There’s no need to decry the minimal VAT increase
TRANSFORMATION is indeed a thorny issue, as Land Bank chief executive TP Nchoncho confirms in “Land Bank’s Nchoncho decries slow transformation” (Business Report, February 28).
But we’re convinced that through a collaborative, inclusive approach on the part of all role-players, sustained transformation and overall economic progress in agriculture are possible.
President Ramaphosa’s “transitional cabinet” – although not without controversy – has strengthened the wave of hope that has swept over the nation since the recent Sona and Budget.
And we’re among the many South Africans welcoming the promises of a decisive growth vision from the government, as well as a new trajectory.
This belief is supported by undertakings in the Budget to reprioritise an estimated R581.7 million for the black producer commercialisation programme.
Also, to create and support 450 sustainable and profitable black commercial producers who are participants in prioritised value chains, over a five-year period.
With agriculture having been a key driver in our gross domestic product growth for two consecutive quarters last year, we in the citrus industry are determined to continue to contribute positively to collective growth in the sector.
We have more than 124 black citrus producers, nearly half of whom have been exporting for over 25 years. As active economic contributors, they need all the support they can get.
Therefore, we find Nchoncho’s clear vision of transformation commendable, and we certainly relate to the challenges that come with driving the process effectively.
In fact, for us, partnering with the Land Bank can only further boost our efforts to continue to support our black citrus producers.
But we have to bear the big picture in mind as we navigate through the challenges that come with driving the country’s transformation.
We continue to seek ways to strengthen ties with the government, to ensure that our black producers in particular continue to receive the support they need to grow their stake in this bustling industry.
The past few weeks have again revealed South Africans’ capacity for hope. But we’re under no illusion that in order to enjoy collective growth, we’re going to have to do more than that – we must pull the critical parts together. It’s the only way forward. LUKHANYO NKOMBISA under the extension for people living in rural and peri-urban land that they do not own.
Persons earning an income of R13 625 a month, and who live in rural and periurban land that they do not own, will now qualify for protection under the Esta legislation.
The previous qualifying income was R5 000 per month.
The Extension of Security of Tenure Act of 1997 regulates the relationship between the people who live on land they do not own, but with the consent (express or tacit) of the owner or person in charge of the farm.
The act places substantive rights and responsibilities on both parties, sets out processes of eviction and, more importantly, provides instruments to enable the government to provide long-term security of tenure to those who live on farms and peri-urban land that they do not own.
Esta only applies and protects people defined as “occupiers”, and those people who live on land which belongs to another person and who have consent of the owner or person in charge, or another right in law to do so.
Excluded from being an occupier are those people who use the land for industrial, mining, or commercial farming purposes, and those who have an income in excess of the prescribed amount.
The amount is prescribed by the minister of rural development and land reform through regulations.
An estimated 3 million people who live on farms that they do not own are among the poorest and most vulnerable in South Africa.
Their land tenure, more often than not, is insecure and they mostly do not have access to basic services provided by the government, because of their geographical isolation, and in some instances because the owners of the land they reside on refuse to consent to the government providing them with services. TSHEPO DIALE THE INCREASE of 1 percentage point in the rate of value added tax (VAT) to 15 percent amounts to R1 in every R100, and if the effects of zero-rated food items are taken into account, the effect is probably reduced to approximately R1 in R125.
This R1 increase can quite easily be recovered by shoppers being prepared to taking along their own plastic or shopping bags or by cutting back on lottery tickets and smoking, drugs and alcohol.
It is regrettable that Mmusi Maimane, who made a statement that the DA was prepared to work together with President Ramaphosa, has categorically stated that the increase in VAT will adversely affect the poor.
If anything I would have thought that the VAT rate should have been increased by at least 2 percentage points, as this would have contributed to balancing the revenue shortfall.
This would not have been out of line with other African and European countries. LEN WALKER