Weekend Edition

stluciatimes, caribbean, caribbeannews, stlucia, saintlucia, stlucianews, saintlucianews, stluciatimesnews, saintluciatimes, stlucianewsonline, saintlucianewsonline, st lucia news online, stlucia news online, loop news, loopnewsbarbados

Subscribe to our St. Lucia Times Newsletter

Get our headlines emailed to you every day.

VAT cuts may take time to show up on shelves

Shoppers hoping for savings after the Saint Lucian government removed VAT on 70 food items by August 2 will be met with a mixed picture: a few price drops, small changes, and in some cases, no movement at all.

At a Castries supermarket, cucumbers sold for $3.46 a kilogramme on July 30. By August 11, they still did. The same was true for yellow onions, carrots, watermelon, tinned tuna (200g or less) and coconut oil (in bottles 750ml or less). Some pantry staples saw modest declines – Swiss tomato ketchup slipped from $6.99 to $6.21, and Peak chickpeas from $5.21 to $4.63. Others fell more sharply, including chicken wings, which dropped from $18.50 to $14.99 per kilogramme.

The decision to scrap 12.5 per cent VAT on a selection of everyday food items was pitched by Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre’s administration as a direct response to high food costs. By removing the tax, including on stages of the production process for select items, the government hopes to bring some relief to households still grappling with the lingering economic effects of the pandemic and global supply chain shocks.

Accountant Richard Peterkin said the policy is likely to reduce government revenue but called it a necessary social intervention. “Ever since COVID, people are still feeling the pain of increased prices, particularly on foodstuffs…. The most important social programme is to bring the price of goods down so people at all levels of our society can afford them.”

In cases where included items have seen no reduction in prices, Peterkin shared that old stock may need to be sold at the original price before price cuts can be applied to newer stock.

But the question of when and how those reductions appear is more complex. Director of the Consumer Affairs Department Wendy Frederick said the price drops should apply to all stock – old and new – because zero-rated items allow businesses to reclaim VAT from Inland Revenue. “It means obviously that there’d be a decrease by at least the 12.5 per cent because it’s not being applied,” she said.

Frederick’s team has been monitoring prices before and after August 2, and she says their data shows most businesses have reduced prices on qualifying goods. However, she noted that complaints have been reaching their office, but adds that many public complaints stem from items that are not on the official 70-item list, or from products in sizes not covered under the policy, such as tuna tins over 6 ounces or 200 grammes.

Some items, she added, were already VAT-exempt before August, and now fall into the zero-rated category. While businesses are not legally compelled to lower prices on those goods, Frederick said they now can claim back input VAT and pass those savings on. 

“We cannot force, but we can enforce,” she said. “It’s a matter of education and businesses understanding that they can.”

The government has pledged to track the prices of all 70 zero-rated items in the months ahead. But Pierre has been candid about the limits of the effort, noting Saint Lucia’s inability to influence the price of imported goods and freight rates.

The opposition sees it differently. United Workers Party deputy political leader Guy Joseph has accused the administration of political theatre, arguing the price cuts should have been immediate. “What a disappointment to every Saint Lucian who walked into the supermarket a day after Emancipation,” Joseph said at a press briefing on Wednesday.

Whether shoppers will see deeper relief by the end of the month may be the next big test for the government’s promise.

Any third-party or user posts, comments, replies, and third-party entries published on the St. Lucia Times website (https://stluciatimes.com) in no way convey the thoughts, sentiments or intents of St. Lucia Times, the author of any said article or post, the website, or the business. St. Lucia Times is not responsible or liable for, and does not endorse, any comments or replies posted by users and third parties, and especially the content therein and whether it is accurate. St. Lucia Times reserves the right to remove, screen, edit, or reinstate content posted by third parties on this website or any other online platform owned by St. Lucia Times (this includes the said user posts, comments, replies, and third-party entries) at our sole discretion for any reason or no reason, and without notice to you, or any user. For example, we may remove a comment or reply if we believe it violates any part of the St. Lucia Criminal Code, particularly section 313 which pertains to the offence of Libel. Except as required by law, we have no obligation to retain or provide you with copies of any content you as a user may post, or any other post or reply made by any third-party on this website or any other online platform owned by St. Lucia Times. All third-parties and users agree that this is a public forum, and we do not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to any content you as a user may post, or any other post or reply made by any third-party on this website. Any posts made and information disclosed by you is at your own risk.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

TRENDING

Subscribe to our St. Lucia Times Newsletter

Get our headlines emailed to you every day.

Share via
Send this to a friend