One of the ways in which the global recession is beginning to impact disposable incomes of people in the Caribbean is the fact that governments throughout the region have sought, or will seek, to raise taxes. With three days to go before the last Christmas of the first decade of the 21st century, it may have been a little unusual to see parliamentarians in Port-of-Spain debating legislation as fundamental as the major reform to the country’s system of property taxation. One of the points about the proposed property tax is that it seeks to provide the Government with a substantial new revenue plank at a time when the country’s revenue base has been challenged by the sharp decline in earnings from the country’s energy sector. The fact is that the Government forecasts that it will earn $37.9 billion in revenue from all sources in the fiscal year October 2008 to September 2009. This is a 39 per cent decline in tax revenue from the year before.
Based on an assumption of an oil price of US$55 per barrel and a natural gas price of US$2.75 per million cubic feet, the Government predicts that total revenue for the current fiscal year will amount to $36.6 billion. But while the decision by the Government to proceed with the new property tax has led to a great deal of heat, T&T nationals should consider the situation in which our neighbours to the north find themselves. In Jamaica, the Minister of Finance last week tabled in their Parliament the third set of revenue-raising measures for their fiscal year which ends in April. The Jamaican economy has been devastated by the sharp decline in its three main sources of foreign earnings: taxes on its alumina and bauxite resources, revenue collected from tourists who visit the island, and money sent to Jamaicans by friends and family members living in the US, Canada and the UK.
Jamaica has also been impacted by years of living beyond its means—by spending significantly more than it collects—with budgets over the years being balanced only because the country has been able to borrow from international and local banks at ever-increasing interest rates. But with three credit rating agencies downgrading Jamaica’s foreign debt to levels that indicate that there is an expectation that the country will not be able to service its debts, there are few commercial banks that would be brave enough to lend Jamaica money—even if banks the world over did not face liquidity concerns. As a result of global downturn and its own lack of fiscal prudence over the last three decades, the country has been forced back into the arms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—with which Jamaica has had a fractious relationship.
In preparation for the new stand-by agreement with the IMF, the Jamaican Government has been placed in the invidious position of having to announce a punitive package of new and increased taxes a little more than a week before that country celebrates Christmas. Among the measures that were announced in the Jamaican Parliament to be implemented on January 1 were an increase in the general consumption tax (GCT) from 16.5 per cent to 17.5 per cent and an expansion in the tax base of the GCT to include many food items such as fresh fruit and vegetables, ground provisions, sugar, salt, flour and cooking oil. Jamaica’s Minister of Finance also announced increases in the taxes on electricity and gasoline. Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who made an unannounced visit to Port-of-Spain last Wednesday as the country seeks to divest its national air carrier, made it clear in a statement on Sunday that he has no choice but to raise taxes.
“I urge the Jamaican people to understand that our choices are extremely limited and there is no easy way out. Our current revenues cannot meet our required expenditures and we cannot continue to borrow our way into an even worse crisis,” said Mr Golding. While we say a prayer for our brothers and sisters in Jamaica, we also need to learn from them the dangers of living beyond our means.
22 Dec 2009
caribdaily
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Climate Summit deal 'falls short of what's required to avoid catastrophe'
By ALISON LOWE
Tribune Staff Reporter
alowe@tribunemedia.net:
THE critical two-week long UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen ended on Friday without a legally-binding deal being reached on efforts to curb global carbon emissions and no set future date by which attempts would be made to achieve such an agreement.
Chairman of CARICOM, President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, told The Tribune yesterday that the deal reached between a number of countries at the summit "has some positive elements but falls short of what is required to avoid catastrophic climate change".
The so-called Copenhagen Accord brokered between the US, China, Brazil, South Africa and India involves "significant departures from CARICOM's position" on what the Summit needed to achieve for the benefit of its members and the world in the fight against global climate change, added the President.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham was one of three CARICOM leaders including Mr Jagdeo who, along with dozens of world leaders, decided to personally attended the UN Climate Summit last week in the hope of helping to ensure a meaningful outcome would be reached.
While at the Summit, Mr Ingraham made a speech in which he reiterated his warning that the Bahamas "will suffer catastrophic results if emissions are not stabilized and reduced".
"A temperature rise of two degrees Celsius will result in sea level rise of two metres and will submerge 80 per cent of our territory," stated Mr Ingraham.
