Tax Reform: Dialogue Must Replace Diatribes
Femi Akintunde-Johnson
The tax reform bills recently submitted to the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu have predictably ignited a firestorm of criticism, with state governors and other stakeholders shouting themselves hoarse over perceived threats to their fiscal survival. Beneath this loud declamation lies the pulsating heart of Nigeria’s eternal tension: the struggle between centralised authority and regional autonomy.
From the viewpoint of state governors, particularly those in less industrialised northern states, the reforms reek of a fiscal robbery masquerading as progress. The proposed shift in Value Added Tax (VAT) allocation, giving wealthier states a derivation-based advantage, is deemed an insidious attempt to favour already prosperous regions. These governors foresee revenue droughts cascading into governance paralysis. It’s a fair fear when one imagines the fiscal squeeze that could leave some states perpetually cap in hand, more dependent than ever on federal allocations.
Then there’s the centralisation of tax collection, a red flag for the ever-watchful National Economic Council (NEC). The idea of surrendering revenue collection rights to a federal framework, even in pursuit of efficiency, smacks of encroachment. NEC’s recommendation for further consultations was swiftly brushed aside by Tinubu’s administration, which insisted that legislative debates were the perfect venue to iron out wrinkles. Perhaps, the administration underestimated the backlash that a federation like Nigeria, with its complex historical and political baggage, would unleash.
Yet, critics aren’t merely rattling sabres out of spite. The proposed harmonisation of tax processes, though noble in intent, has sparked fears of bureaucratic logjams for businesses operating across state boundaries. Meanwhile, assurances of relief for low-income earners haven’t silenced those who warn of hidden burdens tucked within the fine print.
But in defence of the federal adventurists, one must acknowledge that these reforms aim at nothing less than a tectonic shift in how Nigeria’s tax system operates. Beneath the surface of political grandstanding lies a robust vision that, if properly implemented, could address inequalities that have plagued the system for decades.
Take, for instance, the decision to exempt workers earning under ₦70,000 from personal income tax – a clear nod to low-income earners. While governors squabble over derivation principles, the administration’s focus on progressive taxation subtly challenges the entrenched culture of shielding the ultra-wealthy. A marginal increase in taxes for high-income earners, though far from punitive, sends the right signal about equitable contribution.
The harmonisation of federal, state, and local tax systems could also end the merry-go-round of double taxation that has long deterred business investments. Under these bills, businesses are promised fewer headaches and more certainty – a deal sweetened by a deliberate attempt to shield small and medium enterprises (SMEs) from undue burdens.
Moreover, the reduction in the federal government’s VAT share, from 15% to 10%, represents an olive branch to state and local governments. This reallocation, though contested, might just be the fiscal decentralisation needed to empower states to chart their development agendas. The incorporation of derivation principles is not a zero-sum game, but rather an attempt to reward productivity while nudging less prosperous states toward resourcefulness.
Critics of the reforms, blinded by immediate losses, seem unwilling to acknowledge the long-term potential for fostering economic equity. By encouraging consumption-driven development, states would be incentivised to improve local economies, reduce leakages, and compete for investments. The central message here should not be deprivation but opportunity – though such logic may find few sympathisers in the heat of regional politicking.
Another commendable aspect of the reforms is their alignment with global tax practices. Nigeria’s convoluted tax structure, infamous for its inefficiencies, is in desperate need of a revamp. By adopting frameworks seen in thriving economies, the reforms inch Nigeria closer to a system that can attract foreign investors and reduce dependency on oil revenue.
One cannot overlook the attention to transparency. The Nigeria Revenue Service, a unified tax authority proposed under the reforms, promises to streamline administration, ensuring that collected revenues are better tracked and less prone to mismanagement. If implemented correctly, this could signal an end to the leaky buckets that have bled the nation’s coffers for years.
Yet, beyond these laudable goals lies the question of buy-in. For reforms of this magnitude, the federal government must do more than wield legislative muscle – it must build consensus. The perception of unilateralism fuels resistance and undermines potential gains. This impasse is where the true test of leadership lies.
Dialogue must replace diatribes. Governors and federal authorities must resist the lure of political aggrandisement and focus on the broader picture. Rather than allow the discourse to descend into a north-versus-south narrative, stakeholders should interrogate the nuances, seeking ways to refine and contextualise the reforms to suit Nigeria’s peculiarities.
Ultimately, no reform is perfect at inception, but the promise of sustainable growth and reduced inequalities is worth the risk of recalibration. It’s time to stop bickering and start bridging gaps – because, let’s face it, Nigeria cannot tax itself into oblivion, nor should it divide itself into irrelevance.
The reforms offer a chance to reimagine fiscal federalism in Nigeria. All sides must resist the temptation to exploit this moment for regional or political gain. After all, whether they like it or not, the interests of a governor in Zamfara and one in Lagos are intertwined in the messy tapestry that is our federal republic. It’s a tapestry worth mending, not tearing apart.
Perils of Internet Stardom
The recent backlash against Kuye Adegoke, popularly known as “Egungun of Lagos,” over a leaked private video is more than a personal scandal; it is emblematic of the risks and recklessness inherent in the rise of internet fame. The incident has sparked a flurry of commentary, with critics highlighting the pitfalls of living one’s life under the harsh glare of digital adoration.
In a world where virality and follower counts dictate relevance, internet stars often embrace extremes – provocative content, exaggerated personalities, and even engineered controversies. These are the tools of the trade in the digital attention economy, where shock value trumps substance. However, as Adegoke’s predicament illustrates, the pursuit of fame without boundaries is fraught with danger, especially when personal missteps are immortalised in the unforgiving expanse of cyberspace.
The influence of these figures on the young and impressionable cannot be overstated. Many internet stars, in their relentless chase for clout, model behaviours that trivialise accountability, amplify superficiality, and glorify the transient highs of internet fame. For young people navigating an increasingly digital world, these stars offer templates that prioritise popularity over integrity, and controversy over community.
A quick digression to a young music star, Shalipopi recently claiming his cigarette slinging video music and visuals are merely “aesthetic props’’ – to feel woke’? – and that he doesn’t smoke in real life! The statement is illogical – and typifies the lack of substance in the mindset of some of our talents.
Yet, the digital stage is both a gift and a curse. While it can democratise fame, giving individuals from humble backgrounds a voice and platform, it also demands a Faustian bargain: authenticity sacrificed at the altar of content creation, and privacy traded for fleeting relevance. For Adegoke, and many others like him, the consequences of this exchange can be brutal.
The lesson here is not a rejection of internet stardom but a call for balance, foresight, and responsibility. Influencers must remember the weight of their platforms, particularly their sway over impressionable fans. They must temper their ambition with a sense of responsibility, ensuring their influence uplifts rather than corrodes.
Parents, educators, and guardians must also rise to the challenge, equipping young people with the tools to critically engage with online content. They need to help their wards distinguish between what is entertaining and what is edifying, ensuring that internet stars inspire creativity and ambition rather than recklessness and entitlement.
