Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley said recently that the property tax was the right thing to do and that he was prepared to lose the election over it. The Opposition has consistently been against the tax and voted against it in the House of Representatives. And when the time came to vote in the Senate, the Opposition again voted against it, one Independent Senator voted against it, seven other Independents abstained, and only Senator Anthony Vierra on the Independent bench voted with Government.
Land and building taxes from 1920 to 2009 were small, and people did not mind paying it. Indeed, paying land and building taxes was seen as a process of legitimising ownership and paying annually gave a feeling of security.
It is very likely that if land and building taxes had been increased by 100 per cent, 300 per cent or 500 per cent, few would have objected, and I doubt that any home or property owner would have had to pay any sum approaching $9,000.
From the beginning, there was resistance because there was a suspicion that new property taxes would not be fair, that information gathered would be abused, that selected individuals could be targeted for various reasons and that if a citizen was wronged, there would be no guarantee of justice.
None of those suspicions have gone away. The parliamentary voting reflected lingering concerns. There remains a shroud of suspicion and a shred of anger about property tax.
Some would have welcomed a 1 per cent reduction. The residential tax rate is 2 per cent now, according to law.
But that does not solve the problem of scepticism and suspicion. Because 2 per cent of one person’s property can be much less or much more, than 2 per cent of the neighbour’s property. So 2% of what? How are you going to arrive at what you take 2 per cent of?
How will consistency be guaranteed? How will fairness be achieved? How will arbitrariness be avoided? How is political, partisan and personal relations going to impact on consistency, fairness and arbitrariness?
As an example, the Strategic Services Agency (SSA), it seems, is a den of corruption, and one of its jobs is to protect and secure the State and to provide safety and security for the citizen! Careful selection of individuals within that agency did not eliminate corruption.
How will we keep individuals and institutions aligned to valuation and assessment honest, clean and free from corruption? How will we protect the citizen? How will we keep the system free from political interference?
The Prime Minister also said that if we did not introduce the property tax, we might have to approach the IMF for help. So, the purpose of the property tax is revenue. It is, therefore, even more important that citizens be protected by a system that is transparent, fair and just with the necessary checks and balances built in. Most citizens do not have any such sense of assurance.
The Prime Minister also knows that property tax may add revenue but no forex.
The Opposition has pledged to repeal this law, so as government, they will lose this revenue. They have not indicated what they will introduce instead, to generate income or to give people a sense of comfort as taxpaying owners of properties.
There are valid reasons to be sceptical and concerned about the property tax and how it will be operationalised. But a fair tax for properties is necessary in a system of order.
The Government knows what the reduction of natural gas production means for forex revenue. That problem will follow them into the next term, should they get a third term.
The Opposition will find out, if they are called to government, that the situation is much more dire than they ever conceived, and that high competence and clarity are absolutely required.
What the people are rebelling against though, is that they cannot see where their taxes are going and how they are benefiting. They are disoriented by the recommendations for big salary increases for ministers and parliamentarians but 4 per cent for public servants. And it may well be that gun violence, gangs and murders are much more stressful to them than property tax.
Or maybe it’s the disturbing combination of living in perpetual fear and insecurity, living daily with economic and financial distress, and still being asked to pay more for nothing at all, with corruption all around and political commess persistent.