Sarkozy's first 100 days

[AnOther]

Reported in the press today: (Sorry, couldn't be bothered to re-type it...)

#2 opens up some possibilities if it is 100% deductable and I definately like #3 although I have no plans to croak just yet .........[;-)]

[IMG]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/biskitboyo/sarkozy.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Tag]

Seems good in theory. If he wants to be really radical why not make French a world language and not so elitist by simplifying the grammar and admitting it is owned by all its speakers. And drop the soixante-dix, quatre-vingt and quatre-vingt dix etc in favour of septante, octante and nonante. or at least admit quarante-dix, and allow any words, including anglo-saxon ones into the language as it wishes. But of course that needs a change in the way that the French establishment view their culture and State, probably a step too far.

[Tag]

Oh and the French State could be made to apologize for the Genocide in the Vendée!

[Beryl]

Scrap inheritance tax for 95 per cent of the population because "the fruits of a lifetime of work should not be handed over to the government" .

I knew I liked this man![:D]

[TreizeVents]

As for inheritance tax, it is important to

look beyond the soundbites.  This

proposal will, of course, cost the budget about 5 thousand million out of the

7.3 thousand million that they collected in 2006.  Naturally economies will have to made after giving this money

back to the well off.  But actually this

benefits only 10% of the most well-off people in France, although it is

strictly true that 90-95% will not pay tax. 

The crucial point is that 80-85% NEVER DID.  Today, the highest tax is 40%, but it only applies to people with

an estate of over 520,000 euros.  No

doubt this applies to many of you with high priced property in France or more

high priced property in Britain, or perhaps a particularly high salary compared

to French wages.  The average inheritance

in France is 100,000 euros, so this affects almost no ordinary folk at

all.  Only 10% of inheritance in France

is over 100,000 euros.  Silvio

Berlusconi also made this same policy change in Italy.  Bush only made this a temporary

measure.  In France there have recently

been changes so that you can give away wealth while still living, thereby

reducing the tax when you die.  A

certain limited amount every year (30 grand per child I think).  There are pressures within the right to do

away with it altogether.  How this

squares with doing something about the national debt, and who exactly will face

the cuts to pay for this (and the threatened tax cuts) is not clear. (data from

Liberation, 7 May) 

 

So it

pays to look behind the soundbite.  I

must do some other stuff right now, but I will try to respond or explain some

of the other soundbite policies you have quoted.  But you can be sure that the well off will benefit.  That’s what Sarkozy is all about.  Everyone is agreement about that, even if

they don’t like it.

[Logan]

"But you can be sure that the well off will benefit." 

I see nothing wrong with rewarding those who have worked hard, built a business, taken risks, provided employment and created wealth for themselves, share holders, employees and the country. The politics of envy favoured by the left has failed to impress. Why? I suggest because people want very much to better their lives and give their family an improved future. The French have decided the route to that lies through market forces not socialism, phoney government jobs, high taxation and regulation, regulation. France is now optimistic, forward looking and will eventually be more dynamic. Like the man Sarko himself, energy and hard work in a competitive environment will eventually reap its rewards.

[Tag]

It is time the well off benefitted in France.

[Panda]

Thanks treizeVent but I don't think we need you to 'explain' these simple statements to us, sorry your post is more than a little condescending.

I'm all for change...lets get it going

[Tag]

Probably, TreizeVents, it is time for a few economies in France. The State heaves taxpayers money down the pan without so much as a by-your-leave. Eg Presidential spending or The cumul des mandats, so loved by many politicians (but not at least my Madame Royal).Taxation is not a right, but a priviledge, something forgotten by succeeding French governments (and British by the way).

[5-element]

[quote user="Tag"]

It is time the well off benefitted in France.

[/quote]

 

Quite right too[:)]

Just like this young woman (Sarkozy's supporter) was explaining:

 "With him, the rich will stay rich, and the poor will get rich too!" 

Don't we just all love him already?[:D]

 

AND he might appoint Johnny Halliday as the Minister of Culture too!

[chrisb]

[quote user="Panda "]

Thanks treizeVent but I don't think we need you to 'explain' these simple statements to us, sorry your post is more than a little condescending.

I'm all for change...lets get it going

[/quote]

After all - you don't want truth to get in the way of your own assertions do you? TV has a perfect right to point out the actual position.

You might consider that condescending - your own response is rude and arrogant.

[TreizeVents]

Risking the wrath of Panda, I thought someone (maybe no one), might like

to know some problems with the 35 hour proposal.  They are not

insurmountable, but they are problems that do not have obvious solutions. 

First is the very French problem of equality before the law.  If one

person works 35 hours and another a few more, then they will not be paid the

same amount for the same hour of work.  That is, the person who is working

the extra hours will be paid more, on account of not paying tax.  The

Constitutional Council made a decision in 2000 (after the first 35 hours

reform), which dealt with this and discouraged inequality of payment by

companies.  The other problem is similar to letting the well off get a lightening

of various taxes.  The State loses money.  Quite a bit

sometimes.  So its going to have to either cut public services in some way

(more trouble either from unions or from consumers/clients?) or find the money

elsewhere.  No doubt the prediction will be for more growth to take care

of it all.  But when Sego made this point, then Sarko laughed at her as

"having no plan"..  So who knows.  The waged people at the

bottom don't have much to gain with lightening of tax, and for white collar

workers, they usually don't get hours counted anyway.  So its a policy

with problems.

