It is well known: the best defense being attack, the French business community has taken the lead with a call to arms (fortunately… today more virtual than real) in the form of petitions challenging the government’s (socialist) economic and tax policy.
While everyone more or less agrees that growth can only start with debt reduction, there is more controversy surrounding the consensus on which measures to take and how to apply them.
Quite naturally, everyone claims to have already contributed, so the responsibility should fall on others (individuals or socio-professional categories).
This was the leitmotiv of the conference of the leaders of the Azurean business community, during which Yvon Grosso reacted to the main measures concerning taxation and employment in companies:
“The speech is incoherent: On one hand, we are praised for our creativity and patriotism, being told that businesses are the backbone of the economy, yet on the other hand, measures are taken that strain us. It must be acknowledged ‘with horror’ that the newfound friendliness of the Head of State towards businesses comes at a price: 10 billion euros will be taken from their coffers for the 2013 budget…
We demand that the efforts not be solely on the shoulders of businesses but also on the State, which must reduce public spending. It will be 50-50 said the Prime Minister, compared to 85-15 today! For the 2013 budget, there are twice as many tax increases as there is a decrease in public spending! We want one-third taxation and two-thirds reduction.
The main point of contention is the TAXATION OF CAPITAL INCOME
A delegation of entrepreneurs, investors, and venture capitalists from the department expressed concerns about the dangers of aligning the taxation of capital income with that of labor, which would threaten entrepreneurial initiatives and severely impair the companies’ ability to invest.
“We must create a favorable ecosystem to stimulate activity: only businesses create wealth and employment; without entrepreneurial spirit, nothing is possible.” concluded Yvon Grosso.
Recently, there has been a national initiative by a group of venture capitalists and business angels who, under the pseudonym ‘pigeons’, opened the debate and fueled the protest movement, forcing the government, given its magnitude, to partially backtrack and freeze part of the announced decisions.
Truth be told, doubt hovers over the origin of this initiative, which does not seem devoid of political meaning.
Indeed, what to say about today’s vehement protest compared to the silence of the same people when the previous government was deepening the deficit, which is the source of the unwanted tax measures?
And frankly, the few who don’t want to be plucked today are not the same ones who, during the golden years, plucked the anonymous investors who financed their daring startups, risking their money, while these innovators jumped ship for new adventures, not without having benefited greatly from their commitments?
Ultimately, are they all innovators or sometimes speculators as well?
Of course, one must avoid all generalization.
As always and everywhere, there are pigeons who want to fly on their own without being the victims of pigeon shooting, which is their freedom and right, and they deserve protection for their activities.
And then there are the homing pigeons to be wary of because they have the unfortunate habit of landing in tax havens with their windfall, the fruit of selling their company.
Finally, there are those whose particularly acidic droppings degrade the environment where they are present and are not the best example of entrepreneurship. Should we name some signatories of this protest who have largely speculated on the company they created and sold during some bubble, taking other investors for pigeons?
For the latter, trying to pass them off as choirboys or victims of the system is not suitable, firstly, for the category.
