This year’s tax revenue surplus exceeded NT$528.3 billion (US$15.96 billion). The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is proposing to “return money to the people,” with a plan to send a universal cash payout of NT$10,000 to every taxpayer. The KMT-majority legislature has passed a first reading of a special legal proposal to that end.
However, Taiwan Power Co (Taipower), facing long-term pressure from price increases on international energy imports since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, has sustained long-term losses for several years in a row. The utility company has racked up about NT$400 billion in debt to date.
The Executive Yuan originally planned to allocate more than NT$100 billion in subsidies from the surplus tax revenue to alleviate some of the pressure on the electricity provider and stave off risks of electricity price hikes.
However, the KMT’s slashing of the budget has prevented Taipower from receiving subsidies It is being forced to bear all-out pressure to raise electricity prices, which would ripple into the daily lives of all Taiwanese following a price hike.
Handing out a universal cash payout to everyone seems like a beneficial policy decision, but the reality is that such measures have a limited effect on economic growth and stimulating domestic demand.
Experience shows that most Taiwanese would opt to put such universal cash payouts into savings accounts or to pay off personal debt — a limited amount of that money ever makes its way back into consumer markets, and its contribution to GDP is negligible. On the contrary, it is extremely easy to turn tax rebate payouts into a tool for currying favor with voters.
Shoring up Taipower could directly reduce the pressure of electricity price-adjustment pressures from annual losses, and would help the nation avoid society-wide price hikes and soaring prices, which would further maintain consumer price index stability.
Electricity price hikes not only drag on more expensive kitchen-table economics, they can increase the operational overhead for everyone, as reflected in consumer prices and living expenses.
Thus, the legislature should shift away from its goal of shortsighted, near-term benefits via a universal cash payout, and instead move to pay off Taipower’s losses and stabilize our energy grid and energy pricing structures.
That would be the best way to benefit the entire nation: It could reduce Taipower’s debt and the growing pressure to raise rates, while guaranteeing that basic living expenses would not be impacted by potential electricity rate hikes.
Although a universal cash payout is on the surface more desirable, in the end it only obscures the bigger picture. In critical times such as these, we should hope that all of the nation’s political parties would put comprehensive thought into governance and use resources where they matter most to create policy that truly benefits everyone.
Lee Li-sheng is a research assistant at the Taiwan Economy and Industry Association and a graduate student at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Tim Smith
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS