Dear Editor,
Since writing the article “Will giving pensioner tax breaks bankrupt government” about a month ago I have received phone calls and met some pensioners and it is apparent that the situation on the manner which they are being taxed continues unabated.
I don’t go on Facebook nor do I use Instagram or any other available social media so I don’t know if there have been any comments on this subject positive or negative. I have always said that there is no pressure like people pressure. I really hope that government or Parliament addresses this serious concern that the pensioners have regarding the manner in which taxes are being collected from them. It has been ongoing for a long time.
I can remember many years ago someone said to me that I should start saving to pay taxes. I did not understand it at the time but today I do. The way this is functioning now, one stands the possibility of losing their home, their vehicle, their furniture and, yes, your mind. The stress that comes along with it is unimaginable. Keep in mind that you have been filing your taxes faithfully every year but because they are 4, 5 years or more behind with their assessments they can force you to pay in a timeframe determined by the law, it is said, which I think should be made known to the public.
Imagine if you have an apartment or apartments or any other income and as a good civic citizen submit revenues derived from such when filing your taxes, you will be paying taxes for life and such I understood is passed on to your children and grandchildren; you get the drift. Unfortunately, although I don’t agree with this behaviour it is one of the reasons why there are persons who do not submit this information when filing their taxes. Government loses income and then the low-hanging fruits who are abiding by the law are penalized.
The tax collection ordinance has to be amended. A former colleague and I were busy with article 6 of this ordinance, they wanted to make changes in some of the articles. My focus was on Article 6.1 where I wanted just one word to be changed and that word is “can” I wanted to change it to “must” when it comes to making arrangements with the Receiver’s and the taxpayer. The word “can” gives the Receiver’s too much power to determine how much the taxpayer should pay, while the word “must” would allow the taxpayer to pay to have a say in what he or she can afford. As it is now, the taxpayer has no say in the matter.
I can already hear the argument that government depends on tax-generated revenues. My response is: then get your Inspectorate and Receiver’s up to date. I understood that there are persons who are paying taxes as far back as 2017. Please explain which tax law makes this possible. I was told that the taxpayer can take government to court to contest the fact why the Receiver can’t force one to pay more than what they can afford. I heard the Receiver can demand up to 30% of your income without taking into account your other expenses. It is said that the taxpayer would win the case, but how many pensioners or other taxpayers have the finances to go to court?
Another injustice is if you are owed a tax refund, they decide when you will be repaid with no interest for holding on to your money for years. How old are these laws, by the way? 80 years? 50? Where did they originate in the first place? We are living in different times. These are slave laws. Laws are supposed to punish those that break them and protect those that obey them. The Inspectorate nor the Receiver’s can change these antiquated slave laws, it is the responsibility of government/parliament to initiate and amend laws. What are they waiting on? The pensioners are waiting.
George Pantophlet
