The VAT whiplash: why SA can't afford to ignore the real cost of policy uncertainty
Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers
When the South African Government floated the proposition of a 0.5% VAT increase earlier this year, only to cancel it at the eleventh hour, the economy may have avoided an official tax hike, but the damage had already been done. Even before the proposal could be tabled in the Budget Speech, the mere suggestion of higher VAT triggered a psychological and financial ripple effect.
Consumer sentiment shifted almost instantly, with many fearing potential retail activity dips and increased credit card usage, with many South Africans, particularly in the middle-income group, looking to tighten their belts in anticipation of rising costs that never formally materialised.
This moment offers a sobering reflection on the state of financial resilience in the country. It wasn't the implementation that sparked anxiety, but the uncertainty. The mere suggestion of a VAT increase was enough to trigger a reaction in households and ripple through lending institutions. This kind of market sensitivity underscores a deeper fragility: one where consumer confidence is worn thin, and policy signals - real or speculative - can tip the scale from financial coping to financial crisis.
When policy uncertainty hits home
While VAT hikes are not new in South Africa, the reaction to this latest proposal felt particularly acute. Wages have stagnated, unemployment remains high, and the cost of basic goods continues to climb. In this context, even a small increase in indirect tax feels like a direct threat.
Consumers responded accordingly. Spending signalled a slowdown across various sectors, particularly in discretionary categories. This wasn't about affordability alone; it was largely about caution. And when spending slows but everyday costs remain, many turn to short-term solutions, namely credit.
However, for lenders, these behavioural shifts are not just theoretical; they represent a real risk, particularly when they happen suddenly and at scale. The ability to understand and track how economic announcements shape credit behaviour, whether the announcements are confirmed or not, is now business-critical.
The credit cushion is wearing thin
Recent XDS studies paint a clear picture of how South Africans are managing the squeeze. Credit card utilisation has risen steadily, not just as a function of increased spending, but as a stopgap for essential purchases such as groceries, utilities, clothing, and fuel.
Over the past five years, there has been a 13% rise in credit card utilisation, even as credit limits for new cards have dropped by 21%. This means many consumers are accessing more of their available credit, even with reduced ceilings, underscoring a growing dependence on revolving credit to cover essentials like food, fuel, and utilities.
Notably, the average number of new credit cards issued per month has surged by 39% - a clear signal that households are turning to credit more frequently to buffer against economic uncertainty. For many middle-income households, credit is no longer a financial tool, but a survival mechanism.
This trend isn't restricted to VAT announcements; it reflects a broader, more troubling reality: households are living closer to the financial edge, with fewer buffers in place. When a single policy proposal can stall retail spending and increase debt reliance, it becomes clear just how precarious the balance really is.
And yet, most lending frameworks still rely on backward-looking data and quarterly trends. By the time changes in consumer behaviour are reflected in reports, the impact may have already been embedded in default rates and missed payments. It's a delayed response to a fast-moving problem.
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
SA government officially withdraws recognition of Taiwan's office in Pretoria
Taiwan has rejected the move and threatened to retaliate, saying that Pretoria had bowed to pressure from Beijing. The South African government has issued a Government Gazette officially withdrawing its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan's representative office in Pretoria. This is the latest move in Pretoria's mounting pressure to force Taiwan to move out of its Pretoria office and relocate to Johannesburg. Taiwan has rejected and strongly protested at the 'unilateral action' and said it would 'take appropriate action in accordance with the circumstances'. It said the SA government had bowed to pressure from Beijing. Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mofa) said the South African government had published its 'unreasonable announcement' — without consulting Taiwan — after Deputy President Paul Mashatile's visit to China from July 14 to 18. 'This demonstrates that China has ramped up suppression of Taiwan in South Africa and that South Africa is willing to bow to China and exert pressure on Taiwan. Mofa expresses regret and dissatisfaction over these developments.' Pretoria's notice in the Government Gazette said, 'The Taipei Liaison Office, now referred to as the Taipei Commercial Office, situated in Pretoria, will no longer be recognised as of 31 March 2025. Rather, the Republic of South Africa will, from 1 April 2025, recognise the Taipei Commercial Office, based in Johannesburg, through which consular services will be rendered and through which non-diplomatic and non-political engagements will continue.' Taiwan has no office in Johannesburg, even though on its website, South Africa's Department of International Relations recently and unilaterally changed the address of the country's office from Pretoria to an address in Johannesburg, which used to house Taiwan's information office, before it moved out several years ago. One China policy The SA government has been putting pressure on Taiwan to move from Pretoria to Johannesburg since late 2023. It claimed that Taiwan having an office in the capital violates the One China policy, which SA adopted in 1998 when it switched recognition from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China. However, Taiwan has pointed out that almost all