The Three to four ‘branches’ of Taxes and the New Needed Boundaries
Many of you are very familiar with the term ‘the three branches of government’, which some people wrongly claim as ‘equal branches’, but certainly not equal in power. When you have a conflict between Theory and practical, how do you adjust? Well, our primary discussion is about taxes, but a secondary link to the so-called branches of government exists. The world of taxes should concern every citizen, but people are poorly educated about taxes, from the school level to the media level of re-education and time sensitive updating. Sometimes we are forced to speak the language of the people, like using the term ‘branches’, but the government is not stagnant like a tree, instead it is like a ship, land or air vehicle. So major ‘aspects’ make a lot more sense than ‘branches’. In the world of taxes, you have the tax rate setting ‘branch or aspect’, tax collecting branch, and tax spending branch with sub branches. Again, people wrongly claim the media as the fourth branch of government and we are at times ‘forced’ to use the term for understanding reasons, but the media is actually like a good or bad bridge between the people and government. If the fourth branch exists in government or taxes, it is the people, who are often miseducated to understand their powers, rights and responsibilities.
Tax rate Settings: Arguably the most important aspect of taxes, it is largely under-discussed. First, we must briefly talk about the different types of taxes: income tax, sales tax, property tax, tariff or custom tax, etc. Fees tend to be for services, but are in some ways a form of tax. In many countries, you can easily name the head of taxes or revenue collector, but how many of us even know the department and ‘director’ responsible for tax rate settings? It shows how ignorant many of us are, or how dangerously secretive governments are.
When the tax rates are not reasonable, it affects everything else, and this is why I call it ‘arguably the most important aspect of taxes’. Different countries approach it differently, but it is often primarily under the executive branch and often under the ministry of Finance. Who and how are tax rates set? You can claim the president dictates it through who s/he appoints to head which actual department? You can claim a secret committee discusses the most important aspect of taxes and who can challenge off-rates in which manners? Without law based boundaries on every single type of taxes, your legislative and executive branches are almost useless. Your media folks learn along through events, because the courses hardly exist and the loopholes in government are like an evolutionary battle. So it is usually an ordinary person who must educate the journalists, then the journalists may re-educate the public and politicians for actions.
These facts mean far more than knowing where each political party stands on few taxes, but setting the boundaries through law. When you have a law that states all income taxes cannot be lower than 5% or greater than 25%, then you can listen to what is tax break and the different types of tax breaks in largely questionable trickle down theory. Personally, the only tax break I believe in is for ‘education for all and higher education’ funding. Of course, if we have to discuss each tax type, then expect a book on just tax rate settings? So I left the debate for journalists and politicians to carry on why boundaries matter in every type of tax.
Tax Collecting Department: This is the department or branch that seems to interest politicians most. We are often bombarded with messages about the importance of paying taxes. Well, we cannot dismiss the importance of a major branch, but I consider it the least important and often least effective in theory versus practice. However, due to technology, this is a department that can garner enormous new powers and can be dangerously applied against all or selected opponents of sitting governments and activists. In the Gambia, the Gambia Revenue [collecting] Authority (GRA) is very misleading even from the name. They are only responsible for collecting. They can suggest tax rates, but the ministry of Finance can ignore such suggestions. I think me and you should be suggesting the rates, unless the lawmakers have boundaries, then what is suggesting versus boundaries, versus settings, then collecting becomes easy or a battle?
Reasonable tax rates make decent people happily pay taxes and technology can now go after the defiant. Before technology, they argued people will not gladly pay taxes even when reasonable, so they make many unreasonable taxes, which is just a recipe for corruption. The corrupt business folks will never sponsor my type or the lawmakers who stand for reasonable rates, they just bribe the corrupt officials to outperform the varyingly ‘honest’ tax paying business folks. It also means we scare away the honest tax payers from investing. Again, since the department is just responsible for collection of just and unjust rates, then which ‘Jesus’ will speak up versus dine with tax collectors? For those who have not read the bible, Jesus was once accused of ‘eating with [bad] tax collectors…’ Wow! Tax collecting existed before the Quhr-aahn was revealed, before Jesus was born, but why were they hated or seen as evil more than tax rate setters and tax spending or mis-spending folks? In which year tax collecting started in the Gambia versus your country, how much were the rates per decade, between the rich and the poor?
