[Seoul Plaza] The Welfare Debate in Reverse / Woo Deuk-jeong, Senior Editorial Writer (February 2, 2011)

(Given how dire the present situation is, there is renewed reason to revisit the anguished voices heard fifteen years ago, in 2011.)

 

Even the Roh Moo-hyun administration, which championed 'distributive justice,' approached the issue along these lines. The Participatory Government's National Economic Advisory Council released, in January 2006, a report of nearly 400 pages entitled "A New Vision and Strategy for Shared Growth."

Subtitled "An Economic Report from the National Economic Advisory Council to the President," the report identified polarization as the reason for shifting policy toward "creating a virtuous cycle of growth and distribution."

It proposed three methodological approaches: enhancing tax-base transparency and broadening the tax base (promoting fairness), comprehensively reorganizing non-taxation and tax-exemption schemes (sharing the burden of adjustment), and raising tax rates or introducing new tax categories (increasing taxation).

The report thus highlighted that equitable taxation, burden-sharing, and tax increases would need to underpin any effort to avoid undermining fiscal soundness.

It further specified that the revenue secured through these measures should be directed toward eliminating blind spots in basic welfare coverage, expanding social welfare services, and strengthening work-linked support.

When the answer is this self-evident, promoting it as if it were an extraordinary solution by attaching the modifier "creative" is nothing short of deceiving the public.

If welfare is to have sustainable vitality, it must be 'employment-friendly.' For welfare to contribute to equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, it must translate into job creation and employment stability.

https://n.news.naver.com/article/081/0002158085?sid=110