So presidential candidate Mar Roxas (Mar), echoing President Noynoy Aquino’s (PNoy) refusal to lower income tax rates, claims that lower income tax rate would be detrimental to the Filipino people. He states that with a reduced collection in income taxes, many government programs where a lot of people benefit from would be compromised (e.g. PhilHealth, Social Security, 4Ps, etc.).While PNoy’s and Mar’s rationalization for keeping the income tax rates as high as it is at the moment may sound noble, unfortunately for them I wasn’t born yesterday. Even if I set aside (for now) the act that there are so many kleptocrats in government who would be pocketing the money collected from the taxes the government collects, the whole concept of investing our money right now (through taxes) to be used by the government to create something that would reap dividends for me later on is really a big pyramid scheme if you think about it. Besides, do we seriously think that government officials act with the public good at heart?
So why do I say that government taxation is a pyramid scheme? Well, in a pyramid scheme people who invest early would be paid dividends later on but not necessarily from a profitable or productive activity but by the money invested by new participants. The problem is that this scheme would not last forever because at some point there wouldn’t be enough new investors to support the earlier investors. The pyramid then collapses and the investors get fleeced. In Social Security, for instance, the money your retired parent or grandparent is receiving is not the money he or she paid in years ago. That money is long gone (it probably went to the construction of politican X’s third mansion years ago). The money is coming from people contributing into the system now. So what is the difference between Social Security and a typical pyramid scheme? Well a pyramid scheme is a scam but Social Security is perfectly legal. But that is pretty much the only difference. Government taxation for programs such as Social Security is mandatory and that is pretty much the only reason why these have survived while many pyramid schemes (which are not mandatory) have collapsed long ago. But even a mandatory pyramid scheme can collapse if it cannot have enough new contributors. How many people now have or are opting to move abroad to seek greener pastures elsewhere? How many people are not paying income taxes because they are either unemployed or underemployed? With lesser take-home pay for those who are lucky to have a steady job, there would be less money to spend on consumer goods, which means less profits for businesses, which means less money for businesses to sustain employees. Where does this lead to? A decreased tax base which means lesser participants to sustain the mandatory pyramid scheme the government is running! So in essence, while the government can force people into taxation, if there aren’t enough contributors to support the current beneficiaries, the pyramid would eventually collapse. Wouldn’t the country be better served by broadening the tax base by creating conditions leading to increased number of taxpayers by reducing taxes on current taxpayers, instead?
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
But what about the poor? How will they survive without pro-poor programs like the Conditional Cash Transfer dole-out program? This is the problem with getting suckered into thinking that government, under “righteous” government officials like PNoy and Mar, would act with the public good at heart and will create good things for the people (especially the poor). First of all, it is absurd to think that the government is being generous when it gives money to this or that poor person. The government has no money of its own because it merely takes money from private individuals or private enterprises. One good question to ask is: Would private individuals or private businesses have done better things with the money the government takes from them? I would argue that yes, they would. Not convinced? Well, think about this – which would you rather use, a public toilet or a toilet at a private business facility?
It isn’t even about having “righteous” people running the government. We would be kidding ourselves if we think that such “righteous” people act with the public good at heart. Government officials act in self-interest just like the rest of us mere mortals! Take the case of pork barrel scam involving Janet Lim Napoles that rocked the nation.
The PDAF or Pork Barrel Scam involved the funding of “ghost projects” that were funded using the PDAF funds of participating lawmakers. These projects were in turn “implemented” through Napoles’ companies, with the projects producing no tangible output.
…
Napoles, who specialized in trading agricultural products, frequently used the procurement of agricultural inputs in the propagation of the scam. Either her employees would write to legislators requesting for funds for the implementation of a particular project (e.g. farm inputs), or a legislator would indicate to the DBM a particular recipient agency for his or her PDAF funds that would be pre-selected by Napoles. Once received, this is forwarded to the DBM, which would then issue a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) indicating the amount deducted from the legislator’s PDAF allocation, and later a Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) given to the recipient agency. The NCA would then be deposited in one of the foundation’s accounts, and the funds withdrawn in favor of the JLN Group of Companies. The funds would then be split between Napoles, the lawmaker, the official of the DA responsible for facilitating the transfer of funds and, for good measure, the local mayor or governor. The JLN Group of Companies offered a commission of 10-15% against funds released to local government units and recipient agencies of PDAF funds, while a legislator would receive a commission of between 40-50% against the total value of his/her PDAF.
So because the money available for the lawmakers to appropriate isn’t the lawmakers’ own money to begin with, they never showed utmost concern on where this money will be going. Some lawmakers even claimed that it is not their responsibility to check the authenticity of the projects or NGOs where the money will be going to. If the money was theirs, do we think they would have been as careless as they were?
Another case to ponder on is with the disgraced former MRT3 general manager Al Vitangcol. Investigations revealed that:
…Vitangcol used his power and authority, as the MRT’s general manager, chief end-user, head of the negotiating team and BAC member all rolled into one, “to dictate the proponents invited for the preliminary negotiations” of the maintenance services, and “intentionally hid his (affinitive) relationship with Soriano, which would have automatically disqualified PH Trams.
