12 ms·

Group led by Thomas Piketty presents plan for ‘a fairer Europe’

96 points by rapnie 8y ago

hyperman1 8y ago
The last sentence of this article resonates with me: Where are the leaders? I see a deep visionary impasse in all of the west. There is no coherent response to a long list of hard problems. We know China or Russia are threatening us. Extremist leaders are appearing in a lot of our western countries, including US, Australia, a lot of Europe, ... Big multinationals abuse and damage the core social contracts that provide the stability of our nations. A huge climate crisis is coming at us. Meanwhile, our politicians are bickering amongst themselves. The problems of the 70's are fought with solutions of the 70's. I hate to see how people support right extremism, choose leaders that only damage them, but I do understand their frustration very well. It is clear something is not working. Every time I hear politicians say how they know what needs to be done, but they will get voted out if they try. I don't believe this is true. A few times, I saw a few rare politicians make a sane proposal where they told voters there would be hurt in the short run, and most of them actually get chosen. I believe the average voter is ready for change. Only there is no politician decent enough to get their vote. So where are you, leaders? We really need someone who has the daring to acknowledge the problem, the vision to dream big , the common sense to keep it possible, and to actually be capable of executing this vision. Not a small list, but not impossible either. I'm not saying this proposal is the one final idea to rule them all, but at least it is some step in the right direction.
- corporateguy6 8y ago
  I think part of the problem with politicians is how we choose them. A government career politicians says nothing about their individual abilities, except for the fact that they are adept at public speaking.
  - tanderson92 8y ago
    On this point, Varoufakis, one of the founders of the DiEM25 movement that this article is implicitly referencing, recently said on a leftist podcast that part of the problem is the people you would want in government positions are those who don't want to stay there very long. That is, he views actual roles in power being viewed as something akin to jury duty a much healthier model than one where people want to become government ministers.
    - buboard 8y ago
      OK but he proved himself that you can do a lot of damage in just a few months.
      - tanderson92 8y ago
        That seems like an orthogonal point. I say that making no judgement either way about the quality of his governance.
        buboard 8y ago
        if you are making no judgement, then you are simply ignoring the evidence. I can make a judgement because his work affected me directly. It was an extremely negative outcome for 5 months of work. So the point that you mention is wrong. How can this be orthogonal?
        tanderson92 8y ago
        I think a fair reading of my previous comment will reveal that I was trying to avoid engaging on the possible harm of his policies. That is not the same as absolving him. Instead, it is saying that you can evaluate his point independently of that question.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        He was at Valve for at least a year.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  I feel as though our notion of government is outdated. How can this honeypot of corruption ever work in our best interests? I like what Martin Luther King Jr said - his people should work to run their local economies. Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. MLK also advocated for government programs that would help his people, but this was seen as only part of the fight in addition to direct acquisition of power within his followers’ communities. Today I hear people begging and pleading for some politician to solve our problems, but I believe we must solve them ourselves directly, not indirectly through government. Unfortunately most of my fellow leftists can only see how to solve problems using some theoretical “caring” government. I don’t expect to encounter such a government in my life time.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    > Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. Good idea. Perhaps we should vote for a group of people to coordinate this action.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
      Are you mocking me? Why?
      - abeppu 8y ago
        I don't want to mock this idea, but I do think the question of how people should coordinate their efforts to directly help each other, and how to use their resources is an important one. How should the people attempt to ensure that their efforts to help each other are comprehensive, efficient, fair, etc? How should we attempt to make sure our help is targeted at the needs that are most important? For people raised in a society where government plays a large role, it's hard to imagine a solution which we wouldn't perceive as government.
- analogwzrd 8y ago
  I think it's a mistake to look for leaders in our elected officials. In general, politicians poll their constituents and their platform changes to mirror what their constituents want in order to continue being re-elected. Sometimes whenever a politician "flip flops" it's because they're changing their position to better align with their constituents. But this also means that public policy lags public opinion. If you want new (govenrment) solutions, you have to change public opinion first. Change the public opinion and the politicians will follow but I wouldn't expect them to take the lead.
  - jimnotgym 8y ago
    > In general, politicians poll their constituents and their platform changes to mirror what their constituents want in order to continue being re-elected I find that in the UK the right-wing media tell everybody what they want, the BBC then takes that as rote and amplifies it. The officials then mirror that. Take the immigration issue as a case in point to demonstrate (I am not going to argue the rights and wrongs of immigration itself so don't bother commenting, this is a meta-comment). The current PM talked about reducing immigration constantly as Home Secretary (mirroring the Daily Mail). As PM she has done the same. Recently a story came out that she tried to suppress reports that immigration was a benefit to the economy on multiple occasions. A recent report said that immigrants on average were more of a benefit to the economy than native Brits. This seems to me nothing like mirroring public opinion, and instead they are trying to bend facts to fit the newspapers narrative, so they will get coverage. I think we do need leadership from elected officials, otherwise 'public opinion' is lead by the press barons.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      > ... they are trying to bend facts to fit the newspapers narrative, so they will get coverage. I think we can all agree that that is politics, but not leadership. Politicians are active players in the game of politics, no argument. So I suppose the null hypothesis is that the current PM has a large contingency of voters who don't like immigration (who are also pandered to by the Daily Mail), and is trying to represent them. I really like that one - a politician who attempts to show leadership _will_ be controversial and resisted. Democracies settle uncontroversial issues extremely quickly, then settle into an awkward status-quo with competing interest groups, where any change advantages some and disadvantages others. Someone who tries to lead anywhere new will face fierce opposition. Are you fundamentally saying that that null hypothesis is wrong? What are you proposing replaces it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  What we need is coordinated action to take the fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters down, make them feel the full burden of their responsibility, and it needs to be decisive and without compromise. They have been allowed to poison the world for far too long. As an ordinary person, what you need to do is shift your priority to vote almost exclusively based on environmental policies of the candidate, get involved in politics and not give in to people who claim it's "no big deal". I think this is a commendable initiative from Piketty et. al., which actually has a chance of being supported by a large number of people. Personally I don't think it's nearly hard-hitting enough, but it's a good start.
  - Pamar 8y ago
