The other day I read the proposal of a parliamentary group to solve the narrow room for maneuver that the Government has with the deficit objectives: new taxes.
¡¡¡Genial!!!
Imagine that you are the CEO of a company with a structural deficit and high debt, that your shareholders ask you for a shock plan that will allow the situation to be reversed, and that you propose to sell more. Most likely, within a few seconds you will be notified of your dismissal.
I believe that a diligent manager would propose an adjustment plan that would include a thorough review of operating costs. The objective would be, without a doubt, not to have a deficit.
Well no. Spain is different.
And it is because it is a fortunate company that knows that it will never close its doors, that the deficit is financed with greater debt, that no one can file bankruptcy proceedings, that it is in a situation of absolute dominance in the market, and that it does not Not only does it have to convince its customers of the excellent quality of its services and its unbeatable price-quality ratio, but it can also demand that they buy more.
A company, normally financed by financial entities that, in turn, do their business, and whose managers, unless they lose the confidence of the representatives of their shareholders, cannot be fired. A company whose corporate purpose is linked to spending.
The most important thing, then, should be to spend well, carefully choosing who to help, and having the objective that the beneficiary no longer needs to be helped.
To do this, it is necessary that access to work is easy, that salaries are decent, that wealth is distributed fairly, that privileges do not exist, that free competition and equal opportunities are real, etc.
The objective of common well-being must therefore be achieved by reducing the number of beneficiaries of aid by promoting private initiative and a work culture.
In this context, the debates of the representatives of the shareholders of this company must focus on assessing the success of the different spending policies and, therefore, on assessing whether the beneficiaries of the aid have decreased. Debate, of course, analytical, and not dialectical or with grandiloquent words.
A diligent manager must therefore analyze one by one the effectiveness of the aid granted, and whether the company’s operating costs can be reduced without reducing the quality of services.
Otherwise, taxes, whatever they are, are, by nature, unfair.
It is therefore necessary to stop putting the emphasis on income, and put it on spending.
The objective is not to spend, nor to earn money to spend, but to spend what is necessary so that we contribute more and the per capita cost of our contribution less. The objective, ultimately, is that the aid is not necessary.
