RIGA – A proposal to cut the value-added tax for the tourism industry has been wobbling through the parliament. In spite of the objections by the party of Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis and contrary to the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund, the proposal was sent to the parliament for a vote. The opposition party, Latvia’s Way/Latvia’s First (LPP/LC) and the government heavyweight – though largely impotent – People’s Party (TP) laid their hands to move the proposal out of the committee, implying a closer cooperation between the two parties, representing the views of their respective founders.
Speaking to the press after the Monday coalition meeting, a high-ranking TP member Armands Vents Krauklis said that the lenders were not speaking in “a form of an ultimatum,” but that “through flowers” said that lowering VAT “would not be the best solution.” As conspiracy theories suggest, some Latvian officials expect an ultimatum from the international lenders because it is the only way to move forward.
The vote also raises questions about the stability of the government and the coalition’s commitment to the painful IMF-EU funded program, which foresees a combination of budget cuts and tax hikes in the amount of up 900 million lats. While it is a wide known fact that this current government is largely a marriage of convenience, it appears the People’s Party is playing for both teams. On one hand, it is one of the five parties in the coalition. On the other hand, it voted down against the prime minister in a crucial vote for the IMF-EU program to continue. It is no wonder that the Union of Farmers and Greens, aka the Green Peasants, had asked to meet Dombrovskis this afternoon to discuss the issue.
The supporters say that the move to cut the VAT from the current 21 percent to 10 percent for the tourism industry would stimulate the economy which is in the deepest recession since Latvia broke free from the Soviet Union almost 20 years ago. The estimates by the ministry of the economy show that cutting VAT would create 2,000 new work places, a drop in the bucket in the country where every fifth Latvian is officially unemployed. And it remains to be seen if the VAT cut would not affect the budget deficit.
It also raises questions: why tourism? What would prevent other industries, such as farming, dairy, food industries, to line up outside the parliament, demanding that the VAT be lowered for them also? Why not lower VAT for medicine? Education? Freelance journalists? Or why not lower the VAT across the board, assuming the government can raise revenue by taxing luxuries to bridge the yawning budget deficit down to 6 percent in 2011?
