Sugar tax? Where’s the fiscal strategy first?

By JADE RUSSELL

Tribune Staff Reporter

jrussell@tribunemedia.net

THE Free National Movement blasted the government’s upcoming plans to introduce tax on sugar and excess salt, adding a legally mandated Fiscal Strategy Report has yet to be provided by the government.

In a press statement released on Sunday, East Grand Bahama MP Kwasi Thompson, who is also the shadow minister for finance, lambasted the Davis administration’s planned implementation of new taxes.

“The FNM has been clear and unwavering on the issue of tax reform. As we have said repeatedly, before this government can even begin to discuss new revenue measures, it must put forward a proper fiscal and economic plan to the Bahamian people that explains the context of any revenue proposal and shows reduced wasteful and unnecessary spending.

“It is inconceivable that this government is even talking about new taxes and has failed to provide the legally mandated Fiscal Strategy Report due in November 2022,” Mr Thompson said in a statement.

Companies that supply food and drink have also questioned the government’s plan to implement new legislation that will create a tax for sugar and excess salt as well as try to eliminate trans fats being imported into the country.

Health and Wellness Minister Dr Michael Darville unveiled the plans last week, but could not give specifics on what is being proposed.

Mr Thompson argued the government should be providing relief to the Bahamian people rather than increasing tax burdens on them.

He also questioned if the government has a plan in place to decrease the cost of healthy food to aid in making it more accessible.

“While the increase in the cost of unhealthy food does decrease its consumption, price decreases have a larger effect on diet. Where are the government’s plans to decrease the cost of healthy foods and provide help to those less fortunate to obtain healthy foods? The FNM calls on the government to first implement subsidies for healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables before it increases the tax burden on working Bahamians. The government is once again putting the cart before the horse,” Mr Thompson said.

Mr Thompson stressed any “sugar tax discussion” should be secondary, noting a plan is needed by the Davis administration to address more important issues.

He continued: “We need proper policies to improve the school food environment. We need a national commitment to providing healthy breakfast and lunch meals to all school-aged children. We need to strengthen monitoring of the school tuck shop guidelines. We need a public awareness campaign in collaboration with the private sector and civil society.”

The FNM will not support new revenue measures by the government, Mr Thompson said. He suggested these measures are being taken to support the “extravagance and indulgent spending of the PLP.”

“This administration has been on a wild spending spree. It is spending additional millions of dollars on travel and on consultancies and contracts to any number of persons. Just look at URCA’s proposed budget for conferences, training, and travel in 2023, from $96,521 to $627,500 — an increase of 566 percent.”

“It has refused to follow the law and provide the details on who is getting these contracts. The FNM will not support new revenue measures to fund the extravagance and indulgent spending of the PLP.

At the “same time, this government has raised taxes on the poor by reintroducing VAT on breadbasket goods, medicine and baby care items,” he said.

The FNM is still calling upon the government to provide a fiscal report.

He said: “And prepare a comprehensive white paper on tax and fiscal reform that lays out what you intend to do for revenue and expenditure management for the country. Have a full dialogue with all Bahamian stakeholders. Only then can reasonable Bahamians give consideration to any new measures.”

Comments

Flyingfish says...

I think the government should put more focus on healthy food incentives than unhealthy food disincentives. Simply invest in our agriculture so that or market is so inundated with healthy foods that they can buy healthy and local.

Posted 31 January 2023, 4:28 p.m. Suggest removal

ThisIsOurs says...

This has nothing to do with a concern for health. If that was the case why would they have simultaneously increased the up front out of pocket tax burden for person needing medical procedures? The govt has been scrounging around in the backroom looking for the most lucrative revenue sources in the country to tax. Couldnt come up with something better than "sugar" in *Non communicable Disease Nation*

Posted 31 January 2023, 8:26 p.m. Suggest removal

BONEFISH says...

@ This is Ours.Some one explained it to me. It is called behavioral economics. It is when governments use taxes to moderate certain behaviours. The FNM did it also. That is why sugar was not vat free under the FNM government.They also planned to put certain fruits, nuts and vegetables as bread basket items. They had some good ideas which were not properly executed.

As for the government scrounging around for taxes. There is widespread tax evasion and avoidance in this country. There is a low level of compliance in paying certain existing taxes on the books. That is why under both FNM and PLP governments,there exists a revenue enhancement unit.

Posted 31 January 2023, 8:57 p.m. Suggest removal

ohdrap4 says...

It is not like they came up with this idea on their own.
This is a mandate from Dr. Tedros, the poet, from WHO.
The tax is supposed to be 20%, imposed on the industry.

It has already been implemented in Barbados.

Mind you, the import duty on juices is already 40%, now add 20% to that. Wow.

It baffles me to think that I this inflationary period, they are going to tax the corned beef and the macaroni and cheese.

Posted 31 January 2023, 9:40 p.m. Suggest removal

ThisIsOurs says...

So, I get your points and I understand the theory behind a sugar tax and why it was proposed *in the world*. I am saying I find it very hard to believe that that was **this** govt's motivation. I dont believe it. Their motivation is solely increasing revenue by taxing regular people who have little *individual* economic power, their *actions* say so plainly

iHop was just approved as a hopeful major employer, theyre not trying to moderate anything. This is about revenue

Posted 1 February 2023, 2:09 a.m. Suggest removal

Commenting has been disabled for this item.