Fuel levy hike to hit poor households the most
The General Fuel Tax levy, according to Finance Minister Enoch Gondongwana, is the sole new tax proposal for the 2025/26 fiscal year
Image: REUTERS/Ian Hodgson
The Automobile Association (AA) has raised concern over Minister of Finance Enoch Gondongwana'a announcement of the General Fuel Levy (GFL) increase. Presenting his Budget speech on Wednesday, Gondongwana proposed an increase of 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents per litre for diesel, which will come into effect on June 4.
The Minister described this adjustment—the first in three years—as the sole new tax proposal for the 2025/26 fiscal year, citing inflationary pressures as the reason for the hike.
Eleanor Mavimbela, the AA Public Affairs spokesperson, while acknowledging the government's fiscal constraints, warned that the increase will have immediate and far-reaching consequences for consumers and the economy.
"This levy adjustment comes at a time when South Africans are already contending with high food prices, elevated interest rates, increased electricity tariffs and persistently high unemployment. Fuel is a critical input cost across all sectors of the economy; any increase inevitably drives up transport and operational costs, further intensifying inflation. Lower-income households, which spend a greater share of their income on transport, will be disproportionately affected by this rise," said said. Escalating Tax Burden on Fuel
With the new adjustments in June, the combined cost of the GFL and the Road Accident Fund (RAF) Levy will exceed R6.00 per litre in some areas—accounting for more than 30% of the total pump price before adding the base fuel cost, distribution margins, and retail mark-ups.
"While the AA recognises the need to address fiscal pressures, continuously turning to fuel levies to fill budget gaps is unsustainable—especially in the absence of transparency on how these funds are allocated and used," said Mavimbela.
Call for Reform and Transparency
In light of this development, the AA renewed its call for a comprehensive and transparent review of South Africa's fuel pricing model. This should include: A forensic audit of revenue generated from the GFL and RAF Levy, including its allocation and expenditure
Full transparency on the fuel price-setting formula published by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE)
Engagement with civil society, labour, and the transport sector to identify fair and sustainable revenue models
Exploration of alternative funding mechanisms that reduce reliance on fuel-based taxation.
A Broader Conversation is Needed
Although the latest increase may appear modest in isolation, it forms part of a broader trend where motorists and transport-reliant industries bear the brunt of fiscal policy changes. South Africa must have a broader conversation about funding infrastructure, road safety, and public transport in a way that doesn't unduly burden citizens, she said.
The AA stands ready to engage with the government and all stakeholders to develop sustainable, transparent, and equitable solutions that support both economic growth and the citizens who drive it, said Mavimbela.
SUNDAY TRIBUNE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Unemployment and definitions — it's about ending the poverty, stupid
While economists argue about the definition of 'formal unemployment', what perhaps we really need to consider is a figure around how many people do something and receive an income in return for it. For as long as I can remember, one of the 'facts' that has almost defined so many of our conversations has been that we have the world's highest unemployment rate. It's the kind of point that underpins everything else; it puts political parties under pressure to claim they're trying to create jobs, it is the easiest way to understand how our economy is not working. We get reminders of this at least four times a year when Statistics South Africa releases its Quarterly Labour Force Survey. So many parts of our political commentariat erupt when we are reminded that so many people don't have jobs. For the past five years or so, I've found it really odd that the people who are given the most time to talk are union leaders. These are literally the people who have jobs talking about the people who don't have jobs. And, famously, the ANC and the government often say nothing. In fact, I remember once asking Thulas Nxesi, who was the Minister of Labour and Employment at the time, why he was so silent on the issue. His response, that it was not his job to create jobs, but actually the role of the private sector, seemed to miss the point somewhat. So I was hugely interested to read in BusinessLIVE that the outgoing CEO of Capitec, Gerrie Fourie, reckons we're understanding this in completely the wrong way. He says that we assume that the 32.9% of South Africans of working age who are unemployed are not actually working. Instead, he thinks, they are working. They're just working in the informal sector. As he puts it: 'If you go to the townships, most people have backrooms to rent out; everyone is doing something.' 