Subscribe

Listen to the show using this podcast player:

South Africa’s 2026 Budget Speech announced a mix of bold, interesting and ultimately positive changes – especially for small businesses and South African investors. With pro-business policies that signal economic stability, could this be a turning point for the country?

Described affectionately by Tertius Troost (Associate Director – Tax Consulting at Forvis Mazars) as a “boring” budget, this is the first time in years that we’ve seen any kind of tax relief for South Africa’s middle class. In his words, it’s a pivot to stability – and at a time when things are really looking up for South Africa.

He joined me on this podcast to break down the budget basics and to specifically comment on areas like:

• How the budget addresses “bracket creep” by adjusting personal income tax brackets for inflation. 
• The increase in the VAT registration threshold and how this assists small businesses.
• A boost for investors in the form of a higher annual limit for Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSA).
• The approach taken to online gambling and whether education and regulation should precede taxes.
• Other changes aimed at helping South Africans with retirements savings and even global investments.

You can connect with Tertius on LinkedIn here.

As always, please discuss the impact of the tax changes on your affairs with your personal financial advisor. Nothing you hear on this podcast should be interpreted as advice.

Full transcript:

The Finance Ghost: Welcome to this episode of the Ghost Stories podcast. We are coming to you very soon after the budget speech in South Africa, which is obviously a really interesting time for all of us. 

And I think this 2026 budget speech has been quite different, actually. My overview is that it feels a bit more pro-growth; maybe a bit more pro-business. We are in a GNU environment now, so winds of change seem to have been blowing a little bit at least. 

To help us understand some of the key elements of this budget speech, I am joined today by Tertius Troost. He is the associate director in the tax consulting team at Forvis Mazars. He’s also no stranger to the Ghost Mail audience because we had a very similar podcast last year. 

So, Tertius, thanks so much for doing this with me again in 2026; I can’t wait to get your thoughts on this budget.

Tertius Troost: Brilliant, thanks for having me.

The Finance Ghost: It’s going to be good. There’s a lot of stuff we can talk about here, and I think what we’re going to not do is try and just give a general overview of everything because to be honest, there’s been a lot of that in the market already. What we’re rather going to do is actually dig into some of the specific points. 

But we do need to set the scene at least a little bit, right? So let me start by asking you if you feel like my gut feeling is on the money. Is this more of a pro-growth type budget? It feels to me like they’re being a bit nicer these days to businesses, to the middle class. Would that be a fair assertion?

Tertius Troost: Ya, I’ll summarise it in two ways. I think yesterday’s budget is definitely the turning-point type of narrative. It sees a lot of stabilising of debt. We saw that from next year onwards, we definitely should see a decrease in the debt-to-GDP ratio, where it’s going to peak at about 78.9%. 

And then obviously, as you said, definitely pro-growth with changes to the thresholds, which is something that we’ve been waiting for, for quite a long time. To summarise, it has a little bit of excitement, but at the same time, it’s actually also a boring budget. But in this environment, a boring budget is actually a good budget.

And then obviously the main talking point: while it’s also probably good for growth and good for the man on the street, it’s just the withdrawal of the bracket creep that they actually said they would be implementing last year for the next two years. So I mean that’s very positive for people to see. 

Generally, it also has a culture of better savings, looking to increase the thresholds there. It’s generally a budget that was well-received by the public.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, it feels like we’re in a better macroeconomic environment now than we have been in a very long time. 

And obviously, that takes some of the pressure off, right? Because at the end of the day, the budget is the income statement for our government. If the economy is not doing well and investment is not coming through, then obviously there’s more pressure on the fiscus. 

Because we do have a somewhat left-leaning, somewhat socialist government where there are a lot of social grants, there’s a lot of support for the poor – you end up in a scenario where they have to squeeze more from this very small tax base. That’s certainly been the narrative for as long as I can remember. Literally. 

I guess at the moment things like commodities, for example, are helping, right? I mean you’ve literally got money coming out of the ground right now in gold, in PGMs. Our tourism has been doing well (as another example).

It feels like things are doing better in South Africa and maybe this budget reflects that?

Tertius Troost: Yes, I mean macro wise, when you look at the budget review document, they predict growth of 1.6% in ‘26 and going up to 1.8% and 2% up in 2028. So it’s still not shooting the lights out, but it does at least come off as a very low base. We were looking at growth south of 1%.

So this is the point – as soon as we can get the economy growing, we can increase tax revenue. We can definitely see that the increased tax revenue will lead to – well, hopefully – better use of that tax revenue. Thereby growing the economy organically and growing the tax base, which we’ve always said is the most important. 

You have to highlight the fact that what the commodities are doing is a very important factor here. It is very cyclical, it’s not something that will remain there forever. So while that is a positive sentiment and while we’re getting good money from it, I think the tax is going to do well. 

