US President George W. Bush has signed into law a massive bailout package for US financial institutions. The bill had initally been rejected by the House of Representatives amid concerns that spending US$700 billion of taxpayers’ money to buy up questionable assets and bail out financial companies was not socially just. However, after measures were added to protect the interests of the middle classes, such as tax cuts and exemptions, among other additions, the bill was approved by both houses of Congress.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has also been confronting a financial crisis. How does its attitude compare to that of US officials? Ma’s government has proposed a series of measures to boost the economy and stock markets. On Sept. 9 it put forward 10 proposals to revitalize the economy, but the package fell short on policies beneficial to the public at large. The government does not seem to care much about the middle class. No wonder people are growing more concerned about social injustice and less confident in the government.
The Finance Ministry’s Tax Reform Committee is scheduled to meet today amid widespread calls from industrial and commercial interests for tax cuts to help the economy. The financial team set up by the Presidential Office has not come up with any measures to revive the stock market. It has only suggested cutting inheritance and gift taxes and setting up a sovereign wealth fund, and it seems likely that the Tax Reform Committee will act in accordance with these signals. These are tax cuts for the rich, however, and only serve to shift even more of the tax burden onto the shoulders of the less affluent.
Taxation in Taiwan is not well balanced. Most government revenue comes from income taxes. Many high earning companies and individuals pay very little tax because there are so many deductions and exemptions. Sometimes the extremely wealthy manage to pay less tax than the average office worker. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp chairman Morris Chang (張忠謀) has repeatedly called on wealthy Taiwanese to bear a fairer share of the tax burden. The finance ministry is aware of the situation, but unfortunately has been insensitive to it, so government policy continues to favor the wealthy.
The government knows that the deteriorating economic situation is causing ever greater income disparity and the Ministry of the Interior has proposed a plan to subsidize families whose monthly household income falls below NT$25,000. But recipients would be chosen by computer, which means they might include teachers and military personnel, who are already exempt from taxes, while those in real need are left out. This does not meet demands for social justice, but all Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) can say is, “better luck next time.”
Even in the US, which always has stressed the importance of free markets and a free economy, lawmakers managed to squeeze measures to benefit the disadvantaged and the middle classes into its bailout plan. It makes you wonder whether Taiwan’s government — which stressed liberalization and deregulation when it took office — cares about growing income disparity nationwide and whether it has heard the complaints of the disadvantaged and the middle classes who lack the political strength to challenge the government’s financial and economic policies.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS