We stand with the people of South Africa, not political extortionists
Following the decision to keep VAT unchanged, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana and Parliament are now free to proceed with the rest of the Budget process without being held hostage by narrow political priorities that undermine existing legislation, says the writer.
RISE Mzansi takes positive note of the Finance Minister's announcement, which begins the legislative process of keeping value-added tax (VAT) at its current rate of 15%.
Moreover, the Finance Minister needed to own this process, given his and the Treasury's constitutional station and obligations, which come with a level of independence.
This union of political parties with the aim of finding a solution means that the Finance Minister and Parliament are now free to proceed with the rest of the Budget process without being held hostage by narrow political priorities that serve to undermine existing legislation – such as making South Africans wait longer for land justice, and limiting the diversity in the country's schools.
The reality is that while this is a win on one hand, on the other hand, we now have to find R75 billion over the medium term. This represents less than 0,04% of the Budget, which RISE Mzansi believes we can locate, whether through reprioritisation or revenue collection.
Budgets are about expenditure priorities, which is why RISE Mzansi presented its topline priorities, such as funding for unemployed doctors; funding and capacitation for local governments; investment in rail for the safe and convenient movement of people and goods, and investment in water infrastructure. It is therefore very telling that some of the noisiest parties have not said what it is they wanted this Budget to fund. Some parties want to campaign on the issues, and not solve them, especially when it matters.
When endorsing the Fiscal Framework, it was done with the knowledge that work would be done through negotiation and debate, not through the courts or political extortion.
Going into this process, RISE Mzansi understood that leadership requires tough and smart decisions, which are not always popular or electorally profitable. We were elected to lead even when it is difficult to do so. This is one such moment.
This is not the end of the Budget process, but only a step in the process, which will unfold on the floor of the National Assembly. We therefore call on all 400 Members of Parliament to place the interests of the country and people ahead of narrow politics, which all parties represented here have done.
I would like to thank our voters and supporters for their commitment during this period. We have faced organised and well-funded attacks through misinformation and disinformation campaigns from political parties and their surrogate organisations.
The work of finalising the Budget continues, and as RISE Mzansi, we will continue to play an active and transparent role, with the people and the country front of mind.
RISE Mzansi National Leader, Songezo Zibi MP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
41 minutes ago
- IOL News
Point of view: understanding the financial habits of South Africa's youth
Explore how South Africa's youth, aged 18 to 35, are navigating their financial journeys amidst economic pressures, balancing essential expenses with aspirations, and embracing digital financial tools. The financial landscape for young South Africans is rapidly evolving, shaped by economic pressures, shifting priorities, and a growing reliance on digital financial tools. The Youth Barometer, which harnesses data from Standard Bank's Personal and Private Banking and Liberty, offers a revealing snapshot of how South Africans aged 18 to 35 are navigating their financial journeys—balancing essential expenses with discretionary spending, financing their first assets, supporting their families, and planning for their long-term futures. The inaugural Youth Barometer was launched this week in Rosebank. According to the head of youth and mass market segments at Standard Bank, Tshiamo Molanda, these insights are more than data points; they are a call to action. "They challenge us to design solutions that are relevant, inclusive, and forward-looking. Solutions that not only respond to where young South Africans are now but also anticipate where they aspire to go. Because when we understand youth better, we can partner with them more meaningfully, enabling them to grow as we grow," she says. But where are young South Africans today, financially? The Barometer's findings provide answers. Data from three million youth customers reveals a shifting pattern in spending habits. Young South Africans aged 18–24 allocate the highest proportion of their income to essential expenses (58%), followed by those aged 25–29 at 53%. Only the 30–35 group shows an even split between essentials and discretionary spending—a trend mirrored among those over 35, likely due to higher earnings reducing the strain of covering necessities. However, younger generations spend proportionately less than their elders on insurance, loans, transport, and savings, while prioritising categories such as clothing, groceries, dining out, entertainment, digital connectivity, and self-care. Meanwhile, spending on education, healthcare, holidays, utilities, and family support remains fairly consistent across all age groups. The data reveals that while the digital economy is expanding, cash withdrawals remain a common habit for youth aged 18 to 24, making it harder to track their exact spending patterns. Still, the data that remains within banking systems points to top spending categories such as digital connectivity, groceries, and fast food. Interestingly, despite a decline in clothing spending from 2021 to 2024, younger customers still allocate more income to clothing than older youth, frequently shopping at brands like Mr Price, Pep, Ackermans, Sportscene, Pick n Pay Clothing, Shein, H&M, Cotton On, and Markham. Luxury brands also feature strongly, with spending patterns reflecting preferences for Farfetch, Louis Vuitton, Timberland, Steve Madden, Piccadilly, G-Star Raw, and Hugo Boss. 