Before we have to listen to the same flawed protests as last time... Heed the word "subsidy".
Its a subsidy on local tourism. Not a handout for the rich, as so many lacking the most basic grasp of economics were claiming last time.
And we don't need any examples of how poor people can't afford to stay at hotels... That demographic would never have travelled anyway, and are not consumers of the industry this is aimed at reviving.
Subsidy. Look up the word "subsidy"
-9 ( +17 / -26 )
No, I didn't make a poor life choice, I suppose! My life is full of good choices I made and I have never relied on others
So why are you complaining then?
And/or why are you making a point about how you have to survive on much less then the suggested cap?
Pick a lane.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
Given that the bureaucracy in Japan is extremely detail- and rule-orlented, we should assume that the cash benefit for each child should be disbursed electronically into an account in the child's name
Given that you're talking of you're ass, we should assume that you are inventing problems that don't exist.
They will use the standard system of paying it to the registered head of the household. Just like every other child benefit. Just like the one that every child in Japan already receives in 3 installments every year.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
Doesn't matter what they do, people will complain. Usually poor people.
Most Japanese (including me) have to "survive" on much less.
So that means you deserve it more than someone earning more than you? It's their job to work hard and fund your poor life choices I suppose.
Childless people don't have extra mouths to feed and dress. People with kids do
Very true. And childless people are also not investing 20 odd years of time and money in to the next generation to fund their retirement and health are. How quickly they overlook this when the parents receive a single payment worth a tiny fraction of their effort to help them along the way.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
Anorexia is a very serious psychiatric disorder and is the highest cause of death amongst females between 15 to 24
Even the most cursory Google search reveals this is not true. But that's OK... After all, 26.5% of statistics are just made up.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Meanwhile, 25% of Japanese kids live in poverty.
Errr... No. Think you need to fact check that
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Oops, name is "Village Nasu Kogen"
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Actually not so much. I disagreed with your earlier comment... But your point is understood. (but quietly, for the record, for a family in Nasu I recommend Nasu Kogen. Check it out. Was on GoTo last time)
Your original point is not being discussed any more. Rather the discussion digressed in to wealth inequality... And even more savings is being suggested now as a remedy to kick start the economy?
Subsidies are being regarded as handouts. It's all got a bit daft.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
By giving handouts to those who don't need them?
Oh come on... Surely you understand the difference by now.
Government sets aside 1,000 yen to help revive a failing hotel.
Either you give the cash directly to the hotel, or you find someone with money and say "tell you what, you spend 2,000 at this hotel and I'll pay 1,000 of it".
Do you see now? No one is putting money in the hands of people that don't need it.
The money is going to the struggling hotel, with some more money spent by a customer, with the scheme as an incentive.
This is very very different from what you label it as. The alternative, giving the hotel 1,000 yen directly to keep them afloat is clearly not as good.
This is no different from subsidies to promote hybrid cars over petrol.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
Yes... But are we not trying to revive the tourism and entertainment sector?
Maybe that part has become forgotten in the discussion.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
You're quite determined to press the point that poor people can't take advantage of the scheme. That's true.
But you also, like Smith, fail to see this for what it is. It is a subsidy.
Either the government subsidies the industry directly, by tax breaks, cash awards for loss of earnings... etc (which they have already done all of)... or they have the GoTo scheme to get things moving.
The demographic you are outraged in defence of would not see a single yen of either way. That's tough.
But this is far better than directly propping up the tourism industry through tax breaks and cash subsidises.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
Wow... Cleo's point clearly went over your head but obviously hit the mark. She is bang on, and you proved it, though you didn't intend to.
Absolutely not. And you are also failing to separate the points of discussion.
This scheme is intended to revive the tourism and entertainment sector, and to encourage those who have some savings to do so.
It is not giving money to people that don't need it, as is repeatedly quoted.
It is subsidising tourism, which is rather different.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
They still can't afford it, and they're still paying taxes for others with fatter purses to go out on the town.
If a family can't afford 50,000 yen for a short break than I doubt they are paying much tax at all to fund the elite you despise so much.
But we digress.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
You were the one who brought up the scenario of an impoverished family
No I wasn't, if you read up further in what it was response to. But never mind.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Completely irrelevant. Someone in that situation where 50,000 was make or break wouldn't be spending anything in any entertainment industry anywhere.
We are talking about the distribution of those that can spend and want to spend outside their immediate area. There's plenty of people in the country with the money for that, let's encourage them to do so.
-3 ( +5 / -8 )
I do understand your point, and looking at the big picture of makes sense.
But in the short term (up to a few decades), how can we 'abandon' the economically failing industries and regions?
Eventually people will adjust and regions may recover with alternate industries. But there will be a fair few suffering in the meantime.
Yes I know, your suggestion is not to entirely 'abandon', but no word would be positive. Neglect? Ignore?
4 ( +7 / -3 )
I guess you don't live here to know that.
Rather an odd thing to suggest. But moving on...
So a two day one night trip can set you back 100.000.
Guess you must be loaded not to think that's a lot of money
No, spending 100,000 is not 'loaded'.
But that's the whole point. What would have cost your impoverished family 100,000 without the campaign now costs them 50,000. Much more reasonable... No?
And then they will do their usual eating out and spending... As much or as little as you deem fit for them to spend.
But they will be doing it somewhere else in the country. Reviving the entertainment sector nationwide.
-2 ( +9 / -11 )
Why do the taxes of all need to be utilized to 'encourage' you on your leisure travel?
If you fail to see how encouraging spending across the nation rather than locally will revive the economy... Then there's no helping you.
I suppose you'd much rather all the spending remain localised in the economic powerhouses of a few city centres.
That's going to make things much better... Won't it?
-1 ( +9 / -10 )
How is it possible to "spend" when your minimal wage hours...
But just because you can't afford to spend doesn't mean we shouldn't be encouraging those of us that can. Restaurants and entertainment facilities have suffered enough. Time to open them up and encourage some spending to revive the sector.
Your complaint is a personal economic one. Nothing to do with virus restrictions.
-16 ( +9 / -25 )
Use the money for better use instead of sponsoring the outings of privileged people who can afford to travel
How rich do you have to be to visit another town by train, stay two nights and see some stuff?
Sounds more like the usual complaints from you whenever there is the suggestion of other people spending money.
This is a good thing. Get everyone out and spending again. Everyone is used to virus measures now. There's no 'surge'. There won't be either. The numbers speak for themselves.
-9 ( +16 / -25 )
Not suspicious at all
11 ( +13 / -2 )
Pick a side.
10 ( +20 / -10 )
If all these payment systems, gift cards, points schemes were not so fragmented, it wouldn't be such child's play to get away with funds.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
And will prices be lowered a year or so from now when stable supplies of raw materials and production rates resume?
No. Of course not. Don't be daft.
39 ( +41 / -2 )
I can speak from first hand experience that Japan is quite well equipped for mental health support of women, and the staff were very compassionate and supportive to all of us friends and family who were clueless what to do.
Rather we should say that Japan is, by culture, overly proud and afraid of shame, bullying, discrimination, appearances... etc to ask for help or seek it. This includes the shame of having a family member that requires help.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
Are we, perchance, going to hear any of the usual noise about post partum depression and/or how difficult it is to raise children in one of the most advanced and well developed economies of the world?
3 ( +6 / -3 )
You may find one more similar quote about being immature and hiding dead babies out of sight... But that's it. An identical scorn of an identical crime.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Which is rather different from "cynical" in the context you attempted to use it and aligning perfectly with me.
Again, how many times must we read of young Japanese women behaving like this before we are made dull, apathetic, or cynical by experience or having or seeing too much of it?
You tell me.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
It means cynical too man
It most certainly does not. Look it up.
2 ( +3 / -1 )