From Paul St John Turner.
THE proposed Budget amendments made by Senator-elect Sarah Ferguson and Deputy James Reed concerning ‘20% means 20%’ income tax, to mitigate the effect of this on Middle Jersey, seem both fair and appropriate for present circumstances.

Even with recent tax threshold rises, ‘20 means 20’ starts to increase the tax burden on incomes around the £30,000 mark in some cases, as those affected are now seeing from their 2007 tax assessments.

Coupled with the Goods and Services Tax, the proportionate burden on middle incomes seems too high, particularly for future years as this measure works through its five-year phase-in period.

Both Senator-elect Ferguson’s argument that the allocation of £5.8 million GST ‘relief’ should be shared more equitably, and Deputy Reed’s suggestion that the States should react to support Islanders in the face of the global economic downturn, have strong merit.

On the latter point, while we all hope that the downturn as a whole will be short-lived and its effect on Jersey mild, at this time the argument that taking money out of the system through more personal taxation (be it income tax or GST) benefits our economy no longer seems to make sense: large cutbacks in personal spending are unlikely now to help our traders or our economy as a whole.

In the longer term, ‘20 means 20’ seems to need another hard look, as I think some of our politicians and electoral candidates have in mind. For now, the current budget proposals in this respect appear well judged and deserving of support.
Cades Peak,
Old St John’s Road,
St Helier.