Topic: The gloomy light called subsidy. - page 3. (Read 597 times)
The subsidy can be given by government if they are stable enough with the national reserves and their yearly revenues. From where they fill the treasury? From the taxes that we pay so definitely we need subsidy but we also need population that is strong enough to pay their taxes on time and every time. Various countries do not get as much taxes as any powerful or highly developed country gets. This leads to under income of the government and thus over burden on planning and executing the schemes like subsidies. Apart from this we need to understand that subsidy is not free coupon, we do have to payback the left over amount all the time along with interest. Many people fail to do it.
-cut-
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
There are no silver bullets in society that have only upsides. Point of subsides and other kind of government interventions is to keep society functioning and citizens spending, money rotating and workers healthy.What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
You can argue what are the best policies for buildng a society, but every way has a negative and positive effect. Political science and economy is are complex fields where everything affects everything else and like in a jenga game removing one building block can crash the whole system or weaken the whole structure.
So asking if it's needed, it obviously is. But in which cases is a whole different issue. It isn't really "is it good or bad" kind of question.
Just imagine coming from a country where the health services are free and hospitalizations are mostly taken care of by the government. Then you'll be going to the US, where you thought it was free but it ain't. It will really affect you financially because you'll shoulder it. It really gives a hard time to the citizen, but we hope that the government will not remove it. It is mostly about educational assistance for students, but again, it doesn't mean that we just rely on them; we should also do our hardship.
Sometimes despite the health services are free, some of the hospital doesn't have enough equipments and staff to assist the people especially when it comes to emergency. You'll be given a bed or wheelchair but you will wait for hours before they even take care of you so just imsgine if that's the situation and you're dying right? I'm not blaming the hospital itself but the government, due to its corrupt system it can't even provide a good facilities, enough salary from the staffs and equipment for the public hospitals. With that case some people would still go for the private despite the cost due to the comparison of the services. In short even when there's subsidy applied if the government itself is corrupt maybe it's useless.
Unfortunately in my nation subsidy just means one thing; government helping out their family members. We have seen too many companies that are not crucial to the public end up getting part of our taxes just because those people ended up getting paid for it as well.
I want to point out that anytime taxes are used for anything but making the nation better, it is going to end up making it worse, there is no natural side of things, it is not going to end up being a bit of a change in the end and I feel like we are not going to see just straight up no change, we either do something good that helps all citizens, or if we are not using taxes like that, then it means we are doing something that will hurt them, those are the only options.
I want to point out that anytime taxes are used for anything but making the nation better, it is going to end up making it worse, there is no natural side of things, it is not going to end up being a bit of a change in the end and I feel like we are not going to see just straight up no change, we either do something good that helps all citizens, or if we are not using taxes like that, then it means we are doing something that will hurt them, those are the only options.
The subsidies don't come from the sky. The government must take money from someone in order to give subsidies to certain businesses and groups of citizens. It's all about redistribution of wealth. I'm against subsidies, because many businesses become dependent of them and they lose their competitive advantage the moment the subsidies are taken away from them. I'm also against subsidized prices of goods and services(even food, gas and oil), because this deviates the free market and lowers poor people's motivation to develop some skills and find a better paying job. Having high levels of resource redistribution is mostly bad for the effectiveness of almost every economy around the world.
I do believe in the social welfare state, so I think that the taxpayers' money should be used to provide or at least make more accessible essential services, but the subsidy isn't a great measure because it can be removed. It can only work as a temporary measure, and I guess that's how it's often introduced, but removal of the subsidy should be planned in advance, and occur gradually to allow people to adapt. I think proper programs of social security are better than measures like subsidies, unless we're talking about the state subsidizing certain industries (like public transportation, for example), which is different because it's not on the level of individuals and can be a long-term commitment.
The subsidy is good, but only with a progressive government and economy, it's a way the government gives back to the people which I believe is also the right of the people when they have a responsible government. However, the subsidy built on corruption, and also by the regressive government will certainly backfire. That is the case in Nigeria right now.
