According to Chinese proverb, the success of wealth or financial management on a micro and macro level respectively lies behind two keys – resourcefulness and austerity (Mandarin: 开源节流). Briefly explained, the Chinese believe that financial discipline avoids profligacy and contributes to deficit reduction, whereas the diversification in income sources sustains massive spending appetite, and more importantly help steering a financial state from toxic to healthy, commonly known as growth.

To any Chinese language learner, Chinese proverbs are famous for the attentiveness in construction. In the aforementioned proverb, the Chinese prioritised resourcefulness over austerity because they believe the former is a more effective financial management tool.

Now, when we look at the West currently engulfed by the abundant misery supplied by the sovereign debt crisis, we also see that apart from the United States, governments in the troubled areas have resorted with a vain hope to financial discipline, or the clichéd austerity, to improve their credibility and then to stimulate the much needed financial support from market to fund their ever ballooning debts.

The Chinese proverb certainly disagrees with the austerity focus. However, I am not discrediting the intelligence of policy makers in the beleaguered countries. It’s no easy job at this economic tough time. Potential financial pipelines everywhere have been so firmly shut it is now near impossible to diversify income sources.

Bearing in mind also is that with individual finances so tightly squeezed, no political party struggling to receive devoted support would ever fire the most powerful financial ammunition of a government – raising tax. Nonetheless, the dire economic situation has forced governments to tactfully experiment this instrument with caution. One domestic example would be the VAT rise by the UK government.

And recently, there was a new addition to this tax raising episode – the Hungarian government is considering the introduction of  Hamburger Tax.

My personal scepticism and general public consensus reckon that the introduction of a fat tax like this is more than just the Hungarian government’s concerns over its citizen health issues. It essentially is a new form of budget revenue. It is a legally intolerable deprivation of personal freedom. And frankly enough, it is indirectly speaking to its citizens that they are not intelligently capable in distinguishing what is harmful to them.

However, buzzing apart, in this example, like it or not, the Hungarian government’s approach has demonstrated the spirit of our Chinese proverb perfectly – generating alternative (tax) income via the introduction of new tax and at the same time driving the population to a healthier living that would eventually reduce the monstrous national health care expenses. Brilliant!

Given the intricacies in implementing such tax – which food to tax, how much to tax, people’s reaction (through the ballot boxes) – I very much doubt its future success. However, if miracle does occur, I am almost certain the UK government would be the first follower.

The number of people severely overweight has tripled over the past thirty years in the UK. This has prompted a costly revamp on the ambulance fleet in the country to up to a whopping £90,000 per fleet so that obese patients could be ferried safely. No kidding! If you were the government policy maker, surely this would be an attractive incentive for the imposition of similar Hamburger Tax.

Forget about whether this is a long term solution to a long term obesity problem or a short term solution to a medium term insolvency hardship, I personally do support such tax to a certain extent. It’s challenging to punish individual’s misbehave as it’s very subjective, especially when it involves liberty right. But if this really does raise the awareness on the health risks associated with obesity, then perhaps this shouldn’t be interpreted as an extreme tax harvesting deception. And if we still remember our Chinese proverb, it could induce saving at micro level too.

Nevertheless, like my friend suggested, I still want to be able to pick up a pack of crisps when I want to, without having to feel guilty, or worry financially.

Read More »

Directed by David Cameron and supported by the coalition production crew, with Theresa May as the lead female verbal puppet, set off by muted Nick Clegg in the name of comprises-made-to-coalition-government, together had presented the latest episode of the long-winded austerity drama, Cut in what most business leaders and political correspondents are at odds over – the immigration cap (on highly skilled and skilled workers).

They claimed it as a vital approach to curb the country’s rising unemployment rate currently stands at 7.9% or 2.5 million and a patriotic move to return British jobs to British workers. They further emphasised the imposition will duly reduce the pressure exerted on immigration-related social welfare including schools, hospitals, council housings and other public services, which will ultimately helps the coalition government to achieve its target on fiscal tightening policies.

Undeniably the Tory has been charged with the duty to materialise what it promised in the general election – to reduce net immigration. But, in my opinion, the proposition serves not as an effective formulation to deal with successfully the upward spiral of immigration but merely a brainchild of political gimmick.