countries in the world, including Russia, India and Brazil, allow Taiwan to maintain representative offices in their capital cities, although these offices go under the name of Taiwan's capital, Taipei, rather than under the name Taiwan. In its notice, SA said it had called on Taiwan to move its office from Pretoria to Johannesburg because this was 'more appropriate, given its status as the country's economic hub'. It added that the Taipei Liaison Office in Cape Town would now be referred to as the Taipei Commercial Office in Cape Town. Taiwan's Mofa said it 'reiterates that the position of the Taiwan government remains unchanged and that it will not accept the South African government's unilateral violation of its 1997 agreement with Taiwan'. This agreement by SA to allow Taiwan to continue maintaining a representative office in Pretoria — but under the name Taipei Liaison Office — was reached after SA switched its official diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China. 'The Taiwan government will continue to communicate with the South African government on the principles of parity and dignity,' said Mofa. 'And in the face of South Africa's repeated unilateral changes to the names and status of Taiwan's liaison offices, Taiwan will take appropriate action in accordance with the circumstances.' Pretoria had justified its move by citing UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971, 'which recognises the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legitimate representative of China'. However, Taiwan has said in the past that this resolution says nothing about the country not being allowed in countries which switch diplomatic recognition to Beijing. 'Mofa solemnly calls on South Africa, as the host country of this year's Group of 20 summit, to abide by the 1997 legal framework concerning bilateral relations and not employ coercive tactics against Taiwan's liaison offices or take any other actions that might interfere with their operations or services before both sides have reached a consensus through consultations.' SA's efforts to pressure Taiwan to move from Pretoria to Johannesburg have been cited by the Trump administration and US congressional representatives as one of the reasons they are seeking to sanction South Africa. DM
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
How Vodacom and Maziv convinced everyone they had changed
All the details from the Vodacom/Maziv merger Competition Appeals Court hearing where R12bn in promises nearly caused a fender-bender. When senior counsel representing the Competition Commission, advocate Daniel Berger, said, 'My lord, as an officer of the court, I am duty bound to commit this statement to the public record,' I nearly drove my car off the road in shock. I was on my way from collecting my kids from school to drop my son off at his football practice, and things were getting spicy in the post-lunch session of Competition Appeals Court (CAC) proceedings. But how did we get here? The devil in the details Earlier this month, I reported on the Competition Commission's dramatic about-turn on the Vodacom/Maziv merger – how they went from fierce opposition to sudden support after the parties agreed to 'revised conditions'. Now, sitting in back-to-school traffic with a Teams call crackling through my car speakers, I got the full story of exactly what those conditions entail. And frankly, it's either the most comprehensive set of telecoms concessions in South African history, or the most elaborate corporate sleight of hand. The headline number that had everyone's attention was always going to be the money. Maziv has committed to a cumulative capital expenditure (capex) of 'at least R12-billion' over five years for network expansion and maintenance. That's 'two more (billions) than it was before,' as one counsel helpfully clarified for those of us trying to do math while navigating parking lot chaos. But here's where it gets interesting – and where my daughter, sitting in the passenger seat doing homework, started asking why I was shouting at my laptop again: of that R12-billion, R9-billion will be spent specifically on new fibre projects, with the commitment period restarted from April 2025. They've effectively put the 'clock back to zero' on their investment timeline. The kicker? The capex will be 'primarily but not exclusively spent on roll-out of infrastructure in low-income areas.' This isn't just about passing homes – it's about actually connecting them. The million homes promise Maziv has undertaken to pass at least one million homes in lower-income areas over five years, with at least 350,000 homes in what they're calling 'key areas' (think Alexandra Township), what counsel is calling the 'lowest of low-income homes'. My daughter is now asking what I mean when I keep muttering about 'homes passed'. How do you explain to a 14-year-old that a telecoms company just promised to wire up the townships? But the really fundamental concession – the one that had legal eagles in the virtual courtroom practically purring, is this: Maziv must provide 'sufficient capex to ensure that every home passed in terms of the commitments that wishes to be connected on the prevailing terms and conditions for connection is connected' for five years. What this means They can't just run fibre past your house in Alex and then charge you R2,000 to actually connect. They have to budget for actual connections, not just the theatrical gesture of running cables down your street.. Boardroom chess The shareholding arrangements have been tweaked in ways that would make any corporate governance lawyer proud. Vodacom still gets its initial 30% co-controlling equity interest, but the path to 40% just became significantly more complicated. Under the revised conditions, which now meet muster for Compcom sign-off, 'Vodacom can't increase its shareholding beyond 34.9% without the consent of the Commission.' And if it wants to move to more direct forms of control, it'll need fresh merger approval entirely. I gaze directly into the sun, trying to follow the technical submissions about board composition. All parties are now trying to explain, much to the