The proposal by opposition leader Andrew Holness to provide tax relief for public sector workers and other at the lower end of the income bracket is an excellent move. The proposal calls out for workers who are earning less than $1.5m to enjoy tax free income.
There are the cynics in the society who believes that it is a bad move and has serious implications for the IMF agreement, but I wish to disagree.
Filed under: Economics, Uncategorized |
 | Anonymous on The 1976 State of Public Emerg… |
 | jay on The JLP should commission audi… |
| Chucks on George Wright should hold off… |
| jay on Jamaica murder statistics 1970… |
| Chucks on Jamaica murder statistics 1970… |
 | Sam on Nightmare in opposition and wo… |
| jay on Projected Election Results for… |
| Chucks on Projected Election Results for… |
| jay on Projected Election Results for… |
| Chucks on Projected Election Results for… |
| jay on Projected Election Results for… |
| Chucks on Projected Election Results for… |
Warren's Blog 
Main tax issue for people up to that income level, especially the 500000 to one and half million per annum is consumption tax. What will Andrew do about that?
There are the cynics in the society who believes that it is a bad move and has serious implications for the IMF agreement, but I wish to disagree.
You disagree, yet you fail to provide the salient points to support your position as to why the tax relief plan for “public sector” workers is not part of the 10-point con. This is a great departure from your usual approach to matters of a similar nature. Typically, you would list, in great details, why you think an issue has merit (or not). Saying you disagree, without supporting data or highfalutin, pie in the sky flawed analysis, which we have grown accustom to by reading your blog.
Are we to assume that you have no such data at your disposal? Is it obvious that the benefits will extend way beyond the public sector? If public sector workers are the target group, would a wage increase to the group be more appropriate? What would be your estimate of the shortfall in government revenues of this proposal? $36 Billion/year – and where will the revenue come from to make up for this deficit/loss?
We know you are a big JLP supporter, but the lack of any form of analysis is disconcerting to your readers. I would hope that you will revisit this thread and provide the needed data and “careful” analysis that we have exploited in the past. 😀
In time Dennis in time 🙂
In time? I guess Belmont Road hasn’t supplied you with the pertinent talking points? Come-on Jay, yuh slipping mon.
Tomorrow all will be revealed.
I will be present.
@ Dennis, now you have heard the real plan please comment. Can’t wait to hear you.