He Public sector in generaland the one governed by the interventionists, in particular, does not stop constantly adopting public spending measures, where They grant subsidies, agents are compensated economic and they prevail one or the other decisions.
All this, constitutes a high interventionism in it marketmore public spending and perseveration in the annihilation of the productive economy and the value of people through a kind of permanent subsidy, extended to multiple actions and not even limited, in many cases, by reason of need.
Spent, deficit and debt And, above all, a determined bet for one subsidized economy It can only lead us to accentuate the destruction of the productive fabric and, with it, Millions of jobsleaving workers and entrepreneurs without any coverage, and thus destroying the prosperity carved by citizens, making our society a poor and subsidized entity, unable to prosper, with serious damage to the middle class, especially in housing, which affects the young people of that level of income even more.
In this process, as that expense you have to pay it, because it is not free -it is free-, what Finance the contributor. In this way, it operates the redistribution of income, but how many times?
As I said a few weeks ago in these pages, if a person obtains less income, pays less taxes than another with more income, within the progressive tax system we have. Therefore, the person with less income contributes less to solidarity towards others. In addition, the first person can opt for diverse subsidies for their lower income, in relation to the above. Similarly, you can opt for official protection house, paid in your aid with taxpayers’ taxes. Many of the citizens who finance with their taxes that subsidy to housing cannot opt for it and have to go to the market. However, despite having more income than the beneficiaries of a home with public aid, it is not a sufficient level of rent to be able to buy a house in the market, or the price they have to pay for it is so high that it leaves an income available less than those who enter less rent. That is, a difference of 30,000 gross euros in their salary makes citizens who have that higher income of those thousands of euros have to pay double for a similar home, which is a total injustice.
Similarly, a person who has been risky investing in search of a promised profitability that entails a greater risk, has sometimes been compensated by all taxpayers with aid given by the public sector, while the most prudent citizen has seen how his prudence translated into a greater payment of taxes to compensate for recklessness. Likewise, who was prudent by opting for a fixed type when the types were low, can have to compensate, through public sector aid, whom they preferred to pay less by variable type then, risking the types of the types. In this way, the one that was prudent not only paid more then, to minimize the risk of types of types, but if such compensation occurs – tan sought by interventionism – would have to assume, with their taxes, the risk in which those who were risky (clear discouragement to be prudent, in addition to possible intrusion into the correct transmission of the effects of the monetary policy of the monetary policy of the Central Bank). It is a permanent, infinite redistribution, such as that suffered by taxpayers who, due to their income level, cannot opt for a reduction in the price of light, for example, but suffer from who can.
In the end, after so much subsidy, They always end up paying the same more and more taxesin that infinite redistribution of income, so that, in many cases, many of the beneficiaries of such a subsidy in front of those who have a larger departure income suffer the subsidies, remaining, after the cast, after the cast, poorer than the first in many cases. This is discouragement for work and for effort, which we he cuts, in addition to the clear injustice of this infinite revenue of income.
