THE PORTIA Simpson Miller administration has reneged on its promise to abolish general consumption tax (GCT) on electricity.

Making his opening presentation in the 2012-2013 Budget Debate in the House of Representatives yesterday, Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips announced changes to the way in which GCT is to be charged.

The minister said that, as of June 1, no GCT will be charged on the first 300kWh of electricity consumed, up from 200kWh. However, the tax will move from 10 to 16.5 per cent. The measure is expected to earn the Government $430 million this fiscal year.

In the general election campaign last year, Simpson Miller declared that her administration would remove GCT on electricity if her People’s National Party was elected to form the government. The promise was also contained in her party’s election manifesto.

Yesterday, Phillips told the House that of the approximately 500,000 JPS residential customers, 377,000 consume less than 200kwh of electricity.

He said the new tax directives will result in 90 per cent of JPS customers not paying GCT on light bills, up from the initial 76 per cent.

“The proposed measure should relieve approximately 80,000 additional residential customers from the payment of GCT on their electricity bill at the new threshold level of 300kWh, leaving only 52,000 residential customers subject to GCT,” Phillips said.

Just last month, Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining Phillip Paulwell said Government intended to honour its election promise to roll back the consumption tax on electricity usage.

“There is a commitment that was given to the people of Jamaica which we intend to fulfil,” Paulwell said during a sitting of the House of Representatives.

Proposal questioned

North East St Catherine Member of Parliament Gregory Mair, who had tabled questions of Paulwell in the House, had suggested that the Government seek to raise the threshold to 300kWh instead of rolling back the tax.

Relying on data provided to the House by Paulwell, Mair said only eight per cent of residential consumers would not benefit if the threshold was increased to 300kWh.

“That would mean that 92 per cent of residential consumers would not pay GCT and the total amount of GCT collected would reduce only by $250 million,” Mair had argued.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120525/lead/lead7.html

 

Simpson Miller
Simpson Miller

Daraine Luton, Senior Staff Reporter

DESPITE DECLARING in its election manifesto that it would “remove the general consumption tax (GCT) on electricity charges to ease the burden caused by electricity bills,” finance minister Dr Peter Phillips is insisting the People’s National Party (PNP) has delivered on its commitment to Jamaicans.

Phillips, the country’s finance minister, who served as campaign director for the PNP in the last general election, on Thursday announced in Parliament a 300 kWh threshold on electricity consumption above which GCT would be charged.

“A commitment was given in relation to GCT and by raising the threshold, we have in fact relieved all except the highest consumers of electricity,” Phillips said.

The PNP, in its manifesto, listed the rollback of GCT on electricity among 18 steps to full people power.

Yesterday, Phillips argued that 90 per cent of residential customers of the Jamaica Public Service would not pay GCT on their electricity bills. He said that the move by the Government would provide protection for the working poor and marginalised.

Previously, the threshold on electricity consumption was 200 kWh. Phillips also announced that the GCT on electricity would increase from 10 to 16.5 per cent.

In the meantime, Phillips argued that the increase in the rate of GCT would not impact businesses.

“All businesses can in fact claim their GCT payments back so that for businesses that are registered taxpayers for GCT, they are able to claim back their GCT payments, so on that basis, we have fulfilled a commitment that was given to the country,” Phillips said.

PM snaps

PNP President Portia Simpson Miller, now prime minister, repeatedly snapped at suggestions that the proposal for a rollback of GCT on electricity was not properly thought through.

“Everything we say from our platform they criticise,” she said, while adding that she has come to accept the criticisms of the “uncharitable and the unjust”.

“My platform will promise nothing that we are not sure we can deliver,” Simpson Miller said in St Thomas.

Yesterday, the minister of finance said “during the election campaign, we would not have a sense of how dire the public finances of the country was at the time”.

He added: “We have a simple choice, we could remove it, including at the highest end consumers, or we could try to rescue those same high-end consumers by rescuing Jamaica.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120526/news/news5.html

REMARKS IN Parliament on Tuesday by the energy minister, Phillip Paulwell, suggest that the Simpson Miller administration may have begun to grasp that flawed policies need not be pursued merely because they were declared.

In this case, the government seems willing to rethink its promise of a blanket removal of the general consumption tax (GCT) on electricity that it made in the heat of the campaign for last December’s general election.

That promise by Portia Simpson Miller was, understandably, popular, helping to win her People’s National Party the government and propel her to prime ministership. For, on the face of it, many thousands of Jamaicans would be freed of the 10 per cent tax on their electricity bills that was imposed by the previous administration.

The fact, though, is that it was largely a mirage – as the figures quoted by Mr Paulwell on Tuesday would have forced him to realise – were it not the case before.

Important points

The Jamaica Public Service, the light and power company, has, Mr Paulwell reported, 492,560 residential consumers. Of this number, 377,495, or 77 per cent, use less than 200 kilowatt-hours of electricity monthly – the benchmark at which consumers enjoy a price ‘subsidy’ on their power bills. Consumers at this threshold do not currently pay GCT.

There is a differential between the minister’s figures and slightly higher ones quoted by the Private Sector Working Group (PSWG) in its tax-reform proposals that offered an alternative to the government’s plan. Both, however, underline three important points.

First, from the political point of view, the constituency of poor voters that Mrs Simpson Miller most wanted to reach when she made the promise was already exempt from the GCT. Second, the removal of the tax would give a break mostly to well-to-do people who can afford to pay. Third, blanket removal of the GCT is also removing an incentive to conserve.

The PSWG had alternatively suggested keeping the GCT in place, but raising it to 12.5 per cent in line with the rate it proposes for all goods and services. It would, at the same time, raise the charge for the consumption threshold for GCT to 300 kWh, freeing more than 20,000 additional electricity consumers from the tax.

Neutral effect

The concept and the underlying implication of these numbers have apparently not been lost on Mr Paulwell and his Cabinet colleagues. He pointed out that raising the GCT-free threshold to 250 kWh, or 300 kWh, would benefit 10 per cent, and 16 per cent more electricity users. It would, at the same time, cost between $113 million and $136 million in revenue.

Minister Paulwell appears to be concerned about the impact on small businesses. But the GCT is an input-output tax, so compliant businesses could claim against their payments. The effect, therefore, would be neutral – except in the case of those businesses that are either not registered or compliant.

It can’t be the objective of government to reward people who do not play by the rules, or promote economic disorder. Moreover, as Mr Paulwell indicated, the cash-strapped government collected over $1.6 billion in GCT payments on electricity in the last fiscal year. That is not to be disregarded.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

 

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120412/cleisure/cleisure1.html