Since the early 1990s, inequality has intensified in Pakistan. The consumer boom under the Musharaf regime, coupled with high inflation since 2007 has widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
While the rhetoric in the media is largely made up about issues of access to resources and state services, the wider implications for ignoring inequality are ignored.
Some quick thoughts on this.
1) Given the minuscule number of tax payers in the country, the idea of having a progressive taxation system that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is non-existent. We still live in a system where individuals, even those who can well afford it, expect the state to provide them services for free.
2) The states inability to raise enough taxes forces it to borrow money from the State Bank, commercial bank or foreign sources. In all of these cases the increase in inflation and the burden of repaying the debt is borne primarily by those who the state should be protecting. The "haves" however are net beneficiaries through low or non existent tax obligations.
3) Links between politicians, civil servants, the military, industrialists and feudal networks insures that resources are allocated in a manner that serves their own interests. Laws, systems and methods that would help to reduce inequality either by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, or by improving the state of the poor are non-existent or co-opted to suit the interests of a small segment of society.
This list could go on for several more points, but I think you get the picture. As we rally against price hikes, increase in the cost of gas, oil and electricity, corruption and mismanagement, we should stop to remember that even in the worst of times, they are winners and losers. The winners continue to win big, while the losers lose more badly. The long term costs of increased inequality are mostly ignored.
The following talk best summarises alot of the points I would agree with.
While the rhetoric in the media is largely made up about issues of access to resources and state services, the wider implications for ignoring inequality are ignored.
Some quick thoughts on this.
1) Given the minuscule number of tax payers in the country, the idea of having a progressive taxation system that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is non-existent. We still live in a system where individuals, even those who can well afford it, expect the state to provide them services for free.
2) The states inability to raise enough taxes forces it to borrow money from the State Bank, commercial bank or foreign sources. In all of these cases the increase in inflation and the burden of repaying the debt is borne primarily by those who the state should be protecting. The "haves" however are net beneficiaries through low or non existent tax obligations.
3) Links between politicians, civil servants, the military, industrialists and feudal networks insures that resources are allocated in a manner that serves their own interests. Laws, systems and methods that would help to reduce inequality either by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, or by improving the state of the poor are non-existent or co-opted to suit the interests of a small segment of society.
This list could go on for several more points, but I think you get the picture. As we rally against price hikes, increase in the cost of gas, oil and electricity, corruption and mismanagement, we should stop to remember that even in the worst of times, they are winners and losers. The winners continue to win big, while the losers lose more badly. The long term costs of increased inequality are mostly ignored.
The following talk best summarises alot of the points I would agree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment