On the surface, the 2026 Budget presented by Finance Minister Dave Tancoo on Monday offers a sigh of relief to a populace fatigued by years of economic strain.
Framed around the mantra “promises made, promises delivered,” it sought to convey responsible governance and fiscal maturity.
At first glance, few of the measures announced appeared to directly harm the average citizen.
The devil, however, lies in the details. Beneath the careful packaging rests a harder truth: several of the Government’s new policies, while well-intentioned, may quietly impose heavier burdens on the very citizens they claim to protect.
Foremost among these is the new electricity surcharge on commercial and industrial users.
Though the five-cent per kilowatt-hour charge excludes residential customers, its reach will be indirect but far-reaching.
Small enterprises, such as bakeries, salons, restaurants and laundromats, will face higher power bills, and those added costs will inevitably find their way into consumer prices.
Electricity is a fundamental driver of production costs, and when it rises, every sector feels the pinch.
The Government projects a $269 million annual return from this measure, yet it has offered no mechanism to prevent businesses from passing on the increase to consumers.
Without such buffers, the measure risks fuelling a fresh round of price escalation.
A similar concern arises with the new landlord surcharge, introduced to widen the tax net and ensure compliance. Landlords will now pay between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent on gross rental income, something long overdue.
The intent is equitable, but the outcome is predictable.
Few landlords, particularly those burdened with mortgages, maintenance and insurance, will absorb the added cost. Rent increases are the likely consequence.
For low and middle-income earners already squeezed by rising food and transport prices, even a modest rent hike can prove destabilising.
To ensure this measure’s fairness, the Government must consider rent-monitoring mechanisms or temporary controls to protect tenants from opportunistic increases.
Less visible, but potentially more pervasive, is the 0.25 per cent levy on the total assets of commercial banks and insurance companies.
Framed as a tax on corporate wealth, it may also reach into the pockets of ordinary customers.
Financial institutions seldom absorb such costs quietly.
Experience shows they tend to safeguard profit margins by raising bank fees, interest rates and insurance premiums.
Minister Tancoo, therefore, must convince the population that regulators will be vigilant to prevent the levy’s burden from shifting onto consumers.
Other adjustments, including the doubling of container processing fees, increases in certain customs and administrative charges, and higher National Insurance contributions, add another layer of strain.
The NIS reform is intended to secure the fund’s long-term viability, but in the short term, it raises payroll costs in an already fragile job market. Without a parallel increase in productivity or wages, employment growth could falter.
The danger lies not in any single policy, but in the cumulative weight of them all.
Savings on fuel or targeted reliefs will mean little if rent, electricity, groceries and banking fees all climb together.
If the Government’s intent is to deliver relief while maintaining discipline, it must also put safeguards in place to shield citizens from the secondary effects of its fiscal strategy.
Otherwise, what begins as a Budget of promise could end as another test of endurance for the average household.
