Government Quarter

If the government were to develop housing facilities for various sectors, including teachers and other departments, it could naturally generate revenue. The provision of rent allowances to civil servants would become redundant in such a scenario. By occupying government quarters, the funds received by individuals essentially circle back to the government, forming an exceptionally efficient revenue cycle.

Consider a scenario where affluent individuals take out loans to construct buildings. Ultimately, who bears the loan repayment burden? It inadvertently falls on us, the civil servants, as we are obligated to rent their spaces, essentially repaying them through rent. But who reimburses us? The government does, implying that the loan repayment is indirectly shouldered by the government. However, it's important to note that these funds do not return fully to the government's coffers; perhaps a marginal 5% to 10% in the form of taxes. Ultimately, who reaps the benefits? The affluent individuals do, as they generate income through this arrangement. Consequently, in Bhutan, the wealthy tend to become even wealthier, partly due to this indirect support from the government.

The time has come for the government to meticulously examine these intricacies and devise novel strategies to bridge the gap between the less privileged and the affluent. I find it challenging to muster enthusiasm when the government proposes rent allowances or salary hikes. After all, this often leads to a surge in rental costs, an occurrence we are currently witnessing. Even if the government increases our salaries, it doesn't necessarily translate to personal gain, as the augmented income would be offset by higher rents paid to the affluent. This predicament highlights how the government's actions inadvertently favor the upper class while not adequately aiding the lower and middle classes.

If an ample number of government quarters were available, we could potentially pay up to 50% less compared to private accommodations. This arrangement would be mutually beneficial: we, the civil servants, would experience relief, while the government's income, channeled through our salaries, would also thrive. Conversely, when we rent from private quarters, the entire payment goes to the landlord, leaving both us and the government at a disadvantageous juncture. In this context, private income is generated, while the government taps into alternative sources for civil servant compensation.

Consider the implications of an imbalanced ecosystem. Imagine a situation where there's an excessive number of tigers but an insufficient prey population to sustain them. Inevitably, these tigers might encroach upon human territories. Similarly, the wealthy seem to be encroaching upon the government's resources, ostensibly in the name of the less fortunate. How long can the government persist in the pattern of raising salaries and employing existing techniques that perpetuate a lopsided financial cycle? The ones reaping the benefits are not us, but the wealthy few. Our plight remains largely unchanged.

In the private sector, the government indirectly shoulders the loan burden, and the private individual becomes the building owner. In contrast, in government-owned structures, the government assumes the loan liability, making it the proprietor. Unfortunately, this dynamic is less common in Bhutan. These sentiments reflect my personal perspective, devoid of any intention to offend or harm anyone.