The Predator-Prey Relation In Ghana’s Jungle Economy.

Ken Ofori Atta, Minister of Finance

Reading the 2019 budget of the Republic of Ghana last week, the Minister of Finance highlighted that government is set to broaden its tax margin and for this reason, citizens will be required to show their TIN before accessing social services like free health care under the National Health Insurance Program and free secondary school education under the Free SHS program - beginning in September 2019. (See 2019 budget speech, page 131)

Quite unexpectedly, most social commentators and citizens have reduced the debate on this policy to politics rather than asking important questions to probe the rationale behind this policy. Essentially, almost every governmental policy is driven by an underlying reasoning and philosophy and the requirement of a TIN as a condition precedent to access to free health care and free SHS is no different from that. Apparently, the mere acquisition of TIN alone does not promote free SHS neither does it generate government revenue. In this article, I present to the reader what TIN is, the jurisprudence or philosophy behind the “No TIN, No free SHS” and an opposing argument for those who may disagree with the policy.

Acquisition of a Taxpayer Identification Number( TIN) is one of the obligations of a citizen who meets the requirements as stated in the Revenue Administration Act , 2016( Act 915) . The purpose of TIN is to identify economic agents or tax payers and tax them accordingly. In line with the “pay as you earn” mode of taxation in Ghana, this will ensure that persons who are employed or do business or into any form of investment subject to some exceptions in the relevant tax laws no matter where they are and the income they receive, are taxed.Implicitly, people who earn higher income yet evade taxes will be brought to book. Government will then identify and tax them accordingly. Accumulated revenue from taxation will then be disbursed on the free SHS program among other vital state imperatives so as to ensure equal opportunities for all. The son or daughter of the poor will now be able to sit in the same classroom or go to the same hospital with that of the rich. The underlying theory behind this approach is termed as"welfare liberalism."

The welfare Liberalism theory was developed by an American moral and political philosopher, John Rawls in his book “a theory of justice” in 1971.Rawls’ theory of justice is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals and that justice is achieved if social& economic inequalities are arranged among others to meet the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Adherents of this theory will then argue that by identifying all economic agents through the acquisition of TIN and taking higher taxes from those in higher income bracket and redistributing the revenue (through free SHS, NHIS etc) equally among citizens, justice and fairness will be achieved so that every child can go to SHS whether his parents are rich or poor.

However, Robert Nozick presents a theory that sharply contradicts Rawls’ reasoning. Nozick is an American philosopher, best known for his book” Anarchy, State and Utopia“(1974). His Capitalist Libertarianism theory advances the reasoning that, a just society is one in which the rights of the individual are accorded the respect that is due. For Nozick, no one has a right to something whose realization requires certain uses of things and activities that other people have rights and entitlements over. Practically, no one has a right to free education if the realization of that right will demand that other citizens bear the cost of funding. Nozick argues that since an individual’s natural right does not include a right to be assisted by others , there can be no question of the state using its coercive powers to compel one group of citizens to aid others through , for example imposition of taxes for the purpose of social welfare . For Nozick, to tax people’s earnings to fund free SHS and NHIS is tantamount to forced labour. –forcing a person to work for another’s purpose.

In my humble opinion, this should be the subject matter of the debate and in the end whether the theory put forward by Nozick should be adhered to so that the acquisition of TIN and its further obligations will not be a condition precedent to access to free SHS and NHIS or Rawls’ social welfare should be followed so that the acquisition of TIN becomes a condition precedent to the enjoyment of those rights is for the reader to decide.

Kenneth Afriyie Appiah

Graduate of the University of Ghana School of Law, LLB Degree.