By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

BASED on the amount of tax dodging we have seen recently it appears that only the poor, the unfortunate and – in some cases – the middle class, are saddled with paying much needed taxes, which would go a long way towards settling the country’s skyrocketing debt and underwriting capital works and essential services.

That said, I think the nation was taken aback by the revelation that Dame Marguerite Pindling - wife of the country’s first Prime Minister, the late Sir Lynden - had become delinquent in her payments of real property tax, astoundingly to the tune of $306,831.73 over the last 14 years, though she has drawn Sir Lynden’s $86,000 pension every year since his death in 2000.

Essentially, what this means is that there has been no payment of real property taxes on their Skyline Heights homestead from the year 2000 - or thereabouts - up until Thursday, when the full amount was reportedly (but not confirmed) paid off.

In all fairness, let me begin by saying kudos to Lady Pindling if she has indeed quickly paid off the debt ... but, why did it take being embarrassed and exposed in the media for Lady Pindling’s tax ducking to be resolved?

Of course, those too blinded by ignorance and political propaganda over-simplify it and see it as simply a “witch hunt.” Frankly, considering the haste with which 14 years of outstanding property taxes was seemingly paid off, the media should collect a salary from the Department of Inland Revenue since the media’s tax collection style - ie. exposure - appears to work much faster and more efficiently than theirs.

I found Bradley Roberts’ defence of Lady Pindling’s non-payment of tax, and the fact that the media did its job and exposed it, to be nothing short of ludicrous, absurd and downright inane. There are some things that are simply indefensible and whether it’s a FNM or PLP politician or the spouse of any political leader, no excuses should be offered, no attacking of the messenger would suffice.

No one is above the law and it doesn’t matter if they wear red, gold, green or any other politically-affiliated colour. This is about fair play and the law. The governing party cannot be calling for tax reform when it cannot collect the taxes currently on the books, even from its own prominent officials and party leaders.

Earlier this year, Ishmael Lightbourne - the government’s principal spokesman on the implementation of VAT - was found to owe $110,083 on his commercial property on Mount Royal Avenue and a further $7,743 on his waterfront residential property on Cable Beach. What’s more, it was also revealed that that same Cable Beach home was subsequently repossessed as he was found to have defaulted and fallen behind on his mortgage to First Caribbean Bank.

The hypocrisy in the Lightbourne fiasco is that he was one of the government’s VAT coordinators, urging Bahamians to pay taxes and talking about the need for VAT and the payment of VAT whilst he himself was not paying the taxes set out by the existing tax regime and specifically applicable to his circumstance.

There does appear to be a sense of entitlement relative to who pays taxes and who is appointed to what positions. The last I checked, there was no royal family living in the Bahamas and certainly no local king, queen, sultan, emperor or emirs. None! There are only 26 royal families in the world and none of them are citizens, residing here in the Bahamas.

Moreover, unlike Greek mythology, there is no Zeus, Hera, Poseidon or any other gods living among what some clearly see as the ‘lowly natives’ occupying this island chain. Yet, one gets the impression that it is felt that certain matriarchs or patriarchs of some families - and some families in general - are above reproach, that although we, the people, have elected them and given them the prominence they now hold, that they are better than us.

I find any such notion to be laughable at best. If this kind of thinking is allowed to subsist, there will soon be members of the political class thinking that marble temples should be built to honour their so-called greatness.

It is being speculated that Lady Pindling will likely become the next Governor General upon Sir Arthur Foulkes’ demitting of office on July 8. Don’t get me wrong, I think Lady Pindling is a fine lady and she carries herself with the grace and regalness that one can admire in a former first lady.

I agree that behind every successful man is a woman pushing him to exceed. I think she did that for Sir Lynden and assisted in making him one of the most prominent figures in this hemisphere and a revered former leader in death. However, I am not convinced that that qualifies Lady Pindling to become Governor General of this country.

Yes, I concede that Lady Pindling stood by Sir Lynden in the fight for majority rule and nationhood, but I wholeheartedly believe that there are more qualified and deserving prospective appointees and that Prime Minister Perry Christie must exercise the greatest discretion in his selection of our next Head of State.

What’s more, if Lady Pindling (now deputy to the Governor General) is favoured to be appointed Governor General, the public must be informed regarding her salary, as she currently receives Sir Lynden’s pension and would be due a salary of $75,000 per year as Governor General.