Yesterday Mr Jagdeo noted that the Accord announced late Friday night by US President Barack Obama "seeks to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels (but) the commitments listed (by individual countries on cutting carbon emissions) in its appendices would lead to an increase of over 3 degrees".
CARICOM and the Alliance of Small Island States, of which The Bahamas is a part, had both called for countries to commit at Copenhagen to doing what is necessary to limit temperature increases to 1.5 celsius above pre-industrial levels if its members and other countries are "to stay alive".
Speaking at the close of the Summit, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the deal "an essential beginning" but cautioned that serious work lies ahead to turn it into a legally binding treaty.
Nonetheless he praised the fact that "all countries have agreed to work towards a common long-term goal to limit the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; many governments have made important commitments to reduce or limit emissions; countries have achieved significant progress on preserving forests; and countries have agreed to provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable to cope with climate change".
President Obama called the Accord an "important breakthrough that lays the foundation for international action in the years to come" but also admitted that it leaves the world with "much further to go" to get the legally binding agreement that is agreed to be necessary to avert the most devastating potential impacts of climate change.
And besides the question of turning the Accord into an agreement with legal teeth, the criticism remains that while it "recognises" the scientific case for keeping global temperature rises to no more than two degrees celsius in total it does not contain the kind of commitments by countries to reductions in emissions that would achieve that goal.
Meanwhile, it is not yet known whether all 192 countries outside of the small group who ultimately negotiated the Accord will adopt it.
Yesterday Mr Jagdeo, who has been a strong advocate for action on climate change, said that based on what transpired at Copenhagen, he does not think the type of agreement which climate experts say is necessary to save small island and low lying states like The Bahamas and Guyana can now be reached by the end of 2010.
December 21, 2009
tribune242
Tribune Staff Reporter
alowe@tribunemedia.net:
THE critical two-week long UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen ended on Friday without a legally-binding deal being reached on efforts to curb global carbon emissions and no set future date by which attempts would be made to achieve such an agreement.
Chairman of CARICOM, President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, told The Tribune yesterday that the deal reached between a number of countries at the summit "has some positive elements but falls short of what is required to avoid catastrophic climate change".
The so-called Copenhagen Accord brokered between the US, China, Brazil, South Africa and India involves "significant departures from CARICOM's position" on what the Summit needed to achieve for the benefit of its members and the world in the fight against global climate change, added the President.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham was one of three CARICOM leaders including Mr Jagdeo who, along with dozens of world leaders, decided to personally attended the UN Climate Summit last week in the hope of helping to ensure a meaningful outcome would be reached.
While at the Summit, Mr Ingraham made a speech in which he reiterated his warning that the Bahamas "will suffer catastrophic results if emissions are not stabilized and reduced".
"A temperature rise of two degrees Celsius will result in sea level rise of two metres and will submerge 80 per cent of our territory," stated Mr Ingraham.
Yesterday Mr Jagdeo noted that the Accord announced late Friday night by US President Barack Obama "seeks to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels (but) the commitments listed (by individual countries on cutting carbon emissions) in its appendices would lead to an increase of over 3 degrees".
CARICOM and the Alliance of Small Island States, of which The Bahamas is a part, had both called for countries to commit at Copenhagen to doing what is necessary to limit temperature increases to 1.5 celsius above pre-industrial levels if its members and other countries are "to stay alive".
Speaking at the close of the Summit, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the deal "an essential beginning" but cautioned that serious work lies ahead to turn it into a legally binding treaty.
Nonetheless he praised the fact that "all countries have agreed to work towards a common long-term goal to limit the global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; many governments have made important commitments to reduce or limit emissions; countries have achieved significant progress on preserving forests; and countries have agreed to provide comprehensive support to the most vulnerable to cope with climate change".
President Obama called the Accord an "important breakthrough that lays the foundation for international action in the years to come" but also admitted that it leaves the world with "much further to go" to get the legally binding agreement that is agreed to be necessary to avert the most devastating potential impacts of climate change.
And besides the question of turning the Accord into an agreement with legal teeth, the criticism remains that while it "recognises" the scientific case for keeping global temperature rises to no more than two degrees celsius in total it does not contain the kind of commitments by countries to reductions in emissions that would achieve that goal.
Meanwhile, it is not yet known whether all 192 countries outside of the small group who ultimately negotiated the Accord will adopt it.
Yesterday Mr Jagdeo, who has been a strong advocate for action on climate change, said that based on what transpired at Copenhagen, he does not think the type of agreement which climate experts say is necessary to save small island and low lying states like The Bahamas and Guyana can now be reached by the end of 2010.
