grenville-phillips
Grenville Phillips II, leader of Solutions Barbados

On 21 April 2017, I attended a public meeting by the Barbados Private Sector Association and was disappointed by their austerity-based solutions to Barbados’ dire economic situation.  The Government, private sector merchants, financial institutions and individual economists are warning us to brace for austerity.  Eight years ago, austerity meant forcing most Barbadians to access their savings in order to survive.  Today, it means to force most Barbadians into poverty.

Approximately 2 years ago, Solutions Barbados published a plan to bring Barbados back from the brink of economic ruin without the austerity promised by others.  The plan is based on proven solutions and is still relevant.  However, the Government continues to ignore this plan while stubbornly pursuing its strategy; while the IMF warns of devaluation.

We have shared our plan with anyone who will listen, including the NUPW and CTUSAB.  It was also published in both print and on-line news media, and also on the radio.  To-date, the responses have been overwhelmingly positive, because the plans are workable.  The published plan consists of 4 main steps – none of which require laying-off civil servants, reducing their wages, incurring additional Government spending, or begging other countries to lend us money.

Step 1 is to increase Government’s local currency revenues to run the Government and pay local currency debts.  This can be done by reducing taxes on personal and corporate revenues to 10% of gross revenues – with no deductions.  This will make taxes easier to calculate, pay and audit.  It is also fairer.

Currently, businesses pay taxes on net-profits.  Therefore, it is possible to run a successful business for decades without paying any corporate taxes.  However, since the Government must obtain revenue, the taxes that such businesses currently legally avoid paying are extracted from the rest of us.  Well, not under a Solutions Barbados administration.

To facilitate the prompt payment of all taxes, all taxes previously owed to all Government departments will be forgiven and VAT will be abolished.  Businesses are currently being forced to pay VAT when they issue an invoice, rather than when they receive payment.  This is unfair, because businesses may not get their invoices paid until months later – or never.  Taxing businesses before they receive payment is an insidious method of taxation that can both prevent businesses from growing, and reduce their competitiveness.

The forgiveness of debts to Government should have happened as part of our 50th anniversary jubilee celebrations.  However, only a few select persons benefitted financially from those celebrations.  Therefore, everyone will start with a ‘clean slate’.  In exchange, all new non-payment of taxes will attract a penalty of 10 times the value of the outstanding amount for those who blatantly refuse to pay.  Those who refuse to pay taxes under a Solutions Barbados administration will be competing unfairly in our economy, and that will not be encouraged.

Step 2 is to increase foreign currency revenues in order to pay for imports and foreign currency debts.  This can be done by temporarily reducing taxes on all foreign currency earnings to zero.

Step 3 is to increase productivity in both the public and private sectors, and reduce wastage and unnecessary costs in the public sector.  This can be done by managing all public services to the ISO 9001 Quality Management System.  Parts of the ISO 9001 system can be implemented across the entire public service immediately, to the benefit (and relief) of those who deliver and receive Government services – at no additional cost to Government.

One low hanging wastage fruit is to stop public workers from paying income taxes.  Currently, the private sector must pay additional taxes, which are then given to public sector workers, who then give it to the Government.  The accounting bureaucracy and costs required to manage the taxation of the estimated 25,000 public workers can be easily avoided.

Step 4 is to depoliticize the public service.  In a Solutions Barbados administration, public workers will be selected and promoted on merit alone.

Any of these steps taken by themselves will not pull Barbados back from the brink, because frustrated public services can frustrate the entire process.  Therefore, they must all be taken together.  We need an increase in local and foreign currency revenues, and a better managed and depoliticized public service.  The Minister of Finance is strongly advised to examine our plan before we run out of viable options.  We continue to be available to discuss it.

Grenville Phillips II is the founder of Solutions Barbados and can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

314 responses to “The Grenville Phillips Column – The Alternative to Austerity”


  1. WW unfortunately I see your putz boyfriend trying to rattle the sabre but the Americans will just build a new port creating more jobs, maybe the keystone pipeline will suddenly get held up, this crap is for Canadian consumption so it looks like they are earning their big salaries ..nothing will happen and they will go into nafta talks like oliver twist begging to keep most of what they have.


  2. I can agree with SB’s (Solutions Barbados) suggestions re the corporate tax, there is some sense in that.

    Cannot agree with removing VAT. VAT is generated, as its title indicates, by value added at each stage of the supply cycle.

    You do not remove a tax because of issues in administering, you fix the issues.

    Indirect taxes are a necessary part of the Barbados tax regime for two reasons:

    as SB indicates, many just do not pay tax on legitimate business. By one method or another.
    illegitimate business, narcotics, prostitution are hefty earners in Barbados, let us not kid ourselves. People are out there making serious money from narcotics. Many would not be surviving, let alone profiting, without this business.

