Electricity increases 400%?

[BlahBlah]

The point is that this hits lower middle class family income harder than anyone. People earning a household income of 3000 pesos are not rolling in benjamins, this tax cut hits a demographic which is struggling anyway.

Upper middle class and wealthy people can bear the cost albeit grudgingly, but this is the sort of measure that can actually increase poverty by pushing already struggling families over the poverty threshold by taking a significant bite out of their income.

More on the definition of poverty here:
http://www.indec.gov.ar/principal.asp?id_tema=84

Poverty is a relative measure and based on ability to buy essential services and food. Whilst the very bottom tier of society might be unaffected by the price hike, the next tier up will get hit very hard. This isn't the rich losing a subsidy, its almost everybody getting hit equally, including those least able to pay.

That's why the people that use the most have to pay the most. And that's also why the lower middle class you talk about is less hard hit then the upper middle class and upper class

 

[jp]

Lower middle class with big families will use a lot of electricity. Fridges and washing machines gobble up power.

There's no way to discriminate whether electricity demands are catering for basic needs of a large family, or the luxury needs of a wealthy couple with AC on 24/7 and a plasma screen beaming out from every room. It just gets marked up as energy consumption.

So there will be people this affects adversely, and for them this is very unfair. But unless they rework the nature of the subsidy there's no way of avoiding this.

 

[nikad]

Lower middle class with big families will use a lot of electricity. Fridges and washing machines gobble up power.

There's no way to discriminate whether electricity demands are catering for basic needs of a large family, or the luxury needs of a wealthy couple with AC on 24/7 and a plasma screen beaming out from every room. It just gets marked up as energy consumption.

So there will be people this affects adversely, and for them this is very unfair. But unless they rework the nature of the subsidy there's no way of avoiding this.

and of course it is lower middle class families teh ones who cannot afford to buy new appliances that use less energy.

 

[BlahBlah]

Lower middle class with big families will use a lot of electricity. Fridges and washing machines gobble up power.

There's no way to discriminate whether electricity demands are catering for basic needs of a large family, or the luxury needs of a wealthy couple with AC on 24/7 and a plasma screen beaming out from every room. It just gets marked up as energy consumption.

So there will be people this affects adversely, and for them this is very unfair. But unless they rework the nature of the subsidy there's no way of avoiding this.

Quit with subsidies and make everybody pay a marketprice for electricity, gas, fuel and public services

 

[BlahBlah]

and of course it is lower middle class families teh ones who cannot afford to buy new appliances that use less energy.

And offcourse they still recieve subsidies that also could be used to stop the hunger in the provinces

 

[RWS]

The problem's more complex than anyone can solve, I fear. Even targetted subsidies encourage the poor to increase the number of children they have and thus with other measures act to perpetuate poverty, regardless of attempts, generally unsuccessful, to better education and largely eliminate poverty. Yet we can't allow our fellow creatures to die of hunger, can we? Nor can we, through unreasonable taxation or restrictions, discourage the engines of national wealth, the working classes, from innovating and improving the economy. A vast, unsolvable conundrum.

 

[BlahBlah]

The problem's more complex than anyone can solve, I fear. Even targetted subsidies encourage the poor to increase the number of children they have and thus with other measures act to perpetuate poverty, regardless of attempts, generally unsuccessful, to better education and largely eliminate poverty. Yet we can't allow our fellow creatures to die of hunger, can we? Nor can we, through unreasonable taxation or restrictions, discourage the engines of national wealth, the working classes, from innovating and improving the economy. A vast, unsolvable conundrum.

There is nothing wrong with the policy to reduce subsidies on public services by making the ones who use the service the most to pay more.

The only other alternative is if you reduce subsidies for everyone. This will only benefit the rich, the ones who least need it

And when there are policies there are always winners and losers, but that's the thing with policy, you can't make everybody happy

For the ones who think they pay to much, take in consideration that you are still subsidized by the state, so there is not a single argument to say that you should not pay it. You pay less because the Argentine people and state support you pay for your subsidies