3 ms·

> Essentially, it's Spain funding Germany's leap ahead. No it is not. Germany is by far the biggest net payer, while Spain is a net receiver of EU funds. It is

> Essentially, it's Spain funding Germany's leap ahead. No it is not. Germany is by far the biggest net payer, while Spain is a net receiver of EU funds. It is Germany getting a share of its own funding. https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/ https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-... You can argue all day about the Euro or the market benefitting Germany and how Spain was hit hard by the financial crisis. But EU budget wise the claims you are making are not only false, but exactly the opposite.

jollybean 5y ago
1) There are many countries which are 'net investors' in the EU which will have less of an opportunity to leverage this money than Germany and thus, end up funding Germany. But that's moot: the program is paid for by EU members and yet will benefit Germany first, which is not ideal. 2) "But EU budget wise the claims you are making are not only false, but exactly the opposite. " This makes no sense at all. "The EU has a budget therefore you are wrong" is not an argument.
- allendoerfer 5y ago
  > 2) "But EU budget wise the claims you are making are not only false, but exactly the opposite. " > This makes no sense at all. Let me rephrase: You are saying Spain is paying for investments in Germany. Not only is Spain not paying for investments in Germany, Spain is receiving money from the EU. It gets paid more out of the EU budget than it is putting into it. Germany on the other hand pays way more money into the EU budget than it receives. So you are not only slightly wrong, but the absolute opposite of what you are writing is true: Germany effectively invests into Spain through the EU. It can be easily googled so I do not know why you would even write something like this. I just added the fact that Germany is of course still profitting from the EU, which is way it pays more into programs described in the article than it receives from them. Mabye I phrased that a bit convoluted. > 1) There are many countries which are 'net investors' in the EU which will have less of an opportunity to leverage this money than Germany and thus, end up funding Germany. You might have a point here. The statistic I posted is from 2018, so we will see how this will play out. It could be that Germany's net payments will be smaller. We will just have to wait to see the actual numbers. The net payment surplus of Germany is way bigger than the program though, so it will not turn negative. Germany will still pay for investments into other countries and not receive money from other EU members. A quick googling showed, that Finland (net payer), Belgium (net receiver), Poland (giant net receiver), Italy (net payer), France (net payer) and Sweden (net payer) are also receiving money out of the program. > But that's moot: the program is paid for by EU members and yet will benefit Germany first, which is not ideal. Again: Germany pays more into the EU budget than all other members. Since it is the biggest net-payer it receive less than it pays. What you are writing is just wrong. Just look at the numbers. If this was some evil German plan to get money out of the EU, the most effective way for Germany would be to just pay less into the EU budget in the first place and just pay the grants out nationally instead.

jollybean 5y ago

1) There are many countries which are 'net investors' in the EU which will have less of an opportunity to leverage this money than Germany and thus, end up funding Germany. But that's moot: the program is paid for by EU members and yet will benefit Germany first, which is not ideal. 2) "But EU budget wise the claims you are making are not only false, but exactly the opposite. " This makes no sense at all. "The EU has a budget therefore you are wrong" is not an argument.

allendoerfer 5y ago
> 2) "But EU budget wise the claims you are making are not only false, but exactly the opposite. " > This makes no sense at all. Let me rephrase: You are saying Spain is paying for investments in Germany. Not only is Spain not paying for investments in Germany, Spain is receiving money from the EU. It gets paid more out of the EU budget than it is putting into it. Germany on the other hand pays way more money into the EU budget than it receives. So you are not only slightly wrong, but the absolute opposite of what you are writing is true: Germany effectively invests into Spain through the EU. It can be easily googled so I do not know why you would even write something like this. I just added the fact that Germany is of course still profitting from the EU, which is way it pays more into programs described in the article than it receives from them. Mabye I phrased that a bit convoluted. > 1) There are many countries which are 'net investors' in the EU which will have less of an opportunity to leverage this money than Germany and thus, end up funding Germany. You might have a point here. The statistic I posted is from 2018, so we will see how this will play out. It could be that Germany's net payments will be smaller. We will just have to wait to see the actual numbers. The net payment surplus of Germany is way bigger than the program though, so it will not turn negative. Germany will still pay for investments into other countries and not receive money from other EU members. A quick googling showed, that Finland (net payer), Belgium (net receiver), Poland (giant net receiver), Italy (net payer), France (net payer) and Sweden (net payer) are also receiving money out of the program. > But that's moot: the program is paid for by EU members and yet will benefit Germany first, which is not ideal. Again: Germany pays more into the EU budget than all other members. Since it is the biggest net-payer it receive less than it pays. What you are writing is just wrong. Just look at the numbers. If this was some evil German plan to get money out of the EU, the most effective way for Germany would be to just pay less into the EU budget in the first place and just pay the grants out nationally instead.