'Formal unemployment' While economists can (and do … endlessly) argue about the definition of 'formal unemployment', what perhaps we really need to consider is a figure around how many people do something and receive an income in return for it. Because, as Fourie points out: 'If we really had a 32% unemployment rate, we would have had unrest.' I have to say, I do think that's true. If there were so many people who had literally nothing to do, and did not receive money as income, we would have much more violence than we actually do. And yes, social grants do play a role. But there are many millions of people who do not get a social grant, and have no formal job. At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has said for some time that our businesses face more regulation than in any other OECD-member country. Now, while regulation per se should not really hamper businesses, I think in South Africa it probably does. Some of the regulations seem unnecessarily onerous, but, more importantly, they open opportunities for corruption. And there is also an almost fatal lack of understanding from the government about the role so many informal businesses play. For example, during the pandemic, informal food markets were closed, along with spaza shops. That had the impact of making food more expensive just at the entirely wrong time. But we also don't really know how big the informal sector is. At least until 2019, our informal food sector – including spaza shops, hawkers, street traders and bakkie traders – employed more people than the formal food sector. That means that for every single person you see working in a supermarket, there is at least one other person in the informal sector. And that's just in food! Sustainable living You can imagine how many other people make a sustainable living from cutting hair or in the beauty industry, or simply washing cars. The people you see outside so many hardware stores hoping and praying they will get some work are making some money too. The problem, if there is one, seems to be that we want to focus on the formal sector. The sector that is regulated, and appears to have too many regulations. Instead, perhaps we should be focusing on simply creating the space for people to do something and be paid money in return. In other words, we should be trying to make people richer to reduce poverty. Of course, I could argue against myself here. Other research has shown that our economy is overly concentrated, basically many sectors are dominated by just a few companies. And getting new companies into those sectors is quite tough. We may not grow our economy without some kind of targeted intervention that results in de-concentration either. Changing a definition doesn't change anything, obviously. But, it does allow us to focus properly on what the real problems are. The real problem is poverty; we need more people to get more money for what they do.
IOL News
9 hours ago
- IOL News
How to maximise your tax-free savings account for long-term wealth
Discover how to effectively utilise your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) to reduce your tax burden and enhance your long-term financial strategy. Image: Freepik Many South Africans are looking to reduce their tax burden and improve overall tax efficiency, and one of the most effective tools available is the Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). With an annual contribution limit of R36,000 and no tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains, the TFSA offers significant long-term benefits – although it's important to ensure that you align your TFSA with your broader investment strategy. Here's how to get the most from your tax-free savings. Use your tax-free allowance wisely: The TFSA has become a key component of long-term financial planning because all income and growth earned within the structure, including interest, dividends, and capital gains, are tax-free. Note, however, that contributions are made with after-tax income, and no tax deduction is available on contributions such as in the case of retirement fund contributions. While it, therefore, makes sense to first maximise your retirement fund contributions, the TFSA remains an exceptional long-term investment vehicle. Think long-term from the start: The tax benefit in the early years of a TFSA is fairly small, with the compounding tax savings only becoming meaningful after about a decade. With this in mind, a TFSA is best suited to long-term investing and is not ideal for an emergency fund. It can, however, be used to supplement retirement savings or to meet other long-term goals, such as funding a child's tertiary education. Structure your contributions to suit your cash flow: Legislation permits annual TFSA contributions of up to R36,000 with a lifetime limit of R500,000, with most providers allowing flexible contribution options for investors depending on their personal circumstances. For instance, if your income is variable, you can set up a modest debit order and top it up when additional income becomes available, thereby allowing you to consistently build wealth without placing strain on your budget. Understand the implications of withdrawals: While it is possible to withdraw from your TFSA at any time, it's important to understand the consequences because withdrawals can reduce your lifetime contribution capacity. For example, if you've contributed R300,000 towards your TFSA and withdraw R50,000, you may only contribute another R200,000 in the future, regardless of whether you replace the R50,000 later. Importantly, withdrawals not only reduce your tax-free limit but can also interrupt the compounding growth within the investment. Match your investment to your time horizon: When selecting the underlying investment for your TFSA, consider how long you intend to stay invested. If you're investing for your child's education 15 to 20 years from now, or to supplement retirement income, your investment horizon may be long enough to justify growth assets. Having said that, it's important to balance return expectations with your risk tolerance. Also, remember that individuals under 65 already enjoy a tax exemption of R23,800 per year on interest earned (R34,500 if over 65), so using your TFSA to invest in low-yielding interest-bearing assets might not be the most efficient use of your tax-free allowance. Choose an efficient investment platform: There are numerous TFSA providers in South Africa, ranging from banks to investment platforms. While fixed-term accounts and money market funds are available, those with a long investment horizon should consider a more aggressive unit trust portfolio to harness better growth over time. Ideally, select a platform that provides consolidated reporting across your retirement and discretionary investments, so that