    I'll wager that in order to write this message you used a device which had a certain number of plastic components, and I suppose that the probability of said device to reach your home or office entirely by muscle or wind powered vehicles are pretty near 0. In other words, while I am sure that "fossil fuel industry" was never motivated by purely altruistic ideas, we have also to take in account that the standard of living we take for granted is in large part due to "fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters".
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      Yeah sure, on that scale everyone is a hypocrite. But unless you want everyone who champions for climate-friendly living to live as a literal hermit in a cave, there is a trade-off. After all, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to minimize our impact, but the burden is not on the individual, it is on industry. I do try to keep a low personal climate profile, but there is only so much each individual can do, while still being able to sustain a living under the current system. Industry has been given a free pass for far too long, their pollution has been grandfathered in and even considered a necessary evil in the name of Holy Profit. But we are no longer so ignorant to their deleterious effect on our climate and (to put a point on it) the continued existence of humanity on this planet. Corporations could have shaped up and improved their environmental profiles decades and decades ago, when climate scientists first started pointing out the problems. But their didn't, because it was more profitable to continue poisoning the environment and clear cutting the rainforests.
- ahakki 8y ago
  > Every time I hear politicians say how they know what needs to be done, but they will get voted out if they try. I don't believe this is true. Imagine people rioting in the streets because you put a carbon tax on gas.
  - roymurdock 8y ago
    you missed, the other side of the equation, the yellow jackets are also fed up because they perceive the gas taxes (along with tax after tax after tax under macron) to miss the upper classes and hit the lower classes disproportionately which are already struggling on a median $30k/yr income the carbon taxes should be levied on large corporations and their shareholders rather than than low income individuals and employees
    - ahakki 8y ago
      No, I didn't miss it. The problem is that no one actually seems to accept any reduction in quality of life for the commons. Saying that someone else should bear the load is just deflecting responsibility (and incidently what everyone does as soon as a measure hits them specifically). We all know that no one will do anything.
      - roymurdock 8y ago
        what do you mean, no one will do anything the yellow jackets are out rioting, killing, and dying to protest what they see as unfair the prime minister has already agreed to suspend the gas tax for 6 months, and will need to make further concessions or else risk being ousted/replaced
        ahakki 8y ago
        >what do you mean, no one will do anything? >>Every time I hear politicians say how they know what needs to be done, but they will get voted out if they try. I don't believe this is true. I meant we all know that no one will do anything about climate change, because whenever anyone proposes something with an actual effect people come out "rioting, killing, and dying to protest what they see as unfair".
- RivieraKid 8y ago
  Haven't read the article yet but what you say articulates my unconscious feelings about the EU and Western countries in general. There is a lack of clarity of thinking, vision, a clear path forward. It makes me think of, although this is a weird analogy, the difference between how AlphaZero plays chess compared to traditional chess engines. AlphaZero plays with a strong sense of purpose and energy. Traditional engines seem to just... make some moves, trying to avoid mistakes without any high-level plan. Another analogy is Elon Musk's companies (even though I don't like the guy personally). He's able to present coherent, clear vision and make people excited about following the progress of his companies.
- graeme 8y ago
  The solution isn't obvious to me. There isn't a magic wand to wave in order to make people richer. But people seem to be looking for that magic wand. In France, the government has spent beyond its means. But people want lower taxes, higher spending, more pensions.
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    France has spent beyond its means on the Neo-liberal "invade the world invite the world" policies of supporting US wars and taking in vast quantities of economic migrants as "refugees". The solution is crystal clear to anyone who isnt in the corporate media bubble. End the aforementioned policies.
    - graeme 8y ago
      France opposed the Iraq war quite forcefully. Meanwhile, the bulk of France's non-European immigrants are from France's own former colonies: North Africa and French Subsaharan Africa. So, a legacy of France's empire.
      - ramblerouser 8y ago
        Ahh the old "legacy of empire" justification for mass immigration. The great French WWII leader Charles DuGaul gave up colonial posession of Algeria specifically to prevent migration to France. The cheap labor addicts in the European establishment dont care. Also, not Iraq, but France's bombing of Libya at the direction of the US is what started the migrant crisis. So yes, this is very much "invade the world invite the world" here.
        graeme 8y ago
        I'm not sure that was de Gaulle's reason, unless you can cite some source. This has stats on immigrants to France. As you can see, most are from Algeria, Europe, and Morroco. Further, it you investigate the sub saharan africa segment I'm quite sure you'll find it's almost exclusively from former French colonies. The collapse of the Gaddafi regime certainly led to more migrant boats crossing, but the absolute numbers entering France are not high, and certainly not compared to other sources. Oh, and the Algerians mostly came after the Algerian war. One of the biggest early groups were Algerians who had fought with the French army. You appear to be very certain, but you don't seem to have any evidence to back up your views.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  Would Marie Le Pen have done any of the things Macron did to damage the livelihoods of the French people? No. Because Macron is a Neo-Liberal puppet and Le Pen is not. The leaders you seek are glaring you in the face, but you reject them because you buy into the lies about "right extremism" from the corporate media that got us here in the first place.
  - shostack 8y ago
    This seems like a similar argument people made for Trump and look how that turned out for them. Surely there are no other similarities between the two though [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39478066 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39478066
    - ramblerouser 8y ago
      When the elites in your country are so hell bent on the repression of the people they rule over, that popular political candidates are cut off from the banking system and have to borrow money from banks in other countries, that should make you think twice when those same elites tell you populism is just a rouse perpetrated by people in the few countries willing to lend their support.
      - dang 8y ago
        It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their politics, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do that.
Udik 8y ago
"The plan [...] includes huge levies on multinationals, millionaires and carbon emissions to generate funds to tackle the most urgent issues of the day, including poverty, migration, climate change and the EU’s so-called democratic deficit." So the plan seems to be to grab money from a list of subjects the people love to hate, to use it to solve the problems newspapers love to talk endlessly about. And how? Not clear. Just solve them, I suppose. With the money.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  Taxing the hell out of CO2 emissions is likely its own self-fulfilling solution. To a first order, it doesn't matter what you spend the windfall on. Subsidize a revival of mime, if you like. Probably the smartest idea would be to blunt the political backlash by spending the tax revenue on welfare for coal miners, oil workers, truck drivers, etc.
  - polskibus 8y ago
