Electricity tariffs will not be raised - Sant

John Schembri

Feb 29th 2008, 01:20

The removal of the surcharge in five years time will spell disaster on the middle class.After being connected to the European Grid system Enemalta will be buying electricity at a higher price from Enel and selling it to consumers at rock bottom prices. The subsidies will be paid from our taxes.
Working class people earning Lm 6,000 would not be paying income tax ,the wealthy few will be paying taxes up to 35% living in air conditioned villas ; and the middle class , notwithstanding the removal of the surcharge , would still be the ones who will have to fork out more money to finance waste done by their compatriots.Is that what labour calls "Galbu"?
As to what Mr Buhagiar is stating , thePN Government helps only the needy, and is sending a clear message that it's not handing open cheques to promote waste.
I would agree with what AD is promoting regarding the surcharge, doesn't he find it better than the MLP proposal?
Why is it that Dr Sant always proposes INSTANT SHORTSIGHTED FISCAL MEASURES to us voters when he smells an election?Ten years ago he promised us the removal of VAT and we got CET, this time he is promising the surcharge removal in five years time (I am not shortsighted) what are we going to get instead?

James De Giorgio

Feb 27th 2008, 19:42

After our horrible experience under Dr Sant between 1996-98 when we all remember what happened to our electricity and water bills, all I have to say is;

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU FRED

Alexander Abela

Feb 24th 2008, 22:17

It's not a matter of not believing, but it's a measure encouraging wasting more electricity. It's a measure which will increase the losses incurred by Enemalta, and forget hearing about profits!

john scerri

Feb 24th 2008, 09:21

MLP say Surcharge will be halved ?...... Which surcharge ?.... The Surcharge calculated at source or Surcharge which today is included in our electricity bills?....... I and many others want an answer by the MLP on this . There is something not clear. Today surcharge calculated at source should be close to 100% and we are paying 45% to 50%. Can someone in the labour field preferably Dr Alfred Sant reply clearly which of the two sucharges will be halved and include it in the MLP electoral programme. We are fed up now of trying to find loopholes . Can you speak the whole truth for once? We voters are not dumb and we have more important things to do than try to find out what you politicians are in actual fact saying. Just spit it out and let us decide who to choose on the 8 th March.

Amanda Mallia

Feb 22nd 2008, 20:35

Of course we should believe you won't increase water and electricity rates, Dr Sant - You'd simply introduce a fee in some form or other, renaming it, of course. (Does the "remove VAT (but introduce CET)" "kantaliena" ring a bell? Wake up, people, before it's too late!

J. Buhagiar

Feb 22nd 2008, 20:21

We do not believe Dr. Sant, we believe Daphne. 30,000 are exempt from surcharge she said. She has not read my input down below or wisely ignored it.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Feb 22nd 2008, 18:52

We don't believe you, Dr Sant

Alfred Cassar

Feb 22nd 2008, 14:24

MLP in government will halve the surcharge ... that's OK (though it is not clear enough half of what?). The Government will surely have to recover the lost income from somewhere. I'm convinced that it will recover it by either increasing income tax, or by raising the withholding tax on interest from 15% to say, 20% or 25%. This will be easy money for the government but it will be very unwise to opt for it. MLP is saying that this will leave extra cash in our pockets. I would prefer the PN 's proposal of decreasing income tax and amending the tax bands. According to my calculations this will surely leave much more euros in our pocket than the surcharge proposal.

