Google Ads

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Russia had no stomach for the Grenadian revolution

By EVERTON PRYCE

Grenadian revolution Grenada

IT is often said that the marginal Marxist-Leninist Caribbean state of Grenada under Maurice Bishop's New Jewel Movement (NJM) of 1979-1983 was a satellite of Russia. But many readers of this column may be surprised to learn that Moscow had no desire to aid the spice island economically or otherwise, at levels the native revolutionaries expected.

Shortly after seizing power on March 13, 1979, the NJM's expectation of fraternal assistance from Moscow went into overdrive based on the assumption that communist countries had a greater concern than the West for the plight of Third World peoples.



BISHOP… seized power on March 13, 1979
And given the large cache of Russian-made guns, ammunition and military hardware that found their way in the control of the People's Revolutionary Army (PRA), the outside world also formed the impression that Russia was backing, unconditionally, the aims and objectives of the revolution.

But documents on Grenada-Russian relations released by the United States, after the 1983 invasion which it dubbed 'Operation Urgent Fury', tell an interesting story: Moscow did not want, nor could it afford, any more Cubas in the Caribbean.

Though somewhat dated, the documents referenced the deep involvement in the revolution of several prominent middle-class Jamaicans who are today comfortably ensconced in academia and the private sector with possible knowledge of how Bishop and some of his Cabinet colleagues were murdered and the location of their remains.

The documents also show Moscow's reluctance to commit itself to the Grenadian revolution to the same extent it did for the Cuban revolution 20 years earlier. This means that the Grenadian revolution was running on ideological fumes only for much of its existence.

"The Soviet Union is very careful, and for us sometimes maddeningly slow, in making up their minds about who to support," the Grenadian ambassador to Russia at the time is quoted as saying in the documents.

We can only imagine how disappointed Bishop and his band of revolutionary leaders must have been on learning of this Russian foreign policy attitude towards their country, given that in capturing State power they clearly felt that they qualified for Russian aid and support far beyond the levels that were actually forthcoming.

After all, the NJM had modelled itself on the Soviet Communist party even before it took State power, and in the United Nations, Grenada's voting pattern under the NJM favoured Moscow on important issues, more than other Third World Socialist-oriented states.

Even the NJM's party structure followed a Leninist pattern: a Politburo, Central Committee and the rest. The ruling party also had overriding control over the army, and imposed strict censorship on the media.
So, what could have prevented a major injection of Russian aid and support for revolutionary Grenada? Why wasn't Grenada benefiting from Russian developmental aid to the same extent as Cuba, which was estimated then at US$6 million per day?

Truth be told, the Grenada revolution came about at the wrong time, because the cost of Cuba was a price Moscow paid as a result of Russian policies in the Third World under Kruschev. In the post-Kruschev era in the early 1980s, the Russian leadership was far more cautious and selective in choosing the recipients of Russian economic aid and had become increasingly more cost-conscious and economically more self-interested. On reflection, Russian foreign policy was about concentrating on the problem of protecting established Soviet positions.

Russia's lack of involvement in the construction of the Point Salines International Airport (renamed appropriately the Maurice Bishop International Airport in 2009) bears this out. The airport project was the NJM's major economic preoccupation, and was the priority heading on the agenda of most Central Committee meetings, as well as being the main plank of the first Five-Year plan. The ruling party had hoped that the airport would go a long way in boosting the island's tourism trade and foreign exchange reserves.

But when Bishop, in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in April 1983, appealed for a Russian grant of US$6 million toward the airport project, the Russians turned down the request. Ultimately, the NJM had to turn to western donors for the funds to boost construction of the airport.

Bishop had even expected the Russians to purchase 1,000 tons of nutmeg on an annual basis. But the Russians replied that Moscow was only willing to import what it consumed each year, about 200-300 tons, and then "only at the world market price or below".

What is clear from all of this is that post-Kruschev Russia was not prepared to bail out the Grenadian economy, despite the fact that trade relations between the two countries had increased slightly. Neither was Grenada, under Bishop, blessed with observer status in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) — a status Mexico had enjoyed for a number of years.

Kruschev clearly had global ambitions for Russia in a practical sense: he considered the support of nationalist Third World leaders as a way of increasing Russia's role in the international political system outside Eastern Europe. Hence, by 1956, Moscow had begun to establish diplomatic relations with all Latin American states on the basis of non-interference in each other's domestic affairs and to develop a broad range of economic relations on the principle of equality and mutual advantage.