    It's so bad people focus only on CO2. Focusing only on one gas will likely boost solutions that promote generation of other not great for environment gases like NO2. That has already happened with diesels. Diesel emits much more NO2 (~4x) and PM (up to 20x) than standard engine.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      They don't. There's been plenty of information, study and discussion of the other greenhouse gasses, especially methane. As CO2 is the main contributor it's reasonable it gets most of the focus. What would you focus on?
      - polskibus 8y ago
        Regarding focus for each technology, evaluate its environmental impact in full - total toxicity on all stages - obtaining raw resources, initial production, deployment, use, maintenance over 10-20 years, lastly decomissioning/deactivating. There's been too many wrongdoings by good intentions. Focus on diesels that at least used to emit much more NO2 and PM than gasoline cars [1]. Or biofuels that were proven to be energy-negative overall and contributed much to the increase of food prices, also boosting burning forests to grow corn in South America. [1] http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241 http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really... I'd love to read data that diesels didn't pollute more than gasoline cars. It's been a huge thing in EU some time ago when governments had to switch their incentives due to those findings. Are you saying it was all a hoax?
21 8y ago
Why is it that when the right wants to reduce taxes, which is a popular move, they are called "populists", but when the left wants to increase social spending, which is also a popular move, they are not? Wikipedia definition: > Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to "the people," often juxtaposing this group against a so-called "elite." Kind of fits the definition, this article itself says it wants to go after the elite: big tech companies and rich people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Downvoters: hit a nerve, eh?
- Udik 8y ago
  Absolutely, for example Italy's "Five Stars" party, which is currently the majority party in the most populist government Italy has ever had, won the elections with a strong "anti-elites" platform and a (completely unrealistic) plan for redistributing money to a large part of the population.
  - orwin 8y ago
    But the Five Star was called a populist party by most of the european media (and italian ones: see Il Tempo, L’Unione Sarda and Il Fatto Quotidiano after the election night), so you are undermining the point with your example.
    - Udik 8y ago
      Ha, "Il Fatto Quotidiano" is pretty much the Five Stars party's official newspaper. So I don't know why they would call them populist (unless they decided that it's easier to redefine the value of the term rather than fight against it). Anyway, Five Stars's proposals are rather extreme, and they're outsiders who don't fit the left/ right division; as such it's easier to recognize and label them as populist than it is with the usual left-wing parties (when their proposals actually are populist, which is not a given).
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  Populism is merely a word to discredit something that a lot of people like, that those in power do not. That is not to say that I agree with everything labeled 'populist'. I don't even think it's a left vs right thing, even if that's how it plays out now. I guarantee you if there was a broadly popular left-wing movement that actually threatened those in power, the media would label it populist as well.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bobthechef 8y ago
The first step is stick with a confederal view of Europe. Federal visions of Europe are stupid, dangerous, and impossible. Europe is not like the United States nor could it be, and such comparisons are foolish and ignorant. Once we've agreed to hold to a confederal Europe, operate like a confederal Europe, and acknowledge the subsequent confederal nature and expectations of the EU, you should expect a drop in a good chunk of the so-called populism. The main reasons why a confederal Europe is a better solution is because first, there is considerable difference of interests and geopolitical difference across the EU that are incompatible. Inevitably, a federal EU will become a cudgel used to force weaker states into submission. Second, Europeans don't see themselves as "European" because it is not a meaningful or even substantive notion here and the last few crises should have made that clear to any remaining obstinate holdouts. Even being "American" has more substance, which is saying something. Third, the values and culture across Europe are quite different and ultimately, the EU will behave increasingly tyrannically toward member states that step out of line with the values of the European elites which will circle us back to populism and possible war of a very disastrous kind. It should be clear that I am not advocating the dissolution of the EU, though there is a very real possibility it will disintegrate all on its own with no need to appeal to external scapegoats. I believe that if any EU is possible, it is one of limited integration on a limited set of fronts where cooperation profits the common good of the Union, specifically economically and where joint scientific ventures (like space) might profit from formalized confederal joint cooperation.
- jabl 8y ago
  Absent a development towards a more federal EU, it's time to save the rest of it by getting rid of the euro currency. At this point it's a farce that produces destitution and drives discontent with the entire EU.
alecco 8y ago
How tone-deaf can they be? Raising taxes can bring tax revenue down. Europe already has quite high corporate taxes and high income taxes for top brackets. Also, raising taxes to spend the money on immigrants? Are they purposely fueling the raise of right wing nationalists? Do they have any self-awareness?
- colde 8y ago
  I am going to need some sort of citation for the idea that Europe has high corporate taxes. According to KPMG the EU average is lower than the current US corporate tax rate. Furthermore, setting it at 37% is 3% lower than the US tax rate was last year. I don't really see any downside to doing this. It's not like companies are not going to do business in Europe, it's waaay to attractive a market. Also, "spending money on immigrants" sounds like it's just being given to immigrants, the money is specifically to countries cope with the cost that is there already. It might fuel right wing nationalists, but that seems to happen anyway, while they are busy doing their thing, it would be nice if the sensible people tried to tackle the issues at hand.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    " EU average is lower than the current US corporate tax rate." Eeastern European countries generally have very low tax rates which brings the average down. Otherwise they are 'ballpark similar' [1] But that's only one source of taxation. As for the rest, they are very, very high in Europe. I think the issues are probably in efficiencies across the board, more than redistribution at this point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
  - alecco 8y ago
    Germany 29% and 47.5% France 15% and 45% Italy 27.9% and 43% UK 19% and 47% Spain 25% and 45% Sure, California and some other special states can get almost as high. But the majority are well below.
    - EastSmith 8y ago
rogerthis 8y ago
The problem with every large scale plan is how to bring the "russians" on board (by russians I mean the people, but maybe also Russia).
- roymurdock 8y ago
  show the population your plan is working by broadly improving the population's standard of living this is currently working in both russia and china to the point where many are content with quasi-dictatorships because they've seen such a vast improvement in their quality of life through improved economies at the end of the day more food on your table and more money in your bank account speaks volumes louder than having an infinitesimal say in who represents your interests in an increasingly dysfunctional local and federal government
- alexkcd 8y ago
  No, I think you mean Russia the government, not "russians" the people. The latter have little say over the policymaking of the former.
beerlord 8y ago
