Labour MP Joe Sammut said the “anti-social” eco-tax will directly affect entrepreneurs and the self-employed by reducing their competitiveness.
He said that instead of reducing the burden on SMEs, it is adding to it by introducing new taxes. To increase competitiveness, entrepreneurs must be helped instead of being taxed further.
The name of this bill suggests its main aim is to protect the environment, but this must not involve taxation. This tax will have a direct effect on the economy, said Mr Sammut. More attention must be given to the protection of the environment, but this is not the answer.
He said education should play a vital role in the safeguarding of the environment. Young children’s time in school should not be wasted, especially when they could be taught to respect the environment.
If this tax was a contribution, as government claims, people should somehow be encouraged to choose eco-friendly products. The tax does not give the consumer any incentive to safeguard the environment. Not only will the price of items on the list be raised, he said, but businessmen will also have to compensate for the administrative costs of the tax’s implementation.
Mr Sammut said that although something like a soft-drink bottle will be used several times, the consumer will still pay the tax every time he buys a drink. This is because on importation, the tax will have been paid already and even though the bottle is reused, the increased price will not change.
In her address, Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro echoed other Labour speakers in saying that this eco-contribution is nothing more than a tax imposed by the government to hide its extravagant expenditure and make people shoulder the economic burden it itself helped bring about.
With the introduction of this tax, the lower levels of society will not manage to make ends meet and address their most basic needs. The government has tricked the Maltese people.
The Opposition believes in the polluter pays principle, but the introduction of the eco-tax is not tied in with this principle. The government failed to carry out studies that will pave the way for the implementation of the eco-tax.
The bill never mentions education, which is the foundation for environmental awareness and therefore should have been addressed.
An environmental tax should address a particular type of pollution, said Ms Coleiro. Multiple goals can actually result in a negative impact on the environment.
The German report also said the introduction of environmental taxes should be compensated for by the reduction of other taxes. The Maltese people are already over-taxed and the implementation of the eco-tax will simply add to the burden. The only thing government is interested in is collecting the Lm4 million that will probably end up drowned in government finances.
The bill mentions some people may eventually be exempt from paying eco-tax, said Ms Coleiro. How can we be sure that the appeals board that finally decides who is exempt will not be biased? Since the board will be appointed by the minister, there is a good chance it will already be waving the government’s flag.