DR FRED, YOU CANNOT DEMAND MORE SPENDING WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHO WILL PAY
Dr Fred M’membe’s reaction exposes a weakness in his economic argument. He criticises the taxes that raise revenue, questions the investors expected to expand production, and demands greater support for households. He owes Zambians an explanation of how those demands would be financed.
Government has three broad choices when expenditure exceeds available revenue. Collect more, borrow more or spend less. Dr Fred must tell us which combination he proposes.
His discussion of the Social Cash Transfer illustrates the problem. Reducing K450 a month to K15 a day makes a powerful political statement. But what amount does he propose? How many households would qualify? What would his proposal cost, and which revenue would finance it
A spending promise becomes an economic policy when you explain how to pay for it.
Social transfers support household consumption. They help vulnerable people meet immediate needs, and that protection matters. But expanding them creates expenditure that must be financed every year. Sustainable support requires a productive economy generating wages, business profits and tax revenue
That makes Dr Fred’s suspicion of private-sector investment particularly difficult to defend. Zambia needs capital, machinery, technology, markets and management expertise. The debate should examine investment terms, local participation, employment and taxes. Merely pointing out that investors will benefit does little to establish whether the country receives a fair return
On debt, Dr Fred correctly identifies a heavy burden. He then uses that burden to suggest the Budget serves creditors first. But presenting repayment obligations as money government can freely redirect avoids the consequences of failing to honour them. What is his alternative debt strategy, and what would it cost Zambians?
On FISP, the criticism also moves too quickly. Farmers need an agricultural system that makes them profitable. A loan scheme should be challenged on affordability, repayment terms, drought protection and access to markets. Dr Fred should explain how his preferred model would raise yields and farmer incomes while remaining affordable to taxpayers.
His concerns about consumption taxes deserve examination. Poorer households can face a disproportionate burden relative to their incomes. But opposing those increases still requires a credible replacement for the revenue.
Dr Fred’s statement gives us objections. It leaves the financing unanswered.
How much more would he spend? Which taxes would he remove? What spending would he cut? How much would he borrow? How would he attract the investment needed to expand production?
Zambians deserve those answers. Anyone seeking to govern must explain how their promises survive contact with the national accounts.
By George N Mtonga