So essentially he picked a bidder not necessarily because the bidder offered the best deal for the government but because of the bidder’s close affinity to Vitangcol. If the MRT 3 were Vitangcol’s property or from his own investment, wouldn’t he have picked a bidder that would offer the best deal for his own money? The fact that the money he is playing with isn’t his makes him less concerned about the return on investment. This is essentially how government works (with or without corruption), it doesn’t spend money as carefully as those who actually earned them.
Now even if we say that not all people in government are crooks, it is in how the system works that leads the way to inefficiency and waste. Congress appropriates the money collected from taxes and then the government bureaucracy rears its ugly head. Unlike in the private sector, government bureaucracy does not deal with bottom-lines. Their motivation is to spend all the money collected and budgeted or they will lose it the following year. So the tendency is to use the money on half-baked ideas just for the purpose of keeping the appropriations going. So such a system will not change by electing “righteous” politicians. It will only change if the motivation at spending for the sake of not losing what could have been appropriated diminishes by limiting the money taxpayers give the government to play with. On this tax issue I agree with Senator Sonny Angara when he said:
It is always better to plow money back in circulation, where it can stimulate the production and consumption of goods. Sometimes, instead of government doing the spending for the people, let the people do the spending themselves.
Afterall, no one spends money as carefully as he spends his own. So it isn’t about electing “righteous” people but a matter of narrowing government responsibilities. If people are left with more choices on how to spend more of their own money we could see better results. Good government also means less government. If income tax rates get lowered resulting in a broadened tax base, it may even save the pyramid scheme the government wants to perpetuate.
Calling a spade, a spade…
I just want to point out that Social security is supposed to be funded out of the contributions of its members. It is not public funds but rather a private pool of funds that the government can’t touch. If government claims that social security will be diminished by a reduction of taxes, then, they are lying!
Exactly.
When, how, and where they invest these money is what I am worried about. The decision makers decide this on the basis, it seem, on the commission they personally get from the decision — not in the best interest of members.
Good thing to point out.
I’m also pretty sure these politicos are not careful with their money. That’s why they resort to stealing it. You wouldn’t want to steal if you knew how to be careful with money.
Hmmm. Very good point there. Notice PNoy, Abad and co., during the height of the DAP scandal, they and their propagandists were jumping through hoops to try to define “savings” under the constitution their way. WTF? Isn’t the plain and simple definition enough? You definitely can’t trust a politico who doesn’t know what the word “savings” means.
A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something right.
Also, an investment on things you want built or maintained.
If you want roads and highways, all manner of public amenities, parks and other recreational facilities — thank your government.
If you want shit — go thank yourself.
Hey ya all Failipinos in the Failippines, whenever it’s income tax time, it is time to gather up those receipts, get out those tax forms, sharpen up that pencil, and stab yourself in the aorta.
Just think about it. At the current rate, four months in a year, all your income goes to a corrupt government. Only eight months in a year are you allowed to keep what you earn when you work.
FOUR FUCKING MONTHS. That’s a helluva time just to support the lifestyle of the crooks and SOBs.
People should revolt and declare a tax holiday.
“Good government also means less government.” should summarize everything. We have to demand this.
We are already a neoliberal dreamland — draconian rules on the supposedly leftist causes that aren’t enforced for various reasons, a spotty tax collection apparatus, drug laws that are among the world’s toughest, at least partly dysfunctional if not totally shitty welfare agencies, partly or fully privatized industries whose products are integral to our economy (electricity, water, telecommunications)… and you want MORE?!!!
Unfuckingbelievable.
“Less government” has been the mantra here since 1946. If you want even MORE of that (and lop off taxes in the name of bidness as part of it), buy me a third-class ticket to Sweden or Uruguay instead. I’m willing to pay taxes to finance projects that I’d want to see, and I’m reasonably confident with my swaying power — what I don’t want to see is “less government”.
The country that I’m living in is the fruit not only of past governmental mismanagement but of a small government misusing what powers it did have in the name of bidness and bidness players.
I don’t want any part of it, Add. Book me a flight now?
Well, the good old neoliberal dream of small government. However, it does not work. I rememnber when the British government privatized its railway system which was a former governmental monopoly. The result was a big disaster. The result was a number of competing railway operators and they really competed. But the investors tried to squeeze es much short time profit out of the system as possible. 15 years later the government renationalised the system partly.
Another example is the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia. In 2000 the city sold its water supply to US giant Bechtel. During the following months Bechtel rose the rate for tap water several times and finally poor families had to spend almost a third of their income to pay their water bill. They started to protest and riot so that the contract had to be terminated. Bechtel sued Bolivia at the World Bank arbitration court but dropped the case later.
So it’s not zhat easy.
Why Japan’s Rail Privatization Worked — and Why Britain’s Failed
I just remember that minimum-waged employees don’t get reaped of taxes from their salary. So the many contractual employees that mostly work in our business or industrial parks, as well as regulars who don’t get salary increase or their increase gets added to their ECOLA, contribute only in terms of VAT from the goods they consume. Taking from that example, it’s really possible to collect the tax the government needed even without taxing the poor and middle class (majority) population as long as they still contribute through the VAT from goods they are buying. And if indeed they can buy more with bigger salary not having to have bigger cuts, then the government can still meet their quota. However, normally from minimum wage, when these employees got regularized, increased in their minimum rate is only around P5-30. Cut the 10-15% tax and they even pay more than their merit increase. Bigger salary cuts, less buying power, lesser consumed goods and services, lesser VAT collection.