Can SA survive given the following

[rosa bester]

i totally agree the grant for kids is going striaght to the bottle stores or drug dealers, and because its so easy to get grant for kids they make more and more kids knowing the tax payers will pay i hate it when people using other institutions for money for their bad habits and on the end or the day the children is suffering for their parents habits

[vieome]

Allow me to challenge your assumption with the following info.

Understanding the freeloaders
In the community of people dedicated to analyzing poverty, one of the sharpest debates is over why some poor people act in ways that ensure their continued indigence. Compared with the middle class or the wealthy, the poor are disproportionately likely to drop out of school, to have children while in their teens, to abuse drugs, to commit crimes, to not save when extra money comes their way, to not work. To an economist, this is irrational behavior. Karelis, a professor at George Washington University, has a simpler but far more radical argument to make: traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems.

Poverty and wealth, by this logic, don't just fall along a continuum the way hot and cold or short and tall do. They are instead fundamentally different experiences, each working on the human psyche in its own way. At some point between the two, people stop thinking in terms of goods and start thinking in terms of problems, and that shift has enormous consequences. Perhaps because economists, by and large, are well-off, he suggests, they've failed to see the shift at all.

When one looks at takers and the givers would it be fair to make the assumption that the majority of givers are white, and the majority of takers are black? So if a giver A has a business that employs 100 people is affected by a given taking policy e.g BBE, the giver A then takes offence and cuts down his work force to 50 people creating 50 new takers. My point is we are all in this together, the minute we segregate between givers and takers, without understanding what it means to be a taker, we only increase our problems in the country.

One Edit 4:14 change on givers to takers

[adrianh]

@vieome - I really like the way you think.

[Dave A]

That discussion on poverty reminded me of this quote:

Being broke is a temporary situation. Being poor is a state of mind. ~ Mike Todd.

The difficulty I see is social grants do help alleviate the plight of people in dire need. It's a solution, but is it the best solution? It's a salve for the symptoms, but does it help cure the disease at the root of it all - the poverty mindset? If anything, evidence suggests it aggravates it

Tougher still, this was a view I'd formed some years ago, but I believe we've got a bigger problem looming that will make the "poverty mindset problem" obsolete.

The solution to the poverty mindset is to nurture a sense of self-worth and achievement. This isn't the contrived facade of entitlement (rights), but that deeply satisfying sense that you have worked for, earned and deserve what you have (as little as that may happen to be).

But what do you do if there simply aren't enough opportunities out there anymore to ensure that everyone can contribute to society and "earn their way"?

Technology is wiping away jobs at an enormous rate. It's hard to think of an enterprise out there that isn't producing more while using less people.

If the boss had to send a letter out to a client or supplier on the company letterhead, he (and much more likely it was "he" back then) would have to get a typist to type it up for him. Then someone would have to get the letter to the post office. Lot's of people later it would be delivered to the recipient, who would also need a typist to respond.

Now the boss types it him or herself and emails it. How many jobs gone forever just in word processor and email technology?

The architect had to employ teams of draughtsman to draw up plans for big buildings. Nowadays it's the architect on his own and CAD. All the draughtsmen are gone, along with the payroll department, the tea girl, the receptionist, the secretaries, the bean counter... One old time architect I came across not too long ago said he used to employ two hundred people. Nowadays it's him on his own, and he's producing more than he did back then too.

The incentive to work has to be in place. But how the heck do you make sure there's enough work positions available in a world that is able to increase output while rapidly reducing the number of people they need to achieve that growth?

Maybe the poverty trap is no longer the problem. Are we running headlong into an efficiency trap?

[vieome]

@DaveA, very interesting points.
I remember in the past when Companies started automating, like the Car industry there was serious complaints about what it would do to jobs, but technology has sneaked into every aspect of our lives and we do did not see something like that coming. Ted Kaczynski the uni-bomber put forward a similiar argument. And Kevin Kelly editor of wired in his book what technology wants put forward a similiar argument infact going on to say that Ted Kaczynski was right. Perhaps it is time for people to cut the amount of hours we work, job share, enjoy the free time.

