The trick birthday-cake candle is back
How many times must I tell you the same thing, dear readers? The man just won’t go away. Alfred Sant is like one of those annoying trick candles that go on children’s birthday cakes: you think you’ve blown them out but they flare up again. Let me guess, now – most of you thought that he had retired gracefully from the limelight when he gave what you thought – mistakenly, alas – was his swansong press conference a couple of days after the election, when he was finally able to unglue his lips and admit that he had been trounced once more.
After all, he said that he had resigned irrevocably, didn’t he? And there I was, cynical little so-and-so that I am, convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that when parliament convened, he would pop back into our lives like one of those creatures that never dies. And sure enough, just when you thought that it was safe to get back in the water…
You have to admit that it’s almost funny. If you don’t look at the farcical side of all this, you’ll be forced to confront the fact that things have gone a little bit bananas, and that can get you down. It is beyond weird to see the same man addressing parliament, as leader of the opposition, after his fourth consecutive hammering at the polls. And then he has the brass neck to insist on the resignations of others who are in a far, far less embarrassing position than he is. Astonishingly, he isn’t embarrassed at all. Anybody else would have crept in covered in shame, or frankly, just stayed home and fed the chickens. But Sant just stood there and spoke as though the past 16 years haven’t happened.
His speech in parliament was a disturbing taste of what the Labour Party is going to be like for the next five years: Sant behaving as though it is still 1992, with his clone Joseph Muscat trying and failing to build a strong identity for himself in the dark shadow of the man who made him. Between now and 2013, the Labour Party is going to have two leaders, Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat, and make no mistake about it: it’s Muscat, the official leader, who will be cast in the role of bridesmaid.
The few people who pounced on me for continuing to write about Alfred Sant in the aftermath of the election, on the grounds that he had ‘irrevocably resigned’ and should be left to rest in peace, must be wondering what’s going on. They must have looked at the photographs of him speaking in parliament as though he had never resigned at all, and said to themselves: “You’re kidding me, right?” Ah, but no – there’s no kidding involved. I really hate saying ‘I told you so’ because you got pummelled for that kind of thing in the playground, but here goes: I told you so.
Now that I am safe in the knowledge that there is no risk of his ever being prime minister again, unless he is going to be the wild card in the leadership election (nothing surprises me at this stage), I can dissect him for fun rather than out of necessity. The next few weeks should be most amusing.
Let’s begin with his shock-horror-x’gharukaza announcement that the government, using its power of incumbency of course, waived (not pardoned, for heaven’s sake, as reported in the newspapers) €2.6 million in income tax owed by 1,061 individuals. You may have failed to notice, as I who keep track of these things did, that this was the first time ever since Malta joined the Eurozone that Sant referred to a sum of money in euros rather than liri. Throughout the election campaign, whenever he mentioned money, it was in liri, as though admitting the fact of our new currency was something that stuck in his throat because he hadn’t agreed with it. All the proposals in his error-ridden electoral manifesto were calculated in round sums of liri, rather than round sums of euros.
So why did he suddenly decide to give the total sum of tax waived in euros rather than his pet liri as usual? Ah, my dear Watson – that’s because it multiplies the figure to something that sounds a lot more impressive. He reckoned without that irritating Daphne and her pesky calculator, who immediately sat down and did what the newspaper reporters should have done before getting too impressed. I worked out what that comes to as an average per head, and it’s a considerably less impressive €2450, or in Sant’s preferred currency, Lm1,052.
Now please tell me what is so damned shocking or extraordinary about waiving €2450 in contested taxes that have been due over several years, particularly if this was done to collect a much fuller sum. But Sant is using his old tricks once more – firing off claims and figures, secure in the knowledge that few people are going to look beneath the blast and bombast and actually analyse his claims. I’m sorry, but I’m not exactly going to keel over in shock if the Commissioner of Inland Revenue waives €2450 which Johnny down the road insists he doesn’t owe the taxman. As anybody knows, who runs a business and who has a brain somewhere there between his ears, it’s better to collect €20,000 immediately and to write off €2450 as a bad debt than to pursue €22,450 through the courts for 20 years, after which you might still very well end up with nothing.
