.Pot Calling Kettle Black
Finance Minister Continues Fake News on Property Tax
When at least 2 daily newspapers accurately reported on Finance Minister Imbert’s responses to questions on the taxing of dog houses, fowl coups, duck pens, gazeebos, temples prosed by the Leader of the Opposition, Imbert had the Ministry issue an immediate denial and charges of ‘fake news’. (Read the Ministry’s Release at https://www.finance.gov.tt/media-release-property-owners-do-not-have-to-pay-for-fowl-coops-duck-ponds-or-dog-houses/).
The Release was titled MEDIA RELEASE - PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR FOWL COOPS, DUCK PONDS OR DOG HOUSES.
The Release itself turns out to be really FAKE NEWS.
The Fact is that property owners DO HAVE TO PAY Property Tax for ANY STRUCTURES on their premises.
How? Because every separate structure on their parcel of land will be included in the valuation of their ‘property’ to arrive at the Annual Rental Value that is used to decide the amount of Property Tax to be paid.
His Release confirmed that, saying “The Minister of Finance simply responded to the query from the Leader of Opposition by clarifying that properties would be valued based on the value of the raw land associated with the property, plus the value of any buildings thereon.”.
It emphasized , “ The Minister also clarified that the minimum annual rental value in the Bill….. would not be imposed for each of the items mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, but rather ….. the property would be valued in its totality.’
In other words, the dog house, fowl coop and duck pond WILL HAVE TO BE PAID FOR AS PART OF THE TOTALITY OF THE PROPERTY TO BE VALUED!
So if we do not have to pay for each structure valued separately. But, we have to pay for each valued as part of the total value, somehow mystically we are not paying for them? Really, Mr. Imbert?!
When he fired off his ‘fake news’ release the next day (Tuesday) perhaps he forgot that although the Hansard written record of his statements was not immediately available the video record of every word he said in Parliament was.
From the Parliament website the Parliament Channel video is almost immediately available.
Anyone can go to http://parlview.ttparliament.org/xrender/ and look at the May 28 debate.
Well, well. This is just another episode in which in his eagerness to impose this property tax the Finance Minister has not been ‘completely accurate’ in his information about the Tax.
In the very Release, another instance of his misleading statements is included.
“The Minister also clarified that the minimum annual rental value in the Bill, of $18,000 per year, which would result in a property tax of $40 per month…”. This is what his Release says.
In speaking, he went on to explain that if the value of the dog house etc. is small, a couple thousand dollars or there are no structures at all and the total annual rental value of the property is less than $18,000, the property will be valued at $18,000.
Using the formula in the Act, the Property Tax based on that minimum value is:
Assumed Rent (AR)   Annual Rental Value (ARV)   Annual Taxable Value (ATV)   Tax Rate (TR)   Property Tax
  $X per month                   (AR x 12)                                   (90% of ARV)                 DOMESTIC         TR% of ATV
   $1,500.00                     $18,000.00                                $16,200.00                            3%                 $486.00
 
The Property Tax is an ANNUAL TAX (see sections 31, 32, 33) and is NOT calculated per month nor is it payable MONTHLY or by monthly instalments.
But, the Minister continues to try and disguise the amount of the Property Tax by talking about ‘a property tax of $40 per month”.
This Property Tax on a ‘bare piece of land’, as he puts it, with a minimum valuation of $18,000 will be $486 per Year.
The Lands & Building Tax a property owner with a bare piece of residential land was $10.
So, by keeping referring to a monthly tax of so-and-so which doesn’t exist, the Finance Minister tries to hide the Fact that the minimum increase in Tax by the change to Property Tax $486 – 10 = $476 or 47.6 times the minimum Tax paid in 2009.
The difference in Tax paid for a Residential property in 2009 and what will be paid whenever the Property Tax finally has to be paid will be much more. For example, L&B Tax paid in 2009 on a 3-bedroom house was less than $100 and at a rental value of $4500 per month or annual rental value of $54,000 the Property Tax will be $1,458.
The Finance Minister needs to be totally honest with property owners and the population as a whole about this Property Tax.
We have no need for his Fake News.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
May 30, 2018

Judge Calls for Campaign Finance Rules:
                                        What Campaign Finance Rules Do We Want
On May 15, a High Court Judge order a former Government Minister and senior party official to repay $1.5M to a prominent businessman and party financier. The senior party official claimed that the money was a donation for the purpose financing the party’s 2007 General Election campaign.
Going further, the Judge called for the ‘veil of secrecy and anonymity” to be “removed and there should be full disclosure of financial contributors, with caps placed on the amounts which can be received by a political party from individuals, companies or institutions”.
He said further that the “entrenched public perception” was that “elected officers can be sold to the highest bidder and that campaign contributions are the functional equivalent of bribes which ensure that favourable treatment” to financiers by Government.
The Judge suggested that the” …absence of campaign finance regulations (had) led to a culture of kickbacks and corruption.”.  He called for “election campaign finance reform” to be effected as matter of urgency”.
Call For Campaign Finance Regulation Not New
The call for campaign finance rules is not new.
Over the years, several citizens, political commentators and transparency advocates have demanded disclosure and regulation of political party financing and election campaign financing.
Some political parties made election promises to implement political and electoral financing regulation and the COP organised a public symposium on the issue.
The Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), with assistance from Elections Canada, started discussions with all political parties to develop a system for Registration of Political Parties and Party and Campaign Financing Rules.  
A Joint Select Committee of Parliament examined and produced a report with suggestions for introducing such regulation after examining similar rules in Latin American countries.
The present Party-in-Power also made promises that it would introduce campaign finance regulations.
A lot of talk about party financiers and corruption benefitting them has been bandied about on the political platforms and even in Parliament. Lots of threats of locking up politicians and financiers for corruption have been trumpeted by one regime and the next.
But, regulation of the financing of political parties and their campaigns remains only talk, with no action.
 Current Political Finance Rules
In the laws of Trinidad and Tobago, the only references to political financing are to be found in the Representation of the People Act, Ch. 3:01 (ROPA) and the Trade Union Act, Ch88:02 (TUA).
Under the ROPA, political parties are not even registered legal organisations. Parties have no legal or corporate status. All they are required, by this law to do, is to register a symbol.
The only provisions of this law, the country’s Electoral Law (section 52), is a requirement for a candidate in any election (General or Local) to file a Return (Statement) of Election Expenses after the election.
The candidate must account for the receipt and spending of up to $50,000 on his election campaign.
But, the political party can receive and spend millions of dollars on the same election campaign in which each candidate is to account for only monies raised and spent by them personally.
Under the TUA (section 33), trade unions are allowed to collect and spend money for “certain political purposes” i.e.

1. Payment of expenses of a candidate in any election
2. Holding meetings or distributing literature of a candidate
3. Registration of voters for any election
4. Holding political meetings or distribution of political documents of any kind permitted by the Act.

. The trade union must establish a political fund for this purpose under provisions of its constitution and rules. No worker is to be denied trade union representation or membership if he/she does not contribute to the political fund.
This is the extent of the current law regarding party and campaign financing.
There is NO requirement for any political party to disclose Who is financing it and its Campaigns and How Much it receives, or any financier contributes. No political party is required to disclose How Much it spends.
Political Financing Rules Do Not Necessarily Stop Corruption
In many countries where political finance regulation exists, there are different kinds of rules.
In some, reporting of sources of financing and expenditure is required. But, there are No Limitations on Contributions or Spending.
In others, there are Limits on both contributions and spending. However, the contribution limits may only be Minimum Limits for reporting purposes i.e. only contributions above a specified amount are to be accounted for.
In the USA, for example, the existence of Campaign Financing Rules does not prevent big business interests from financing parties and candidates to the tune of Billions of dollars or financing Campaign advertisements.
IN 2014, it was reported that more than $4 Billion was raised and spend in mid-term elections, doubling the $2 Billion spend in the 2012 Presidential Election. Campaign financing came from Energy Corporations (78%), Wall Street and Hi-Tech giants.
The spending on the 2016 Presidential Election exceeded the 2014 spending.
The recent Cambridge Analytical exposure also revealed the millions of dollars spent by political parties in the Caribbean and elsewhere on election campaigns and to Election Campaign Strategists and Advisors and companies to try and manipulate voters.
The recent revelations about Cambridge Analytica activity right here in the Caribbean show that corruption and promises of corrupt benefits are a part of these election campaigns and the activities of these so-called strategists.
The existence of political financing regulation does not, by itself, prevent corruption in politics.
And, even where regulation exists, if political parties have no legal personality (as in our present electoral system) only individuals (not the parties) can be prosecuted for corruption.
Finance the Process, Not the Parties and Candidates
There is another approach.
Instead of regulating the financing of political parties, which still allows financiers and particularly big business interests to influence the policies of parties and governments, one way of reducing the influence of money in the electoral process is to Finance the Process, Not the Parties and Candidates.
For the electoral process to reflect the will of the Majority and not the Will of the moneyed Minority is to uphold the Right of the Electors to an Informed Vote; not a vote manipulated by big money campaign ads and voter manipulation by Election Industrialists like Cambridge Analytica.
To ensure an Informed Vote, equal media time for all candidates, mass availability of manifestos and candidate profiles and programmes and opportunities for electors to assess candidates in Town Hall meetings, etc. must be facilitated.
No political party or candidate must have an advantage based on its ability to raise more money than others.
All these opportunities if they are financed by the Election Authorities can be provided to ensure information is available to the electors and there is no unfair advantage to any party or candidate.
If the money advantages are removed, then electors Right to Elect and to be Elected can be guaranteed. At present, because of the spending of big money in elections, small parties and independent candidates are kept out of elections or at a disadvantage.
Funding the Process will ensure that elections are free and fair, as the opportunities for participation are available to all who wish to participate. The monopoly of so-called big or major parties will be broken.
Funding the Process will ensure that electors can better choose representatives whose objective is really to represent the interests of the electors and not their own self-interest or the narrow interest of special interests and financiers.
What this decision by the Judge reminds us of is the very poor state of our Electoral and Political Processes and the urgent Need to Renew these Process in the direction of ensuring that Trinbagonians can directly decide matter that concern them and affect their lives.
There is no other way to ensure that the citizens can participate in governance and Democracy is strengthened.  

Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting For
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society
19 May 2018

Mayor Reveals Why Politicians Like Him
Cannot Represent the People
 Yesterday, the Mayor of Port of Spain engaged in an extensive interview as the vendors returned to Charlotte Street, following the failure of the effort of his POS Corporation to coerce or fool the vendors to a new location, WITHOUT Consultation or Agreement.
It was incredulous to hear a man who is supposed to head a ‘representative’ body that is supposed to act on behalf of the burgesses (citizens) of the city, admit that literally he and his Corporation “took the opportunity” to force the vendors into a space ‘that was not prepared’.
Under the guise of conducting an improvement exercise on Charlotte Street, the Mayor admits the Corporation tried to put the vendors in the old Angostura location which was a decision of the Corporation made with NO input from or involvement of the vendors themselves.
He then bemoaned the fact that their plan was derailed because the vendors stood up against the high-handed and deceitful tactics of the Corporation.
But he would not bring himself to admit that it was the vendors’ resistance that blocked them.
Instead, he claimed the situation ‘became political’. How?
An opposition Senator, ‘either approached the vendors or they approached him’, the Mayor claims.
He went on and the “Senator issued a pre-action protocol letter” and the Corporation was forced to talk with the vendors for the first time.
How ludicrous, this failed representative is. NO Senator, as Senator, CAN issue Legal Pre-action Protocol Letters. That is what Lawyers do, not Politicians.
But, it suits the Mayor’s purpose to claim that legal representation on behalf of the vendors was made the situation ‘political’.
Imagine the appointed head of a political representative body describing legal action as ‘politics’.
The failure of the Mayor and Corporation to engage in consultation with citizens in making their unilateral decision which affects those citizens is politics.
It is the politics of a ‘representative’ system which DOES NOT represent the electors who are affected by its decisions.
It is the politics of a ‘representative’ systems that EXCLUDES the electors from any Role in the Decision-Making Process, and, RESTRICTS the role of the citizens to Nothing more than spending a few minutes in a voting booth.
 The Mayor, who is appointed by his political party and did not even face the polls, claims that he has a ‘mandate’ and a ‘programme’ to carry out in the 3-year term of the Corporation.
What mandate does he have from the burgesses of Port of Spain?
His programme is the programme of his party on behalf of special interests within the City.
It certainly a mandate or programme in which the vendors were even part of discussing. It is a mandate and programme unilaterally decided by his party and the Corporation in the interest of private interests, not the Public Interest.
The Mayor again exposed why politicians like him and a NON-Representative System like the current Parliamentary and Local Government arrangements Do NOT and CANNOT represent the People.
What is needed is to Re-organise the Governance arrangements so that the Electors and Citizens are Truly involved in the Decision-Making Process and Exercise Control over the Elected, not the other way around as it exists.
This ‘Representative’ system ONLY represents special interests and not the interest of the body politic as a whole.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting For
The Democratic Renewal
of Our Society.
 
18 May 2018