Selfishness in the eye of the beholder

There are some topics that regularly occupied this column. One of them is the “Virtue” banner, a political banner. It is a wonderful process of managing the state, designing financial measures and occupying public space. It doesn’t solve anything, but it always looks good. After all, who is not virtuous? Who really doesn’t want to do “good”? If these questions seem a little silly, because of their gullibility or implicit meanness, the answer is surprising: Liberals, these are the egoists.

Here I would like to refute some statements that are often repeated in public places and refocus on certain topics, resorting to some concrete cases. It is hard for me to see an apathetic country in which the few who give solutions are those who take the most hits. It makes no difference whether I agree with all the solutions or not, but it is necessary to discuss without classifying the opponents.

A flat tax is a selfish measure. We are told that only through progressive taxation can the state fulfill its social functions: taking from the most favored and giving to him with the least. However, and I think we all agree on this point, the most redistributive public spending that we have in our society, and that directly pays benefits to those who need it most, is Social Security expenditures. Does the reader know how this organization is financed? Basically, it is financed through a proportional payroll tax, without any kind of deduction that takes into account disability, family size or any other aspect related to family or individual harmony.

In Social Security, we consider that progress is made in spending and not in revenue. Simply put: we already have a flat tax! And during nearly 50 years of democracy, we have always held this model right to support those who need it most. Are we now saying that Social Security is selfish?

The world faces a major problem with carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Portugal must do its part to fight it. no doubt. Our country accounts for less than 0.15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. I will repeat: less than 0.15%. Even if we ended up with all the emissions in our country, the planet wouldn’t even notice. Worse, if we do not produce the imports needed for our well-being, our carbon footprint will increase exponentially. Awareness of these facts should lead us to set some goals: to achieve international goals (there is no doubt about this commitment), help other countries make their cuts, take on part of the production that is now imported, and prepare to live. With the inevitable climate change. In short, the focus should be on people, more production, energy and water. They call this selfishness.

The Free Party has included in its electoral program the following proposal: “Establishing a support fund for students of higher education.” How does Levre intend to finance this fund? We are told, ‘in part’, ‘with taxes from the beneficiaries, of the same trust, those with high incomes’. In other words, all those who benefit from this subsidy will have to pay more taxes throughout their lives. In 2019, the Liberal Initiative made the following proposal in its programme: to provide a loan to all students who need support to pay tuition fees and other expenses associated with attending higher education (as in the UK). How will this loan be repaid? By an advantage over earnings above the average salary.