In the final analysis, Russia did not support hardline policies in Grenada during the period of the counter-revolution when Socialism became equated with murder and mayhem.

To be sure, it did not condemn the Bernard Coard faction, as explicitly as did Castro, for its part in provoking the split in the NJM's leadership and putting Bishop under house arrest.

Such was the character of Russian foreign policy towards Grenada in the early 1980s. Moscow was able to provide loose political and ideological support for the NJM while not committing itself to providing assistance in the reconstruction of the Grenadian economy or in defence of the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces — home-grown and foreign.

December 08, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

The Bahamas government's Value Added Tax (VAT) option in a fiscal crisis environment


VAT Bahamas


Why VAT and When?



By ARINTHIA S. KOMOLAFE
Nassau, The Bahamas

The Ministry of Finance (MOF) released the draft Value Added Tax (VAT) Bill, draft Value Added Tax Regulations 2013 and Guide to VAT legislation.  This release follows weeks of clamor and demand by various stakeholders.   In the days ahead, it is expected that the public discourse on this crucial component of our tax reform program will intensify as we begin to decipher the documents and properly assess the impact it will have on The Bahamas and Bahamians.


Consultation on VAT

A quick review of the draft VAT Bill will confirm what a number of Bahamians had known in relation to the initial discussions between the government and various industry groupings.

This observation is apparent by a simple comparison of the proposals contained in the white paper released in February 2013 and positions proposed in the draft VAT Bill.  It would be disingenuous therefore to suggest that the consultation period has only just begun with the release of the draft documents.  While none of the concessions agreed upon or compromises made during initial discussions could be said to be concrete or documented before now, it is apparent that the MOF had chosen to incorporate some of the portions agreed with the various sectors, associations and interest groups into the draft that was released last week Friday.

The arguments put forward

The discussion on the introduction of VAT has been predictable until recently.  As was expected, the government has sought to articulate the importance of broadening its tax base to increase revenue as part of its fiscal consolidation plan to correct the country’s fiscal imbalance.   The MOF in leading this charge has highlighted the critical condition of The Bahamas’ finances and submitted that VAT is the best option for boosting government revenue at this point, bearing in mind that tariff rates must be reduced and trade barriers addressed if we are to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

It has been stated and noted that The Bahamas remains the only country in the Western Hemisphere that is not a member of the WTO and the government has warned that this puts us at a competitive disadvantage from an international trade perspective.   While the government has stated its commitment to curbing its spending and reducing subventions to its agencies and statutory bodies, the impact of reducing the public service with the current unemployment figures has been outlined using statistics on the multiplier effect on the economy and consumer spending by the MOF.

On the other hand, the private sector had taken the position that the government need not introduce new taxes but rather focus on cutting its expenditures and efficiently and effectively collect existing taxes including those that remain outstanding.  The private sector had further suggested that the introduction of VAT at this juncture, considering the current economic climate, would be inappropriate and further slow down an economy trying to fully recover from the Great Recession.  A reduction in the size of government, cutting of the public sector workforce and divesting of state-owned enterprises have also been recommended in a bid to address the GFS deficit and national debt.

The meeting of the minds

Our ability to come together in a non-partisan manner in times of crisis for the common good of our beloved country and future generations of Bahamians has become pronounced in recent times.  While it is our hope that this is not an isolated development, it is imperative that we applaud the Tax Coalition of the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation (BCCEC), the opposition party and other economic experts for what appears to be a willingness to contribute to the discussion and work with the government to address our fiscal crisis.

While enough blame for our current precarious fiscal position can be placed on successive administrations responsible for the governance of The Bahamas, the Tax Coalition was right in stating that we are all responsible for this predicament and all Bahamians have a role to play in solving our financial woes.   James Smith, former governor of the Central Bank and former minister of state for finance, on his part had reiterated that tax reform, and more specifically the implementation of VAT, will not be without pain.

The meeting of minds on the seriousness of the state of affairs of our finances and the consequences of not embarking on an urgent correction program must precede any logical discussion on the structure, details and specifics of the tax reform framework.  As we appear to have arrived at this point, hopefully the discussions will be elevated to ensure that all parties adhere to their commitments in returning The Bahamas to better financial health and prevent any further downgrades by international rating agencies, multilateral organizations and any potential loss of investor confidence in our economy.

