With the implementation of the Law no. 15/2015 – the Government Budget of Financial Year 2016, issued by the Chief Executive of MSAR in December 17, 2015, a series of “tax relief measures” have been introduced in order to relieve the financial pressure on Macau residents. But many have been excluded from the benefits namely, the blue card holders.
One of the most popularly addressed measures was the refund of 60 percent of the so-called “Professional tax,” that is, the salary tax paid on income derived in the year of 2014.
At the time, it was explained that this tax refund would have a ceiling of MOP12,000 and would be refunded to taxpayers who held a Macau Resident Identity Card on December 31, 2014.
Not included in these measures were all the non-resident workers that live and work in the territory. This has led to suggestions that this measure discriminates against such individuals.
The Times questioned the Financial Services Bureau (DSF) in order to verify the information. A spokesperson at the Bureau stated that the refund is “part of a government package of tax relief measures and that, in this particular case, only Macau residents are entitled to the Professional Tax Refund (60% of tax paid, capped at MOP 12,000).”
The Times asked economist José I. Duarte for his opinion on these measures.
Duarte said that “this is definitely not an economy-based decision, although to some extent, to include all of the population on the measure [tax refund] would have some economic result but I don’t think it would be of any relevance and for sure not a concern for the Macau government,” adding that the decision is “purely political and deliberately discriminatory, aiming to favor one section of society.”
Duarte concluded, “people are free to judge this [measure] as fair or unfair, but either way it can only be judged at an ethical and political level.”
In terms of the possible repercussions of the discontent in part of society, caused by this decision, Duarte remarked, “people cannot do much more than complain about it. The non-residents have a very reduced political voice or no voice at all.”
Also contacted by the Times on this topic, Dr Leanda Lee who stated: “Firstly, the differing application in refund to tax payers who happen to sit in different categories – blue card holders, temporary residents and permanent residents – creates confusion, questions, uncertainty and debate in society, particularly among the expatriate community who contribute so much.” She added that “the uncertainty creates an additional time and emotional burden on the tax office personnel who repeatedly have to explain the criteria for the 60 percent refund.”
Dr Lee recalled that “for those who are not entitled to a refund, there remains the feeling of being disenfranchised, left out, and utterly undervalued by such decisions,” also adding that since the “only differentiating factor is the ability to vote, it’s certainly not an economic decision and it sends a clear message to permanent residents and those on the other side of the divide who is welcome and who isn’t, and whose contributions are more valued.”
In terms of an organizational behavioral perspective, she stated, “if a particular organization had made a similar discriminatory decision, management should anticipate a great number of dissatisfied employees, perhaps even an industrial dispute, and a drop in job performance.” Lee’s comments agree in part with those of Duarte on the fact that the “non-resident workers don’t have an organized body to voice their grievances,” however a continuous series of similar decisions perceived to be against this work force “might be enough to change that.”
No Comments