Sant himself admitted as much when he said that the individual sums waived varied between €1000 (a paltry Lm420) and €10,000 (Lm4,292). If that was the highest figure waived, we’re not exactly talking about big cats, bigger cheeses and the barunijiet that appear to have been erased from Sant’s vocabulary. He acknowledged, too, that these sums were due over several years, so we’re not talking here about the Commissioner of Inland Revenue being ordered by the power-of-incumbency government to waive the current taxes of 1,061 party apparatchiks.
Exhaustingly, the man is still banging on about honesty and integrity, and this when he is prancing about in parliament, as leader of the opposition, after the general public booed him off the political stage four times in a row. Oh, but all of that wasn’t his fault, because as he has so carefully explained to us, he lost this election only because the government used its power of incumbency to buy votes. And what was his excuse the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that again? Clearly, he hadn’t yet turned up the phrase ‘power of incumbency’ while ploughing through his journals.
Read my lips, Alfred Sant: the Nationalist Party won the election because you were the leader of the Labour Party. Face that fact and let the country get on with the business of living. Go away, please, and leave us alone. What more will it take to drive home the message to you that you’re not wanted? Isn’t there some power of incumbency you might want to be getting on with up at Mile End?
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
37 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Hey Daphne my calculator has suddenly turned pesky too.
Many employees who pay their taxes to the last cent have yet to see a drop of this IRD generosity. Speak to civil servants – one or two will tell you about the acrobatics they have to do to stretch their annual votes. Not to mention small businesses getting 5 inspectors a day to check
their prices to the 10th decimal place.
LM1.1 million (2.6 million Euros) in bad debts written off in – what, 2 months? Six weeks? Euro adoption and all – how come these write offs (some going back to the 1990s) became an urgent priority for the IRD in February 2008? How were these 1100 individuals chosen? What about the (many!) others who are still trudging along with bad debts hanging around their necks?
Dr Sant as leader of the opposition is reported by 101 as saying that the MLP lost because of the PN campaign! Wow !! What a rocket scientist. And I suppose Chelsea’s football coach will claim they lost the league due to Manchester United!! Unbelievable logic. If Dr. Sant wants to know why they lost the election I suggest he buys a mirror.
Please explain this to me, someone, anyone. Charles Mangion is acting leader of the only oppostion party in parliament. Dr. Sant is leader of opposition. Neither one is contesting the leadership! What a mess! I had promised myself not to follow the local news after the election as I had an overdose of it before. But it is addictive. And now it seems it is going to get better with claims of anonymous letters and other democratic tools…
@Abel Abela – the question you should be asking is why the cases dragged on for years, and not why they were decided now. Also, the fact that they were decided now does not mean they were the only ones decided. There may have been other such decision in last five years, but mentioning them wouldn’t have suited the purposes of Sant’s power-of-incumbency argument. You might also wish to ask why, in these days of data protection, a politician clearly has in his hands the private tax records of private persons, and is talking about them in parliament. He wasn’t so quick to discuss the tax records of Charles Mangion and Karmenu Vella in the electoral campaign, if I recall correctly.
@Abel Abela – also, I have a serious problem with the use of the ‘iss hej, employees have their taxes taken at source, it’s not fair’ argument. My stock reply to this is: if you want the perceived benefits of being self-employed, go right ahead and become self-employed, too – if you’re prepared to take on that level of risk, long hours and hard work.
Daphne, thanks for your reply. Data protection? You yourself have very rightly criticized ‘data protection’ when it’s protecting convicted child molesters.
Taxpayers who foot their bills punctually (mostly because they have to, as employees) may be wondering why those who have their old tax bills written off should be covered by ‘data protection.’
Most of those waived tax dues were not waived at all. They had been time barred for years but the tax people, ignoring the law, continued to insist on payment from time to time. Obviously the moment had arrived to regulate the matter in a proper manner
@Daphne,
As an employer I tend to agree with you and the “Iss hej” attitude of employees – believe you me that you could dedicate several blogs to the chip some people have on their shoulder.
