A rise in income tax would be more equitable than a GST

I do not trust the States to stick to their promise not to increase GST, as they have gone back on so many decisions. GST will not only hurt local people but business, since I will have no choice but to favour online, where prices are cheaper, to avoid the tax. Bear in mind that many UK stores already increase their prices to cover 'shipping costs' – let's add GST to UK VAT shall we? As islanders' spending power decreases, so local business will struggle and lay off staff, increasing burden on the benefits system.

The States will also need to introduce a completely new collection system at considerable expense.

Our Income Tax department is in a laughable state – not, I suspect, due to the staff at the coalface, but the restrictions placed on them by their senior managers at the States' behest. That said, we already have the system to collect tax. I do not want and can't easily afford to pay more tax – however, I'd pay more if I knew someone earning £250,000 paid a proportionate sum as well. It costs a high earner little more to live than an average individual unless they choose to spend. Average earners do not have this choice. Income tax will mean we all pay our fair share. Our States will not favour this because most of them are wealthy and would be worse off if we increase income tax.

In short, if you earn it, you should pay it. It is fair to say that not all we earn we spend on consumer items. The better off pay into pensions, save, spend off island etc. Those who are on lower incomes have no choice but to consume most of what they earn to live. If income tax was the vehicle used to increase revenue, you would catch all income, including that destined for pensions and savings. (The States are already concerned that many islanders are not saving for pensions – let's make it harder for them, shall we?) By using income tax, you would not need to increase by 5% because other income will be caught. I accept that the very wealthy can still avoid this by using aggressive avoidance techniques, but they will do that anyway. I also accept that you cannot use tax as a disincentive to try to achieve policy i.e.; reducing vehicle use.

As most of the spend on Guernsey comes from locals' earnings, there is no argument to say that GST would be paid by tourists so would increase take (Jersey at least has a more significant tourist sector). We can welcome all those green cruise ship passengers who have struggled across the Russel with a 'you'll still pay tax here'. Jersey can say 'come here, more to do, more choice, more everything'.

As for the fact that we collect more of our tax from income, so what? It works and it's fair. People might argue that it will put off wealthier open market people, however they avoid inheritance tax and capital taxes living in Guernsey, not to mention higher income tax and property tax rates. They are laughing here – they are not likely to leave and if they do, they would go anyway, chasing a better return on their money.

It's about time our States become revolutionary and not reactionary. They need to stop being like sheep, following the herd and do something that benefits Guernsey, as Guernsey, for Guernsey. We are not a Little England.

What the States doesn't seem to appreciate is that the money has to come from somewhere. They need it but we the people have to earn it first in order for them to claim it. Pay is not keeping up with inflation, as it is, so imposing an inflationary tax is crippling and will fundamentally affect the quality of life of the average Guernsey person, some of whom are struggling to keep their heads above water as it is. The States need to realise we are not a bottomless pit of money.

I can make our deputies one promise I will keep. Any Vale deputies who vote in favour of GST will lose my vote and any candidate who proposes to support GST will not see any cross next to their name on my ballot paper.

Apologies for the rant but I hate being lied to and treated like I'm stupid.

Name and address withheld.