 |
It appears that the continued trickery and deception of this government has become contagious, even with as little as three months signs and symptoms can be manifested by anyone who enters office. What concerns me the most, is that after setting up a seemingly well thought out pre-budget rally, and announcing the removal of VAT on certain items, almost immediately the government took it back with the other hand. Of-course, it is not a behavior synonymous with the PP, moreover, it has been perpetrated many times within the political arena of Trinidad and Tobago.
Given that the proper bodies are not yet in place, with the removal of VAT, who would be the entities actually monitoring business owners, in a bid to have a downward movement in prices? Thus, one can contend that the real beneficiary of this "removal" if not carefully monitored are the affluent business owners who would, but enjoy exorbitant profit margins courtesy this Government. While on the other hand poor people and the most vulnerable continue to perish in poverty and substandard of living.
My research on the topic VAT and Inflation yielded results which indicates that "there seems to be nothing inherently inflationary about the use of VAT..." "VAT was not a contributory factor to inflation". How then, can a Minister stand in parliament and indicate to the nation that the removal of VAT would indeed deflate the economy. This fellow citizens is Pure Dunceness!. If we define inflation as the rapid growth in prices over time, how can can VAT contribute to that, when VAT is a one off introductory standard levied on a particular goods? Why not introduce price control measures which can be used effectively to dampen the potential of any inflationary pressures that VAT inherently may posses. No! this government is focused on deceptive measures of doing things. They must make it seem as they are generous (on the one side) by removing VAT, while on the other hand they swiftly "buss we throat" by partially removing gas subsidy. Why didn't they not indicate to the country that premium gasoline would been going up at the pre-budget rally? I guess that would not have aid in their quest to divert the national audience from a well sculpted masterpiece, section 34.
Given that the proper bodies are not yet in place, with the removal of VAT, who would be the entities actually monitoring business owners, in a bid to have a downward movement in prices? Thus, one can contend that the real beneficiary of this "removal" if not carefully monitored are the affluent business owners who would, but enjoy exorbitant profit margins courtesy this Government. While on the other hand poor people and the most vulnerable continue to perish in poverty and substandard of living.
My research on the topic VAT and Inflation yielded results which indicates that "there seems to be nothing inherently inflationary about the use of VAT..." "VAT was not a contributory factor to inflation". How then, can a Minister stand in parliament and indicate to the nation that the removal of VAT would indeed deflate the economy. This fellow citizens is Pure Dunceness!. If we define inflation as the rapid growth in prices over time, how can can VAT contribute to that, when VAT is a one off introductory standard levied on a particular goods? Why not introduce price control measures which can be used effectively to dampen the potential of any inflationary pressures that VAT inherently may posses. No! this government is focused on deceptive measures of doing things. They must make it seem as they are generous (on the one side) by removing VAT, while on the other hand they swiftly "buss we throat" by partially removing gas subsidy. Why didn't they not indicate to the country that premium gasoline would been going up at the pre-budget rally? I guess that would not have aid in their quest to divert the national audience from a well sculpted masterpiece, section 34.
But even as VAT is a move made with deceptive intent, the removal of gasoline is even worst. You may argue that we Trini like too much freeness. However, insofar that we are producers of oil and gas, we the citizens should equitably be able to enjoy the spoils thereof. When the state takes 'taxpayer's' monies and spend it exploring for energy, that arrangement is known as "an investment". However, when energy is found, the reward of sharing in "the investment" which we the citizens have financed should not be lessened to a 'subsidy', whose removal can executed at the snap of a finger. I am cognizant that fuel subsidy must inevitably be revised, however, the pros and cons must be weighed and cautiously implemented with minimal effects to that of the most vulnerable.
To further compound matters, GATE have now been censored. Howai stated that Tuition fees for under graduate programmes at both private and public institutions will be funded at varying rates based on their socio-economic priority. This may strike you as something good, but the science of life demands that we look at the greater good. I must first appreciate the fact that the implementation of GATE would have allow many persons, who would not have otherwise been able to afford tertiary education to do so. Thus, these individuals were able to improve their social status. This blanket removal in more ways than one reminds me of the dollar for dollar as it was always the UNC policy that Government must not spend heavily on education and further perpetuate the divide that exist. Insofar that the UNC's agenda is clear, I am forced to contend that the abuse must not go on unabated. But should it be censored based on socio-economic class, or based on academic performance, i believe the latter would be easier justifiable.
After presenting the country's largest budget, nothing was really there for the people. The persons whom this budget aims to satisfy are the folks in which they serve-the rich business men. You see, the rich business men benefits from the removal of VAT even more than a poor man, as less of his salary would go on purchasing food items. Moreover, the removal of premium gas subsidy, is a weapon against the middle class (not the rich) as the upper class enjoys the comforts of SUV's and Sub SUV's most of which runs on diesel fuel, the highest subsidized fuel in our country. Thus, if they would have had more income from a reduction in taxes and a hefty subsidy in fuel, they can afford at any cost to send their off-springs for higher education. Now the chits are perfectly placed, let the game begin.
So in light of these three massive removals, (one which presumingly benefits the citizens directly, and others which they contend would benefit us indirectly) one must assess Howai's presentation in its entirety. I personally do not believe its a streak of brilliance but a clear case of pure dunceness.
To further compound matters, GATE have now been censored. Howai stated that Tuition fees for under graduate programmes at both private and public institutions will be funded at varying rates based on their socio-economic priority. This may strike you as something good, but the science of life demands that we look at the greater good. I must first appreciate the fact that the implementation of GATE would have allow many persons, who would not have otherwise been able to afford tertiary education to do so. Thus, these individuals were able to improve their social status. This blanket removal in more ways than one reminds me of the dollar for dollar as it was always the UNC policy that Government must not spend heavily on education and further perpetuate the divide that exist. Insofar that the UNC's agenda is clear, I am forced to contend that the abuse must not go on unabated. But should it be censored based on socio-economic class, or based on academic performance, i believe the latter would be easier justifiable.
After presenting the country's largest budget, nothing was really there for the people. The persons whom this budget aims to satisfy are the folks in which they serve-the rich business men. You see, the rich business men benefits from the removal of VAT even more than a poor man, as less of his salary would go on purchasing food items. Moreover, the removal of premium gas subsidy, is a weapon against the middle class (not the rich) as the upper class enjoys the comforts of SUV's and Sub SUV's most of which runs on diesel fuel, the highest subsidized fuel in our country. Thus, if they would have had more income from a reduction in taxes and a hefty subsidy in fuel, they can afford at any cost to send their off-springs for higher education. Now the chits are perfectly placed, let the game begin.
So in light of these three massive removals, (one which presumingly benefits the citizens directly, and others which they contend would benefit us indirectly) one must assess Howai's presentation in its entirety. I personally do not believe its a streak of brilliance but a clear case of pure dunceness.