Europe's problem is simply high taxes, inefficient bureaucracy, and over-welfare. Particularly, payroll taxes, which in some countries (France) are at 50%. These hugely complicate hiring employees, and just encourage cash payments and tax avoidance. Taxes should instead be shifted to harmful outputs and products, like food sweeteners and fossil fuels. Next, bureaucracies need to be be slimmed down and modernised. All EU countries should offer the ability to transact with their bureaucracy (tax returns, permits etc.) in the native language or English. Finally, welfare should be ended for anyone fit and healthy below a certain age, and the retirement age taken to 70 immediately. Pensions should be phased out for anyone under 40 currently. The refugee intake should be taken to zero, and borders strictly enforced, since the net economic contribution of MENA migrants currently is negative. Access to Master's degrees should be limited to only the best students, to encourage people to enter the workforce earlier and to allow a reduction in education spending. Through all this there could be a huge reduction in the tax burden, targeted to eliminate payroll taxes (perhaps in combination with replacing it with higher income taxes, the way Scandinavians do) and reduce VAT. Income tax/payroll tax savings could be preferentially targeted to couples with 3 or more children, to encourage higher birthrates.
- oAlbe 8y ago
  Woah, slow down there Benito.
- dcposch 8y ago
  > The refugee intake should be taken to zero, and borders strictly enforced, since the net economic contribution of MENA migrants currently is negative Delete this sentence and the rest of your post is mostly good. Simplifying bureaucracy? Mandating English as an option? Capping payroll taxes at some reasonable level? All good ideas. But the idea that we should turn away people fleeing poverty and violence because their "net economic contribution... is currently negative" is racist and gross. Economic growth is nice, but it's a means to an end. The first step is to have a society worth growing.
  - pas 8y ago
    > the rest of your post is mostly good. No, it's not. It's hogwash. Especially the education one. Income inequality is a lot more serious problem than uncapped payroll taxes.
buboard 8y ago
I m sure Piketty has the best of intentions, and his arguing about a wealth tax on the face of growing inequality has merit. The problem is how these funds are going to be spent. EU is already subsidizing a number of sectors, with less than spectacular results. EU funds are great for governments because they offer jobs and make them look good. But look at how agriculture is doing in the countries that received most of the subsidies. EU already spends a lot in research, yet research materializes into products on the other side of the atlantic. Maybe if there was a more tight dependence on returns of investments these funding schemes would make sense. I think piketty himself knows that the proposal is naive, but i guess he agreed to be co-opted by the populist left.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
  I read Capital in the 21st Century. I can't speak to this group in particular, but I think what Picketty argues for is wealth redistribution. Picketty proves that the poor are much worse at investing money than the wealthy -- which is actually the biggest factor behind increasing inequality. Sane people can argue that taking money from good investors and giving it to bad investors is a bad investment strategy. But it's quite clear that if we don't do /something/ about inequality, it's only going to get worse and at quickening rate. Wealth redistribution is pretty much the only option. The only way that seems sustainable to me is: you take the average rate of return and subtract that from each individuals rate of return. If that's a positive value, you're taxed at some percentage of the difference. I.E. if the average rate of return is 4%, and yours is 90%, you're taxed at 86%*X -- where X is some value or a function of 86%. If you tax wealth at some arbitrarily progressive rate, that could easily disensentivise people from creating wealth or from working as hard to create it.
  - buboard 8y ago
    > the poor are much worse at investing money than the wealthy i disagree. wealthy people have better investment options by virtue of the fact that they have more money. any banker can confirm that. Taxation is not the only solution. full employment is another way , but yeah there are no magical solutions.
diplo404 8y ago
This is complete hogwash. A fund to manage migration? The author should and will be in a gulag. If the liberal leaders and billionaires want to keep importing cancer Islam en masse and telling the people they are racist, you will have civil war and a far right dictatorship within the next two decades. Fools need to stop blaming Putin and Xi. Do you see them allowing mass migration? Our societies are run by neutered half-men - that’s why we are decaying. It’s that simple
- pas 8y ago
  > you will have civil war and a far right dictatorship within the next two decades. Why? I mean why do you think it'll be far right, not far left? Why do you assume there will be anyone left standing at all? > It’s that simple Really? What about the aging and dwindling population that's Europe's most serious issue? > run by neutered half-men Umm, maybe you are thinking about women? (Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Germany, UK have a lot of women in politics.) > we are decaying Are we really decaying or you simply don't find your place, nor your viewpoint of the world?
  - diplo404 8y ago
    You think I’m the only one? You live in a little, small minded far left echo chamber if you think that - stay there. The birth rate will begin reversing in Hungary and Italy over the next few years due to new policies- decline in birth rate is thanks to abortion, 3rd wave feminism, decline of religion/marriage institutions and the expansion of the welfare state. The women PM’s in UK, Germany, and Sweden are to blame for the far right. UK will be an Islamic caliphate within the next 20 years - the Orban’s of the west will begin to multiply
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Europe is already very heavily taxed. Another tax on gasoline has just set France on fire. Democracy? If it were democratic there'd be much stricter implementation of immigration rules and by the way, I think a healthy dose of helping refugees, and specifically helping the places from whence they camp. Also in 'Democracy' - the EU itself is among the least democratic of institutions in the West, with an unelected executive forming all the laws, while elected MEPs with no ability to propose legislation. Moreover - nobody even knows who their MEP is. I understand why this was done, but still ... Instead of 'more taxes' maybe they might want to consider a) thinking about efficiencies both in private and public sector and b) at least listening to populist concerns on migration.
- aisofteng 8y ago
  Look at youth unemployment rates in Europe: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemploymen... >20% youth unemployment in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain. I don’t see how a country could recover from that.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Well, they could reduce the value of their currency to make them more competitive ... whoops can't do that!
atmosx 8y ago
Watched a show on France24 channel about what's happening in France right now, 7 out of 8 guests labelled Macron as completely out of touch. It appears that 50% of the country makes 1.2k/month or less. You cannot survive with that kind of salary in France, so it's not just one tax or two. There is a series of decisions made by Macron's government that are heavily controversial. On a side-note, demonstrations sparked in Belgium and the Netherlands, to a lower extend.
EastSmith 8y ago
It is funny how one of the top stories on HN right now is an article that shows total goverment incompetance - the story about NY metro not showing the time it will arrive, then there is this story about giving that governmemt more money.
- smolder 8y ago
  Can you fathom a world where governments can actually do some things well and some things poorly, for quite complicated reasons?
skookumchuck 8y ago
> the manifest unfairness of huge multinationals such as Apple, Google and Amazon Those are American companies. Why aren't there EU companies at this level? Probably because of their destructive tax policies. Massive tax increases will just make the situation worse, and investment capital will desert the EU for American.
ramblerouser 8y ago
>A fund to better manage migration Not end it? So this establishment nobody wants to raise amost a trillion Euro through taxes to give directly to economic migrants to encourange more of them to come here and put downward pressure on wages for the most vulnerable Europeans, while he takes a cut. Thanks The Guardian. Whatever would we do with your uncritical reporting on traitors like this.