Few years ago, Banjul Breweries and GRA were in social media and even mainstream media fights… Considering GRA did not set the tax rates, why were Gambians and even journalists blaming or allowing the blaming of GRA without rectification? Ignorance.
Although I am a big fan of technology and understand the importance of paying taxes, I am almost reluctant to suggest how governments will eventually use technology to collect a lot more taxes.
In the u.s, they tend to break them apart: Internal Revenue Services (IRS) hires countless people but still under collect, especially from businesses. Ordinary People pay or overpay taxes in u.s , but businesses and rich folks under pay and enjoy too many tax breaks.
Again, the boundaries should demand no tax breaks to any person or company worth over two million dollars, except when donating to universities… of course, such numbers may change per country or era.
Tax Spending or Mis-Spending: Again, it clearly shows the executive is way more powerful than other branches of government on taxes and beyond. Who gets to decide how our tax dollars are spent? It is largely the executive, but we can enact new boundaries. Once we agree we will always need knowledge or knowledgeable people to develop, then a form of quota should be set for education for all and affordable higher education. I have repeatedly called for worldwide mandatory education up to age 18 or 20, but since this will help the poorest, it is not going to be popular among the cruel and indifferent, beyond politicians. It is not true that your country does not owe you anything, or as Kennedy wrongly claimed ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’ I understand the spirit of altruism, but reality matters. We have seen how super negligent leaders like president Jawara of the Gambia were snail-paced on education for all Gambians and were echoing that questionable quote. Even Kennedy was a coward in trying to free blacks in America, ignoring black rights and may call them to come ‘die for your country…’? my love and services are way beyond country, I do for the world and the world is hardly grateful, but God or love keeps me afloat.
Myself and many people may not prefer high spending on military, but we must all be reminded tolerance. Higher than tolerance is learning, so poor countries+ should have laws that state at least 25% of all collected revenue should go to education and award based achievements until clear targets are met. Availability and affordability, then enforcement and avoid buying excuses. First make the schools available in every walking distance, affordable to even laborers, then jail the about one to five percent of parents who dare deny children education or greater than ‘child-support’… Beside parents, a smaller percentage of teenagers may resist if it becomes law, then pack such in hard learning camps or ignore them against society to later jail them for crimes?
Like people, the government must have short and long term plans or strategies. Since politicians tend to love a lot less, they hardly have long term and universal strategies. President Barrow is wrongly over-focusing on infrastructure, but he does not understand how a smart investment on higher learning, R&D, plus merit based awards can give the Gambia+ all and better than infrastructure in his limited mind. We can try convincing him and gambling on the next leader, but once the boundaries and quotas are clear, He will have options, but limited options. Beside stating about 25% of collected taxes to education until we meet xyz targets, we can even demand 5% per area like educational infrastructure, 5% on R&D, 5% on equipment, etc to reduce over paying few people. Honestly speaking, technology may reduce the need for many professors and I think access to education matters more than protecting many types of ‘jobs’.