'This tells us that younger age groups have a higher brand affinity to luxury brands, because while we see some of this behaviour among older age bands, more reasonably priced brands feature among older youth,' says Shené Mothilal, solution owner for Digital Money Manager. Young adults aged 18–24 allocate the highest proportion of their income to groceries among under-35s, alongside the highest spend on takeouts—indicating that while older customers increasingly cook at home, younger customers prefer a balance between eating in and dining out. Among 25–29s, spending remains focused on essentials such as groceries, digital connectivity, and clothing. However, insurance and loan repayments begin rising, suggesting that many in this age group are establishing financial stability and working towards formal credit histories. Meanwhile, those aged 30–35 start exhibiting spending behaviours akin to over-35s, allocating more of their income to insurance, loans, and healthcare. With incomes rising due to career advancement, their spending shifts away from essentials such as groceries, clothing, and digital connectivity. This trend is compounded by demographic factors—many are not yet supporting children, with South Africa's median age for first-time mothers now sitting at 28.3 years. In a climate where the cost of living continues to rise and incomes remain under pressure, savings aren't optional—they're essential. To address this, Standard Bank provides tailored guidance for different age groups: 18–24: Start small, but start now. Redirecting just R50 to R100 a month from takeouts, self-care, or entertainment into an emergency fund can create momentum. Using financial tools like Standard Bank's Digital Money Manager to track spending habits can help build consistency before scaling up savings contributions. 25–29: Rebalance discretionary splurges. This group is showing increasing financial maturity through higher contributions toward insurance and loans. However, they still rank second in clothing and takeout spend, suggesting an opportunity to fine-tune their budgets further. 30–35: Leverage career gains to build a cushion. With a more balanced split between essentials and discretionary spending, this group is well-positioned to accelerate their savings toward property, education, and retirement. Redirecting even a small portion of entertainment or takeout spending into interest-bearing financial products could significantly bolster long-term security. The data reveals that despite making up nearly 60% of South Africa's population, those under 35 account for just 17% of the country's outstanding credit value. Their credit portfolios consist largely of unsecured products such as retail accounts, personal loans, and entry-level credit cards, unlike older generations, who have broader access to secured credit lines. Once credit becomes available to them, young South Africans tend to use it extensively. For example, the average credit limit for 18–24-year-olds is approximately R20,000, with utilisation rates above 70%, suggesting many rely on credit for both necessities and lifestyle expenses. Additionally, youth in this age bracket make more credit card payments per month than any other segment, averaging three payments per month. Encouragingly, youth under 35 are showing a strong and growing interest in property ownership, despite broader affordability concerns and rising living costs, the data shows. Approximately 40% of all new home loan enquiries at Standard Bank from January 2023 to April 2025 have come from this demographic, demonstrating a clear ambition to secure long-term financial assets. Similarly, insights from Standard Bank's Vehicle and Asset Finance division indicate that youth aged 18–35 remain a vital segment in the car finance ecosystem, accounting for just under 40% of vehicle finance customers. However, limited incomes shape their decisions—from car brands to deposit sizes and repayment structures. * Maleke is the editor of Personal Finance. PERSONAL FINANCE
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's white South African resettlement plan and the global colour line
The narrative that white South Africans are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. Image: File/X THE arrival of over 3 000 white South Africans in the United States under President Donald Trump's fast-tracked refugee resettlement programme is a racial spectacle of historic proportions. Framed by Trump as a rescue mission from 'racial discrimination' and even 'genocide' in post-apartheid South Africa, the scheme repackages whiteness as victimhood while reasserting racial hierarchies through the veneer of humanitarian concern. Cheryl Harris's seminal concept of 'whiteness as property' is especially instructive here. This programme protects not the displaced, but the entitlements embedded in whiteness — land, social status, and the right to global mobility. These arrivals, facilitated under a controversial executive order, mark the first time in US history that white South Africans have been accepted en masse as refugees. The move has drawn intense scrutiny, with South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissing the claims as 'unfounded and inflammatory'. He clarified that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no involvement and had consistently found no basis for refugee status for white South Africans. 