determined to solve it. I think the latter.
In a country where only the salaried citizenry pay their due share of taxes, the most effective way to raise money for development is via use tax on products. A near 50% subsidy on fuel cannot be justified in a country where the roads are full of life-threatening pot-holes, the schools are ill-equipped, and the hospitals are mere consulting clinics. It seems more appropriate to me that money be made available to the Government for development for the common good, rather than dispersed in the form of subsidy, which the top 5% of the population, who consume over 90% of the fuel, do not really need. To make matters worse, it is common knowledge that the subsidized fuel is transported to the neighbouring countries and sold at high profits, to the great disadvantage of Nigerians. If removing the fuel subsidy will make more money available for development, ensuring maintenance of law and order, and provision of much needed jobs for our youth, and peace and security, then I am all for it.
Therein lies the crux of the matter: whether the money saved from removal of the subsidy will be used for the betterment of the people, rather than go the way of the legendary "2.8 billion." But despite the skepticism, the government has no way of managing the funds, if the money is not made available in the first instance. I visit Nigeria a lot, and I do not like what I see, especially in the last three years, as the social structures disintegrate and life becomes increasingly unsafe. If President Jonathan believes that removal of fuel subsidy will turn things around, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The boat of the country is listing perilously, and if more funds available to the government will right the ship, I will support the President and give him a chance.
Posted: at | |