To paraphrase Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), It constantly amazes me that opponents of VAT are expected to offer certainty and perfection while government has only to make promises and express good intentions.
As discussed before, it is vague phrases like the "tax base is far too narrow for the tax regime", and "VAT is more efficient", and "this is a shared sacrifice" and "other tax systems exempt the poor" and "VAT did not cause Barbados fiscal problems" that always leave me wanting as they never break them down to tell the taxpayer what they really mean.
Everyone realises the fiscal predicament that both the FNM and the PLP have gotten the country into but where are the commitments to hold the line on spending and implement business friendly policies to grow the economy?
Oh, "austerity doesn't work" is another phrase used to explain rational public policy away. But, governments have continued to get larger in each country that has supposedly tried "austerity". How is that possible? That's not austerity! It's more of the same.
In other words government is spending too much and the taxpayer is not getting value for money.
If the tax policies were as economist Henry George* suggested governments would not have to cut deals for various groups, and businesses would not have to go to them hat in hand like in old fascist states begging government to give them a break while other industries, and the taxpayer, are left holding the bag.
There are several states in the US that are enjoying economic growth in the past few years with business friendly policies. Why don't our officials spend time and resources to find out what they're doing right instead of the tired and worn policies being recommended and utilised?
Unfortunately government spokespeople deliberately confuse the issue with phrases designed to do just that, and I fear nothing will change and taxpayers will be burdened with VAT and additional taxes including income tax going forward. Count on it.
It's really too bad. I feel sorry for future generations of Bahamians.
__________________________________________________________
*1. That it bear as lightly as possible upon production. 2. That it be easily and cheaply collected. 3. That it be certain – so as to give the least opportunity for tyranny or corruption on the part of officials, and the least temptation to lawbreaking and evasion on the part of the taxpayers. 4. That it bear equally – so as to give no citizen an advantage or put any at a disadvantage, as compared with others. Henry George.
“”Oh, “austerity doesn’t work” is another phrase used to explain rational public policy away.””
Which, if any, country has tried it properly?
I believe New Zealand did, but I do need to read up more, as I believe while it was tried, perhaps a new Govt Administration quickly reverted and reversed any gains made?
Seeing that they are supposedly “Helping us” we need to dig into that.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21593453-governments-should-launch-new-wave-privatisations-time-centred-property-9
Selling off Crown Land is not a bad idea S3S.
The problem always returns when Governments do not change their habits so use up all the money and return to the taxpayer for more over and over again.
Not only in New Zealand where it happened as you correctly state.
The Economist rightly asks:
“Where are the successors to Thatcher and Reagan?” and goes on to make the crucial point of the article:
“Privatisation is no panacea for profligate governments. Selling assets is a one-off that provides only brief respite for those addicted to overspending (though, once sold, assets—from ports to companies—tend to generate far more business).”
Government should get the hell out of economic activities that they have no business being in.. Private enterprise has been found to be always superior to public sector enterprise as the later is characterized by lower returns on capital invested, inefficient management, political cronyism and terrible customer service.. Kind of reminds you of ZNS, BEC, Bahamasair and other so-called Bahamian government corporations.. Have we already forgotten the BHC and its waste and corruption?? Privatization would save tens of million of dollars annually that now go to waste, corruption and poor service.. Could you imagine these corporations being run as private, service orientated entities??
Frankly S3S who cares what the Economist says or believes; its collective orientation and bias has debased its creditability many years ago.. Objectivity has given way to subjectivity, and its perspective has fallen into lockstep with the BBC and for that matter the United Kingdom as a whole..
Careful Tradewinds, careful ….
The Economist is THE publication of record on contemporary economics and original in its thought leadership on economics, with a direct genetic line to THE premier Economics institution of higher learning on the planet, the London School of Economics & Political Science (my beloved alma mater).
The Fabian socialists are alive and well in the tradition of George Bernard Shaw, LSE’s illustrious co-founder.. As a bastion of early socialist and later Keynesian thinking we can thank LSE for planting and cultivating the seeds of expanded government spending and control throughout the developing world.. Many were good friends, sincere in their economic thinking and established fine careers in the international financial agencies only later to question the underlying premise of their economic beliefs and training..
I also had to experience a similar transformation in economic thinking .. For well over twenty-five years, I was an ardent reader of the Economist, but its relevance gradually diminished over time.. Guess as they say one man’s meat is another man’s poison..
In the end perhaps its all a matter of pertinence, but I must confess your periodic references from the Economist are often rather constructive.. Any quotes you might render on the virtues of VAT?? I cannot say for sure, but I would guess that the Economist is positive about the application of VAT..