Kenneth Bowman

Feb 22nd 2008, 10:24

It's funny how many people Labour can actually take for a ride!!
When the PN government introduced the surcharge, MLP and GWU were all out against it. Now they agree with Gonzi that it is a necessary measure, but can't agree on the amount. If Sant was serious he would remove it completely not "half" if.
Halve of what I ask?? Will he halve the current surcharge, i.e reduce it from 50% to 25%? The surcharge is already being subsidised. So will he halve the true value of the surcharge, i.e. bring it down from 80% to 40%?
I can already see it coming... 1 year down the line let's say oil prices rise to $150/barrel. Then what? will he use the argument that a PN government would have raised the surcharge to, say, 70%, therefore he will only raise it to halve that amount to 35%.
Then again, surcharge is a percentage of the consumer's bill. He said that the tariffs will not change, but what is there to keep him from introducing another cost to the bill.
50% of Euro200 is Euro100.
25% of Euro 400 is also Euro100.
But all those poor souls who can't get there Maths right will still be cheering on...

Amanda Mallia

Feb 21st 2008, 20:53

As on previous blogs, the pro-Labour comments all seem to have the same grammatical mistakes here, too, the most obvious of which is Capital Letters Where There Is No Need For Such! :)

J. Buhagiar

Feb 21st 2008, 17:18

Daphne, your repeated statement that 30,000 are exempted from Surcharge is incorrect. There are limitations, terms and condition. For example; A single individual that must be dependant on social assistance is exempt from only the first 1600 units a year or 133 a month. The same goes for any other assistance by SPIC. Does this mean that these people are exempt from Surcharge, I ask?

With 133 KiloWatt Hours of electricity, you cannot even switch on two basic essentials, the wasing machine to wash the clothes and the geyser to take a shower a day.

Please be considerate and understand that water and electricity happen to be basic essentials. Similarly bread butter and public transport. In a Free Mixed economy these should be Controlled and Partly financed from Goverment Taxes.

I ask you. Where is the thousands of Euros that is being collected by the Wardens, run under the authority of private companies going? Is it true that not even as much as 10-20% goes back to the Council concerned to be pumped back into the economy ?



I am using my time not to take any matter up with you but because People's opinions and decisions can only be as good as the info on which they are based.

Anyone who wishes to know more can freely call SPIC or Social Policy Information Centre on free phone 159.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Feb 21st 2008, 13:40

30,000 families are exempted from payment of the electricity surcharge. All those who have to pay it do not fall within the low-income-group bracket, which means they can afford it.
The trouble is that we have become too accustomed to getting our utilities for next to nothing, after decades of state subsidies. And we don't even bother to thank heavens that we don't live in a region where we would need to pay for 24-hour heating nine months of the year. Expecting to pay a token sum for electricity so that you can spend your money on fripperies while someone else (the taxpayer) pays for your necessities is a bit much.
This is the Dom/Karmenu/Sant style of thinking, and it never got the Maltese anywhere. It kills initiative by encouraging people to drop their drive and become dependent on authority handing out goodies.
If oil is expensive, then we have to pay for it. It's not as though we're living in a situation of high unemployment and recession, as in 1996-1998. I don't hear anybody raging against the government because filling their car's petrol tank costs so much more now than it did some years ago. We accept it. Well, it's the same with electricity. Instead we should be looking at the prices of everything else that have gone down: furniture, clothes, household goods, white goods, shoes, things for children...the list is endless. Though of course you can always vote for Alfred Sant if you want 5% VAT knocked off an atlas or a school tie. That should make your money stretch further, I must say.

J. Zarb

Feb 21st 2008, 11:51

Mr. Bonello, The surcharge has been the best option (in the light of increasing prices of oil at global level) since it is a flexible way of adjusting according to market prices and it also keeps consumers on their toes when it comes to excessive use of energy.....can we really afford to be frivolous with the black gold these days!!!! It is just as well that in the last 5 years we have also had some good incentives from Government to seek alternative energy sources such as solar heating and the refund on electric cars and household goods......that is a long term strategy rather than a short term vote catcher!!!!

