TAX ALTERNATIVES: Deputy Bury’s ‘Pause and Check’ mandate

Policy & Resources (P&R) has repeatedly argued there are “no credible alternatives” to its own tax reform proposals, which includes a 3% GST.

So Express decided to test that claim, by looking at a series of proposals from other deputies.

Next up: Deputies Tina Bury and Jayne Ozanne, who want an independent review of wealth and asset taxation before future broad-based tax increases are considered.

The big idea

Rather than presenting a fully formed alternative tax package today, Deputy Bury and Deputy Ozanne have laid an amendment that acts as a procedural safeguard.

Their proposal would require an independent review into wealth and asset-based taxes, alongside an assessment of the economic benefits and wider impacts of high-net-worth residents, as part of the further work following P&R’s tax proposals.

“We cannot as yet say to the community that every stone has been turned before asking them to pay GST,” Deputy Bury argues, saying policy in this area has too often relied on assumption and anecdote rather than independent evidence.

In her own words: What Deputy Bury says

Deputy Bury told Express: “The majority of your questions pre-empt the work that the amendment directs to be done. Modelling, quantifying possible revenue, impacts, etc. would all be part of it, if approved.”

“In terms of principle, we cannot as yet say to the community that every stone has been turned before asking them to pay GST, which is the commitment we both made during the election.”

“If we are genuinely committed to leaving no stone unturned, then we cannot begin by placing a large stone behind a ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign.”

“This is a cautious and measured amendment; it introduces no new tax, delays no part of the tax package, and prejudges no future decision. It would however ensure that these options are explored, and an evidence-based approach is taken to an area that is often anecdotal.”

The diagnosis: What is actually broken?

Deputy Bury and Deputy Ozanne challenge P&R’s assertion that alternative tax avenues have been sufficiently explored.

Their reasoning centres on three key points:

• Terms of reference were limited: P&R’s previous tax sub-committee explored corporate taxes, but its terms of reference did not cover the wider wealth and asset-based alternatives included in the amendment.
  
  
• Lack of independent evidence: The economic benefits and wider impacts of high-net-worth residents should be independently assessed rather than relying on assumptions or anecdotal evidence.
  
  
• Preparing for future tax decisions: If P&R’s tax package passes, future Assemblies should have robust evidence on wealth and asset-based taxation before considering further broad-based taxes such as increases to GST.

How the numbers stack up

Because the amendment directs work to be carried out rather than introducing an immediate tax rate, it brings in £0 in immediate revenue.

Instead, it would add to P&R’s planned further work:

• Immediate tax rate introduced: 0%
• Immediate revenue raised: £0
• Delay to P&R’s tax package: None
• Scope of review: Independent evaluation of wealth and asset-based taxation, and the economic benefits and wider impacts associated with high-net-worth residents.

Express scorecard: The ‘Pause & Check’ mandate

Here is how Deputy Bury and Deputy Ozanne’s proposal rates against our six plain-English questions:

Question	Score	Verdict
1. How much could it raise?	★☆☆☆☆ (1/5)	Delivers £0 immediate revenue. It is a review and governance measure rather than a revenue-raising plan on its own.
2. How fast can it be done?	★★★★☆ (4/5)	Introduces no new tax and does not delay P&R’s tax package. The review itself would still require further work if the amendment is approved.
3. Will it help the economy?	★★★☆☆ (3/5)	It does not directly change taxation or the economy. Its longer-term effect would depend on what the independent review finds and how future governments respond.
4. Is it fair to working families?	★★★★☆ (4/5)	Seeks to establish whether wealth and asset-based taxation could contribute to the funding solution before future broad-based tax increases are considered.
5. Does it stop government waste?	★★☆☆☆ (2/5)	Focuses on examining additional tax sources rather than directly imposing spending controls or public-sector cost reductions.
6. Is it backed by hard data?	★☆☆☆☆ (1/5)	Does not provide estimated revenue figures, because Deputies Bury and Ozanne say the independent review should establish the evidence, including potential revenue and wider impacts.

Note: We are testing the proposals at a high level, looking at what they propose, the evidence and assumptions behind them, and how they compare with the P&R’s stated position. We are not independently modelling each proposal or assessing its full economic impact, as we don’t have access to P&R’s underlying tax models or data, so our analysis should not be read as an independent economic assessment of the potential revenue or wider effects of any proposal.

The catch

Because Deputy Bury and Deputy Ozanne’s amendment does not deliver immediate revenue, it does not close Guernsey’s structural deficit on its own.

It also does not establish whether wealth or asset-based taxes would ultimately raise significant revenue. That is precisely the work they want an independent review to undertake.

The amendment would therefore provide evidence for future tax decisions, rather than an immediate alternative to P&R’s revenue-raising package.

The bottom line

Deputy Bury and Deputy Ozanne are not offering an alternative budget, but an evidence-gathering measure.

Their argument is that if the States is serious about leaving “no stone unturned”, it should independently examine wealth and asset-based taxation before future Assemblies consider further broad-based tax increases.

The amendment would not itself raise revenue or delay P&R’s tax package.

Its purpose is to ensure those alternatives are properly examined before they are ruled in or out.