Surcharge cut applies to households - Sant

Joseph Briffa

Feb 16th 2008, 13:21

The more I think about the MLP proposal of halving the surcharge, the more I am convinced that, if implemented, it would be accompanied by increases in the meter rentals or in the cost per unit of electricity or both. It's impossible for any administration to think in terms of reducing energy charges with the price of oil being what it is and with some experts forcasting the cost of a barrel at well over $100. England and Italy I know have raised their energy tariffs again: so how is it possible for any party in their right senses to promise cheaper tariffs? Besides, like I said, no party that has a respect for the environment should come up with a proposal that would encourage people to use up more energy. This proposal borders on the irresponsibile unles it is another gimmick. All right -thinking people are striving to encourage energy-saving methods; surely the proposed reduction in tariffs is not conducive to energy savings, human nature being what it is. The PN proposal to distribute energy-saving lightbulbs for two years might appear ludicrous. But experts in the energy field say that this proposal would result in the reduction in the burning of several thousand tonnes of fossil fuels, besides a saving of some Eur100 p.a. for an average household. So which party is talking sense?

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 15th 2008, 13:04

Sant's surcharge cut does sound good - but can you trust the person? Can you trust that what he will fullfill what he is saying now?

Joe Micallef

Feb 15th 2008, 09:10

Dear Mr. Tabone, being terrified or not is partly subjective. If you were on the other side of the fence where people were beaten or even killed I am not surprised you are not terrified. It might have escaped you (given MLP's insistence on new) but since then Alfred Sant (president of the MLP at that time) shared direct and indirect responsibility of all those dramatic years.

But beyond physical violence, many more are terrified by the political incompetence amply demonstrated over time and the opportunistic and inconsistent behaviour of Dr Sant. The next election is a test for the PN administration but at test for the Maltese electorate.

Christine Gauchi

Feb 15th 2008, 03:38

Well, I am one of the undecided. Sant's surcharge cut sounds good. It is true that oil prices are on a historic high. BUT calculated in USD! If you calculate the oil price in euro you will see that the prices have remained nearly the same due to the weak USD. Why does nobody talk about that? Maybe Enemalta should publish their price calculations.

N.Tabone

Feb 14th 2008, 15:21

Daphne people are not terrified if Dr.Sant goes into govt. again, that is the tactic the PN (oh excuse me Gonzipn) is using telling people that if Labour wins the next election we will go back to the dark ages maaaa how scary! Well if that happens thank God that Gonzipn are going to give free light bulbs at least we wouldn't be in the dark!

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Feb 14th 2008, 10:00

Malta is nearing full employment, which means that there are more jobs than people to fill them, yet Martin Busuttil (further down) blames the government for the fact that he has been "mostly unemployed despite his degree." I'd rather not go into great detail about what I think the real problem is here, but how he thinks a Labour government will solve it, unless it is through the jobs-for-the-boys system.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Feb 14th 2008, 01:17

"Alfred Sant deserves a new chance keeping in mind that last time he was in government only 22 months and he didn't have time to implement all of Labour's plan": irony escapes you, Glen. The 'plans' he managed to implement in those 22 months are the reason people voted him out then and are terrified he will be returned to power now.

Ian Meli

Feb 14th 2008, 00:13

A good proposal about surcharge has been made by Alternattiva Demokratika.

They are proposing that:
1) The less energy you use, the less the weight of a surcharge you carry. This means that those wasteful people who do not care to leave bulbs on will carry more weight than those who try hard to save.

2) Money obtained from the increase in electricity prices (surcharge TAX) should solely be used to fund renewable energy sources such as subsidising further the uptake of solar water heaters, wind power generators etc. Malta ranks last in Europe with negligible renewable energy resources.

Joseph Briffa

Feb 13th 2008, 20:26

I would have thought it makes more sense to reduce the burden of the energy surcharge for businesses and factories rather than for households, if one has to subsidise energy production at all, as it would reduce production costs and make product prices more competitive. In the first place, , a quarter (some 33 000) of the households have already been exempted from the surcharge and therefore they would not be benefiting at all from the MLP proposal. Secondly, the average household with an annual energy bill of €500 would only benefit to the extent of just over €120 a year, a mere €10 a month or €2.50 a week, not even equivalent to a pack of cigarettes. A negligible saving. In the case of people living in big houses and villas, who now pay over €1000 annually for their energy supply, a halving of the surcharge would mean some €250 annually (50% of €500). Again,a mere pittance. This apart from the fact that this is wrong on all counts. It is wrong socially and morally because this subsidy favours the well-off and not the needy; it is wrong in principle because it is bound to lead to an increase in the consumption of energy which comes at a price and would be harmful to the environment as we would be burning more fossil fuels; it is also wrong because the production of energy should be self-supporting and should not be subsidised. The MLP proposal is anti-social and definitely not environment -friendly. On the other hand the PN proposal to encourage people to use energy saving bulbs makes sense from all aspects. Furthermore MLP refuse to divulge whether the reduction in the surcharge will be at the expense of higher meter rentals and/or higher costs per unit of electricity. The VAT/CET experience of 1996 comes to mind. This proposal is not unlike the one that would make overtime earnings tax-free - which it already is in a lot of cases where people who do overtime earn in toto less that the tax threshold of €11 000 per annum - and then suggesting to employers that they could therefore reduce overtime rates to the standard rate. For workers who pay tax at 15%, the MLP proposals would mean taking home 27.5% less when they do overtime.

Mary Galea

Feb 13th 2008, 19:34

Dear Dr. Galizia... who does the promises and never keeps his promises? I think that we saw this too many times with the PN.. so give the man a chance and I'm sure Dr. Sant will prove you wrong re promises not kept.

John Zammit

Feb 13th 2008, 18:44

Confusion reigns!

Martin Busuttil

Feb 13th 2008, 18:02

Ms.Caruana Galizia, we have had the experience of Dr. Gonzi more then enough. My experience of the PN Government is that in the past ten years, despite my qualifications I was more unemployed then employed. And by the way, having the promise that the surcharge will be reduced by half, is always better then being promised ten energy saving light bulbs in two years. When it comes to promises, we know who makes them and then go against them. Don't we? For the good of Malta and Gozo, and our families, yes I am going to vote Labour, as I always did.

Corinne Vella

Feb 13th 2008, 16:49

The nuttiest part of this proposal is that it assumes there are two distinct categories called 'families' and 'business' separated by a deep chasm only meter readers will ever cross. Where do telecommuters fit in? If we're really going to be petty about this (pettiness is, after all, the hallmark of political debate here), will tax inspectors call at our homes to check whether we're playing video games online or actually exploiting the 'family' surcharge after office hours? Are garages full of private lesson teachers going to be held to ransom for burning light bulbs at family rates rather than business rates? Will we be obliged to watch TV at the office to catch up on news that affects our work? Or can we do that at home provided we turn off all the lights? It looks like EneMalta's bean counters are in for some fun...

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Feb 13th 2008, 16:39

Dr Sant is "going to reveal the details next week" , is he? This is beginning to seem like the dance of the seven veils.

Glen Grima

Feb 13th 2008, 16:29

Ms Caruana Galizia, we have had a direct experience of Dr. Gonzi as well. A lot of nice promises and most of the people still complain that they have less spending money.
Alfred Sant deserves a new chance keeping in mind that last time he was in government only 22 months and he didn't have time to implement all of Labour's plan. Try judging Gonzi's performace for his first 2 years!
It's time for a change now after 20 years of PN.

Glen Grima

Feb 13th 2008, 15:47

Alfred Sant stated clearly yesterday evening in Rabat, that the businesses will also benefit from a reduction in fuel surcharge and that details about this will be revealed next week. So at the end businesses will also benefit with Labour's proposal.

E. Tabone

Feb 13th 2008, 15:10

I complain because I dont know what's in store for the industrial sector - and if there is a surcharge increase in the industrial sector .. it probably means that there is a price increase (for the end-product)... and that affects everyone. And to be quite honest , I don't trust Dr. Sant when he says "we'll look as how we can..." I think he had ample time to look into the matter to be able to tell us what he has in mind before I can vote for him. Afterall MLP have been saying that they were prepared for an election for months now. This reminds me too much of the VAT-CET Saga!

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Feb 13th 2008, 14:43

Mr Pace, I think what all these people are complaining about here is not the surcharge, but the Labour leader's deviousness. Because we have had direct experience of it before, when he was prime minister, we are doubly suspicious of any promises now. When challenged by reporters, he has not said whether he will raise the electricity costs of businesses to make up for those of families. And he adamantly refuses to answer questions as to whether he will cut the surcharge but raise the cost of other items on the electricity bill. He makes half a promise and leaves you wondering what the other half is, as when he promised to remove VAT without telling the gullible that he would introduce a new, worse, reinvent-the-wheel tax instead. Enough said.

John Pace

Feb 13th 2008, 14:00

I think that those who run any type of buisness are also household owners and so they will gain from the surcharge cut. So why do you complain?

Peter Carabot

Feb 13th 2008, 11:20

Sant is off again. I knew it. This reminds me of trhe vat and CET case all over again. You almost had me believing you!

Manolito Buhagiar

Feb 13th 2008, 09:24

Labour`s incentive should be welcomed by everyone.
I would prefer to have my surcharge reduced by half rather than having a Caretaker Prime Minister telling me that if re elected he would be giving me some light bulbs.
What a farce! What a Joke!

Ralph Attard

Feb 13th 2008, 03:09

Sant has been harping about halving the surcharge no end, but only now do we hear that this applies only to households. He states that "for the industrial and commercial sectors, there are different tariffs than those applied for households". He very conveniently falls short of revealing these different tarrifs, whether they'll be increased and by how much for the industrial sector.

The surcharge reduction promise echoes his 1996 electoral promise of removing VAT, where he never let us know his intention of introducing CET instead. Same applies to so many of his pre-electoral promises back in 1996, stipends in particular! This man and his party have been tried and tested, and we all know the mess the country found itself in once he found himself at Castille.

As Mark Camilleri puts it, its always too good to be true with Labour!

Robert Pullicino

Feb 13th 2008, 01:40

Approx 30,000 families are presently exempt from paying the surcharge for social reasons by the PN led government - As far as I know, Dr Sant has not stated if MLP will keep on subsidising these households if they were to be elected ?

E. Tabone

Feb 12th 2008, 21:24

Didn't they say that they have been prepared for an election for a long time? Why didn't they look into the industrial and commercial sectors then?

Mark Camilleri

Feb 12th 2008, 19:23

Typical Alfred Sant, typical Labour. There is always something that they don't tell! It is always too good to be true with Labour. For the good of Malta and the Labour itself vote PN so that Malta will be governed by someone who knows what they're doing and Labour may finally get the real new beginning that they should have gotten after the 2003 election.

Mario Gauci

Feb 12th 2008, 19:07

As usual! Typical of Dr. Sant. Ambiguous to the end. Promises, promises and promises.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 12th 2008, 17:50

I hope he does not reduce the surcharge for households and increase it for industrial and commercial sectors! Otherwise the latter will increase the prices or reduce salaries!!!