The gloomy light called subsidy.

[Vishnu.Reang]

There are always two sides of every policy one is good for some portion of population and another side, it effect negatively because if they are getting everything in free then they will become more lazy and dependent on government. Subsidy is good for developing nations for Reduces Cost and Inflation, By reducing costs, subsidies help keep inflation in check and ensure the optimal function of the market. Subsidy is important in a developing economy because With subsidies, consumers are able to access cheaper products and commodities.

[1714992905]

1714992905

[1714992905]

1714992905

[1714992905]

1714992905

[1714992905]

1714992905

[1714992905]

1714992905

[xSkylarx]

Just imagine coming from a country where the health services are free and hospitalizations are mostly taken care of by the government. Then you'll be going to the US, where you thought it was free but it ain't. It will really affect you financially because you'll shoulder it. It really gives a hard time to the citizen, but we hope that the government will not remove it. It is mostly about educational assistance for students, but again, it doesn't mean that we just rely on them; we should also do our hardship.

[Sarah Azhari]

What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a  government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?

Most likely yes, but of course, it's not instant, Building the country with a full State Budget will make the government easy to manage it. Because as far I know, the problem of the developing country now has a minimal budget for infrastructure and stabilizing the economy. Because the budget is used for subsidy help the people. I admit it really helps in the current situation from Inflasi, reses, and covid recovery, but that strategy is not good for the future because funds for development are hampered, and more is spent on subsidies.

[zaim7413]

So I ask, what will happen if the government remove subsidy from some of the essential things that they helped citizens to subsidize, for example, fuel, electricity, food production, health care services etc.

The people will be increasingly squeezed due to limited income while spending will increase. the consequence of eliminating subsidies will reduce economic growth in the country which has a fatal impact on the continuation of people's lives. Without subsidies, it will increase the number of unemployed, which will lead to an increase in the poverty rate, increase in the price of goods and services and inflation will occur in the country's economy. Health subsidies are urgently needed by the people, especially for those who fall into the middle to lower economic class. The most dire impact of the removal of health subsidies is that the death rate has increased because people do not have the funds to pay for treatment at the hospital.

[Poker Player]

What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a  government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?

I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.

[dothebeats]

What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a  government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?

I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.

That is a very good point. Too much help can make individuals negatively confident that they do not have to apply any effort and just depend on the subsidy they are getting to pay for their needs in life. Another good point on how politicians uses subsidy to gain control of the public. In my country, a lot of issues like that are always around during government election.

[Silberman]

What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a  government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?

I am more of a libertarian ideology, that is, I believe that it is better for societies to keep subsidies to a minimum, because the problem is that they discourage effort. There are extreme cases in which I agree that they should be given, what happens is that politicians immediately take a liking to distribute subsidies, which in many cases is a covert way of buying votes and abusing them you get to extreme cases of societies like Argentina that are a disaster because they have a very high level of subsidies but the population suffers hardships.

At most subsidies should be temporal in nature and they should be offered with certain conditions attached to them, if subsidies were used that way then even those that do not like them will at least tolerate them, but politicians see in subsidies a way to gain more power, and they make all kind of promises they know they cannot fulfill, but by the time this happens they will be out of office so they do not care, then whoever gets elected does the same, kicking the can and increasing the problem, but eventually a point is reached in which the consequences of those heavy subsidies cannot be hidden anymore and the economy does badly as a result of this.

[DrBeer]

The subsidy mechanism, as almost any entity has always two sides - positive and negative. It all depends on why and how this mechanism is used. In some situations, the state should really support local producers. But there are nuances - it should not be "maintenance on a permanent basis", i.e. business should not become a keeper at the expense of budgetary funds, while budgetary funds are taxes of citizens.
To all this, there are a huge number of other nuances - from the standard of living in the country, to corruption.... In a word - it is possible and necessary to use it, but in a dosed manner so as not to cause "intoxication"....

[EarnOnVictor]

The subsidy is good, but only with a progressive government and economy, it's a way the government gives back to the people which I believe is also the right of the people when they have a responsible government. However, the subsidy built on corruption, and also by the regressive government will certainly backfire. That is the case in Nigeria right now.

Corruption is not a genuine reason to stop subsidies. It is the government thet is corrupt and not the process of subsidizing these essential products.

Can you hear yourself, still contradicting what you wrote by yourself? Apart from the fact that you brought it out of a bundle of meanings before detaching that for the purpose of finding your contradictory meaning to it, the word "Subsidy" is meant for a purpose, and when the purpose is defeated by corruption that can't be solved or affecting the nation's purse, then it's useless. Subsidy-mixed with corruption is a burden to any country and its economy, especially when there is no progress or hope for it, it makes no sense to continue it with such an equation.

You don't subside when you don't have the muscle for it and when it is lined with corruption, subsidy is never by force, it's a privilege. Particularly when politicians are pocketing much of it and are not accountable for any reason, for whose gain is now the subsidy? To what end?

Therefore, I repeat in more simplified words in case you don't understand, a subsidy built on corruption in a bad economy is highly irresponsible and will always backfire.