At the core of this matter is the realization that successive administrations have with the help of local and internal experts considered the issue of tax reform and VAT for several years; however, the fortitude to confront the proverbial elephant in the room has been lacking until now albeit this has been spurred by the desperation created by the predicament we find ourselves in.

Preparing for VAT

As the July 1, 2014 proposed VAT implementation date approaches, enough has been said about the need for public education.  Ironically, it has been reported that the turnout for the educational and informational sessions held by the MOF to date have not been too impressive.   The MOF has promised to strengthen its VAT education and awareness campaign in the weeks ahead.   However, it is important that all stakeholders get involved in this process following the release of the VAT governing documents.  The media, industry associations, regulatory agencies, business entities and Members of Parliament will have to play significant roles in enlightening the masses in what is perhaps the most substantial change to our tax system in decades.

The private sector must also ensure that their concerns are documented and brought to the attention of the government.   It would be a worthwhile exercise to properly review the draft legislation with a view to providing constructive criticism and useful recommendations to improve the draft bill.   Business entities will also need to invest their time and resources into understanding what VAT will mean in the context of their operations.

Finally, the general public must fully recognize and appreciate that VAT is a consumption tax; that is, it taxes us on what we consume.   The final consumer will bear the ultimate burden of VAT and hence we must familiarize ourselves with the various goods and services that are subject to 15 percent VAT, 10 percent VAT, exempt status and zero-rated status.   Attendance at upcoming briefing and educational sessions on VAT by all Bahamians and local residents is therefore encouraged by this writer.

The VAT challenge

Regardless of where the VAT debate takes us in the months ahead, we must remember that there is hardly any gain without pain and there is seldom triumph without trials.  Indeed, in Christianity we often state that where there is no cross there is no crown. I n this sense, the days ahead will have challenges but we must look beyond these to the future of our Bahamaland and work towards restoring her by putting country first.

That being said, the government must double its efforts to simplify the VAT debate for the average Bahamian.   The MOF must work tirelessly to consider and address all concerns raised by the public during the consultation period.   The relevant systems must be put in place and resources engaged to ensure the effective and efficient administrative of VAT.   More importantly, the government must continue to demonstrate commitment to fiscal prudence and containment of expenditure.

If our country fails, we all fail, as we have nowhere else to call home or to claim as our own.   It would be illogical not to state that no amount of preparation can guarantee a hitch-free implementation, and the introduction of VAT will not be perfect.  The record shows that other countries have had challenges in spite of having devoted years to preparation.   We must be determined to make it work and co-operate with one another if The Bahamas is to emerge successfully from this fiscal crisis.   In the final analysis, the government will have to unequivocally convince the public as to why VAT is the best option at this time and confirm the implementation date.   One thing is certain: The urgency of now does not provide us with much time.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments on this article can be directed to a.s.komolafe510@gmail.com.

December 03, 2013

thenassauguardian

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The history of ganja and the Jamaican society is interesting and instructive

The ganja law of 1913: 100 years of oppressive injustice




By Louis MOYSTON

Ganja Jamaica
THIS year marks the 100th anniversary of the Ganja Law of 1913. This law was rooted in fear and also in a tradition of law-making that discriminated against lower class black people. It is a racist law that epitomises the oppressive injustice of slavery and the colonial/planter system. This racist law was the idea of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Jamaica. The Law gave the police special powers which members of the force used, in a brutal and repressive manner, against the people in general and the Rastafarians in particular. The Ganja Law of 1913 must be abolished and replaced by a new regime. The earliest debates on ganja were informed by elite white perception and anecdotal evidence. They lacked the philosophical, logical and scientific perspectives.

