since this is a philosophical issue, there is no way one of us can possibly convince each other, so let's leave that behind.

I'll rather focus on pointing out the logical and economic inconsistency of your proposal. So, you say, those who "can't afford" to pay taxes shouldn't pay any, and everyone else should pay in proportion to income (say 10%). This already indicates that there's a basic problem with pure flat taxation: there are certain people who can't do without this 10% of their income. Now, where do you draw the line between those who "can afford" paying taxes an those who can't? Is it those who need this 10% to avoid starving? To buy a house? A car? Health insurance (in the US at least)? To pay for their kids' education? If you draw the line at the lower level, I'm not sure you will have done much against poverty. But if you draw it at the upper level, that means you make no difference between the poorest of the poor (who physically can't afford to pay taxes) and the more marginal cases (who could afford to pay taxes, but for whom paying taxes makes a substantial difference in their living standards).

See, the problem is that there is not, on one side, "the poor", and on the other side, everybody else. Society is a continuum of living standards, which goes from a starving homeless to Mitt Romney. It does not suddenly become "affordable" to pay a 10% tax. Rather, you have levels of affordability ranging from "I'll die if I pay taxes" to virtually no difference at all. And here we come at the very reason why you have progressive taxation: because money does not mean the same thing to everybody. Take a billionaire 10% of his income, and all he'll do is have a bit less money to save (which would have served no purpose apart from further augmenting his wealth). Take an upper-middle class person 10% of his income, and he will have to renounce to a flat-screen TV or the last iPad. Take a middle-class person 10% of his income, and he won't be able to pay for his kid's higher education. Take a lower-middle class person 10% of his income, and he won't be able to afford health insurance. Take a working-class person 10% of his income, and he might not be able to pay his rent. Etc... So, as "just" and "fair" as it might look in pure abstraction, flat taxation does not merely maintain the society's inequalities: it increases them. Progressive taxation makes sense because it takes into account what concrete difference taking money away from someone makes in its everyday life, beyond your poor/non-poor dichotomy.

You might not care about this, since wealth equals merit, and if you don't want to suffer from flat taxation you just have to work harder and make more money. But here's when things get really interesting. Let's get back to your plan: no tax for the poor (whatever you define as such), 10% for everybody else. Who gets screwed in this scenario? The middle class. The poor don't pay, so they stay the same. The middle class, being just wealthy enough to be subject to taxation, is the category for which taxation has the most concrete impact. While they might not become outright poor, their standard of living is significantly deteriorated and they have now to focus on their basic needs. Well, I've got a scoop for you: this is the best recipe for economic ruin. Every modern, post-industrial economy is based on the middle class for its subsistence. Because the middle class is the category that actually consumes the income it earns. The wealthy only consume a tiny part of their income, the rest being saved. And without people to buy stuff, there's no economy. The middle class is what provides the customers without whom no business can thrive. When you're left without a middle class, all you can do is live off export, but that works only as long as other countries have middle classes to buy your products. So, it is not only fairer, but also more economically effective, to tax more heavily those for which money matters the less.

In short, there is a reason why even the most extreme neoliberals in most places don't advocate for flat taxation: it's a mind-numbingly stupid idea whose sheer unfairness and economically disastrous natures makes it laughed at by any serious economist or social thinker.

