Who should bear the burden when Government Policies cause Hardship?

[atookz]

My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?

IMO, it's as simple as this, a policy that is supposed to affect everybody in the long term shouldn't be mostly affecting those with the thinnest margins.

Take a look at France in 2018. The government hiked fuel taxes, in part for climate issues, and this is a reasonable objective. However, it affected rural folks who relied on their cars and who didn’t have a choice, and it triggered the Yellow Vests protests. The government ended up suspending the increase. It was the same in Ecuador in 2019, when they eliminated fuel subsidies. Big protests followed, and the decree was withdrawn less than two weeks later.

Meanwhile, the Philippines 2018 tax reform (TRAIN law) included unconditional cash transfers for millions of poor households. Not perfect, as prices continued to increase and critics complained about a lack of support, but at least it included the concept of paying the poor to begin with.

My lesson, the good kind of reform is gradual, compensates people in advance, and offers real alternatives, not just a tax bill. Otherwise even a good policy goes awry, and no one benefits from it.

[Solodoski]

There are government policies that is meant for a long term and may affect the people while it's still on process, but I think a good government should be able to profer solutions for the time being, so the ordinary citizens don't suffer from the policy. A good government should understand the people better and also consider them when making policies.  They might claim that the policy is for the betterment of the people, but what is the uses when the people that are suppose to enjoy the benefit in the future end up dying because of the policy that is mentioned to better their lives in the future.  I think government should first find a way for the people to cope during that period,  before even considering to embark on such policies.

[Nwadiche]

They will all complain, but you will see them cope.

When government have not done anything, you will still see some people struggling in life, but if government do something like that, they will be blaming the government and not blame their moves that is not smart in money making

You're right, unlike Nigeria government's the present president who took power 2023 on th first day of power he said fuel subsidy is gone instantly cost of living became high. People where crying, lamenting upon everything that happened then even still happening till dates people survived. Although many people has lost their life due to the economic hardship but those who survived it are still coping with the hardship.

[Sobz]

There are government policies that is meant for a long term and may affect the people while it's still on process, but I think a good government should be able to profer solutions for the time being, so the ordinary citizens don't suffer from the policy. A good government should understand the people better and also consider them when making policies.  They might claim that the policy is for the betterment of the people, but what is the uses when the people that are suppose to enjoy the benefit in the future end up dying because of the policy that is mentioned to better their lives in the future.  I think government should first find a way for the people to cope during that period,  before even considering to embark on such policies.

Are their good and intentional policies that can make people go hungry and to make companies and businesses not to be able to continue with their day to day work? Government go about policies needs to be done with understanding and not allowing it to cause hardship.  The government cant achieve everything at a time and for them to work in a policy they just need to be careful with it so it doesn't affect the common people. If the government is working on agriculture, atleast let it beens with decrease of the price of food and with high quantity and it ought not to make people go hungry.

[Odusko]

One thing I’ve come to notice is that government policies don’t affect everyone equally. Someone with good income and savings may adjust to the rise in expenses but a person living under low salary struggle to afford even basic needs.
I understand that some policies may bring long term benefits but what happens to those who cannot cope with the hardship that comes with it. In my one opinion I think the government needs to consider how ordinary people will survive the transition before introducing major changes.

My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?

Let make example of government policies under this category meaning policies that promised long term benefits with immediate hardship to the people, like the fuel subsidy removal that spike economic hardship, raises cost of transportation and food stuff's, if the government want to make the impact less feel by the citizens they should have put in place an alternatives that are cheap for people to fall back to if petroleum product become very expensive like it is right now, but a failed government will always leave their citizens to suffer in such situations without palliative or or incentive to reduce the burden of hard government policies.

[programmer3666]

One thing I’ve come to notice is that government policies don’t affect everyone equally. Someone with good income and savings may adjust to the rise in expenses but a person living under low salary struggle to afford even basic needs.
I understand that some policies may bring long term benefits but what happens to those who cannot cope with the hardship that comes with it. In my one opinion I think the government needs to consider how ordinary people will survive the transition before introducing major changes.

My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?

The government caused the hardship so they should be the one to fix it. You can't intentionally break somebody's leg and you then ask the person to walk around as if nothing happens, you will have to foot the hospital bills for the person's treatment, same thing applies to the government. The Government will boldly subsidize fuel and food prices will instantly jump to a high rate and they will use statements like it is a short term pain for a long term gain which is complete bullshit. The ordinary man on the street didn't sign up for the suffering so the government should carry the load of fixing the problem.

[BADecker]

You see all the troubles in France these days. I wonder how long it will be before Macron ends up on the Guillotine.

[uneng]

Who should bear the burden? The government itself! If sacrifices are demanded, the government should be the first to give the example. The reducement of the expenses with the public machinery is the initial step in every economical policies.

Decrease the number of commissioned (political) job spots, decrease the number of ministeries, decrease the wages of the such jobs spots, decrease the number of elected politicians, abolish public money going into political propaganda and campaigns, reduce the number of districts, cities and attach them to government of larger ones, cease the luxuries for the judiciary system and military high ranks.