Is the problem subsidy or corruption? In case you don't know many developed nations subsidy many products to help people live a good life. And these nations make the process transparent and void of corruption. You don't need to "throw away the baby with the water, you keep the baby and throw away the bathing water". My point is clear @EarnOnVictor tackle corruption and leave subsidy. If your sole reason for removing subsidy is because of corruption, then it's not good. What happens to the people that benefit from it?

If the government wants to stop subsidy because it cannot be sustained due to a fall in revenue or economic challenge, it's a better reason. Now the question you will ask yourself is that who is making the subsidy process corrupt? It is still the government. The money saved from subsidy will be shared among state governors through the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and most of these funds will go to private pockets. If the government makes the fuel subsidy process transparent, it will alleviate the suffering of the masses.

At this juncture, I don't know how else to explain to you since I believe you don't even know the meaning of what I wrote thereby dragging what is unnecessary or you are just the type that is blindly proving a point while deviating from the true content of the matter.

Regardless, I stand by my points, perhaps you want me to say that a sane country should subsidize with lies, corruption, and in a bad economy (irony). I won't mislead people.

Take that if that's what you want and leave others to believe what they know is right.

[kryptqnick]

I do believe in the social welfare state, so I think that the taxpayers' money should be used to provide or at least make more accessible essential services, but the subsidy isn't a great measure because it can be removed. It can only work as a temporary measure, and I guess that's how it's often introduced, but removal of the subsidy should be planned in advance, and occur gradually to allow people to adapt. I think proper programs of social security are better than measures like subsidies, unless we're talking about the state subsidizing certain industries (like public transportation, for example), which is different because it's not on the level of individuals and can be a long-term commitment.

[davis196]

The subsidies don't come from the sky. The government must take money from someone in order to give subsidies to certain businesses and groups of citizens. It's all about redistribution of wealth. I'm against subsidies, because many businesses become dependent of them and they lose their competitive advantage the moment the subsidies are taken away from them. I'm also against subsidized prices of goods and services(even food, gas and oil), because this deviates the free market and lowers poor people's motivation to develop some skills and find a better paying job. Having high levels of resource redistribution is mostly bad for the effectiveness of almost every economy around the world.

[el kaka22]

Unfortunately in my nation subsidy just means one thing; government helping out their family members. We have seen too many companies that are not crucial to the public end up getting part of our taxes just because those people ended up getting paid for it as well.

I want to point out that anytime taxes are used for anything but making the nation better, it is going to end up making it worse, there is no natural side of things, it is not going to end up being a bit of a change in the end and I feel like we are not going to see just straight up no change, we either do something good that helps all citizens, or if we are not using taxes like that, then it means we are doing something that will hurt them, those are the only options.

[Lorence.xD]

Just imagine coming from a country where the health services are free and hospitalizations are mostly taken care of by the government. Then you'll be going to the US, where you thought it was free but it ain't. It will really affect you financially because you'll shoulder it. It really gives a hard time to the citizen, but we hope that the government will not remove it. It is mostly about educational assistance for students, but again, it doesn't mean that we just rely on them; we should also do our hardship.

Sometimes despite the health services are free, some of the hospital doesn't have enough equipments and staff to assist the people especially when it comes to emergency. You'll be given a bed or wheelchair but you will wait for hours before they even take care of you so just imsgine if that's the situation and you're dying right? I'm not blaming the hospital itself but the government, due to its corrupt system it can't even provide a good facilities, enough salary from the staffs and equipment for the public hospitals. With that case some people would still go for the private despite the cost due to the comparison of the services. In short even when there's subsidy applied if the government itself is corrupt maybe it's useless.

[o48o]

-cut-
What do you think? Is government removal of subsidy from essentials products, services at this period of economic hardship people are facing the best policy a  government can embark on in the process of building her dwindling economy?

There are no silver bullets in society that have only upsides. Point of subsides and other kind of government interventions is to keep society functioning and citizens spending, money rotating and workers healthy.

You can argue what are the best policies for buildng a society, but every way has a negative and positive effect. Political science and economy is are complex fields where everything affects everything else and like in a jenga game removing one building block can crash the whole system or weaken the whole structure.

So asking if it's needed, it obviously is. But in which cases is a whole different issue. It isn't really "is it good or bad" kind of question.

[Flexystar]

The subsidy can be given by government if they are stable enough with the national reserves and their yearly revenues. From where they fill the treasury? From the taxes that we pay so definitely we need subsidy but we also need population that is strong enough to pay their taxes on time and every time. Various countries do not get as much taxes as any powerful or highly developed country gets. This leads to under income of the government and thus over burden on planning and executing the schemes like subsidies. Apart from this we need to understand that subsidy is not free coupon, we do have to payback the left over amount all the time along with interest. Many people fail to do it.

[wmaurik]

One possible approach could be a gradual phase-out of subsidies, allowing people and businesses to adapt and find alternative solutions. Governments could focus on implementing measures that promote economic growth and job creation, which could ultimately help mitigate the impact of subsidy removal.