Joe Baldacchino

Feb 21st 2008, 11:07

It is true that the price of oil has reached the $100/barrel price tag, but it is also true that the US $ has considerably weakened when compared to the EURO. Mr. Emm Aguis informed us that the price of oil in 2003 was $28/barrel. The exchange rate for the US$ against the Euro in 2003 was 1.06, i.e. for every 1 Euro you got 1.06 US dollars. Today the exchange rate is 1.46 US Dollars. For the benefit of our readers here, the US $ registered a drop of 38% against the ever stable Euro currency. So in real terms, the price of oil purchased by any Euro currency country against the US $ is in fact $67/barrel. Yet the PN blames the high price of oil and slaps a surcharge equivalent to the increase without taking into account the exchange rate to offset the increase. I'll let the intelligent readers here do the math!!!

Mark Bonello

Feb 21st 2008, 09:15

I'm sorry to say but I cannot belive my eyes while seeing some comments written below! The burden on people is increasing uncontrollably! Families are now obliged to cut their electricity consumption (like heaters and other useful electronic appliances) so as to pay less surcharge. Therefore the need to reduce the surcharge is mandatory. Now in order to reduce the impact of the international prices of oil the government has to invest in alternative energy sources. I'm sorry but all of you criticising Labour should look at the past 20 years and ask yourself 'What has the current government done for me to pay less for electricity?'. The answer is an outright 'NOTHING'. Instead the current government has just found a simple excuse by saying that the international cost of oil has risen while doing nothing to invest in wind energy, solar energy and other sources! Now we have Labour that is proposing to do something and you're still against it! I don't understand!


Regarding the fact that Labour is going to reduce the surcharge even in the face of increasing oil prices, let me tell you - even Italy, yesterday declared that due to the increasing oil prices the government would be reducing the taxes on oil in order to keep its cost stable for the consumer! So there you are! You are in isolation and not Labour !

James Callus

Feb 21st 2008, 09:06

I do not think that Gonzi is going to vote for Labour as ironically Suzanne Buttigieg mentioned in her comment. Those who have never took consideration of the needs of the low-income earners are not definetely going to vote Labour.

Joseph E Briffa

Feb 20th 2008, 22:23

This is rich...Oil prices reach a $100 a barrel and Labour promise us halving of surcharge and no change in energy tariffs! Either we are living on another planet or just clutching at straws. Same as labour did on the eve of the 2003 elections promising a Minister for Gozo, no tax for a couple of months....and everything under the sun. One can promise paradise on earth from the opposition benches. The more manna we are promised by labour every day, the more I am convinced that MLP is doomed to the opposition benches for another five years.

Edward Cassar

Feb 20th 2008, 21:31

I never cease to wonder what a short a memory some Maltese have or just want to have. Don't you remember that while former PM Eddie Fenech Adami was speaking of a 'New Spring' Finance Minister John Dalli raised VAT from 15% to 18% in 2004? That in the same year a tax on inherited property was also slammed on us? Or that in his first budget for 2005, Prime Minister Gonzi introduced a 3% excise tax on mobile phones, raised the prise of kerosene, raised the price of bread and extended Ecotax on other products?

A Mangion

Feb 20th 2008, 21:21

I can't beleive how after 20 yrs in opposition and after losing 5 of the last 6 elections, MLP come up with such poor proposals.

The surcharge proposal is yet another blunder because:

1. It is financially open-ended (due to fluctuating oil prices).

2. It goes against the 'polluter-pays' concept, which concept is applied in all serious countries.

3. It has no social justice because the richer consume more energy and hence they get more rebates. The low-income families get nothing cause they don't pay surcharge in any case.

