Enough is enough of uncoordinated taxes

In particular, at the end of this response, Deputy Burford states: 'It is not within this department's mandate to deal with the effects of emissions resulting from the marine and aviation industries, but what we are doing is concentrating our efforts on the areas for which we do have responsibility.'

This is a rather extraordinary statement because Deputy Burford is effectively saying that, as an elected States deputy, she does not see herself as responsible for States business as a whole and is only interested in the affairs of the Environment Department. I'm sure she did not really intend to imply this. In fact, it's difficult to know what else she could really say to try to defend the inequity of the vehicle registration tax she is proposing.

Concentrating on vehicle usage ignores a huge amount of other energy use. Not just aviation and boating, but the production of the food we eat, the way we heat our houses, the production of clothing and all consumer durables. You just can't live without using lots of energy. Even keeping a cat or dog uses a whole heap of energy in producing the meat they eat.

But what nobody seems to have asked, at least to my knowledge, is the very pertinent question of whether individual departments should actually be raising significant taxes and charges in a piecemeal, un-coordinated fashion? Because surely all taxes should be presented only as part of a properly integrated budget strategy prepared by the Treasury Department and approved by the States as such?

No taxes come free of economic consequences and so should only be considered as part of the overall budget process. It seems to me that Deputy Burford does not have an adequate concept of the overall effect on the Guernsey economy of the taxation she is proposing and that the States who have been voting on it so far have not had it presented to them in a proper economic context either. Deputy Burford may only be interested in the social engineering effects of her taxes, but their adverse effects on our economy will be there just the same.

The Environment Department seems to think the extra taxes they impose can simply be used to pay for the integrated transport strategy. But earmarking them to a specific usage is only one way of looking at it. In reality, they will be the income of the States as a whole, which has incurred the economic costs of gathering it, and it would be quite arbitrary to earmark them for a specific purpose.

Of course, if the States wish to further subsidise the bus service, this is their prerogative, but to say that this comes out of this, that or the other tax is really beside the point.

It comes out of States funds, full stop. And they are States funds that are extracted from all of us by taxation. It should go without saying that they all need to be raised and spent wisely. Unfortunately, it does seem that this needs to be said.

And the strength of the Enough is Enough campaign is as a way of saying this.

BOB PERKINS,

Les Corneilles,

Rue de la Ronde Cheminee,

Castel,

GY5 7GD.