'Murderation' of the middle class

By Garth A. Rattray

In Jamaican parlance, 'murderation' does not necessarily mean murder. It often means that something really bad is being done to someone or to a group of people; something so severe that it imposes significant suffering and threatens the existence of that person or group.

In democracies, the upper class has the wherewithal and the networking to survive relatively unscathed during hard times. Lower-class citizens are collateral victims; but the middle class is usually targeted to be burdened as income-tax generators.

The middle class is some-times defined as "the social group between the upper and working class, including professional and business people and their families". However, such a definition has lost its relevance and accuracy. Being 'middle class' may depend on your income, regardless of where you live, or it may depend on where you live, regardless of your income. It may only depend on your profession and/or occupation.

I remember seeing a television news item on a house that was (illegally) constructed on the very edge of a gully. Flood waters had severely eroded the retaining gully wall, and the scruffy-looking homeowner, clad in a merino, shredded shorts and shoddy flip-flops, was lamenting his predicament. The camera moved back to reveal his inner-city dwelling. It was a massive, three-storey edifice. Living in an inner city (lower class) community kept him under the tax radar, even though it was obvious that his financial assets made him middle class.

Governments always burden the middle class with the responsibility to generate the bulk of the tax revenue needed to sustain the economy. The lower class is also called the 'working' class and is spared this responsibility. Am I not also 'working class'? Whatever money I still have left cannot work for me; I have to work for my money.

I find it strange that government tax-revenue policies appear to turn a blind eye to tradesmen and women, even though they posses phenomenal earning potential. I do not begrudge them, but a recent Gleaner Letter of the Day ('Target tax-cheat docs'), from an obviously angry returning resident who generalised his experience with some doctors, was very unfair and rubbed me the wrong way.

tradesmen earnings

The powers that be seem to believe that tradesmen and women only earn paltry sums of money once in a while. They believe that it would, therefore, be unfair to ask these citizens to contribute income tax from their earnings. Forgive my sarcasm when I remark that, obviously, no one in the Government has ever had any direct dealings with a tradesman or woman. Obviously, they do not realise just how astronomical 'labour' costs are nowadays.

Hire a mason, carpenter, plumber, woodworker, elec-trician, painter, welder, roofer, tiler, 'steel man' or even a 'common labourer' to do something for you and see what happens to your bank account. You will realise that a middle-class education and earning power pale into insignificance the moment you are handed the first bill.

Some tradesmen and women have overlapping projects or move from one project to another, and some have variable hiatuses between jobs. However, in many instances, the revenue earned during periods of plenty suffices during periods of drought. The vast majority of these citizens pay nothing at all in income taxes.

I am not suggesting that the tradesmen and women be heavily taxed, but they often earn far more than a typical middle-class income. They can - and should - pay something. They should be registered according to their profession. That way, they can pay an annual registration fee, be regulated and easily tracked. Many hundreds of millions in potential revenue are not being collected because tradesmen and women are all erroneously assumed to be 'working-class sufferers'. And so the 'murderation' of the middle class continues.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.