December 21, 2009
tribune242
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest
By David Roberts:
First the good news. Support for democracy in Latin America is at its highest level since the late 1990s, according to the latest version of the highly respected Latinobarómetro survey, published a few days ago. And that's despite the quasi coup in Honduras and the financial crisis-cum-economic slump.
Overall explicit support for democracy - those believing it is preferable to any other system of government - stands at 59%, according to the survey of some 18,000 people in all Latin American countries except Cuba. Last year the figure came in at 57% and the year before 54%.
"Implicit" approval, meaning accepting democracy has its shortcomings but it's still better than other systems - what Latinobarómetro calls Churchillian democracy based on his famous quote paraphrased in the headline of this column - stands at 76% in the 2009 survey.
"In summary… Latin America is more democratic after the 2009 crisis, it is more tolerant, is happier," the survey's authors conclude, as reforms in the region are starting to bear fruit. It seems we've never had it so good, to paraphrase another former British prime minister.
Interestingly, support is strongest in Venezuela, a country where many regard democracy as being under threat at present, at 85% in the explicit category and 90% in the implicit one, the 2009 version of the survey concludes. Perhaps if Cuba had been included it would have scored even higher. Next, in the explicit category, come Uruguay, Costa Rica and Bolivia.
A little disturbingly, however, at the other end of the scale support is a mere 42% in Mexico (explicit) and 62% implicit. It's also worryingly low in Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Guatemala, at least according to the 115 page survey produced by the Santiago-based NGO.
It's easy to pick holes in a survey of this type, but one thing is for sure: Latin America is in much better shape now than it was two or three decades ago, at least in terms of democracy and stability.
In the 1970s and 80s, military regimes ruled large parts of South America (Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) while Paraguay was under the iron fist of Alfredo Stroessner. Bolivia's "palace coups" were all too frequent, and Mexico was effectively a one-party state.
In the 1980s, civil wars were raging in Central America, Cuba was seen as a real military threat to much of the region and Peru was rocked by terrorist violence, while Colombia was being torn apart by guerrillas, drug barons and paramilitaries. Then there was the US invasion of Panama, and in the 1990s came the Zapatista "uprising" in Mexico's Chiapas.
And while the recent crisis has hit the region hard, especially Mexico and those countries more dependent on manufacturing and US markets, things need to be put into perspective. In the 1980s, we had hyperinflation in many countries in the region, the infamous debt crisis and banking meltdown after meltdown, and that's not to mention the Tequila and Asian crises that followed.
Today, with the one obvious exception of Cuba and the less obvious one of Honduras given the recent elections and the prospect that the "civil coup" will simply peter out after Porfirio Lobo takes office, democracy in some form or another prevails universally throughout the region, as witnessed most recently by Sunday's elections in Chile. In the meantime, there are plenty of signs that the region and the world are emerging from the recent economic crisis.
So, reasons to be cheerful there are indeed, although as Latinobarómetro says, the positive results of this year's survey provide no motive to celebrate just yet given the problems in the region and the potential to return to instability.
bnamericas
First the good news. Support for democracy in Latin America is at its highest level since the late 1990s, according to the latest version of the highly respected Latinobarómetro survey, published a few days ago. And that's despite the quasi coup in Honduras and the financial crisis-cum-economic slump. Overall explicit support for democracy - those believing it is preferable to any other system of government - stands at 59%, according to the survey of some 18,000 people in all Latin American countries except Cuba. Last year the figure came in at 57% and the year before 54%.
"Implicit" approval, meaning accepting democracy has its shortcomings but it's still better than other systems - what Latinobarómetro calls Churchillian democracy based on his famous quote paraphrased in the headline of this column - stands at 76% in the 2009 survey.
"In summary… Latin America is more democratic after the 2009 crisis, it is more tolerant, is happier," the survey's authors conclude, as reforms in the region are starting to bear fruit. It seems we've never had it so good, to paraphrase another former British prime minister.
Interestingly, support is strongest in Venezuela, a country where many regard democracy as being under threat at present, at 85% in the explicit category and 90% in the implicit one, the 2009 version of the survey concludes. Perhaps if Cuba had been included it would have scored even higher. Next, in the explicit category, come Uruguay, Costa Rica and Bolivia.