96 points by rapnie 8y ago

The last sentence of this article resonates with me: Where are the leaders? I see a deep visionary impasse in all of the west. There is no coherent response to a long list of hard problems. We know China or Russia are threatening us. Extremist leaders are appearing in a lot of our western countries, including US, Australia, a lot of Europe, ... Big multinationals abuse and damage the core social contracts that provide the stability of our nations. A huge climate crisis is coming at us. Meanwhile, our politicians are bickering amongst themselves. The problems of the 70's are fought with solutions of the 70's. I hate to see how people support right extremism, choose leaders that only damage them, but I do understand their frustration very well. It is clear something is not working. Every time I hear politicians say how they know what needs to be done, but they will get voted out if they try. I don't believe this is true. A few times, I saw a few rare politicians make a sane proposal where they told voters there would be hurt in the short run, and most of them actually get chosen. I believe the average voter is ready for change. Only there is no politician decent enough to get their vote. So where are you, leaders? We really need someone who has the daring to acknowledge the problem, the vision to dream big , the common sense to keep it possible, and to actually be capable of executing this vision. Not a small list, but not impossible either. I'm not saying this proposal is the one final idea to rule them all, but at least it is some step in the right direction.

corporateguy6 8y ago
I think part of the problem with politicians is how we choose them. A government career politicians says nothing about their individual abilities, except for the fact that they are adept at public speaking.
- tanderson92 8y ago
  On this point, Varoufakis, one of the founders of the DiEM25 movement that this article is implicitly referencing, recently said on a leftist podcast that part of the problem is the people you would want in government positions are those who don't want to stay there very long. That is, he views actual roles in power being viewed as something akin to jury duty a much healthier model than one where people want to become government ministers.
  - buboard 8y ago
    OK but he proved himself that you can do a lot of damage in just a few months.
    - tanderson92 8y ago
      That seems like an orthogonal point. I say that making no judgement either way about the quality of his governance.
      - buboard 8y ago
        if you are making no judgement, then you are simply ignoring the evidence. I can make a judgement because his work affected me directly. It was an extremely negative outcome for 5 months of work. So the point that you mention is wrong. How can this be orthogonal?
        tanderson92 8y ago
        I think a fair reading of my previous comment will reveal that I was trying to avoid engaging on the possible harm of his policies. That is not the same as absolving him. Instead, it is saying that you can evaluate his point independently of that question.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      He was at Valve for at least a year.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I feel as though our notion of government is outdated. How can this honeypot of corruption ever work in our best interests? I like what Martin Luther King Jr said - his people should work to run their local economies. Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. MLK also advocated for government programs that would help his people, but this was seen as only part of the fight in addition to direct acquisition of power within his followers’ communities. Today I hear people begging and pleading for some politician to solve our problems, but I believe we must solve them ourselves directly, not indirectly through government. Unfortunately most of my fellow leftists can only see how to solve problems using some theoretical “caring” government. I don’t expect to encounter such a government in my life time.
- Angostura 8y ago
  > Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. Good idea. Perhaps we should vote for a group of people to coordinate this action.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    Are you mocking me? Why?
    - abeppu 8y ago
      I don't want to mock this idea, but I do think the question of how people should coordinate their efforts to directly help each other, and how to use their resources is an important one. How should the people attempt to ensure that their efforts to help each other are comprehensive, efficient, fair, etc? How should we attempt to make sure our help is targeted at the needs that are most important? For people raised in a society where government plays a large role, it's hard to imagine a solution which we wouldn't perceive as government.
analogwzrd 8y ago
I think it's a mistake to look for leaders in our elected officials. In general, politicians poll their constituents and their platform changes to mirror what their constituents want in order to continue being re-elected. Sometimes whenever a politician "flip flops" it's because they're changing their position to better align with their constituents. But this also means that public policy lags public opinion. If you want new (govenrment) solutions, you have to change public opinion first. Change the public opinion and the politicians will follow but I wouldn't expect them to take the lead.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  > In general, politicians poll their constituents and their platform changes to mirror what their constituents want in order to continue being re-elected I find that in the UK the right-wing media tell everybody what they want, the BBC then takes that as rote and amplifies it. The officials then mirror that. Take the immigration issue as a case in point to demonstrate (I am not going to argue the rights and wrongs of immigration itself so don't bother commenting, this is a meta-comment). The current PM talked about reducing immigration constantly as Home Secretary (mirroring the Daily Mail). As PM she has done the same. Recently a story came out that she tried to suppress reports that immigration was a benefit to the economy on multiple occasions. A recent report said that immigrants on average were more of a benefit to the economy than native Brits. This seems to me nothing like mirroring public opinion, and instead they are trying to bend facts to fit the newspapers narrative, so they will get coverage. I think we do need leadership from elected officials, otherwise 'public opinion' is lead by the press barons.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > ... they are trying to bend facts to fit the newspapers narrative, so they will get coverage. I think we can all agree that that is politics, but not leadership. Politicians are active players in the game of politics, no argument. So I suppose the null hypothesis is that the current PM has a large contingency of voters who don't like immigration (who are also pandered to by the Daily Mail), and is trying to represent them. I really like that one - a politician who attempts to show leadership _will_ be controversial and resisted. Democracies settle uncontroversial issues extremely quickly, then settle into an awkward status-quo with competing interest groups, where any change advantages some and disadvantages others. Someone who tries to lead anywhere new will face fierce opposition. Are you fundamentally saying that that null hypothesis is wrong? What are you proposing replaces it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
KozmoNau7 8y ago
What we need is coordinated action to take the fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters down, make them feel the full burden of their responsibility, and it needs to be decisive and without compromise. They have been allowed to poison the world for far too long. As an ordinary person, what you need to do is shift your priority to vote almost exclusively based on environmental policies of the candidate, get involved in politics and not give in to people who claim it's "no big deal". I think this is a commendable initiative from Piketty et. al., which actually has a chance of being supported by a large number of people. Personally I don't think it's nearly hard-hitting enough, but it's a good start.
- Pamar 8y ago
  I'll wager that in order to write this message you used a device which had a certain number of plastic components, and I suppose that the probability of said device to reach your home or office entirely by muscle or wind powered vehicles are pretty near 0. In other words, while I am sure that "fossil fuel industry" was never motivated by purely altruistic ideas, we have also to take in account that the standard of living we take for granted is in large part due to "fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters".