Ofcourse taking the risk of running a business does not excuse one from evading tax, no matter how much more he/she does pay.
@Abel Abela,
Your comparison between a convicted paedophile and somebody arguing about taxes does not merit response!
Nothing to wonder about if AS “just stood there and spoke as though the past 16 years haven’t happened … behaving as though it is still 1992”. Were we not given an explanation for this, if I remember rightly, during AS`s short term at Castille? Something on the lines of the administration of a country being similar to a computer game. One presses the START button to begin to play, and if the results are not satisfactory, one can always press the ESC button, then the START one, and begin one`s game anew. So, forget past drubbings or anything that went wrong, press START and begin anew.
@Daphne,
Somebody dragged you in another argument.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080510/letters/euro-in-the-plural-2
@David Buttigieg
Dear Mr Buttigieg, you addressed to me the following comment:
“Your comparison between a convicted paedophile and somebody arguing about taxes does not merit response!”
1. Contrary to what you say, your comment IS a response.
2. The ‘comparison’ is yours, NOT mine. I never referred to ‘somebody arguing about taxes’. I referred to those who have their long overdue taxes written off. That’s well past arguing. And I was not comparing child molesters to tax defaulters in any way. My comment was, rather, on data protection.
3. Data protection is data protection, be it with reference to medical files, police files, or tax files. My comment referred explicitly to Daphne’s own recent position on data protection, and was not intended in any way to compare child molestation to fiscal escapism (or the art of leaving tax bills pending for a decade until they become ‘time barred’). If the disclosure of personal details from medical, court and police files, or a court sentence, is being recommended in particular cases (and this is where the example I cited comes in – an example drawn from this blog), why is data protection is being cited as something sacred when much-needed public revenue is written off with the stroke of a pen?
[Moderator – Don’t be so ridiculous. There’s an obvious difference between protecting the identity of a criminal for the sake of protecting the identity of a criminal, and protecting the identity of a taxpayer for the sake of his privacy.]
Dear “Moderator”, I didn’t think I would have adjectives flying my way so easily. Thanks anyway. “Protecting the identity of a taxpayer of the sake of his privacy” you say? You’d better say ‘non-taxpayer’ here. Oh yes, tax defaulters are doing nothing wrong. And uncollected public money is private. Pull the other one, “Moderator”, it’s got bells.
[Moderator – When someone uses that expression a bell goes off in my head that says: ding-dong – English as a foreign language.]
@Abel Abela – because private citizens are private citizens, that’s why. You don’t break the law by contesting tax that the government claims from you; it’s perfectly legitimate. And so is reaching an agreement with the Inland Revenue. God help us if there are people suggesting that we should return to the days when private individuals were threatened with moral and fiscal violence. That’s the real abuse. I repeat: yes, self-employed persons don’t have their tax deducted at source, like employees – but then, they don’t go home on the dot of 5pm, spend their weekends relaxing, leave the boss to worry about revenue levels, or take paid holidays and still get paid when they’re ill.
Another point – a criminal becomes a public person upon his conviction. Data protection has nothing to do with the magistrate’s banning of the publication of a convicted criminal’s name.
Daphne, Nice way of putting it – ‘contesting tax’ and ‘reaching an agreement with the Inland Revenue’. Tax is public money, and its collection from the taxpayer is a public exercise. Yes, ‘reaching an agreement’ – to have public money written off, you should add. Not so tough for your ‘private citizens’, that one; having their tax bills zeroed will help them forget about it. It’s ‘perfectly legitimate’, of course, and worth the wait. Who needs accountability?
You’re being disingenuous, Abel Abela. The calculation of tax due by self-employed persons is nowhere near as straightforward as it is with salaried individuals. There are points of disagreement between the Inland Revenue and the individual sometimes, and the individual is not always in the wrong, as you seem to think. It is not unknown for the IR to make wild estimates based on benchmarking, and for years people were targetted with horrendous ‘ex ufficio’ assessments of tens of thousands of liri.
