Red envelopes for low-and middle-income households - DPP trying to get back the trust from public?


#61

That’s why I would be pleasantly surprised. Let’s wait to see the DPPs ‘socialist’ credentials…

By the way improrting so many low paid workers especially labourers , is keeping the local wage pinned down. The government kind of owes locals such as aborigines (80% of aboriginal men work in manual jobs) cos they are fucking with their livelihood with the current system. I don’t blame labourers for coming here either though, they should get treated fairly.


#62

If they have enough to give back, they took too much in the first place.


#63

Here are your words, straight from the horse’s mouth:

Think about that for a moment. How could that not mean all taxation is robbery? You earn it, but the government decides how to spend it is exactly what taxation is.

If you decide how the government should spend it, you can just give your part back to yourself, in which case it’s not really taxation (or anything) anymore.

If the problem is that the government is spending it on something you don’t like (i.e. giving money to the poor – the horror, the horror), but not that the government is making the decision without your approval, that’s a peculiar definition of robbery.

True, it’s an arbitrary cutoff, but there’s nothing unusual about that. A hongbao without a cutoff would be the Great Satan of US conservatives, the dreaded UBI! :astonished:

I think you’re reading a bit too much into this, but I confess I haven’t held a microscope to the DPP. Did they really portray themselves as fiscally conservative in 2016?

There would be contentious debates over the definitions of income and exemption, but it’s at least theoretically feasible. :slight_smile: :+1:

It would still be the state deciding how to spend the money you’ve earned, though. :doh: :idunno:


#64

I’m referring to this bit of robbery, where the taxes of those earning >30k/mo will be distributed to those making less.

Read carefully, especially my last bit. Taxation and tax collection is a valid act of government.

This one I disagree with, though. The income cutoff is arbitrary, it imposes a level of egalitarianism on Taiwanese that they may not have voted for, and the confiscated tax dollars will be used to bolster support for the government.

Go fight your battles against the e-vile US conservatives elsewhere, my friend.


#65

because that’s not even closed to what he said?


#66

“A valid act of government” is a far cry from your first post.

Not sure if you’re being facetious, but if not, you’re proving my point.


#67

There are so many better things Taiwan can use that money for. The NHI pot, setting up a decent unemployment insurance scheme that actually provides a living wage, investing in a more robust pension scheme, all of this benefits everyone rather than vote pandering.


#68

Not being facetious, and imo this is a clear act of robbery.


#69

Or how about just returning the surplus to the Taiwanese taxpayers who created it?


#70

Much of the local Chinese media already report this plan has been canceled due to strong opposition from various parties.


#71

I’d be OK with that too.
If this was a handout to everyone that overpaid that would be good.
That’s how Hong Kong rolls, everyone gets the cash


#72

You don’t know my story, so don’t judge! I know more than you think.


#73

That’s called being social.


#74

You know that they’ll have to increase gross wages and employer’s dues, making Taiwan less competitive if they do that. Unemployment benefit and others don’t come out of thin air.


#75

You guys are arguing over something that most likely has already been canceled or back-tracked. Unless if all of the numerous local media sources are lying.


#76

I think the argument is caused by the fact that a policy like that one was even planned to begin with.


#77

Oh, I see. For the ruling party to do anything (at least legally) it can to win the next election is par for the course in many democracies, no?


#78

Sure, if you’re George Orwell.


#79

By law, our minimum salary is 47K, so from the start, yeah, we are not included in this scheme.


#80

Its not a scheme, its already been canceled/pulled/back-tracked. However you want to call it. Won’t happen, at least not in 2019.