your TFSA integrates seamlessly into your overall strategy. Avoid over-contributions and penalties: It's important to ensure that you stay within your R36,000 annual limit, as any contributions above this will attract a penalty tax of 40% from Sars, regardless of your personal income tax bracket. If you have more than one TFSA, be sure to track contributions carefully to avoid exceeding the threshold and incurring avoidable penalties. Stay compliant with Sars: Even though no tax is payable within a TFSA, you are still required to disclose the investment on your tax return. Your provider will issue a tax certificate, and it's important to include all TFSA-related information when filing with Sars. Maintaining transparency ensures compliance and helps avoid any administrative issues. A TFSA can be a powerful tool for building long-term wealth, provided it is used strategically, managed consistently, and integrated into your broader financial plan. * Odendaal is an associate financial planner at Crue Invest. PERSONAL FINANCE
Eyewitness News
14 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Road Accident Fund is wasting millions on 'chaotic' court cases
A judge of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has blasted the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for its 'chaotic approach to litigation' which has resulted in huge losses of public money. Courts are swamped with RAF cases, many of them without merit or with over-inflated claims for compensation. But 'the main problem lies with the RAF', said Judge Jan Pretorius in a recent judgment. The RAF does not deal with its matters properly, does not send lawyers to court to oppose applications or, if it does, does not provide them with any instructions. This results in 'default' judgments. The fund would then apply to rescind the judgments, often on baseless grounds. 'In this manner huge sums of money, public money, it must be emphasised, are lost,' said Judge Pretorius. In the week of 5 May, he had granted judgments against the fund of R25-million, and two other courts made default judgments in the same week which he said would have added R50-million to the RAF's liabilities. '[A]t the same time it pleads poverty.' He pointed out that in two matters with over-inflated claims, the RAF had not provided any expert reports to assist the court in assessing whether the claims were reasonable. The case before Judge Pretorius was an application by the RAF to rescind part of a previous order granted in favour of a road accident victim in 2021. The RAF had been ordered to pay past medical expenses of R223,000 and future loss of earnings of R6-million. The RAF's rescission application was made outside of the allowed timeframe. It gave no explanation for this. A more 'serious problem', Judge Pretorius said, was that the RAF made three untrue submissions to the court: that the 2021 hearing was heard virtually, that its defence had been previously struck out, and it had been barred from making submissions to the court. The record showed that the matter had been heard in open court, its defences were never struck out and the fund was represented at court by Ms N Xegwana from the office of the State Attorney. It had been placed on record that she was there to 'note the judgment' and had no instructions to make any submissions. Judge Pretorius said that because of these 'false averments', there was no legal basis to rescind the judgment. He had advised Ms N Kunene, who drafted the affidavit with the false claims, and Tonya de Beer, who deposed it, to appear before him. He was considering making them personally pay the costs of the litigation. Kunene then explained that she drafted the affidavit after receiving a memorandum from the RAF in which the alleged facts were spelled out. She did not know they were not true. She said De Beer was merely asked to sign the affidavit and she herself did not have knowledge of the facts of the matter. Judge Pretorius said this was 'highly unacceptable' and 'perturbing'. 'The result is that the respondent (the claimant) has been dragged to court to oppose an application based on falsehoods.' He said 'although I cannot express my disapproval of Ms Kunene and Ms de Beer's conduct strongly enough, I accept that they did not set out to mislead. The falsehoods originated from the fund, who misrepresented the facts to them.' Because of this he would not make a personal cost order against them. He ordered the RAF to pay costs on a punitive scale. 'This application has added to the applicant's financial burdens in that it will be required to settle the costs of a doomed application which resulted from its own inept management of its affairs.' LOSING BY DEFAULT 'The main problem lies with the [RAF and its chaotic approach to litigation, of which this application is but one example,' Judge Pretorius wrote. He said when the fund had terminated the services of its panel attorneys, there had been warnings that default judgments would result and inflated claims would not be properly scrutinised. This proved to be true and five years later, the RAF's system was largely still 'in chaos'. 'Many cases are heard every day in which the applicant is not represented at court or, if it is, instructions are not forthcoming.' Judge Pretorius said this was in spite of the fund being given special legal treatment, not extended to any other litigant — in that it was given multiple opportunities to comply with the rules of court. 'Notwithstanding the multiple warnings it has received, I still had 41 unopposed matters on the default roll in the week of 5 May 2025. In eight of these matters, the defence had been struck out and in 13, the fund was under bar [failing to file papers within the prescribed time]. In 20 cases the fund had not even noted an appearance to defend.' He said this failure by the fund to properly exercise its constitutional duties 'required urgent attention'. This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
