Each of us pays taxes or fees. When we phone when we light a lamp, when we buy something at the supermarket, we pay taxes, which are used for government spending. It must obtain our agreement to use the money raised, but the opinion of the population is not easy to assemble and therefore, he has difficulty monitoring the government action.
For example, I personally do not agree with certain expenses incurred by the government, while other citizens approve. We have no way of determining whether the use of this money is justified. These are areas where I do not mind if my money is used and the areas where I do not want it to be.
To maintain public order, there are police who watch over my safety. If a thief takes me something I can complain to the police who seek to elucidate the matter. I do not mind my money in it! I am also willing my money be used for the financing and operation of infrastructure and facilities such as roads, street lights, traffic signals.
To beautify the city, many attractions are illuminated. It takes a lot of money to counter the city of a thousand lights. I can accept that we should spend my money for it, without going overboard, because we are still a poor country that still has many poor. Save in certain areas to give more to these people seems more appropriate.
To correct the differences between rich and poor, I see no objection to discharge a tax on income. I also do not mind that my money be used to build metro lines, lower ticket prices or subsidize the users of this means of transportation because they are ordinary people with relatively low incomes.
It is not at all unusual that they receive state subsidies. Similarly, it seems natural that public transport is subsidized. Certainly there are people who find these wasteful subsidies and who feel more just to pay the real price and make everyone take its share. It is then two different views of fairness.
However, I am of course not agree that my tax money to subsidize the rich. Yet it is the case everywhere. For example, the tuition fees charged by Chinese universities cover only a third of operating costs, the other two thirds being paid by the state. Now among the student population, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are not legion, and rich students as much as they enjoy government subsidies.
Therefore, I advocate an increase in tuition fees, accompanied by an increase in scholarships to poor students. Another example: the electricity rates are subsidized. The rich, who use more electricity than others, benefit the maximum grant, which is quite unusual. According to this logic, devices built around Chinese cities are mostly for the rich because only the cars can drive there, it is very questionable to use taxes to build them all.
It would be more natural to introduce a toll whose revenues would be used for construction and maintenance of expressways. A welfare state is one where everyone has a share. Our country is still a poor country that can claim to be a welfare state. Far from inspiring us to this last model, we use the tax dollars of all citizens to subsidize the rich and therefore increase the social divide.
I do not want my tax money to build homes, sold at low prices to households with low or middle income (which are actually average or high household income, because people who have a personal contribution of several Hundreds of thousands of yuan to buy a home can be categorized as low or middle income)! I do not want my money used to build aircraft carriers.
I am an advocate of disarmament of all countries of the world. I am against the arms race. Spending money in this area is the last straw, because you have to pay for weapons, which, when they are really used, causing human and material losses. Citizens of all countries should therefore ensure that their government is cutting military spending instead of encouraging them to invest in armaments.
In fact, what I want least is giving money to employ people to limit my rights and freedoms. On 1 December 2010, I was invited to participate in an international conference held in Singapore on the theme of cooperation in development of the Himalayan rivers. It was a debate that was to bring together scholars.
Now I was arrested at the airport by border police who told me that my visit could undermine national security. It's really laughable! What connection can there be between my presence at an international conference and national security? I think there is not one person in China who is willing to employ someone to limit his own freedom.
I mentioned above are ways to use our tax money, expressing opinions that are probably not shared by all. But one thing is absolutely certain: China is not willing to employ someone to restrict his own freedom. So it's a complete mistake of spending and tax dollars. There is no doubt that the government should immediately disband these institutions that limit the rights of citizens, and allow staff to go practice for other tasks. 
For example, I personally do not agree with certain expenses incurred by the government, while other citizens approve. We have no way of determining whether the use of this money is justified. These are areas where I do not mind if my money is used and the areas where I do not want it to be.
To maintain public order, there are police who watch over my safety. If a thief takes me something I can complain to the police who seek to elucidate the matter. I do not mind my money in it! I am also willing my money be used for the financing and operation of infrastructure and facilities such as roads, street lights, traffic signals.
To beautify the city, many attractions are illuminated. It takes a lot of money to counter the city of a thousand lights. I can accept that we should spend my money for it, without going overboard, because we are still a poor country that still has many poor. Save in certain areas to give more to these people seems more appropriate.
To correct the differences between rich and poor, I see no objection to discharge a tax on income. I also do not mind that my money be used to build metro lines, lower ticket prices or subsidize the users of this means of transportation because they are ordinary people with relatively low incomes.
It is not at all unusual that they receive state subsidies. Similarly, it seems natural that public transport is subsidized. Certainly there are people who find these wasteful subsidies and who feel more just to pay the real price and make everyone take its share. It is then two different views of fairness.
However, I am of course not agree that my tax money to subsidize the rich. Yet it is the case everywhere. For example, the tuition fees charged by Chinese universities cover only a third of operating costs, the other two thirds being paid by the state. Now among the student population, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are not legion, and rich students as much as they enjoy government subsidies.
Therefore, I advocate an increase in tuition fees, accompanied by an increase in scholarships to poor students. Another example: the electricity rates are subsidized. The rich, who use more electricity than others, benefit the maximum grant, which is quite unusual. According to this logic, devices built around Chinese cities are mostly for the rich because only the cars can drive there, it is very questionable to use taxes to build them all.
It would be more natural to introduce a toll whose revenues would be used for construction and maintenance of expressways. A welfare state is one where everyone has a share. Our country is still a poor country that can claim to be a welfare state. Far from inspiring us to this last model, we use the tax dollars of all citizens to subsidize the rich and therefore increase the social divide.
I do not want my tax money to build homes, sold at low prices to households with low or middle income (which are actually average or high household income, because people who have a personal contribution of several Hundreds of thousands of yuan to buy a home can be categorized as low or middle income)! I do not want my money used to build aircraft carriers.
I am an advocate of disarmament of all countries of the world. I am against the arms race. Spending money in this area is the last straw, because you have to pay for weapons, which, when they are really used, causing human and material losses. Citizens of all countries should therefore ensure that their government is cutting military spending instead of encouraging them to invest in armaments.
In fact, what I want least is giving money to employ people to limit my rights and freedoms. On 1 December 2010, I was invited to participate in an international conference held in Singapore on the theme of cooperation in development of the Himalayan rivers. It was a debate that was to bring together scholars.
Now I was arrested at the airport by border police who told me that my visit could undermine national security. It's really laughable! What connection can there be between my presence at an international conference and national security? I think there is not one person in China who is willing to employ someone to limit his own freedom.
I mentioned above are ways to use our tax money, expressing opinions that are probably not shared by all. But one thing is absolutely certain: China is not willing to employ someone to restrict his own freedom. So it's a complete mistake of spending and tax dollars. There is no doubt that the government should immediately disband these institutions that limit the rights of citizens, and allow staff to go practice for other tasks.
No comments:
Post a Comment