'The resettlement of South Africans under the guise of being 'refugees' is a political project to delegitimise our democracy,' Lamola asserted. The narrative that white South Africans — particularly Afrikaner farmers — are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. In February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14152: Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, suspending non-essential aid. He cited South Africa's land reform policies and its support for Palestine at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of 'anti-white discrimination'. His language echoed apartheid-era rhetoric, framing land expropriation without compensation — a constitutional measure designed to redress historical injustice — as proof of racial targeting. This is not a story about humanitarian rescue. It is about the repackaging of privilege as persecution. Trump's administration, by reclassifying specific 'South African communities' for humanitarian parole, has revived the settler-native divide. As Mahmood Mamdani has noted, this manoeuvre casts descendants of apartheid's beneficiaries as 'refugees' and South Africa itself as the oppressor. Achille Mbembe's critique of global humanism is relevant here: the programme renders Black suffering invisible while privileging whiteness as a passport to refuge and legitimacy. Consequently, while Black refugees languish in camps, whiteness is deemed inherently worthy of protection, effectively enacting a form of apartheid within the asylum system itself. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing a 'well-founded fear of persecution.' Neither the Convention nor US law has ever interpreted this to include the loss of economic dominance or historical privilege. Fleeing land redistribution or reduced social status does not amount to persecution, especially when these changes are legally enacted by a democratic society seeking to correct historical wrongs. The parallels to earlier racial engineering are striking. In 1932, the US-sponsored *Carnegie Poor White Study* analysed the 'problem' of poor whites in South Africa. The initiative was not rooted in concern for poverty but in preserving white supremacy. The report warned that poor whites threatened the racial order and recommended state interventions to uplift them, while black South Africans were systematically excluded from similar support. This laid the foundation for apartheid's white welfare state and established a pattern of American intervention when white South Africans faced hardship, real or perceived. Trump's resettlement scheme is the 21st-century iteration of this pattern. White South Africans are framed not as beneficiaries of a violent racial order, but as victims of transformation, worthy of rescue. South Africa's Constitutional Court recently affirmed that acquiring foreign nationality — whether through refugee resettlement or otherwise — does not automatically strip someone of South African citizenship. In a landmark ruling, the Court struck down a section of the Citizenship Act that had quietly revoked citizenship without due process, calling the move irrational and unconstitutional. However, the case of these white South Africans is unique. Their refugee claims are based on false premises and a political agenda. South Africa may therefore have grounds to argue that accepting the US offer constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The Constitutional Court's ruling on dual citizenship might not protect them in this politically charged context. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more glaring than in the American South. In the Mississippi Delta, six Black farmworkers filed a federal lawsuit in 2021 after being replaced by white South Africans brought in under the H-2A visa programme. The plaintiffs, many descended from enslaved people who built Southern agriculture, earned just $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum wage — while their white South African replacements were paid over $11. The lawsuit alleges that these Black workers were forced to train their replacements, who were then housed in better accommodations and elevated in status simply because they were white. Between 2011 and 2020, the number of South Africans on H-2A visas increased by 441%, making them the second-largest national group in the programme. The majority are white. The message is clear: in the racial calculus of US capitalism, white foreign labour is worth more than black American lives. Mexican seasonal workers, once the backbone of US agriculture, are also increasingly excluded — both by border walls and by labour policies that privilege whiteness over need. The result is a reshuffling of the global racial order, disguised as economic necessity. Trump's South African refugee programme is less about humanitarian concern and more about reaffirming a hierarchy of global suffering, where privilege continues to mask itself as victimhood. What we are witnessing is the reinforcement of a global colour line — one where whiteness retains its claim to mobility, safety, and opportunity, while blackness and brownness are rendered threats to be contained. The implications are profound: Refugee systems that prioritise whiteness over need. Economic visas favour white foreign farmers over Black citizens. Historical privilege is purposely mistaken for victimhood. This is not humanitarianism. It is neo-colonialism in motion. As the world watches Trump engineer the next stage of global apartheid, we must ask: What kind of refugee is it when only the privileged are welcome? When does skin colour ration citizenship, safety, and opportunity? If the notion of 'refuge' is to mean anything, it must centre justice, not historical comfort. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.