The history of ganja and the Jamaican society is interesting and instructive. It is interesting because of the major characters and setting associated with the Law of 1913 and its subsequent amendments. It is instructive because it illustrates the brutal nature of law-making process in post-slavery society, and its oppressive application against the masses, lower class black people. The emergence of the campaign and preparation of this oppressive instrument, the 1913 Law and its Amendment in the 1920's, was led by the Church and white elites. During the 1930's and 1940s the newspaper in combination with elite perception, the police and the Resident Magistrate were the major characters in the amendments in that period. In the pre-and post- Independence period the government through the Ministries of Home Affairs and later the Minister of Health led the ganja debate of the 1960s and 1970s. Today it is the Minister of Justice who plays the lead role for the government in the current ganja debate. The planter-controlled society meted out severe punishment to black labourers in the form of extremely high fines for penalties from court cases in the post-emancipation period. The fine for ganja, "a victimless crime", was exorbitant for people who had little or no money. When the fines were not effective as deterrent, they were combined with mandatory imprisonment. It was this law that introduced "mandatory imprisonment" in the jurisprudence landscape of Jamaica. This measure did not curb the use of ganja.

At the end of the 19th century into the early 20th century, the church in Jamaica saw its power declining. There were the emergence of the revivalist movements and also an increasing of vices — use of opium, ganja and alcohol. It felt that it had the moral obligation to curb, if not destroy these vices. Many newspaper reports have illustrated the issues of the church regarding ganja smoking among the "natives"; and also its association of ganja to insanity. In 1912 there was an Opium Convention at The Hague. There were also increasing concerns in Jamaica on ganja smoking among the "natives". According to one study, the Council of Evangelical Churches prepared the Law and sent it to the Legislative Council in 1912. It was not acted upon. In the same period the newspaper published that out of 283 people admitted admitted to using ganja. About the same period there was another article on the "Dangers of ganja smoking among the natives of this colony" illustrating the dangers of ganja smoking now that there is increasing evidence of ganja smoking among black people. The white elites associated violence with ganja smoking; and since they perceive black people as 'brutes' they developed narratives of the 'evils of ganja smoking' among lower class blacks. During the colonial/planter rule racism was the order of the day; and high fines as oppressive penalties were meted out against lower class black people for the simplest of crimes. The matter of race emerged again in the mid-1960s was raised by government Senator Ronald Irvine in the ganja debate with Opposition Senator Ken McNeil.

The Ganja Law of 1913 was employed against the "cultivation and importation" of ganja, punishable by a fine of one hundred pounds or up to 12 months imprisonment. The same Council of Evangelical Movement observed that the Law of 1913 was "practically useless". According to reports the Church called for amendments for smoking selling and entering premises upon which ganja is grown by the police. There was no regard for the rights of man on how he used his private property. This reflection on the second amendment took at the time of the 1924 UN Opium conference in Geneva. The 1924 Amendment, inspired by the Church called for drastic increased of fines and imprisonment on first conviction. It was renamed "Dangerous Drug Law of 1924". The 1930 and 1940's was marked with the rise of the early Rastafari movement and the role of lower class black people resisting oppression. The leading newspaper and the white elites began a national campaign against ganja against their fears about the plant. The police and the Resident Magistrates of the parishes were the leading characters in the amendment of the 1924 Law. There was concern that ganja smoking may have been associated with the uprisings among the masses in 1938. The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act may have provided propaganda during the period.

The 1940s amendment was, in part, a response to the emergence of Leonard P. Howell and the early Rastafari movement. The development of the Ganja amendments in the 1960's was also associated with radical activism by Rasta and also violence associated with the Henry back-to-Africa movement. It was the period of the "Coral Gardens Affairs" that the amendments of the 1960s took place. New developments in Jamaican politics in the 1970s and influence from scientific developments about ganja smoking, smashed the anecdotal allegations of the past. This led to profound change of the ganja law in the 1970s by removing the list of criminal activities associated with the law and its mandatory imprisonment characteristic. A study of Ganja Smoking in Jamaica completed by Rubin and Comitas in 1972 may have also had influence on the ganja debates of the 1970s. Changes in the USA during the 1990s and 2000s, have influenced levels of ganja lobbying in Jamaica that led to the Chevannes Commission in 2000 and the current initiative led by the Minister of Justice, Minister Mark Golding, respectively. The time has come for a new regime for ganja, similar to the license and regulation of alcohol. According to Fraser (1974) in his study on the ganja laws in the region, the eradication of ganja is impossible and the time has come for a new legal regime.