    Whether that money is laundered through legitimate businesses or the cash just spent, you need a mechanism to catch it in the net.

    VAT or sales tax is the only answer to that.

    To apply taxes, you must first understand the cashflows associates with business. That is key.

    Unfortunately, the second example is where SB misses that understanding.

    Not attacking SB, just pointing out that suggestions must take place within the parameters of the operating environment and understanding that environment is critical.

    Another area where SB misses the plot is on the issue of public service costs.

    That is such a major issue, that it is a foregone conclusion that there will be cuts of some manner.

    While SB must be commended for recommending changes and attempting to address the issues, what needs to be understood is that while austerity (more on that) alone will not fix the situation, neither will revenue generation changes alone.

    As the the term ‘austerity’, I would suggest a more appropriate term. ‘Restructuring of’ the expenditures and revenue generation (tax) base.

    ‘Austerity’ gives the impression of a forced, short or medium term alternative to correct imbalances.

    Restructuring refers to correcting long term status quo and imbalances, in the meantime addressing the short and medium term issues.

    Significant difference.

    As for a comment above ‘William Skinner May 4, 2017 at 9:17 PM #’, I agree, that SB should be commended for making some suggestions on the way forward.

    In the past, there have been Parliamentarians, who, not raising any public suggestions, have scarcely said a word in Parliament during their tenure, or the tenure of their ‘party’.

    Yet they seek re-election when the time comes.

    To this point, I would suggest a couple of more things that SB may have missed, or not.

    the real issue in Barbados now is integrity. I am not pointing at anyone. But there appear to be many culprits. From this, I would say that our biggest non-economic challenge, albeit impacting economic issues, is corruption.

    There is much talk of ethics and good governance etc etc. I can tell you that in the corporate world I have encountered some unethical people who succeed. And this is not just Barbados-centric companies.

    Very often, those who preach the loudest and smile with you, are the biggest charlatans.

    Again, corruption and lack of ethics is our biggest non-economic challenge.

    But, as I noted, not just in Barbados.

  3. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    The real issue in Bim is to create an awareness amongst our people who will hold the elected ones responsible for their actions and agitate for their removal and locking up once found guilty of malfeasance.

    Expecting to find a politician who is a knight in shining armor is like finding the tooth fairy or BBE.


  4. @Crusoe

    A good comment worthy of a detailed response from Grenvile.


  5. Vincent
    Expecting to find a politician who is a knight in shining armor is like finding the tooth fairy or BBE.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ….or like expecting Vincent to say something intelligent for a change.

    If YOU are unfortunate enough to be unable to ‘find’ BBE….. or if you are unaware of any genuine patriots in your circles, then we all commiserate with you
    ….we are not all blessed with common sense.

    But PLEASE …do not try to speak for the rest of us bowls….

  6. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    Bushie

    Glad to tuh see that you have arisen this morning…..sorry to see that your tussle with BBE has not resulted in the restoration of your brains……then again that may be a blessing.


  7. @ GRENVILLE PHILLIPS,

    You appear to have a lot to say on how Barbados should be run; yet you seem to have little to say on how the issue of corruption has blunted and degraded our economy.

    What are your solutions – dear boy – as to how Barbados can eliminate this threat to our economy and our society?

    You can continue to grandstand and to create the illusion that you have the “solutions” for all of our ills. But you are just another “suit” talking loud and saying nothing.

    Unless you are prepared to discuss the endemic corruption that is prevalent on the island then you should desist from any pretensions that you may have of leading this country.

    I would ask you to view the clip below.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2017/05/african-leaders-stop-money-laundering-170503205114554.html


  8. After 157 comments, I feel vindicated–another SB fantasy. #onlyevidencebasedpolicies #notobajantrump

  9. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Lawson Benedict Arnold…you traitor..lol

  10. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    The single most destructive force in any country, corruption coupled with incompetent governments…in the region, there is the blowback to Puerto Rico and Venezuela.

    “Corruption is one of the biggest factors contributing to South Africa’s deteriorating economy and President Jacob Zuma, who has been repeatedly accused of it, has been under pressure to do something about it.”


  11. just because I wont blindly follow your putz doesnt mean traitor, hey the german duechebank voted ottawa one of the ten best cities to live in world wide even if your idiot is in residence.

  12. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Lol….they are naming babies after Justin, they would probaby name their pet pigs trump.

    Where is your buddy the Chadster, you know despite all the pimping he did on here for trump, they did not renew his work visa right, those visas have been suspended for months now, just before the Chadster disappeared from BU.

    Have you tried crossing the Michigan or Buffalo borders yet.


