Just another tax

The new "eco-contribution" is just another tax. Unfortunately we have had to accept new taxes in various forms year after year with the result that people's purchasing power is constantly diminishing.

Yet, despite these taxes, the country's structural deficit is still high, and this is the most worrying aspect. Our country is becoming more more uncompetitive, and this is reflected in our economy, which also has to absorb the shocks of the world economy.

Our tourism and manufacturing sectors are clear indicators of our ailing economy. Both depend on the global economy and political situation, but the way our fiscal policy is administering is making matters worse.

Government must understand that by increasing the tax burden (which is already too high) it is decreasing people's purchasing power and the amount of savings.

Citizens are already heavily taxed on three fronts: income tax and national insurance when receiving salary cheques, VAT when buying basic and not so basic needs (although this is a progressive tax), and withholding tax on any savings. These taxes come under different names - capital gains tax, dues, fines, fees, licence fees, stamp duties and now the eco-contribution.

If the eco-contribution applies the 'polluter pays' principle in an appropriate way, as correctly stated in your editorial (July 18), this tax would be seen as a politically correct exercise. However, its implementation shows that no studies or proper consultations with the constituted bodies involved were conducted. It is just a new tax sold to the man in the street as an environment-friendly incentive tax. If this was the intention, then the government and its experts would have given incentives (by reducing tax) on environmentally clean products and levied a disincentive tax on polluting ones.

The new eco-contribution is purely an additional burden of Lm4 million on the citizen to support the financial operation of the company in charge of engineered landfills. If the 'polluter pays' principle is behind the government's move, how much is the administration going to 'pay' to the unfortunate residents of Guardamangia, Pietà and Msida for the adverse affects on health caused by the incinerator of St Luke's Hospital? And how much is the government going to collect from the Enemalta for the pollution caused by the Marsa power station?

I know that these questions seem rhetorical, however one needs to keep in mind that the heavy taxes we are paying are not filling the country's coffers for the intended purpose. Had this been the case, we would have no problem with pensions, as the government is now claiming. We would not have such shabbiness wherever you look. We would not be told that the health sector is no longer sustainable, although there is a lot to be improved there too. And one should also keep in mind that when new taxes are introduced year after year, these are additional to older taxes as no tax is created for just one year! Besides, in the last decade the government sold off many of its assets.

Although taxation is necessary, the government must act immediately on cost cutting in its ministries, departments and the growing list of authorities and other entities. The Lm9.5 million outlay on an embassy in Brussels (twice the estimated annual revenue from the eco-contribution) is surely not a good example of cost-cutting.

And this applies to all political parties: stop fooling people by promising unreachable goals (such as "we're never going to increase taxes after the next election" or "the country's finances are sound") as these are blatant lies that people tend to dismiss before elections. The voting pattern in the EP election showed that some people have started to understand this very clearly!