Spread Sheets Of Daily Expenses

[Matiasba]

I wasn't referring to you Matias, but fyi, being unemployed doesn't imply being poor and as you know a lot of people in this country who are far away from being poor get subsidies

Exactly, in fact, ALL THE ENTIRE CITY neighbourhoods except Recoleta (in that barrio you have to ask for them and justify) and gated communities, countries, etc, are subisdized.
Two years ago they took the subisdions for Recoleta and private condos, etc, but the rest, where you include huge amounts of upper middle class and upper classes in general, still have subisdios.

I believe no matter if you re poor or not, being unemployed is a matter of recieving subsidios. Taking into consideration the huge amount of money the people lose, like not making any aporte to jubilacion, for example, or obra social, apart from not recieving a peso because you dont have any income...

 

[PhilipDT]

I believe no matter if you re poor or not, being unemployed is a matter of recieving subsidios. Taking into consideration the huge amount of money the people lose, like not making any aporte to jubilacion, for example, or obra social, apart from not recieving a peso because you dont have any income...

Aren't you renting out PH that you own?

 

[Matiasba]

I wasnt talking on my situation but of a tipical unempoyment situation.
Not everyone can rent an apartment.

 

[PhilipDT]

I wasnt talking on my situation

Im unemployed... thats why I get subsidios.

 

[thorsten]

It's a valid opinion to have that people should receive subsidies independent of their income/wealth, so that even rich people who own several apartments for example are able to receive subsidies (even though I disagree with it). However, please don't use the terms "social program" or "inclusion" for this... I find it highly weird that Argentina basically pays subsidies for my personal consumption of electricity/gas even though I wouldn't consider myself as poor and I'd think that there are a lot of locals here that would really need the support from the state in various areas. Not only does this have nothing to do with inclusion, it basically leads to counterproductive redistribution effects (rich people actually profit more from the various subsidies than the poor people) and is also negative for the infrastructure (ever wondered about the huge amount of blackouts here compared to other countries...).

 

[Matiasba]

You have to be more careful to read, especially if you want to be agressive.

 

[PhilipDT]

You have to be more careful to read, especially if you want to be agressive.

I wasn't trying to be aggressive, I was just pointing out that it seemed like you had justified the fact that you were getting subsidies even though you're a property owner by mentioning that you were unemployed.

 

[Matiasba]

It's a valid opinion to have that people should receive subsidies independent of their income/wealth, so that even rich people who own several apartments for example are able to receive subsidies (even though I disagree with it). However, please don't use the terms "social program" or "inclusion" for this... I find it highly weird that Argentina basically pays subsidies for my personal consumption of electricity/gas even though I wouldn't consider myself as poor and I'd think that there are a lot of locals here that would really need the support from the state in various areas. Not only does this have nothing to do with inclusion, it basically leads to counterproductive redistribution effects (rich people actually profit more from the various subsidies than the poor people) and is also negative for the infrastructure (ever wondered about the huge amount of blackouts here compared to other countries...).

I do not agree with subsidios para todos either, I think is a waste of energy while energy in general is an increasing problem world wide and we can not have the luxury of wast it with subsidios for everyone. This said, I think subsidios played a big role in the past years for the marginated, for the excluded, for the poor. Its the same as transport, if you put a dirty cheap price you are reactivating a depressed economy with 53% under the poverty line, so that measure kind of was a must and helped a lot to reactivate economy.

 

[Alicia karr]

In Recoleta they took away the subsidies a few years ago. You could still ask for it but had to make a new request with explanation. It was tempting, but even without it, my heat and electric comes to only $50US a month.
However I'm not sure I feel socially included.....

 

[thorsten]

I do not agree with subsidios para todos either, I think is a waste of energy while energy in general is an increasing problem world wide and we can not have the luxury of wast it with subsidios for everyone. This said, I think subsidios played a big role in the past years for the marginated, for the excluded, for the poor. Its the same as transport, if you put a dirty cheap price you are reactivating a depressed economy with 53% under the poverty line, so that measure kind of was a must and helped a lot to reactivate economy.

Matias, I think we can agree on something I don't say subsidies in general are bad - some of them make perfect sense. However, each subsidy should have a clear goal (e.g., enriching the life of poor people, providing better education, ...) and I don't see any reasonable goal for the subsidies on electricity/gas (at least the way they are implemented). The transport example you provided is actually a subsidy which makes a lot of sense to me: it affects mainly people from lower income groups, improves the infrastructure and is an environmentally better choice than financing new cars.
It might be even possible that the subsidies on electricity/gas made sense once upon a time (I don't know the historical situation that well, so can't judge here), but nowadays they are just counter-productive and the major negative aspect of subsidies is that they are easily introduced (as it always buys sentiment), but hardly ever corrected or removed (again for political reasons).