It was not too long ago that People’s National Party’s (PNP) President Dr Peter Phillips proposed lowering, by two percentage points, the current 16.5 per cent General Consumption Tax (GCT) on goods and certain services. Then, in one of his recent contributions in the Upper House, Dr Andre Haughton, the shadow minister of planning and development, presented views that run counter to the position the party’s shadow minister of finance Mark Golding, and the party’s president, Leader of the Opposition Dr Phillips. Holy dasheen, mackerel and dumpling! It looks like “bad luck worse than Obeah” to neck back.

Admittedly, the specificity of Dr Haughton’s remarks, particularly the portion of his presentation that described the party leader’s proposal to reduce GCT as “tossed out a bait”, fell squarely and perfectly in the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) recent narrative and colouration of Dr Phillips as “Desperado” and “a man in a hurry who we simply cannot trust…”

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, Senator Dr Andre Haughton’s presentation in the Upper House of Parliament was a step in the right direction towards demolishing political groupthink, detoxifying the body politic of intellectual biliousness, while simultaneously elevating independent thinking.

At first, and immediately upon hearing Andre’s presentation, I paused to applaud his honesty and level-headedness. Listening to him, memories of the great reformist Martin Luther came vividly to mind, more so because of Luther’s speech at the Imperial Diet of Worms circa 1521. As I listened keenly to Haughton’s presentation, and his neat dissent, I clinched fists in hopes that his expressions would stimulate additional discourse in the public square about a matter that could significantly reshape recent economic activities and, at the very least, recalibrate management of the political economy in fundamental ways. His utterances, in my judgement, were fair, bold, and conscience-driven. Hence, invocation of Martin Luther’s “…since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require of me a simple, clear and direct answer, I will give one; and it is this, I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgement is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. God help me! Amen…”

As we already know, GCT is a form of ‘cash-flow’ tax. It is added onto most goods and services sold in Jamaica. Currently, consumers pay at a rate of 16.5 per cent. The Government expects to collect around $205 billion from the tax, or a little above six per cent more than it collected in the 2018/2019 fiscal year. The authorities are projecting that GCT could account for about 35 per cent of its overall tax revenue. Under the present dispensation, GCT represents the largest single source of tax. At approximately $43 billion, it is roughly 26.3 per cent more than all taxes on income and profits combined. Hence, any molestation of the current arrangements — however skilfully designed or articulated — could impact consumer spending and additional revenue flows into the Government’s coffers.

Haughton’s pseudo-lamentation targeted materiality and the apparent asymmetrical cost-benefit relationship on both micro and macroeconomic levels. In other words, what would the inherent risks be, and would the rewards be significant enough to offset any potential disruption to ongoing economic recovery?

On the face of it, Dr Haughton’s initial shot across the bow of the PNP’s ship was much better than the lame, disjointed, and absolutely shallow 2016 response that came from the PNP after the JLP rolled out its $1.5-million income tax break proposal in the run-up to the general election that year. Haughton appeared to be calling for good and proper analysis of his party’s GCT “bait” ahead of discovering its inability to implement such scheme. For, as the bird often warns, “Yuh betta know the size of your anus before swallowing Abba seed…”

That said, it is encouraging to see the PNP advocating for lower taxes. After all, governments exist to do for its citizens that which they cannot do individually or collectively for themselves, such as providing monetary and fiscal policy direction, reliable infrastructure, schools, health facilities, national security, social security, economic security, potable and reliable water supply, and to create an economic-enabling structure and environment that allows for economic development and ultimately economic growth and wealth creation.

More robust and creative solutions are still needed, even as we shift gears toward a modern international economic reality. In that regard, political parties should encourage expanding the circumference of thinking and discussions, and not work to tighten or shout out those who happen to see things differently.

Back to the issue of taxes. There is hardly anyone in Jamaica advocating for increases in taxes, more specifically in consumption taxes. Politically, any favourable position on taxation would inure to the benefit of the PNP as it establishes itself as the forerunner on the topic of lowering taxes.

Unfortunately, what was intended to accrue positives for the PNP ended up as another “bad start” for Dr Peter Phillips. Haughton’s neat packaging and choice of the “tossed out a bait” intensifier, coming as it did after the Rural Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) $1.6-billion “nothing burger” of scandals, the last thing the PNP wanted was this new GCT distraction.

