This Article is by Hugh Knight

Hugh is an independent person. The views expressed by him do not necessarily reflect the views of the Taxpayers’ Movement of South Africa.

18^th Century

In  Great Britain during the early 18th century, many houseowners bricked-up some of their windows, to reduce the liability for a tax which the State had imposed on houses with a defined number of windows. The tax targeted people who owned large houses that had more windows than smaller houses.

21^st Century

In the Western Cape of South Africa, the provincial vehicle taxes (known as vehicle licences) are twice as high as those in the other provinces of South Africa.

A visible result of this discrepancy is seen on the many commercial vehicles, emblazoned with Western Cape addresses, which bear licence plates of other provinces. At one time, traffic patrol cars in Beaufort West bore the licence plates of Gauteng Province.

The MEC for transport in the Western Province, Robin Carlisle, recently announced that the licence fees would not be increased for three years, so that there would be parity with other provinces.

What does this tell us ?

• That taxpayers can be quite brazen about avoiding a tax which is discriminatory.
• That there are, no doubt, many private motorists in the Western Cape whose cars bear the number plates of other provinces.( Easy when you have a relation living in another province.)

• That other provinces have a clear indication that they can increase their car licences substantially over the next three years.
• That taxes are often called some other name. (levies, charges, licences,duties etc.)

‘The country has been ruined, the peasants reduced to sleeping on straw, their furniture sold to pay taxes; so that to maintain luxury in Paris, millions of innocent persons…owing but their souls, because no means has been devised to sell these at auction’

By Akanyang Merementsi

Akanyang Merementsi in an independent blogger. The views expressed by him do not necessarily reflect the views of the Taxpayers’ Movement of South Africa. Click here for more information about Akanyang.

Eskospender would be the perfect way to describe Eskom. Even if you would never find the word in the dictionary – it says it all.

Eskopender, the protected monopoly that supplies South Africa’s electricity and which has to be bailed out by taxpayers and monstrously high price escalations, has spent R12 million on World Cup tickets.

This amount of money, which now puts into question the previous leadership of the company, could have been used for future or unforeseen wage negotiations rather than being spent by only a selected few in the company.

And frankly it does not matter whether the decision to spend it was taken back in November 2009 or not, as Mail & Guardian newspaper reported. It doesn’t matter, finish en klaar.

According to the newspaper report, apparently this – the decision to recklessly and negligently spend 12 million rand on the tickets – was taken “only four months before the end of the financial year that saw Eskom hit its biggest loss of R9, 7-billion”. Surely the loss and therefore the folly of spending money the utility did not have, must have been foreseen by the then leadership of the company. Let’s remember that it was one that was headed by Jacob Maroga who is now challenging his disputed voluntary resignation by the Eskom board last year.

After Maroga’s alleged voluntary resignation, Eskom chairman Mpho Makwana told a media briefing at Megawatt Park at Eskom headquarters that the Eskom’s “key task” was to provide “continuous secure electricity”. Makwana said: “It is also our task to help heal the organisation and to ensure that the pain some employees feel is replaced with a sense of belonging, a sense of price and team spirit.”

While clearly failing dismally at that task, Eskom is now facing a possible (if not already) strike. Just like its failure to plan for the growth in electricity demand, it has failed to plan for wage negotiations.

But this week’s comment by Ayanda Noah, Eskom’s managing director of distribution, takes the cake when he defended the R12 mil on World Cup tickets as an initiative which would “assist in building public confidence in Eskom and the system”. Seriously?

And if Eskospender could spend just 12 million rand on World Cup tickets – one understands why the unions expect their wage demands to be met.

And who’s just paying for all of this? Us taxpayers? Is it fair? You be the judge…

By Akanyang Merementsi

Akanyang Merementsi in an independent blogger. The views expressed by him do not necessarily reflect the views of the Taxpayers’ Movement of South Africa. Click here for more information about Akanyang.

Former Eskom CEO Jacob Maroga has claimed in Court papers that his disputed resignation as the utility boss was unlawful.

According to reports in the Sunday Times Maroga has claimed either R85-million for “reasonable damages” for his removal as the utility boss or his reinstatement as Eskom CEO.

The question for taxpayers is: if successful who will pay for these damages? If the courts find in his favour, it would suggest that Enterprise Minister Barbara Hogan acted negligently in confirming his resignation. The disputed resignation was further confirmed by Bobby Godsell, then Eskom board Chairperson, at the time of his resignation from the board.

The following are some of Maroga’s claims from the parastatals in the report:

R1-million a year for a “dedicated protector and driver” for Maroga, and a driver for his family
R500,000 a year for security at his Kyalami Estates, Midrand home and R100,000 for general home support;
R1-million a year for “personal assistance”
Just under R100,000 a year for a petrol and garage card and insurance for his Mercedes-Benz C350; and
R5000 a month for medical aid, up to the age of 80.

His lawyer, Vincent Maleka, told the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg this month that his client, Maroga, had not made any “written resignation letter” to the board and that the board “did not make a written resolution on its acceptance” on his resignation in October last year despite media reports that Maroga had offered to resign “orally”.

Maroga claimed at the time of the report that he was “threatened”  that failure on his part to “accept the termination of [his] contract [with Eskom]” would result in Yunus Shaik, Hogan’s lawyer, making sure that he “never work for government in any capacity again”.

In its statement Eskom said Maroga’s resignation which was accepted on October 28 last year, was “clear and unambiguous” and “was accepted”.

The strong argument in favour of Maroga is how he could have been fired or offered to resign as a result of ‘poor performance’ after having received a R2, 3 million performance bonus paid by Eskom. As his lawyer points out, someone, namely Hogan, has to explain payment of such a huge amount to a CEO who was not performing. Or as Senzo Masengemu put it: “Why the same board which approved the salary increase of the CEO would now want him out?”

In principle, if Maroga had performed dismally the poor performance should have been communicated with him and means sought on how such can be avoided in future – rather than giving him a bonus.

Therefore if the bonus paid to Maroga is unjustified and cannot be accounted for satisfactorily this would render Eskom negligent and guilty in this aspect.

If Eskom’s board, and ultimately Hogan, is found guilty of negligence it will be us taxpayers that will foot the bill either through further bailouts for Eskom or higher electricity prices. The bottom line is that taxpayers continue to pay for other people’s negligence.