-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
France : "yellow vests" protest movement is causing political instability
- Thread starter Herb Alpert
- Start date
So far it seems that everything closes on Saturdays so it would be better if you stay inside the hotel those days.
Yeah, it's safe. Millions of people still live and work in Paris.
The worst case scenario is that this is still happening in a month, and you'll have to avoid parts of the city on saturdays.
spoiler: taxing the corporations will tax the people anyway by corporations passing down the costs in order to maintain margins
Econ 101 stuff there. Also if you want people to use less of something, you tax it directly. (See: Cigarettes)
edit: Was already beaten on this point lol
To address your later point, if the rural areas there are anything like the ones we have in the US, the problem is that they're already dying in the modern era and the fuel tax just accelerates the process becuase living in a rural area with low population is horribly inefficient, and the need to drive long distances so frequently is part of that.
And another "GOTCHA" RT that only exposes that they don't actually understand economics. This Pikachu meme is sadly appropriate:
Last edited:
People.
Don't.
Smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.
To get to work.
Lmao, how is this being repeated?
If you want to tax fuel, by all means, but make sure your public transport infrastructure can take on the burden of the targeted decreased car use. What's that? There's no investment in public transport? You don't say! They should ban half of all cars in Paris and it'd make more sense than a regressive tax that hits rural/suburban areas the hardest. At least Paris has the infrastructure to support de-carification.
Don't.
Smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.
To get to work.
Lmao, how is this being repeated?
If you want to tax fuel, by all means, but make sure your public transport infrastructure can take on the burden of the targeted decreased car use. What's that? There's no investment in public transport? You don't say! They should ban half of all cars in Paris and it'd make more sense than a regressive tax that hits rural/suburban areas the hardest. At least Paris has the infrastructure to support de-carification.
There will never be investment in public transportation in rural areas because they lack the necessary baseline population quantity and density to make it work.
This is reason #224 why rural areas have inevitably fallen behind metropolitan ones economically since the dawn of civilization.
So ban cars in cities with the "quantity" and "density" to make it work. If you're in love with your car and driving you can move out into the burbs.
Flashbacks to this thread: https://www.resetera.com/threads/socialized-transportation-to-reduce-pollution-and-waste.84421
Flashbacks to this thread: https://www.resetera.com/threads/socialized-transportation-to-reduce-pollution-and-waste.84421
Why would you ban them when people are already not using them? If you ban cars in NYC, a bunch of people will shrug because they don't have Driver's Licenses.
"I want you to fix climate change whatever the cost", "No, I didnt mean that I might have to bear some of the cost, are you crazy?" is the situation here. Conservative reactionary responses to policy implementation has been the norm for eons. (Look at the ACA)
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/9/17671300/nyc-uber-lyft-regulation-traffic-congestion-pricing
I'm sorry where is this idea coming from that we don't drive cars? Have you ever seen Manhattan traffic?
Last edited:
You do, but there's alternatives in place that already reduce the impact.
Rural areas dying off isn't "Capital Flight", it's "many these places ceased having an actual reason to exist and the cold creeping chill of death is approaching as they start to turn into ghost towns". Much like job retraining, you can offer people assistance to leave, but they'll slap your hand away because what they want is for the status quo not to change.
You can't expect people to be happy if you tax them to discourage the use of cars while not offering a viable alternative.
I edited my second quote for context it was missing.
You will need to placate those rural areas somehow because otherwise you're just flirting with revolution which, according to the capitalist strategy book, is bad. I'm actually on the pro-revolution side here, but I don't understand being anti-revolution while also being anti-breads-and-circuses. It's just inconsistent with your own philosophy of economic peace. Macron's tax takes away their bread and does not provide them with adequate circuses in exchange, this is literally proven by the fact that they're protesting/fucking shit up. I say "why don't you provide the transport they need to live" and you say "it's not economically feasible".
???
Is social unrest economically feasible? Is revolution economically feasible?
You will need to placate those rural areas somehow because otherwise you're just flirting with revolution which, according to the capitalist strategy book, is bad. I'm actually on the pro-revolution side here, but I don't understand being anti-revolution while also being anti-breads-and-circuses. It's just inconsistent with your own philosophy of economic peace. Macron's tax takes away their bread and does not provide them with adequate circuses in exchange, this is literally proven by the fact that they're protesting/fucking shit up. I say "why don't you provide the transport they need to live" and you say "it's not economically feasible".
???
Is social unrest economically feasible? Is revolution economically feasible?
Last edited:
"Edouard Philippe owes his job to President Emmanuel Macron. But France's prime minister of two months makes no claims that his boss's reformist presidential agenda is any radically new ideology.
