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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS