A subsidy for the rich, a pittance for the poor

Aug 22, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPPC) has once again demonstrated its profound intellectual bankruptcy and an appalling lack of empathy for the very people it claims to serve. The recent decision to offer pensioners a $30,000 annual subsidy on their electricity bill—some eight months into a year marred by soaring prices —is nothing short of a cruel joke, thinly veiled as a cost-of-living relief measure.

The sheer incompetence and cynicism of this policy exposes the government’s failure to grasp the basic tenets of equitable social policy. It also demonstrates its proclivity for across-the-board measures that equally benefit the rich and the poor, rather than ensuring that the poor benefits more than the rich.

Let us begin with the timing of this so-called relief. It is implemented at a time when pensioners and the general populace have already endured eight full months of unrelenting price increases. Inflation has gnawed at their modest incomes, reducing their purchasing power to a shadow of what it once was. And yet, the government—sitting comfortably atop billions earmarked for cost-of-living relief—allowed these funds to languish in the Treasury. For months, they dithered, seemingly clueless as to how these desperately needed resources should be allocated. It is only now, with the year well advanced and the damage done, that the PPPC emerges with a solution, one so belated and inadequate that it is almost insulting. And they have the temerity to tell the nation that the electricity subsidy was catered for in the 2024 Budget, which was read since January 15^th, and was catered for under the Ministry of Human Services and Social Security.

But it is not just the timing that is off. The very design of the subsidy is riddled with flaws, reflecting a profound misunderstanding of the realities facing pensioners. This is a targeted subsidy, we are told, aimed at easing the financial burden on those who have given so much to society. But a closer look reveals the true nature of this largesse: it benefits not all pensioners, but only those who are property owners or tenants with a metered electricity connection. In other words, to qualify for this subsidy, one must have registered account with the GPL and as we know only those who own property or are paying rent qualify to have a registered account. This amounts to an exclusionary criterion that leaves thousands of pensioners ineligible.

Consider, for instance, the countless pensioners who live with their children in properties owned or rented by their offspring. These elderly citizens, who may be among the most vulnerable, do not qualify for the subsidy simply because they do not have a meter in their name. The absurdity of this policy is glaring: the government has created a benefit ostensibly for the elderly, yet has crafted it in such a way that some of the neediest pensioners are excluded from receiving any assistance at all. Adding insult to injury, the subsidy is not means-tested, meaning that multimillionaires—those who could well afford to cover their electricity costs without state assistance—are eligible for the same $30,000 as a pauperized pensioner struggling to make ends meet. This is not just poor policy; it is a moral failing of the highest order. To equate the needs of a wealthy pensioner with those of someone living on the edge of poverty is to ignore the stark inequalities that define our society. It is to perpetuate a system where the rich get richer while the poor are left to fend for themselves with the scraps that fall from the table.

If the PPPC were serious about addressing the hardships faced by pensioners, it would have taken a different approach—one rooted in equity and common sense. A truly effective subsidy would have been targeted at those pensioners most in need of financial assistance, those whose electricity consumption is low and who are, therefore, more likely to be struggling. Instead of a blanket subsidy that benefits the rich and the poor alike, the government should have introduced a system, where the amount of the subsidy is linked to electricity consumption.

Such a system would have had multiple benefits. First, it would have allowed for a higher annual subsidy for those who truly need it, providing meaningful relief rather than the token gesture that $30,000 represents. Second, it would have encouraged reduced electricity consumption, aligning with broader goals of sustainability and environmental responsibility. By incentivizing pensioners to use less electricity, the government could have helped reduce the strain on the national grid, while also promoting energy conservation—a pressing concern in a world facing the existential threat of climate change.

But perhaps the most significant benefit of such a system would have been its ability to target the most vulnerable pensioners, those whose financial situation is precarious and who are most in need of government support. By focusing the subsidy on those with low electricity consumption, the government could have ensured that its limited resources were directed to those who would need the subsidy the most, rather than being spread thinly across the pensioner population that have registered accounts with the GPL, including those who have no real need for assistance.

The PPPC’s failure to adopt such a sensible approach is a damning indictment of its lack of vision and its disregard for the welfare of the people. Instead of crafting policies that address the root causes of poverty and inequality, the government has opted for a quick fix, one that is as ineffective as it is inequitable. The $30,000 subsidy, far from being a solution to the cost-of-living crisis, is merely a Band-Aid on a gaping wound—a wound that has been inflicted by a failure to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable.

What is needed now is not more of the same, but a radical rethinking of how social policy is designed and implemented. The government must recognise that true progress cannot be achieved by throwing money at a problem without understanding its underlying causes. It must move beyond the simplistic notion that all pensioners are alike, and instead, develop policies that reflect the diversity of needs within this group. And most importantly, it must abandon the misguided belief that the rich and the poor can be treated the same. The time has come for the PPPC to show that it is capable of thinking beyond the next election and is committed to truly building a society where no one is left behind.

The $30,000 electricity subsidy is not just a failure of policy; it is a failure of imagination. It reflects a government that is out of touch with the realities facing its citizens and is more concerned with optics than with outcomes. The pensioners of this country deserve better than this. They deserve a government that sees them not as a monolithic bloc, but as individuals with unique needs and challenges. They deserve policies that are designed with care and compassion, not with expedience and indifference. And above all, they deserve a government that understands that true charity is not about giving everyone the same, but about giving each person what they need to live with dignity and respect.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• bankruptcy, intellectual, measures, Peeping Tom, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPPC)

---