Vahnstad
King
What is Melenchon stance on drug policy?
French presidential election 2017
- Thread starter AdrienIer
- Start date
It has changed at least twice in the last 2 months, thanks to Hamon's strong stance on the issue. I'm not sure where Melenchon ended.
Hamon and Macron's programs are very different, which is not the case for Hamon and Melenchon. Macron wants companies to be able to make a deal with their employees to make them work on sundays/work longer hours/have less rights, so as to make the companies "competitive" and reduce unemployment at the cost of worsened work conditions.
Hamon wants to promote an effective work week of 32h by generalizing part time jobs (making some tax cuts on companies who employ people on part time jobs), to reduce unemployment by sharing the workload. Loss in revenue for families who work less hours will be compensated by UBI.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Is this UBI, as with others proposed in other countries, meant to replace other forms of state support?
Some but not all. It'll be funded by a big tax increase on the rich so overall will result in more money for the poorest and less for the richest.
In december Hamon also mentioned a tax on robots to fund it.
Because 18-25 year olds will get it he'll be able to cut some of the APL given to low income people (including uni students) to lower their rent. The APL has led to important rent increases in certain areas.
In december Hamon also mentioned a tax on robots to fund it.
Because 18-25 year olds will get it he'll be able to cut some of the APL given to low income people (including uni students) to lower their rent. The APL has led to important rent increases in certain areas.
Last edited:
I like the idea of taxing robots. Automation causes net benefits to capital at the cost of labor, and doing something to even that out is going to be critical as we move further and further into Player Piano territory. We've already got a situation where a large fraction of people is useless or close to it, and this is likely to get worse.
I'm skeptical that labor demand will keep up with supply as automation progresses, and I'm quite sure that if this is the case, the current economic system will end up making our current problems with long-term unemployment and underemployment seem like an egalitarian paradise. It's good to see that there is at least one politician somewhere in the Western world who is actually taking this seriously.
Thus far, the way we seem to have (mostly) adjusted for this effect is by increasing the number of postmodern servants like baristas and Uber drivers, along with the number of people changing the diapers of aging Baby Boomers, along with the amount of bureaucratic bloat creating jobs for middlemen at every level of government and corporations alike. I'm far from sure that we can keep doing this, and even if we can, I'm quite sure that this is a society that only the top 20% of people will want to live in. I believe this has been a major factor behind the collapse in trust in basically every institution across the Western world over the past 20 years.
Whether taxing robots and distributing a UBI is a good idea for the 21st century, or whether there is a better approach, is something we can only find out by trial and error. But the trials need to start ASAP. Economic theory doesn't get us very far - we need economic experiments.
I'm skeptical that labor demand will keep up with supply as automation progresses, and I'm quite sure that if this is the case, the current economic system will end up making our current problems with long-term unemployment and underemployment seem like an egalitarian paradise. It's good to see that there is at least one politician somewhere in the Western world who is actually taking this seriously.
Thus far, the way we seem to have (mostly) adjusted for this effect is by increasing the number of postmodern servants like baristas and Uber drivers, along with the number of people changing the diapers of aging Baby Boomers, along with the amount of bureaucratic bloat creating jobs for middlemen at every level of government and corporations alike. I'm far from sure that we can keep doing this, and even if we can, I'm quite sure that this is a society that only the top 20% of people will want to live in. I believe this has been a major factor behind the collapse in trust in basically every institution across the Western world over the past 20 years.
Whether taxing robots and distributing a UBI is a good idea for the 21st century, or whether there is a better approach, is something we can only find out by trial and error. But the trials need to start ASAP. Economic theory doesn't get us very far - we need economic experiments.
Taxing "robots" is such a stupid idea that I wonder why people keep bringing it up. There are two major problems with it:
First, what exactly is a "robot" supposed to be? I have the impression that when a robot tax is brought up, people imagine a humanoid, autonomous machine that does exactly the same thing that a human used to do. Essentially a mechanized version of an employee. Nothing could be further from the truth: Instead of a human operating a machine, the controls will be vacated and the machine will receive its commands from a software running on a server somewhere. What really replaces the human is not the machine, it is the software. So instead of a robot tax it should be called a software tax. But the value of software is extremely hard to define such that a tax on it must fail. Consequently thought until the end, we would have to pay a hefty tax on this forum post, because the forum software and our browsers have automated away a lot of mailmen that would have to deliver a letter to all of you.
