We will have to respectfully disagree. VAT was/is neither logical or well thought out. The successive increases to VAT are clear evidence of that. VAT was implemented because it is the easiest to implement, not the most efficient. Income tax, in my view, can be easily implemented and would be more than a sufficient replacement for VAT. I will go one step further - within 15 years, the government of the time will have no choice but to switch to income tax. (Cant continue to raise VAT as a source of revenue.)

Simple fix: 1) Non-banks cannot make loans, unless it is a part of their existing business (car dealerships/furniture stores, etc.). There is no justifiable reason why a non-deposit taking institution should lend money outside of the scope of their substantive business - none.

2) Lower the maximum interest rate that a bank can charge (while keeping service ratio constant). This simultaneously makes debt more affordable and keeps additional funds in the hands of people, which they will either spend (money multiplier) or save (thus leaving more money for banks to lend out/invest). Either scenario helps the economy.

No need to regulate these predatory businesses.

Agreed birdie. Manny full of hot air, as usual. Happy to hear during the budget today that the AG will not go back on the fees. If boaters prefer to go to Europe or St. Bart's or elsewhere in the Caribbean to destroy their coral reefs and dump sewage in the water then so be it.

Government needs revenue, hence the taxes - you know this. All taxes, especially VAT, should be removed, and we should instead introduce an income tax. Time has long since passed.

For once, you actually make sense.

As usual, Diane allows the facts to get in the way of an objective story. Two things: yes, the Prime Minister blundered with his (obviously) flippant remarks toward the Opposition leader. It was not his (PM) best moment. But what does the action of the prime minister (and his political party) depict?
1) Renamed the PI Bridge after Sir Sidney (the same actor whom Diane mentions in her article);
2) Appointed Sir Sidney as an ambassador
3) Established The Bahamas National Youth Choir, arguably the country's most prolific and well-known cultural export (RIP, Cleophas R.E. Adderley, Jr.)
4) Formation of CAPAS - to give Bahamian kids an opportunity to pursue a career in the arts; and
5) Donation to the Dundas - as reported by representatives from the Dundas, the first time ever that a government has contributed to the Dundas.

So, yes, Diane, draft your obviously biased column, highlighting a flippant moment of the PM. You, and your Tribune masters, will no doubt be proud to "stick it to the PLP".

The facts, however, appear to diverge from your narrative.

I mean, in truth, you, also, did not provide any useful comments - save for regurgitating the petulant musings of some (probably lazy) former politician, who no doubt himself (herself) contributed to the quagmire that The Bahamas is now in, and, for damn sure, was the generous beneficiary of operating in an oligarchy.

ABEKA is nonsense. That system can suffer a quick demise.

I guess this means that - once again - both the PLP and FNM denied her political candidacy request.

I was thinking the same thing. I do think it is time that government mandates that all foreign companies - i.e., companies that can flee the jurisdiction when the declare bankruptcy and leave Bahamian employees in a lurch - establish a sinking fund, the sole purpose of which is that in the event of bankruptcy, etc., Bahamian employees can be paid commensurate with Bahamian laws. Too often, foreign companies can simply exit, leaving the government to have to clean up the mess.