A little disturbingly, however, at the other end of the scale support is a mere 42% in Mexico (explicit) and 62% implicit. It's also worryingly low in Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Guatemala, at least according to the 115 page survey produced by the Santiago-based NGO.
It's easy to pick holes in a survey of this type, but one thing is for sure: Latin America is in much better shape now than it was two or three decades ago, at least in terms of democracy and stability.
In the 1970s and 80s, military regimes ruled large parts of South America (Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) while Paraguay was under the iron fist of Alfredo Stroessner. Bolivia's "palace coups" were all too frequent, and Mexico was effectively a one-party state.
In the 1980s, civil wars were raging in Central America, Cuba was seen as a real military threat to much of the region and Peru was rocked by terrorist violence, while Colombia was being torn apart by guerrillas, drug barons and paramilitaries. Then there was the US invasion of Panama, and in the 1990s came the Zapatista "uprising" in Mexico's Chiapas.
And while the recent crisis has hit the region hard, especially Mexico and those countries more dependent on manufacturing and US markets, things need to be put into perspective. In the 1980s, we had hyperinflation in many countries in the region, the infamous debt crisis and banking meltdown after meltdown, and that's not to mention the Tequila and Asian crises that followed.
Today, with the one obvious exception of Cuba and the less obvious one of Honduras given the recent elections and the prospect that the "civil coup" will simply peter out after Porfirio Lobo takes office, democracy in some form or another prevails universally throughout the region, as witnessed most recently by Sunday's elections in Chile. In the meantime, there are plenty of signs that the region and the world are emerging from the recent economic crisis.
So, reasons to be cheerful there are indeed, although as Latinobarómetro says, the positive results of this year's survey provide no motive to celebrate just yet given the problems in the region and the potential to return to instability.
bnamericas
Friday, December 18, 2009
Caribbean Region needs to focus more on environmental leadership
There must be more emphasis on environmental leadership and regional co-ordination in the Caribbean.
This was the message of Dr. Mark Griffith, as his organisation CaribInvest
honoured seven regional luminaries that have made an outstanding contribution to environmental sustainability. The event took place on Wednesday evening as part of the two-day Second Caribbean Dialogue on Caribbean Economic Expansion, Investment and Opportunities Arising from the Economic Partnership Agreement at the PomMarine Hotel.
Griffith noted that the environment had not been one of the key issues taken on by CARICOM, but noted that there had been a lot of work on the issue in past decades which was not necessarily being recognised. To this end, the recipients have also been honoured in a book entitled “Nuts and Bolts” by Griffith and Derrick Oderson that is dedicated to issues relating to Caribbean Community law and regional environmental co-ordination.
“Essentially, the publication seeks to put into perspective what has taken place in the region since the late 1980s,” Griffith said during the presentation. This, he said, was derived from the lack of historical perspective on what our negotiators have achieved in terms of the evolution of environmental and sustainable development co-ordination in the Caribbean.
Griffith said the book was dedicated to several people who have made a significant contribution to the area of environmental sustainability, explaining, “The period late 1980s–mid-1990s is described in the book as the golden period of regional co-ordination.”
The honourees included Dr. Ted Aldridge, a Jamaican, who worked tirelessly to promote regional environmental co-ordination and Charles Leeward, a former Ambassador from Guyana to the United Nations Environment Programme, for his strong role in environmental co-ordination; both are deceased. In addition, Professor B. Persaud, former Director of Economic Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat and Minister Lincoln Myers of Trinidad and Tobago, who Griffith described as one of the most outstanding Ministers of Environment in the region, were both noted for their roles in the 1994 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) conference in Barbados. Furthermore, Myers was noted for his role in spearheading the creation of the Alliance of Small Island States, which was launched in 1989 and helped direct more focus on small island developing states.
Former Guyanese Foreign Minister Rashleigh Jackson was also honoured for the important guidance he provided for the designation of SIDS. Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Teresa Marshall, was recognised for her role in ensuring the success of the First Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of SIDS, which was held in Barbados in 1994. Griffith said Marshall played a significant role in bringing together the developing states to partner, without which the conference would not have been a success. Finally, former Prime Minister of Barbados, Sir Lloyd Sandiford, was lauded for the support he showed for the conference being hosted in Barbados despite the economic difficulties being faced. (NC)
12/18/2009
caribdaily
This was the message of Dr. Mark Griffith, as his organisation CaribInvest
honoured seven regional luminaries that have made an outstanding contribution to environmental sustainability. The event took place on Wednesday evening as part of the two-day Second Caribbean Dialogue on Caribbean Economic Expansion, Investment and Opportunities Arising from the Economic Partnership Agreement at the PomMarine Hotel.