  13. Dear All:

    Our solutions to problems hindering Barbados’ development have been published for almost 2 years. The Column provided an opportunity to outline the only alternative to austerity, which consisted of 4 main steps which had to be taken together. Nothing should be rejected on some academic economic ideological argument.

    PLT: The cost of a product includes the following components: labour, materials, equipment, management, marketing, sales, distribution, Government regulatory compliance, taxes and profit. Corporate taxes are currently applied to net profits only, which means that businesses can hide profits in all of the categories in order to keep net profits low. If net profits are too large, then some businesses may spend on non-critical expenses in order to reduce their high tax burden. That increases inefficiency. Do you prefer this system?

    There are two ways of closing this loophole. One is for the Government to hire an army of highly skilled accountants to audit every business. The other is by applying a tax to gross revenues with no deductions and let the market set the price. There will be no need to artificially create inefficiencies, or to hide profits in other components. This should result in a reduction of costs to consumers in a competitive environment.

    You seem to want to tax businesses. However, if the loophole is closed, there is no need to tax any of the business components. Further, competition should prevent exorbitant profit margins. Those with excessive profits in a competitive trading environment will eventually lose market share and go out of business.

    While this was an outline of our alternative to austerity, you should factor in other financial parts of our published solutions. For example, almost all of the costs transferred to the QEH will be paid by the health taxes. Ditto for the criminal justice system etc.

    Exclaimer: Please see our solutions for corruption on SolutionsBarbados.com.

    Best regards,
    Grenville


  14. PLT: That should have read “You seem to want to tax exorbitant business profits.”

  15. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    First ya gotta get a real functioning criminal justice system, cut out lawyer and insurance company dishonesty, fraud, misuse and abuse of the sorry excuse now existing for a judiciary…..ya have to find a real Attorney General, who actually knows the law and a functioning Chief Justice, devoid of the taint of political appointment, who will not sit on insurance company boards and take bribes to compromise the judiciary as happened in the 90s.

    Ya actually have to find cabinet members who will introduce legislation amending, upgrading and enfircing the current archaic 16th century nonsense that now exists and do not benefit the majority population and never has. .

  16. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Oh…and ya would have to get rid of that useless DPP Charles Leacock, who caters only to the welfare of a certain class on the island and cannot see himself locking up minority criminals.


  17. @DSB ” Nothing should be rejected on some academic economic ideological argument.”

    Indeed. Which is why I highlighted the weakness in your argument as not being wholly practical. Your solution re alternative to austerity is theoretical, because it does not correlate to cashflows and the operating environment.

    Ironic that you defend it with reference to ideological argument, when the ‘solution’ is just that.

    I am not busting your argument for the sake of it, but merely to highlight that there is really no ‘alternative to austerity’.

    That you perceive such worries me. Yes, there are means to address the situation, but none can stand by itself. As I mentioned, the issue must be addressed by multiple methods.

    As I mentioned, yes, there may be some sort of merit in the gross vs net tax issue point. But even that is flawed, discussed below. However, you did not address any of the rest of my comment re indirect taxes and their relevance, I note. Interesting and telling that.

    I am left underwhelmed.

    On the issue of gross taxes vs net taxes, could be some merit. But the thing is, as you should know, ensuring that companies are taxed on what they cream above operating costs, not just on revenue.

    For the average person reading, what this means is that you only tax someone if their revenues are greater than costs.

    As SB says, some can place other and personal expenses in there, say a Mercedes, a house rental, business lunches etc etc.

    But the problem with his argument, is that the Merc can only be deducted from taxes according to a capital allowances schedule as provided by the tax authority. The house rental must have some relation to business use, as must the meals. Etc. His application is oversimplified. The tax rules only allow business expenses. This impression that SB is passing on, that business can shove any and everything into the tax computation and thereby avoid tax is disingenuous.

    Nevertheless, that is only one side of it.

    The other side of it, is that taxing gross revenue does not consider if a company is ‘just getting by’. A business owner can pay salaries and wages out of gross revenue to get to a net revenue, along with other expenses. If he barely breaks even, he can keep staff etc.

    You tax revenues and he is going to hurt. The ‘getting by’ becomes losing money (cash).

    If gross revenue is taxed, it is irrelevant how many staff he keeps. He pays the same tax.

    Right there, yes, he can shave costs and protect his own earnings, by reducing staff, as it becomes irrelevant to tax. Is that what we desire? It is also more complicated than that.

    Bear in mind, that the tax system, based on net revenues, is geared towards the medium / long term assessment of business, such that net losses in one year can be set off against future years profits. Strange that SB did not mention that as an advantage in just assessing revenues, by removing such advantage. This could bring more money in.

    But removing such allowances jeopardises the longevity of business. There is always a give and take. Nothing is straightforward.

    Lastly on that point, SB has by their words above, assumed that business will not need auditing when taxed on gross revenue.