Rather, in his first foreign media interview, Mr Philippe shows loyalty to his former party by suggesting that "Macronism" is the direct legacy of Alain Juppé, the unsuccessful centre-right presidential hopeful and Mr Philippe's mentor in politics.
When it is suggested that the government's plans for a more flexible labour market, tax cuts for businesses and emphasis on public spending curbs were all rightwing measures, Mr Philippe bursts into laughter. "Yes, what did you expect?" he says.
In his office in the Matignon palace, with the recently issued presidential portrait of Mr Macron still leaning against the wall, Mr Philippe, who was a senior party leader in the centre-right Republicains, tells the Financial Times: "I feel that what we're implementing here is compatible with what we defended in Alain Juppé's presidential programme. I feel very much at ease with myself.""
https://unv.is/ft.com/content/648a5b04-6559-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe
Some people obviously disagree with Mr Philippe.
Rather, in his first foreign media interview, Mr Philippe shows loyalty to his former party by suggesting that "Macronism" is the direct legacy of Alain Juppé, the unsuccessful centre-right presidential hopeful and Mr Philippe's mentor in politics.
When it is suggested that the government's plans for a more flexible labour market, tax cuts for businesses and emphasis on public spending curbs were all rightwing measures, Mr Philippe bursts into laughter. "Yes, what did you expect?" he says.
In his office in the Matignon palace, with the recently issued presidential portrait of Mr Macron still leaning against the wall, Mr Philippe, who was a senior party leader in the centre-right Republicains, tells the Financial Times: "I feel that what we're implementing here is compatible with what we defended in Alain Juppé's presidential programme. I feel very much at ease with myself.""
https://unv.is/ft.com/content/648a5b04-6559-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe
Some people obviously disagree with Mr Philippe.
What part of that tweet implies that they don't understand economics?
I don't expect them to be happy, it's a tax. No one likes getting a blood draw at the doc, you do it because you have to do it.
Who said anything about peace? 2016 made it very clear that actually trying to appease them in economic policy was a losing game because their racism, homophobia, etc. overrules everything else anyway. So I'm very much in favor of not playing nice when it comes to their concerns when it comes to the environment, minimum wage, housing development, etc. , because they made it quite clear what their actual priorities were.
The implication that "taxing the rich" would address this problem. If you tax fuel companies the costs will be passed to consumers anyway. If you tax "the rich" it doesn't address the consumption problem in any way shape or form. It's nonsense.
But without viable alternatives, that tax is just hurting them and making them angry.
Anyway I found the graph I wanted.
And this is what it should look like if you want to preserve the 5th Republic.
Sauce: https://www.ft.com/content/b6297b3a-f4bd-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f
And this is what it should look like if you want to preserve the 5th Republic.
Sauce: https://www.ft.com/content/b6297b3a-f4bd-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f
They'll be angry no matter what you do. The ACA Mandate, fuel tax increases, Cap and Trade. That's just who they are.
re: Samoyed first graph, is that showing a tax increase on both the highest and lowest income earners while the middle class gets a tax reduction?
Becawse lol how the hell do you accidentally pull THAT off in your policy.
Yeah who could imagine that people would be upset over being forced to pay out the ass for high deductible "health insurance" that no doctor within 50 miles of them accepts and would bankrupt them anyways if they ever had to actually use it.
If the quality of the plans available on the ACA marketplace weren't absolute trash, maybe people would be more receptive.
Raising taxes on the upper classes is anti-"neoliberal" though lol.
a) Many of them had to pay out the ass because their local R dominated governments wouldn't pass the medicaid expansion.
b) They're going to be mad no matter what you do because conservatism is fundamentally about reactionary responses to change in the status quo.
Stop deflecting. We're not talking about the Medicaid expansion. We're talking about how the ACA marketplace is a complete failure for anyone who isn't a small business owner making 6 figure income and thus can afford the outrageous gold plans.
This is the cheapest individual plan available in my area for someone making the median income in the U.S. ($31,000).
Please explain why someone should face a penalty for refusing to buy that garbage. The annual cost of the premiums and the deductible amounts to an incredible 36%(!!!!!) of their gross income.
It's not deflection. Trying to rationalize their reactionary aversion to change as "economic anxiety" does nothing but excuse their pathology. They will hate anything that alters the status quo.
The medicaid expansion is directly tied to the status quo. It was passed alongside it, and is important for keeping low-income people insured.
If you're making 31K a year, wouldn't you normally be under an employer health plan and not using the exchanges in most cases? The reason coverage is expensive as an individual is because the employer contribution is normally relatively large and a hidden part of your paycheck you don't realize you're getting.
They need to face a penalty because the system needs everyone buying in, and people are incredibly bad at evaluating risk. It's prodding people to buy in because people vastly underestimate the catastrophic outcomes that occur if they're uninsured. It's the same reason we mandate car insurance.
lmao
You are so fucking naive as to the state of the economy for many people in the U.S. Contract and gig workers do not receive benefits.
Yes, a contract job needs to be a higher $ amount to be worth it because of that.
You still need to be insured.
And a $7,900 deductible plan (for a shitty HMO no less!) on a $31,000 income is flat-out not health insurance. Its garbage. If you still end up in severe financial distress because of illness or injury, you do not have health insurance. Its really that simple.
For people who live paycheck to paycheck (which is going to be the norm for most people making 31k a year living in most metro areas in the U.S.) there is little practical difference between an 8k medical bill and 80k medical bill. Either one causes bankruptcy.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Macron is going to talk tomorrow. Curious to hear what he'll say.
I think some tangible and immediate measures will be announced, now Let's see how he will try to calm down people while keeping up with his political views.
I'm afraid tax drops will be announced, financed by a drop in public spending, and public services will remain shitty and the school system will be butchered again next year again.
I think some tangible and immediate measures will be announced, now Let's see how he will try to calm down people while keeping up with his political views.
I'm afraid tax drops will be announced, financed by a drop in public spending, and public services will remain shitty and the school system will be butchered again next year again.
Let me see if my empty neoliberal noggin can comprehend this chart.
The middle class, which seems to be the 25th through 75th income distribution percentile, will get a tax break.
Most of the upper class, the 75th percentile and above, will have a tax increase.
The top 1% will have 6% more disposable income, a tax break, but that group may not be that large because France has relatively low inequality among the major European countries. Similarly, though the 0 to 25th percentile has an average increased burden, many in that group would likely qualify for social assistance, anyway.
And yet we talk about unleashing the guillotines.
Last edited:
It's impossible for some to get over their disdain for the working class.
No, I have all the sympathy in the world for the black and brown working classes who remain impoverished by this country's systemic racism and have their opportunities curtailed by white supremacy.
The mythical ~~~white working class~~~, which hates black and brown people (and gay ones like me) and opposed that healthcare law because it came from a black man and helped black people and have indeed opposed all progress and even spited themselves because they can't stand minorities getting help, can get bent.
But this thread is about France.
UK/Germany have been seeing the same sort of divide we see here in the US with Metro vs Rural, it's a phenomenon we're seeing across the west.
I love how you guys never have any actual answers for the massive inadequacies of the ACA. Its all deflection. How is it reasonable to expect someone making 31K a year to have to pay 36% of their pre-tax income in medical expenses? In what insane world is that remotely reasonable? and how is it morally justified at all to punish such a person when they literally cannot afford to pay?
By the way I notice you snuck "relative" in there. I don't know how much you know about populism (I'm an expert), but you can't appease protestors by saying they're relatively better off than others.
I don't disagree in the aggregate but once you start conflating issues like this, "ACA Mandate, fuel tax increases, Cap and Trade.", the discourse gets muddled. As other actual French posters have commented, protests are nothing new here. Paris is always protesting something. On the other hand, the US' protests take a very different form.
Because the end goal is to get everyone covered by health insurance allowing for cost reduction, and the reaction of many to this (much like federal IDs, national gun registries) will be "DONT STEP ON SNEK". And you have to ignore that.
Allow to repeat myself: If you still end up in severe financial distress because of illness or injury, you do not have health insurance.
An $8,000 medical bill is absolutely financially ruinous for a great deal of Americans.
Could go without the middle man and just give everyone free healthcare at the time of use. Universal health insurance just means that everyone has a chance to be bankrupted by medical bills.
Yes, they are, and it's why they don't support progressive policies or Democratic politicians who would enact those progressive policies. In their minds, Democrat = help the black people I hate.
Hard to help people who won't let you help them and boot you from office when you try because they think you're helping the wrong people.
It's safe if you stay away from the protest which should be easy. All the landmarks of POI are still open so you should still have a good time.
And an $80000 one is actually more ruinous to a significant degree. Getting assistance for the 8K from charity/write-offs and such is going to be a far easier task. It's not going to suddenly not suck, but it's still preferable to the alternative.
Do you really think the NHS doesn't have copays? And do you really think the NHS isnt a universal health insurance system financed via mandatory taxes instead of a public/private hybrid financed by mandatory taxes and mandatory private insurance? Good lord.
Bankruptcy is Bankruptcy. And I absolutely love how your only advice is literally "hit up GoFundMe".
I'm done here.
Because some people still don't want to admit that the ACA is a horrifically inadequate piece of legislation, because team sports.