Why did the authorities canceled the benefits?

Why exactly at the moment the question arose about the abolition of privileges?
Valery Karbalevich: "One of the main ideological postulates of the current regime is that Belarus is carried out policies on socially oriented government that the social protection of the population — the main difference between the Belarusian model of development from other adjoining states, which went by the market reforms. And in this, allegedly, is the advantage of Belarusian way.
And now the executive initiated the bill, which is discussed by deputies, the abolition of most benefits.
Deputy head of the presidential administration said Pyatkevich yesterday in the House, it must would undo all the benefits in general. And this is a major blow to the Belarusian model.
In this case, it is curious that in recent speeches own Lukashenko stated that no specific new challenges for Belarus, he does not see, is not going to change the policy. And such a step. Than you can explain it? "
Leonid Zlotnikov: "Whatever our leaders had read that the attack was repelled from the East, but the economy is losing competitiveness. Until the end of the year will decrease revenue. Voltage increases in the monetary sphere. This forces the government to take such measures. "
Alexander Sasnou: "After the transition to a new relationship with Russia to Belarus there are new challenges. To the fact that the emperor said Zlotnikau wish to add a negative growth of foreign trade balance. If we consider only trade products, excluding services, the negative balance from the beginning of the year amounted to almost 800 million dollars.
But I wish to note that the government can be and without any social benefits. Redistribution of the gross domestic product can be done without benefits.
Benefits that are left over from Russian time, do not fit into the market economy. They disorient manufacturers. Because the benefits do not need to cancel and re-negotiation. After all, if immediately cancel all, it is very banging on people, and the power is very risk. "
Zlotnikau: "With benefits need do something, because it increases their share in the budget. In 1990 went to benefits 9% of budget expenditures for social and cultural activities at the moment, this fraction is 15%.
Also grows load on the pension fund. In 1990, the 1st pensioner had 2.2 working, at the moment, the figure is 1.6%. "
Either this is a step towards market reforms?
Karbalevich: "Opposition and are independent economists constantly criticize the government for its lack of market reforms. Large social benefits, which gets most of the population is in some sense socialist throwback.
So, maybe we should welcome these authorities act as a step towards market principles, where everyone must pay for services as much as they are? "
Zlotnikau: "While there will be benefits, you can not attract private sector investment in housing and communal services or social services and thus Makar, reduce the cost of these services. For example, in Russia in some towns in these areas if the business came, the price of services decreased twice.
In this case, we need not just a cancellation of privileges and their manetyzatsyya. If previously the Ministry of Statistics printed information this issue, it was evident that the lion’s share of benefits — this payment vouchers to sanatoriums and rest homes. And the main part of a tour group received the most vysokaaplachvanyya population.
Exemptions should only receive socially vulnerable groups. For example, I believe that we should not abolish benefits for students to travel on public transport. Since this is a trifle.
General social support should be, it is in all statesah. But do it need not because in Belarus. "
Sasnou: "As a liberal, I’m bad to the benefits. Since they have a negative influence on the economy. But care must be taken to cancel the benefits. Indeed, in the framework of the current system without benefits many people will not be able to exist.
Need no cancellation benefits, and their revision. Such example. Utilities have dated from the budget. And it turns out that the owners of huge apartments receive more subsidies than the owners of small apartments. And who does not have an apartment or living in their own home, practically does not receive benefits while paying taxes to the budget, from which date back benefits.
People have to pay for housing as much as it costs. But they should receive and wages, that was enough for full payment of utilities. And for that the government should not take away from business entities lot of money with taxes, so they have enough on wages.
If the public utilities will not be benefits there comes personal capital appears competitiveness, reduce costs, prices.
That sovereign Zlotnikau said that the benefits to students to keep. I believe that this dilemma need to be addressed differently, at the cost of scholarships. After all, the benefits make transportation unprofitable, it must subsidize. And while they have to find the efficiency of transport is unrealistic. "
Karbalevich: "want to argue. Could would welcome the abolition of these benefits, if it was part of the system of market reforms. But no other reforms not. Here were that impossible to reform the housing and communal services, while there are benefits. But no such reform is not going to hold.
It turns out that instead of market reforms the government is just throwing off the burden of social support for people and put a point on this. Especially economical problem is removed, and the non-market financial system is stored in a permanent state. "
Sasnou: "We support the idea, but not how it will be made. If there are only benefits were canceled without market reforms, it is nonsense. "
What might be the reaction of the population to the cancellation of benefits?
Karbalevich "Cancel benefits — not only unpopular, but always socially and politically explosive problem. No accident benefits is not abolished by presidential decree, and passed the House of Representatives, that the deputies took the responsibility for this step.
In Russia, no cancellation and manetyzatsyya benefits, in other words their compensation funds showed little widespread protests across the country. In Belarus, for a manetyzatsyyu not talking. Declared targeted support — faster propaganda stick. Benefits simply cancel it.
What might be the reaction of the population? How it affects the credibility of the authorities? Why the opposition does not use the appropriate public discontent with the situation? "
Zlotnikau: "I believe that the opposition should not take a populist stance against the abolition of privileges, and act for the fact that once the cancellation of privileges occurred market reforms. Suppose social explosion will not. Belarusian will suffer."
Sasnou: "Once it is unclear what benefits canceled, and which will remain. ‘Cause talk about the reactions of the people early. But the authorities soon strengthened, increased the role of the security services, people intimidated. I think the opposition will react to these processes."
Karbalevich: So Makar, the abolition of benefits — the first symptom of socio-economic crisis that is coming. In fact right idea, but its implementation takes place outside the system of market reforms. Power can afford it for themselves, as hopes of an authoritarian regime in the criteria for one hundred percent to control social protest. "

Like this post? Please share to your friends: