by Rick Lowe
IF you have read this blog for any length of time you will know that this not so humble blogger would be the last to defend the Government and its ability to tax people at a whim. Not only because of the way these tax dollars are wasted, but because they have the right to force everyone to pay it or get fined or go to jail or both.
And of course I also agree that some taxes are necessary if Government is to fulfil its mandate as outlined in the Constitution.
Where this coercive practice falls out of favour is when it is decided to provide tax breaks for one group and no exemption for other groups.
Let me explain.
I understand that rental companies are asking for an excise tax break so they can upgrade their fleet of rental cars based on the rationale that times are tough and they represent The Bahamas to our tourists so their fleet should not be run down.
They're right that times are tough, and they're correct that it would be better not to have a run down fleet. But they're wrong to expect the government to subsidise their business by giving them tax breaks.
Now I would also agree that tax rates are too high, and even unconscionable in some cases. But I do not agree with giving one group a subsidy while leaving other groups out.
In other words, taxes should be lowered across the board for vehicles or no one should receive a reduction.
The other point that is missed, is, in simple terms, if Government needs one million dollars in tax revenue and they provide an incentive of $100,000 for one group, the tax revenue declines by that amount.
So where does the government get the shortfall? You guessed it. They have to raise taxes on everyone else or increase government debt, which already places a huge burden for the Bahamian people to bear.
In other words, one man's tax break is another man's tax burden.
What do you think?
I think you know that I agree with you Rick, with the most recent proof being the case of the elimination of duty on food “given by Government” in the recent budget communication, July 2008.
First, it could not be considered a gift given by government, they just stopped “taking” it from you on certain food goods.
But low and behold, they increased their “take” on all other goods imported.
Why? to make up for the loss of revenue they would experience at minimum, and in reality, to increase their revenue because they found themselves needing more.
Why did they need more?
Why to give the citizens more of course.
???
And we wonder why so many Bahamaians shuffle about?
Look at the burden we carry!!
But what happens when the “needs” of government( and those who depend on their largess) exceed the load the private sector can bear?
What happens when productive people in the private sector give up and go away?
Since when did “need” guarantee supply?
This is why we cannot afford to give our silent consent in any of this, because of all the bad premises used by proponents of the welfare state in practice.