3rd reading approved amendment. No more 18% special rate for civil servants. Expect “some” reaction.
EDIT:
Some background news:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2017/06/23/498999/update-bill.htm
And this is an old problem, discussed way before greens came to power:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/12/14/364063/ex-civil-servants.htm
wut
Phased out. Slowly. Gradually. Reducing rates for civil servant retirees.
Some of these “benefits” will continue until 2020…
Slowly. Easy does it. Even so, talk here is that many elder retirees, especially eveterans, will starve and/or suicide. My boss got a 20k cut, menaing a pension of 40k. 30k plus makes for living but you can’t get sick on that one. And elderly people get sick a lot.
The younegr geenration may be able to prepare and save, but with a rising cost of living, it si going to be hard. However, it was time. Too many privileges aside from the 18%. And with the rest of the population hurting, with no vacations or pensions or sick leave, it was almost obscene. If that could be fixed, and taxes colected properly, then they could keep their 18% and free apartments/cable/lower utilities, etc.
Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.
Now, if Taiwan could start doing business and making serious money outside of a couple industries then they could change this. Of course a lot would have to change for that to happen.
I do not se this as socialism, but more like colonialism: that money was produced in Taiwan and taken out to invest… let’s say somewhere else. A elite of people in the government scooped the cream and the milk and left just a few droops for the rest. That is not exactly “socialism”. For most of the modern history in Taiwan, the only existing pension plan was the governments. Now, it is the only one with semi enforceable 5 day work week.
But yes, I agree, a wider focus on more industries and more players participating in te economic life would help a lot.
[quote=“Icon, post:7, topic:161385, full:true”]
I do not se this as socialism, but more like colonialism: that money was produced in Taiwan and taken out to invest… let’s say somewhere else. A elite of people in the government scooped the cream and the milk and left just a few droops for the rest. That is not exactly “socialism”.[/quote]
Ever read Animal Farm? Or see what happened in Venezuela?
It’s textbook socialism.
Ironically, the KMT regime that instituted the 18% rule–basically redistributing public resources to help their own–would have you chucked in jail (or worse) for describing their policies as “socialism”…
But back on topic: with the elimination of this perk, it seems the DPP is going all-in to use up their political capital. Their approval ratings are currently very low. Perhaps they calculated that this is the bottom, and therefore a minimal risk?
Guy
Nope. Those are the usual gang of thieves leading the usual gang of idjits. Next!
Most younger people are against the 18%, good job Tsai.
Should have gotten rid of it years ago most of the pension schemes are going bankrupt soon.
The civil servants who benefit from the 18% interest rate entered the civil service before 1995. At that time, private sector jobs were much better paid than civil service jobs and recent graduates who chose to work for government instead of businesses were laughed at by their peers. Those were the times of 6 months new year bonus for office workers. The only benefit civil servants could hope for were a solid pension and 18% interest on deposits up to 1,000,000 NT.
And today you have the same people who 20-30 years ago raked in the cash during the boom years, didn’t save for their pension and even ridiculed civil servants say that civil servants are thieves. Now THAT is the real injustice.
But not everyone raked it during the boom years. Certainly factory workers didn’t and will not. Their savings, pensions and etc. went to China, along withtheir absconded bosses. That was the 90s.
Most people didn’t earn that much for long.
The 18% with retirement after 15,20 or 25 years was a very good deal along with all the other benefits.
They didn’t even pay income taxes!!
No tears for them .
Civil servants did not have to pay income tax? Interesting statement. Do you mind to back that up with a few references?
Certain civil servants do not pay income tax. Others do not pay NHI. Others have free lodging and take free property. There is a pattern but I do not dare to say.
The perks might not be such a problem if they were more trasparent.
AFAIK teachers and soldiers didn’t pay income tax until a few years ago.
This one is from 1991! Essentially it confirms what I wrote before: people who raked in cash in the boom years and made fun of civil servants are now crying foul over the benefits civil servants were promised when they signed up for the jobs.
According to statistics, the salaries of civil servants and private-enterprise employees are compatible at the lower end, but at the higher end the salary of a private-enterprise employee is about 2.5 times that of a civil servant. From other indices and statistics it is well known that the civil servants in Taiwan are underpaid. This is a tradition continued from the period of Sino-Japanese War, when China was so poor that salaries of all civil servants were compressed to a uniformly low level barely enough to maintain a very simple living. At present the salaries of civil servants are of course much better than those at that time, but on the average civil servants are still far underpaid.
Sheng, C. L. (1991). Income Tax, Social Welfare, Salary Systems and Private Property. In A New Approach to Utilitarianism: A Unified Utilitarian Theory and Its Application to Distributive Justice (pp. 512-538). Dordrecht: Springer Science Business Media.
Anybody under 26 wasn’t born then , fail to see your point .
