Godongwana punished taxpayers in Budget 3.0 despite calls not to
The minister had to plug a staggering R75 billion hole in Budget 3.0 without further borrowing or triggering political backlash.
Even before the first version of Budget 2025, there were calls for finance minister Enoch Godongwana not to punish taxpayers, but in Budget 3.0 he did in any way. Budget 3.0 coincided with grim economic indicators that include unemployment at 32.9%, global instability and a trade war that continue to affect South Africa's growth prospects.
The nation has been on tenterhooks since the shock news was announced on 19 February that Godongwana planned to increase the Vat rate from 15% to 17% in Budget 2025 to generate an additional R58 billion in revenue, resulting in serious backlash from the parties in the government of national unity (GNU) and other opposition parties.
However, he failed to allay the fears of citizens and investors with his plans to tackle the escalating fiscal deficit, manage the country's debt and spend without burdening taxpayers, Neil Roets, CEO of Debt Rescue, says.
ALSO READ: Budget 3.0 was not a chainsaw budget, economists say
Only vague measures for stimulating job creation in Budget 3.0
'Measures to stimulate job creation were vague, and the absence of any real focus on combatting corruption was evident. Especially concerning were the tax measures figured in at this time and those projected for 2026, at a time when South Africans need urgent financial relief.
'I understand that the minister faces numerous challenges, including a turbulent economic landscape, crumbling infrastructure, currency volatility, global trade tensions and an astronomical government budget deficit.
'He is tasked with striking a delicate balance between expenditure cuts and avoiding further financial strain on households, but taxing the workforce to death is not the answer. The reality is that his decision to impose new tax measures will hurt consumers who are already struggling.'
Investec chief economist Annabel Bishop agrees, saying that increasing taxes is not a favoured route to plug the gap of the budget deficit, as this has a negative impact on growth and employment.
ALSO READ: Budget 3.0: not austerity budget, but a redistributive budget
Infrastructure investment and structural reforms in Budget 3.0
Godongwana laid out the government's plans to spur economic growth potential to boost revenue and reduce funding shortfalls with an emphasis in Budget 3.0 on infrastructure investment and structural reforms.
Roets says this is commendable, with over R1 trillion allocated over three years to infrastructure projects across transport, energy and water, which are critical for long-term growth. 'However, delivery remains the key concern.
'Budget 3.0 confirms that debt service costs will exceed R1.3 trillion over the next three years, which means R1.2 billion per day, which is more than the combined allocations for health, education and policing.
'What we need is a concrete plan of action to tackle the fiscal deficit through disciplined budgeting, efficient tax collection, responsible spending and a laser focus on stimulating economic growth. Without economic growth we are looking at a mounting socio-economic crisis,' he warns.
ALSO READ: Sensible or underwhelming? Economists react to Godongwana's Budget 3.0
Will Sars come to the rescue as Budget 3.0 envisages?
The government allocated an additional R7.5 billion to Sars to increase its revenue collection capabilities. If this is successful, it could bring in R20 to R50 billion per year which will potentially cancel the need for further tax increases, he says.
'The news ahead of Budget 2025 of a historic public servants' salary increase, accompanied by substantial enhancements to various allowances, does not inspire confidence in the GNU due to the dire predicament of much of the country's workforce.'
There was, Roets points out, of course, no mention of cutting down the size of the cabinet, regarded by many as an unnecessary burden on taxpayers and an obstacle to effective governance, a point that has been hotly debated in the media leading up to Budget 2025.
Political analyst Joe Mhlanga notes that the cabinet's size and perks drain our economy, while ActionSA recently revealed that the current cabinet configuration is costing taxpayers an additional R239 million per year, amounting to over R1 billion for the current term.
ALSO READ: Budget 3.0: Fuel levy replaced VAT hike but is it the better option?
Dropping the Vat increase, minister imposed other taxes in Budget 3.0
Roets says the minister's reiteration that Vat will not be increased was widely welcomed, but imposing alternative tax penalties on taxpayers, such as raising sin taxes even more and hiking the fuel levy for the first time since 2022, delivers a heavy blow to the hard-working citizens who are the backbone of the economy.
From 4 June the general fuel levy will increase by 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents per litre for diesel. Roets says this alone will increase the cost of living for every South African.
'Notably, the minister also confirmed that the planned expansion of the zero-rated Vat basket that was originally proposed to cushion poorer households from a Vat hike, will now fall away since the Vat increase itself was dropped. This removes what could have been a vital buffer for low-income households.
'How can this possibly alleviate the burden on the country's workforce? Does this mean that taxpayers are having to pay for the inefficient management and high levels of corruption that have led to the country's poor service delivery?
ALSO READ: Godongwana cuts zero-rated food basket in Budget 3.0
Consumers need more aggressive support strategies
'It is essential that government considers much more aggressive support strategies for consumers facing financial distress.'
