Subsidies a tools for a balanced government?

[Israelgogo]

I really want to understand more why government always find interest in removing subsidy in a dying economy and promising to fix this funds from subsidies removal to different departments, but after a while the same funds are either use for personal travels, luxuries and insurance, what's actually the purpose of Subsidy? Like I want to know. Is it lack of knowledge or wicked mandate that so much money that's entrusted into the hands of government can not be explained where it lost to, what is used for, because same problems you claim to solves when they enter seats, is even worst of what the citizens are going through. What's this Subsidy all about for?

[Dunamisx]

Every government have their plans on how they want their administration to operate. If you are also new in an office, I know that you will make some reforms based on the plan for your own tenure; therefore let picture it from this perspective.

Back to the issue of subsidy removal, when this takes place, a spec that the government should use the fund in rebuilding the community and ensuring that people have access to enough infrastructures an other social amenities in the country, where the developing countries comes in to take advantage of effects like this for rural electrification, road construction, building free medical facilities, and also ensuring there is enough and adequate clean water for people to drink in the society, most especially the rural areas.

[Royal Cap]

I really want to understand more why government always find interest in removing subsidy in a dying economy and promising to fix this funds from subsidies removal to different departments, but after a while the same funds are either use for personal travels, luxuries and insurance, what's actually the purpose of Subsidy? Like I want to know.

Well, the main purpose of subsidy is not bad. Usually the government uses it to reduce the cost of food or any other important sector and reduce the pressure on the common people. Again as far as I know many times the decision is also taken to reduce some subsidies to maintain the balance of the economy in the long run.

Is it lack of knowledge or wicked mandate that so much money that's entrusted into the hands of government can not be explained where it lost to, what is used for, because same problems you claim to solves when they enter seats, is even worst of what the citizens are going through. What's this Subsidy all about for?

The real problem is often not the subsidy, but rather the lack of accountability, If the government says it will reduce subsidies and spend that money on education or infrastructure then where that money went and what results were achieved should be clearly presented to the public.

[uneng]

Subsidy can go to welfare programs to attend the poors, or it can be used to sponsor the government's agents paying for their meals, insurance, renting, luxuries and so on, as you said. And it can be also used to support businessmen through cheap interest or zero interest loans, especially for farmers.

Subsidies are necessary and very helpful, but end being used wrongly to favour political allies and as a dirty political strategy to maintain the masses accommodated and stagnant in eternal poverishness.

[$crypto$]

This is what I know --- subsidies are government assistance to the community by lowering food prices or other forms, which is to overcome the people that so that purchasing power remains stable.

Sometimes the allocation of subsidies is often misused by certain governments or officials where they enjoy themselves with luxury, this will not be strange because with a corrupt government then there is clearly worsening.

[9ja Amaka]

Before i delve into this discussion,  it will be ideal to understand the term subsidy. Subsidy is a means to lower the cost of production, so it will be more affordable for the consumers, it can also be said to be a financial aid from the government to help lessen the burden of its citizens.  After understanding the term subsidy,  we can explain further that subsidy cost the government a lot of money in other to reduce cost of production and make goods affordable for the citizens. I really think the removal of subsidy by a government is not a bad idea, it's definitely a tool to balance government or economy,  but the timing is very important and also what the money that is removed are used for. I think it's unfair for a government to remove subsidy from some certain goods when the economy is struggling and also if the economy is not struggling and they decide to remove subsidy,  the money should be put to a good use, that will definitely move the economy forward in the near future.

[Roseline492]

Removing subsidy is not a bad thing for a government who has a means to mitigate it in a way that it doesn't cause panic or suffering in the country because every country usually spend a lot of money on subsidy from there budget so removing it and using the money for infrastructure and more other important needs to the people is the best but at the same time is very wrong to remove subsidy without an adequate measures of mitigating it because is the whole country that would be suffering it because of the spike it will cause on transportation and commodities, as the Matter of fact is the problem my country has been into for three years.

[uchegod-21]

Subsidies are ways the government uses to reduce the price of essential commodities or services which, if left that way, people may struggle to afford. We can say that the government is paying for those essential things on behalf of the people.

Subsidies are an expense for the government, in fact, a major expense. So, when a country is suffering economically, one of the decisions the government may make is to remove subsidies on those items or services. They tell the people that they can no longer help them pay for these things, and that the money saved from subsidy removal will be used for something else that will still be beneficial to the people.

Such a decision may not be bad at first, but what is bad is when, after all the promises and assurances, the people do not see changes in the economy, new infrastructure, job opportunities, incentives, or amenities to compensate for the subsidy removal. The people have every right to demand accountability and transparency. If none is provided, then it is confirmed that the government is corrupt.

[Felicity_Tide]

Like I want to know. Is it lack of knowledge or wicked mandate that so much money that's entrusted into the hands of government can not be explained where it lost to, what is used for, because same problems you claim to solves when they enter seats, is even worst of what the citizens are going through. What's this Subsidy all about for?

Subsidy is actually a payment made by the government using public funds, to help cut the cost of items. I think they mainly target big sectors like for countries that import petrol for example. The government pay a certain subsidies fee for importation process, just to reduce cost for the common man. But for the other questions that you asked... Failing to utilise those funds is solely as a result of a failed and broken system. A system with zero accountability, where anyone can do whatever they like and get a way with. It's not like they lack the knowledge... They're just taking advantage of their own system, while making the lives of others a living hell all for greed.

[EluguHcman]

Like I want to know. Is it lack of knowledge or wicked mandate that so much money that's entrusted into the hands of government can not be explained where it lost to, what is used for, because same problems you claim to solves when they enter seats, is even worst of what the citizens are going through.

The effortless of the extravagant budgets of the governments over public funds as I may say is a systematic strategy of them (governments) to steal in the name of the projects.
Lack of good management can also setback public infrastructures in the ways that the governments will ignore to spend on necessity public facilities such as  cutting costs of living to contain the less privilege to at least afford the common lifestyle.

Education, good hygienes, medication and securities affairs has always been the major themes that citizens surfers over bad governance and until greed is exhaled and inhales an obligation as a public servant, believe it, the regimes of such looters will never get to an end except for revolution because, they ( politicians) had also hijacked the judiciary which was supposed to cover the masses up as the law permits.

[caroasi]

Subsidies seem to most often favoritism for business industry owners who bribe politicians, so I'm not sure why cutting them would be anything but excellent news. What subsidies do you mean?

Anyone who demands the government spending one shilling beyond the government's income is suggesting something so unfathomably reckless/negligent they belong in jail. Government debt is okay in small amounts for investment with a fixed and definite return on investment. Suppose you lived to be 250 years old in excellent health, but were in record amounts of debt... you'd universally be considered a fool because you would be a fool.

Finally, the implication of that two wrongs make a right, that subsidies, which are a propaganda word for cheating, somehow are a greater good for society in some way. You may be right, but you have to prove that with quite massive evidence on your side, because actually immoral actions cannot be expected to benefit society as a whole. I have yet to see it statistically proven that subsidies of any kind are a net benefit to society. Don't let the shocking lack of evidence get in your way... go ahead and prove the case. Ask an AI and report back, they'll make something up we can look at as those bots will love the government as their future source of subsidies.

[Majestic-milf]

This is what I know --- subsidies are government assistance to the community by lowering food prices or other forms, which is to overcome the people that so that purchasing power remains stable.

Sometimes the allocation of subsidies is often misused by certain governments or officials where they enjoy themselves with luxury, this will not be strange because with a corrupt government then there is clearly worsening.

The question is why introduce subsidy when you can actually make the economy less hard that there'd then be a need for subsidy? Each government have their aim of entering office and whenever things get too hard as a result of their making, they'd then bring in subsidy to make them look like the good guys when in essence it's just a means to make the average man look the other way from their corrupt acts.

[Fiatless]

Subsidy can go to welfare programs to attend the poors, or it can be used to sponsor the government's agents paying for their meals, insurance, renting, luxuries and so on, as you said. And it can be also used to support businessmen through cheap interest or zero interest loans, especially for farmers.

Subsidies are necessary and very helpful, but end being used wrongly to favour political allies and as a dirty political strategy to maintain the masses accommodated and stagnant in eternal poverishness.

Removal of subsidies is sometimes part of the requirements to access loans from international lending organisations. World Bank and the International Monetary Fund want to ensure that countries reduce expenses so that the loans can be repaid. 

It is useless for an incompetent and corrupt goverment to remove subsidies. This is because all the money saved from subsidy expenses would be stolen by criminal politicians. I still regret why our goverment removed the fuel subsidy. This was one major means that the citizens benefited from our commonwealth. Since the subsidy was removed, politicians now have more money to steal.   

[Shadiq]

The purpose of subsidy is not bad, but due to the corruption of corrupt leaders, even these good intentions seem corrupt. When farmers are not getting fair prices and the purchasing power of the general public may decrease due to price increase, the government provides some subsidy. This can be in various sectors such as education sector, banking sector, medical sector, controlling the prices of daily necessities in the market and many other necessary sectors.

Subsidies are not always stable but are reduced or increased or replaced as needed. But accountability and transparency have not yet been created as to whether those replacements are being done transparently or whether they are being used for public welfare. This is actually not the fault of the system, but the fault of corrupt leaders.

[montaga]

Subsidies just takes from the competed and funnels it in-competed fools.
Because government is doing its called a subsidies, otherwise you would call it a scam.

[Accardo]

Removing subsidy is not a bad thing for a government who has a means to mitigate it in a way that it doesn't cause panic or suffering in the country because every country usually spend a lot of money on subsidy from there budget so removing it and using the money for infrastructure and more other important needs to the people is the best but at the same time is very wrong to remove subsidy without an adequate measures of mitigating it because is the whole country that would be suffering it because of the spike it will cause on transportation and commodities, as the Matter of fact is the problem my country has been into for three years.

In Nigeria, Fuel Subsidy was abused by the rich, which led to its removal by President Tinibu, but he shouldn't have implemented it to everyone, it's like punishing the poor for the corruptions of the rich who abused this subsidy. Having a targeted subsidy in Nigeria would have solved the problem without affecting the innocent citizens with zero arbitrage on fuel subsidy. In this kind of subsidy, those who abused the system will not have to do it anymore, while the innocent people go on to enjoy the subsidy without damaging any incentives.

[Dunamisx]

Government strategize towards making use of subsidies and has an effective means to make life affordable for the citizens; therefore, it is not a right but a consideration by the government to alleviate the people and make life affordable for them, stipulating a particular percentage from their resource income generation together with other IGR to subsidize the cost of living, making life affordable for its citizens.

[Roseline492]

Removing subsidy is not a bad thing for a government who has a means to mitigate it in a way that it doesn't cause panic or suffering in the country because every country usually spend a lot of money on subsidy from there budget so removing it and using the money for infrastructure and more other important needs to the people is the best but at the same time is very wrong to remove subsidy without an adequate measures of mitigating it because is the whole country that would be suffering it because of the spike it will cause on transportation and commodities, as the Matter of fact is the problem my country has been into for three years.

In Nigeria, Fuel Subsidy was abused by the rich, which led to its removal by President Tinibu, but he shouldn't have implemented it to everyone, it's like punishing the poor for the corruptions of the rich who abused this subsidy.
 

Yes there was an abuse on the subsidy because most influencer people were sending petrol to another country so that they would sell and get a lot of money with a more higher price but however I don't think it was the reason why it was removed in my country because if it was profiting Tinubu he wouldn't have removed it so since he knew that the federal government is spending money while some persons are getting rich from it he had to make the worst decision because with what the removal has caused in my country it would have been better if those people were doing those things and the country is still stable in the price than what is happening now.

[Findingnemo]

Subsidy is kind of a relif for a struggling market that the government want them to continue doing it, so they bear the loss so they will keep doing it again. For example, the government may announce a subsidy for agriculture-related machines, products or anything means the farmer is not making enough money to cover the expensse but government just want the farmet to farm again because the crop is necessary for the survival of their people.

[HelliumZ]

Subsidies are generally given by the government for the welfare of the people, but in our country, subsidies are generally used for the welfare of the people instead of for the welfare of the people. For example, in our country, sometimes when the demand for agricultural fertilizers increases greatly, the government distributes fertilizers and pesticides to farmers with subsidies. This is undoubtedly used for the welfare of the people by taking money from the government treasury as subsidies. But politically, when the government gives subsidies from its treasury as government incentives, government allowances and bonuses, house rent and medical allowances, travel allowances, etc., then state resources are misused. That is, subsidies should not be given in any way in all these cases. Subsidies should be given only when the money from that subsidy is used for national development and economic growth.