Wednesday, June 3, 2015
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
The Government will miss its original goal of eliminating the GFS fiscal deficit by the upcoming 2015-2016 Budget year, amid warnings that its near-$2 billion recurrent spending “doesn’t bode well” for hitting its revised targets.
Gowon Bowe, the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation’s (BCCEC) chairman, said the projected $100 million or 5.4 per cent increase in year-over-year fixed-cost spending would only “put pressure” on the Government’s revenues to meet Budget.
While the Treasury is now projected to earn an increased $344 million in Value-Added Tax (VAT) revenues for 2015-2016, Mr Bowe said this sum - and the VAT collected by Customs - will effectively all be consumed by the Government’s $400 million-plus debt servicing costs.
“I think the Prime Minister’s communication was very upbeat and did paint a very rosy picture,” Mr Bowe told Tribune Business, acknowledging that the Government had beaten its 2014-2015 deficit targets.
“But in reality, the numbers will bear out a tremendous amount of expenditure they expect to incur.... When you look at the numbers, it’s obvious there’s increasing expenditure, and that puts pressure on our ability to meet revenue targets.”
Revenue performance is “significantly correlated” with GDP growth rates, Mr Bowe added, and these are already under pressure in the short and medium-term.
Tribune Business revealed on Tuesday how Moody’s, the international credit rating agency, has cut its 2015 Bahamas growth forecast from 2 per cent to 1.7 per cent due to Baha Mar’s delayed opening.
Effectively backing that move, Mr Bowe told Tribune Business: “I stand by 2.3 per cent growth as a stretch target. I still believe it’s possible, but not probable.”
He agreed that the Bahamas’ 2015 economic growth would be determined by Baha Mar, the opening of resorts such as the Warwick on Paradise Island and former Nassau Palm on West Bay Street, and whether additional tourists and airlift arrived to fill their rooms.
As for the Budget, Mr Bowe reiterated that it was vital the Government’s consolidation strategy bore fruit in the numbers, with a reduced fiscal deficit and decline in the $6.2 billion national debt.
“The recurrent expenditure doesn’t bode well, as you’re talking about $100 million in extra spending and getting up to near $2 billion,” Mr Bowe told Tribune Business.
“What’s it saying? Are we cutting our suit to fit the cloth? We should see all the VAT surplus used to defray what the deficit was.
“Our end expectation was to hold the line on expenditure, reduce it where we can but not cause hardship in areas such as social security, and do it in a phased approach.”
The Government’s 2015-2016 Budget projections show recurrent (fixed cost) spending falling as a percentage of GDP from 22.8 per cent in the upcoming year to 22.2 per cent and 22 per cent in 2016-2017, and 2017-2018, respectively. In the latter year, it is supposed to be surpassed in terms of GDP share by revenues at 22.3 per cent.
Yet, in gross terms, the Government’s recurrent spending is projected to increase over successive Budget periods. It will jump by $100 million in 2015-2016 to $1.944 billion (on a like-for-like basis), as $60 million is allocated for National Health Insurance (NHI) and $20 million towards addressing youth unemployment.
Recurrent spending is then forecast to grow to $2.127 billion in 2016-2017, and $2.171 billion in 2017-2018.
Mr Bowe yesterday suggested that the Bahamas follow the strategy employed by the Turks & Caicos Islands, which generated a $75 million budget surplus due to a focus on tax compliance and law enforcement combined with “holding the line” on expenditure and “cutting where they could”.
“We need to be very clear about what we can afford, and drive our citizens to understand we can only spend what we take in and can afford,” Mr Bowe told Tribune Business. “In layman’s terms, we’ve mortgaged our house twice already, and can’t afford to do it a third time.”
The Government’s fiscal projections dating back to the 2013-2014 Budget add to the impression it is failing to hold recurrent spending flat, and is, in fact, increasing these estimates every year.
While estimates are notoriously sensitive to change, the Government’s 2013-2014 projection for the upcoming year’s recurrent spending was $1.825 billion. That was increased the following year to $1.874 billion, and now to $1.944 billion.
The statistics also confirm that the Government’s initial goal of eliminating the GFS fiscal deficit in 2015-2016 will not be met, suggesting that the initial plan was too aggressive.
That bold prediction, contained in the Christie administration’s 2013-2014 Budget, was revised to a $129 million deficit last year. That estimate has been increased, again, in the current Budget to $141 million - a sum equivalent to 1.5 per cent of GDP.
And estimates of an $80 million GFS surplus in 2016-2017 were swiftly revised to an $84 million deficit in last year’s Budget, although that figure is now expected to improve slightly to $70 million of ‘red ink’.
Deficits, albeit much reduced, are now expected through 2017-2018, implying that the Government will be unable to cease borrowing for some years to come.