Roets says with 32.9% of the nation without income, according to the Q1 2025 Quarterly Labour Force Survey data released by Statistics SA, it is not difficult to understand how government grants are indeed the only lifeline for many people.
However, job creation is a top priority – or it should be, he says. 'With a third of the population currently unemployed and youth unemployment at an astronomical 46%, among the highest in the world, the country stands at the tipping point of becoming a state-funded nation and everything that comes with that.
'Government's growth path focuses on extending and increasing the social wage support grant. This points to a lack of confidence in economic recovery powered by a flourishing business sector that drives job creation and entrepreneurship, without which there will be no recovery.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
4 hours ago
- eNCA
Bill Gates to donate majority of $200 Billion fortune to Africa
NEW YORK - Tech billionaire Bill Gates is giving away almost all of his money. And, some of it may assist South Africans READ: Gates Foundation to spend $200 bn through 2045 when it will shut down Gates says he is donating 99% of his fortune, that's a whopping 200 billion dollars. And, he intends to send the bulk of it to Africa. The philanthropist will disperse the money over the next 20 years to coincide with the closing of his foundation.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA almost has a Budget — finance committee adopts fiscal framework, despite MK and EFF rejections
After multiple false starts, a key aspect of the 2025 Budget was adopted in Parliament on Wednesday, with the support of the ANC and DA. When the second iteration of the 2025 Budget came before Parliament's finance committee in April, the divisions in the Government of National Unity (GNU) were on full display. The Democratic Alliance (DA) refused to support the adoption of the fiscal framework and it only moved through the committees and then the National Assembly thanks to the support of non-GNU parties such as ActionSA. On Wednesday, 4 June, the GNU's largest members, the African National Congress (ANC) and DA, finally found each other and the fiscal framework was passed by a vote of seven to three. The passing of the fiscal framework is a key step in the budgeting process. This framework establishes economic policy and revenue projections and sets the overall limits to government spending. This report must be adopted within 16 days after Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana tables the Budget. While the DA opposed the fiscal framework in Budget 2.0, Wednesday's situation was different, with both the ANC and DA supporting the measure against the opposition of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party. Wednesday's meeting was briefly halted to find a bigger venue in Parliament to accommodate all the MPs, journalists and officials, as well as ensure it was recorded, in line with MPs' requests. There were several comments and queries by MK party MPs, including axed finance minister Des van Rooyen and former Eskom boss Brian Molefe. At one point, Molefe said the fiscal framework should include the expanded unemployment rate (43.1%) rather than the narrow definition (32.9%), but his suggestion was shot down. The MK and EFF also criticised the increase in the fuel levy, with Molefe describing it as 'regressive' and 'not pro-growth'. On Tuesday, the Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissed the EFF's urgent bid to block the fuel levy increase. Issues were raised on whether the Budget was that of an austerity budget, denied by the ANC – an answer the MK party and EFF continued to reject. It was questioned several times during the meeting whether MPs were making points simply to grandstand 'because there were cameras'. This seemed evident when EFF MP Omphile Maotwe raised objections over a section of the report that dealt with 'not providing bailouts' to state-owned entities (SOEs), rather than 'capitalising SOEs'. Maotwe said she was at Transnet when she claimed it had been successful under the management of fellow finance committee member Brian Molefe – the former Transnet CEO turned State Capture accused, and now a member of the MK Party on its parliamentary benches. Next week, the National Assembly will vote on whether to adopt the fiscal framework in a sitting at the Cape Town International Convention Centre. When the fiscal framework is passed, other steps in the budgeting process include the passing of the Division of Revenue Bill and the Appropriation Bill. During the tabling of the fiscal framework in the National Assembly in April, the ANC appeared jubilant when it was passed without the DA's support, while the DA had harsh words for the ANC and other parties who supported that version of the Budget. It's unlikely there will be such acrimony next week. DM
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Words that wound — ‘Kill the Boer' is legal, but not wise for a fragile South Africa
In March 2025, South Africa's Constitutional Court upheld a contentious ruling that the slogan 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' a liberation-era chant, does not constitute hate speech under South African law. This judgment followed an appeal by AfriForum against a previous judgment. The civil rights organisation argued that the slogan incited violence and hatred, particularly against white South Africans and especially farmers. The court found, however, that the phrase, when understood in its historical and political context, did not meet the legal threshold of hate speech. That said, it is argued here that while the slogan may be constitutionally protected, its deliberate use in contemporary political settings is not merely provocative, it is profoundly unwise. In a society still grappling with the legacies of apartheid, endemic inequality and fragile race relations, words carry weight far beyond their legal definitions. It is within this context that the South Africa Social Cohesion Index (Sasci), developed by the Inclusive Society Institute, has drawn timely attention to a worrying decline in societal cohesion by providing critical insights into why the continued use of divisive slogans serve only to jeopardise the country's progress toward unity and social stability. The Constitutional Court's reasoning The Constitutional Court's dismissal of the appeal by AfriForum was