And of course, there will have to be a small army of bureaucrats to process

these new proposals too.  That law should get written in September or so,

with the new laws on finance.  Might be an interesting time if the unions

react or if they have not been consulted.  We shall see what our president

does.

[TreizeVents]

The point about "minimum sentences for repeat offenders" is slightly confusingly put according to the other stuff I have read.  I think the idea is something like "three strikes and you are out".  That is, a compulsory MAXIMUM sentence for repeat offenders.  That is what I have read.  This is quite a conflictual policy even WITHIN the UMP, but no doubt Sarko will sweep the wets before him.  His other problem however will be to persuade the magistrates, who still have some degree of independence.  They are not Sarko's big pals, he does not like them being indepdendent, and trying to find a way to take autonomy from them.  The French tradition (and the British) is to fit the punishment to the individual and the specific circumstances.  I could find stories of people in AMerica (not surprisingly poor people) who are put away for maximum sentences, when the actual crime they have committed is no really big deal.  So if there are compulsory sentences, the magistrates will cause problems.  Maybe they too wil be steamrollered, there is no way to know.  If I were Sarko I woudl throw them a bone before I tried to basically deprive them of their sentencing autonomy.

And of course, this policy will also fill up the prisons.  Already France has been critiqued by nearly every independent enquiry for having prisons that are way to crowded and not up to standards for democratic rich coutnires.  So more money needed to keep them in prison.  From where?  Growth again I suppose.  That hypothetical, not specific, Sego type policy again.

[Logan]

These posts by Treizevents are a bit like knitting toffee. It's a bit sticky and difficult to make any sense of.

In my view 35  hours a week of work in France should be increased to a minimum of 40 across the board. Then overtime after that. At least 3 bank holidays should be abolished. French and Brits all need to work harder and longer in order to compete in the global market place. I believe that hard work is creative and good for the human spirit. Work also sets an example to our children. We all need to feel a sense of worth in the society in which we choose to live. France and everywhere else needs to make a living and past glories mean little.

If you break the law and cross the line then the law should teach you the error of your ways until you actually get the point. With some folks it takes a lot longer to learn error and the point but in my experience law breakers know where the line is better than most. They cross it because usually they care nothing for anyone but themselves. In the meantime the rest of us require protection and retribution. Punishment and law is the tool society uses. Nothing else really works.

[cooperlola]

Longer hours do not necessarily make for greater productivity.

Who's this "rest of us" Logan?  Protection yes; retribution - pointless.  Discuss.  But then again, maybe not...[6]

[Patf]

I know this is a sweeping generalisation, from a sample of 2, but we once had a long conversation with a french couple about working hours in UK and France. He was in building, she a hospital secretary. First we asked them what hours they worked, how many days holiday etc .Then they asked us the same questions. They were genuinely amazed at the length of our working week, especially husband who was self employed. And the fact that we had no holidays for 5 years. This work ethic was so alien to them, I think that any increase in the working week will have to be in small stages, otherwise people couldn't adjust. Pat.

[Logan]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

Longer hours do not necessarily make for greater productivity.

Who's this "rest of us" Logan?  Protection yes; retribution - pointless.  Discuss.  But then again, maybe not...[6]

[/quote]

If society is to be protected from criminal behaviour then punishment or retribution is a necessary tool in it's prevention. You say retribution is pointless. How then does society deal with criminality? Most alternatives have been tried and generally failed. I accept also that prison sentences also fail in the rehabilitation of offenders. However punishment should fit the crime otherwise criminality would become a desirable career move. Judges are supposed to have the skills to do that effectively and sometimes they do fail. They are only human. Victims of crime and society in general expect criminal behaviour to be punished. That retribution acts as an agent to prevent the crime taking place in the first place. The threat of detection concentrates the criminal mind. A prison sentence is not a desirable ambition even for old lags. If you are ever unfortunate enough to become a victim of a serious offence believe me retribution is what you would expect.

[TreizeVents]

Hi Robin,

What qualifies as the "thin end of the wedge"?  I have never manufactured anything or managed manufacturing in my life, if that's what you mean.  I am not sure I would be even interested in the thin end of the wedge, I might have systematically and consciously avoided it all my life.  What does "involved" mean?   I have been involved in many kinds of work projects.  For example, I don't suppose editing a periodical counts as "thin end" work, or does it.  I have done three of those although only once full time paid.  But sadly, I fear I am no longer "involved".  I am retired.  Does that qualify me to speak about anything?  Do you mind me asking why you ask?  And I keep wondering what "real life" is for someone like you.  Maybe being retired is not real life.  Maybe a lot of people have work which for you is not "real" or not "thin end".  I have some freinds like that.  For example, some who think that anyone working in the financial services industry is not doing "real work", they are just exploiting leeches..  I sometimes get that empty feeling when someone asks me and I say "I am retired".  Most of the time that is the end of the conversation.  It a bit like someone saying they are unemployed.  When someone like you says they are thinking of moving "their manufacturing" to France, I don't ask what, nor do I ask if they are the owner, nor if they make something socially useful and so forth.  This is not really that intimate a forum.  I guess what I am saying is that if you like what I write, then let's call me a writer.

