Do you think subsidies and benefits for the poor should be abolished to encourage them to make progress?

1. Subsidy to the poor, from the government's perspective, is a practice to avoid social unrest, serve the people, and develop people's enjoyment. There are complex factors that cause poverty, including history, geographical environment, policies, individuals, resources... Different factors require different ways to solve them.

2. For society, it is beneficial to everyone in society so that no one has to worry about having enough to eat. If some people have trouble eating and clothing, and their survival is in crisis without a comprehensive protection policy, the problem will evolve.

3. In addition, not all poor people are unmotivated. The poor people are certainly not well-informed in their thinking and social interactions. Some are still incapable of working. Sometimes, no matter how hard they work, the poor are relatively conservative in their thinking. There is no way to change the status quo.

4. Therefore, subsidies for the poor should not be cancelled. The standards and conditions of the subsidies will only be adjusted in a certain period based on changes in overall wealth. However, subsidies for the poor do not mean that they are only for the poor. Blood transfusion is performed without paying attention to hematopoiesis, which is always the way to solve the underlying problem. For the poor who are capable of working, it is the unshirkable responsibility of the government to strive to create better hematopoietic conditions for them and achieve sustainable income growth. The current "targeted poverty alleviation" is actually a concept that analyzes the causes of poverty in different places, different groups, and even different individuals, and enables them to develop in a targeted manner.

Strive to change the status quo