Again, affordability is a very hot debatable topic. On all needs, we must gauge how a teacher or laborer can afford what and what, then government to use which means to help the rest? The word ‘free’ does not exist on man made products or services, so I am not opposed to even paid education, depending on the country and level of evolution. Government can also say ‘free’ basic education on the first three children and charge reasonable thereafter. Since all or most governments are heading to ‘free’ basic education, it will be politically hard to try to charge fees for basic education. I also believe money should not be a barrier to higher education, meaning the government should loan where need be. Parents have the primary responsibility, but the government has the secondary responsibility, even if it means loaning the child and jailing the parent(s). Technology also means we should try ‘challenge exams’ a lot more, to encourage private studies and certifying folks who pass rigorous tests. You should be able to challenge ‘harvard’ exams through a special name and be respected if you pass more than the rich Harvard drop-outs who still hire all kinds of people. All media houses should study the limited ‘challenge exams’ in the u.s and how we can start new ones in and beyond the U.S. It is good for Seventeen year olds to use challenge exams to be PhD holders, but also for the forty to sixty year olds to study at own pace and use ‘challenge exams’ under cameras to earn certificates and degrees… Reasonable fees on such exams matter, or the over-commercialization of education+ will gamble the Trump university graduates towards Judges where time matters more than compensation that may not exist in some countries… ‘Challenge Exams’ in every field should be your editorial or happy hour, because even Mark Zucherberk of Meta admits some universities are ill preparing people and over-charging along the way.
If we study how Trump is denying billions to Harvard, it reveals not just how weak the laws are, but how much harder Judges must use conscience to enact new laws. It also reveals an intolerable discrepancy of billions to few universities versus millions to others, and some neighborhoods have no universities? If the u.s or Gambia government is giving billions to Harvard or xyz, then technology and law should mean letting the poor taxpayers access all tax funded classes from a distance and take an annual exam with or without the Harvard or xyz name. Beside the certificate, it may translate to countless inventions if teacher differences exist, even where thinking can compete with tolerable differences in access to equipment. I mean the Harvard student may access a million dollar equipment, but a NC State student can use the Harvard professor and Duke university professor and hundred thousand dollar equipment to invent something the world will benefit from.
Whereas tax funding to education can go up, tax breaks in the world of work should go down, except when donating to universities. It makes no sense for billionaires like Elon Musk to be making billions from our taxes or loans against our unborn children. Governments must uplift the poor or we deserve wars or divine destruction… We can always come up with excuses to finance the richest folks, but contracts are enough. Grants and tax breaks to the rich must stop. We had governments for the oligarchs before the governments by the oligarchs?
The Fourth Branch or the Public: The public is not just responsible for electing the two branches, but also indirectly the judiciary. It is rather unfortunate that the public hardly uses new powers like the government. For example, the public should heavily invest in cameras more than the government. We should all own body cameras to learn, educate, prevent and solve crimes… Although I am not a big fan of physical protests, in some instances, protests can actually be more powerful than the military and congress (lawmakers) in effecting changes. You will first need facts, evidence, and reasonable demands, but the public can abuse powers like protest just like the executive abuses powers at times…
Again, a highly educated public will help in bridging differences. If the tax rates are reasonable, what amount of ‘waste’ will you consider tolerable, or deserve waiting until elections? Well, protests are not always about wealth, but can be about health or character. Again, we can agree the judiciary is best suited to challenge the executive, but how about where the judiciary is ignored or even attacked? The media can play a little crucial role, but only a brave public (fourth branch) can come to the rescue at what risk? The politicians claim they risk their lives, the military claim similar, so what percentage of the public can risk their lives over what or deserve to be what level of victims? In some countries, the military will never shoot at the public, but how can we educate and protect the military? New laws.
The public must study events and demand laws, even if it means new lawmakers. If Trump or xyz demands invading Panama or Greenland, how many Generals may agree may depend on how we enact new protective laws. A law that clearly states a general can have conscientious objection and relay it to congress+ will mean stopping an invasion before it starts… Once it starts, congress or judges have limited powers, but the public will always have other limited powers. Second needed law: A general should not only resist certain orders and notify the public+, but should be legally protected in trying to end a massacre of civilians if it reaches what numbers or which evidence is gathered? We know or heard Trump suggested ‘shooting protesters in the legs…’, but suppose one General agrees and one hundred people die under camera, can a general or body guard arrest or kill the president and be protected? If no such protective laws exist, then only a coup can give good generals protection? The public+ should never over demand or quickly resort to protest, but the public must demand protection from and for the generals+ that risk their lives.