T. Muscat

Feb 20th 2008, 20:45

Perhaps one should remember that if one were to work out the cost of the surcharge using caretaker Minister Gatt's formula based on today's oil prices it wld probably be around 80 or even 90%. It's only because the election was round the corner that we presently have a 50% surcharge.
Oops I just remembered that Dr. Gatt has now finally accepted that hedging is not a lottery after all and has used it to keep the costs of fuel low!
What wld have been the scenario if proper hedging had been used much before instead of wasting all those years stubbornly refusing to use it as a tool to control our fuel bills

mark tanti

Feb 20th 2008, 20:27

Analysis of the two proposals
Cutting surcharge by half =
1) More money in people's pockets
2) People do not feel the pinch so they do not mind if they waste energy.
3) Increase in oil consumption.
4) Increase in costs for Enemalta.
5) Introduce some sort of taxes to collect the money lost from the surcharge.cutting
End result:: Take away people's money from their pockets which was left by cutting surcharge.
Cuts in Taxes =
1) More money is left in people's pockets.
3) No increase in oil consumption 4) No increase in costs for Ene Malta. which means no new taxes needed to collect money lost from surcharge..
3) People spending more money means job creation and increase in revenue from VAT and income tax for the govt..
5) More income for the government no need to introduce new taxes.
End Result = From tax cuttings more money remains in people's pockets to be used to turn the economy wheel faster and smoother and decrease the surcharge.
Which is the best of the two proposals?

J. Zarb

Feb 20th 2008, 19:51

The question of surcharge and energy costs is another attempt to try and garner some last minute votes...we are given the theme but not the whole story...we do not know HOW this will be implemented! I would rather we followed the recommendation that is already included BLACK on WHITE in the Sustainable Deevelopment report that was compiled by a coordinated and inter ministerial working committee over the past five years! Certainly halving the surcharge will not give incentive to businesses or homes to use less energy...it will create a nation of more wasteful consumers for sure! (Incidentally I think that the incentives in the last few budgets to encourage people to buy more sustainable household goods has already created great interest...........

J Zammit

Feb 20th 2008, 19:16

It's funny how Dr Sant keeps adding to his already printed electoral manifesto. Again, making policy as he goes along. Nothing different from his 1996-98 government!

Ray Vella

Feb 20th 2008, 18:26

Dear Mr M. Bonello. I think you should read the electoral programmes of the three parties before you even utter a word about the environment as from your comments I gather that you have not looked at the MLP proposals.

They will start discussing what problems global warming can cause. We are far beyond that stage! We need to act NOW. What about alternative energy? Labour simply include one short, vague sentence in their programme. They “will give incentives to start using alternative energies from the sun or wind.” With such blatant lack of substance, do they think they can convince environmentalists that they are the party with a green agenda?
AD are markedly worse. The issues of global-warming or alternative energy find no space in their manifesto. Six meagre points fail to impress! And this is supposed to be the green party.

Very well. The PN may not have done enough for our environment, but it seems that over the past few years, the green balance is slowly but surely shifting their way. AD has proved to be my greatest disappointment. The time when they were once the voice of environmentalists has unfortunately disappeared.

John Scerri

Feb 20th 2008, 17:27

MLP's 'Pjan Ghal Bidu Gdid' had been simmering for the past three years before being published. I understand and appreciate that a lot has been done and discussed for the good of the nation and it's people. On the other hand 'Pjan ghal Bidu Gdid' seems to need a 'Bidu Gdid' because during this time the world economy has changed, oil prices have soared, the USeconomy today has a negative effect on the global economy . Globalisation has had its effects and it seems that during this electoral campaign the opposition is rightfully trying to adapt and optimize 'Pjan ghal Bidu Gdid' by word of mouth on a daily basis. I'm so sorry to say that last minute proposals unless put in writing will not have any value especially when these proposals are in contrary to current economic trends world wide and secondly not approved by the party general council. Topics like fuel costs , electricity and water bills,sucharge are dynamic and bound to change for better or worse because they are dependent on outside factors as we all know. All eco friendly proposals made by AD, PN, and MLP are most welcome. The next step is for whoever is in power to make concrete incentives for the public to use eco friendly sources of energy. PN has already set some in action and one knows there can be a lot more coming. The MLP electoral programme seems to have left out how it will use the 850million Euro which Malta will be allocated. Will Malta lose this money if the package is reopened or if projects are not put forward for spproval on time? Has anyone got an answer to this please?

