"We can see that the government obscures these vital issues by the use of vague and euphemistic language in its decisions, and in particular, by the use of the package-deal concept of the "stakeholder." This is part of a wider pattern of vague and euphemistic language used in politics and in the bureaucracy." Ben O'Neill…
There are a couple phrases that turn up in almost every discussion about VAT with bureaucrats at the Ministry of Finance or politicians, and even some party supporters, that deserve rebuttal.
The first phrase is "even though the government's own study shows how badly the poor will be impacted by VAT the government is great because they are protecting the poor with a $30 million dollar social security fund." "Besides" they add, "other tax systems exempt the poor".
Of course it is true that the poor are exempt with other tax plans like income and payroll taxes etc, but that (exempting payment in the first place) is a whole lot different than creating yet another government bureaucracy to dole out the estimated $30 million per annum.
We can rest assured that the regime responsible for the handouts will grow exponentially, like most government bureaucracies. What's even worse is the dependency culture will also grow. Both are unsustainable.
The second phrase we often read and hear is, "this is a shared sacrifice". And they actually say this without a smile on their faces.
They know that's not true as they reduce rates for one industry, while charging some more than others etc, and the government waste and largesse will continue unabated.
It's not a shared sacrifice at all! It's more like how many people do I need to cut deals with so they won't let the cat out of the bag how badly the consumer and taxpayer will be harmed and get along to go along, and we can just continue what we're doing.
Mr. O'Neill hits the nail squarely on the head when he says:
"This explains why, in all of the glossy pamphlets of government departments, and all of the soothing idioms of government decision making, ministers and their bureaucrats invariably speak in a dialect which ignores important conceptual distinctions such as consent and force, and which avoids such threatening concepts as property rights. Indeed, Orwell (1946) has observed that, because of the coercive nature of the decisions made by governments, "political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness." More…
As noted here… pay close attention to the language that is used. There's nothing about the government being more efficient and guaranteeing a reduction in spending and borrowing to share this sacrifice. It's just all about you and me having to pay more in taxes to support them. Sickening indeed!
Right on the money Mr.O’Neill,right on the money
It takes most intelligent people a year to learn that language, more obfuscating than legalese itself!
Legalese is at least trying to be specific, to the point of banality.
This shows perhaps the purpose to the secrecy the whole multi year process, ending abruptly in July of last years announcement (2013) as the bureaucrats know full well it will take many more months for the average citizen or business person to learn the language!
Further, The increasing (from occasional) and very direct IMF statements and opinions in the local press could be showing their hand in all of this by attempting to cut off any attempt at retreat by Government under the increasing opposition.
Private sector opposition with empirical evidence showing the downward spiral that is the inevitable result.
I also believe however, the private sector is having great difficulty shifting out of Self preservation mode, a mode which has served them very well over the last 4 decades.
The influencing of Political will is now misplaced, with a larger player now wielding influence directly.
Perhaps a private sector meeting with the IMF directly will yield the clarity that the Government fears or cannot formulate?
Another euphemism I forgot to include. The “tax base is far too narrow for the tax regime”.
What is that supposed to mean?
I think they mean the tax base is too narrow for the spending regime?
Another two euphemisms I forgot to include.
1. The “tax base is far too narrow for the tax regime”. What is that supposed to mean?
I think they mean the tax base is too narrow for the spending regime?
2. VAT is more efficient. More efficient than what? The governments own tax collectors?
More efficient at appropriating private earnings and assets.
When things do not transpire as they wish, they will move to the next tax to save their day.
Bureaucratic speak is rife with phraseology that means the opposite of what it sounds like.
“Most favored nation” means there can be no favorites among signatory nations, as an example. (In the Context of WTO accession)
But, sad to say, we sit by and gobble up the BS spewing forth from lofty places where the air is so thin it has starved them of oxygen, and therefore their sensibilities!
The real problem or issue here is that government has no idea of what it is talking about.. When cornered these so called government experts duck and weave, never answering a direct question forthright as they do not know the answer themselves.. Even the simplest of YES or NO questioning ends up being a spin and deliberate dodge.. To avoid the appearance of utter incompetence, they pontificate and speak pompously, confusing their audience and even themselves.. No wonder VAT is misunderstood and seems like a distortion of factual evidence.. The truth is that these government propagandists from the PM on down have limited understanding of economics and even to a lesser extent of public finance.. Should we expect wisdom when we all are on the ship of fools??
The vagueness of VAT discussion is a reflection of the uninformed trying to appear to be informed.. VAT discussion is in such a complete disarray that we have even coined a new work to describe Euphemistic.. Least we not forget that “euphemistic” and not “euphamistic” is meant to be an innocuous and an unoffensive way to cover over the disastrous effects of VAT that most tragic idea that government is hoping to force on the Bahamas and its unsuspecting people..
The Oracle its either self preservation or close down so what else would you expect ? The dictionary says of self preservation:Protection of ones self from harm or destruction:The Innate desire to stay alive.Of course self preservation & you would be a fool not to.If you do manage to stay alive with all the government regulations,taxes & red tape, that would also mean jobs.
Lets face it there are two things they are doing.#1:either they are so dumb that they do not know or #2:They are hiding something from us,take your pick.
Just making my agreement known by writing. This is all so true. If it were possible for the private sector to meet with the IMF, this could be a good step forward, but how would that be organised?
I do believe that one should follow Churchill’s famous “Never give up” phrase but confess to deep sense of dismay. Keep up the good work.
Sorry friend.. The IMF Keynesian based agenda reaches far beyond the Bahamian shores.. There is nothing you could do or anyone else in the private sector could do to change their preset minds.. Their economic agenda is fixed and it is reinforced by the deception of their biased proposals to increase the overall scope and power of government.. This is nothing more than Keynesian tax and spend policies dressed up as a VAT
Least we not forget that these advisers from the IMF are some of the best trained economists in the world, but their training has been fully focused on Keynesian economic thinking.. They are not blind and completely understand the ramifications of VAT and it adverse consequences on the economy.. Yes, they know that VAT causes poverty and tremendous hardships and distortions to the economy.. Their economic horizon or perspective looks at VAT as a viable long-term solution with an open-ended long-run time frame.. Their lesser known or even undisclosed agenda, has been always to strengthen the government’s power over the economy so that the nation’s economy is controlled completely by the public sector..
The only recourse the Bahamian people have is to get their government to reject VAT outright and adopt a policy of economic austerity by instituting a prudent system of economic governance.. If government is afraid of the IMF, it can always call a public referendum and let the people decide their own economic destiny.. That will at least get the government off the IMF hook.. In the end it will be up to government to make the proper and correct judgement to determine our country’s future.. Do we have the courage the stand up to the IMF, only time will tell and give us an answer..
Sorry Tradewinds but our present PM doe not have the balls to get to a meeting on time much less stand up to the IMF.Never give up I do agree but we are not working with reasonable people here.The PM seems to be hell bent & does not even want to think about other options in spite of what he says.I think he is incapable of seeing another point of view.