You must understand, Abel Abela, that in the case of self-employed persons, the fact that the IR estimates that X tax is owed by the individual does not necessarily mean that he does owe it. There are discussions, and occasionally there are law suits. And sometimes, the IR has to back down, as in these cases.
Allow me to congratulate you for today’s article.Well done Daphne!
Dr Sant’s answer to the President’s address toParlament: I really felt sory for all Labour voters. How can you do that to these people Dr Sant? You must be ashamed of youeself.Alfred,Jason et al you are to blame for Labour’s ills. Leave the party alone and it will prosper. Till then it will be on the losing end.
I hate to admit it but you are absolutely right. AS has become an insult to Labourites who are left with any self-respect!
Daphne, as you rightly say, ‘the fact that the IR estimates that X tax is owed by the individual does not necessarily mean that he does owe it.’ That’s not a glowing description of Malta’s fiscal system (and those responsible for it), which tends to make taxpayers who operate outside FSS go through the tribulations of endless haggling with the people at IRD or, what’s worse, a decade or more in court. You have put your finger on a serious national issue, and one looks forward to reading an article by you on this subject in the near future. Much more important than what’s going on in Labour, this one. Getting called ‘ridiculous’ and ‘disingenuous’ was definitely worth it.
Alfred Sant’s address was a masterful decimation of this illegitamte government’s credibility. His expose’ of the goings on at Air Malta, the IRD, The VAT Dept and the huge number of building permits issued just days before the election speaks for itself. Those who want to remain blind can continue to argue that its sour grapes but those who really want to wake up to this democratic dictatorship will definitely take heed.
Surprise, surprise, DCG is on the side of employers, your description of paid employees is similar to the MEA or the Chamber of Commerce, that bastion of elitism and economic racism. Yes we go home at 5pm and have weekends off but then we don’t have the latest BMW 4×4, a villa in the country costing half a million liri, holidays more than once a year, a yacht and all the other trappings of the rich. Oh and the property in Gozo, probably built without a proper permit in some posh area of Ghasri or Gharb with a pool.
[Moderator – Economic racism? In a country that empowers each and every person to reach their full potential, the fault lies with the individual. So rant against the system all you like, while the fact is that the people who achieve do so through their own hard work and determination. Is anyone stopping you from leaving your dead-end job to set up your own enterprise? No they aren’t. So whose fault is it that you don’t live in luxury?]
Mcomb – Calling the Chamber of Commerce “that bastion of elitism” is tantamount to calling ALL people from Sliema “tal-pepe” (much as I disagree with the label) – Both are wrong …
@MComb – if it weren’t for the person who set up the company I assume you work for, you wouldn’t have a job. Unless you’re on the public sector payroll, of course….in which case your salary is indirectly paid by those same people you resent and the other people they employ. Vote Labour do you? Well, then maybe you should remember that the essential message of the party you support should be (but isn’t) ‘equal opportunity for all’, and not ‘equal poverty for all’.
@Daphne
First of all my profound apologies. I was one who had asked you to lay off Alfred Sant now that he has irrevocably resigned !
But you knew better. The man will just not go away. He is his own worst enemy. His speech in Parliament was one of a nasty, bitter and cynical has-been. No regrets for what he has done to his own party, never mind what he was about to do to his own country.
THEY will NEVER learn ! ! !
@Daphne,
I work as a salaried employee, and pay the correct amount of tax for every euro I earn (and that is as it should be).
Why on earth should others, who are self-employed, declare (and pay taxes accordingly) on a fraction of what they actually earn?
Shouldn’t they have the moral duty of paying justly the taxes they’re due to pay?
[Moderator – Yes, they do have that duty. However, the Dept. of Inland Revenue will always calculate income tax contributions based on the estimated income for the year. Sometimes, that estimation is much higher than the actual income.]
@Amrio,
I don’t think anybody is condoning tax evasion, as an employer I certainly don’t.
