The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency, the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity, both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists—Ernest Hemmingway
Handling the working of a simple household is one thing but holding the reins of an entire country is a complicated process requiring great levels of competence and tactical insights. It is a known fact that in a community, not everyone can claim to be the head therefore, members select an elderly and experienced person capable of tackling day to day problems of the people. This provides everyone with someone to refer to during critical times with the head getting special status and respect.
Now a just society is the dream of every human being who lives on this planet although such terms as equality, equity and fairness are interpreted in different ways by various ideologies. Historical evidence indicates that in every era people are divided into groups of poor, lower middle class, upper-middle-class, rich and the extremely wealthy.
Certain nations that were and are emblems of high achievement, cultural finesse and relative affluence do have these disparities in their social make-up. The caste system in the Indian Sub-continent that is based more on birth than economic status of a person, continues to bear its impact on Indian society even in today’s contemporary world. Its influence has managed to seep its way even within other beliefs that thrive on considering all humans as equal and Pakistani society too is no exception where humans are categorized based on their incomes and wealth.
Agreed that everyone cannot simultaneously have the same fortune, wealth and income and be placed equally but there should be some element of equity. DeRay Mckesson, a young American civil rights activist, beautifully sums up in these words: “The difference between equity and equality is that equality is everyone get the same thing and equity is everyone get the things they deserve”.
On a slightly divergent note, another American writer Rick Riordan opines: “Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need”. Jodi Picoult, another young writer seems to have a more logical explanation when she says: “Equality is treating everyone the same. But equity is taking differences into account, so everyone has a chance to succeed.” In these instances, all of them seem to concur that equality and equity have positively different connotations and implications.
One of the main purposes of imposing direct taxes is to achieve the goal of equitable distribution of wealth. Of course, this does not suggest that every bit of wealth possessed by different people should be confiscated by the government and then redistributed among all the citizens equally.
Robin Hood type of leaders who intend to and profess to, fleecing the rich to benefit the poor in their endeavour to gain cheap popularity, are highly mistaken. The truth is that such jargon is meant to befool innocent electorates into believing that their destinies would be turned overnight if they were to vote these liars into power. This has never been and can never be the case no matter how socialist, some leaders may be in their outlook.
No evidence exists that can prove that robbing the wealthy would enrich the poor. Countries known for their excellent social services have failed to blur the gap between the rich and the poor. However, what they have actually achieved is a decent life for those who are not financially well off while simultaneously, providing those who want to improve their lot, ample opportunities in terms of education and skill development and of course not ignoring the real contributors who deservedly partake in government evolved benefits.
Fairness demands that laws should not be made so as to strip the rich of their wealth and render them poor but to increase the capacity of the poor to enable them to reach a higher level in terms of financial independence.
Governments intending to promote equitable distribution of wealth usually go for a progressive tax system whereby the more someone earns, the higher amount of tax one is subjected to; they provide educational grants, subsidies and low-interest loans; they provide welfare and income support for low-income earners, and they also impose taxes on wealth, especially that which is parked in unproductive sectors.
Interestingly, Pakistan has tried out all these measures but has consistently failed to achieve this prime objective. Among the many reasons for the fiasco are the continuous offers for tax amnesties to those who are originally supposed to fall in the highest bracket of taxes. For them, the cost of paying taxes is far greater than the cost of evasion, courtesy complex and impracticable laws, antiquated approaches and definitely intense corrupt practices; due to which the requisite amount of revenue can never find its way into the government’s treasury.
Consequently, goals for equitable distribution of wealth remain unattainable stunting true economic growth and forcing an overwhelming population of this country below the poverty line, depriving them of their fair share in income, wealth and opportunities to better their lives.
Even after so many economic debacles, the Pakistani governments have failed to learn their lessons. They look for external deliverance rather than turning towards their own people to seek assistance in breaking the manacles of debt. Instead of tightening the tax noose around their necks and unleashing hungry revenue wolves on them, they could enable their participation in a workable and acceptable system towards increasing revenue.
Under the circumstances when international donor agencies in one-sided moves force a sovereign nation to abide by their harsh conditions, any hopes for establishing an equitable society, are bound to crash on the precipice of bad governance, imprudence and most definitely, insincerity of purpose.