What is there to review?
Apr 19, 2017 , http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....-is-there-to-review/
The AFC is becoming discredited. It can hardly now be trusted by its main coalition partner, APNU, and worst of all, it can no longer be trusted by its supporters.
The AFC as part of the government cannot openly come out and dissociate itself from a decision of which it was a part. This will lead to mistrust within the coalition with the government.
The AFC was part of the government which gave its approval to the parking meter by-laws. After citizens began protesting these by-laws, the AFC suddenly came out and said it was opposed to the deal.
The AFC was part of the government which approved, in the National Assembly, the 2017 Budget. The AFC therefore had to have known that the government, of which it is a part, had planned, to introduce VAT on private education. If the AFC feigns ignorance of this plan, then it must question whether it is a mere footnote within the government’s master script.
The AFC is now saying that it wants a review of the VAT on private education. But what does the AFC want to be reviewed. Does it want reviewed the very policies which it helped pass in the National Assembly? Or is the AFC up to its old tricks trying to pander to its middle-class base by calling for a review of the policy of VAT on private education?
What does the AFC want reviewed? Does it wish the revenue impact of the VAT to be reviewed? There is hardly anything to be reviewed here. The government plans to earn at least $300M from the VAT on private education, which is really crumbs, considering the overall size of the Budget.
Does the AFC want the economic impact of the VAT on private education to be reviewed? Is it so hard for the AFC to appreciate the impact that the VAT will have on even its own middle class base. Some parents, intent on sticking with private education, are now shopping around for the best deal for their children. This, unfortunately, involves sacrifices in the standard of education which they can afford to provide for their children. Others have had to abandon plans of ever sending their children to private schools, because they cannot afford 10-12% student loans at the bank, plus an additional 14% VAT.
Is the AFC asking for a review of the discriminatory application of the VAT? And for the record, the government simply has to pass an Order which exempts public education on VAT to ensure that the VAT can be applied to private education alone. This will mean that VAT can be charged on even ‘play schools’ once the incomes of these schools exceed the financial threshold to be registered for VAT.
The AFC need not get technical. The tax hits private students in the guts. It is a low blow. VAT on private education is a revenue-generating measure. It is not intended to push private students into public schools.
VAT on private education may be discriminatory in relation to that of public education. But it is lawful; so what is there to be reviewed?
The AFC should be now, if it was not earlier, about the implications of the precedence that the government has set. Today the government is taxing private education. It had plans, seemingly, to tax private health care. It can end up applying VAT on private newspapers, radio and television.
The AFC should not be calling for any review of VAT on private education. It should be stating its position unambiguously. It should indicate where it stands on this issue.
If it supports the VAT on private education, it should state so in as many words. If it is opposed to the VAT on private education, it should come out and say to the government that the tax should be repealed.
The AFC cannot eat its cake and have it too. It cannot be a party to the imposition of the VAT on private education and then demand a review. It cannot be opposed to the parking meter by-laws and then only consent to a three-month suspension of the by-laws approved by the government of which it is part.
The AFC must stop shadowboxing. It must emerge out of the shadows of APNU and assert its rights as an equal partner with APNU as part of the government. If it cannot do this, then its presence within the government is of no consequence.