[Blurock]

That discussion on poverty reminded me of this quote:

Being broke is a temporary situation. Being poor is a state of mind. ~ Mike Todd.

Very true. They say that poor people wait for their ship to come in. Successful people build their own ship.

Technology is wiping away jobs at an enormous rate. It's hard to think of an enterprise out there that isn't producing more while using less people.

If the boss had to send a letter out to a client or supplier on the company letterhead, he (and much more likely it was "he" back then) would have to get a typist to type it up for him. Then someone would have to get the letter to the post office. Lot's of people later it would be delivered to the recipient, who would also need a typist to respond.

Now the boss types it him or herself and emails it. How many jobs gone forever just in word processor and email technology?

But technology also creates other more high tech jobs. We now need programmers, PC builders, data capturers and a horde of jobs that did not exist before. In our case, I believe our education did not keep up with technology. Poor people get despondent because they see no future for themselves.

A teacher once told me that his pupils, when asked about their poor results, responded that "why should we learn, we will not get jobs anyway". So sad. As education is the first step in creating wealth.

Maybe we need something like "The American Dream". Something that will motivate us as a nation to work towards greatness. But for that we need new leaders who can inspire us and not the current kleptomaniacs who think only of themselves.

[wynn]

I personally believe that income tax is the problem!

The so called 5 million who contribute to the fiscus only contribute a small portion by way of personal tax.

Company tax and duties is the main contributor.

Now if some clever mathamatician did the calculation as to how much VAT should be increased by to take up the personal tax shortfall we would all pay tax equally according to our spendings, not our earnings, I would guess 20%?
After all the government wants more tax payers to fall into the tax paying net, and for a cheaper collection rate this is the answer.
You would not have to register for tax as an individual and unless you wished to claim benefits you would register for same at the local clinic/distribution centre so the tax collection admin would be more than halved releasing more SARS employees to inspect and police VAT registration of business, those that are not VAT registered simply pay VAT when they purchase the goods they intend selling and cant claim it from their turnover.

Obviously there would have to be zero rated essentials like bread, milk, unprocessed meat, veggies etc. while at the other end of the scale VAT on luxury goods should be at a higher rate than everything else eg. cars, a run of the mill family vehicle would be at say 20% VAT whereas a luxury Merc would be at 50% VAT

Also in each community a clinic/distribution centre for distribution of basics like baby clothes, blankets, baby food for poor mothers, no cash.
Also distributing of food and other requisites for pensioners and the infirm and disabled which would also include a feeding and basic clothing station for the indigent, unemployed and homeless.
Education and basic medical care would be free, with the above beneficiaries also getting free specialised medical care on a needs basis.

With this type of VAT collection even the drug lords and shebeen queens would pay tax on money they spend for everything besides essentials.

There would be no personal tax so everything you earn as an individual is yours to dispose of as you see fit, if you would rather buy a Merc or jewelery than investing you will pay the tax.

I am sure that savings would go through the roof and that would only be good for the country, also we would probably find out that a basic 20% VAT on top of existing company tax would cover most state expenditure.

[Dave A]

But technology also creates other more high tech jobs.

Not nearly as many as that same technology has made redundant, I fear. But I agree with your other points wholeheartedly.

[Dave A]

Perhaps it is time for people to cut the amount of hours we work, job share, enjoy the free time.

That might be what it takes to break the trap in the end. I'd expect a bumpy road getting there, though.

[gac]

You see its far easier to take from those who have and give to those who have not than it is to create a stong healthy vibrant economy that reduces reliance on the state. More scarily, it is indeed an imperative to do so in order to entrench a dictatorship in power by increasing the dependency of the masses on the state for their survival in a democrcy, whilst attempting to weaken the power of the wealthy minority. In the end the people will not be in a position to oust the government and voila, a government that cannot be removed. Oh happy days!