Firstly, the cap was ill-targeted. A friendly reminder to my dear readers, the cap is aimed at reducing the admission of non-EU economic immigrants under the Tier 1 (highly skilled) and Tier 2 (skilled) points based system, which represents a derisory 27,000 out of all the massive 406,000 approved visas, or 6.5% in the first three months of 2010 (Source: ONS). I am bewildered. Just how significant the impact of a cap like this will have on improving the jobless figure and on easing the pressure of public services? Neither.

Under the point based system invented by the Labour government, Tier 1 visas are granted to migrants without a guaranteed job because they are likely to generate wealth and expand the economy. And my profound confusion expands uncontrollably over the logic to restrain workers of this type to enter the country and to stimulate the growth of, if not rescue, the economy from the aftermath of an unprecedented economic disaster. And for no other reason, highly skilled workers are imported for a good cause – to fill up the talent fissure the country has failed to seal. The saying on returning British jobs to British workers is thus simply ill-founded and unjustifiable.

And the ability of these talented individuals to secure employments leads me to question on why they are blamed as the parasitical recipients of social welfare including social housing. If we scrutinise the provision of social housing and other welfare benefits currently burdening the indebted government, it is not challenging to realise the claimants are, of course the British, and an enormous population of Eastern European moved from their respective countries under the European Free Trade Agreement after being enticed by the UK’s generous welfare system. And in fact, immigrations within the EU forms more than a third of the total immigration into the UK each year.

But then of course, many would argue since British are allowed to purchase assets and take up employments in mainland Europe, it is only fair if their European counterparts enjoy similar privilege. Moreover, for jobs which the British deemed themselves to be too conceited to commit, for examples, construction, cleaning, or even in coffee shops, which in my humble opinion are all British jobs, the reliability of their European peers is indisputable. So will tossing them back when you are in the midst of a crisis sound a tad inglorious?

On the topic of an effective (cost) cut, I compare it with domestic cost saving and corporate restructure. If you want to save on domestic expenses significantly, you do no bet on reducing the purchase of food that supplies you with immense energy to work, you move to a simple and crude house in tinier size. If you plan on downsizing an organisation, you do not only reduce the amount of workforce, but also make non-contributory departments redundant via corporate consolidation. And if you are BP endeavouring to contain oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you know in the long run, the more effective and permanent solution is not to capture oil spilled through containment cap but to seal the source with relief wells.

So now, if you were the leader of the coalition government, and you were determined to reduce net immigration, are you going to eat your own words and go around violating your own promise for the creation of an open business environment  that would help stimulate economic growth, by limiting the import of highly skilled and skilled workers this country badly needs? Will you revolve around the peripheral of immigration border? Or will you contemplate a more radical reform that may allow a generous chuck of unmanageable immigrants?

Read More »

After winning the most number of seats in the recent election but not a majority to form a government on its own, the Conservative is now forming the first coalition government in 70 years with the Liberal Democrats. By having Nick Clegg elected as the Deputy Prime Minister, it is undoubtedly the Tory has generously compromised to its former opposition. But what a Cons-Lib government could possibly mean to general public? And most importantly to desperate immigrant like myself?

From a foreigner’s perspective, raising the income tax threshold from £6,500 to £10,000 is undisputedly the most exciting present brought by the newly formed coalition government. This, although translate to a £17bn loss to the government, results in near 50% saving to me. However, the plan will only be introduced by 2011. I look to live a London life long enough to taste the political sweet.

Secondly, the stringent austerity measure campaigned by the Conservative before the election – to significantly reduce public spending by £6bn in one year – has been approved. I smell an imminent flood of workers into the job markets. God bless me please to find another job before the already stiff competition gets even more grievous.

On the other hand, both parties agreed to cap on non-EU immigration. Hello? Already I’m required to earn a minimum of £30,000 annually before qualifying for my next visa  under the newly “revamped” immigration requirements, I wondered what this new agreement would translate into the potential hardship awaiting me in the near future. Nevertheless, it is not entirely hopeless. But looks like it is time to prey on a suitable candidate for marriage.

Following my discussion with an English friend earlier arguing if I am a Tory’s supporter, I think I finally have the conclusion – a political marriage that put an apple on a table too high for me to reach.

Read More »