The absurdity of that last example points out the real problem of a tax on automation, however you implement it: automation is nothing but productivity gain and has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Only this productivity gain by automation has enabled the massive, global increase of wealth so that we are not mostly doing subsistence farming anymore. If you start taxing automation, you are taxing the very source of wealth creation, because without an increase in productivity you can only keep the status quo and redistribute wealth.
The challenge to the society is to find a way to fairly distribute the wealth increase enabled by automation. Taxing robots would be an intentional limit to progress, because we are unwilling to solve the real problem and it will ultimately fail, because those societies that do not artificially limit their productivity gains will ultimately dominate those that do.
First, what exactly is a "robot" supposed to be? I have the impression that when a robot tax is brought up, people imagine a humanoid, autonomous machine that does exactly the same thing that a human used to do. Essentially a mechanized version of an employee. Nothing could be further from the truth: Instead of a human operating a machine, the controls will be vacated and the machine will receive its commands from a software running on a server somewhere. What really replaces the human is not the machine, it is the software. So instead of a robot tax it should be called a software tax. But the value of software is extremely hard to define such that a tax on it must fail. Consequently thought until the end, we would have to pay a hefty tax on this forum post, because the forum software and our browsers have automated away a lot of mailmen that would have to deliver a letter to all of you.
The absurdity of that last example points out the real problem of a tax on automation, however you implement it: automation is nothing but productivity gain and has been going on since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Only this productivity gain by automation has enabled the massive, global increase of wealth so that we are not mostly doing subsistence farming anymore. If you start taxing automation, you are taxing the very source of wealth creation, because without an increase in productivity you can only keep the status quo and redistribute wealth.
The challenge to the society is to find a way to fairly distribute the wealth increase enabled by automation. Taxing robots would be an intentional limit to progress, because we are unwilling to solve the real problem and it will ultimately fail, because those societies that do not artificially limit their productivity gains will ultimately dominate those that do.
What I would support is not actually so much a tax on robots specifically but a tax on capital acquisition in general, with a goal of redistributing the proceeds through a strengthened welfare state.
One of the more concrete ways to do this would be to eliminate depreciation as a tax write-off. Replacing labor with capital is valuable not just for its own sake - which I wouldn't favor inhibiting above what I'm suggesting here - but also for tax purposes: businesses get to write off capital acquisitions.
I'm aware that automation has been ongoing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. My fear is that, after a 200-year period where the creation of new industries kept pace with and absorbed displaced labor from obsolete technology, this may have ceased to be the case with the advent of more general-purpose information technology. I'm not totally certain that this is true, but it would explain a whole lot if it is.
One of the more concrete ways to do this would be to eliminate depreciation as a tax write-off. Replacing labor with capital is valuable not just for its own sake - which I wouldn't favor inhibiting above what I'm suggesting here - but also for tax purposes: businesses get to write off capital acquisitions.
I'm aware that automation has been ongoing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. My fear is that, after a 200-year period where the creation of new industries kept pace with and absorbed displaced labor from obsolete technology, this may have ceased to be the case with the advent of more general-purpose information technology. I'm not totally certain that this is true, but it would explain a whole lot if it is.
Maybe some kind of mandatory funding of public works by the super-rich. As in ancient Athens (where if you had over an amount of - serious - money, you had to either fund the building of a trireme, a theatrical play/event, or other).
Cheetah
Deity
So Les Echos has talked with Macron and from the Financial Times we finally have some actual policies from Macron:
- Emmanuel Macron has outlined a Nordic-style economic programme mixing fiscal discipline and public spending.
- Macron targets €60bn in savings over five years and cut up to 120,000 civil service jobs while vowing at the same time to reinject €50bn into the economy.
- “To be fair and sustainable, it must be environmentally friendly and increase social mobility.”