Griffith noted that the environment had not been one of the key issues taken on by CARICOM, but noted that there had been a lot of work on the issue in past decades which was not necessarily being recognised. To this end, the recipients have also been honoured in a book entitled “Nuts and Bolts” by Griffith and Derrick Oderson that is dedicated to issues relating to Caribbean Community law and regional environmental co-ordination.
“Essentially, the publication seeks to put into perspective what has taken place in the region since the late 1980s,” Griffith said during the presentation. This, he said, was derived from the lack of historical perspective on what our negotiators have achieved in terms of the evolution of environmental and sustainable development co-ordination in the Caribbean.
Griffith said the book was dedicated to several people who have made a significant contribution to the area of environmental sustainability, explaining, “The period late 1980s–mid-1990s is described in the book as the golden period of regional co-ordination.”
The honourees included Dr. Ted Aldridge, a Jamaican, who worked tirelessly to promote regional environmental co-ordination and Charles Leeward, a former Ambassador from Guyana to the United Nations Environment Programme, for his strong role in environmental co-ordination; both are deceased. In addition, Professor B. Persaud, former Director of Economic Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat and Minister Lincoln Myers of Trinidad and Tobago, who Griffith described as one of the most outstanding Ministers of Environment in the region, were both noted for their roles in the 1994 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) conference in Barbados. Furthermore, Myers was noted for his role in spearheading the creation of the Alliance of Small Island States, which was launched in 1989 and helped direct more focus on small island developing states.
Former Guyanese Foreign Minister Rashleigh Jackson was also honoured for the important guidance he provided for the designation of SIDS. Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Teresa Marshall, was recognised for her role in ensuring the success of the First Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of SIDS, which was held in Barbados in 1994. Griffith said Marshall played a significant role in bringing together the developing states to partner, without which the conference would not have been a success. Finally, former Prime Minister of Barbados, Sir Lloyd Sandiford, was lauded for the support he showed for the conference being hosted in Barbados despite the economic difficulties being faced. (NC)
12/18/2009
caribdaily
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Extradited Jamaican has case dismissed
Mark Beckford, Staff Reporter:
Another Jamaican has had his court case dismissed by a United States judge because of lack of evidence, after being extradited to that country on charges of trafficking of cocaine and money laundering.
Adrian Armstrong's case was dismissed on September 23 after being extradited to the US in 2006. This was after spending two years in custody in Jamaica.
Armstrong's ordeal began when he was arrested on July 11, 2004 on a narcotics charge.
On July 13, 2006, he decided to discontinue his fight against the charges in the US after reportedly "losing faith" in the local justice system.
Armstrong's charges were based on evidence offered by a co-operating witness known as Duffis Alexander, who presented himself as a witness.
The witness purported to have taped and recorded telephone conversations between himself and Armstrong regarding cocaine trafficking and money laundering. Neither the tape nor a transcript of the tape was supplied with the extradition request.
Applications to the resident magistrate and to the Supreme Court, as well as requests to the requesting state's representative for the tape, were unsuccessful.
In the US, these tapes were presented in court and subsequently examined by an expert on behalf of Armstrong, and two experts, on behalf of the government.
Examination of these tapes revealed there were several discrepancies.
These included stop-start features on the recording, a possibility that there was over-recording, anomalies which question its moral integrity and the possibility of tampering.
Evidence
Based on evidence, on December 30, 2008, the US judge ordered the suppression of the tape, but denied the motion to dismiss on the basis of outrageous government conduct.
The prosecution then offered Armstrong a plea to a lesser offence, which he refused.
Armstrong's lawyer persisted with the motion to dismiss, which was finally granted on the government's application on September 23.
Armstrong has not yet returned to the island, his lawyer Jacqueline Samuels-Brown told The Gleaner.
She said she was in contact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as her client had no passport for travel. She said he was in the process of gathering these documents to return home.
Picking up the pieces will not be so easy, Samuels-Brown said, as Armstrong has reportedly expressed disappointment at how he was treated.
"The way I would characterise him is that he is a patient person, a fighter, and his spirits remain strong. He has reiterated his love and commitment to his country, but he is disappointed that his country did not afford him the facilities and the protection of the law," said Samuels-Brown.