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Yeah sure, on that scale everyone is a hypocrite. But unless you want everyone who champions for climate-friendly living to live as a literal hermit in a cave, there is a trade-off. After all, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to minimize our impact, but the burden is not on the individual, it is on industry. I do try to keep a low personal climate profile, but there is only so much each individual can do, while still being able to sustain a living under the current system. Industry has been given a free pass for far too long, their pollution has been grandfathered in and even considered a necessary evil in the name of Holy Profit. But we are no longer so ignorant to their deleterious effect on our climate and (to put a point on it) the continued existence of humanity on this planet. Corporations could have shaped up and improved their environmental profiles decades and decades ago, when climate scientists first started pointing out the problems. But their didn't, because it was more profitable to continue poisoning the environment and clear cutting the rainforests.
ahakki 8y ago
> Every time I hear politicians say how they know what needs to be done, but they will get voted out if they try. I don't believe this is true. Imagine people rioting in the streets because you put a carbon tax on gas.
- roymurdock 8y ago
  you missed, the other side of the equation, the yellow jackets are also fed up because they perceive the gas taxes (along with tax after tax after tax under macron) to miss the upper classes and hit the lower classes disproportionately which are already struggling on a median $30k/yr income the carbon taxes should be levied on large corporations and their shareholders rather than than low income individuals and employees
  - ahakki 8y ago
    No, I didn't miss it. The problem is that no one actually seems to accept any reduction in quality of life for the commons. Saying that someone else should bear the load is just deflecting responsibility (and incidently what everyone does as soon as a measure hits them specifically). We all know that no one will do anything.
    - roymurdock 8y ago
      what do you mean, no one will do anything the yellow jackets are out rioting, killing, and dying to protest what they see as unfair the prime minister has already agreed to suspend the gas tax for 6 months, and will need to make further concessions or else risk being ousted/replaced
      - ahakki 8y ago
        >what do you mean, no one will do anything? >>Every time I hear politicians say how they know what needs to be done, but they will get voted out if they try. I don't believe this is true. I meant we all know that no one will do anything about climate change, because whenever anyone proposes something with an actual effect people come out "rioting, killing, and dying to protest what they see as unfair".
RivieraKid 8y ago
Haven't read the article yet but what you say articulates my unconscious feelings about the EU and Western countries in general. There is a lack of clarity of thinking, vision, a clear path forward. It makes me think of, although this is a weird analogy, the difference between how AlphaZero plays chess compared to traditional chess engines. AlphaZero plays with a strong sense of purpose and energy. Traditional engines seem to just... make some moves, trying to avoid mistakes without any high-level plan. Another analogy is Elon Musk's companies (even though I don't like the guy personally). He's able to present coherent, clear vision and make people excited about following the progress of his companies.
graeme 8y ago
The solution isn't obvious to me. There isn't a magic wand to wave in order to make people richer. But people seem to be looking for that magic wand. In France, the government has spent beyond its means. But people want lower taxes, higher spending, more pensions.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  France has spent beyond its means on the Neo-liberal "invade the world invite the world" policies of supporting US wars and taking in vast quantities of economic migrants as "refugees". The solution is crystal clear to anyone who isnt in the corporate media bubble. End the aforementioned policies.
  - graeme 8y ago
    France opposed the Iraq war quite forcefully. Meanwhile, the bulk of France's non-European immigrants are from France's own former colonies: North Africa and French Subsaharan Africa. So, a legacy of France's empire.
    - ramblerouser 8y ago
      Ahh the old "legacy of empire" justification for mass immigration. The great French WWII leader Charles DuGaul gave up colonial posession of Algeria specifically to prevent migration to France. The cheap labor addicts in the European establishment dont care. Also, not Iraq, but France's bombing of Libya at the direction of the US is what started the migrant crisis. So yes, this is very much "invade the world invite the world" here.
      - graeme 8y ago
        I'm not sure that was de Gaulle's reason, unless you can cite some source. This has stats on immigrants to France. As you can see, most are from Algeria, Europe, and Morroco. Further, it you investigate the sub saharan africa segment I'm quite sure you'll find it's almost exclusively from former French colonies. The collapse of the Gaddafi regime certainly led to more migrant boats crossing, but the absolute numbers entering France are not high, and certainly not compared to other sources. Oh, and the Algerians mostly came after the Algerian war. One of the biggest early groups were Algerians who had fought with the French army. You appear to be very certain, but you don't seem to have any evidence to back up your views.
ramblerouser 8y ago
Would Marie Le Pen have done any of the things Macron did to damage the livelihoods of the French people? No. Because Macron is a Neo-Liberal puppet and Le Pen is not. The leaders you seek are glaring you in the face, but you reject them because you buy into the lies about "right extremism" from the corporate media that got us here in the first place.
- shostack 8y ago
  This seems like a similar argument people made for Trump and look how that turned out for them. Surely there are no other similarities between the two though [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39478066 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39478066
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    When the elites in your country are so hell bent on the repression of the people they rule over, that popular political candidates are cut off from the banking system and have to borrow money from banks in other countries, that should make you think twice when those same elites tell you populism is just a rouse perpetrated by people in the few countries willing to lend their support.
    - dang 8y ago
      It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their politics, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do that.

Udik 8y ago

"The plan [...] includes huge levies on multinationals, millionaires and carbon emissions to generate funds to tackle the most urgent issues of the day, including poverty, migration, climate change and the EU’s so-called democratic deficit." So the plan seems to be to grab money from a list of subjects the people love to hate, to use it to solve the problems newspapers love to talk endlessly about. And how? Not clear. Just solve them, I suppose. With the money.

ForHackernews 8y ago
Taxing the hell out of CO2 emissions is likely its own self-fulfilling solution. To a first order, it doesn't matter what you spend the windfall on. Subsidize a revival of mime, if you like. Probably the smartest idea would be to blunt the political backlash by spending the tax revenue on welfare for coal miners, oil workers, truck drivers, etc.
- polskibus 8y ago
  It's so bad people focus only on CO2. Focusing only on one gas will likely boost solutions that promote generation of other not great for environment gases like NO2. That has already happened with diesels. Diesel emits much more NO2 (~4x) and PM (up to 20x) than standard engine.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    They don't. There's been plenty of information, study and discussion of the other greenhouse gasses, especially methane. As CO2 is the main contributor it's reasonable it gets most of the focus. What would you focus on?
    - polskibus 8y ago
      Regarding focus for each technology, evaluate its environmental impact in full - total toxicity on all stages - obtaining raw resources, initial production, deployment, use, maintenance over 10-20 years, lastly decomissioning/deactivating. There's been too many wrongdoings by good intentions. Focus on diesels that at least used to emit much more NO2 and PM than gasoline cars [1]. Or biofuels that were proven to be energy-negative overall and contributed much to the increase of food prices, also boosting burning forests to grow corn in South America. [1] http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241 http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really... I'd love to read data that diesels didn't pollute more than gasoline cars. It's been a huge thing in EU some time ago when governments had to switch their incentives due to those findings. Are you saying it was all a hoax?

