ONCE again our educational standards are being lowered to accommodate unprepared/ lazy students and all this achieves is to devalue our academic system.
I am of course referring to the scrapping of the use of exams to admit chartered accountants.
Yunus Carrim says that after 21 years of democracy it is unacceptable that only 8 percent of Africans and 23 percent of women were auditors. Perhaps the reality is that the exam is fairly comprehensive, requires lots of dedication and the rather boring profession of accounting may not appeal to many.
I trust that the laws relating to qualifications of doctors will not be lowered to ensure more are admitted. What is frightening is that members of Parliament unanimously voted for the amendment and I will happily bet my salary that very few of those members actually read the bill from start to finish and understood it fully, particularly the implications.
Carrim says there will be specialised training for the candidates. My question is what was actually wrong with the existing “specialised training” for chartered accountants? Of course in future years companies will refuse to employ those that did not do the correct CA exam.
What is noticeable is that no comment was given from members of the auditing profession.
Tony Ball
Durban
Regulation is killing small businesses
The skills levies that business pays have got to be the epitome of stealth tax.
Firstly the threshold level of R500 000 has not changed since 2006, thus ensnaring many small companies that would not fall into the net. If they were under that amount in 2006 it is highly likely that their wage bill has climbed and that they are now liable for levies.
Secondly, the owners were excluded from the threshold for obvious reasons. From being the owner what skills will they acquire to get promotion? Now their salaries form part of the calculation.
Finally as any business owner will confirm the procedure to claim back grants is a financial impossibility. Most businesses have to focus on “doing the business” not drown in the reams of paperwork. To employ HR experts to complete the skills workplace plan and so on will cost far more than any grant claimed so the exercise is pointless. For most businesses it is just another form of taxation and another reason why government should stick to trying to run the country instead of trying to interfere in business.
Hopefully our underqualified minister of small business development can see what over-regulation is doing to our small businesses. And on that point small business should be determined by the number of staff not turnover, just like the cap on farm size: 12 000 hectares is big for certain lines but minute for others.
One size does not fit all.
Tony Ball
Durban
Put aside prejudices and expand economy
The economic growth of our country continues to be appallingly low. This has an enormous effect on unemployment, tax receipts and external perceptions of South Africa as an investment destination.
We are in the midst of yet another rand meltdown which will pressure inflation, and are about to enter another period of ridiculous union wage demands which will undoubtedly lead to more strikes and further dent any progress for our ailing economy.
The ANC government has tried to grow the economy on its own by making huge capital investments in areas such as Coega and new power stations, however it is now running short of funds and forward capital expenditure has had to be reined in.
The only option to revive our economic growth, at least in the medium term, is for the ANC government to put aside its prejudices and work together with business and labour in an all-out effort to expand the economy by creating more goods for export which would bring in much-needed foreign currency and help to reduce unemployment. Every move to date by the government in terms of business appears to be to reinforce the already onerous labour laws which have placed huge pressure on business flexibility and competitiveness.
Unfortunately, the ANC hierarchy is dominated by socialist thinking, and very little appetite has been in evidence in terms of actually implementing the business friendly National Development Plan.
Derek Excell
Kloof
Taking on parasitic governments
Texas Hold-em No-limit poker requires far less skill than Texas Hold-em Pot-limit poker, for it allows players to bet all of their chips at any stage of the game, which places the less affluent player under incredible pressure and often results in him being forced to surrender the hand as well as all the chips he has contributed to the pot.
This pressure is at its most intense in the first round of betting, where players have seen only two of the 7 cards (5 of which are communal) and therefore have far too little information to make an informed decision (they are forced, due to a lack of information, to gamble on the two cards they have seen, and in doing so could be forced to risk their entire stack on one hand.)
Unfortunately, the casinos have the ability (due to the monopoly they receive from government) to decide which variety of poker triumphs become more popular, and also have an incentive to make the pot as large as possible (thereby earning more money from the commission/rake the casino deducts from each pot) as does the government, which taxes these casinos and therefore benefits more from the more risky no-limit game than from the less risky pot-limit game.
In short, simply put, the government is in partnership with these parasitic casinos and is, by logical extension, a parasite. Which should come as little surprise to those who in addition to paying tax, VAT and a fuel levy etc, have to contend with toll roads and a levy for building the power-stations that during the so-called dark days of apartheid were built out of the taxes we paid. We, the people, have fallen victim to those who believe that the end justifies the means; that it is permissible to exploit us/milk us dry as long as the greater good is served.
Under the circumstances, it seems appropriate to point out that a principle is at stake, and that principles should never be sold lightly.
Terence Grant
Cape Town
There is a point when profits become theft
Keith Brier, (March 15) urges that South Africa removes impediments to our entrepreneurs, cuts regulations to the bone, welcomes foreign investment and stops regarding profits as theft. These steps, he says, might sustain a growing welfare bill for a while longer.
Sadly he is wrong on all counts. Most entrepreneurs are already as well off as they need to be. Regulations are not yet sufficient to protect consumers and the environment. Foreign investors are not interested in our welfare. Profits are theft when they extend to the limitless rewards entrepreneurs seem to expect.
To deal with the last point first: I read in an economics textbook recently that “the firm seeks to maximise its profit”. If so, why may the workers not seek to maximise their wages and the workless their random pickings? Market competition, the theorists say, ensures fair prices. This might work for workers, but it does not seem to work for the goods sold by monopolistic and oligopolistic firms, or the use to which they put their earnings.
The textbook quoted above, having listed the requirements for perfect competition, says: “These conditions are clearly very restrictive and it is hardly surprising that no market meets all the requirements for perfect competition.” From this imperfection stems the severely unequal distribution of wealth which is South Africa’s problem – and a problem shared by many countries. Impediments are needed to counteract the effects of this imperfection.
Entrepreneurs tend to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of society. That early economist Jesus Christ urged his followers not to keep their money to themselves. “Cast your bread upon the waters,” he said “and after many days you will find it again.” He understood the circular flow of earnings. Of course, he also understood the damage which selfishness does to a society. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” he said.
Regulation is obviously needed wherever people are gathered together, even in the smallest groups. The problem is illustrated very clearly very early in the Holy Bible when Cain asks God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Well-nurtured, well-educated, well-motivated people might form a perfect society, but no country is anywhere near that. Them and Us applies, so there must be regulation.
Them and Us is also the basic problem with foreign investment. I recall that workers in China a few years ago found the effects of foreign investment in the factory where they were employed so bad that they were committing suicide.
I daresay the total monthly income of the earners of South Africa is not enough to feed all the people of South Africa. Sadly Bryer is right that no social engineer can get this to work.
Happily your issue of March 13, in addition to Bryer’s article, carries some hope in a brief report on Page 18. This tells of moves to encourage urban agriculture to produce food for the hungry. But let this project not lead to black industrialists as suggested in the report. These industrialists will be just like any other entrepreneurs. Let the project have communities produce food for themselves and other communities. Let them work as groups, not as Them and Us. Let them produce food and not profits. As Karl Marx said: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Interestingly this principle was applied in southern Africa before the writings of Marx – and even before Jesus Christ – by the Bushmen. An itinerant group would hunt and gather through its territory and when one person ate all ate. If a neighbouring group was short of food it was helped, in the knowledge that when help was needed in return it would be given.
CEP Smith
Via e-mail