Navigating South Africa's Budget 2025: key decisions in a stagnant economy
Explore the challenges and decisions facing South Africa's Budget 2025 as economists debate the implications of fiscal policies amidst a stagnant economy.
Image: GCIS
South Africa's economic outlook remains bleak, with National Treasury forecasting real GDP growth of just 1.7% over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period. Persistent structural constraints, weak investment confidence, and ongoing energy and logistics challenges continue to limit growth, raising serious concerns about fiscal stability.
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana has finally delivered South Africa's 2025 Budget Speech, following two prior setbacks that delayed the announcement. One attempt was blocked by legal action, while the second was derailed by coalition disputes over the now-withdrawn VAT increase proposal.
The speech, originally scheduled for earlier this year, faced significant political and legal hurdles as government leaders struggled to find common ground on fiscal policy.
Speaking after the tabling of the Budget, Anchor Capital economist Casey Sprake highlighted that the Treasury has had to revise revenue projections downward due to the scrapped VAT rate hike, which was abandoned for political reasons. To compensate, fiscal drag has been applied, meaning personal income tax (PIT) brackets have not been adjusted for inflation. This alone is expected to generate R49.4 billion over the next three years. Additionally, higher excise duties on alcohol and tobacco and a freeze on inflation adjustments to medical tax credits will add R5.8 billion in revenue. In place of the VAT hike, the Treasury has opted for inflation-linked increases to the general fuel levy, a decision seen as less politically contentious, as it spreads the tax burden more broadly.
However, not all economists believe the government is making sound fiscal decisions. Theuns du Buisson, an economic researcher at the Solidarity Research Institute (SRI), describes the Budget as a continuation of poor economic policy, predicting ongoing economic stagnation. According to Du Buisson, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's approach to redistribution and structural transformation is misguided.
'This is, as always, a poor budget. Simply dividing a shrinking economy by taxing the rich—and, according to the minister, spending 60 cents of every rand on social relief—is not sustainable. It is certainly not something to be proud of,' says Du Buisson.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
He further argues that the income tax threshold unfairly classifies middle-class earners as wealthy. 'People earning just R7,979 per month are classified as 'rich' under this budget, as this is the point at which someone starts paying income tax.'
Du Buisson also believes that the absence of a VAT increase is being wrongly framed as a revenue loss, rather than acknowledging the core issue: government spending is rising faster than economic growth. 'The overall tax rate is 25.2% of GDP. The minister needs an extra 1% of GDP to balance the budget. The simple solution? Grow the economy by 4%, and the shortfall disappears,' he argues.
While the minister speaks of limited economic growth, Du Buisson contends that government policies are actively restricting growth potential. 'Personal income tax brackets have once again not been adjusted for inflation, shrinking disposable income. On top of that, fuel levies are increasing for the first time in three years, affecting nearly every cost in the economy. How can growth happen without affordable energy and adequate consumer spending?' he asks.
Despite concerns around taxation and spending, there is some optimism about private sector involvement in infrastructure development. Solidarity notes that there is increasing space for business-led investment in transport infrastructure, which could help offset logistical inefficiencies that have contributed to the economy's sluggish performance.
Meanwhile, UASA, a major trade union, has raised concerns about future tax burdens. 'The minister has noted that the 2026 budget will need to introduce new tax measures to raise R20 billion, which could further squeeze consumers and taxpayers," says Abigail Moyo, UASA spokesperson.
Moreover, without a concrete plan for job creation, businesses will struggle to invest, limiting economic expansion and structural reform efforts. Outside of necessary spending allocations for health, education, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), security, and social relief, the Budget fails to offer any meaningful solutions beyond what has been presented in previous years, she says.
`PERSONAL FINANCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's bid to dismantle multilateralism diminishes US influence
President Cyril Ramaphosa received a courtesy call from the People's Republic of China's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Wang Yi, on the margins of the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting held at the Nasrec Expo Centre, Johannesburg on February 20, 2025. China, India, Brazil, and others are stepping up, demonstrating that cooperation can move forward even when one of the largest economies chooses to disengage, says the writer. Image: GCIS Reneva Fourie Despite his recent assurances to President Cyril Ramaphosa that he would attend the G20 Leaders' Summit later in the year, President Donald Trump's reliability is questionable. Since beginning his second term in office, Trump has distanced himself from international cooperation and multilateral institutions. His approach to global engagement appears transactional, unpredictable, and driven more by personal instincts than long-term strategy or shared responsibility. This trend has become increasingly evident during South Africa's presidency of the G20. The United States, while formally set to assume the G20 presidency next, has demonstrated a lack of meaningful participation in the lead-up to the Summit. Key officials have been absent from critical meetings. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent missed high-level sessions. Reports have surfaced that Trump instructed his administration to scale back involvement in the G20 altogether. The US also did not participate in the recent G20 Agricultural Chief Scientists meeting despite assurances to support President Ramaphosa having been given in the Heads of State bilateral. These developments raise serious concerns about the US's commitment to global cooperation. The G20 is one of the few spaces where developed and developing countries can collaborate to address global economic and financial challenges. Its member states account for around 85 per cent of global GDP, more than 75 per cent of international trade, and two-thirds of the world's population. However, it does not have a permanent secretariat. The success of the G20 depends on the ability of current, previous, and incoming hosts to work together, building continuity through what is known as the troika system. With South Africa preparing to hand over the presidency to the US, cooperation has become even more important. Unfortunately, the US is not fulfilling its required role. Trump's reluctance to engage with multilateral forums is part of a broader pattern. Earlier this year, he issued an executive order requiring a full review of US participation in international organisations. This review is already having several adverse consequences. Future funding for UNWRA, the World Health Organisation and UNESCO is uncertain. The United Nations is currently planning significant budget cuts of between 15 and 20 per cent as part of its UN80 Reform Initiative. Although Secretary-General, António Guterres, insists that the US does not directly cause these cuts, the reality is that it has not paid its dues in full. At a time when global coordination is essential, the reduction in funding and staff weakens one of the world's most important platforms for cooperation. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The financial priorities outlined in Trump's 2026 budget proposal reflect a similar retreat. It includes only 9.6 billion dollars in new international spending, which represents a reduction of more than 80 per cent when expected rescissions are taken into account. The administration also plans to cut 15 billion dollars from renewable energy and carbon capture programmes and 4.5 billion dollars from conservation efforts. These proposals send a clear message. The US, under Trump, is turning inward, cutting itself off from collective solutions to the challenges that affect all countries. This approach is especially damaging to global trade. Trump's abuse of tariffs, often without consulting allies or respecting World Trade Organisation processes, has undermined the very foundations of the international trade system. By acting unilaterally and ignoring established norms, the US weakens the credibility of institutions that seek to facilitate fair and predictable global commerce. Despite these actions, work continues. Non-state US actors continue to engage in the technical and policy-related activities of various G20 working groups. Under its G20 presidency, South Africa has advanced a forward-looking agenda focused on inclusive growth, climate resilience, food security, and digital innovation. These priorities reflect the urgent needs of the Global South and speak to a broader shift in global leadership. China, India, Brazil, and others are stepping up, demonstrating that cooperation can move forward even when one of the largest economies chooses to disengage. Trump's absence may grab headlines, but it will not stop progress. The G20 was not designed to revolve around one country. It works best when all members contribute but does not collapse when one refuses to participate as another country can always replace the US for next year's presidency. Important initiatives are already moving ahead without the active involvement of the US. Should Trump ultimately decide not to attend the Leaders' Summit, the impact on the Summit itself will likely be minimal. The real cost will be to the US, which risks losing influence, credibility, and the ability to shape global decisions. The longer-term consequences of this approach could be even more significant. When the US withdraws from global leadership, it creates a vacuum that others are more than willing to fill. The G20 will proceed, consensus will be reached, and international initiatives will move forward. By not being at the table, the US risks being left behind, losing further influence, missing opportunities, and a diminished role in shaping global policies. In an interconnected world, isolationism is not a sign of strength but shortsightedness.
