A case for John
I
listened to Ms Alicia John’s argument (or case) for pensioners broadcast over
Radio 100 on Monday morning (October 29) and I want to use the theoretical
considerations outlined in Part One
as context to give meaning to them in a crude way. But before I do so, permit
me to “empathise” with her and the persons on whose behalf she spoke.
Firstly,
the scenarios she painted underlined an obvious tension between the two principles
outlined in part one, namely VVID
and VVDD (and we will discuss this
in Part #3).
In
talking about the plight of pensioners, Ms John expressed a deep concern over
their welfare. She claimed that while they may have property (land and house), they
may not necessarily have wealth.
Indeed
her logic may have been oversimplified and may sound somewhat “paradoxical”, but
it does have a ring of truth to it.
There
are overwhelming “anecdotal” data to support her argument that while many pensioners
may have property, it is also true that they may also be “penniless”. Cases
that immediately come to mind are sanitary workers and watchmen; and indeed, a
few teachers, policemen, nurses and civil servants – all may fall in that
category. There are reported cases that things have become so bad with some of
these pensioners that they had to seek post-pension avenues of employment to
survive, even when they have property.
The myth of retirement benefits
A
popular myth is public servants upon retirement earn a pension and gratuity and
therefore they have wealth. But this is only one side of an unbalanced mythical
equation. In most cases - and in sharp contrasts to the gratuity and retirement
bonanzas that Ministers of Government and top public servants walk away with -
the gratuity that the public servants earn approaches peanuts and may not even
be sufficient to pay out “outstanding bills” (including mortgage or car loan). The
pension fares no better; in some cases, it might be so small that it might be operationally
defined as a form “public assistance”.
An extreme case
The
problem does not stop here. It is not just the retired poor public servants
only; there is a larger “universal set” who are also victims of similar
circumstances.
Earlier
in the year, the district rep for Choiseul/Saltibus and some members of his newly
installed Constituency Council paid a courtesy visit to an indigent family in Mongouge.
One source told the Powerhouse that he was so shocked by the human conditions
under which that family lived that he “broke down”! But the outrageous indigence
of the Mongouge family is only one variable in the equation. An investigation by
the Choiseul Powerhouse revealed
that despite their indigence, they had an impressive inheritance of a large
acreage of land in Delcer/Industry.
The
question therefore is: why this family should be so poor when they own so much
prime property perhaps worth more than a million dollars? Shouldn’t they be a
millionaire family?
Our
investigations revealed that the land was acquired by a former minister of
government through “imminent domain” for the purpose of a community playing
field and without a dime paid to the owners. Today, the family dwells in the
doldrums of indigence near a “bandjé” where they are exposed to all
sorts of health risks.
The
case above may be only tangential or extreme; but it is a classic example of a
family with lots of property but living under conditions of extreme poverty and
therefore it gives credence to Alicia John’s argument that one can own property
and still be poor.
Retirement, the new house tax regime and
vulnerability
Alicia
John’s argument about the impact of the new House Tax regime on pensioners therefore
makes a lot of sense. She claimed that the new house tax may exacerbate the
vulnerability of pensioners and she may be right, especially when a pensioner invested
her/his gratuity to build, expand, restore or improve his/her home, leaving him
or her almost penniless with only a “public assistance” pension income to take care
of himself/herself.
The banana farmers: a larger picture
But
there is still a larger picture! Pensioners and beneficiaries of public
assistance are just subsets of the universal set of vulnerable groups. We also
have the displaced banana farmers who built massive mansions during the “Green
Gold” era and invested in many acres of banana fields and who are in that same economic
black hole. And now that their fields have been abandoned and they have no
income, how are they therefore going to finance the new house tax?
As
is the case with some pensioners, they too have property (house and lots of
land) but with the New House Tax regime, the property will become more of
liability burden than an asset to them.
Where
are they going to raise the money to pay those taxes, especially when VAT has perhaps
dug deeper holes in their pockets and with the Black Sigatoka having destroyed
their banana fields? These farmers do not even have a pension scheme despite
the EU’s intention under SFA 2002 to help establish one on their behalf; and
they are gradually being sucked deeper and deeper into the inescapable black
hole of poverty.
PART THREE COMING UP NEXT WEEK . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment