Khurshid Sattaur’s was an unfortunate revelation

Apr 06, 2012 Letters

---

 

 

Dear Editor,
Please allow me to respond to Mr. Khurshid Sattaur’s, Commissioner-General Guyana Revenue Authority, letter published in the SN dated April 5, 2012.
Mr. Sattaur’s letter, captioned “A reduction in VAT would not benefit those earning below $40,000 per month because their consumption relates to items which are not exempt or zero rated”, can be described as nothing but grossly unfortunate.
Assuming the role of the President Ramotar’s spokesperson, Mr. Sattaur has decided to shoulder his professional responsibility and put on his political hat when he decided that he must defend and deny what Donald Ramotar promised Guyanese while on the campaign trail.
Wearing his political hat, while representing a supposedly semi-autonomous agency, Sattaur stated that in my letter of April 1, 2012 I proffered a number of misrepresentations. He stated that my letter “made the erroneous claim that the President promised to reduce the rate of VAT.” He went on to further state that my letter “…contentiously stated that from the beginning, the rate was too high”.
For his perplexingly suspicious defence of Ramotar’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, I wish only to refer the gentleman to the daily newspapers and the PPP/C website to confirm his obvious fear. And for the record I will hasten to make them public here, not for the ordinary Guyanese who remembers Ramotar’s VAT promise well, but for Mr. Sattaur who might be suffering from a severe and induced state of ‘impulsive disillusionment’ which has impaired his memory.
So for starters; Michael Younge on December 19, 2012 posted on the PPP/C’s website an article captioned “Taxation system, VAT review underway”. He asserts, “The VAT has been a sore bone of contention among ordinary Guyanese and members of the business community.
“There were calls, even in the run up to the recently held regional and general elections for the tax system to be either scrapped or reduced by half, because of the alleged burden that consumers and businesses were experiencing”.
Maybe Sattaur is not an ordinary Guyanese and so he is not aware that from the inception, 16 per cent VAT, for most Guyanese imposed a burden or he is immune from the tax.
With respect to the claim by the Revenue boss, that Ramotar never made promise to reduce VAT let me refer the goodly gentleman to an article published in the KN dated July 12, 2011under the heading ‘VAT likely to be reduced – Ramotar’. This is one of the many campaign episodes in which Ramotar boosted the Guyanese expectation, when he intimated that should he win the elections reducing VAT was a possibility.
“A Donald Ramotar administration will have no problem reviewing the VAT tax structure with the possibility of reducing it from the current 16 per cent”.
The report went on, “In an invited comment”, that with respect to reducing VAT “the PPP Presidential Candidate said that he would entertain the idea…” Ramotar while campaigning in Florida with former President Bharrat Jagdeo is reported to have made these comments when he responded to PPP supporters who raised the question of the 16% VAT and the burden it places on Guyanese.
So Mr. Sattaur, Ramotar VAT promise was heard loud and clear. But in case you might still have doubts I wish to refer you to an article dated Thursday January 26, 2012, published in SN and titled “VAT chop for Ramotar, AFC talk”. In this article it was reported that Chairman of the AFC was expected to meet with Mr. Ramotar, the next day, to further discuss issues related to the national budget.
On the issue of VAT reduction, Ramjattan told reporters that he was optimistic that his party and the PPP/C would be able to compromise on issues such as the reduction of VAT and an increase in public sector wages.
Your attempt to offer political cover to Donald Ramotar using your professional office, underlines the problems we will continue to have in Guyana, where too often professional are prepared to sacrifice professional ethics and credibility for ‘political cloutism’. The public would have been more edified and receptive of your response had you taken the time to alert them as to how those very consumer goods they buy every day attract that high 16% Value Added Tax (VAT).
To state that those who make less than $40,000 per month will not benefit from a reduction in VAT is disingenuous and lacks honest and real clarification. Since you seem to pride yourself in the belief that you have, to use your words, “proper knowledge of the system” it might be good for you to explain how the reduction of VAT can lead to the possible reduction of house rent, as the material cost for repairs might be reduced, thereby not having the tenant bear the burden of increase rent.
Additionally, you may want to explain to me why I had to pay the cost for three foods, at the restaurant, when I only got two. The impact of the 16% VAT stung me two years ago, when I decided to buy two foods for two persons who badly wanted something to eat, when I was told the cost I could not help saying, it is only two I asked for, the young lady at the counter smiled and showed me the bill and said “is VAT”.
I checked my bill and indeed it was VAT.
Finally, Mr. Sattaur’s statement that reducing VAT would not benefit the ordinary Guyanese must be of concern to every Guyanese especially those whose job it is to represent the interest of the average wage earner. It appears that from the Revenue boss’ position these people will have no interest in building their own home, and will be perpetual consumers of the ‘food basket items’.
One may argue, based on Sattaur’s rational, that the tax is probably geared to keep the poor impoverished, because the mere thought of constructing a home would result in a state of heartache, when one sees the impact the 16% VAT has on the cost of materials.
While it is true that many ordinary consumers will continue to spend most of the little they earn obn food items, to argue that a reduction in VAT would not benefit the ordinary man is an insult, and an insensitive generalization.
I would hope that debate on the 2012 budget would end with, among other things, the reduction of VAT, to do less would be to continue to strangle Guyanese with this unfair burden, which retards their progress.
What an unfortunate revelation!
Lurlene Nestor

---

---