Corruption is not a genuine reason to stop subsidies. It is the government thet is corrupt and not the process of subsidizing these essential products. You don't subside when you don't have the muscle for it and when it is lined with corruption, subsidy is never by force, it's a privilege. Particularly when politicians are pocketing much of it and are not accountable for any reason, for whose gain is now the subsidy? To what end?
Therefore, I repeat in more simplified words in case you don't understand, a subsidy built on corruption in a bad economy is highly irresponsible and will always backfire.
If the government wants to stop subsidy because it cannot be sustained due to a fall in revenue or economic challenge, it's a better reason. Now the question you will ask yourself is that who is making the subsidy process corrupt? It is still the government. The money saved from subsidy will be shared among state governors through the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and most of these funds will go to private pockets. If the government makes the fuel subsidy process transparent, it will alleviate the suffering of the masses.
Regardless, I stand by my points, perhaps you want me to say that a sane country should subsidize with lies, corruption, and in a bad economy (irony). I won't mislead people.
Take that if that's what you want and leave others to believe what they know is right.
The subsidy mechanism, as almost any entity has always two sides - positive and negative. It all depends on why and how this mechanism is used. In some situations, the state should really support local producers. But there are nuances - it should not be "maintenance on a permanent basis", i.e. business should not become a keeper at the expense of budgetary funds, while budgetary funds are taxes of citizens.
To all this, there are a huge number of other nuances - from the standard of living in the country, to corruption.... In a word - it is possible and necessary to use it, but in a dosed manner so as not to cause "intoxication"....
To all this, there are a huge number of other nuances - from the standard of living in the country, to corruption.... In a word - it is possible and necessary to use it, but in a dosed manner so as not to cause "intoxication"....
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.
That is a very good point. Too much help can make individuals negatively confident that they do not have to apply any effort and just depend on the subsidy they are getting to pay for their needs in life. Another good point on how politicians uses subsidy to gain control of the public. In my country, a lot of issues like that are always around during government election.
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.
So I ask, what will happen if the government remove subsidy from some of the essential things that they helped citizens to subsidize, for example, fuel, electricity, food production, health care services etc.
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
Most likely yes, but of course, it's not instant, Building the country with a full State Budget will make the government easy to manage it. Because as far I know, the problem of the developing country now has a minimal budget for infrastructure and stabilizing the economy. Because the budget is used for subsidy help the people. I admit it really helps in the current situation from Inflasi, reses, and covid recovery, but that strategy is not good for the future because funds for development are hampered, and more is spent on subsidies.
Just imagine coming from a country where the health services are free and hospitalizations are mostly taken care of by the government. Then you'll be going to the US, where you thought it was free but it ain't. It will really affect you financially because you'll shoulder it. It really gives a hard time to the citizen, but we hope that the government will not remove it. It is mostly about educational assistance for students, but again, it doesn't mean that we just rely on them; we should also do our hardship.
There are always two sides of every policy one is good for some portion of population and another side, it effect negatively because if they are getting everything in free then they will become more lazy and dependent on government. Subsidy is good for developing nations for Reduces Cost and Inflation, By reducing costs, subsidies help keep inflation in check and ensure the optimal function of the market. Subsidy is important in a developing economy because With subsidies, consumers are able to access cheaper products and commodities.
You are lucky that you have a government that subsides your petrol. But then again it's a privilege that can be taken anytime and so that's what they do? For me? I will strive hard as I know I don't have the petrol subsidy already.
Or maybe you can tighten your belt, save money or get other means of transportation so that you won't used your car like everyday. It's could have a pros/cons of the removal, but I guess your government is trying to save money as well and uses to other projects or top up other subsidies that is very important to the population.
Or maybe you can tighten your belt, save money or get other means of transportation so that you won't used your car like everyday. It's could have a pros/cons of the removal, but I guess your government is trying to save money as well and uses to other projects or top up other subsidies that is very important to the population.