If, for example, subsidies are not removed, I think the government can still make some changes to economic growth as long as the government can arrange every step needed by its citizens. Because in general subsidies can also help most people get the things they need every day at more affordable prices, so if the government continues to implement this, I don't think the economic conditions themselves will be too disturbed. Especially if there are some people who still really hope for subsidies from the government and do not agree with it being abolished.

Also investing in education, infrastructure, and sustainable industries could lead to long-term benefits for the economy and its citizens. Empowering businesses and individuals through grants and programs can also be a way to support economic growth without solely relying on subsidies.

Almost all government parties are very concerned about education, infrastructure, and industry in their own country. The point is to maintain development stability and also a more capable economy every year, because when these three things are always actively used by all people, of course the benefits that can be felt by the community and the country will be very visible. So that economic growth and education will also be better, especially if there is always support from the government itself for these three things.

[Unbunplease]

The subsidy can be given by government if they are stable enough with the national reserves and their yearly revenues. From where they fill the treasury? From the taxes that we pay so definitely we need subsidy but we also need population that is strong enough to pay their taxes on time and every time. Various countries do not get as much taxes as any powerful or highly developed country gets. This leads to under income of the government and thus over burden on planning and executing the schemes like subsidies. Apart from this we need to understand that subsidy is not free coupon, we do have to payback the left over amount all the time along with interest. Many people fail to do it.

Let's not forget that a significant portion of any budget is spent or misused. You have to go through a lot to get a subsidy. Sometimes the amount of the subsidy does not correspond to the moral and financial costs of receiving it. Therefore, it is often worth considering whether you should start getting a subsidy or whether it is better to save your nerves

[CarnagexD]

The subsidy can be given by government if they are stable enough with the national reserves and their yearly revenues. From where they fill the treasury? From the taxes that we pay so definitely we need subsidy but we also need population that is strong enough to pay their taxes on time and every time. Various countries do not get as much taxes as any powerful or highly developed country gets. This leads to under income of the government and thus over burden on planning and executing the schemes like subsidies. Apart from this we need to understand that subsidy is not free coupon, we do have to payback the left over amount all the time along with interest. Many people fail to do it.

Let's not forget that a significant portion of any budget is spent or misused. You have to go through a lot to get a subsidy. Sometimes the amount of the subsidy does not correspond to the moral and financial costs of receiving it. Therefore, it is often worth considering whether you should start getting a subsidy or whether it is better to save your nerves

I think what's more to be wary of is the people's overreliance of the subsidy given by the government. Well of course there must be a subsidy because we are paying taxes and that is where our money goes, to help each individual in need. However, if a person is only relying on it, for their food, for their shelter, for the allowances, then there won't be security in that.

People who become complacent in their life. They have a complete body yet not working. They are sitting on their couch all day blaming the government for the life that they have right now.

[zasad@]

In general, I'm not a huge fan of subsidies. Subsidies might be necessary in some instances, but I think it should be considered as the last resort. To a certain extent, a government that has limited resources but is all too willing to provide subsidies left and right is an incompetent and lazy government. It's a government that's not creative or innovative enough, a government that doesn't study, analyze, and look for other ways and means to improve certain conditions. Subsidies are dole-outs. They're a band-aid solution. They're not sustainable. Money put into subsidy is most often money that is wasted.

I am not satisfied with the fact that the money for subsidies is wasted. If social services are well developed in the country and any citizen can apply for help, then this reduces crime in the country. And for low-income families, this is one way to survive in a difficult situation.

[Darker45]

In general, I'm not a huge fan of subsidies. Subsidies might be necessary in some instances, but I think it should be considered as the last resort. To a certain extent, a government that has limited resources but is all too willing to provide subsidies left and right is an incompetent and lazy government. It's a government that's not creative or innovative enough, a government that doesn't study, analyze, and look for other ways and means to improve certain conditions. Subsidies are dole-outs. They're a band-aid solution. They're not sustainable. Money put into subsidy is most often money that is wasted.

I am not satisfied with the fact that the money for subsidies is wasted. If social services are well developed in the country and any citizen can apply for help, then this reduces crime in the country. And for low-income families, this is one way to survive in a difficult situation.

My point is, you can't address every problem with a subsidy. Subsidy is necessary in certain aspects, but it can't be a permanent solution. If the government's response is merely subsidy, such government is not working. It's not diving into the root cause of the problem.

I once created a thread here about the price of onions in my country reaching as high as $13 a kilo. As expected, the word subsidy surfaced. I don't agree it's necessary. Why is it expensive to begin with? Perhaps there is a need to create a strong agricultural program for onion farmers. Perhaps there is a need to bring down prices of fertilizers. Again, not by way of subsidy but something else more permanent. Perhaps there is an urgent call to courageously confront cartels and hoarders and smugglers. Or perhaps there is a need to craft policies in relation to the handling of agricultural products.

I mean there must be a number of ways to confront a problem other than simply providing subsidy. Subsidy will indeed bring down the prices almost instantly. That will appease the public. That will give the administration a good face in the media. But will it last?