I don't think I will ever convince you, but, for once, I decided to be optimistic and hope that providing an articulate response to such bullsh*t could not be a complete waste of time. I probably won't be doing that again any time soon.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's already a huge weakness in your vision of what "justice" is. Because, from your statements, I gather that a fair tax system is one in which everybody pays the same share. Deviating from that rule means "taking money from someone to give it to someone else" as you said before. If this is the only just system - if, in other words, this is a moral rule - it ought to be universally true (morality is made of categorical imperatives and suffers no exception clauses). So, the possibilities are two. Either your idea of taxation is morally right, which means that it is also morally right to ask a starving man to give up 10% of his income. Or it is not. This doesn't mean it is morally wrong of course, there can be other reasons to support it. But if you yourself admit that your system doesn't work in its pure form, if you admit that there can be an exception, then you cannot, on a moral ground, object to further exceptions, even if enough "exception" will eventually make the system progressive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I see. But then you have to define what are one's "basic needs". And if you have an extensive definition of what one's "basic needs" are (including things like education, health care, etc.), then the number of people who would be excluded from taxation - and thus the flat rate imposed to the others - would be so high, that the resulting tax system wouldn't be much different from progressive taxation, just rendered completely silly by the fact you would go from paying nothing to paying an enormous amount of taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, these are countries exiting from communist regimes, so, in terms of income inequalities, the started off very low. Still, if you search for a correlation between flat taxation and income inequality, I'm confident that the result will be clear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You might not like it, but taking someone else's money and giving it to someone is part of the State's prerogatives. The collective's right to socialize and redistribute a certain part of one's wealth is broadly accepted as a part of the social contract in all modern democracies. It is fairly understandable that you think your money belongs to you and not to your neighbor, but as long as you live in a society and accept its common rule, you also have to accept that such society, through a democratic vote, can oblige you to contribute financially for the society's greater good. There is absolutely nothing unfair with that. Especially considering how much every one of us (and the wealthier in particular) owe to the society and how screwed they would be without it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, we've got a huge problem here. Because if wealth doesn't equal merit, this means some people have more than they deserve, and some have less. You can say they have earned their money, but have they earned it by working hard and doing something good for the collective? Have they earned it by inheritance? Have they earned it because they got help from people in a position of power/influence? Have they earned it by gambling (which is what the stock market is about, after all)? Have they earned it by tricking people? If there are so many ways to earn wealth that are unfair and/or detrimental to the greater number, why is the right to enjoy what you earned so sacred?

It's not like, even if wealth equaled merit, progressive taxation would be unfair: after all, the fact you are successful doesn't mean you don't have a moral duty to help those who didn't succeed like you. But the way reality work, and the way money is so often unfairly earn, makes your moral stance further absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you realize that, in all countries which substantial welfare states, the very poor don't pay taxes anyways? Do you know many serious countries where, say, the bottom 5% is taxed? I might be wrong, but I highly doubt it's the case. So your plan is, let's stop taxing the poor who aren't taxed anyways, but in exchange, let's shut down the programs aimed to help them. I'm sure they'll like your idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, indeed, please let me laugh. A theory which has been put in place for 30 years now and never, ever worked (to be more specific, it produced short-lived bounces followed by huge recessions which canceled all benefits) ought to be laughed at. Or at least it would be laughed at if it hadn't been such a tragedy for mankind, steadily eroding the fruits of decades of social progress and bringing us back to the 19th century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By what, your trickle-down magic? Sure, that's why the median income in the US today is the same as it was back in the 1970s, after years of Reaganomics and tax cuts of all kinds for the wealthy. The same, despite all the growth in the overall wealth. In which hands do you think all that growth ended up? Seriously, it would be nice to at least acknowledge basic realities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I notice that none of them (tax heavens aside) is a developed western country. This might be indicative of something... If your role model for a country is Czech Republic, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia or Andorra, I would guess something is wrong with your principles.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It appears the rich aren't taking it anymore

You put it as if they were actually suffering. Don't be silly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well that campaign just made the "socialist" government back up... Sadness.

Wait, what happened?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Implementing Jospin's proposals on institutional reform is part of what I consider as non-negotiable in order for Hollande's tenure to deserve any other mention than "epic fail". I hope he doesn't shy away from this as all his predecessors did.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Implementing Jospin's proposals on institutional reform is part of what I consider as non-negotiable in order for Hollande's tenure to deserve any other mention than "epic fail". I hope he doesn't shy away from this as all his predecessors did.

Strongly agree with this. I even think he should consider to do more than Jospin's proposals in order to show more leadership.

For example, Jospin's proposal on proportional representation is the election of 58 MPs on this basis. Hollande proposed the election of 100 MPs via PR during his campaign. I hope he will remember this.

Welcome to the forum, BTW!

Un nouveau venu parmi les Français? Malgré mon avatar, je suis Français aussi (et Italien, mais c'est une longue histoire). Je suis à Sciences Po, et là j'étudie pour un an à San Francisco dans le cadre d'un échange.