That said, section 10, subsection 3 of the Prime Minister’s Pension Act (Chapter 12) clearly states that “a pension payable under section 3 shall, if the person to whom it is payable is appointed Governor-General or is again appointed Prime Minister, cease to be payable during the period in respect of which that person holds office of Governor-General or again holds the office of Prime Minister.”

That means that if Dame Marguerite is appointed Governor General, she cannot legally draw Sir Lynden’s pension. This must be made clear to the public.

I don’t see the post of Governor General as a mere token appointment for party loyalists. We can all bask in the individual, nationalist work and sacrifices of deserving appointees such as Arthur Hanna, Sir Arthur Foulkes, Dame Ivy Dumont, Sir Orville Turnquest, Sir Milo Butler and others who have held this noble post.

A few years ago, though she already carried the title ‘Lady’ as a result of her husband’s knighthood, Mrs Pindling’s name turned up on the 2007 Queen’s New Year’s Honours list, giving her membership in the Order of the British Empire (making her a ‘Dame’), which is equivalent to that of a knighthood. The entire undertaking at that time, I felt, was duplicitous and unwarranted since there are other deserving nation builders who could have received the damehood.

The political class must understand that Bahamians are gradually becoming disinclined with the notion of putting politicians and their cohorts on a pedestal and kneeling and kissing the ring. Certainly, both FNM and PLP need to understand that they are elected to serve the people, not their egos, cronies and/or to merely canonise party stalwarts.

Before I conclude this part of the column, let me also say that I think the government should reintroduce the amnesty period for real property taxes, because clearly there are persons - even among the political elite - who need an opportunity to properly resolve their outstanding tax issues. To be quite honest, I think there is something intrinsically wrong and unjust about an elderly person, now retired, having to pay increasing real property taxes on properties that are increasing in value every year. Yes, the tax does seem unjust because it - quite honestly - is seen by many as having no value, as being burdensome and as giving something for nothing.

Whilst Lady Pindling is the exception and more fortunate than most - drawing her husband’s $86,000 annual salary - I think that the elderly should be exempt from paying real property taxes on their residences upon them reaching retirement age, whether that be 60 or 65.

I think that such persons should not have to pay taxes as long as they can prove that they reside in such premises and such an exemption should subsist until their deaths. The government would do well to review the Act, with a view to making such legislative amendments.

ON THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF MPs

This week, The Tribune shockingly revealed that less than 15 current MPs were up to date with their public disclosures, in accordance with the Public Disclosures Act. According to the Act, the disclosures must be turned into the Public Disclosure Commission by March each year, documenting assets and liabilities of the previous year.

According to the Act, a summary of the declarations shall be published in a gazette and any person who does not comply with the law is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years.

So, why is it that the majority of Opposition FNM MPs and a preponderance of Cabinet ministers have not disclosed in accordance with the law? Most of the MPs who agreed to speak to The Tribune either used the “any day now” excuse, referred to their accountant in some way or said that they were suddenly making it a matter of priority.

Yup, they’re only now making it a priority!

So, here’s the thing: what will be the fines for those MPs who have failed to file their disclosures? And what about the 16 senators currently serving in the upper chambers - how many of them have filed their disclosures? We know that if the persons who didn’t disclose were the average Joe Blow, fines - or even the more extreme, imprisonment - would have been quickly meted out in accordance with the Act.

So, what happens to those law-breaking MPs who have defaulted? We, the public, want to know. The Prime Minister has promised that he would ensure that members of his caucus submit their disclosures, but will the Commission see to it that fines are handed down or will Bahamians be shown that the political class feels entitled and that they see themselves as being “more equal than others” (per George Orwell’s Animal Farm).

There are some who believe that public disclosures are important as they would allow the public to assess the financial standing of their elected representatives and also to deter any person in a position of authority from indiscriminately stealing, or so we would hope!

I think that that is true, but only to a point. We have had several instances where persons could be said to have entered politics with next to nothing and left with millions - even today. One of the issues I have with this whole notion of public disclosures is that there appears to be a lack of checks and balances, a lack of an independent audit of politicians.

With the current set-up, it appears that one could say that their assets and liabilities are anything, without any firm controls in place to determine if they are speaking the truth.

I will wait to see if any sanctions will be handed down.