2017 Budget debate opens with mounting calls to withdraw it

… saturated with an extensive range of new punitive taxes − Ali

Budget 2017 was described as emblematic of the adage ‘the only certainty in life is death and taxes’ as was adumbrated recently during a radio interview by Finance Minister, Winston Jordan.irfaan-ali-web
Chairman of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Irfaan Ali, was the first to lead the charge in the debates for the 2017 Estimates, calling for Government to immediately withdraw the Budget.
He suggested that Government would do well to sit with the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in order to craft a better budget.
According to the former Minister with responsibility for Tourism, Industry and Commerce, the Budget as presented is littered with inaccuracies regarding economic performance and is in fact saturated with an extensive range of new punitive taxes.
He was adamant that the Budget as presented by Finance Minister Winston Jordan, is in fact devoid of measures to rescue our ailing economy and improve the wellbeing of our people, or deliver the so called “good life for all”, and is not grounded in any policy framework that would ‘green our economy’ and diversify the economic base of Guyana.
The lead speaker from the Opposition benches was adamant that the 2017 Budget lacks practical measures to green and diversify the economy.
He in fact suggested that there are no new measures to grow new sectors and in an appeal to the coalition A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Government, suggested in his presentation that, coupled with the outcry of organisations – such as the private sector, labour and civil society – enough evidence has been presented in order to convince the Administration to withdraw the budget and to sit with the PPP/C to craft a new one — a sentiment readily received by his colleague Parliamentarians and expressed through their banging on the desks of Parliament with the accompanying chants of ‘withdraw, withdraw, withdraw.’

Government motives
Turning his attention to sections of the Budget under his remit, Ali was critical of Government’s proposed taxation measures, inclusive of the 14 per cent VAT to be charged on electricity, water and essential supplies; the extended powers of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), namely the ability to access private accounts to garnish monies it is owed, in addition to Government’s proposed intervention to compete with the private sector for capital to finance its projects.
On the matter of competing with the private sector for capital — a position already criticised by the Private Sector Commission — Ali questioned the motives of the Administration, saying the move will only seek to extract more funds by removing affordable financing and by mopping up available liquidity.
On the matter of garnishing funds by GRA through accessing private accounts of taxpayers, Ali suggested that this could in fact trigger a run on the local banking system.
Ali posited that taxpayers may very well be inclined to take their money out of the banking system altogether.
Speaking to the proposed taxation polices such as the imposition of VAT on Electricity and water, Ali told the House that this will result in Government securing a windfall to the tune of billions—a windfall that will inevitably have to be passed on by the business community to consumers since they are the ones to be most affected.
As it relates to the application of the tax on water, Ali suggested that over 21,000 customers will be directly affected and that these fall into the residential and business categories.
He suggested that from this measure alone the administration will be raking in a whopping $1 billion a year — monies that will be taken out of the pockets of the ordinary people.
He spoke too of the imposition of VAT on electricity charges likely to adversely impact 15,300 customers, primarily residents and small business operators.
VAT on electricity, according to Ali, will take away more than $5 billion in disposable income from ordinary people.
“Who will suffer?” Ali rhetorically asked, answering that specifically it is the people of the country that will inherently have to face the brunt of the increases.
He spoke too of hardships to be faced as a result of the application of the removal of items from the zero-rated categories and instead placing it in the exempt category. (Gary Eleazar)