Comments
Well_mudda_take_sic says...
We have a highly regressive tax like VAT sucking precious dollars away from the less fortunate in our private sector to fuel even more grossly inefficient and non-productive public sector expenditures by our incompetent Christie-led administration. Sadly, it seems it is only now becoming quite clear to Bowe that he should never have been a proponent of the introduction of VAT rather than a much more progressive form of taxation such as income tax. Christie, Halkitis, Rolle, etc. all knew just how to go about scaring Bowe and others in the private sector into accepting a horribly regressive VAT rather than a progressive income tax regime. Christie and his wealthy business cronies like Snake, Tiger, Flowers, Bastian, etc. could not care less about our rising level of National Debt and increasing Debt to GDP Ratio. And they certainly don't give a rats arse about the less fortunate in our society bearing a greatly disproportionate share of the taxes paid to our spendthrift wasteful government. Anyone notice how much Bowe is beginning to sound more and more like the politicians who have us mired in the mess we are in today?
Posted 3 June 2015, 4:35 p.m. Suggest removal
Well_mudda_take_sic says...
Are you for real? You callously state in your comment immediately above that even though you, Bowe and all the other major proponents of VAT did not believe the government would make good on its promises, all of you nevertheless supported the introduction of the harshly regressive and repressive 7.5% VAT so that you could call the government out on their failure to make good on their promise to use VAT to reduce our National Debt. The lives of the less fortunate people in our country are being torn apart each day by the devastating consequences of VAT on their financial affairs and you have the audacity and temerity to state that you, Bowe and others were content to see this happen so that all of you could simply say to government: "You broke your promise!" You must be kidding. I sense the lousy lot of all those like you have not an iota of common sense or decency and certainly no appreciation or sympathy whatsoever for the very harsh consequences that a grossly unfair tax like VAT has on many of the poorest in our society.
Posted 4 June 2015, 9:57 p.m. Suggest removal
Zakary says...
<a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bahamas…"><img src="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/…" width="100%" height="100% border="0" alt="."></a>
---
<a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bahamas…"><img src="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/…" width="100%" height="100% border="0" alt="."></a>
---
<a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bahamas…"><img src="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/…" width="100%" height="100% border="0" alt="."></a>
Posted 4 June 2015, 12:18 a.m. Suggest removal
asiseeit says...
What do we have to show for this 2 BILLION dollars? A false economy that is geared towards enriching PLP's and their cronie's. I heard a guy yesterday bemoaning the fact that there is no work out there and the guy next to him chirped up and said "you just ain't running in the right circles", in other words, who you know. Sounds like the late 80's when this country was about to implode and Pindling had no clue. Right now it is ALL about who you know, thats how the PLP roll's!
Posted 4 June 2015, 8:28 a.m. Suggest removal
John says...
WHILE GOVERNMENT IS CHIDING THE OVER PERFORMANCE OF VAT, did it take into account that VAT revenues will decline in the second and third quarter of 2015? And possibly even a slight decline in Q4, 2015. We must remember that when VAT came into effect January 1, 2015 all retail/wholesale businesses had inventory on hand on which they did not pay VAT at the border. So when these businesses did their filings during the first quarter they had very little tax credits to claim from government. As they draw down this inventory and begin to replace it they will be able to claim more VAT credits when they file. Hence the total VAT revenue will decline. This may not be significant for food stores and restaurants that carry a 30-60 day supply of inventory but car companies and other stores that carry more durable items carry inventory for 6 months and even up to a year. So government may not be able to say what its true annual VAT revenue will be until after 2nd Quarter filings 2016, all other things being equal.
Posted 4 June 2015, 9:33 a.m. Suggest removal
newcitizen says...
John, that's not quite how VAT works. For example, the cars that were already on the lot that you are referring to paid no VAT at the port, while the new ones that come in will have VAT paid at customs. The VAT of the final sale will deduct the amount paid at the customs, but in the end will result in the same amount having been paid.
$30,000 at customs x 7.5% = $2250
$40,000 final sale x 7.5% = $3000
With inventory from before VAT at customs, the dealer pays $3000 in VAT.
With new inventory, the dealer pays $2250 in VAT to bring in the car, and then ($3000-$2250=$750) $750 is paid on the sale once they do their deductions. $3000 of VAT was still paid for that car, just in two separate payments. The same amount overall as the already imported inventory.
VAT is a pass through tax, so taking credits on it just means that it has already been paid. It doesn't mean that the credit money just disappears.
This is somewhat simplified, as their are other deductions and so on, but in the end it adds up to the same amount.
Posted 4 June 2015, 11:36 a.m. Suggest removal
Log in to comment