Louis EA Moyston
thearchives01@yahoo.com

December 02, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Obama’s unfulfilled Gitmo promise

Five years after his election, the U.S. President has not closed the prison on the illegally held Guantánamo Naval Base


By Manuel E. Yepe




THE failure to fulfill electoral promises made by candidates who win U.S. presidential elections is not news. In fact, this is corroborated by the corporate press in that nation.
 
However, in the case of current President Barack Obama – whose triumph had much to do with the relatively daring promises which allowed him to overcome the odds against him, given his ethnic and social origins and age, among other aspects – his failure to meet his promises has placed him in a position which could prove damaging to the Democratic Party in the 2016 elections.
 
One glaringly evident case little mentioned in the media is that, during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama described the case of Gitmo (as the illegally naval base is identified in the United States) as “a sad chapter in American history,” and promised that, if he were to be elected, the base would closed in 2009.
 
Shortly after his election, the new president reiterated his promise to close the base in an ABC television interview.
 
However, in November 2009, Obama was forced to acknowledge that it was not possible to set a specific date for the closure, while announcing that it would most likely occur at some undetermined point in 2009.
 
On December 15, 2009, a presidential memorandum issued by Obama ordered the closing of the prison camp and the transfer of the detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. Shortly afterward, in a letter to Congressman Frank Wolf, who was making every effort to avoid the transfer of the Guantánamo detainees to Thomson, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated that such a move would violate legal prohibitions which he was determined to uphold.
 
And thus this vacillation has continued to date, in a clear demonstration of the President’s unwillingness to confront the issue, despite popular will as expressed in the elections.
 
It should be noted that there has been no media reference in recent history to the fact that the base’s very existence is indefensible and that a genuine solution must include, as a principal step, the return to Cuba of this occupied territory.
 
During a workshop with Cuban experts on the 110-year occupation of Guantánamo by the United States, which took place recently in Havana, Jonathan Hansen, associate professor at Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, affirmed that few in the United States acknowledge that the base must be returned to Cuba, and that the problem is how to make this matter an issue for discussion.
 
The United States occupies this portion of Cuban territory in virtue of an unjust agreement of indefinite duration imposed on Cuba in February 1903, as one of the addendums to the Platt Amendment, introduced as an appendix to the Constitution of the nascent Cuban Republic through pressure from Washington.
 
Sooner or later, Guantánamo must disappear and this ignominious enclave will remain as one more sad page in the history of U.S. imperialism.
 
November 28, 2013
 
 
 

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

If The Bahamas government cannot collect what is now owing ...how will it supervise and collect the taxes from Value Added Tax (VAT)?

Warning On Vat From Barbados



Tribune242 Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas



VAT Bahamas
OVER the weekend, Elcott Coleby, deputy director of Bahamas Information Services, sent a release to the press to announce the downgrade by Standard & Poor of Barbados’ financial rating – the second in four months. Barbados is listed in tenth place as one of the world’s most heavily indebted countries. From a rating of BB+ it has been dropped to BB-.

“The downgrade reflects the mounting external pressures associated with a persistent current account deficit and external financing challenges, as well as the ongoing high fiscal deficit largely because of a substantial fall in government revenues as a result of the weak economy,” the agency said.

“In reacting to the news,” according to the Barbados press release, the “former president of the Economic Society, Ryan Straughn, said the latest rating has not come as a surprise and suggested that the writing had been on the wall for some time since Government did not go ahead with the expenditure cuts announced by the Minister of Finance in the August 2013 Budget.”

But what interested us even more was Mr Coleby’s warning at the top of the Barbados release. “This,” wrote Mr Coleby, “is where the Bahamas could be headed if it fails to act — sooner than later. So far, the Bahamas government has successfully staved off another downgrade in 12 months — thanks to its fiscal consolidation plan. Barbados was not so lucky.”

Nor will the Bahamas be, if it does not get its reckless spending under control.

However, if this hint from NIB is a message from government to hasten the pace for the introduction of VAT, it should slow down and give the matter more thought. It’s a warning for caution. VAT was introduced in Barbados on January 1, 1997, at the standard rate of 15 per cent. However, Barbados took its time investigating and testing before it took the plunge. Nevertheless, after 16 years, VAT has obviously not been the perfect solution. Barbados still does not have its spending under control and the very event that VAT was meant to avoid has happened — another S&P downgrade. Although several Caribbean countries have VAT, it is interesting to note that Grenada experimented with it in 1980, but quickly abolished it. It would be interesting to know why.

