FANews
FANews
RELATED CATEGORIES
Category Tax
SUB CATEGORIES Tax | 

The rich will pay less tax

20 September 2010 Gareth Stokes
Gareth Stokes, FAnews Online Editor

Gareth Stokes, FAnews Online Editor

South Africa is described as a welfare state. With five million taxpayers (including companies) funding around 12 million social grant recipients it’s difficult to dispute the fact. Today I’d like to add to the definition to distinguish South Africa – an “emerging welfare state” from the United Kingdom, which must surely quality as the developed world equivalent. I blame Sky News for my current state of mind. A couple of days ago they ran an inset containing statistics on Britain’s working (sic) class.

Did you know 1.5 million Brits of working age haven’t ever held a job? I didn’t! I was equally flabbergasted by the next revelation... Sky revealed that some 3.2 million families “survive” without any employment-generated income. Instead they lap up £192 billion pounds worth of tax money every year. The similarities between South Africa and the UK when it comes to handouts are staggering! But the difference could be our undoing.

Not enough taxpayers to fill the pot

Government’s social expenditure budget is limited by the amount of revenue it collects from citizens. This revenue hinges on the number of taxpayers and the overall state of the economy… And the portion stumped up by taxpayers eventually comes down to employment. Britain’s latest unemployment rate stands at a mere 7.8%. The reason we’re “knee deep in it” is our “official” unemployment tips the scales at 25%! Unofficially we’re in an even bigger mess!

My rant about tax, mooching and unemployment was triggered by a Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) economic policy document released last week. The trade union wants to introduce taxes on the super rich, probably the most sensible of a raft of proposals that will make ANC Youth League President Julius Malema extremely happy. Their call for higher taxation contradicts with the title of today’s newsletter for two reasons. First – the rich in South Africa are already paying over the odds where taxation is concerned. Forget the end of month deduction and think about all the payments the “rich” – and middle class for that matter – make to accommodate service delivery failings. And second, because the draft Tax Laws Amendment Bills 2010 says so.

The bill contains several amendments to read slightly less onerously for high net worth individuals. Hennie Van Deventer, Head of Tax in the Cape office of BoE Private Clients, which provides financial services exclusively to high net worth individuals, has applauded the National Treasury for taking into account the views of a range of professional organisations, including the SA Institute of Tax Practitioners (SAIT), the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) and the SA Institute of Professional Accountants (SAIPA), and said that the process proves the value of public participation.

Tax relief for driving that fancy car

The relief stems from a slight reduction in the tax initially proposed on company cars – from 4% to 3.5%. “High net worth individuals are obviously more likely to enjoy the benefit of a company car,” said Van Deventer. “The new law stipulates this perk shall be taxed at an effective rate of 80% or 3.5% of the value (now including VAT) of the vehicle, which is lower than the 4% contained in the draft bill!” Changes in the basis for determining the tax value will bring the tax in line with the tax on car allowances.

Another “break” for the super rich stems from the decision to allow interest exemptions on loans granted by them. Van Deventer notes “Following submission on the draft Bill, the interest on such loans will, for the time being, still qualify for the interest exemption – but National Treasury has indicated it will be looking very closely at this provision in the future.” The Bill also clarifies the position on voluntary disclosures. A person “coming clean” on outstanding tax payments may still be penalised, but won’t be criminally prosecuted.

Singing from the same hymn sheet

We’re going to wait a while before government statements and actions tie up. On the one hand the “tax the rich” refrain echoes through the corridors of power, on the other legislators are softening their stance. On the one hand Cosatu and the ANC Youth League want nationalisation and vicious land reform, on the other the Finance Minister says nationalisation is not government policy. Our parting shot… You can tax the rich as much as you want – but be warned – an over taxed rich man is a poor man!

Editor’s thoughts: Time and time again we stand up on our media pedestals and tell government the solution to poverty lies in job creation. And we helpfully point out that job creation hinges on education, softer labour practices and a friendlier investor environment. Do they listen? Can we solve South Africa’s social ills by taxing the rich more? Add your comment below, or send it to gareth@fanews.co.za

Comments

Added by Tax payer, 20 Sep 2010
Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to R100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay R1. The sixth would pay R3. The seventh would pay R7. The eighth would pay R12. The ninth would pay R18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay R59. So, that's what they decided to do....... The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by R20". Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just R80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, the paying customers - how could they divide the R20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that R20 divided by six is R3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth now paid R2 instead of R3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid R5 instead of R7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid R9 instead of R12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid R14 instead of R18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid R49 instead of R59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a rand out of the R20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got R10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a rand too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get R10 back, when I got only R2? The wealthy always win!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
Report Abuse
Added by Willem, 20 Sep 2010
Those receiving a travel allowance, must look closely at the recent amendment bill as it would appear 80% of your travel needs to be for business or you won't qualify for the deduction. No more going on holiday. I have for my sins been fortune enought to have travelled a lot on holiday this year and will be doing so to the end of the year. This will for sure catch me out.
Report Abuse
Added by senor neek, 20 Sep 2010
Dear Cosatu/SACP/ANC, I am (allegedly) one of the "super rich" referred to above. I live in a crappy neighbourhood and drive a 2nd hand car - both "assets" belong to the bank. I get f-all from government - I pay for private medical aid, private schools, private security, etc. etc. I haven't availed myself of a government "service" or handout EVER (apart from some schooling). If I get taxed any further, there won't be ANYthing left to tax, as i will be forced to relocate to a jurisdiction where i can SURVIVE and where some of my tax-dollars are recouped by way of a government service that's acceptable in global terms. Yours sincerely, Mr. Super Rich
Report Abuse

Comment on this post

Name*
Email Address*
Comment
Security Check *
   
Quick Polls

QUESTION

What do you think the high volume of inquiries and withdrawal requests means for the future of the two-pot system?

ANSWER

It suggests high demand and potential success of the system
It indicates possible problems with the system’s implementation or communication
It points to financial stress among individuals that could affect long-term retirement planning
It could be detrimental to the economy and people's retirement security
It’s too early to determine the impact on the system’s future
fanews magazine
FAnews August 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

Women’s Month spotlight: emphasising people and growth in the workplace
The power of skills transfer and effective mentorship
Advisers and investors hold thumbs the GNU will restore bond and equity valuations
What are the primary concerns of insurers and brokers?
The Two-Pot System: regulatory challenges ahead
How comprehensive is your clients' critical illness cover?
Subscribe now