OPPOSITION to the goods and services tax – both before its introduction and since it became a fact of Island life – has been fierce and sustained.

Reaction to ‘20 means 20’ taxation has been far more muted, even though it is going to make a substantially more significant difference to the finances of people who belong to the part of the community called ‘middle Jersey’.

It is unclear why 20-20 protest has been limited, although failure to appreciate exactly what the phasing out of certain tax allowances is really going to mean could account for this. It is also conceivable that some higher earners accept that they should contribute more to public revenues or that they have accepted uncritically that the adjustments will actually make very little difference to tax bills – assurances that stack up in some cases but not in others.

However, now that tax assessments are arriving and substantial numbers of Islanders are beginning to see exactly how the first phase of the implementation of the new arrangements is affecting them, the position is likely to change. As taxpayers look at the real effect on disposable income, it will dawn on them that 20-20 is more than obscure tinkering with the tax structure.

Moreover, the present difficult economic circumstances might well mean that those who were previously willing to shrug off 20-20 as scarcely relevant to their circumstances have to reappraise what the tax increase will mean not only immediately but over the five years during which allowances will be abolished.

Against this background, the Budget amendments proposed by Senator-elect Sarah Ferguson and Deputy James Reed – designed to suspend 20-20 for a year, to increase income tax allowances and to extend tax relief in respect of youngsters in further education – merit very close examination.

At the very least, measures designed to soften the blow for middle and high earners would allow time to take stock and to assess the impact of any recession or economic downturn. It would also permit further examination of the idea that, inherently, 20-20 imposes an excessive share of the income tax burden on a particular sector of the community.