The overall balance of the non-financial public sector stood at .2 billion at the end of June 2017, while for the corresponding period in June 2016, this sector stood at .8 billion; representing a decline of .6 billion or 63.6 per cent. Non-financial public enterprises are engaged in commercial operations and are used by governments as instruments of public policy. These enterprises are by definition majority owned and/or controlled by Government, and thus questions are raised that must be considered in the broad context of the Government’s overall national economic policy; affecting growth, capital formation, employment, and the maintenance of prices which may effectively tax or subsidize particular groups or activities.
Apart from particular non-commercial objectives that they may be asked to pursue, they are of significance to governments because of the effects their magnitude or strategic position may have on macroeconomic objectives: bank credit, aggregate demand, inflation, borrowing abroad, and balance of payments. Many non-financial enterprises may also represent a sizable investment of national resources at considerable opportunity cost. Resources may come predominantly from Government, rather than private investors. It is especially important, therefore, that governments be provided with adequate information for monitoring and evaluation, not only the non-financial public enterprises alone, but individual entities. For these reasons and purpose, a regular flow of current data on non-financial public enterprise operations is required.
With this in mind, I am not sure what structures and systems these enterprises have in place as outlined above. This may require some amount of deeper investigation on the part of this column eventually, but no concrete causation for this declined outcome was presented in the report. Obviously, it is not a good indicator from a macroeconomic standpoint, and though it was highlighted that this position is projected to improve by the end of 2017 — on account of improved revenue collection by Central Government and public enterprises — by .8 billion or 0.2 per cent, and >The overall balance of the non-financial public sector stood at $3.2 billion at the end of June 2017, while for the corresponding period in June 2016, this sector stood at $8.8 billion; representing a decline of $5.6 billion or 63.6 per cent. Non-financial public enterprises are engaged in commercial operations and are used by governments as instruments of public policy. These enterprises are by definition majority owned and/or controlled by Government, and thus questions are raised that must be considered in the broad context of the Government’s overall national economic policy; affecting growth, capital formation, employment, and the maintenance of prices which may effectively tax or subsidize particular groups or activities.
Apart from particular non-commercial objectives that they may be asked to pursue, they are of significance to governments because of the effects their magnitude or strategic position may have on macroeconomic objectives: bank credit, aggregate demand, inflation, borrowing abroad, and balance of payments. Many non-financial enterprises may also represent a sizable investment of national resources at considerable opportunity cost. Resources may come predominantly from Government, rather than private investors. It is especially important, therefore, that governments be provided with adequate information for monitoring and evaluation, not only the non-financial public enterprises alone, but individual entities. For these reasons and purpose, a regular flow of current data on non-financial public enterprise operations is required.
With this in mind, I am not sure what structures and systems these enterprises have in place as outlined above. This may require some amount of deeper investigation on the part of this column eventually, but no concrete causation for this declined outcome was presented in the report. Obviously, it is not a good indicator from a macroeconomic standpoint, and though it was highlighted that this position is projected to improve by the end of 2017 — on account of improved revenue collection by Central Government and public enterprises — by $3.8 billion or 0.2 per cent, and $0.4 billion or 12.2 per cent respectively, nothing was said as regards the basis of this projection; at least on what assumptions. This limited macroeconomic strategic direction, or lack of a clear one, could only be interpreted on the basis of one logical presumption: there apparently is no clue on the part of Government as to what policy tools they need to employ to stimulate the economy, or if I may use the term, ‘jump-start the economy’. In the last two years, aside from oil, there is no significant new investment or developmental project being pursued; and this, for a developing economy and from a development economics perspective, is worrying.
Revenue collection increased to some $97.2 billion as at June 2017, or 13.1 per cent above the corresponding period in 2016. It was reported that tax revenues represent 88.3 per cent of total revenue collection. This include increases in internal revenue collection by $5 billion, reaching $41.6 billion; withholding tax by $865.5 million, of which $191.9 million were arrears; collection of personal income tax increased by $265.3 million above the $10.6 billion collected for the corresponding period. Collection of customs and trade taxes increased by $5.6 billion compared to the corresponding period for the fiscal year 2016. Value added and excise taxes increased by $2.04 billion and $1.96 billion respectively. Value added tax (VAT) from importation of goods grew by $1.2 billion, partly stemming from changes in budget 2017. VAT on domestic goods also increased by some $838.5 million on account of higher payments from telecommunication, wholesale and retail sectors.
Total non-tax revenue rose by $567.4 million to $11.3 billion during the first half of 2017, compared to the same period in 2016. At the same time, rents and royalties declined by 32.3 per cent, reflecting lower gold declaration. On the expenditure side, Central Government’s non-interest recurrent expenditure totalled $77.5 billion, or 43.6 per cent of the budgeted amount, representing $4.2 billion or a 5.7 per cent increase over the corresponding period for 2016.
I pause here for now, next week I shall continue with this discussion, wherein I will examine how the increase in Central Government’s revenue impacted the macroeconomic framework; what were the effects, and so on. Same will be applied to the expenditure side of the equation. Importantly, we will examine what proportion of increased expenditure was diverted either indirectly or directly to developmental pursuits, if any; and overall, what are the effects of the increased tax measures presented in budget 2017 within the macroeconomic framework.<.4 billion or 12.2 per cent respectively, nothing was said as regards the basis of this projection; at least on what assumptions. This limited macroeconomic strategic direction, or lack of a clear one, could only be interpreted on the basis of one logical presumption: there apparently is no clue on the part of Government as to what policy tools they need to employ to stimulate the economy, or if I may use the term, ‘jump-start the economy’. In the last two years, aside from oil, there is no significant new investment or developmental project being pursued; and this, for a developing economy and from a development economics perspective, is worrying.
Revenue collection increased to some .2 billion as at June 2017, or 13.1 per cent above the corresponding period in 2016. It was reported that tax revenues represent 88.3 per cent of total revenue collection. This include increases in internal revenue collection by billion, reaching .6 billion; withholding tax by 5.5 million, of which 1.9 million were arrears; collection of personal income tax increased by 5.3 million above the .6 billion collected for the corresponding period. Collection of customs and trade taxes increased by .6 billion compared to the corresponding period for the fiscal year 2016. Value added and excise taxes increased by .04 billion and .96 billion respectively. Value added tax (VAT) from importation of goods grew by .2 billion, partly stemming from changes in budget 2017. VAT on domestic goods also increased by some 8.5 million on account of higher payments from telecommunication, wholesale and retail sectors.
Total non-tax revenue rose by 7.4 million to .3 billion during the first half of 2017, compared to the same period in 2016. At the same time, rents and royalties declined by 32.3 per cent, reflecting lower gold declaration. On the expenditure side, Central Government’s non-interest recurrent expenditure totalled .5 billion, or 43.6 per cent of the budgeted amount, representing .2 billion or a 5.7 per cent increase over the corresponding period for 2016.
I pause here for now, next week I shall continue with this discussion, wherein I will examine how the increase in Central Government’s revenue impacted the macroeconomic framework; what were the effects, and so on. Same will be applied to the expenditure side of the equation. Importantly, we will examine what proportion of increased expenditure was diverted either indirectly or directly to developmental pursuits, if any; and overall, what are the effects of the increased tax measures presented in budget 2017 within the macroeconomic framework.