In general, I'm not a huge fan of subsidies. Subsidies might be necessary in some instances, but I think it should be considered as the last resort. To a certain extent, a government that has limited resources but is all too willing to provide subsidies left and right is an incompetent and lazy government. It's a government that's not creative or innovative enough, a government that doesn't study, analyze, and look for other ways and means to improve certain conditions. Subsidies are dole-outs. They're a band-aid solution. They're not sustainable. Money put into subsidy is most often money that is wasted.
In my country, subsidy is quickly considered as a response more often than it should be. A rising price of rice, subsidy. A rising fuel price, subsidy. A rising transportation cost, subsidy. Onion price rising, subsidy. Poor families, subsidy. Retirement benefits and pension, subsidy. It's subsidy everywhere. It's not even counting the huge tax subsidies that it also provides to companies and businesses. Almost all departments in the governments are now providing subsidies. For goodness' sake, can we not explore other options?
In my country, subsidy is quickly considered as a response more often than it should be. A rising price of rice, subsidy. A rising fuel price, subsidy. A rising transportation cost, subsidy. Onion price rising, subsidy. Poor families, subsidy. Retirement benefits and pension, subsidy. It's subsidy everywhere. It's not even counting the huge tax subsidies that it also provides to companies and businesses. Almost all departments in the governments are now providing subsidies. For goodness' sake, can we not explore other options?
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?
If that would happen, people will be driven to criminal activities, and there will be a lot of social unrest, which might even eventually result in revolution. But even without revolution this unrest could cause so much damage that it would surpass the spendings on subsidy.
Some people might believe that any redistribution of wealth is unfair and is equal to robbery, but for society as a whole it's a net positive if done right. Too much redistribution will definitely hurt the economy, but too little redistribution is quite dangerous.
Well from my view spaceman1000$ don't you think this is a master minded game played by the new government and how are we sure if there where fuel subsidy in the country?
Same products our government keeps importing since they weren't able to our fixed refineries, we had Portharcourt Refinery at Eleme and I think there is other at Lagos and other places why can't they fixed them and stops wasting money to import a buy products from other neighboring country.
We had the capacity and resources to fixed our refineries but it is being politicize which since they had a serious allocation for it and is going to their personal account they wouldn't want to fixed up those refineries across the country and yet there are lot petrolatum engineers graduating from our universities, how come they studied those courses without us having a functional refineries to properly equipped them on their field of study. Well I don't want to delve into details of our there nation as it has been taken over by greedy leaders who doesn't have love for her citizens.
Same products our government keeps importing since they weren't able to our fixed refineries, we had Portharcourt Refinery at Eleme and I think there is other at Lagos and other places why can't they fixed them and stops wasting money to import a buy products from other neighboring country.
We had the capacity and resources to fixed our refineries but it is being politicize which since they had a serious allocation for it and is going to their personal account they wouldn't want to fixed up those refineries across the country and yet there are lot petrolatum engineers graduating from our universities, how come they studied those courses without us having a functional refineries to properly equipped them on their field of study. Well I don't want to delve into details of our there nation as it has been taken over by greedy leaders who doesn't have love for her citizens.
Subsidies have no downsides, so I don't think their absence will produce any form of positive effect on anyone cause yet again, at the end of the day no matter how we thank the government for giving us these things, they take the funds and the capacities from our own pockets in the form of tax. So if the government were to remove subsidy programs, what would they do with the money that's dedicated to subsidy? What would they do to replace this effortless program that provides lots of benefits with no downsides?
Subsidies only become a problem when they are used on stupid things, so perhaps it's not subsidy that should be abolished or what even in this theoretical analogy you made OP, perhaps the one's to be abolished should be those that make stupid legislations and decisions in the government!
Subsidies only become a problem when they are used on stupid things, so perhaps it's not subsidy that should be abolished or what even in this theoretical analogy you made OP, perhaps the one's to be abolished should be those that make stupid legislations and decisions in the government!
Jump to: