Mystic Twilight
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,089
National Treasury said that the R59 billion that Eskom was set to receive under the Special Appropriation Bill may be used to settle its debt and interest payments and nothing else.
![]()
Treasury sets out stringent conditions for Eskom's R59bn bailout
National Treasury said that the R59 billion that Eskom was set to receive under the Special Appropriation Bill may be used to settle its debt and interest payments and nothing else.ewn.co.za
Even if no borrowing for Eskom, then there would be financial crisis because Eskom power cuts. Either way you're in need for wage/employee cuts and restructuring, preferable for all seo and government but we all know that's not going to happen until it crashes.R1.2 bil a week X 52 weeks = R62.4 bil per year.
So basically we are borrowing money every week so that we can pay Eskoms debt? Is it only me, or does it seem that there doesn't need to be a financial crises?
can't you read? a real ratio growing from 22 to 29% is huge within this context
Actually we spent a shite load on education and social grants. That doesn't mean it gets results, but those are massive in terms of budget percentage.What infrastructure? Are you kidding? Perhaps 5% of tax money is spent on infrastructure. The rest is all wasted on one off expenses and salaries.
That ratio is not the right stat to be looking at. That stat is really bad, and the reason it keeps going up is because tax rates are increased while GDP stays the same or tax rates are maintained and GDP shrinks. In a healthy environment that ratio should go down.
Growing GDP with lower tax to GDP ratio indicates efficient use of tax money and healthy expanding economy.
Actually we spent a shite load on education and social grants. That doesn't mean it gets results, but those are massive in terms of budget percentage.
They are directly tied to population growth. Old Saturnz can't think past his arse to realize this.
"Low" in this context means lower than expectations and lower than forecast.I agree, that just further supports the view that the tax collection is not "low"
"Low" in this context means lower than expectations and lower than forecast.
The biggest shortcoming in tax collection was corporate tax - so make of that what yo uwill. I think you have a different understanding to what the article is trying to say than 90% of the population. I understand it completely and it makes sense.an ever increasing expense budget has nothing to do with revenue being low, a point that you can't realise
the tax pool has essentially shrunk, along with a host of other issues which is suppose to put a drag on it, but what we see is an increase in the tax to gdp ratio- some one even commented its growing too slowly, LOL!
I've already responded to this exact point
Revenue is high, as taxes are high. We've reached the peak(fiscal cliff)of what we can possibly tax.No you havent, you have just added your own subjective view on what you think is low. Given the increase in taxes over the last few years, revenue has not increased as expected (wrongly of course). Thus revenue is low.
Thats really all there is to that statement.
Revenue is high, as taxes are high. We've reached the peak(fiscal cliff)of what we can possibly tax.
That's not necessarily true,
Dude. It is factually true. We have the revenue collection figures. Taxes increase, but revenue decreased. We are at the maximum.
Your full reply is wrong.Well done for not reading my full reply.
Didn't they just raise VAT by 1% a year ago, introduced the super tax bracket from March 2017, as well as haven't increased the income tax brackets by inflation for the last three tax cycles.
Taxes have just been raised in almost every way possible and this dummy is acting like its something that they don't want to do or haven't just done.
Your full reply is wrong.