21 8y ago

Why is it that when the right wants to reduce taxes, which is a popular move, they are called "populists", but when the left wants to increase social spending, which is also a popular move, they are not? Wikipedia definition: > Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to "the people," often juxtaposing this group against a so-called "elite." Kind of fits the definition, this article itself says it wants to go after the elite: big tech companies and rich people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Downvoters: hit a nerve, eh?

Udik 8y ago
Absolutely, for example Italy's "Five Stars" party, which is currently the majority party in the most populist government Italy has ever had, won the elections with a strong "anti-elites" platform and a (completely unrealistic) plan for redistributing money to a large part of the population.
- orwin 8y ago
  But the Five Star was called a populist party by most of the european media (and italian ones: see Il Tempo, L’Unione Sarda and Il Fatto Quotidiano after the election night), so you are undermining the point with your example.
  - Udik 8y ago
    Ha, "Il Fatto Quotidiano" is pretty much the Five Stars party's official newspaper. So I don't know why they would call them populist (unless they decided that it's easier to redefine the value of the term rather than fight against it). Anyway, Five Stars's proposals are rather extreme, and they're outsiders who don't fit the left/ right division; as such it's easier to recognize and label them as populist than it is with the usual left-wing parties (when their proposals actually are populist, which is not a given).
HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Populism is merely a word to discredit something that a lot of people like, that those in power do not. That is not to say that I agree with everything labeled 'populist'. I don't even think it's a left vs right thing, even if that's how it plays out now. I guarantee you if there was a broadly popular left-wing movement that actually threatened those in power, the media would label it populist as well.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bobthechef 8y ago

The first step is stick with a confederal view of Europe. Federal visions of Europe are stupid, dangerous, and impossible. Europe is not like the United States nor could it be, and such comparisons are foolish and ignorant. Once we've agreed to hold to a confederal Europe, operate like a confederal Europe, and acknowledge the subsequent confederal nature and expectations of the EU, you should expect a drop in a good chunk of the so-called populism. The main reasons why a confederal Europe is a better solution is because first, there is considerable difference of interests and geopolitical difference across the EU that are incompatible. Inevitably, a federal EU will become a cudgel used to force weaker states into submission. Second, Europeans don't see themselves as "European" because it is not a meaningful or even substantive notion here and the last few crises should have made that clear to any remaining obstinate holdouts. Even being "American" has more substance, which is saying something. Third, the values and culture across Europe are quite different and ultimately, the EU will behave increasingly tyrannically toward member states that step out of line with the values of the European elites which will circle us back to populism and possible war of a very disastrous kind. It should be clear that I am not advocating the dissolution of the EU, though there is a very real possibility it will disintegrate all on its own with no need to appeal to external scapegoats. I believe that if any EU is possible, it is one of limited integration on a limited set of fronts where cooperation profits the common good of the Union, specifically economically and where joint scientific ventures (like space) might profit from formalized confederal joint cooperation.

jabl 8y ago
Absent a development towards a more federal EU, it's time to save the rest of it by getting rid of the euro currency. At this point it's a farce that produces destitution and drives discontent with the entire EU.

alecco 8y ago

How tone-deaf can they be? Raising taxes can bring tax revenue down. Europe already has quite high corporate taxes and high income taxes for top brackets. Also, raising taxes to spend the money on immigrants? Are they purposely fueling the raise of right wing nationalists? Do they have any self-awareness?

colde 8y ago
I am going to need some sort of citation for the idea that Europe has high corporate taxes. According to KPMG the EU average is lower than the current US corporate tax rate. Furthermore, setting it at 37% is 3% lower than the US tax rate was last year. I don't really see any downside to doing this. It's not like companies are not going to do business in Europe, it's waaay to attractive a market. Also, "spending money on immigrants" sounds like it's just being given to immigrants, the money is specifically to countries cope with the cost that is there already. It might fuel right wing nationalists, but that seems to happen anyway, while they are busy doing their thing, it would be nice if the sensible people tried to tackle the issues at hand.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  " EU average is lower than the current US corporate tax rate." Eeastern European countries generally have very low tax rates which brings the average down. Otherwise they are 'ballpark similar' [1] But that's only one source of taxation. As for the rest, they are very, very high in Europe. I think the issues are probably in efficiencies across the board, more than redistribution at this point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
- alecco 8y ago
  Germany 29% and 47.5% France 15% and 45% Italy 27.9% and 43% UK 19% and 47% Spain 25% and 45% Sure, California and some other special states can get almost as high. But the majority are well below.
  - EastSmith 8y ago

rogerthis 8y ago

The problem with every large scale plan is how to bring the "russians" on board (by russians I mean the people, but maybe also Russia).

roymurdock 8y ago
show the population your plan is working by broadly improving the population's standard of living this is currently working in both russia and china to the point where many are content with quasi-dictatorships because they've seen such a vast improvement in their quality of life through improved economies at the end of the day more food on your table and more money in your bank account speaks volumes louder than having an infinitesimal say in who represents your interests in an increasingly dysfunctional local and federal government
alexkcd 8y ago
No, I think you mean Russia the government, not "russians" the people. The latter have little say over the policymaking of the former.

beerlord 8y ago

Europe's problem is simply high taxes, inefficient bureaucracy, and over-welfare. Particularly, payroll taxes, which in some countries (France) are at 50%. These hugely complicate hiring employees, and just encourage cash payments and tax avoidance. Taxes should instead be shifted to harmful outputs and products, like food sweeteners and fossil fuels. Next, bureaucracies need to be be slimmed down and modernised. All EU countries should offer the ability to transact with their bureaucracy (tax returns, permits etc.) in the native language or English. Finally, welfare should be ended for anyone fit and healthy below a certain age, and the retirement age taken to 70 immediately. Pensions should be phased out for anyone under 40 currently. The refugee intake should be taken to zero, and borders strictly enforced, since the net economic contribution of MENA migrants currently is negative. Access to Master's degrees should be limited to only the best students, to encourage people to enter the workforce earlier and to allow a reduction in education spending. Through all this there could be a huge reduction in the tax burden, targeted to eliminate payroll taxes (perhaps in combination with replacing it with higher income taxes, the way Scandinavians do) and reduce VAT. Income tax/payroll tax savings could be preferentially targeted to couples with 3 or more children, to encourage higher birthrates.

