WHAT really is the Government’s rationale with the rental assessment value they are imposing on the citizens of T&T? What yardstick are they using to arrive at the annual rental value (ARV)? And is it a fair formulation?

Recently my neighbour got her ARV assessment letter and she immediately brought it to my attention. Needless to say, she was deeply distressed to know that, based on her ARV of $76,000-plus, she would have to pay $2,054 in property tax every year.

Now, this is a 74-year-old retiree living alone with co-morbidities such as diabetes, high blood pressure, thyroid disease and arthritis, to identify the main ones. This is a woman living on pension and NIS. Her simple house was built in the mid-80s when she was gainfully employed. Now that she has secured her nest egg to live out her golden years, the Government is coming to break wide open her nest egg with taxes along with an increasing electricity bill and a Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) increase to come. Furthermore, due to her medical conditions, she has to see private doctors and specialists from time to time.

The truth be told, every additional taxation or utility bill increase adds up and puts ‘more weight on kings sugar’.

The facts are that one’s grocery bill is a major expense for daily existence, and this is a must.

Then comes your electricity bill and your WASA bill.

Cable is considered optional -but then what little comfort must one be deprived of just to survive?

Everyone is aware of the high cost of living in T&T, starting with grocery bills, gas, rent, transportation and car maintenance. Her income is fixed and will remain fixed; so where is the money coming from to pay all the additional taxes and utility bill increases?

Her dilemma is not singular. I am sure there are many other people like her-including retirees, single parents, grandparents, unemployed and underemployed persons-who can identify with this woman.

The simple fact is that the ARV formulation is significantly and deeply flawed. Houses cannot be assessed based solely on aesthetics, condition and size; consideration has to be given to the area or location and what practically obtains for rental in that particular area.

Someone living in San Juan or Morvant in a three-bedroom house should not pay the same rate as someone living in Westmoorings in a three-bedroom house. Pertinent consideration must be given to location, and this is why zoning to cap off rates must be factored into the ARV formulation.

One has to question why is it that homeowners are the first to pay this tax and not the commercial business and industrial sectors who are in a better position to meet such financial demands with their deep pockets.

The reason is clear: because the homeowners are low-hanging fruit and can be easily manipulated by the strong arm of the law.

The ARV formulation is not only flawed; it is repressive, discommoding, displacing and enforcing more financial hardship on the most vulnerable in society.

Winfield O’Garro