On October 1st, the Barbados government – to bolster its failing domestic tourism – reduced the VAT rate on “hotel accommodation” to 7.5 per cent, extending it to the Direct Tourism Service, which had been 17.5 per cent.

It was noted in an article posted by “David” on August 25 that July 2013 recorded Barbados’ “lowest number of long stay visitor arrivals across the last 11 years in any same month.” The land-based arrivals for the same year in October and November was examined and it was discovered that “both again, alarmingly recorded their lowest comparable monthly figures for the past decade”.

In another article, which noted that Barbados, although it had “enjoyed good credit ratings in days of old because of bullish tourism and international business products,” no longer did so because of the general world picture.

It highlighted several problems that needed urgent attention in view of the international down grading. Bahamians should take note of at least one of them, because, with a few amendments here and there, it is a serious problem in the Bahamas.

“It is apparent,” said the Barbadian writer, “that a few of the statutory bodies have grown to be financial albatrosses around the necks of taxpayers. Barbadians know too well those statutory bodies which political parties ‘pad’ to guard party support. Now that money has dried up this strategy of protecting the party faithful has been exposed for what it is, an unsustainable practice. Deal with it!”

Here in the Bahamas after last year’s election Bahamians saw this in high gear as large sums were spent on clearing land in the name of Urban Renewal. It was claimed that it was part of a plan to clear bushy areas that attracted crime. There was a hue and cry when these “landscapers” went on the land turning areas into arid waste and even trespassing on private property. At the end of this unconscionable waste of public money, nature laughed in the face of the politicians and in a few months the bush, in which the criminals allegedly hid, returned — but the money had already been wasted.

Then there was the flushing out of certain areas of the civil service to make room for party faithful. It was claimed that the price paid for this was a return to inefficiency.

Of course, there is also the non-collection of taxes. The question being asked is if this government cannot collect what is now owing, how will it supervise and collect the taxes from VAT.

Of course, an item that is now of paramount concern to the public – especially in these tight economic times — is the cost of official travel by government ministers at public expense. Former National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest in a page 1 article today has urged Prime Minister Christie to give a financial accounting of his delegation’s trip to CHOGM in Sri Lanka, and the side trips to Rome and London. We shall comment on this in this column tomorrow.

However, the point that rankles Bahamians is government’s apparent reluctance to cut unnecessary spending. Bahamians resent having to be taxed to support the status quo. Unless government sets an example, Bahamians will grumble. This is the frequent complaint that we hear within the ranks of the unions.

November 25, 2013


Monday, November 25, 2013

The Bahamas government should not bend to public pressure over value-added tax (VAT) ...says Bahamian Attorney, Wayne Munroe

Munroe: Govt should push ahead with VAT


By TANEKA THOMPSON
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas -


Attorney Wayne Munroe said the government should not bend to public pressure over value-added tax (VAT).

The Christie administration has been criticized for not yet releasing the VAT legislation and regulations with the proposed implementation date eight months away.  The government’s VAT public education program has also come under fire.

However, Munroe said these issues do not mean the government should delay or abandon the tax.

“They just need to get it done, all this nonsense about educating the public about tax, [were] any of us educated about the business license or real property tax or customs duties?

“So [why] suddenly the great need to educate us over VAT?  The people who have to collect it, pay it and administer the system must be told and must make themselves aware of what they need to know and that’s it.”

Munroe also suggested that it might be strategic for the government to delay the release of the VAT legislation and regulations, so people have less time to figure out how to circumvent payment.

“The government’s objective is to maximize revenue collection.  If you give me a month with a bill, I will probably be able to show deficiencies that would be able to beneficially impact my client and adversely impact government revenue collection.

“So there is nothing unusual about not circulating a revenue statute in advance and anyone with sense would know that.  The less time I have with it, the more time you have before I find out a clever way out of it.

The new VAT regime proposed by the government would allow the state to impose widespread penalties on those who fail to comply with the new act and its regulations, including heavy fines, shutting businesses down, publicly naming and shaming, the seizure of goods and the auctioning off of assets and even jail time.

The new regime proposes to allow the Central Revenue Agency (CRA), which the government is setting up to regulate and collect VAT, to demand details of assets from banking institutions, garnish money owed to registrants by others and restrict access to travel for those who owe outstanding taxes.