oAlbe 8y ago
Woah, slow down there Benito.
dcposch 8y ago
> The refugee intake should be taken to zero, and borders strictly enforced, since the net economic contribution of MENA migrants currently is negative Delete this sentence and the rest of your post is mostly good. Simplifying bureaucracy? Mandating English as an option? Capping payroll taxes at some reasonable level? All good ideas. But the idea that we should turn away people fleeing poverty and violence because their "net economic contribution... is currently negative" is racist and gross. Economic growth is nice, but it's a means to an end. The first step is to have a society worth growing.
- pas 8y ago
  > the rest of your post is mostly good. No, it's not. It's hogwash. Especially the education one. Income inequality is a lot more serious problem than uncapped payroll taxes.

buboard 8y ago

I m sure Piketty has the best of intentions, and his arguing about a wealth tax on the face of growing inequality has merit. The problem is how these funds are going to be spent. EU is already subsidizing a number of sectors, with less than spectacular results. EU funds are great for governments because they offer jobs and make them look good. But look at how agriculture is doing in the countries that received most of the subsidies. EU already spends a lot in research, yet research materializes into products on the other side of the atlantic. Maybe if there was a more tight dependence on returns of investments these funding schemes would make sense. I think piketty himself knows that the proposal is naive, but i guess he agreed to be co-opted by the populist left.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
I read Capital in the 21st Century. I can't speak to this group in particular, but I think what Picketty argues for is wealth redistribution. Picketty proves that the poor are much worse at investing money than the wealthy -- which is actually the biggest factor behind increasing inequality. Sane people can argue that taking money from good investors and giving it to bad investors is a bad investment strategy. But it's quite clear that if we don't do /something/ about inequality, it's only going to get worse and at quickening rate. Wealth redistribution is pretty much the only option. The only way that seems sustainable to me is: you take the average rate of return and subtract that from each individuals rate of return. If that's a positive value, you're taxed at some percentage of the difference. I.E. if the average rate of return is 4%, and yours is 90%, you're taxed at 86%*X -- where X is some value or a function of 86%. If you tax wealth at some arbitrarily progressive rate, that could easily disensentivise people from creating wealth or from working as hard to create it.
- buboard 8y ago
  > the poor are much worse at investing money than the wealthy i disagree. wealthy people have better investment options by virtue of the fact that they have more money. any banker can confirm that. Taxation is not the only solution. full employment is another way , but yeah there are no magical solutions.

diplo404 8y ago

This is complete hogwash. A fund to manage migration? The author should and will be in a gulag. If the liberal leaders and billionaires want to keep importing cancer Islam en masse and telling the people they are racist, you will have civil war and a far right dictatorship within the next two decades. Fools need to stop blaming Putin and Xi. Do you see them allowing mass migration? Our societies are run by neutered half-men - that’s why we are decaying. It’s that simple

pas 8y ago
> you will have civil war and a far right dictatorship within the next two decades. Why? I mean why do you think it'll be far right, not far left? Why do you assume there will be anyone left standing at all? > It’s that simple Really? What about the aging and dwindling population that's Europe's most serious issue? > run by neutered half-men Umm, maybe you are thinking about women? (Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Germany, UK have a lot of women in politics.) > we are decaying Are we really decaying or you simply don't find your place, nor your viewpoint of the world?
- diplo404 8y ago
  You think I’m the only one? You live in a little, small minded far left echo chamber if you think that - stay there. The birth rate will begin reversing in Hungary and Italy over the next few years due to new policies- decline in birth rate is thanks to abortion, 3rd wave feminism, decline of religion/marriage institutions and the expansion of the welfare state. The women PM’s in UK, Germany, and Sweden are to blame for the far right. UK will be an Islamic caliphate within the next 20 years - the Orban’s of the west will begin to multiply

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Europe is already very heavily taxed. Another tax on gasoline has just set France on fire. Democracy? If it were democratic there'd be much stricter implementation of immigration rules and by the way, I think a healthy dose of helping refugees, and specifically helping the places from whence they camp. Also in 'Democracy' - the EU itself is among the least democratic of institutions in the West, with an unelected executive forming all the laws, while elected MEPs with no ability to propose legislation. Moreover - nobody even knows who their MEP is. I understand why this was done, but still ... Instead of 'more taxes' maybe they might want to consider a) thinking about efficiencies both in private and public sector and b) at least listening to populist concerns on migration.

aisofteng 8y ago
Look at youth unemployment rates in Europe: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemploymen... >20% youth unemployment in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain. I don’t see how a country could recover from that.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Well, they could reduce the value of their currency to make them more competitive ... whoops can't do that!

atmosx 8y ago

Watched a show on France24 channel about what's happening in France right now, 7 out of 8 guests labelled Macron as completely out of touch. It appears that 50% of the country makes 1.2k/month or less. You cannot survive with that kind of salary in France, so it's not just one tax or two. There is a series of decisions made by Macron's government that are heavily controversial. On a side-note, demonstrations sparked in Belgium and the Netherlands, to a lower extend.

EastSmith 8y ago

It is funny how one of the top stories on HN right now is an article that shows total goverment incompetance - the story about NY metro not showing the time it will arrive, then there is this story about giving that governmemt more money.

smolder 8y ago
Can you fathom a world where governments can actually do some things well and some things poorly, for quite complicated reasons?

skookumchuck 8y ago

> the manifest unfairness of huge multinationals such as Apple, Google and Amazon Those are American companies. Why aren't there EU companies at this level? Probably because of their destructive tax policies. Massive tax increases will just make the situation worse, and investment capital will desert the EU for American.

ramblerouser 8y ago

>A fund to better manage migration Not end it? So this establishment nobody wants to raise amost a trillion Euro through taxes to give directly to economic migrants to encourange more of them to come here and put downward pressure on wages for the most vulnerable Europeans, while he takes a cut. Thanks The Guardian. Whatever would we do with your uncritical reporting on traitors like this.