- France would keep budget deficit below the EU-required threshold of 3 per cent of gross domestic product — a target Macron estimates will be met this year.
- Reform the labour market to give companies more flexibility to negotiate working hours and pay, but also extend the welfare state, allowing entrepreneurs and self-employed to be eligible to unemployment benefits.
- Lower companies and households’ tax bill by €20bn.
- Reform of the wealth tax, which would essentially become a real estate tax because financial investments would be exempted.
- Lower corporate tax from 33.3 per cent to 25 per cent (the EU average).
- In the past three years of Hollande's presidential term, the deeply unpopular leader made a pro-business U-turn with €40bn in tax breaks for companies in the hope of reigniting the economy and cut unemployment from nearly 10 per cent. Mr Macron told Les Echos that he would made these breaks permanent.
Thoughts?
- Emmanuel Macron has outlined a Nordic-style economic programme mixing fiscal discipline and public spending.
- Macron targets €60bn in savings over five years and cut up to 120,000 civil service jobs while vowing at the same time to reinject €50bn into the economy.
- “To be fair and sustainable, it must be environmentally friendly and increase social mobility.”
- France would keep budget deficit below the EU-required threshold of 3 per cent of gross domestic product — a target Macron estimates will be met this year.
- Reform the labour market to give companies more flexibility to negotiate working hours and pay, but also extend the welfare state, allowing entrepreneurs and self-employed to be eligible to unemployment benefits.
- Lower companies and households’ tax bill by €20bn.
- Reform of the wealth tax, which would essentially become a real estate tax because financial investments would be exempted.
- Lower corporate tax from 33.3 per cent to 25 per cent (the EU average).
- In the past three years of Hollande's presidential term, the deeply unpopular leader made a pro-business U-turn with €40bn in tax breaks for companies in the hope of reigniting the economy and cut unemployment from nearly 10 per cent. Mr Macron told Les Echos that he would made these breaks permanent.
Thoughts?
Macron is Hollande 2.0. Except he, at least, is honest about what he wants to do if he's elected. Ok I'll be more precise he's slightly to Hollande's right (as is shown by his desire to cut 120k public jobs in the next 5 years).
The other news of the day is that Fillon's case will now be led by an independent judge (the PNF had three choices, either dropping charges, indicting him if they thought the case was complete enough or give the case to a judge). It means that nothing will happen in the next couple years while the judge leads a thorough investigation. It was the most likely outcome.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,068
Neoliberal bastard peddling more of the same failed policies that have been carried out recently. Voters will quickly arrive to that conclusion and vote according to their experience, not to promises: if they didn't benefit under Hollande and Sarkozy, and were unhappy with them, they won't bite for Macron this time. This will male Le Pen win, I tell you. Though I still hope a better candidate will make it past the first round.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I think you may be vastly overestimating voters here.
Remember, Fillon (which is even orders of magnitde times worse than Macron in this neoliberalism bastardiness) was very far ahead in vote intention before the scandal blew.
People are dumb.
Something's happening. Fillon cancelled his visit at the Salon de l'agriculture (an important event, especially for the right) without telling his campaign team, then met with important right wing parliamentaries, and will do a press conference in 2mn.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I always despised this guy, thanks for him to confirm I was right and he's just a dirtbag ^^
It's time for the people on the right to show what kind of people they are. Half of them are showing that they have principles, by stepping down from the campaign. For the other half, whether or not they have some decency remains to be seen.
Looks like an uneventful campaign 
At least there is no Sarkozy this time.
France has the power to actually make the EU something saner, or at least create its own Eu if the current one dissolves. If Le Pen isn't elected then i at least hope the new french president will do something positive to change EU, although i am not holding my breath given how Hollande didn't really support the original Syriza-Varoufakis attempt.
At least there is no Sarkozy this time.
France has the power to actually make the EU something saner, or at least create its own Eu if the current one dissolves. If Le Pen isn't elected then i at least hope the new french president will do something positive to change EU, although i am not holding my breath given how Hollande didn't really support the original Syriza-Varoufakis attempt.
