The crux of Dr. Ekua Amoakoh’s critique centers on the perceived inconsistency between the NDC government’s pre-election promises and its post-election fiscal policies. She argues that Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson explicitly stated during his vetting process that he would not resort to taxation as a primary means of revenue generation. However, according to Dr. Amoakoh, the NDC administration has since implemented six new taxes, directly contradicting the Minister’s earlier assurance. This perceived breach of trust forms the foundation of her criticism, painting a picture of a government that has reneged on its commitments to the electorate.
One specific instance highlighted by Dr. Amoakoh is the government’s handling of insurance taxes. She points out that the NDC scrapped a tax on motor insurance, a tax she claims was never actually implemented under the previous NPP administration. Following this repeal, the NDC then introduced a new 21.9% tax on non-life insurance policies. This sequence of events, in Dr. Amoakoh’s view, exemplifies the government’s contradictory approach to taxation, seemingly replacing one inactive tax with a significantly higher one. This action further reinforces her argument about the government’s deviation from its initial promise to avoid tax increases.
Dr. Amoakoh expresses deep concern about the potential trajectory of the newly imposed 21.9% tax on non-life insurance. She speculates that, given the current trend, this tax could escalate to as high as 60% by the end of the NDC’s four-year term. This projected increase, she contends, is not only “crazy” but also unsustainable and detrimental to the Ghanaian economy. She contrasts this approach with what she considers a more responsible strategy, where a “listening government” would introduce taxes at a lower rate and gradually increase them over time, allowing for adjustments and minimizing economic shock. The current government’s actions, in her view, demonstrate a lack of fiscal prudence and disregard for the potential long-term consequences.
Adding to the list of concerning developments, Dr. Amoakoh reveals the anticipated reintroduction of the previously suspended Dumsor levy around July 16th. This levy, originally intended to address the country’s power crisis, was suspended earlier. Its imminent reinstatement, she argues, further burdens the Ghanaian populace and diminishes any potential positive outcomes of the current administration. The cumulative effect of these tax increases, according to Dr. Amoakoh, leaves little room for celebration and paints a bleak picture of the government’s economic management.
The core of Dr. Amoakoh’s argument rests on the principle of accountability and the importance of government transparency. She emphasizes the need for elected officials to uphold their pre-election promises, particularly concerning critical issues like taxation. The perceived discrepancy between the NDC’s stated intentions and its subsequent actions, as outlined by Dr. Amoakoh, raises questions about the government’s credibility and its commitment to fiscal responsibility. Her concerns about the potential escalation of the non-life insurance tax and the reintroduction of the Dumsor levy underscore the broader implications of these policy decisions for the Ghanaian economy and its citizens.
Ultimately, Dr. Amoakoh’s critique serves as a call for greater transparency and accountability from the NDC government. She urges the administration to reconsider its current tax policies, emphasizing the potential for long-term economic harm and the erosion of public trust. Her analysis highlights the importance of aligning government actions with pre-election promises, particularly in areas that directly impact the financial well-being of the citizenry. Her concerns about the potential trajectory of these taxes and the overall economic impact underscore the need for a more cautious and considered approach to fiscal policy.