    But, who accounts for that gross revenue? You take it on faith?

    What is to stop businesses under-reporting revenues? They still need auditing.

    Again, oversimplified.

    I am not comfortable with SB’s suggestions / approach.


  18. @ Crusoe
    SB’s proposal is the ONLY sensible alternative to the completely failed system that we now have, and all the arguments that you have advanced are based on maintaining the same RESULTS that we now have from the clearly failed approach that we have refined over 50 years.

    Solving our problem is not a matter of generating revenue to maintain our present lifestyles. It is about REFORMING the system such that lifestyles are DRIVEN by productivity. Therefore, Grenville’s proposals need not generate the same levels of income ..UNLESS there are commensurate INCREASES in national productivity.
    …and rightly, there SHOULD be declining purchasing power for consumers under current low productivity levels.

    ALSO, what makes you think that the present tax model that encourages ’employers’ to hire servants because of tax incentives to do so is a good model?
    Perhaps we need a tax model that DISCOURAGES hiring people, and which ENCOURAGES individuals to be their OWN BOSSES wherever possible and practicable.

    Our current tax model is nothing but an economic plantation. Where employers enjoy tax benefits to bring in hoards of labourers at minimum wages doing shiite jobs that kill off individual self-image.

    Grenville’s proposal is far-reaching.
    They require significant refinement of course but NOT from those who are so steeped in the current failed, plantation-like system, that they actually use it as a measuring stick for change.

  19. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @nextparty246
    I understand all of what you said, but you have not addressed the fact that businesses will simply add the 10% tax to every invoice and sales slip. A tax on revenue is functionally equivalent to a sales tax. We already have a sales tax, VAT. What you are proposing is to replace a 17.5% sales tax with a slightly different 10% sales tax. Is that what you intended?

  20. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ Bush Tea
    SB’s proposal is the most sensible alternative to the failed system we have now because it is the ONLY alternative yet proposed. However, it is still fatally flawed.
    It would be much better if he tweeted it as follows:
    1. Replace the VAT with his new 10% tax on company revenue, but call it what it is, a sales tax. Keep Grenville’s design so that it applies across the distribution network so that it companies pay it at every link in the chain and cannot claim any of it back. This makes it much cheaper to administer while also making it much more efficient at generating revenue.
    2. Keep the SB proposal to reduce income tax rates to 10% with no deductions at all, but expand the income tax rebate for low income earners so that someone earning less than $25,000 gets a $2,500 tax rebate.
    3. Continue to tax corporate profits as we do currently, but promise to reduce the rate to 10% if the sales tax proves efficient enough at raising public revenue.

    This would not be my personal choice for a tax regime, but at least it would be logically consistent and stand at least a chance of reducing the fiscal deficit and therefore averting damaging austerity experiments.

  21. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    tweeked^

  22. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ Bush Tea
    If a new tax regime does not increase public revenue the fiscal deficit continue to grow. The fiscal deficit is what is destroying our credit rating. If we cannot refinance our foreign debt at reasonable rates we will run out of foreign exchange and default on our existing debt. This will force many companies into bankruptcy because their business model relies on access to forex. The unemployment rate will probably exceed 30% and the government’s tax revenues will plummet. They will either have to send home half the civil service or expand the printing of money by the Central Bank. Then we are in a spiral down to a complete breakdown in civil order.

  23. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @peterlawrencethompson you are perfectly correct – in part – when you say: “SB’s proposal is the most sensible alternative to the failed system we have now because it is the ONLY alternative yet proposed. However, it is still fatally flawed.”

    But please read Mr Bush Tea’s remarks in the proper context as he opined the same thing. LOL

    He said rather clearly:

    –” SB’s proposal is the ONLY sensible alternative to the completely failed system that we now have…

    –“Grenville’s proposal is far-reaching. They require significant refinement of course …”

    A far-reaching plan that yet needs ‘SIGNIFICANT’ refinement!

    Sounds like a just a good IDEA to me!

    Thus I remain completely flummoxed that a highly lettered professional as Mr Phllips can put forward such a basic outline and yet be heralded as a savior offering the MOST sensible plans.

    Greville Philips, I am positive, won his engineering contracts based on the excellent qualifications of his team and the comprehensive analytics presented, He would NEVER have won a single contract if he had offered such a basic proposal to any corporation or homeowner for a massive project.

    Yet after all those years as a successful engineer and then a company partner he offers now a mere schematic with no ‘detailed drawings, studies and cost analysis’ to the voters of Barbados on this first political contract…this massive project.

    Absolutely freaking amazing!

  24. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @de pedantic Dribbler, I am not disagreeing with Bush Tea, just pointing out WHERE it needs significant refinement.

