THERE WAS MUCH for the average citizen to discern from the presentation of the 2012 Financial Statement and Budgetary Proposals last Tuesday, the ensuing debate and wrap-up in the early hours of Friday morning.
There were good points in it, a few bad ones and, unfortunately, some ugly aspects. I will deal with some of these elements.
• The “ounce of prevention” tax credit of $750 for those over 40 was a brilliant innovation. I wonder though if it can be claimed from one’s health insurance provider as well as from income tax.
Secondly, since most studies show that obesity levels are steadily rising, and people are getting heart attacks, strokes and cancers at a younger age, it would have been better to offer this tax credit from the age of 30 as an incentive to encourage individuals to take control of their health earlier.
• The green economy provisions were another positive. The range of incentives offered along with those provided in the Energy Smart Fund should be enough to spur greater investment in this area that should redound to the benefit of the entire country in the future.
My concern though is that the present high cost of energy, which is integral to the high cost of living, was not tackled.
Again, I appeal to Government to lower the excise tax on fuel as a way to reduce the cost of doing business, which ultimately impacts the cost of living.
The fact that this has not been done here though it was successfully implemented in Guyana and other places suggests the Government is indeed locked into an agreement with the Inter-American Development Bank which commits it to maintaining this tax, the 17.5 per cent VAT rate and the taxes on allowances.
It’s shameful that Government has not come to the public and said why it has committed the country to this.
•The additional incentives to the agricultural sector should assist those involved to expand the acreage under cultivation and so help provide more locally grown foods. My concern though is that without greater coordination in the sector we will get more gluts and shortages in the months ahead.
The way forward is for some land to be allocated to specific crops at various times of the year. That way we should enjoy a steady supply of locally grown items throughout the year at a reasonable price.
This coordinated rotation should minimize the gluts that we have and reduce the need to import a high volume of seasonal produce whenever there is a shortage.
The bad
• The payment of $50 per week per child to single mothers when the fathers do not live up to their responsibility is at first glance a sound, compassionate idea.
I’m unsure if a study was done to show there has been an increase in delinquency and that is why this “something-is-better-than-nothing” policy was proposed.
Or is it because “child money” payments have been a bugbear for years that the policy was developed, to give a helping hand and to garner a few votes?
Whatever the motivation, it does not address the inherent inefficiencies in the system, which should be the priority.
That is, women often complain that they can find the men at a particular address, yet the marshals are unable to do so, even though they have been given the address. Who follows through on such reports? Are the marshals not accountable? Is there a need for a child maintenance marshal service, given the volume of work marshals have to do?
If the deadbeat dads work, why can’t maintenance payments be deducted from their pay at their workplace? Legislation can make that mandatory and employers who refuse could be fined.
Then there is the lack of efficiency and service in the system itself which leads to complaints of bad treatment.
The $400 000 allocated for this project would be better spent making what is right better and fixing what is wrong. Why not beef up the Welfare Department to help?
There, trained professionals would assess not only the financial needs but be able to offer interventions that would assist the family in a more tangible way than just a handout of an “Errol Barrow” per child.
• The tourism sector is the lifeblood of this economy and except for the announcement of a $50 million hotel refurbishment fund, little else was said. Not good enough.
At present the sector is in crisis with some hotels have already closed, ageing properties that have led to a drop in room rates and low rates of occupancy that continue to erode profitability of the remaining hotels and contribute to people working only three and four days a week. This sector deserves greater focus.
The ugly
• The attack on former presidents Colin Jordan of the Barbados Hotel & Tourism Association (BHTA) and Horace Cobham of the Bankers Association, as well as Banks Holdings’ CEO Richard Cozier during Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler’s wrap-up was distasteful.
It was an act of political immaturity which served to undermine the confidence of the business community.
It was a throwback to the caustic wrap-ups of former Prime Minister Owen Arthur, which many denounced.
Sinckler’s comment that Jordan was disrespectful to the office of Prime Minister in regard to Prime Minister Freundel Stuart finding time to visit jailed Cuban Raul Garcia but not being able to meet with the BHTA was adequate. But he went too far.
• Sanka Price is the SATURDAY SUN Editor. Email him at sankaprice@nationnews.com
