The Grenville Phillips Column – Berries for the Boys

Grenville Phillips II, leader of Solutions Barbados

The Government needs tax revenue in order that we may all benefit from Government managed health, education, road maintenance, police, fire, and other services.  Therefore, we should all pay our taxes.  If we do not pay our taxes, then the Government must unfairly burden another group with additional taxes to make up the difference – this group is normally the middle-class.  The alternative is to restrict the provision of these services.

Those who refuse to pay taxes compete unfairly in Barbados’ economy, since they can offer their products at a lower cost than their tax-paying competitors.  In an attempt to reduce the unfairness in the system, the Government has insisted that tax-clearance certificates, which prove that all taxes have been paid, must be obtained in order to participate in certain sectors of Barbados’ economy.

The Minister of Finance must be commended for this attempt to ensure fairness in Barbados’ economy, because a fair economy facilitates economic growth, which can help to solve our now dire economic problems.  Since we can all benefit from a growing economy, I hope that the Ministry of Finance will seriously consider this improvement to his initiative.

Those who owe the Government taxes fall into one of two categories: those who have the money to pay, and those who do not.  The tax-clearance requirement is an appropriate response to those who have the capacity to pay, but choose not to.  However, this requirement can harm the national economy by closing highly competent and competitive businesses, who do not have the capacity to pay. The obvious question is: if they are so competent and competitive, why can’t they pay their taxes?  Let me try to explain.

A fair economy is one where everyone has an equal opportunity to participate.  This means that Government contracts are open to all Barbadian companies, and the winner is selected by competitive tender.  The national economy becomes corrupted when Government contracts are given to persons and companies who fund political campaigns.

There has always been a sub-set of Barbados’ economy called the ‘political economy’, which is reserved for persons who fund political campaigns and expect Government contracts in return.  It is generally understood by all experienced persons in the market-place, that a few ‘berries’ must be reserved for ‘the boys’. Once this corrupt political economy remains small, then its impact on the national economy is negligible.  However, there is a tipping point when the size of the political economy grows to negatively affect the national economy.

Barbados passed that tipping point decades ago.  The likely time was identified by Moody’s 2009 downgrade report as 20 years ago.  To be charitable, politicians may be oblivious to the damage that distributing these ‘berries’ has on the national economy.  Ironically, the damage that they are inflicting on the national economy today, will result in a future Government being unable to pay their lucrative lifetime pensions later.

Those who are given no-bid Government contracts do not need to attend to their professional development, unlike their competitors who must compete in the market-place.  Those shielded from competition tend to become the least competent, and the least likely to successfully compete in Barbados’ economy.  The damage to Barbados’ economy is measureable when these less competent companies provide substandard products (goods and services), which require unnecessarily frequent maintenance and premature replacement.

When the replacement work is given to another politically favoured company that is protected from competition, then the public may pay many times over for the same product.  Taxpayers generally hope to be unburdened from this inefficient wastage when the political party is finally voted out of Government.  However, such hopes are normally dashed when the incoming political party interprets their win as simply their turn at the trough.  Be assured that a Solutions Barbados administration will definitely not continue this practise.

When Government decides who wins in Barbados’ economy, it automatically decides who loses.  By repeatedly choosing the most incompetent companies as winners, and the most competent as losers, the Government does significant damage to the national economy that can take over a decade to repair.  For those entrusted to carefully manage our national economy, to treat it with such damaging recklessness is highly irresponsible.

Since Barbados’ economy is not fair and has become corrupted, it is entirely reasonable for the Government to demand tax-clearance certificates from those whom it has sheltered from competitors and given no-bid contracts.  However, many companies that the Government has declared to be losers simply cannot afford to pay the taxes owed, for the simple reason that the Government has limited their participation in the national economy.  It is unconscionable that the Government would now demand tax-clearance certificates from them.
The Government needs tax revenues, but it has corrupted Barbados’ economy to the point where it has been structurally damaged for the past 20 years.  Fortunately, the Government can easily make things right.

First, it can demand taxes from all of those whom it declared to be winners in Barbados’ economy.  Second, it can abolish the practice of handing no-bid contracts (or berries) to political supporters.  Third, it can declare a general forgiveness of all taxes owed to Government for those it has automatically declared to be losers.  Only then can the Minister of Finance reasonably demand tax-clearance certificates from everyone.

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

107 comments

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Ah see the 1.5 million dollar Gollop and his friend Fruendel BWA invoice scam for a few meetings…got posted to Naked Departure..lol, hahaha, lol.

    Time to call in outside authorities by next August the new government should do just that.

    Like

  • Grenville June 2, 2017 at 11:18 AM #

    “Artax: I know you. Your pseudo-name, writing style, and lying about your qualification exposed you. Your refusal to be critical of the worst BLP policies confirmed it. You would never be so insulting to any person to their face. But here, in the shadows of anonymity, you release these insults as if it were natural. It is not natural for you.”

    @ Grenville Phillips II

    Stop trying to create straw men to knock them down or moving the goal post in an attempt to achieve your personal agenda.

    Firstly, Grenville Phillips II, you DO NOT KNOW ME, and I have NEVER MET YOU IN MY LIFE or had a conversation with you directly or even through a third party.

    Secondly, perhaps you may want to present any substantiating evidence to prove I lied about my qualifications, especially against the background of me mentioning in this forum on a previous occasion that I have a DOUBLE MAJOR in Accounting & Economics and MSc in Accounting. Hence, I am not incorrect to mention I have a BSc in Economics because it is a theoretically truthful statement.

    Thirdly, I am known, in this forum, to be CRITICAL of BOTH BLP & DLP and have EXPRESSED my CONTEMPT for politicians on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. So what exactly is your salient point?

    Fourthly, individuals such as you, Hal Austin and Carl Moore are harshly critical of contributors to BU using pseudonyms. Anonymous contributors are also human beings, who sometimes make more worthwhile contributions than those of you who use your “real names.”

    Yet, despite your CONTEMPT for the “anonymice”, why do you lot BOTHER to RESPOND, and in many instances, USING INSULTING LANGUAGE to describe them as lurking “in the shadows of anonymity” or as “people debating in the shadows (that) lack overall principles.”

    And you lot BECOME UPSET when they RESPOND likewise.

    Are you suggesting to BU that your INSULTS and ATTACKS are JUSTIFIED because you use your “real names?”

    You, Hal Austin & Carl Moore could make life so easy for yourselves….. BY REFUSING TO RESPOND TO ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTORS…. It’s that simple!!!

    However, (and hypocritically so), you are quick to embrace individuals using pseudonyms and contributing anonymously that agree with your position.

    And under circumstances where I described your behavior as childish when you decided to become “slutty” and mention my relatives in a discussion about a Moody’s report, can you indicate to me where in any of my contributions or responses to you I “released these insults as if it were natural?”

    Fifthly, I could similarly conclude that “your refusal to be critical of the worst (DLP) policies confirms” you are a DLP supporter.

    Attacking anonymous contributors is a poor attempt to protect your fragile egos.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Fragile egos and Grenville’s weak campaign that he already blew up, just as Fruendel blew up any chances he had at reelection with his greedy Mercedes mentality and the population coming to the realization that they are repeatedly being raped financially by Fruendel and his Friends.

    Piss poor and useless the whole lot of them, the biggest thing on their minds being anonymous bloggers….. idiots.

    Like

  • Artax:

    I do know you, and I know that you would never speak with such insolence to another person. This anonymous posting has harmed you. You are not degenerating to infantile rudeness, because your parents would not have tolerated it. This is something new for you. You have just embraced the dark side as an adult and it has changed you.

    You know that I have detailed harsh criticisms at both established political parties. The evidence is incontrovertible, yet you would turn from what you know to be true and inexplicably deny it. What is wrong with you? On the other hand, I have only read you to detail criticisms at the DLP, while covering yourself by simply stating that you disagree with both parties. Can you not recognise your bias?

    Nevertheless, I can see that my responses to you have caused you to become unhinged. You seem careless with your reputation – which is a symptom of reckless anonymous posting. Not wanting to enable, or be accused by our mutual friends of enabling your further decline, I will refrain from reading or responding to any more of your anonymous posts.

    Farewell,
    Grenville

    Like

  • Well Well:

    I will take your advice, and will no longer reply to insolent anonymous posts. It actually takes a bit of time, which will now be freed-up. Know that I was sincerely trying to help you.

    Farewell,
    Grenville

    Like

  • @ Grenville Phillips II

    I must once again reiterate that I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET YOU IN MY LIFE, nor do I share any mutual acquaintances with you and I’m sure you do not know my parents as well. do not know you and do I care about you, but if you want to continue in your belief…. be my guest……. “knock yourself out.”

    You persist in mentioning that I insulted you, but after repeatedly asking you to INDICATE to me where in any of my responses to your comments I used INSULTING LANGUAGE, yet you FAILED to COMPLY.

    And I would further CHALLENGE you (if you are man enough) to REVEAL MY IDENTITY to BU.

    However, your attempt at “reverse psychology” is perhaps your way of conceding defeat because I aroused your self-awareness into ACCEPTING that your TEMPERAMENT makes you UNFIT to be a politician. Hence, the only way you could react is to combine a concocted story that you know me, with my posting under anonymity to give you an excuse not to respond or to prevent me from offering further comments on your posts because I do not want to disclose my identity.

    Grenville Phillips II, Who the hell do you think you are?

    Mentioning you “will refrain from reading or responding to any more of your anonymous posts,” not only REINFORCES my ASSESSMENT of you as being an IMMATURE INDIVIDUAL to be correct, but also proves you are ACTUALLY the one who “became unhinged.”

    I could imagine you canvassing and is challenged by someone who you may think is familiar, you would walk away in anger, while promising not interact with them ever again. My friend, that is definitely a sure SIGN of IMMATURITY.

    Quite frankly, I don’t give a shiite if you respond to my post or not. But UNFORTUNATELY for you, you have INCREASED my zeal to be PASSIONATE in COMMENTING and CRITIQUING your articles and contributions, that you may also bid BU “farewell” as well.

    Human beings are curious creatures, and obviously your colleagues will be eager to read my contributions and “tell you wuh I wrote.”

    Like

  • ****@ Grenville Phillips II

    I must once again reiterate that I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET YOU IN MY LIFE, nor do I share any mutual acquaintances with you and I’m sure you do not know my parents as well. I do not know you and do not care about you, but if you want to continue in your belief…. be my guest……. “knock yourself out.”

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s