    However, to be fair to Grenville, the first stage in the architectural/engineering design process IS to produce a schematic design or designs. This is a bare bones conceptual outline of what you propose to construct. It’s generally done as rough sketches. No-one proceeds to ‘detailed drawings, studies and cost analysis’ etc before getting the client to sign off on a schematic design. Let’s assume that this is the stage we are at with the SB proposals and do our best in good faith to help refine the schematic. We still have a year before elections must be called.


  25. @ PLT /Dribbler
    No-one proceeds to ‘detailed drawings, studies and cost analysis’ etc before getting the client to sign off on a schematic design.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Furthermore, no serious engineer provides detailed engineering design analyses to prospective clients explaining why ‘stress’ instead of ‘strain’ beams were chosen in a particular design…. The thing is just too darn complex… that is why engineers are needed.
    ….and any ‘non-engineer client’ that insists on having such working don’t need an engineer, they need a life…

    Do you REALLY grasp the point that the fundamental INTENT is to come up with a scheme that DRIVES consumption into a directly proportional relationship with productivity?

    Businesses who add the 10% on to consumer price will be driving demand DOWN … or losing business to others who did not add the 10%.

    Boss, the VERY FIRST STEP in addressing the fiscal deficit is to reduce DEMAND for foreign goods and to increase the inclination to produce locally.
    Nothing does that like higher prices. We can wait for devaluation to do it for us, or we can seriously RESTRUCTURE our FAILED systems to achieve the same end.

    Consumption in Barbados is much too high.
    Either we will produce MORE and raise income, or we MUST consume less to match income.

    PLT’s base line argument of maintaining government income is a non-starter in a situation where everyone knows that we employ about 300% of the effort really needed for our public sector tasks … from ministers to clerks.

  26. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    Peter, I must respectfully disagree. As you know very well there are different methodologies for RFQs and so on.

    One that has gained some currency (no pun intended) is to provide the comprehensive general information before the contract is finalized at which point the cost details are presented.

    Regardless of method however NO contract is offered unless the complete doc is available.

    So if you are suggesting that SB is at the rough sketch stage then pray tell on what sense of confidence can we proceed to closure.

    Maybe we could rely on past project experience…but this could be considered his first multi-span bridge after a lifetime of constructing awesome buildings. How does that work for me?

    Don’t you think he has to do a helluva lot more to engender confidence and maybe provide an actual model of the planned bridge to tease interest to give him the contract.

    Don’t you think he would want to offer solid details that fills us with a sense that he can transfer his proven skills as a home builder to this quite different bridge construction.

    I see you have also adopted the Bushman’s ethos that those to whom he is seeking to sell his services should be the same ones “to help refine the schematic” and do the work to put flesh out the bones .

    I really always thought that the pro came in and provided his professional gravitas to handle the matter. If I move from asking key questions to help in refining/fleshing the matter then the pro is being quite deficient…

    This continued soft approach to a likable guy’s ill-formed ideas is not the basis on which to offer a bridge building contract!

  27. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ Bush Tea
    Every single business without exception will pass the 10% tax on to consumers… this is inevitable. Take a big company like Massy Retail: their profit margin before corporate income tax last year was 4.8% a very good performance in an industry where profit margins are often less than 1%. http://www.massygroup.com/uploadedFiles/Massy/Content/Investors/Annual_Reports/MASSY%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%202016%20WEB(1).PDF
    If they try to absorb the 10% tax they are immediately shifted to a 5.2% loss. Do you imagine there is a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening??
    Or take the case of a typical small village rumshop at the other end of the financial scale… this sort of operation would typically have gross sales of $500,000 for the operator to make a profit of $50,000/year. But now she owes $50,000 in gross revenue taxes leaving her with exactly $0 to feed her family and meet other personal expenses. Do you imagine there is any way on god’s green earth that she won’t simply pass on the 10% tax, charged on every transaction at the till under Grenville’s plan, to her customers.

    I understand entirely that “the fundamental INTENT is to come up with a scheme that DRIVES consumption into a directly proportional relationship with productivity,” which is precisely why we need to understand that this is a tax on consumers, not on corporations. There is therefore absolutely no reason to abandon corporate income taxes and give the corporate greedheads a $250 million gift that they did not even ask for.

  28. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Bush Tea at 12:40 PM …Your remarks do NOT make economic sense. Barbados is an island…and we do not have many natural resources. Almost all of our inputs that go towards even local products will invariably incur the impact of the tax.

    Surely, it makes sense “… that the fundamental INTENT is to come up with a scheme that DRIVES consumption into a directly proportional relationship with productivity” and all that.

    But how do you “reduce DEMAND for foreign goods and to increase the inclination to produce locally” when the tax impacts all items.

    How can any sensible assessments be made from Grenville’s ideas without the analysis in an economic model as PeterLawrence has noted.

