croes 15 hours ago

So the EU can stop paying 2.9 billion Euros in subsidies to Poland, EU‘s 2nd largest net recipient.

Reply View 13 replies
  • martchat 11 hours ago

    Poland receives subsidies in exchange for opening its market and for following the tax and labor regulations. All the poorer EU countries do. In the end, it is Germany that benefits the most from large markets for its goods. It would have probably been way more beneficial in the 90s for Poland to have a more closed economy, emulate South Korea and become a "small China in EU" with cheap labor and factories. I believe it was a grave mistake of the Western Europe to invest so much in producing high-tech goods in China, when during a period of 1990-2005 they had access to cheap and educated labor force close in Eastern Europe. You should never transfer your strategic industries into countries that you cannot influence or control.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • torlok 11 hours ago

    Poland is still low on the EU ladder in terms of GDP per capita and PPP. What I wish is that the amount of subsidies from the EU was better communicated in the face of rising anti-EU sentiments, and the periodically-returning topic of WW2 reparations.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • jakobnissen 12 hours ago

    When we pay aid to poor countries and they remain poor, we gripe. When we subsidize poor countries and they get rich, we also gripe.

    I for one am happy to see what the Poles have achieved since independence, and proud to have supported them.

    I mean, isn’t this exactly the European project working as intended? A strong market economy, a democracy (if they can keep it so), a strong ally and partner, and a bulwark against Russian aggression. What could you possibly find more worthy to invest in than that?

    Reply View 0 replies
  • fred_is_fred 11 hours ago

    We do the same here in the US for Mississippi, Arkansas, and other states and they only get worse - at least Poland has a path out here.

    Reply View 7 replies
    • rayiner 9 hours ago

      We don’t have any similar program in the U.S. You seem to be talking about the fact that some states pay a larger share of the federal tax burden. That’s just a consequence of progressive taxation and those states having more rich people.

      In terms of federal grants to states on a per-capita basis, Mississippi gets less than California, and a bit more than Massachusetts: https://ffis.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SA24-02-1.pdf. Some of the states with very high grants relative to population are states that have a lot of natural resources and get federal lease payments and things like that.

      Also, the gap between richer states and poorer states has closed dramatically. In 1950, the nominal per capita personal income in New York was 2.4 times higher than Mississippi. Today’s it’s about 60% higher. Adjusted for cost of living, incomes in New York today are only about 11% higher today: https://flowingdata.com/2021/03/25/income-in-each-state-adju...

      Reply View 0 replies
    • KptMarchewa 10 hours ago

      The net per capita amount we get is dropping every year - mostly by the fact the contributions are rising fast.

      Reply View 5 replies
      • scyzoryk_xyz 10 hours ago

        Might be worth adding that US comparisons aren't quite relevant. Poland is a relatively new member-country, not an existing state within a long standing union.

        The Polish economy and success is simply the result of disciplined economic decisions and hard work. Apart from few political turbulences and ongoing constitutional crises we've managed to spend all the investment correctly. An enormous and matter-of-fact win-win.

        Federal support for disadvantaged states is different (though really shouldn't be).

        Reply View 4 replies