December 16, 2009
mark.beckford@gleanerjm.com
caribdaily
Another Jamaican has had his court case dismissed by a United States judge because of lack of evidence, after being extradited to that country on charges of trafficking of cocaine and money laundering.
Adrian Armstrong's case was dismissed on September 23 after being extradited to the US in 2006. This was after spending two years in custody in Jamaica.
Armstrong's ordeal began when he was arrested on July 11, 2004 on a narcotics charge.
On July 13, 2006, he decided to discontinue his fight against the charges in the US after reportedly "losing faith" in the local justice system.
Armstrong's charges were based on evidence offered by a co-operating witness known as Duffis Alexander, who presented himself as a witness.
The witness purported to have taped and recorded telephone conversations between himself and Armstrong regarding cocaine trafficking and money laundering. Neither the tape nor a transcript of the tape was supplied with the extradition request.
Applications to the resident magistrate and to the Supreme Court, as well as requests to the requesting state's representative for the tape, were unsuccessful.
In the US, these tapes were presented in court and subsequently examined by an expert on behalf of Armstrong, and two experts, on behalf of the government.
Examination of these tapes revealed there were several discrepancies.
These included stop-start features on the recording, a possibility that there was over-recording, anomalies which question its moral integrity and the possibility of tampering.
Evidence
Based on evidence, on December 30, 2008, the US judge ordered the suppression of the tape, but denied the motion to dismiss on the basis of outrageous government conduct.
The prosecution then offered Armstrong a plea to a lesser offence, which he refused.
Armstrong's lawyer persisted with the motion to dismiss, which was finally granted on the government's application on September 23.
Armstrong has not yet returned to the island, his lawyer Jacqueline Samuels-Brown told The Gleaner.
She said she was in contact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as her client had no passport for travel. She said he was in the process of gathering these documents to return home.
Picking up the pieces will not be so easy, Samuels-Brown said, as Armstrong has reportedly expressed disappointment at how he was treated.
"The way I would characterise him is that he is a patient person, a fighter, and his spirits remain strong. He has reiterated his love and commitment to his country, but he is disappointed that his country did not afford him the facilities and the protection of the law," said Samuels-Brown.
December 16, 2009
mark.beckford@gleanerjm.com
caribdaily
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
More tax for Bahamas Banking sector
By Scott Armstrong ~ Guardian Business Editor ~ scott@nasguard.com:
The domestic banking sector of The Bahamas is set to be hit by increased taxes next year, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has vowed.
Speaking at a press conference at Nassau' airport the Prime Minister said: "The banking sector in The Bahamas is under-taxed, we've made that point before. We began last year increasing the licensing fees for banks in The Bahamas, that is inadequate.
"The banking sector should pay more and in due course they will be required to pay more."
One leading light in the financial world to agreed that the banking sector should be taxed harder.
President/chief executive of British American Financial Chester Cooper said: "Many offshore centers like the Bahamas appear to be increasing indirect taxes with a view to avoiding the implementation of more direct means of taxation such as income taxes or Value Added Taxes (VAT).
"Quite frankly, in time we will find that we have delayed the inevitable. Direct taxation although not without its challenges will be more efficient in terms of collections and otherwise, but is more progressive and equitable as well.
"It has long been the view that banks in the Bahamas are under-taxed and the formula quite rightly needs to be re-assessed. Insurers for example, pay a percentage of top line Gross premiums by way of premium taxes. This amount can work out to be inequitable and substantial, as there is no regard for whether the company makes a profit or not."
December 15, 2009
thenassauguardian
The domestic banking sector of The Bahamas is set to be hit by increased taxes next year, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has vowed.
Speaking at a press conference at Nassau' airport the Prime Minister said: "The banking sector in The Bahamas is under-taxed, we've made that point before. We began last year increasing the licensing fees for banks in The Bahamas, that is inadequate.
"The banking sector should pay more and in due course they will be required to pay more."
One leading light in the financial world to agreed that the banking sector should be taxed harder.
President/chief executive of British American Financial Chester Cooper said: "Many offshore centers like the Bahamas appear to be increasing indirect taxes with a view to avoiding the implementation of more direct means of taxation such as income taxes or Value Added Taxes (VAT).
"Quite frankly, in time we will find that we have delayed the inevitable. Direct taxation although not without its challenges will be more efficient in terms of collections and otherwise, but is more progressive and equitable as well.
"It has long been the view that banks in the Bahamas are under-taxed and the formula quite rightly needs to be re-assessed. Insurers for example, pay a percentage of top line Gross premiums by way of premium taxes. This amount can work out to be inequitable and substantial, as there is no regard for whether the company makes a profit or not."
December 15, 2009
thenassauguardian
Monday, December 14, 2009
Our leadership paradox in the Caribbean
The political leadership paradox in the Caribbean Region: So many powerful leaders possessing so little leadership capacity
Michael Harris:
This past week I was in Jamaica where the venerable daily newspaper the Gleaner took the unprecedented step of publishing a series of four consecutive special editorials essentially calling on all sectors of Jamaican society to rally together to find solutions to the deep and seemingly endemic problems which that country faces.
In addition to the Gleaner’s own editorials, the paper also invited several prominent citizens to a round-table discussion in which they were asked not only to address what they saw as the causes of the problems but to put forward their views as to the required solutions.
What struck me about the whole discussion was the almost unanimous view of the several participants that a key component of the problem was the failure of leadership in the years since independence. What makes such a perspective really remarkable is the fact that Jamaica has had, since independence, a progression of exceedingly powerful and, in some cases, extremely charismatic leaders.
From the heroes of the nationalist movement, Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante, to Michael Manley and Edward Seaga, to PJ Patterson, Jamaica has had no dearth of strong leaders. How is it then that today, 47 years after independence, prominent voices in society, including former prime minister Seaga himself, could look at their history and conclude that a key contributory factor to the nation’s problems was a failure of leadership?
That question goes to the heart of the political conundrum not only of Jamaica but of the entire English-speaking Caribbean. The key political legacy in all these countries was a model of governance in which all power and authority resided in the person of the governor, the representative of the imperial power.
In some countries, some sectors of the society enjoyed varying degrees of representation but even in such instances these sectors still saw themselves and their status in relation to their degree of access to such centralised power. As for the people in general theirs was a condition of total powerlessness and zero access to power.
The only real change in the model had come a few years before political independence with the general introduction of full adult suffrage which meant that the masses of people could no longer be completely ignored but had to be wooed periodically for their support.
This in turn, after a while, led to the advent of political parties as the most effective means of corralling the support of people behind different political leaders. However these political parties for the most part never became institutions of people participation, where the ordinary supporters could engage in policy debate and discussion, and be exposed to political education and development.
The consequences of this in the post-independence period were several. In the first place the leaders who came into government inherited the enormous powers of the colonial executive but did not have, either inside their political parties or outside, any institutionalised channels for consulting the views of the people on the policies and programmes to be adopted.
On the other hand the political parties themselves, being simply vehicles for electoral mobilisation rather than political mobilisation, possessed no powers of constraint on the exercise of governmental power by their leaders.
The further result was a critical disconnect between the political leaders in government and the mass of their supporters, a disconnect which, for electoral purposes, could only be bridged by the sustained proffering of patronage. There is no country in the English-speaking Caribbean in which this is not the essential characteristic of the major political parties.
Herein lies the heart of the leadership paradox in Jamaica, as in Trinidad, as in every one of our Caribbean countries. Our leaders possess enormous amounts of legal and constitutional authority which they inherited when they took over the colonial model of governance. They are, in fact, our modern-day governors. The problem is that they are incapable of transforming such overwhelming authority into genuine political power, if we understand political power to be the ability to persuade and commit.
And the truth is that under conditions of independence, our governments, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how ’strong’, will never be able to solve the kind of economic and social problems we have in the Caribbean without persuading the vast majority of citizens to commit themselves to the effort and the sacrifices necessary for the solutions which we need to work.
That is the paradox. So many powerful leaders possessing so little leadership capacity. For leadership capacity does not depend on oratorical skills, it does not depend on intellectual ability, it does not depend of innate goodness and it certainly does not depend on divine drunkenness.
Leadership capacity depends on the existence and maintenance of institutions of political information, consultation and exchange between leaders and supporters which, when used in a genuine way and on a sustained basis, allows the leaders to time and space to persuade and commit. In short it depends on the existence of genuine political parties rather than election mobilisation outfits.
I am not familiar enough with Jamaica to hazard a guess as to what will happen there. Here in Trinidad however all the signs point to a total collapse of the old politics and with it the old political parties. That eventuality surely must present us with a golden opportunity to fashion new institutions of leadership.
December 14th 2009
trinidadexpress
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)