Govt has set up two committees to assess the accompanying measures to mitigate the impact of the pension reform- un Govt à l’écoute de LePep following the discontent expressed by different components of the population.
And we have been informed that the PM will make a statement on the matter in the National Assembly today . It is not at the NA that he should be discussing these things …his Govt, his ministers , senior and junior, should engage a permanent dialogue with LePep…a LePep, used to the past ten years of cheap populism and welfarism, who is likely to be easily unsettled by rapid social change and bold reforms .
…. .Forget about the Jugnauths, the Padas, the Obeegadoos and other opportunist trade unionists and populists who are spreading their virus gnawing away at our solidarity; they have a bone to pick..… they belong to the past, they are already part of history now ..we should not even waste time replying to them…By the way if the FCC starts performing many from the old regime and their cronies will be rotting in jail.
If the rebuilding is to happen, the ways of the government must change radically.…… It must allow independent thought and ideas, from civil society organizations and others who mean well, to flourish, rather than seeking to ignore or brush them aside at every turn. . They need to listen more attentively, and consult more widely. They must never again rush unilaterally and without thought into decisions whose awful consequences they have not anticipated.
But this setback should not keep them from going forward with the reforms- wide-ranging reform plans to deliver tangible change while acknowledging that social concerns remain a top priority. We have to get the maximum of people on board ! How !
By regular consultations and dialogue with LePep and by sharing equally the burden of the adjustments and inspiring and motivating others do their bit to bring the much-needed change in our economy and society. The Govt du Sanzman should lead by example.They must be the change that we wish to see in Mauritius.
Our local titans can change the course of the nation’s destiny. We need leaders with new ideas, prepared to go off the beaten path and the guts to see them through if we want to experience a difference to the nation’s growth and development especially its inclusive development.
They have now the opportunity of being the architect of a bold new era with a bolder overhaul of the system itself. We have to continue with wide-ranging reform plans to deliver tangible change. We have some hard time ahead but we cannot expect that every time it’s “le ti Pep” that will have to “ serr seintur” .
As “Lalit” is pointing out “L’injustice réside dans le fait que , depuis quarante ans, les plus riches sont enrichis sans payer leur juste part d’impôts tandis que les plus pauvres sont appauvris”. In their opinion, if the government is facing financial difficulties, the solution shouldn’t be to restrict pension access, but rather to explore new revenue sources.
Prakash Neerohoo has also pointed out in his recent MT article that other revenues sources could have been tapped.He comments that “the marginal tax rate of 35%-with an effective rate of only 25.3%- undoubtedly introduces a measure of ‘progressivité” into the new tax system. But its application is limited in time (three years). Temporality should not dictate the application of taxation if we want a progressive and equitable system”…..limiting the impact of the reform in building up more fiscal space..
He argues that “ A fair and effective tax policy is based on a broad tax base which includes:
1. sources of income (employment income, pension, professional income, business income, dividends, interest on investments, rental income);
2. property (subject to a national property tax);
3. consumption (VAT on goods and services); and
4. wealth (a capital gains tax on the sale of movable and immovable property).
The budget omits items 2 and 4, which considerably reduces the possibility of optimising the country’s fiscal capacity to meet growing social expenditure (Rs 65 billion a year for social benefits).” Why not 2 and 4?
That’s a way of tackling an unjust system in addition to the curbs on unnecessary expenditures and wastage . That would have led to a fairer sharing of the burden of adjustment , towards real fiscal responsibility with empathy and compassion-A Govt that was acting boldly and decisively to show that it is on the side of the many Mauritians harmed by the neoliberal policies pursued over the last 40 years.
Let’s hope we can send the right message to Moody’s that we will be introducing a property tax soon after the forthcoming legislation on Local Govt (to compensate for the revisiting of the BRP measure)
We have to continue moving forward on the road to more of sustainable and inclusive development and we are in need of politicians who’re willing to overcome any obstacle to achieve it- rebels in their own right, thinking differently and are virtually unstoppable in their mission to change the status quo.
And we are also aware that they need our support ; the country shouldn’t be held hostage to all kinds of one-upmanship, machinations and partisanships on all sides, whether political or otherwise.
Moochooram Kishore Kumar
No arrogance!
-
-
Reply
Gautamaḥ Chalasani
We try copying Europe, why not ministers
use public transport like europe
-
-
Reply
Sameer Sharma
There is a big elephant in the room... it
is not just about people increasing their
contributions to Pension funds like the
national pension fund and their private
pension fund or their public defined
benefit pension plans which are all in
deficit but it is also about making more
money in the expansion plans meaning the
investment returns need to be able to
match or exceed liabilities over the
investment Horizon and that is not
happening in Mauritius because the local
fixed income Market offers you yields that
are below what constitutes a matching
asset you get Negative real returns. The
local stock market is underdeveloped and
very illiquid and transaction costs are
very high. So he will set up some expert
committee which will take months and most
of these people won't even be experts in
capital markets and portfolio Construction
and they're going to tell him let's do
60/40 portfolio location local foreign
because they read these things in
textbooks they don't understand how to
construct portfolios quantitatively and
they also don't understand that unlike the
rest of the world you don't have proper
Capital markets so all these theories they
go out the window in the garbage. The
biggest problem we have today is that we
don't have a dynamic private sector which
is reflected in very shallow Capital
markets like the equity markets for
example and that has a huge impact on the
ability of Pension funds to make money in
those markets over the long term. Now if
you wish to increase your Foreigner
location and increase the allocation to
Alternative asset classes globally you
can't because you can't get dollars in the
market. So basically all your pension fund
and institutional investment industry is
stuck and they don't have the right skills
they don't have the right tools there are
no real experts and the actuaries of them
are very outdated. There are many problems
and I'm telling you this today now
watching one and a half years they will
all conclude the same thing
-
-
Reply
Pritbeeraj Bheem Singh
Sameer Sharma let us hope people read your
post and take note of your analysis
and think about them and be
courageous to adopt the best suited
and sustainable actions.
I wonder why we lack the right
skills although with digitalisation
learning, knowledge, competence can
grow fast...
-
-
Reply
-
Edited
Nalini Burn
Some of the elements mentioned by Lalit
and Prakash N, have been mentioned by
myself in many posts, so of course I agree
with them.
But let's not take "our solidarity" as
given. and vision or policy and social
goals as having broad consensus. There are
different streams of policy options and
preferred policy tools. Each stem from
and/or have different broad ideological
implications. Or let's say, societal
values and perspectives.
Top down nomination approaches as being
proposed by the authorities do not seem
imbued of, committed to truly democratic
policy space.
I think civil society should take the
initiative.
-
-
Reply
