EU Stability Pact: Why Germany & France Exempt?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Monique
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stability
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the EU Stability Pact and the perceived exemptions for Germany and France regarding their budget deficits. Participants explore the political and economic ramifications of these exemptions, questioning the fairness and stability of the Eurozone in light of these issues.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Political reasoning
  • Economic analysis

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why Germany and France are not held accountable for exceeding the 3% budget deficit rule, suggesting that their leniency may undermine the Stability Pact.
  • Others argue that allowing Germany and France to exceed the deficit limits is viewed as beneficial for the long-term stability of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
  • It is suggested that countries voting for leniency may anticipate facing similar situations in the future, thus preferring to avoid setting a precedent for punishment.
  • One participant posits that the political power dynamics favor Germany and France, implying that their agreement dictates EU policy regardless of other nations' votes.
  • Concerns are raised about the democratic legitimacy of the EU and the implications of a centralized financial policy that may not serve all member states equally.
  • Some participants reflect on the historical context of the Stability Pact and its initial intent to enforce fiscal responsibility among member states.
  • There are discussions about the economic consequences of the Euro and the perceived failures of the Stability Pact, with some arguing that it may be detrimental to Germany itself.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the benefits of the UK joining the Euro, citing concerns over loss of economic control and the potential negative impact on the UK economy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the appropriateness of the exemptions for Germany and France or the overall effectiveness of the Stability Pact. Disagreements persist regarding the implications of these issues for the future of the Eurozone and the democratic processes within the EU.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various political and economic contexts, including the historical establishment of the Euro and the Stability Pact, as well as the differing economic conditions of member states. There are indications of unresolved assumptions about the long-term viability of the Euro and the political dynamics within the EU.

  • #31
Nereid:

Unfortunately, few people in the US or in the EU seem to have chosen to make good retirement plans which do not depend on social security payments. No doubt there are many reasons for this. You say "any sane person would not rely on the government to provide for them ...". Sadly, hundreds of millions do. What's your plan to convince them that they're insane?

I need no plan as the privatization of social security is well underway throughout the world. Even Sweden has gone that direction. Chile’s privatization experiment has worked so well, that the World Bank endorses it. Chile’s retired citizens enjoy more than 11% return on their investment.

Hopefully President Bush can get privatization legislation for the US enacted in his next term.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
That's good to hear GENIERE.

To what extent to you think these privatisations will defuse the 'retirement income' timebomb in Sweden, Chile, and the US?
Adrian wrote: However, lower income earners are encouraged by our taxation regime NOT to save a penny. If they save a reasonable amount for retirement, all their state pension gets stopped! So, the only sound economic policy for the bottom 30-40% is to spend, spend ,spend!
Utter madness!
This may not be as crazy as it seems. If you do the calculations, you'll see that the state will not be able to provide anything other than a token pension when you retire, unless taxation rises to well over 60% for those who are in the workforce then. Switching the source of retirement income to either companies or individuals (or both) makes sense, in that context. However, encouraging personal savings (for retirement) would seem more sensible than 'spend, spend, spend' signals.

AFAIK, there's a quite significant tax benefit - to folk in the UK at all income levels except the very lowest - if they make personal contributions to an approved pension plan. Are you saying this signal isn't clear?
 
  • #33
In the US we have IRA's and employer-helped 401-K's which are investment plans where the income doesn't have to be reported until you retire or reach 70, when your income is expected to be small, and their contribution will not reach the marginal brackets. I expect my own bracket to be only about 10% this year.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Nereid
This may not be as crazy as it seems. If you do the calculations, you'll see that the state will not be able to provide anything other than a token pension when you retire, unless taxation rises to well over 60% for those who are in the workforce then. Switching the source of retirement income to either companies or individuals (or both) makes sense, in that context. However, encouraging personal savings (for retirement) would seem more sensible than 'spend, spend, spend' signals.

AFAIK, there's a quite significant tax benefit - to folk in the UK at all income levels except the very lowest - if they make personal contributions to an approved pension plan. Are you saying this signal isn't clear?

I agree about getting private pensions and not depending on the state, but it isn't just the pension, it is the whole raft of social security benefits that go with it, all of which are means tested. At present, anyone earning a fair amount above the minimum wage will not be able to afford a private pension that pays as well as free benefits.
So, people who are earning a good wage can live well, spend it all and retire comfortably on benefits including pension. Those who struggle and save up for their retirement will do less well!

The only sound financial advice to about 1/3 of the population is to spend everything they have before retiring. The present Tax and benefits system is obviously in need of serious reform.

I'll find out some figures on this for you.
 
  • #35
Nerid -
That's good to hear GENIERE.

To what extent to you think these privatisations will defuse the 'retirement income' timebomb in Sweden, Chile, and the US?

I think in Chile it still is under funded, as the investments require time to grow and accumulate interest. Chile’s government may still partially support it through public funds.

I guess it would take a carefully designed system about 15 years to support itself, so it is important for young people to push hard on their government to realize a secure retirement.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
59
Views
23K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K