    You are defending here in nonsensical construct yet you dismissed Mottley’s comparatively nonsensical remarks.

    I agree we need to ” seriously RESTRUCTURE our FAILED systems” but how can these grand ideas from SB be considered seriously in the absence of ANY practical modelling.

    Your twisting economic palaver does not cut in bro.

    I gone.

  29. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ Bush Tea
    The reason to solve the fiscal deficit is NOT to maintain inefficient public sector employment. So I will reiterate: “If a new tax regime does not increase public revenue the fiscal deficit continue to grow. The fiscal deficit is what is destroying our credit rating. If we cannot refinance our foreign debt at reasonable rates we will run out of foreign exchange and default on our existing debt. This will force many companies into bankruptcy because their business model relies on access to forex. The unemployment rate will probably exceed 30% and the government’s tax revenues will plummet. They will either have to send home half the civil service or expand the printing of money by the Central Bank. Then we are in a spiral down to a complete breakdown in civil order.”
    We both know that fixing the public sector is something we need to accomplish. We also both know that we have no chance of accomplishing this within a timeframe that will avoid economic catastrophe. Politics is about the art of the possible… let’s try to spur discussion of ideas that we can actually implement in time to pull our fat out of the fire.

  30. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @de pedantic Dribbler asked
    “how do you “reduce DEMAND for foreign goods and to increase the inclination to produce locally” when the tax impacts all items.”
    Simple, although this reduces demand across the board, it reduces the demand of expensive items more than it does so for less expensive items. Bear in mind as well that import duties are the main tool for reducing import demand and spurring local substitution (although devaluation will also achieve this).

  31. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @de pedantic Dribbler
    Once the gross revenue tax is unmasked as a sales tax, it becomes dramatically easier to do an economic analysis of the SB plan. In fact I’ve already posted one.

    You’re welcome :-).

    The Solutions Barbados plan is certain to further reduce public revenue, widen the fiscal deficit, and further trash our credit rating:

    Exhibit A: replace a 17.5% consumption tax with a 10% consumption tax means reduced state income even if it spurs some growth,
    Exhibit B: reduce the income tax payable by high income earners from 16%-33.5% all the way down to 10% very likely means reduced state income even when all deductions and loopholes are eliminated because the wealthy will still be able to conceal their income in corporations that they set up for that purpose,
    Exhibit C: increased income tax for those making less than $61,012/year… this will increase state income but not enough to offset the other losses (and it will hit the working class and lower middle class hard)
    Exhibit D: and this is the killer, huge cut in state income because we have given up on taxing corporate profits so we just give about $250 million back to corporate greedheads without them even asking for it nicely.”


  32. @Peter

    Local ssubstitution- you are joking right?

    What products are we able to produce cost effectively that will reduce significantly from what we import?


  33. Substitutional growth went out in the 1960s.

  34. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    David

    I knew Guyana under Burnham when they went from having every luxury item conceivable to making cassava flour,raisin equivalent from dried fruits,engineered new parts for vehicles,etc,etc necessity is the mother of invention….which translates into using alternate foods and things.

  35. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ David
    Referring mostly to eating goldenapples rather than nectarines. Sorry, should have mode that clearer.


  36. Pter,

    I am not an accountancy professional. I cannot even count from one to ten without making a mistake. But VAT is a sales tax and the low paid will spend a higher proportion of their income on this tax.
    But, as you know, taxation is based on profits, not turn over and with internal accounting measures, which is where the big companies, led by the leading accountancy firms, dupe the state.
    I propose instead that taxation should be shifted to turnover, which means that firms like Apple, Starbucks, et al, cannot shift their profits to low-tax jurisdictions through their internal charging system.
    In the final analysis, our company laws need a radical overhaul; created for conditions in the 1920s, they are unfit for modern corporations. We also need to enforce a standard global accounting measure (IFRS). Once again the US is cocking two fingers at the rest of the world and continuing with its discredited GAAP, rather than shift to IFRS.
    We also need to separate out external auditing, removing it completely from the big accountancy firms. Remember every big company that has been in trouble since the turn of the century has had leading accountancy firms doing their external auditing. Even now they still have not learned, having to re-state their accounts as often as you say one, two, three.
    Google Tesco, the biggest supermarket firm in the UK; they have just had to pay over £300m to the Serious Fraud Office to avoid prosecution. One law for the rich and another for the poor.


  37. @ SB

    Would your revised system of taxing revenue include imposing a tax on an inherited estate, which is often referred to as “personal revenue?”

    SB’s suggestion re: “……….Government to hire an army of highly skilled accountants to audit every business,” is commonly described as a “revenue audit,” whereby auditors perform a comparative analysis of the company’s business transactions/records and the information reported on the corporation tax return to verify the accuracy of the return and compliance with tax rules.