Richard Caruana

Feb 20th 2008, 17:26

Not again!! This promise was made in 1996 and we all know what happened. And why has it taken Sant so many weeks to pronounce himself on this, skimming questions whenever the subject was touched and treating journalists as if they weren't even standing in front on him. Looks like Labour all of a sudden is finding itself on a loosing streak...

M Saliba

Feb 20th 2008, 16:55

Can somebody explain to me why there are so many comments which denigrade Sant because he is going to put a burden on the government if he halves the surcharge and then no mention is made on how Gonzi on the eve of the election is proposing to remove more income tax? Both of these measures will lessen the burden on the Maltese people. The only smart comment would be critical analysis how these will effect the growth of the economy and not how these will put a burden the government.

Michael Ellul

Feb 20th 2008, 16:46

Why are you scaring people regarding oil prices? Gonzi PN is promising us tax reductions and so is the Labour party. There seems to be a consensus finally from both political parties that people are in need of money in their pockets I hope we all agree to this as both parties are promising it.
Why are we scared that there is no better future for us all without a surcharge tax ? With more money in our pockets we will live better we will get closer to European living standards. What we need is a government which is able to meet deadlines and keep to quotations, and able to attract foreign investment. In early 70’s Together because yes together we can, together we managed to attract investments, initiate industries, create airmalta, sea malta introduce compulsory schools, introduce health schemes and able to attract foreign investment. Thanks to PN the great change in our country so required arrived and progress continued for another 15 years. But yes now we need a change at least for the coming 5 years the GonziPN must once again become the PN we knew under Dr Edward Fenech Adami. He was a real leader.

Joe Borg

Feb 20th 2008, 16:37

What's unbelievable is the gullibility of the electorate. This isn't a PN or MLP issue. It's a question of thinking with your own heads. We pay 300% tax on fuel at the pump. You do the math. Stop these thieving politicians. Fuel price scaremongering indeed. You won't find me clapping.

Ray Vella

Feb 20th 2008, 16:20

I cannot not stop and smile….. while reading through this morning papers I saw that oil prices once again hit the $100 mark. Many foreign countries are looking at how to keep up with this huge problem………… instead of us trying to face this problem, we have our opposition party proposing to half the surcharge and then promise to not increase any bills………

I am not one of those who go to mass meeting or political debates every week. Like most other moderate Maltese individuals, I do not care much about the bickering of local politicians. But with all due respect, how can someone expect to be credible when new proposals are invented on a daily basis? It is honestly getting too much and becoming a farce. When in 1996, the price of crude oil was $12 a barrel, the new labour government had increased tariffs in a disproportionate manner. This time round when the price is more than 8 times higher, we are saying we are to reduce them.

Now either labour knows that the country finances are in fantastic shape and so can promise anything to anyone, or this is simply a party in a state of panic!

A Cassar

Feb 20th 2008, 16:19

The MLP has been compiling reports and plans, meeting all the stake holders and discussing proposals for the last 3 years! These action plans are incorporated in the document "Pjan ghall-Bidu Gdid" which is the basis of the electoral manifesto. One can only appreciate the thousands of hours that the leader of the Opposition has spent. listening and discussing with most of the stakeholders involved.

This exercise shows how serious the MLP is, and how "Dialogu" is put into practice!

The MLP, after spending 3 years compiling "Pjan ghal Bidu Gdid" has published an election manifesto with its plans for the next 5 years - filled with "misprints", and forgot to include proposals which are being added on every day. Were these proposals forgotten or are they being added to try to promise heaven on earth just before election date.

The surcharge issue was changed I don’t know how many times over these last dates, first household only, then all households (including the ones already exempt - about 30,000 of them but 50% tax credit fro SMEs, at one point Dr Sant even said he wants to eliminate the surcharge completely!