When the government cuts expenses, they display a genuine demonstration they are willing to sacrifice itself for common welfare. Therefore, citizens have a reason to cooperate with the reforms, while not feeling they are being abused by the local authorities.

[Nwadiche]

In this case i strongly believe that the government's has to bear the burden,  they should take the biggest responsibilities when it's policies caused hardship for their citizens. Their citizens don't need to suffer alone for decisions they didn't makes. I think the government's should listen to their people and find means of reducing the burden of their citizens, the government's need to make things right for their citizens especially on those who struggle to survive.

[Doll2233]

In the ideal society government don't don't make laws or policy to enburden or stressed any body mostly when it has to do with goods and services or consumption commodity, the reason government carryout feasibility study, research, survey and all sort of information gathering when making policies or laws including the gathering of all classes of the citizens including all arms of the government for better resolution on how better policy are made to suit the common man in the societies what happened is the inequality problem that exists in society no man's how policy are made everyone must not be at the same paste that is the reason the least in financial income happened to be burden, receive the pain of all policy mostly when it's towards consumables products that every class is going for, and the demand and supply have it's impact on them.

The policies of the government should be designed in away that they are for the welfare of all the citizens that they work with. But the reality that the same policy is affecting people with different income groups entirely differently. If there is an increase in the prices of essential goods , than the people who are earning good enough they have high income, they sometimes didn't noticed that increase in the price of the commodities. Where as the people who are struggling financially, they are low income earners, they have low wages, they have to struggle to afford basic needs. That is the main reason that government should considered the financial situation of every citizen before making any policy. That is going to affect the basic needs of the citizens. Public consultation is quite important. They should also try to translate that consultation into practical decisions. That is going to protect the rights of the ordinary and vulnerable citizens. A policy should not always be economically good or beneficial to the whole country. It should be affordable for everyone. It should also be sustainable for the people who have to live with the consequences of it.

[Otaibayomi]

One thing I’ve come to notice is that government policies don’t affect everyone equally. Someone with good income and savings may adjust to the rise in expenses but a person living under low salary struggle to afford even basic needs.
I understand that some policies may bring long term benefits but what happens to those who cannot cope with the hardship that comes with it. In my one opinion I think the government needs to consider how ordinary people will survive the transition before introducing major changes.

My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?

This is the situation Nigeria is in at the moment, and I would say it again as I have said it in conversations amongst my friends that, it's a government that is not responsible or that cares less about it's populace that implements policies that would affect the livilihood of the people without providing adequate cushion effects to alleviate the people's struggles. Most countries of the world at one point or the other would have to implement policies and not all of these policies will go down well with everyone, but your ability to understand these statistics and work with it makes you a people government unless ofcourse it's not a democratic system of government. But even military rulers have blood in their veins too. So the government should take the fall for their insensitivities and be also be made to bear the brunt of such decisions by the people withdrawal of their mandate from such cruelty called government.

[Victorybit1]

I think a brilliant government doesn't just find problems and implement solutions, but they think of how and when to introduce policies, for example, you don't juts remove subsidy from something important like petrol without cushioning the fall or provide an alternative that would will the citizens cope until the long term is accomplished because removing or implementing policies that can cause instant poverty or hardship without a cushion can increase crime rate, starvation and death among the common consequences

[Iconic_J]

On a normal circumstance the government is to bear the burden but that is always not the case. This is because the government understands that the people only grumble and probably protest for an initial period but as humans we learn to adjust and fall back in line.
This is why they carry out such policies with little to no concern about the ripple effect it will have on the economy and lives of the average people. The burden eventually becomes our own as the people.

[Doll2233]

Who should bear the burden? The government itself! If sacrifices are demanded, the government should be the first to give the example. The reducement of the expenses with the public machinery is the initial step in every economical policies.

Decrease the number of commissioned (political) job spots, decrease the number of ministeries, decrease the wages of the such jobs spots, decrease the number of elected politicians, abolish public money going into political propaganda and campaigns, reduce the number of districts, cities and attach them to government of larger ones, cease the luxuries for the judiciary system and military high ranks.

When the government cuts expenses, they display a genuine demonstration they are willing to sacrifice itself for common welfare. Therefore, citizens have a reason to cooperate with the reforms, while not feeling they are being abused by the local authorities.

Government should lead the way – we always hear this and it's fine but more than reducing the number of people or employees in the position, the cost of the government should be reduced. The main priority should be to eliminate any sort of corruption to avoid UN necessary contract and wasteful spendings but simply reducing ministries districts or elected representatives is not going to make the economy stronger. There should be some institutions that will give proper accountability and services. Means that they will create more problems for ordinary citizens if they don't have any proper plan and cut them out. And it is also the responsibility of the government to make their spending transparent and also try to make sure that the funds that they are getting from the public should go directly towards their infrastructure , employment opportunities,  healthcare and toward their education sector.

[AgriTrack]

I think it should be the main priority of any government to protect vulnerable people. Because due to increases in living costs, it's very difficult to survive right now on the same income. Every government wants long-term financial growth, but that does not mean that ordinary people pay the price by compromising their basic needs. The government should give relief to ordinary people by giving subsidies on utility bills, affordable health facilities and make schemes which give financial support to people. So these facilities have a positive impact over time and economic development should make people able to survive any financial crisis. Because when people have a proper flow of cash, temporary crises don't have long-term effects. If people aren't able to purchase good food and meet their needs on a daily basis, then what's the benefit of a strong economy like the Indian government's?

