Tax reform proposal threatens healthy eating, says Onpeco

Santo Domingo—The National Observatory for Consumer Protection (Onpeco) called on congressmen to study the tax reform proposal, Fiscal Modernization, in depth and oppose the imposition of new taxes on food products, especially those produced in the country.

The consumer defense entity recalled that it had already warned about this situation when it was announced that reform was necessary to expand the tax base. However, it was surprising that a reform proposal had been sent to Congress that taxes sweet potatoes and almost all agricultural products except for seven, which is an affront to the poorest in the country.

“The way in which the reform proposal is proposed means that all taxes will be paid by consumers, especially those with lower purchasing power, which adds a new step to social inequality,” he says.

Onpeco points out that a product such as sweet potato should never be taxed due to its high nutritional value, as should other tubers such as yams, yautía, and potatoes, from which only cassava is spared.

The consumer rights organization questions those who drafted the proposal, describing them as insensitive. Bagging the poorest with the burden of the collections is not only unfair but also inequitable.

The Observatory recalled that the consumer population is not only fed by bananas, rice, milk, chicken, eggs, and bread, the only products that will not pay ITBIS—or VAT, as they have renamed the consumption tax-.

Except for the exempt products mentioned, everything else will pay taxes, including garlic, onions, chili peppers, vegetables, sour oranges and juice, sour lemons, grapefruits, and all fruits and vegetables. This distances the population from a healthy diet and, especially, from food security and sovereignty.

To justify the new taxes, the government has identified tax evasion as a failure of the administration, which has demonstrated its inability to prosecute evaders. At the same time, the burden of the revenues required to meet government expenditures is transferred to consumers. There is no more unfair decision than that.

It should be noted that Onpeco is not opposed to tax reform. What he demands is that consumers are not harmed, as evidenced in the proposal, because he understands that tax reform must be based on equity.

“Onpeco regrets that all the public administrations we have had have become accomplices to tax evasion and now they blame that deficiency on consumers. Lawmakers, who represent society, should rethink this proposal and suggest mechanisms to reduce tax evasion as a way to collect more, without burdening the poorest with the revenue needed by the government,” the statement concludes.