For decades(?) now we've heard that joining to WTO means reducing our import duty tax rates because these prevented trade or blocked entry of goods from other countries into The Bahamas.

So in its wisdom, the government changed the name of Import Duty to Excise Tax thinking this would call the WTO dog off.

But it didn't, so the race to joining WTO continued through successive administrations. As it does through this administration.

And now as signing day draws ever closer, we are visited upon by the WTO's Deputy Director-General, Mr. David Shark, who informs us: "Having a VAT system can be important in terms of the Bahamas competitive position vis-a-vis your neighbours, because when you have a VAT you can charge VAT on imports and you can relieve the VAT on exports". (Tribune Business 04/10/2014)

Say what? There's a contradiction here isn't there?

You can charge VAT on imports and relieve it on exports, but we can't charge duty or excise tax on imports and relieve them for exports?

I'm sure he's heard about the uproar over this issue locally and this is his attempt to placate the taxpayer, because there is no difference in my mind to the two tax systems, other than VAT is worse than excise taxes.

I still come down on the side of "A one-sided approach to free trade" as John Blundell put it in this article back in 2003…

"I think those who only believe in reciprocal free trade have no credentials as liberals. The economics are plain. Comparative advantage, the defining principle of international trade, applies regardless of the tariffs imposed by its trading partners. Trade terms simply do not need to be reciprocal. The hunt for such agreements is now a deterrent to opening up the world’s markets.

"All this horse-trading at the WTO is largely a waste of effort. Far better just to cut tariffs, regardless of how other nations operate. The boldest move in British economic history was the reduction of tariffs accomplished by Sir Robert Peel. We remember it from history lessons as the abolition of the Corn Laws, but it wasn’t just the tariff on wheat that was scrapped.

"Peel, to the horror of his Tory back benchers, cut all tariffs. The result was a vast surge in trade. It seems to me the creation of an integrated world economy – globalisation – can be traced back to Peel’s decision to act unilaterally. If he had waited for other nations to match his decision, nothing would have happened.

"Naturally Peel’s move was unpopular. In the House of Lords, all the landowning peers were outraged and alarmed. They felt that cheaper foreign foods would destroy British agriculture – and their rents. Every industry complained. Free Trade was "unfair". They wanted "level playing fields". Every other stale cliche was deployed.

"What happened? No sooner were the general tariffs lowered than all sorts of hitherto undiscovered possibilities emerged. Very quickly it was found sheep could be transported from Australia and New Zealand. Argentina contributed beef. Canada and the US shipped their crops. Did British agriculture collapse? No. It adapted.

"Other surprises jolted all but the most complacent. The Exchequer, fearful that revenues from Corn Duty and other levies might tumble, found the volume of trade harvested more income…"

In other words, we shouldn't need the long arm of unelected bureaucracies like the WTO to cause the government to reduce taxes and encourage free trade.

The real problem for the Bahamian taxpayer is the government sees VAT as a tax grab, so they don't have to reduce spending, and maybe they think they might miss out of some great taxpayer funded cocktail parties and world travel if they don't join the WTO.

Ah the contradictions of political placation.