Daily Maverick
12 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Running on empty – OECD, banks and business warn SA of stagnation
The OECD's latest Economic Survey, backed by Treasury, leading economists, the RMB/BER Business Confidence Index and the recently released Kearney Global Economic Outlook, warns that failure to implement urgent structural reforms risks tipping South Africa into an entrenched economic stall. South Africa's economic growth is not just slowing – it's stalling. The OECD's 2025 Economic Survey is a mirror that few policymakers want to face, and reinforces much of the analysis of South Africa's economic trajectory – and the answer is not good. GDP per capita remains lower than it was in 2007. South Africa is the only G20 country whose investment rate has declined over the past decade. That's not just a warning sign – it's an indictment. The RMB/BER Business Confidence Index, compiled by the Bureau for Economic Research, shows confidence remains below the 50-neutral mark across sectors, with manufacturers and retailers especially pessimistic about fixed investment prospects. RMB Macroeconomist Keabetswe Mojapelo told Daily Maverick, 'It's not just interest rates – it's policy unpredictability and grid instability weighing on business decisions'. What's new is the institutional alignment. Treasury, economists consulted by Daily Maverick, and the OECD itself now converge around a single diagnosis. As economist Dawie Roodt put it: 'We know what needs to be done, but the politics always get in the way.' Can we grow below water? The OECD projects just 1.5% GDP growth in 2025 – a figure too weak to reduce unemployment, too shallow to sustain revenue and far below peer economies. India has averaged above 6% for the past decade. South Africa, by contrast, is now 0.7% smaller than it was in 2019 in real per capita terms. The Kearney Global Economic Outlook, published in May 2025, places South Africa in the 'low potential' quadrant, citing sluggish domestic reform momentum, capital flight risk and tepid FDI inflows despite global capital rotation. Public investment has collapsed – down 26% since 2016. 'It's been a lost decade for growth… there's a risk this becomes the new normal,' says Izak Odendaal, chief investment strategist at Old Mutual Wealth. Debt dominates our fiscal table Debt-to-GDP stands at 77.4%. Crucially, interest payments now absorb 5.2% of GDP, outpacing allocations to school infrastructure and police services combined, and noted as 'fiscally unsustainable' in the OECD's report. 'The electricity reform is the clearest example of a reform that is actually working… But now it's time for phase two: fixing the grid, getting the transmission constraints resolved and ensuring that independent power producers can come fully online,' says Odendaal. Treasury acknowledges the bind, but has yet to commit to a fiscal anchor. Options include an expenditure ceiling, a primary surplus path, or a hard cap linked to GDP, but no model has been confirmed, which means no clear roadmap to solving our economic crisis. 'We're waiting for a crisis,' says Roodt. 'Just like with load shedding.' Electricity retrospectively a core constraint Load shedding cut 1.5 percentage points from GDP in 2023. The number of blackout days has dropped – from 289 in 2023 to just 69 so far in 2024 – but fragility remains. Grid access for IPPs is constrained, Eskom's debt is unresolved, and municipal billing failures compound the risk, particularly in metros where Eskom's non-payment battles have delayed revenue and planning cautions that while the load-shedding reprieve has helped sentiment, 'corporate boards remain wary. Private investment in energy hinges on regulatory transparency and a credible path to grid upgrades.''Restoring energy security remains essential to unlocking growth,' Deputy Finance Minister Ashor Sarupen said at the OECD report launch. The OECD highlights overdue steps: transmission unbundling, tariff reform, and substation investment. Sarupen confirmed alignment with the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) but warned of slow procurement cycles. Good plans, but slow hands The OECD praises Operation Vulindlela's design: 74% of phase one reforms are complete or on track. But execution lags in core infrastructure – rail, water, ports. Delays in freight rail liberalisation and digital spectrum rollout are holding back productivity. 'We're shifting water and electricity to utility models,' said Sarupen. Yet, as Odendaal notes, 'There's a danger in mistaking plans for outcomes.' The OECD calls for binding timelines, stronger intergovernmental coordination, and clarity on cost-recovery mechanisms for state internal sentiment tracking finds infrastructure policy scepticism remains high among surveyed CFOs and investors, despite recognition of Operation Vulindlela's design integrity. Jobs, grants, fiscal issues Unemployment is 32.6%. Among youth, it's over 60%. Over half of South Africans now rely on social grants. 'It's not just unemployment,' Roodt observes. 