chagrin of the merging parties, to Judge President Norman Manoim that the 'extra four percent' shareholding isn't the nothingburger he keeps making it out to be. You see, the composition of the board has been restructured since the Competition Tribunal blocked the deal: seven Maziv directors, seven Vodacom directors, and now four independent directors (up from three), plus CEO/CFO. Crucially, 'Vodacom will not be entitled to veto their appointment' of independent directors. It's corporate governance with training wheels, designed to address exactly the control concerns that got this deal prohibited in the first place. Clearing the blockade The legal arguments against the Competition Tribunal's original prohibition are where this hearing gets properly spicy. Advocate Jerome Wilson, representing the merging parties, spent considerable time arguing that the tribunal had 'misdirected itself' through what he called 'internal mistrust' and 'cynicism or bias'. The tribunal, Wilson argued, relied on 'extraordinary allegations' about alleged past collusion between Vodacom and MTN from media reports dating back to 1994 – allegations that were never properly tested in proceedings. This context, he said, apparently 'infected the Tribunal's entire reasoning process'. Wilson's most damning critique focused on the tribunal's 'counterfactual analysis', basically, what would happen without the merger. The tribunal assumed Vodacom would become a very significant fibre player in low-income areas and that other players would fill any investment gap. The evidence? A Dark Fibre Africa representative testimony saying it would take 'at least three years for me to find an investor and I cannot guarantee you that I would find one', and that 'nobody else has come up since 2015' other than Vodacom. The tribunal's reliance on speculation rather than what Wilson calls 'real world outcomes' was deemed a fundamental error. But this does not erase the other issues. The maths starts math-thing While lawyers argued legal theory, the market realities are crazy. Pre-merger, Maziv (through Vumatel) commanded 32% of the fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) market with 2,050,000 homes passed. Vodacom's standalone fibre network? A measly 2.5% with 158,000 homes. Post-merger, the combined entity will control 34.5% of homes passed (2,208,000) and 34.4% of homes connected (885,000). That makes them significantly larger than Telkom's Openserve at 20.9% of homes passed. I explain to my now fully engaged teenager that this deal is essentially creating a duopoly in South Africa's wholesale fibre market: Vodacom-Maziv versus Openserve, with everyone else scrambling for scraps. Which was the original Compcom opposition point, until the merging parties sweetened the deal to get government buy-in – the DTIC and communications minister both supported the appeal. Honeypot dealmaking These post-tribunal public interest commitments read like a policymaking wet dream. Free gigabit per second fibre connections for all public schools, libraries, and clinics passed by the FTTH network roll-out. More police stations getting Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) products. Enhanced employee share ownership plans. Vodacom has also committed to achieving 90% 5G population coverage within five years, with obligations to connect additional FWA users that will require them to 'price their FWA competitively'. For pricing protection, FTTH can't increase prices for the lowest-price options for two years, and there can be 'no forced upgrades' for five years – protecting lower-income consumers from being pushed on to more expensive packages. You see, the tribunal's concern was that Vodacom's veto rights could allow it to force Maziv to act against its profit-maximising interests – essentially, to favour Vodacom over other wholesale customers. The merging parties argued this was a 'fundamental conceptual error'. Vodacom would account for 'less than 20% of Maziv's revenues', so any theoretical side payments or compensation for non-profit-maximising behaviour simply wouldn't make economic sense. The burden of debt What's often lost in the regulatory theatre is why Maziv needed this deal in the first place. CIVH, Maziv's parent company (owned by Remgro), was carrying R19.5-billion in debt by mid-2024. This merger provides the capital injection needed to fund the next phase of fibre expansion, particularly into areas where the business case is marginal. The 'lessening of competition' identified by the tribunal primarily affected 'certain wealthier households' – about 2,000 to 7,500 homes, according to the merging parties. They argued this was insignificant when weighed against connecting a million low-income homes. One genuinely innovative aspect of the revised conditions is an enhanced 'fast-track interim relief process' for foreclosure concerns. This allows an expert to make binding determinations while formal investigations are under way, 'taking the load off the commission' for complex, time-sensitive issues. It's regulatory innovation born from regulatory failure. A recognition that the traditional competition processes aren't nimble enough for rapidly evolving telecoms markets. Concession is a town in Zimbabwe As I finally switch off the Teams call, the bigger picture comes into focus. Compcom's about-turn isn't just about accepting better conditions, it's about accepting that South Africa's digital infrastructure reality requires uncomfortable compromises. The revised deal creates what's being called a 'fibre powerhouse with unparalleled market scale' while theoretically addressing competition and public interest concerns. Whether those theoretical protections work in practice remains to be seen. But here's the uncomfortable truth that emerged from the proceedings: the same companies we don't trust to compete fairly are the only ones with deep enough pockets to bridge our digital divide. In a country where millions still lack basic connectivity, that might be a trade-off we're willing to make. DM
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Loaded for Bear: Does coal have a role to play in the green energy transition?
