Is redistribution unfair to rich and unemployed citizens?

Equality of condition, as defined by Ricardo Tocqueville, is the “ability of any individual to have an equal opportunity at achieving success or upward movement in society. Through hard work, and good character, a person will certainly alleviate his current social standing. Equality of condition is harmless, since it attempts to give everyone the same opportunity of what another man has in changing his current social situation.

An example of an evidence of the existence of Equal Condition was during the first years of Europeans colonizing the Americas. The “New Americans” were limited of their titles, positions or aristocratic orders. They were free to engage in art, commerce and literature without any criticism or any government interruptions. The people were free to work in an attempt to move upward in society. This was only possible because they had no titles or inheritances carried over from Europe “the old world”.

This however, is not the case in the modern days. In the Philippines, financial capacity, titles, positions or social status play an important role in what a person could achieve during his or her lifetime. Equality of condition, is nonexistent

The government’s proposal of redistribution of income, as they cited, is the government’s attempt to promote or regulate “equal condition” in the country. This is where a portion of the income of all employed persons, may be rich or part of the working class, is to be taxed away as mandatory to be evenly distributed to the unemployed. However good this may result, as a form charitable tax and compulsory “donation”, this form of policy does not promote equal condition, for equal condition means fair opportunities are given to both rich and poor, and does not involve obligating the working class people, to give away the money that they have worked hard, while the unemployed wait for subsidy.

However, as logical people, we do not have to close our minds, let us give this policy a chance of being amended according to the culture of the Philippines. In normal taxation, special taxes are being regulated when taxpayers are registered through application and mandated depending on the annual revenue they have incurred. This can also be applied with the proposed redistribution policy. For instance, in the Value added tax rules, businesses are only required to require VAT tax if their annual income has a minimum of Php 1 500,000 or if they have any proof that they will incur Php 1 500,00 for the year (like collectibles and payables to the firm).

This type of system could be adapted, or any other amendments that does not affect taking money from the working class so as not to cause further speculations on the government’s capacity to formulate rules essential to the development of the nation.

Aside from making poor people lazy, the original proposal would only produce more people, in a sense that they would only wait for money to come to them, they will lose their pride and sense of empowerment. Understudied policies will certainly cause certain arguments, especially when it puts another group of individuals at stake at losing even a part of their already reduced income. Regulation of redistribution is certainly unfair to the employed citizens, however, for me, taxation can be implemented to the rich who has so much to give without sacrificing much.