Either Dr Sant is living in fairy land and does not know that the price of oil has gone over 100$ a barrel or else what he is proposing is just a desperate last minute electoral gimmick. Do you remember when Dr. Sant promised to remove Vat and some people believed him and threw away their cash registers only to realize later that Dr Sant had replaced VAT with CET and duty and they had to go buy new cash registers?

This electoral campaign has another two and a half weeks left and I’m sure that the dear leader of the opposition will keep on surprising us by adding new “forgotten” proposals to their electoral manifesto. Journalists only have to ask him about it and he’ll probably prose it the next day!

Mario C. Ellul

Feb 20th 2008, 16:17

Mr. Bonello, I rmember other promises...Like 'Not touching the dockyard council', 'Not touching the students stipend system', 'we will remove vat (read cash registers)' ...etc....etc...etc

Daniel Formosa

Feb 20th 2008, 15:28

I hope the readers realise the implications of these unsustainable political gimmicks...the price of oil is just under $100 a barrel and is at record high levels...surely the surcharge is justified as this is a global problem and not just a local one..however as always the MLP is blinkered and only interested in gaining power event at the expense of jeoperdising Malta's public finances which were brought under control in the previous legislature...I would like to remind readers that when the price of oil was merely $12 a barrel they still increased the tariffs sky high....so I would liek to know how Dr Sant is going to finance this general increase in oil prices? This is a question which needs to be asked coz what MLP is proposing is extremely unhealthy to the economy....One must also remember the fact that over 30,000 families are benefitting from the measures in place to reduce the impact of the surcharge...well this is a vote catching exercise which those who fall for it will surely regret it....

Glorianne Pace

Feb 20th 2008, 15:27

Rather practical and logical because these incentives will encourage the citizen to turn to renewable sources of energy, which is what we all want, don't we?

Emanuel Agius

Feb 20th 2008, 15:14

Dear Dr Sant, I really like the way you reason things out. So let's have a look at the last 5 years.
I just went on a website to check the price of oil 5 yrs ago 2003, http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif it was 28 Dollars.
Today 2008 the price is 100 Dollars / Barrel.
That's a Very Dangerous Proposal. it means that if Crude oil gets higher. The government will pay for it. That would be really nice. I will be the first person to keep my computer switched on day and night. After all. I will only pay half the surcharge. and today's Electricity Tariffs. OOOOOPPPSSS I fogot something. I forgot that I will loose my job due to the crises this proposal would put on government finances.

Kurt Vella

Feb 20th 2008, 14:56

Really unbelievable!!! I think Dr.Sant is still obsessed with his helicopter visit to Maghtab during his premiership between 1996 and 1998!!!

The present government has already planned a strategic plan for alternative energy to be generated from our waste with landfills.

Budgets presented by Dr.Gonzi included measures to encourage citizens to resort to alternative energy within their own homes.

Is the MLP and Dr.Sant himself aware that new schools are generating electricity by solar energy?

One thing I'm sure about is that at least the PN promised alternative energy and sustainable development and has already achieved a lot with the closure of Maghtab.

We all know what Dr.Sant's promises amount to. Promising everything to everyone as long as the MLP gains the majority of votes. The same political agenda was adopted prior to the 1996 elections. He promised students that he won't play with their stipend, following his election to Castille we had to go and get a loan and pay back our stipend!!

He promised he won't raise electricity bills and yet they increased, so much so that the tariff alone was even higher then the present bill with surcharge included.

One promise I must admit he did keep - the elimination of VAT. The result? A failure in the government revenue, and CET with over 20%; less Foreign Direct Investment; closure of SME’s; unemployment and most of all an atmosphere of uncertainty.

Thanks Dr.Sant, but no thanks. The more promises you and MLP make the more you encourage me to vote PN

Marco Brincat

Feb 20th 2008, 14:27

How can you vote mlp for a surcharge reduction? And forget all the beneficial measures introduced by PN mainly: EU opportunities, its funds for projects, economic stability with a controlled deficit with a target of a balanced budget, the Euro , an amazing record of direct foreign investment, SmartCity project, better salaries with less income tax, tax credits for women, children's allowance for all, records in all areas including investment for all those kilometres of roadworks, modern schools/colleges, a state-of-the-art hospital, and an overall good standard of living?