[Mr Reporter]

I think it should be the main priority of any government to protect vulnerable people. Because due to increases in living costs, it's very difficult to survive right now on the same income. Every government wants long-term financial growth, but that does not mean that ordinary people pay the price by compromising their basic needs. The government should give relief to ordinary people by giving subsidies on utility bills, affordable health facilities and make schemes which give financial support to people. So these facilities have a positive impact over time and economic development should make people able to survive any financial crisis. Because when people have a proper flow of cash, temporary crises don't have it long-term effects. If people aren't able to purchase good food and meet their needs on a daily basis, then what's the benefit of a strong economy like the Indian government's?

I strongly agree with the point being raised here, economic growth should not only be measured by how strong a country economy appear on paper but also by how much improvement ordinary citizens experience in their daily lives. A country may record impressive economic progress but if the majority of its people are still struggling to afford food, healthcare, electricity and other basic necessities, then there is a serious gap that needs attention.

[Samlucky O]

One thing I’ve come to notice is that government policies don’t affect everyone equally. Someone with good income and savings may adjust to the rise in expenses but a person living under low salary struggle to afford even basic needs.

Yeah.. actually those with good income or saving may have adjusted a little bit to escape the situation than those with low income or without even a Job, but it doesn't mean its not affecting them. It's affecting everyone because you will spend extra now compeard to your previous expenses.  So no one is left out.

I understand that some policies may bring long term benefits but what happens to those who cannot cope with the hardship that comes with it. In my one opinion I think the government needs to consider how ordinary people will survive the transition before introducing major changes.

Well in as much as government is concerned, any policies government adopt, will definitely affect the masses either positively or negatively. There is never a policy that favours everyone. So since it has been so for a long time, we don't need to think too much about it. Rather we adjust to suit any situation that comes with it. And lastly government doesn't consider anyone when they are implementing any policy because doing that may affect their agenda. They must step on people's to wether you like it or not, that's why government will not care about how you feel when they want to implement policies.

[NewRevelation]

One thing I’ve come to notice is that government policies don’t affect everyone equally. Someone with good income and savings may adjust to the rise in expenses but a person living under low salary struggle to afford even basic needs.
I understand that some policies may bring long term benefits but what happens to those who cannot cope with the hardship that comes with it. In my one opinion I think the government needs to consider how ordinary people will survive the transition before introducing major changes.

My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?

From the topic title, let's say it was,, who bears..?, then it's a very simple thing to say that the masses bears it all, because the rich can adjust or afford to live there lives as they wish, while the low class suffers the changes and some may not be able to keep up, thus managing life as they see it. This alone has forced many citizens into the streets to seel for survival. Some funding positive ways to survive, while some go for crime.

For your question, any policy that will increase hardship for the common man should not be implemented. On the other hand, if the policy will stabalise things in years to come, then it can come onboard, but then, measures have to be put in place for adequate substance of the poor while things get well.

[Callido]

My question is; when a government introduces a policy that may benefit the country in the long run but puts immediate pressure on on people’s daily lives, what responsibility should it have towards those who cannot cope barely afford the transition?

People will survive when the government puts long-term pressure on the economy with no hope of resurrecting the economy to balance, leading to hardship. People learn to survive, in most cases, salaries are not increased to match the new cost of things.

It will be hard on them, but in your case, since it is temporary, short-term pain for the gain of the long term, it's definitely worth the patience.

[Abdul Sami786]

I think it should be the main priority of any government to protect vulnerable people. Because due to increases in living costs, it's very difficult to survive right now on the same income. Every government wants long-term financial growth, but that does not mean that ordinary people pay the price by compromising their basic needs. The government should give relief to ordinary people by giving subsidies on utility bills, affordable health facilities and make schemes which give financial support to people. So these facilities have a positive impact over time and economic development should make people able to survive any financial crisis. Because when people have a proper flow of cash, temporary crises don't have it long-term effects. If people aren't able to purchase good food and meet their needs on a daily basis, then what's the benefit of a strong economy like the Indian government's?

I strongly agree with the point being raised here, economic growth should not only be measured by how strong a country economy appear on paper but also by how much improvement ordinary citizens experience in their daily lives. A country may record impressive economic progress but if the majority of its people are still struggling to afford food, healthcare, electricity and other basic necessities, then there is a serious gap that needs attention.

Everyone is trying to convince the government that only the development of the country is not enough.It is equally important to put less the burden of inflation on the shoulders of the people because the poor class is having to bear the brunt of the government wrong policies because the rich class is spared in every case.Inflation has no special effect on them. The rich class takes the law into their own hands and the opportunities for success are provided to the rich class more.The government should ensure that both classes get equal rights.No one should get more or less.It is the right of the people to get them out of the mire of difficulties because the government is implemented by it to meet the needs of the people and at the same time to try and work hard for the development of the country.