The "COVID Package"

As COVID-19 continues to spread in the world, an interesting phenomenon makes us wonder which is more important, the economy or public safety. Once the danger isn't imminent, people tend to pivot towards assets over lives(of others).

ahem.......... did you think we were going to joke about the pandemic because of the meme?

With many cities and countries locked down, the world reshapes, families reunited, couples reintroduced with one another. (Yes, people are dying and we don't mean any disrespect to those who suffer from life and death situations and to the medical personnel so hold your criticism. We are not Jolin Tsai; no one's filling our pockets.) Before it's over, should we consider like Trump says "the cure is worse than the disease"? The cure here means social distancing, limiting businesses, and the lock-downs. With a guesstimated number of people provoked by Trump's remarks, quasi-riots take place in several places demanding their freedom and calling regulations such as the above-mentioned "communism/socialism".

Well.... smart readers such as yourselves can ponder on that notion. On a more serious note though, how are the governments offering business funds may determine who gets to stand up once survived.

Google Search on "the relief package covid 19"

Unlike the U.S., which holds higher importance in the global economy and is struggling with both locking down(states) and opening up(business), the epidemic intelligence in Taiwan seems to be in a stable decline. The ruling government of Taiwan has created several policies in hopes of helping its people through this pandemic, namely ensuring salary, loan & rent allowance, upgrade & transform subsidies, vocational training (with allowance), domestic travel coupons, and business development plans(source: MOEA, Taiwan).

Similar to the U.S. though, complaints circle around on whether the emergency fund really goes to the ones in need and/or how the rich and powerful manipulated with the system and actually took up all the aid. What happened in the U.S. is that the banks which were assigned with the loans fumbled and many small businesses couldn't be helped due to wealthy corporations like the Los Angeles Lakers (NBA) and Shake Shack (burger chain originated from NYC). In Taiwan, little or no news so far has been about the rich getting funded but when the premier announced the latest relief plan (for part-timers, uninsured, Andy... etc.) so early that the related departments cannot catch up but the people have already lined up thinking about the money.

This brings what is our topic here today. The announcement for the emergency fund in Taiwan addresses that if the average income in a household is below a certain amount, you may apply for it. "Proving one's poverty" is the moral question. How can we ask the poor to prove its low status in society? How poor do people have to be and what are the factors that decide where help goes?

The determining factors are the easiest to understand, the poverty line, or somewhere below the minimum income per month. Even so, that only shows anyone that has a work record and those who do have a record should already be protected by law and stay above the line, shouldn't they? Freelancers, contractors, home business owners may be off the radar. They're not necessarily paying taxes but are also the ones that are least protected and likely to need assistance during a national crisis (just because they don't pay taxes does not mean that they don't work or have no value in the society).

Assuming that people who are possible applicants for the emergency fund are either very low-keep wealthy people or the minorities, why do you think the latter got there? They're not in the system for reasons most of us don't know or care about and now we want to help them by creating another system that not even we could understand? It does not sound like a good plan. For instance that a "street florist granny" obviously would meet the requirements in essence but she's not likely to finish the process if she doesn't have a smart friend/family member or a specialist to help but again, if she did, why would she still be there? It's a paradox.

Be that as it may, among these "minorities" are also those who are not suitable for the emergency fund and those who come for "free money". There are applicants who have lost their jobs for a period of time within or even before the outbreak of COVID-19. They should have been applying for social insurance/assistance (for unemployment). There are also senior citizens, some of whom have not worked for more than years or have never worked at all that wanted to get a piece of the share. No matter how easy or difficult the procedure is, just by these two types of applicants, complaints will spread faster than the virus. It all comes down to how the government announced the plan and how people comprehend it. There will always be those who disrupt a good intention. In order to create higher visibility, transparency must take priority to prevent the pretenders and the rest is just an IQ test.

To reach maximum coverage, we believe that there's only one way, welfare&tax reform, and unification. Remember UBI (Universal Basic Income)? It's understandable that commoners such as you and I would feel "giving money to the already wealthy isn't sensible" but have this in mind; they (should) pay more tax. The problem isn't really that they also get helped but rather, how are they taxed and the government makes sure that they are taxed. So next time in a discussion like this, instead of shouting "it's our money!", know that it's really mostly going to be theirs to you.

We have a welfare system but has it been working particularly well? The government spends an amount of budget to hire staff who examine, inspect, and have other tasks to try helping the minimum. In the process, people either don't, won't or can't get it so they complain. The power of negativity shall not be ignored. It turns into all kinds of evil. Imagine when all is but focused on the guarantee of survival, that everyone is promised the right to live in this country. Do we still need funds such as those for the unemployed, poor, elderly, domestic parents, and so on? The administration doesn't even need a budget for staff who handle this distribution because everyone gets it. We need to stop controlling and start giving people the chance to be responsible for their own lives. People are stupid if they just wait for aid.

Inflation! If everyone gets rich, no one is. Let's just put a stop there. If giving money makes it less valuable, why help at all? When people receive any type of aid, it's not that the cash is being printed for them. It's just a matter of redistribution. Where does money come from? Tax! We may sound ignorant and you may be right. We don't know much but we dare to say that the redistribution of tax is how it works. The cash goes into circulation in the market instead of sitting in the bank or becoming some empty real estates no one could afford.

Clearly, having financial aids plays a major part in the issue but more importantly, how and to whom? Will we focus on what's happening now, or what will happen in the long run? What's the core value of the people who are ruling this country?

We will take a break here.

#latefor2weeks

#selfreflect