I also agree that there is a lot of tax evasion going on, but most of the blame lies with the general public, there is an almost foolproof way of fighting it with the fiscal receipt.
Ah but when offered a discount for not asking for a receipt few refuse. If everybody had to insist on a receipt, tax evasion would decrease substantially.
My company deals mostly with other businesses and so a receipt is always issued for obvious reasons. However in 99% of the few cases I deal with the general public the standard question is “How much without VAT?”
So when people buy something without VAT this is tax evasion like any other.
Salaried employees who complain about tax evasion should think about that!
You have no idea who I work for Daphne and you’re completely off the mark by your statement :)
Have you seen Alfred Mifsud’s survey results in today’s Independent?
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=69260
Anyone with half a brain can see that GA is the best bet for the MLP to attract the non-diehard voters. But will the famous delgates pay any notice? No, they will go ahead and elect JM. When has the MLP ever did the blatantly obvious after all?
In 1996 it was clear that the substitution of VAT with CET was going to create an economic disaster, did that stop them?
In 1998 it was pretty obvious that they would lose an early election. Did it stop the delegates from voting overwhelmingly for it?
In 2003 it was almost certain that had the MLP accepted the referndum result they would win the election. Did they change their “partnership rebah” chant?
So no surprises this time round. JM will be leader, and Doktor Sant will stay quietly and invisibly in the background.
As GA say in his article today in The Times:
“We now face a similar choice: To change faces without undergoing real change or to go for a leadership that personifies change. We could just swap faces and packaging or we could welcome new attitudes and a new outlook. How we choose depends on whether or not we have learned the lesson of March 8.”
I think the choice has been made already!
@Daphne
You wrote ……and not ‘equal poverty for all’
Here is an example of that mlp line of thought:
“Ahna ma nemmnux li jkun hawn xi hadd li ghalih wahdu jkollu yacht daqs il-freedom press. Kieku konna nistghu naghmlu yacht bhal dan ghal kullhadd, iva. Imma li wiehed ikollu yacht u l-iehor lanqas scooter ma jkollux, hekk le.”
(GWU: Konferenza Generali – 22/07/1974)
That last quote was by Mintoff.
MComb: The only thing that is clear in your Eva Peron way of thinking is that people like you are driven by grudges rather than by the urge to succeed. That is a recipe for failure not for success. People who are self-employed are not necessarily dishonest and people who are employed are not necessarily honest. You are also grossly incorrect in assuming that being self-employed automatically earns one a lavish lifestyle. Many people are self-employed and have none of the things you mention. Several people are employed and yet enjoy a better lifestyle than the people who employ them. The solution to your predicament is quite simple: let go of your employment and set yourself up as self-employed. Within minutes you’ll be rolling up to the door of your villa in your 4×4 after jetting home from your umpteenth luxury holiday on your private yacht. If that’s not possible, then please shut up because you’re not making any sort of sense.
MComb: Since you are employed and pay all your taxes and NI contributions (and particularly because something tells me you’d love the opportunity not to do that) take my advice and ask for a statement. You might find that though you’ve paid all of your taxes and NI contributions some might have ended up outside your IR & NI accounts.
me – You stated “That last quote was by Mintoff”. It was taken for granted that it was, don’t worry!
Anyone old enough to remember him in action would have realised immediately.
@adrian borg
Alfred Mifsud’s survey and any other nation wide survey (Xarabank will be coming up with one as well) is a waste of time, money and energy. Democracy has dictated that the elected MLP delegates are going to elect the next leader of the Malta Labour Party and not Tom, Dick or Harry. Unless Mr Mifsud and other pollsters tell us how many delegates were caught in their survey net we are neither impressed nor amused by their ultimate, yet useless effort to boost their favorite candidate.
@Daphne – trick birthday-cake candle? If you had a dark sense of humour you’d have gone for that interminable series of Friday the 13th movies. Incidentally, the most recent release came with the title “Freddy vs Jason” … but it cannot come to that surely.