'Absolute poverty is rising too.' The OECD warns that job creation 'remains insufficient to absorb new entrants,' and that the labour market is structurally exclusionary. South Africa's employment-to-population ratio is far below its emerging market peers – not a temporary downturn, but a reflection of deep systemic failure. Informal work remains the fallback for millions, yet remains under-supported and outside the tax, training, and credit warns that 'continued joblessness and poor training-to-work transitions are not just economic drags, they risk becoming political liabilities.' Odendaal highlights the risk to institutional stability: 'The legitimacy of the entire system is increasingly under pressure. If a third of your population can't find a job and more than half are on grants, what kind of social contract is that?' He adds: 'We risk ending up with a situation where unemployment isn't just a growth or budget issue anymore – it starts undermining trust in public institutions.' Treasury points to youth employment schemes, such as the Presidential Employment Stimulus and SETA-linked training. But uptake is low, and outcomes are poorly tracked, with the subsequent risk being these programmes becoming little more than a political goodwill gesture. Education and the fragile foundation The OECD report dedicates an entire chapter to education. South Africa performs below comparable middle-income countries in foundational literacy and numeracy. Grade 4 reading levels are among the lowest globally, as shown in the PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study). Without basic education reform, the OECD warns, 'skills shortages will persist, and inequality will deepen.' Fixing the early learning pipeline is no longer optional. What climate transition? The carbon tax rate is R236 per tonne, but exemptions currently shield around 95% of emissions, including Eskom, which remains exempt until 2026. The OECD argues this undermines pricing signals and fiscal potential. Sarupen says allowances will be phased down: 'From 2026, exemptions will narrow. We're preparing the industry for a just transition.' Odendaal is less sanguine: 'The real political heat comes when those exemptions fall away.' The OECD warns that without enforcement, the carbon tax becomes symbolic. With enforcement, it becomes politically explosive. Monetary policy highlighting credibility The OECD recommends tightening the SARB's inflation band from 3-6% to 3-5%, and eventually to 2-4%. Roodt supports the move: 'The Reserve Bank already sees 3% as the midpoint. It's the right signal.' The global trend is toward narrower bands: Brazil and India target 4%; the US Fed anchors at 2%. South Africa's wide range weakens predictability. Disinflation and declining oil prices have opened a window, but anchoring expectations requires follow-through and communication. Broken municipalities Only 15% of municipalities received clean audits, according to the 2023/24 Auditor-General report. Treasury's municipal formula is under review, and Section 139 interventions have risen, but with limited impact. Odendaal is blunt: 'Local government isn't just failing – it's actively deterring investment.' The OECD agrees: municipal dysfunction is a top-tier risk to housing, infrastructure and basic services. SOEs face parallel crises. Eskom and Transnet's bailouts continue, but performance lags. The OECD calls for hard budget constraints, better board vetting and enforced turnaround all datasets – from the OECD survey to bank confidence trackers and global macro outlooks – the signals are converging. South Africa's structural constraints are no longer abstract policy concerns. They are now active barriers to private investment, job creation and political in the private sector, hope is cautious. Mojapelo notes that while sentiment indicators remain weak, 'credible movement on energy, logistics and fiscal clarity could shift the dial – but the window is narrowing.' It's reform or relapse This is not a technical debate, but an economically existential one. The OECD warns that without implementation credibility, South Africa risks falling into a low-growth trap that becomes ever more permanent.'Growth must be inclusive, climate-aligned and reform-led,' Sarupen said.
Daily Maverick
12 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence. This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie. The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school. In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid. In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.' The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational. 'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated. The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck. Stigma of name and call for change The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him. In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name. In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray. Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school. In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof. Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders. All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name. A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question. The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem. Varied responses It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols. The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed. The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee. Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name. A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser. On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change. The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names. However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%. The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change. The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints. 'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