Pure coal conferences are almost a fossilised relic of the past. But the coal sector is grafting itself on to the energy transition — which some might see as an attempt to ram a square peg into a round hole. If you can't beat them, join them. That seems to be an emerging mantra of the coal sector. Confronted with an existential crisis from the green energy transition, the industry is scrambling to play a role in the process. This comes in many forms: Coal is required to keep the lights on as the renewable transition unfolds; Surging power demand to power data and AI cannot be met without coal; or Developing economies require coal generation to reach a level of development, from where they can afford to clean up their act. Carbon capture and storage is another front where coal – a commodity that has been linked in scientific stone to rapid climate change – is trying to paint itself in a green sheen. This was all grist to the mill on Wednesday at a Coal and Energy Transition Day conference in Houghton organised by Resources For Africa. The combination of the two is revealing. Pure coal conferences are almost a fossilised relic of the past. But the coal sector is grafting itself on to the energy transition, which some might see as an attempt to ram a square peg into a round hole. 'The exponential rise in energy demand in the age of artificial intelligence: reintroducing coal as a sustainable resource' and 'investors' perspectives in funding coal and the energy transition' were among the topics discussed. The portrayal of coal as a 'sustainable resource' and panels discussing funding for both coal and the green or just energy transition demonstrate how the industry is tilting against the winds of change. But the fact remains that – especially in South Africa's case – coal-fired power generation is not a critically endangered species that is about to go the way of the dodo. 'We have seen quite a big shift in the energy transition narrative globally … and the shift has been into implementation being very practical and very business-case driven. This opens a different conversation which allows coal to have a very relevant position especially in the South African context,' James Mackay, the CEO of the Energy Council of South Africa, said in an interview on the sidelines of the conference. 'How do we transition our system over time? Well, then coal must have a voice. Because if we remove coal from the equation, we will be in big trouble and go straight back into load shedding,' he said. SA 'cannot go green without it' One way of looking at it is that South Africa can't transition to renewables without investment and economic growth, and power is needed for both. So as the move to green energy unfolds, coal – which still accounts for more than 80% of South Africa's electricity needs – will be needed to underpin this process. Viewed through this prism, South Africa – because of the legacy of its apartheid-era addiction to coal-fired power – can't go green without the dark stain of fossil fuel. 'There's consensus emerging that in the future we need much greener energy. However, our past was based on coal, and we do not have much nuclear (power), we don't have gas. So we are a coal energy-based economy that needs to move beyond that,' the conference chairman Bernard Swanepoel told me. 'At the same time, there's energy scarcity. The stupidity of the conversations that I was hearing five years ago was that the coal mining companies fought hard to be relevant and the renewable conversation was that we could shut down coal and there will be space for us.' The conversation has since changed. 'Now we are having the right conversation. The country needs more energy and whatever energy. So if you magically fund and build new coal power plants, we probably would, but that's not going to happen as we have heard at this conference, there's no funding for that,' Swanepoel said. 'So we have a coal base and we need to produce a lot more energy, and that will most likely be coming from renewables. For me, the conversation is real now. Let's keep the lights on and create renewable capacity.' Shamini Harrington, the senior executive for environment and health at the Minerals Council SA, noted that: 'It's not about choosing coal or renewables — it's about managing both responsibly during the transition' South Africa's slow-growth economy, it must be said, is a major headwind to this transition. As more than one panellist noted, 1% growth is too slow a pace for that needed to bring renewables to the table – a vicious cycle. Of course, coal also has its backers in the same way that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. 'There are people with an economic interest to extend the life of coal,' said Brian Day, who until recently was the chairman of the South African Independent Power Producers Association. But he also noted that 'you need coal while you haven't built enough renewables and the biggest impediment to that is building the grid. And frankly, Eskom's done a shocking job … If you could design and build a grid today, you would not need coal. But you can't build the grid in one day.' The bottom line is that coal will not be phased out at the rapid timescale that many greens would – for perfectly valid reasons – like to see. But we need to reach the point sooner rather than later where we 'need' coal to go green. The flames of our burning planet are sending up alarming smoke signals, and the blaze is spreading. DM