I like what you write too.

[Logan]

The President of the Republic appoints political opponent to Foreign Ministry.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1811115.ece

[TreizeVents]

Couldn't agree more Robin.  The very last job I had, not includling a little joblet I now have, taught me well how life at the bottom is.  I had taken the job as a favour, part-time, annual contract on trust, to help some guys learn how to put out a journal.  I already knew.  After getting it started and working for a couple of years, they found they could save money by hiring out the work to a corporation, sacking me, and giving the money to one of my bosses so he could take a higher paying job.  They offered me the same work at two thirds the wages.  I said no.  As one boss told me (we were "friends"), "TV, you are bottom feeder."  Its true, at that time I was.  So I know well about too many chiefs and life at the bottom.  I also know well what is going to happen under Sarkozy.  Having said all that, I never wanted to touch life at the top.  Not for me really.  But that's a longer story.

We could debate sometime if it is more a pyramid, and inverted pyramid or a complicated web of forces.

The jobs I love I do for love, not for money.  As result I am not well off.  But I loved my work, except for that last job, which I took for the money.  I never learn.

As the old saying goes:

Work like you dont need the money.

Love like you've never been hurt.

Dance like no one is watching.

PS And watch your tail when Sarkozy is around.  It may not all be bad, but it sure will be for some.  Mostly those at the bottom.

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="Logan"]

If society is to be protected from criminal behaviour then punishment or retribution is a necessary tool in it's prevention. You say retribution is pointless. How then does society deal with criminality? Most alternatives have been tried and generally failed. I accept also that prison sentences also fail in the rehabilitation of offenders. However punishment should fit the crime otherwise criminality would become a desirable career move. Judges are supposed to have the skills to do that effectively and sometimes they do fail. They are only human. Victims of crime and society in general expect criminal behaviour to be punished. That retribution acts as an agent to prevent the crime taking place in the first place. The threat of detection concentrates the criminal mind. A prison sentence is not a desirable ambition even for old lags. If you are ever unfortunate enough to become a victim of a serious offence believe me retribution is what you would expect.

[/quote]

I particularly like how Sarkozy hired for his number two guy an ex con, who systematically swindled the Paris government out of money which went into the coffers of Juppe's party.  Mind you, Juppe was just the fall guy for Chirac, who might still take a fall for his part in the whole thing.  We can't even really say Juppe "served his time", as he got a suspended sentence, and went off to earn a wadge of dough in Canada, teaching about French politcs.  Mind you, I am sure that is not the first time that a ex-con has got a high powered government job, but maybe it is.  He probalbly should be rewarded for being the fall guy.  Having said that though, there are some fine people in prison all over the world, and they should be able to get work as befits their experience when they get out.  I believe Juppe has learned his lesson and will never cheat and steal again. 

Together, anything will be possible.

[Logan]

Cynicism is a form of melancholy TV. It can eat away at the soul.

Juppe was indeed the fall guy for Chirac. He was an ambitious politician who served his master with devotion when he (Chirac) was Mayor of Paris. Party coffers were filled from corrupt schemes invented and sanctioned by the Mayor. Chirac was protected from prosecution by his Presidential office. Juppe served the party by taking the flak and now is rewarded by a job in government. Rehabilitation of offenders is very desirable. Juppe is an able and skilled politician who has paid a price with the disgrace and ignominy. Chirac on the other hand waits for his fate. My gut feeling is Sarkozy will give him a Presidential pardon. I believe the country has no appetite to see an old man dragged through the courts. I think that is probably right on balance.

[suein56]

[quote user="Logan"]

Chirac on the other hand waits for his fate. My gut feeling is Sarkozy will give him a Presidential pardon. I believe the country has no appetite to see an old man dragged through the courts. I think that is probably right on balance.

[/quote]

I don't agree, and I know my (French) neighbours don't either. Do not underestimate the intensity of the dislike - some people might use the word 'hatred' - in some parts of  the country for the harm they perceive Chirac has done to France.

Sue

[Logan]

We are back to retribution again. I suppose it depends which side of the political divide you see things from. I do agree that Chirac was a lousy President and corrupt during his time as Mayor. However would it be good for France to have him prosecuted now? I think not.

[5-element]

[quote user="Logan"]

I believe the country has no appetite to see an old man dragged through the courts. I think that is probably right on balance.

[/quote]

Just like with Pinochet?

Or Maurice Papon?

What kind of a balance do you mean, Logan?