grounded in legal and historical nuance. The justices concurred with the 2022 Equality Court ruling that the chant should not be taken literally but as a symbolic relic of the anti-apartheid struggle. It was not, they emphasised, a call to actual violence against individuals or groups. There was also insufficient evidence linking the use of the slogan to specific acts of harm or incitement, which is a requirement for speech to be classified as hate speech under South African law. This decision reaffirmed the robust commitment of the South African judiciary to freedom of expression, one of the bedrock rights enshrined in the post-apartheid Constitution. It recognises that a democratic society must allow space for emotional, political and even uncomfortable speech. But freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. Social cohesion under strain According to the 2024 Sasci, South Africa is treading a narrow ridge between cohesion and fragmentation. The index, which measures solidarity, fairness, trust, identity, civic participation and respect for institutions, paints a picture of partial resilience and underlying volatility. Solidarity sits at 61.3, indicating moderate willingness to care for others regardless of identity, but still vulnerable to racial and economic fault lines; Perception of Fairness, however, is a weak point, at 42.7, reflecting widespread public sentiment that South Africa's socioeconomic systems remain unjust; Intergroup Trust is alarmingly low – just 41% of black and white South Africans express some trust in one another; and Identification, that is, the sense of belonging to a shared national identity, is strong at 72.2, and is the glue that is holding the nation together. But this is susceptible to erosion under divisive rhetoric. These findings underscore a society still recovering from historical trauma, where the social glue is thin and brittle. Therefore, it is in this context that the use of a slogan such as 'Kill the Boer' must be evaluated, not in a courtroom, but in the court of public morality and nation-building. The political weaponisation of memory Chants such as 'Kill the Boer' are more than mere slogans. They are symbolic vessels, carrying the memory of past struggles, but also the potential to stir contemporary fears. So, with this in mind, it follows that the historical justification of the chant, which is rooted in anti-apartheid resistance, does not automatically make its current use, politically or socially, justifiable. In today's South Africa, invoking such slogans, especially during political rallies or in highly charged public platforms, is often a calculated act. It is a way of stoking populist sentiment, galvanising political bases and appealing to historical loyalties. But this comes at a steep cost: the polarisation of society, the re-traumatisation of communities and the erosion of hard-won intergroup solidarity. The Trump factor and global amplification The domestic controversy over 'Kill the Boer' took on international significance during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House in May 2025. In a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the slogan once again found itself at the centre of a geopolitical flashpoint. Trump, resurrecting claims he first made in 2018, alleged that white South African farmers were the targets of a 'genocide'. He presented images purporting to show images of murdered white farmers. President Ramaphosa firmly rejected Trump's assertions, defending South Africa's constitutional land reform process and reaffirming the courts' dismissal of the 'white genocide' narrative. Yet, the damage had been done because Trump's global platform amplified fringe narratives and served to validate domestic fear-based politics within South Africa. This episode demonstrates how international rhetoric can dangerously reinforce internal social divisions, skew the global perception of South Africa's challenges and undermine the legitimacy of its reconciliation and land reform processes. Why legal speech can still be harmful Even if the courts are correct in finding that 'Kill the Boer' does not legally constitute hate speech, it is crucial to understand that legality does not equate to wisdom, unity or responsibility. In a country with such deep wounds, where race, land, identity and violence intersect in volatile ways, rhetoric matters. When political figures or public activists invoke this chant in the present day, they must consider: The historical trauma it reactivates for many white South Africans; The fear it induces among farming communities; The backlash it sparks from domestic and international actors; and Most importantly, the distrust and division it fuels between already polarised communities. Words, especially in political arenas, do not exist in a vacuum. They shape social perception, inform behaviour and influence whether people feel safe, respected and included. What leadership requires Leadership in a democratic society does not simply involve defending rights; it involves exercising them responsibly. South Africa's path forward depends not only on constitutional fidelity, but on a moral and social imagination capable of transcending inherited grievances. Political leaders and public influencers must ask: Does this speech unify or divide? Does it heal or harm? The question is no longer about what is legal, but what is nation-building. This is by no means a call for censorship. It is a call for ethical and moral restraint and for choosing reconciliation over rhetoric. And for choosing unity over provocation. It is possible to honour the past without weaponising it. It is possible to demand justice without alienating communities. It is possible to seek equity without amplifying enmity. Conclusion: The test of nationhood South Africa's journey from apartheid to democracy is often lauded as a global symbol of reconciliation. But symbols can become brittle. The Sasci's data tell us that the social cement is cracking and the slogan controversy is one fault line among many. If left unaddressed, such fissures can widen into fractures. The Constitutional Court has spoken on what the law allows. Now the burden falls to civil society, political leaders and ordinary citizens to determine what wisdom, justice and reconciliation demand. In a country where speech has the power to harm or to heal, the future will not be built by shouting into wounds, but by speaking into hope. DM
