The budget address presented by Financial Secretary, Hon. Kenneth Jefferson, in the Legislative Assembly on Friday is described in the document as “A Better Way Forward”.

Left unexplained are what might be the alternatives to which this so-called “better way” has been compared.

In fact, with just a couple of exceptions, the proposed budget consists largely of conventional fee and duty increases, none of which it seems to us represent any new sustainable revenue or any significant departure from a reliance on traditional “tax haven” income as advocated by Britain.

One new tax – a 2 percent levy on remittances through money transfer entities – is something we have been advocating for several years, seemingly until now in isolation. However, we have always suggested an across the board levy on all money transfers, whether by way of interbank payments or remittances through the money transfer agencies that typically cater to lower paid foreign workers sending money home to their families.

The new tax, as proposed, will thus fall fairly and squarely on the less well-off foreign workers, leaving the financial services industry – where the bulk of the money resides – largely untouched in this respect.

Yes, the financial sector will also be subject to a number of fee increases at the service-provider level in terms of increased licence fees, as well as at the client level in the shape of increased company fees, but this represents merely increased reliance for revenue on our financial centre business – something the government was cautioned against doing by Britain.

The other new tax is the so-called business premises fee – an annual amount payable by the tenants of commercial properties, which appears to be calculated at the rate of 10 percent of rent payable. This burden is, of course, going to fall primarily on local businesses, which is therefore bound to add directly to the current liquidity crunch in the local economy.

In fact, much of the budget increases will negatively affect the cash flow of local businesses – including the increase in work permit fees and import duties – while little or no provision is made to provide the essential liquidity to the local economy.

Ordinary revenue, including that generated by the new tax increases, will go to meet normal operating expenses, with the much debated reduction in government expenses being long on talk and short on details.

The new borrowing of $275 million will be largely ($169 million) used up in the repayment of short term loans and overdrafts and the balance of $106 million used to meet the costs of the several ongoing capital projects.

So, what we are back to once again is the trickle-down theory of economic stimulus that failed to have any noticeable impact under the previous administration and will have no timely effect under this government.

The increases in fees and taxes proposed in this budget will, according to Mr Jefferson, raise some $126 million of additional revenue but all this will accomplish is to sustain the government in the style to which it has become accustomed, with only limited detail offered of any significant cutbacks or other sacrifices by the administration and its agencies.

Saying that new civil service hirings will be restricted to “a minimum” is capable of much variation in implementation that could still be argued as being “minimal”. Surely, government should always strive to be minimal whether in good times or bad.

“Identifying ways to reduce accommodation rental costs” does not represent much of a commitment actually to do so, once such ways have been identified.

It is gratifying to note that “all but essential official travel” will be eliminated but why have the taxpayers of the Cayman Islands apparently been paying for non-essential travel all these years?

This is just one example of the presumptuousness and sense of entitlement that seems to be endemic within both the elected and permanent sectors of government.

Likewise, the promise to restrict “the usage of Government vehicles for private purposes.” What gives public servants the right to use assets that belong to the Cayman Islands taxpayers for their own private purposes in the first place?

We are now asked, as taxpayers, to bail out the government from its earlier admitted profligacy without any immediate measures being taken to stimulate local business activity so that we may earn the money to do so.

We can only say at this point, “It don’t go so.”