DR. OMAR DAVIES, the Finance Minister, has suggested that the Government be given a free hand in using financial resources in areas that it considers a priority, although the funds may have been collected for other uses.Dr. Davies apparently sees the funds deducted from employees' earnings as having the potential of making a more significant contribution to national development where they can be used where the administration has identified as being in need.
He has spoken of the possibility of legislation to allow flexible access to the funds, and has complained of being in a fiscal cleft stick not imposing new taxes but wanting improvement, particularly in the social infrastructure.
Such a change would make little difference to the taxpayer. The combination of the deductions would not materially affect the amount that is taken out of wages and salaries for those who pay as they earn. The change could be beneficial to employers in making more efficient their accounting systems. Dr. Davies' proposal is not inherently dangerous or 'crazy' as Mr. Bruce Golding, the Opposition Leader, has suggested. It is incomplete however.
It cannot be considered as a workable proposal until the Finance Minister offers a framework for regulatory oversight of the access to and use of the funds. Since a single deduction and payment into the cumulative fund would no longer be differentiated on the basis of end use, it would be irrelevant to argue about what proportion of the resources should be used for education, for example.
However, the country needs to hear from Dr. Davies the details of how he proposes a gate-keeping process to ensure that the Government's discretion is exercised without abuse of taxpayers who have been led to believe that they are contributing to their pensions, to their ability to obtain secure shelter, and to the educating of their children.
Will it be the minister - whoever he or she may be - who has the power to determine how much of the funds are allocated to what part of the social infrastructure?
Will there be a cap on the use of the funds, in either absolute or percentage terms, for any part of the social infrastructure?
At what point will the depletion of the funds pose a danger to the integrity of benefits expected by contributors, such as pensioners?
The minister's suggestion, as it stands, is less than half-baked. It can be considered seriously only when he provides the details of the legislation that he will propose to ensure that there is some fiscal responsibility in this matter.