The South African
10 hours ago
- The South African
'No refugees are hungry': Backlash after 'struggling' family report
US intelligence analyst Chris Wyatts has rubbished reports of an Afrikaner 'refugee' family who were allegedly left stranded in a motel without access to a phone, car, or food. The retired army colonel shared his views hours after a TikToker's claims about the family went viral. In recent weeks, two groups of white South Africans have taken up US President Donald Trump's offer of refugee resettlement on the grounds of 'unjust racial discrimination'. The programme is open to all racial minorities who have been 'persecuted' in SA. In a social media post, Chris Wyatt rubbished a TikToker's claims that an Afrikaner 'refugee' family of four had been 'stranded' at a motel in Montana after arriving in the US in recent weeks. The female TikToker – @catmpt – claimed that she had come across the family's woes in a Facebook group for South Africans living in the US. According to the woman, the 'refugees' reportedly did not have food, money, or a cellphone. She said of the family and the group of 'refugees': 'They understood that they would be arriving here for complete assistance. People thought they would be arriving at a house, a job, medical insurance, and other things. It isn't that way at all. She added: 'Because of the political situation, they are really struggling to get jobs'. She added: 'Here, these people, regardless of what they were promised, just came here expecting everything'. Responding to the woman – who has since deleted her TikTok videos – Wyatt said: 'Tell me which refugees are not getting assistance? 'It's ludicrous! They've been here for three weeks. People live in South Africa for 17 years without a job in some cases…you don't know anything. You're repeating nonsense. You're opinions mean nothing.' Wyatt added that many in the first group of 'refugees' now reportedly had social security numbers, and one had a car and a job already. That person arrived at an apartment stocked with food. He added, 'No refugees are going hungry, and no refugees are suffering in motels. Most of them should be in their permanent housing, as per the way the system works.' @colonelchriswyatt Why are people spreading these lies? #southafrica #refugee #program #ramaphosa ♬ original sound – Colonel Chris Wyatt In another video, Chris Wyatt urged South Africans who had applied for the refugee resettlement programme to exercise their patience while awaiting feedback. He also claimed that the programme was still open despite the public's uncertainty about the 'falling out' between US President Donald Trump and South African-born former right-hand man Elon Musk. He said, 'Do you seriously think this happens overnight? Here is some advice for anxious and impatient people: get on with your lives. When the call comes, the call comes. 'It's getting incredibly frustrating. People are being offered the most amazing gift possible under the unbelievable circumstances – where no one gave a c**p and completely ignored your plight – to become quite demanding. He added, 'Honestly, you have very unrealistic expectations about how the world works. 'You had no offer [before]. You're not paying for this. We, the American taxpayers, are paying for this….you're not entitled to this. It's not a right, it's a gift'. @edlin1344 Has the South Africa Refugee Program stopped NO#edlin1344 ♬ original sound – Edlin Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
