With a budget to be presented in late May, all ministries have signalled that cuts in capital spending will be the norm and from this I take it that the word “tax” will be an obvious feature.

The people of this country need to brace ourselves for what is more than likely to lay ahead.

Someone had sent me the Private Sector Working Group (PSWG) response to the Green Paper but I didn’t immediately read it. One day last week I read it and one recommendation that I had not picked up on before was around alcohol tax, something that I had written on earlier.

I suggested to a bar owner friend of mine that if the playing field was level on taxation on alcohol, a drink of “whites” would only increase by $10 per drink.

He asked that I explain it. In the response to the Green Paper, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they were recommending one flat specific rate of tax on all alcohol categories, based on the alcohol content. My friend was surprised to learn that there were different rates, and we spent some time arguing on something that is just never done in a small, two-stool bar.

Apparently, all of the alcohol companies and groups were invited to present their points of view on alcohol tax in individual meetings with the PSWG. There were some very different points of view as one would expect, but it is my understanding that the review committee reverted to the core principles of setting taxation. These must be equity/fairness and of course sufficiency in these tough times and in the tougher times that are expected. When they researched it, they realised that the vast majority of the OECD countries tax alcohol in this way and that it was a joint World Health Organisation and an IMF recommendation.

In other words, the tax proposal took into consideration the economic and health factors. Drinking alcohol to excess is unhealthy, but if one insists on doing so, it must be felt in the pocket so that, theoretically, the drinker will pull back himself.

It is also my understanding that the next step they took was to look at the rate that they should recommend to the government to apply across the various categories of alcohol. Across the world there is a practice of setting ascending rates across beer, wine and spirits. Namely, beer is at the lowest rate, then wine, and the highest rate is applied to spirits (because of their ABV or alcohol by volume).

Not surprisingly, in Jamaica where we sometimes stand on our heads, beer pays the highest. All other alcoholic beverages pay a lower tax rate with the exception of white overproof rum which pays significantly lower than all the rest. In fact, a beer pays 152 per cent higher Special Consumption Tax than a “whites”. This is clearly counter-intuitive to the intention of taxing alcohol based on its alcohol by volume (abv), and indeed counter-intuitive to good public health policy. Why would one tax a beer with a 4.7 per cent abv 152 per cent higher tax than a whites at 63 per cent proof? Why would one incentivise consumption of a drink that could lead to a significant health issue for our nation in the future?

Alcohol is alcohol. Shouldn’t they just place one rate across the industry and let the consumers decide for themselves? Well, apparently that is the conclusion the PSWG came to.

I understand that finally they looked at what the revenues to the government would be and calculated that, if adopted, it could yield as much as $1.7 billion in additional revenue to the government each year, carrying the contribution of the alcohol industry to $11.3 billion per year. So, by levelling the playing field and allowing fair competition, the government gets nearly 20 per cent more tax revenue. This is low-hanging fruit for the government and is simply not a recommendation that can be ignored, that is, if politics does not get in the way.

All my bar owner friend was interested in was how much this will affect the man in the bar. He was shocked when I was told how little it would affect them. Some bar prices would not be affected at all, some would actually decrease and the highest impact it would have is $10 on a drink of “whites”. To the government mulling over a budget, this would yield an additional $1.7 billion in these economically tough times.

I think this is one tax the man at street level can live with.

Hypocrisy and bad mind over Yendi

About a year ago, one of Jamaica’s top experts on mental health said that his research indicated that about half of the population of Jamaica was in the throes of, in my words, some unresolved mental issues.

Power management was one area that we were badly failing in. I took that to mean that if a man or woman was not comfortable in their own skin, the manifestation of such discomfort would play out in many ways, but collectively would lead to national socially dysfunctional behaviour. That of course is seen on the streets every day, but especially in our open conversations and general national dialogue.

Recently, the very bright, beautiful, strong-minded and socially aware Yendi Phillips, a former beauty queen, announced that she was pregnant for a local entertainer. It appears that both young people have something quite special going for them.

We would have thought because Yendi is a celebrity, the news would have been greeted with mass congratulations as, in these stressful and turbulent social and economic times, keeping a romantic relationship going is no mean feat. Instead, much too high a percentage of our people have heaped condemnation on her for getting pregnant outside of marriage, and of course, because too many of us come to the table overloaded on unresolved neuroses, the bright and beautiful Ms Phillips was the perfect target for the mass vituperation.

In essence, because too many people, including those of her own gender, had failed to clear the vomit generated by their own insecurities and inability to keep jealousy in check, they spewed it out on her. What utter shame on them!

Ms Phillips seems to be quite comfortable with herself and I would implore her to remain so. She should also be aware that this country is filled with people in bad relationships. Because misery loves company, they need to unload on a celebrity. Ignore them, my dear, and remain your sweet, confident, bright and beautiful self.

observemark@gmail.com