Then, to make matters worse, it is evident that young Dr Andre Haughton is catching eternal ‘backside’ inside the PNP, with many young voters sulking over the party’s glaring intolerance towards dissent. There is hardly any water left in the PNP to out the fire.

The debate for, or against the GCT reduction should continue. We already know that when the Government increases tax on services and goods the prices of such services and goods increase. This leads to a reduction in the demand for such services and products because consumers will choose substitute services and products that have not been affected by the tax increase. If the tax increase affects several services and goods the overall consumer spending reduces significantly.

The reality is that one only pays at consumption. A spin-off from seeking substitute goods could open the door to increased domestic production as local substitutes replace imported goods; the multiplier effect could spawn additional economic activities and employment.

To reiterate, a healthy discussion on consumption tax is not a bad engagement, and those espousing different perspectives should not be tossed aside in deference to political partisan stance — the principle of collective responsibility notwithstanding.

The JLP has already taken the lead on the issue of income tax reform (reduction), albeit at enormous upward adjustments to other taxes to pay for it. Nevertheless, the adjustment should have and is delivering some positive results for thousands and tens of thousands of beneficiaries. For those reasons, and more, the current debate on GCT must continue in a bipartisan and multi-sectoral manner.

Be that as it may, let’s hope the PNP is not planning to “rob from Peter to pay Paul” as a conduit through which it would increase other taxes to offset the decrease in consumption taxes. We have been there and done that, only to rediscover that increases in income taxes reduces savings because capital is taxed; reduces investments; discourages innovation, research and development; and contributes to lower standards of living.

Therefore, it is so piteous for the upper echelon in the PNP — the party to which Dr Haughton belongs — which prides itself for promoting independent thinking and intellectual curiosity, to be so steadfastly heavy-handed in its censure and behind-the-scenes ‘impeachment’ of Dr Haughton for simply articulating his deep conviction and disagreement with a proposition that happens to emanate from the very tight lips of party leader Dr Peter Phillips. Simply put, the PNP’s internal efforts to “must and bound” Haughton into schoolboy submission is testament to the party’s contemporary intolerance of divergent views on matters of fundamental policy development and articulation.

It matters not if a Senator, of either party, voices opposition to a proposal, so long as the dissent is grounded in facts and guided by reasonableness. Furthermore, the original intent of the framers of the Jamaican Constitution was never to select senators (member of the Upper House) just for them to become automatons. Quite the contrary, the Senate is a deliberative body and, as such, there is always going to be convergent and divergent views. There is always going to be debates for or against Bills from the Lower House, as well as support for and opposition to proposals that come up for discussion or review. In other words, the Senate is there to flex its independence in pursuit of achieving equitable and bankable solutions for the people, to uphold the constitution of Jamaica, as well as to act in the best interest of the country.

In his mea culpa, Dr Haughton earnestly anchored his defence in the middle of the busy intersection between “political inclination and academic orientation”. His defence is now the source very painful bouts of whiplash, and has caused collateral damage to the principle of free, but responsible speech.

Advisedly, Andre, you are an intelligent man. I have been following your eruditely written economic literature for many years. There is hardly any substantive reason for me to now doubt the intellectual integrity of your arguments over these many years. You will forgive me for reminding you of this quote from Sameh Elsayed, “Real integrity comes from knowing oneself and believing in truth, without compromise, and no matter how challenging. Integrity is a beautiful thing…” Maintain your independence, Senator Haughton.

Now, there is something to be said about the wisdom in being forearmed before full engagement of the tongue. There is also something to be said about “availing oneself of party position” ahead of positing opinions that are diametrically opposite to those the party espouses. On that infraction — speaking ahead of and without prior consultations with the appropriate party policy commission — Haughton is guilty as charged. Though an Achilles heel of his making, his acknowledgement, in this specific circumstance, makes him a pacifist of a certain kind — for me it is a demerit.

With regards to standing one’s ground and doing so without unhealthy stubbornness or contempt, it is easy to remind, as Martin Luther King Jr opined, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Christopher Burns is vice-president of finance and chief financial officer of a multinational company. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or burnscg@aol.com.