Niggardly relief

The government’s defense in refusing to cut fuel taxes boils down to this: it needs the windfall earnings.

And the common reaction to this argument is: to whose fat bank accounts will our taxes go?

There must be sound economics behind the decision to hold on to what President Marcos himself has described as a windfall for the government: the higher fuel prices go, the greater the excise and value-added taxes automatically collected.

But outside economics, what the people will remember is that during crunch time, with millions suffering from the fuel crisis (yes, Mr. President, it IS a crisis), the government chose to hold on to windfall earnings and refused to provide relief to the majority of the population.

All the way to 2028, this will be etched in the memory of the millions who have struggled with the unprecedented surge in fuel prices over the past weeks, their livelihoods and routines upended and their purchasing power shrinking by the day.

Members of BBM’s economic team argue that an across-the-board tax cut would give the greatest benefit to the rich.

Instead of counting the amount of benefits accruing to that miniscule segment of the population with fleets of luxury vehicles, helicopters and private jets, shouldn’t Marcos 2.0 be counting the number of people who would get immediate, efficient relief from fuel tax cuts?

This is something that the tone-deaf bunch of billionaire dynasts running the government cannot understand. Or maybe they fully understand, but are trying to continue fooling the nation with promises of tax cuts, until the situation stabilizes sufficiently (they hope) for them to tell us: look, we no longer need to suspend or cut fuel taxes! Hallelujah!

*      *      *

In the meantime, public coffers have been so fattened by the windfall, reaped on the backbone of the suffering of the 99 percent, that the unprogrammed appropriations in this year’s national budget will now be fully funded, with more to spare.

The rapacious, incorrigible thieves in high office must be holding all-night celebrations these days, without fear of being arrested in Marcos 2.0’s war on drunks, shirtless men and late-night videoke.

The one percent of the population who would reap the largest amounts of benefits from the tax cuts would not be impoverished by the fuel crisis, and they would remain wealthy even if Brent crude hits $200 a barrel. Of course the amounts they would save in terms of the tax breaks would be enormous, compared to the few hundreds of pesos that might be saved for a full gas tank by the hampaslupa. But so what?

For the 99 percent of the population, a cut of P20 per liter of fuel could mean the capability to continue earning a decent living, or to transport to the market and sell their vegetables, many of which are now being left to rot in the fields.

The economists say targeted subsidies are better. But look at the way the subsidies are being doled out. A jeepney driver must wait in a long line, losing earnings for half or an entire day, to get P5,000 – barely enough for a full tank of diesel. Look at those poor tricycle drivers waiting in a looping line around the Quezon Memorial Circle, in 40-degree heat index, to get their P5,000.

Selection of subsidy beneficiaries is inefficient, as drivers who have been left out have complained. The nationwide rollout of the subsidies, like the government’s response, is moving at the speed of a cart or kariton.

Maybe the government is hoping that by the time all qualified beneficiaries are covered nationwide, the Middle East conflict would have been resolved, and there will be no need for the payouts, and the government can keep its enormous windfall. More happy days for the thieves!

*      *      *

BBM has fielded his economic team to do the explaining to the public, on why they can’t let go of fuel taxes. But how many people understand the intricacies of economics? And even if they don’t think it’s just gobbledygook, will they agree with the economists’ take on dealing with the energy emergency?

When I ask ordinary folks what they think of the defense of fuel taxes, they scoff that the government simply wants more public funds to steal.

They scoff even at the suspension of the excise tax that is niggardly limited to cooking gas. The price of a regular LPG tank has shot up from below P1,000 pre-Iran war to over P1,500. And we’re supposed to rejoice over the P37 price cut per tank?

The large-scale corruption scandal involving the systematic theft of public funds, in the national budget and public works projects, remains unresolved. So holding on to windfall taxes isn’t coming off like an indispensable crisis mitigation measure.

BBM won’t even call it a crisis. And hello, how about paying the P200 billion in estate taxes in this tax payment month, so there will be enough funds for targeted fuel subsidies?

Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, a Marcos 2.0 gadfly, has accused BBM’s ES or executive secretary, Ralph Recto, of blocking proposals to suspend the 12-percent expanded value-added tax on fuel.

The defense of the EVAT contributed to Recto’s loss in his Senate reelection bid in 2007. He was also the implementer and defender of the impounding of PhilHealth and PDIC funds in 2024. Medical groups also criticized his strong support for the Vape Law.

Surely BBM remembers all this. Perhaps he might realize that blame for his government’s refusal to let go of fuel taxes will fall not on his ES or his economic team, but squarely on him. All the way to 2028.