    How would this suggestion work in an inefficient civil service where it takes officers in the BRA 2 years to perform a simple “appraisal” of a personal income tax return?

    Additionally, it is a known fact that performing audits is a VERY EXPENSIVE undertaking.

    As such, the scope or the primary objectives of these audits; choice between using field audits (where the auditor visits the company to undertake a comprehensive review of transactions, accounting records and tax returns) or if the company presents these records to the BRA to facilitate the process; whether the BRA would hire audit consultants or solicit the services of accounting firms; and most importantly, the time taken to perform these audits, are factors that must be taken into consideration in an effort to determine the COSTS BENEFITS to government.

    @ Crusoe May 7, 2017 at 7:10 AM #

    An excellent analysis and I agree with your comments 100%.

    It is not that simple for business owners to “shove any and everything into the tax computation and thereby avoid tax,” as is being suggested by some contributors.

    Perhaps contributors should avail themselves of the tax rules before making GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS about taxation.

    However, there is a “technical difference” between VAT on sales and taxing sales.

    For example, in our present system, when customer purchases items for $10,000 it may incur VAT of 17.5%, totaling $11.750, of which $10,000 is recorded as Sales and the $1,750, which is passed on to the customer, is recorded as a liability. VAT In other words, the business is essentially COLLECTING TAX FROM CUSTOMERS on behalf of the government.

    At the end of the VAT period, the business must calculate VAT on goods and services acquired solely for the purposes of making taxable supplies (input tax) and VAT on purchases and expenses related to business operations (output tax). If input tax exceeds output tax in a period, the excess will be due to the registrant as a refund.

    If VAT is replaced with a 10% tax on Sales, then a similar purchase of $10,000 would incur an additional $1,000, totaling $11,000, of which $10,000 is recorded as Sales. Although the $1,000 is also recorded as a liability, in this instance the company incurs the additional $1,000 instead of the customer.

    This system would eliminate the cumbersome procedures of calculating and filing VAT returns, as well as waiting several months for a VAT refund, as is currently experienced by many businesses.

    Unfortunately, businesses, as a method of avoiding paying the 10% tax, could use historical sales data to compile monthly sales projections and include an estimated 10% in sales prices, while making adjustments in the following months.

    Hence, since the company’s NET PROFITS are not taxed, the customer ULTIMATELY PAYS the 10% tax (which is included in retail prices) on behalf of the company.

    Recall the government had similar difficulties when it introduced CESS tax and were pleading with businesses not in include CESS in prices.


  38. @ David

    My contribution is missing. Thanks

  39. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ Hal Austin
    VAT is indeed a sales tax, but any tax based on turnover is also a sales tax. Think about it: it is collected at the sales till on every transaction and remitted directly to the BRA… if it walks like a sales tax, talks like a sales tax… it IS a sales tax.

    You are right that sales taxes hit the poor harder than they hit the rich. That is why we need to have a significant reverse tax credit for low income earners. This works much better than other methods of protecting low income people from regressive taxes because the benefits go only to low income earners and directly to them. The current strategy of exempting a basic basket of goods from VAT is stupid, because the vast majority of the benefits go to people who do not need the benefit, leaving the society less capable of really protecting those with low incomes.


  40. Great debate among the BU mcguffees.

    However the BLP or DLP will win the next election,the Barbados dollar will be devalued and

    Barbadians will see their standard of living drop drastically.


  41. @Peter

    You are aware this government has walked back from reversed tax credits suggesting that the evidence supports that it was abused?


  42. Bush Tea May 7, 2017 at 8:38 AM #

    You support SB’s ideas, yet their strategy is stated to avoid austerity, which includes reduction in public service expenditure. That simply cannot work.

    The point is exactly that a re-balancing needs to take place between private and public expenditures.

    SB’s proposals will do nothing towards re-balancing that status.

    Taxing gross revenue is standard for insurance companies, worldwide.

    But none of the developed countries tax gross revenue of regular corporations. Taxation of net profits is a standard. It may be deemed as an inappropriate status quo to you, but it is the most appropriate method.

    The tax base surely needs amending to focus on those areas where collection can be more reliable and better focus on stringent audit methods. SB’s proposed methods will not improve that. For example, SB’s ideas to remove VAT. VAT is owed both ways, but what is done about it? Nothing to do with the tax. The problem is the administering of the tax. Fix the issue, do not throw out the whole thing.

