Now that the initial dust following the Budget statement on Wednesday is slowly settling, the finer points of the government's plan to handle the country's fiscal problems are being bisected by trade unions and other organisations.

Hot on the heels of its first strong reaction against the loss of income and the slashing of holidays for workers, the General Workers Union is now calling for a meeting with Government before the Budget is approved by Parliament.

The GWU wants to discuss the impact of the fiscal measures on workers and pensioners as well as the arbitrary decision to cut down the workers' leave entitlement by ten days over three years. This leave is in connection with public holidays that fall on a weekend.

The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) is expected to meet again before the Christmas festivities to evaluate the progress of the talks with the Government and take decisions.

In a statement, the GWU added that if one were to take into account previous budgets, one could not look ahead with confidence.

"We have for a long time been told how well the country was faring and that things were well on track when today we know that all this was only dreaming and wishful thinking," the union noted.

In no way do the level of economic growth, unemployment and inflation bring about peace of mind that jobs and other opportunities would be created.

While the Lm1.75 weekly increase would be taxable, with the hikes on a list of services and products, a worker with a weekly wage of Lm80 will be forking out more than Lm3 a week.

The GWU pointed out that by setting up the Management and Monitoring Unit, the government had effectively left out the social partners from scrutinising government spending.

On the other hand, the Malta Institute of Taxation felt aggrieved that it had not been consulted by the Inland Revenue Department on the measures affecting transactions between companies in the same group or about any other matter by the government.

This particular tax issue has been left in limbo for more than a year, and any measures now introduced will inevitably have retrospective effect.

The same could be said about the proposed further tinkering with the taxation of certain inherited property, however just the proposed new arrangements appear to be.

The Institute said it was surprised that no mention has been made of finance leasing. The proposed introduction of venture capital arrangements is most welcome.

The MIT added that the Budget seems to stick to the trend that the building industry should be made a particular target of anti-avoidance measures. The proposed blocking of services connections, unless various fiscal certificates are issued by an architect, seems to be little more than a bureaucratic gimmick.

The Institute argued that benchmarking has no place in an efficient administration in determining the amount of income which a person has earned.

The Institute welcomed the fact that Government intends to go on fighting tax avoidance. However, certain draconian measures and approaches being employed for this purpose should be done away with.

The MIT considers as "an important innovation" the proposal to exempt from tax for a year women who return to work after an absence of not less than five years.

The White Paper which has been published on the future of pensions in Malta makes it clear that pension schemes will be reintroduced.

Regarding public/private ventures, the MIT remarked that it had never been made clear what the fiscal regime of these entities would be.

The Malta Institute of Management noted that while research and development are fundamental to the country's competitiveness, the government was still undecided on which entity was responsible for the sector.

The MIM welcomed the tax incentives for training and encouraged the government to widen as much as possible these tax incentives. It also applauded the allocation of Lm900,000 for the Venture Capital Fund.

The institute expressed its concern on the effect the rise in the price of fuel will have on small businesses. While the capping of Lm5,000 for factories and hotels was laudable, it appealed to the government to monitor the effect on family businesses.

In its reaction, the Union Haddiema Maghqudin said that while the Budget aimed at reaching specific targets, giving the economy a push, strengthening competitiveness and creating employment, it would place additional burdens on workers, pensioners and their families.

These measures proved how right the UHM was that it would have benefited workers if a social pact had been agreed upon.

The UHM believes that those who had stopped negotiating the social pact had led workers to lose for good their vacation leave due to public holidays falling on Saturday and Sunday without getting anything in return, such as a financial contribution by employers to go towards a fund for worker training.

The UHM argued that the Budget contained several initiatives, all of which were aimed at strengthening economic expansion and competitiveness and which encouraged entrepreneurship and innovation.

There was also a commitment for the tourism sector to remain one of the main pillars of the economy.

The union welcomed the positive measures that would encourage more women to return to work, pointing out that it (the UHM) had put forward many of these proposals.

It also welcomed the measures aimed at addressing tax evasion and the curbing of social benefits abuse, but had expected tougher action against tax evaders.

Certain measures such as the 5c increase in the public transport fare and the introduction of a 17 per cent fuel surcharge would continue to burden workers and pensioners.

The union would be keeping an eye on the impact of these measures on workers' purchasing power.

The UHM will continue to work hard for a social pact to be reached since it was obvious that, in its absence, the government had decided on its own while workers would have to continue to carry the burden.

It concluded by saying that it was determined to continue defending the interests of workers, even if others chose to follow a different agenda.

The National Commission Persons with Disability expressed its satisfaction for recommendations it had made, which were included in the Budget.

These included an addition to the fund for Agenzija Sapport enabling the commission to offer residential and community services to people with disability. The second addition of funds will go for the provision of day care services.

The commission thought, however, that this additional funding would not be enough for it to cater for students who leave special schools.

Another call accepted by Government was the exemption from tax to a maximum income of Lm4,000 to parents who pay for their children to attend independent schools.

The last measure that the commission applauded was the retention of the pension by both partners with a disability who decide to get married.