I do not agree with Doge in methods, but I do believe government costs are too high. We must use technology and part-time altruism to ascertain the cost of government salaries never surpasses 25% of collected taxes. Feel free to debate based on past realities, but I am talking about the present and future. Government buildings should be largely hemp, and many government employees can be part-time sacrifice under cameras… Restoring trust to the government demands much more than the past and countless classified documents without boundaries. Capitalism must be revisited with new regulations to concur with showlove Trinity — where who-so-ever is ready to learn and work does not suffer financially.
To summarize, what new powers should people demand and give to other branches of government? If you live in an import leaning country like the Gambia, how will you leap or step up to make what percentage of needed products and services? What new systems and laws must be enacted towards Justice for all. How many of my points you agree with and where will you suggest better, not just dismiss my suggestions. May God bless me and every Godly soul, may God bless Showlove Trinity: Let’s learn, let’s work, let’s have fun.
By Jarga kebba Gigo
An Activist and Transformer
Author of Juts Quhr-aahn
Optional notes: The difference between ‘haves and have nots’ often start with ‘know and know not’. Humankind has a very questionable evolution, we had parents who had children for work and sometimes were reluctant to even work enough for the education of such children. Although many parents are evolving, millions of children are in that sad reality and only the guilty are indifferent to such. Government is another ‘parent’ that sometimes neglects the children and still wants to benefit from the children. We need reasonable differences on wealth and technology with regulations that can help the people beyond basic needs. Some hold the opinion that making life easier will lead to overpopulation, but I think hardship and lack of knowledge are what can over-populate the world or worse: drag us to wars, gangs, terrorism, etc.
Religious misinformation is another barrier, especially on having too many babies. Still, there are countless religious texts to re-educate the miseducated and we try reasonable birth-rates until this earth ends. No space can have unlimited capacity, and the wants of humans are already burdening the earth. Folks like me want more than land vehicles, but air crafts for 8 billion people will work, but how about 40 billion people?
When folks like President Barrow say to over one thousand university graduates: ‘I hope you become job givers, not just job seekers…’ It is a lame admission and heartless hope echoing. It is an admission that the government cannot hire all of you, but what percentage is fair to expect based on studies? The heartless hope echoing to naive young folks is not exclusive to Barrow, but his refusal to learn opportunity doors is terrible. Journalists and those students should write or even march to the state house and demand a multi-billion dollar research oriented store, labs, etc. A store that stores a lot and facilitates ordering towards inventions, and partnerships towards manufacturing. He will likely claim lack of funds, but where are his efforts on such versus roads (infrastructure)? If we push for parliament that our taxes must significantly go towards learning, then such stores and inventions, plus job creations can follow suit.
Those who thrive in corrupt systems are often corrupt or under fighting the corrupt systems. The world needs system change and I hope God helps beyond words, forgive the repenting ones. We were born in corrupt systems, but some of us are trying to improve the inherited systems, while others worsen them through misinformation and total lack of information in some aspects. All governments are guilty, but not equally guilty.
Right to know matters far beyond taxes. Sales tax often ranges from 5 to 15 percent. The Gambia introduced sales tax a few years ago but disguises it as Value Added Tax (Vat), with IMF Help . We literally have international collaboration for the elite and against the poor, instead of for the masses. What Value is actually added, especially for the consumers? Great journalists were supposed to call it out, but that was brutal Jammeh’s time, and those outside the Gambia also failed through fear or God not hinting the importance? Beside the VAT name, GRA+ demanded they hide the tax as part of the price. It is a shame not only against our journalists and IMF, but the world. We should argue the right to know and the scenarios hiding hampers. When I was printing my book, a company charged me VAT or sales tax without indicating it? Well, another company quoted me and visibly put the 15% sales tax there, but I later learned books are exempted from the sales tax (vat). Transparency helps at different levels, but because they understand the fourth branch (public) is so powerful, they want to keep them in the dark even on taxes?