    But the real underlying issues are (1) avoidance and evasion, which SB’s proposals will not address (2) that indirect taxes, which SB wishes to abolish (VAT), are the only way to catch ‘illegal’ and ‘evaded’ revenue (note that SB’s answer avoided my point). The tax is gained at the point of spending of that revenue., by the earners. It will be spent at some point. This is very simple. There is absolutely no other way to get that revenue taxed. And as undeclared revenue, SB’s ‘tax on gross revenue’, will not achieve anything.
    (3) Inefficiency in processes of government, leading to over-resourcing. Why does a person have to travel to multiple offices to get documents that are closely related validated etc? Just one example. That is nothing to do with tax, that is part of government efficiency and yes, will be dealt with by methods which could be seen to come under ‘austerity’ programs.
    (4) We can call this one ‘mismanagement’. Pick from that what you will. Not dealt with by any tax changes.

    After seeing SB’s proposals re taxation I realise that the possibility of a viable third party is further away than we had hoped.


  43. Hants May 7, 2017 at 2:38 PM #

    Pretty much a given if those in authority keep talking and doing nothing.


  44. @Artax

    Let us log your I in the ‘Comment Moderation’ to see if this fools the Spammer. BU will be notified when you post.


  45. Bushie is getting tired of this roundabout discussion that is going nowhere between PLT and lukewarm Dribbler.
    It is only obvious that Grenville’s talk about ‘avoiding austerity’ is PR hype….
    There is NO SOLUTION FOR BARBADOS WITHOUT PAIN.

    PLT is just rambling on with economic jargon about ‘sales tax not addressing the fiscal defici’… etc

    The fiscal deficit needs to be addressed by paying Public workers what they DESERVE – based on their productivity (which is currently about 30% of current salaries.) and by making imported products MORE EXPENSIVE for unproductive Bajans.

    That is how depreciation WILL address the imbalance.

    What Grenville is suggesting is a proactive mechanism that leads to the same thing.
    Austerity is INEVITABLE.,,, either proactively or reactively….
    We CANNOT continue to eat caviar on mauby budgets….

    Bushie has lost track of what Dribbler is saying…

    Steupsss… Anyway…Grenville do not pay the bushman for spokesman services…
    …so frig dat!!! 🙂
    …cause Hants is right.


  46. @ Crusoe
    After seeing SB’s proposals re taxation I realise that the possibility of a viable third party is further away than we had hoped.Crusoe
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    What third party what??!!

    BB Bajans deserve the BDLP.
    People like Grenville are only appreciated in countries with real people …who are not inherently mendicant, and who have confidence in their ability to succeed through productivity.

    Brass bowls love the ‘B/DLP type politicians’ who promise them ‘free bus rides’, ‘free education’, ‘free medical services’, two cars in their garage, … and who then go on to ‘free’ them of all the countries assets as they hand these back over to the decedents of the old plantocracy….and they are downgraded to junk status.

    BBBBB!!
    Wunna mind Dribbler – who is keeping a low profile in albino-land, (watching his P’s and Q’s, least some little white cop use him for target practice) – while telling us how we need to structure our economy based on his vast experience of living in a small country.


  47. Bushie meant descendants not ‘decedents’… but perhaps the damn auto type knows better….

  48. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Crusoe at 2:43 PM , you said that “After seeing SB’s proposals re taxation I realise that the possibility of a viable third party is further away than we had hoped.”

    That is unfortunately sadly true. I think we have been lulled into some sense that there was even a chance based on the various Presidential campaigns and strong voice of changes like the Brexit vote.

    But our system is not suited to the types of radical change.

    Yes a strong charismatic leader can set a viable tone but within the party system it’s far-fetched to expect SB to actually forge into anything but possibly a strong voice in parliament.

    peterlawrencethompson…good stuff.

    You have laid out unbiased facts at every stage. Even in disagreement it was facts, facts, facts to sway an opinion.

    In that mode and considering your practical analyses – the same vein in which I interpreted Grenville’s ‘Solutions’ – it is shocking that Phillips cannot accept that his tax plans are incomplete and would call critics ‘trolls’ rather than offer details.

    It’s inconceivable that he offered his solutions without first dong a deep dive on the tax revenues and running a spreadsheet analysis. Thus he must be able to offer more meaningful commentary than he has done.

    You laid out excellent exhibits that said it just CAN’T work and general tax thesis does also but Mr Phillips and his acolytes like BushTea refuse to offer practical examples to show why they think it will.

    Anyhow, let’s be thankful that the French did as expected and voted for practical change.

    Were it that Bajans had such an option!

  49. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    So the consensus by the BU gurus on this issue is for Grenville to go back to the drawing board and come again on the revenue issue for the coffers of Bim.

    Hal has highlighted other areas of concern that need some flesh and my two areas are virtual skeletons i.e. Tourism and Agriculture.

    Grenville keeps referring to his 2 year old plan…..does he not know that plans are dynamic and should be changed as new information comes to hand.

Leave a Reply to Vincent HaynesCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading