The government here ROUTINELY spends billions of USD on massive dodgy schemes which involves concreting rivers over and over again…or for building nuclear power stations that are never even turned on (eight billion or so)…Or for this port or that port that is underutilised.
In this context I don’t think it’s a big deal giving the lower paid a bit of a boost.
And economists agree that the lower paid will spend it pretty quickly anyway…So the money circulates in the economy.
I’d like a rebate but the fact is we are ALREADY getting an effective cut this year and I believe we got one a year or two ago as well!
The govt is adjusting the basic deduction this year for but it would make sense if they made the basic deduction even bigger for lower earners specifically on an ongoing basis instead of cash.
Interestingly I may benefit quite a lot from from this because I am the ONLY current earner in the family of dependents, including parents , parents in law, wife and kids! Next year I might try and get the dog and cat in there as well. Bloody useless foreigners.
Here are the 2018 tax rates if anybody is interested (individual and you can choose the system above if filing for dependents ).
The explanation I’ve heard is that the hot coals vaporize the water in the skin on the soles of your feet, creating a plasma-like layer than keeps your skin from burning. But if your feet are too dry, this doesn’t work.
It can be bad, stupid, counter-productive, morally reprehensible, or all kinds of things like that, but it’s not invalid unless it violates the law. Where is the supposed law that forbids spending money on things people didn’t specifically vote for? The government has a mandate to decide how to spend tax money. If people don’t like the decision, they can vote for a different government. It’s amazing that I need to explain this.
Is it really antithetical to what people voted for? I’ve heard the claim that Madame English is really a conservative, but I haven’t seen a convincing case made for this claim. (The strongest proponent of the claim I met was a very drunk overseas compatriot ranting about how a certain other country’s conservative party should take state capitalism to a more ambitious level. Not very convincing, about anything.)
Let’s ask someone who actually knows about these things. @hansioux, how did the parties of significance present themselves in 2016 regarding taxation, egalitarianism, fiscal conservatism/progressivism, and so on?
I. Never. Said. A. Representative. Democracy. Works. Like. That.
I also never said it’s “antithetical” to what people voted for. Like, not once did I say that. Once again you’re trying to hang your own half-baked idea around my neck and demanding I defend something I never said.
Please do me a favor and find somebody here more amenable to having your words installed in their mouth. It doesn’t work for me.
I am going to use the US definition for conservative, liberal, and progressive.
Madame English is not a conservative on social issues for sure. She raised the minimum wage 3 times with in the first 2 years of her term, tried and failed to decrease work hours, enacted Aboriginal right to autonomy, recently passed the national language act ensuring all native languages are national languages. She is trying to pass marriage equality, but apparently most Taiwanese people aren’t as socially progressive and set a road block for her in the last referendum.
If the definition of being a fiscal conservative means balancing the budget, reducing debt, and not spending on wasteful non-essential things, instead of simply claiming those things then bend over backwards to placate the rich, then fiscally Madame English is more conservative than President 9 English.
In the two years that Madame English has been president, she has already decreased the national debt by 9.5 billion NTD. In comparison, President Flat Water increased the national debt by 1.49 trillion NTD, while President 9 English raised the national debt by 1.74 trillion NTD.
Unlike President 9 English, who raised national debt to give EVERYONE spending vouchers, Madame English reduced the national debt, and still has enough left in the budget to give some money to the poor.