Talk:Economy of Belgium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain. |
 |
This page relates to the WikiProject Belgium, a project to create and improve Belgium-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can join the project, and help with our open tasks. |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] GDP error
The GDP (PPP) is listed as being on the order of 'zillions.'
Who wrote this article? Dr Evil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetmar (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cost Of living
The following information were added by Salv236 on the Belgian page on May 28, 2004:
Cost of Living
Income Tax
The rate of income tax for 2004 are are as follows:
- 25% 5,705 Euros
- 30% 5,705 - 8,120 Euros
- 40% 8,120 - 13,530 Euros
- 45% 13,530 - 24,800 Euros
- 50% 24,800 + Euros
The information could be integrated in "Economy of Belgium" but certainly not in the main Belgium page I think (otherwise, why not integrate the whole fiscal policies in details in there)... --Edcolins 20:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea. A distinctive article on taxation might be quite usefull, especially as labour charges are the highest from the entire world! --Rudi Dierick 23:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- On a related point I was quoted an effective rate of income tax of 53% yesterday ( I went there for some interveiws ) : I don't know how they came to this number, but I was offered well over 24k and they included other compulsory charges etc. They commented that they would have to explain my first pay slip to me : it would be quite complex! since this is 10% higher than neighbouring Germany this should be mentioned as a major point in criticism of Belgium. 217.7.209.108 08:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] US POV
I don't think people need to know that Belgium is half the size of Maryland, I personally know the size of Belgium better than I would that of Maryland, this paragraph has been copied from the CIA Factbook with an American POV in mind. I've replaced it with the actual size. --JDnCoke 16:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] GDP Growth
I'm updating smaller countries economic information, according to the IMF Belgian growth is as follows:
| Year | GDP in billions of USD PPP |
% GDP Growth |
|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 286.239 | 0.9 |
| 2003 | 294.663 | 1.3 |
| 2004 | 309.011 | 2.7 |
| 2005 | 324.299 | 1.2 |
| 2006 | 338.130 | 2.0 |
Link for verification --JDnCoke 17:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality !
The article is not suppose to include the propaganda of some flemish extremist.
It is _necessary_ to change many stuff in order to have a neutral article. Jrenier 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you specify what is not neutral? Mjolnir1984 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The only neutral part is for me "Belgian economy in the 20th century". Rest of the text is totally biased against Wallonia. There is almost _nothing_ positive about wallonia in this article, while flanders seems to be the best place of the world. I know the flemish media are working hard to make everybody beleive that it is actually like that, but it's not. It is true that Wallonia had a "economic black out" but it's not anymore like that. The point of this article is to talk positive about the whole country. Do like the prime minister do (or should do) : he's promoting both part in a neutral way. Jrenier 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. 1. It is very relevant to talk about the Wallon economy, as it is one of the main points of Belgian (or at least Flemish) politics. 2. It is not biased. Almost all economic indicators are highlighted, and there are significant differences. It would be not neutral not to speak about them, as they are one of the most relevant parts of Belgian economy. Mjolnir1984 18:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Me to, I agree with Mjolnir. The facts and especially the comparison, are indeed not nice, nor satisfactory for Walloons, but as far as I can see, all facts are accurate, relevant and correct. The huge difference AND the negation of them by far to many French-speaking politicians are probably one of the main reasons for the accelerating growth in recent years for the support for Flemish independance (and more autonomy under one or another federal or confederal arrangement), see also the anamysis from the In de Warande group on that. --Lucas Richards 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course we have to speak about it. In the same way you speak about flanders : positive way. Of course, my wish is not to hide the reality : wallonia is late compare to flanders and yes, there are many significant differences, but i want to remove the part that say that wallonia is only bad and flanders only good. You understand me ? In this article, it's only white or black, let's put some grey.
- You appear to have a very particular interpretation of those sections. I read lots of facts, but you only want to see the political meaning of them, and then, as you don't like the obvious political conclusions any reader can draw from the facts, you propose to censor the facts. I really cannot agree with that. --Lucas Richards 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's okay with me, BUT the purpose of Wikipedia is not to speak positively, but in a neutral way. Perhaps that is what you meant. Removing that part about Wallonia and Flanders is not neutral. Adding other important indicators however is. Among these indicators, some could be very well positively about Wallonia and negatively about Flanders, or positively/negatively about both. Mjolnir1984 19:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I never meant that we should remove anything from any part. Just that we should neutralize the article. I'll do it a bit. We both know very well the situation in belgium, but i'm affraid about what could think somebody from outside when reading an article like that. Flanders is clearly better now, as well as Wallonia was clearly better 40 years ago. So let's try to not kill one region now, it can come back :) Would be nice to have a country with both regions very attractive no?
- We all probably agree that if everybody would only say nice and positive things, quite some would feel better. But would that improve the quality of an encyclopedia? I diubt it. Moreover, what you advocate here is a purely political objective. That is something different from the infotrmative objective of Wikipedia. Looks like you better contribute your political ideals on political fora, but not here. At this place, we should indeed aim for the best, most accurate and relevant description of things. That means, neutral in the sense of not being selective in the facts, nor in the wordings. however 'neutral' does not mean that it should please all communities equally well. --Lucas Richards 16:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter who agrees and who doesn't (although it is obvious this article lacks some neutrality). What's really important here is the lack of sources, I mean there are some sources here and there but I've just started adding 'citation needed' tags and abondoned after the Bruxelles section because hardly anything is sourced. It's normal for people to be offended somehow if you write an article (be it in wikipedia or anywhere else) if you write an article like this and throw around statements without telling where it's come from. Take this for example:
"Language skills and general education level are better in Flanders; recent international studies position Flemish education in OECD or EU top quarter, versus bottom quarter for education in the French-speaking community (education being a Community competence and not a federal competence)"
Without a valid source, it should be removed. Not because of the message, if it's true it has its place here, but because there's no source. This talkpage would become a nonsense forum like website of people arguing about what we're talking about right here. Still, I can't see how anyone can honestly say this article is neutral! I'm not Belgian, but I know things can't be this simple. Sure there most be wealthy regions in Wallonia and poor in Flanders, why not focus on that? Why keep on hammering on the Flanders vs. Wallonia issue? 81.246.93.2 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why there need to be more than about two sentences about the Flanders vs. Wallonia issue. It is not the main economic issue in Belgium. What about, I dunno, the impact of the EU being centered in Brussels? Of the Benelux? What does Belgium import? What does it export? This is not in any way an encyclopedic article about the economy of Belgium. 66.245.12.77 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] geography
It is also important to explain that the economy of flanders is very good because all the companies around brussels (ie : the airport) are actually in Flanders. Without that, the situation would be completely different. The harbours are also very important and make a big difference with Wallonia. Jrenier 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, and what makes you think that? Maybe we should ask an economist. From what I read, the economic productivity in Flanders is higher all over Flanders, also in its provincs most far away from Brussels! Brussels thus seems a focal point, but certainly not the only major factor. Far more important appears the average productivity in flanders! --Lucas Richards 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GDP nonsense
No way can you base "GDP rank" on the basis of a list containing a number of entities (such as the world at No 1 etc) which aren't countries. The only sensible meaning has to be for countries and taking over this CIA factbook definition just makes us look silly --BozMo talk 10:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] THIS READS LIKE AN ESSAY
Worse than that. It reads like a list of random numbers. Could somebody please alter this so that it tells a story?66.245.12.77 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
