Dear Editor,

Raising the income tax threshold and funding it through indirect taxation (General Consumption Tax, etc) penalises the poor.

And now, the benefit given to those in the middle through this change, many of whom are government workers, will now be taken away through pension contributions.

It is all just deceit to get elected — no serious commitment here by a Government (like the previous one) that answers to the International Monetary Fund and creditors, not the electorate.

Since 2010 government workers have been through several years of pay freeze, reducing the real value of their incomes by up to 30 per cent. Pension contributions will reduce that value by a further five per cent. So, asking for a five per cent increase to cover the pension cost makes every sense, given this background.

On top of that, we have underfunded services, with crumbling hospitals, staff leaving in droves because of pay and lack of equipment, large classes and shift systems at our schools, potholed roads (despite the gas tax surcharge), and still no significant economic growth. The poor are now forced to live on handouts (Programme for Advancement Through Health and Education), which the Government uses to avoid too much protest.

Where is the economic logic in all this? Why decrease tax revenue by $20 billion (threshold increase) and then complain that pensions are costing too much? In fact, both could be done if the primary surplus was even kept at its target of seven per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), instead of exceeding it as has been happening recently. The pension bill is less than two per cent of GDP.

Finally, what of that pool of funds that a contributory pension scheme would generate? Just like the monies taken from the National Housing Trust, it would only go to further satisfying the voracious appetite of the creditors and do nothing to expand the economy and provide decent jobs.

Paul Ward

Campaign for Social & Economic Justice

Kingston 7

pgward72@gmail.com