@Mahmudayahya@Adry___RM@usmannasiru39 Amma football wise, to go home with just goal down against that great city team will surely give him confidence that they'll win in the second leg at the Bernabeau,hence the smile
My dear Francis, thank you for taking the time to truly understand what I am proposing. That means a great deal to me.
I am not restoring subsidy so that Nigeria can keep paying for imported petrol. I am restoring subsidy so that Nigerians can produce more at home, pay less for fuel, and keep more money in their pockets.
That is the difference between import subsidy and production subsidy.
Think about shoes. If government wants Nigerians to buy shoes more cheaply, it can spend public money making imported shoes cheaper, or it can support shoemakers in Aba to reduce their production costs so they can make more shoes here, employ more Nigerians and sell at more affordable prices.
I choose the Aba shoemaker.
I will do the same with fuel. We will support crude refined in Nigeria so our refineries can produce at a lower cost and you can pay less.
But for me, this is bigger than fuel.
I want the bus fare you pay every morning to come down. I want the cost of taking food from the farm to the market to come down. I want the trader to spend less. I want the barber, tailor, welder and small business owner to spend less on energy.
I want a mother to return from the market with more food in her bag.
I want a father to pay transport and still have something left in his pocket.
I want a small business owner to close for the day with profit, not just enough money to buy fuel for tomorrow.
That is what affordability means to me.
Less money spent on fuel.
Less money spent on transport.
Less pressure on food prices.
More money left for your family.
My promise is personal: I want you to feel relief in your pocket, in your home and in your daily life.
I will make life affordable again.
I will make Nigeria affordable again.
It is a promise. -AA
Malam Habu, I am interested in this discussion, as a student of energy economics & policy management. It is a topic that I believe should be debated.
I actually support @atiku 's argument for the reintroduction of a fuel subsidy; but I do not mean the old, opaque subsidy regime, that is open to abise & corruption.
That your "๐ฎ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐", caught my attention because I have always argued that they, & the FG are the biggest beneficiaries of all these jumbos & not the common man. For me, Dr. Hidima, a targeted, capped, transparent subsidy that reduces the price of petrol to, for instance, โฆ400โโฆ500 per litre for Nigerians, while the govt covers only the verified differential is POSSIBLE!
As per your maths:
A market price of say, โฆ1,300 means the govt absorbs โฆ900 per litre:
50 million litres per day ร โฆ900 = โฆ45 billion per day
This translates to:
โฆ1.35 trillion per month
โฆ16.4 trillion per year!
At first glance, this appears unsustainable.
However, this is where the discussion should be interesting.
Taiwo Oyedele has noted that the government mobilised approximately โฆ15.8 trillion for the Federation over 31 months following the subsidy removal and FX reforms.
This averages about โฆ510 billion per month. Thus, a โฆ16 trillion annual subsidy would indeed be substantial. For me, no one should suggest that govt should issue an uncapped โฆ16 trillion expenditure.
The question, for me Malam Habu is, why can't we design a system that subsidises only the first 15โ20 litres purchased by households weekly? This is doable.
For Example, Malaysia monitors fuel consumption using ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, similar to our NIN and caps subsidized RON95 petrol at RM1.99 per litre up to a monthly limit (such as 200โ300 litres). The same Malaysia does support its older citizens of say, 60 & above with 50% fare reductions on select public transit systems like Rapid KL and KTMB. Not only that, low-income older adults may qualify for specific welfare grants like Bantuan Warga Emas (BWE).
Why can't we focus subsidies on public transportation and commercial operators rather than universal consumption?
Why can't we gradually phase out the subsidy in line with improvements in domestic refining capacity? This was what a lot of us expected. For instance, as PH1 comes on stream, 35% subsidy would go. As PH2 comes on stream, another 35% goes. When Warri comes alive, another 20% goes, and when Kaduna comes onboard, 100% subsidy would be removed!
Again, why can't we design a subsidy framework that renders smuggling economically unviable?
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐.
The technological tools already exist to monitor petroleum distribution. ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐!
We can implement digital truck registration systems, depot-to-station tracking, electronic invoicing, GPS and geofencing technologies, and full reconciliation of refinery output, depot receipts, logistics movements, and retail sales. Our organisation can provide this service perfectly! Stations whose reported volumes are inconsistent with their customer base can be audited. Subsidy payments should be made strictly on the basis of verified domestic consumption. If a litre is diverted across the border illegally, it should not attract any subsidy payment.
This is straightforward.
Also, what I observe is that, anytime we are debating on this issue, it is always presented as a binary choice:
Nigerians, you either buy fuel at โฆ1,300 per litre OR we "waste" โฆ16 trillion paying subsidy.
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ก๐จ๐ญ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฒ.
๐๐ง๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ ๐จ๐ฏ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ, there is defined a third option:
๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ญ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
Government can subsidise essential and vulnerable consumption without extending the same benefit to unlimited or luxury consumption, as explained above & it is done in other countries.