₦airaland Forum

mrvitalis:
corruption can't function like this it we are tax


Tax Nigerians , tribalism would drop

Would yorubas still vote for Tinubu if they paid 35% of their income as tax ? No nah ...

read your own comment and make adjustments. I will unquote you.

CodeTemplar:
tax is of negligible significance here as long as corruption remains rampant. Even if we quadruple taxes and income, corruption is very capable of eating whatever gain that brings to the table. Subsidy shouldn't be condemned because we have refused to fight what is affecting it, corruption.

But subsidy removal will neutralize the fulcrum of fuel fraud. This fraud do not stop at import padding, it also includes smuggling into neighboring countries. In other words, Nigeria currently also subsidizes almost the entire West Africa.
Once subsidy is removed, we can then use the surplus (?) generated to provide subsidy to targeted vulnerable Nigerians and achieve better impact.

Lifestone:
But subsidy removal will neutralize the fulcrum of fuel fraud. This fraud do not stop at import padding, it also includes smuggling into neighboring countries. In other words, Nigeria currently also subsidizes almost the entire West Africa.
Once subsidy is removed, we can then use the surplus (?) generated to fund the targeted vulnerable Nigerians and achieve better impact.

If border closure against food inflow was effective, it shows subsidy outflow across border can be enforced also. Corruption is fought in other places and not accumulated.

Lifestone:
Once subsidy is removed, we can then use the surplus (?) generated to provide subsidy to targeted vulnerable Nigerians and achieve better impact.

Lol...subsidy removal cannot stop corruption. It is the other way round.

CodeTemplar:
I border closure against food inflow was effective, it shows subsidy outflow across border can be enforced also

I get your point. But it's removal will stop virtually all the associated problems immediately (diesel is an example). We can then bring in subsidy in a way that is more effective and targeted.
We will also generate growth and attract more private sector investments (both foreign and local direct investment), increase productivity, generate employment and fund critical infrastructures better.

Lifestone:
I get your point. But it's removal will stop virtually all the associated problems immediately (diesel is an example). We can then bring in subsidy in a way that is more effective and targeted.
We will also generate growth and attract more private sector investments (both foreign and local direct investment), increase productivity, generate employment and fund critical infrastructures better.

has removal of diesel subsidy for example stopped other forms of corruption affecting the fund saved from it(diesel subsidy removal) ?
The obvious answer is NO and it will same for petrol also. The only solution is to confront the monster called corruption. No removal of subsidy can do that. That argument about removal of subsidy solving problems is by corrupt politicians and their agents looking for new sources of fund the easy way to run our confused structure of government for some years before things crashes. They want to sustain the free inflow of easy money they are so used to looting instead of stop what is being looted.

CodeTemplar:
has removal of diesel subsidy for example stopped other forms of corruption affecting the fund saved from it(diesel subsidy removal) ?

Yes. It brought in competition and stopped smuggling. O sure, it has helped.

Lifestone:
Yes. It brought in competition and stopped smuggling. O sure, it has helped.

Did it eliminate the wastage of the money saved via inflated contracts or outright stealing?
Before you hurry to answer the above question, do a brief research about SURE-P goals and how they turned out.

CodeTemplar:
Did it eliminate the wastage of the money saved via inflated contracts or outright stealing?
Before you hurry to answer the above question, do a brief research about SURE-P goals and how they turned out.

At least we would have plugged and fixed the scam of under-recovery on fuel importation.
Then workers through Labour Union can negotiate and earn fair wages (how any human can live with N30k) for which without subsidy removal, it's impossible to fund any wage increase.
While I agree with you that our government has disappointed us on the social investments programs, we can't because of that keep fuel subsidy.

Lifestone:
While I agree with you that our government has disappointed us on the social investments programs, we can't because of that keep fuel subsidy.

Subsidy still benefitting the masses by around 60% can go, but corruption that's leaving less than 10% of input behind can stay according to your submission.

Well, let me break it down for you. Only people benefitting or are inline to benefit from other forms of corruption will push for subsidy to be removed like your are doing and be channelled into other more corrupt aspects of the system without any real attempt at killing corruption totally.
I reject subsidy removal.

CodeTemplar:
Subsidy still benefitting the masses by around 60% can go, but corruption that's leaving less than 10% of input behind can stay according to your submission.

Well, let me break it down for you. Only people benefitting or are inline to benefit from other forms of corruption will push for subsidy to be removed like your are doing and be channelled into other more corrupt aspects of the system without any real attempt at killing corruption totally.
I reject subsidy removal.

So because I engaged you in a mature debate on this very interesting topic means I support corruption? Okay you can continue with your thread, after all Na you create am. Enjoy yourself

Lifestone:
So because I engaged you in a mature debate on this very interesting topic means I support corruption? Okay you can continue with your thread, after all Na you create am. Enjoy yourself

You are not balanced in the head if you think you have done me some favour by engaging me. Carry your propaganda to the next anti subsidy removal thread.

savcy:
What is the volume of investments we've attracted to the DPK and AGO subsectors since they were deregulated? Taking subsidy off would be a move that's akin to attempting to cure a terminal disease with a scratch. The fundamental challenges of mismanagement of resources and failure to attract investments remain regardless, and they should constitute the bulk of our concerns and not a removal.

Mismanagement doesn't make subsidy a bad idea I have to agree. The fact that those telling us to remove it have one form of subsidy or welfare tells us a lot if we want to be truthful. We should be looking to reduce corruption drastically and not cancellation of any big money spending scheme corruption is affecting.
In fact, saying we should get rid of petrol subsidy because of mismanagement and corruption is akin to saying whatever corruption affects should be scrapped and we should just hope corruption and mismanagement will disappear like that.

A good manager doesn't scrap departments because there are undisciplined staff there. He/she takes responsibility and ensure whatever task that department is saddled with is well managed.

MrBrownJay1:
people in the above countries you menton PAY HEAVY TAXES to support that same welfare system you talk about.

heavy taxes is paid because heavy money is made.

Hello Nigerians. How is it going?

Pythagoras001:
you need to create wealth before you can redistribute it . unemployment rate, tax to gdp rate should be taken into consideration for it to work

The petroleum in the ground is a form of God given wealth already.