Under the new tax system, delinquent taxpayers can also be restricted from travel until outstanding taxes are settled.

Munroe questioned the rationale of this provision and said it should not be included in the final draft of the VAT legislation.

“You can’t restrict my movement because I owe the government money, because what does one have to do with the other?

“Does that mean poor people can’t move about?  Now, the U.S. for instance can refuse you entry into their country if you owe people money, but that’s because you have no right of entry into the U.S. or any other country other than your own.

“I can’t see them seriously talking about restricting your movement because you owe taxes.”

The government plans to roll out VAT on July 1, 2014 at a rate of 15 percent in the wide majority of cases.

However, Prime Minister Perry Christie has said he reserves the right to delay the implementation date.

VAT is expected to add an additional $200 million in revenue in the first year of implementation, officials estimate.

November 25, 2013

thenassauguardian

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Chinese solutions

• Series of measures to advance reforms approved by the
18th Communist Party Central Committee third plenum



By Claudia Fonseca Sosa


China

CHINA continues to surprise.  The government of the nation which, in the not so distant future, could displace the United States as the first economy in the world has announced a new reform package which seeks to reorient its growth model toward internal consumption and limit the country’s dependence on external markets.


In 1979, a process of socioeconomic transformations designed to unleash the country’s productive forces began.  The development model implemented was based on stimulating foreign investment and exports, with excellent results sustained over the years, which allowed it to accumulate a surplus of billions of dollars.


The Chinese economy was also able to maneuver in order to survive the explosion of the international financial bubble in 2008.

However, the Asian giant now has a dream: to double the gross domestic product and per capita income by 2020, comparing these indicators with those attained in 2010 when the country grew by 10.3%. For that, President Xi Jinping has stated that the country must make strategic readjustments to its economic structure and increase efficiency in state supervision mechanisms.

The government aspires to the entire population of 1.3 billion Chinese equitably enjoying the benefits of development and the measures announced by the 18th Communist Party Central Committee in its recent third plenum are directed toward this goal.

"The fundamental objective of the reforms approved is to improve and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics and to move forward with the modernization of the system and the capacities of the country’s government," states a communiqué read in the event’s closing session.

The document places emphasis on the need "to establish an appropriate relationship between the government and the market" in order to grant the latter more decisive participation in the assignation of resources."

According to the official press, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is to create fair, open and transparent market regulations, as well as to improve the mechanism of market prices so that businesses can operate in an independent manner.

At the same time, China is to undertake fiscal reforms, lower the threshold of foreign investment, intensify the development of free trade areas and increase the opening of interior, coastal and border areas, with a view to creating a new kind of relationship between industry and agriculture.

Other measures approved will allow small farmers to enjoy more property over land and production means, establish a sustainable social security system, create new urban-rural relations in order to solve difficulties arising from large waves of internal migration, and increase the population’s standard of living in terms of access to health and education services.

Also announced was a modification of the family planning policy, taking into account demographic changes in the country with the highest number of inhabitants in the world – and the oldest – to satisfy the desire of many families to have more than one child, which has been the established limit.

The communiqué also announced the decision to direct more resources to the army and to promote scientific and ecological development.

But what is the nature of these reforms?

As Cuban analyst Eduardo Regalado, at the International Political Research Center, explained to Granma, given the financial crisis in its principal markets (Europe and the United States), the Chinese leadership has been obliged to reduce its dependency on foreign capital and strengthen the internal market, one of the largest in the world.

Chinese products which, prior to the crisis, sold very well given that they were cheaper, began to be prejudiced by the competition of European and U.S. products (in other words, from the same countries to which they sold them). At the same time, Chinese acquisitive power has increased and this raises the question of why sell to others if the same goods can be purchased in China.

For Regalado, these adjustment measures seek to further raise the population’s standard of living and to close the gap in development between rural and urban areas. They would also provide a solution to the country’s internal difficulties, which have occurred as a consequence of development itself, such as environmental contamination, migration from rural areas to cities, among others.

Moreover, an important transformation within the projections of Chinese leaders is to transition from a rapid growth model - with the country growing as more factories open - to a model of intensive growth, in which science and technology play a significant role in production processes, a model which, at the same time, is to address ecological issues and depends less on external markets.

November 22, 2013