MLP were always against these achievements. We can expect everything but a positive new beginning if mlp were to lead the country for the next 5 years.

Be careful. Your vote affects your future... and in politics the past is almost always the reflection of the future.

Joseph Aquilina

Feb 20th 2008, 14:25

What bothers me the most is why is Dr.Sant it telling us this now and not before. For me it feels as if the MLP is afraid of losing the election and is starting to promise more heaven on earth than before. After the blunders of 1996 can we still trust this person and the people behind him!?

Anthony Xuereb

Feb 20th 2008, 14:12

I could not agree more with the previous comment submitted by Mario Gauci. The fact that Dr. Sant is promissing everything to everyone shows that he does not have a clue of how to seriously run a country. This is another vote catcher, for which we will not fall agian.

R Agius

Feb 20th 2008, 14:11

Will someone please ask Dr Sant one very simple question - in which year will he balance the budget to get rid of the deficit and show a surplus? Dr Gonzi is on record as saying he will balance the books in 2010 .

Mark Bonello

Feb 20th 2008, 14:00

Mario, Labour is not only proposing to cut the surcharge by half (something that would finally give some relief to families and small to medium businesses) but also to introduce serious measures in order to generate electricity from alternative sources - something that the PN has failed to do. That the GonziPN is a failure in this field is not only said by the Maltese general public and the MLP but also an international report issued two weeks ago by an international organization listing Malta as the worst achiever in Europe in the field. The government had a set itself a target of 5% of energy coming from renewable sourchttp://timesofmalta.com/admin/comments/publish/3846
[ Publish Comment ]es and guess how much they achieved - - - - - - 0%!

Incredible isn't it????

But GonziPN is going to give us five bulbs! Hurrayyyyy!

Mario C. Ellul

Feb 20th 2008, 13:57

You can fool some of the people some of the time.
You can fool all the people some of the time.
You can never fool all the people all of the time.
As things are going the electoral program has to be re-written daily. That will be fifteen+ electoral programmes by E-Day. But surely one has to promise everything to everbody.

Jurgen Bugeja

Feb 20th 2008, 13:55

Mr.Gauci if you don't think that the Labour government will not raise electricity bills and will not halve the surcharge, you can always continue paying the full surcharge.M

Suzanne Buttigieg

Feb 20th 2008, 13:51

I bet that even Gonzi will be voting labour after this!

Michael Ellul

Feb 20th 2008, 13:50

Both political parties are agreeing to one single fact, which is that Maltese families need money in their pockets to keep up with the standard of living. Also, we are still behind the standard of living in Germany and the UK among others. The Maltese economy needs to move forward, and that will not happen with our family bills and taxes but with strong industry including tourism. It is good to this country that a change of government is on its way as with arrogance of most MPs Malta's industry is loosing pace. We have paid more than enough in taxes these past 10 years.

Joe Borg

Feb 20th 2008, 13:49

Has anyone ever stopped to think about how much tax we pay on fuel, and that for every dollar the price of fuel rises on the market the government pockets four due to taxes? Has the government ever declared how much its revenue from fuel has increased since the current trend began and in whose pockets this extra revenue has ended up? When is this senseless spiral going to stop? I personally object to being ripped off, by any government. So all you partisan sheep with blinkers on, when the government tells you you need to pay more for fuel, clap and say it's necessary, and avoid the truth at all costs. And let the rip off tragicomedy continue.

Mario Gauci

Feb 20th 2008, 13:15

Unbelievable! Today the price of oil has struck the $100 a barrel price and Labour are being unrealistic. Their promises are unrealistic and unsustainable. The economy and ultimately the citizen has a lot to lose!