I think the big picture from this budget is relief where it counts. It’s definitely support for small businesses, and it’s a pivot to stability. And that is the essential part.

The Finance Ghost: Pivot to stability is a nice way to put it. I like it. And also just describing it as boring. Like you say, boring is good. And people forget, when it comes to economic growth, that when you’re in a slow-growth environment, if your country is expected to do 1% and then suddenly it’s expected to do 1.5%, it’s actually growing 50% faster than before. 

It’s like that law of small numbers. 1.5% is 50% bigger than 1% in terms of growth. It’s 50 basis points more. It’s a really big difference. It makes a huge, huge difference. And that’s why we’ve got to try and actually extract this growth so that everyone can benefit. 

And it comes through in things like as you described it there, bracket creep. So for those who are maybe not familiar with the term, it just means (by my understanding) that for years, a good few years, we haven’t really had an increase in the brackets for personal tax. And so people’s salaries go up with inflation, in theory at least. 

But your effective average tax rate goes up because the brackets haven’t moved with inflation, right? But now they’ve actually moved them. So have they done a proper catch-up in the past few years (in this move) or have they just given a little bit of year-on-year relief?

Tertius Troost: Let me just give an analogy for the listeners, so they can better understand.  This weekend we’ve got the SA Open (golf tournament). Let’s use that as an example. 

Let’s say you go to play at Stellenbosch Golf Club every week; you’re teeing off of the same markers, you’re very consistent off the tee and going into the green for two. And then you arrive there one day and you see it’s been the SA open, the tee box is right at the back with the pros, and they’ve put the tee box there. And all of a sudden you hit the same tee shot and you’re sitting with a position where you just say, “Well, I can’t make it to the green”. And that’s pretty much what bracket creep is. Right?

The Finance Ghost: I love that.

Tertius Troost: It’s just a little bit of a sneaky way of getting a little bit more tax out of you. And it’s a sneaky way because it gets it from a number of people. 

Again, let’s use an example. I earn R300,000 per year. I get an inflationary increase of 6% (let’s just say inflation is 6%). That actually puts me in the same position I was in last year. From a purchasing point of view, I can only buy the same amount of goods with this increase.

But now they didn’t change the brackets. So the tax I will pay on the increase, the R318,000 salary after my increase, will actually be slightly higher. That is the impact. 

So your tax on that is just that little bit more and it’s very small. But once again, if you take a little bit off each and every single person, it leads to significantly more income to the fiscus.

And then I think the point is the brackets were only adjusted for 3.4% because as we know with the SARB trying to cap the inflation rate nearer to the 3%, that is what they believe inflation is now. 

But it is interesting to note, that’s not everyone’s inflation. For your high earners, the inflation is significantly higher because they’re buying different goods. [Laughs].

It is a little bit of a relief. It’s not significant, but it’s at least something.

The Finance Ghost: I love the golf analogy. It is exactly that, right? One year you’re arriving for the club champs and the next day you are suddenly playing against Ernie Els. That’s certainly what it’s felt like for the past decade – like teeing off against Ernie. It still feels a bit like that, but maybe it’s starting to get better, which is nice. 

Another area where I think they’ve given important relief (and specifically as a small business owner, and I think this is really important) is that VAT registration threshold. It used to be a million rand a year in turnover.

Now, most business owners will tell you that a million rand a year turnover is really not a lot. That’s not a million rand a year profit, that’s not gross margin, it’s turnover. So that’s before any of your expenses whatsoever. A million rand a year revenue is not a big business in any way, shape or form. 

And yet there was this requirement to register for VAT. Now, that might not sound like a big deal, and for businesses that are supplying other VAT-registered businesses, it’s not a big deal because your customers just claim back the VAT. It’s not the end of the world. 

But if you are a consumer-facing business, you are essentially the last step in the chain. And that’s how VAT works. It’s Value-Added Tax. So it just keeps on growing through the value chain, until you hit someone who’s not VAT registered – and that person is basically suffering all the VAT and can’t claim it back. 

But if you are supplying people who are not VAT-registered and you suddenly have to register for VAT, you are basically having 15% ripped out of your income and going to the government. Which on turnover of a million rand a year, is a little bit insane. 

So I was personally happy to see (as someone who has small businesses at heart all the time), that they’ve increased that threshold quite a lot. I mean it’s up significantly now?

Tertius Troost: Yeah. So the threshold moved up from R1 million to R2.3 million in annual turnover, as you pointed out. And what is important to note, is that this was last amended in 2009. That’s 17 years ago. This had to happen.

The Finance Ghost: It’s insane right? It’s so long. 17 years! [Laughs]. 

Tertius Troost: And I’m also a homeowner, so I also have people coming across needing to fix things every now and then. And every time someone adds that 15% to your bill, then you feel “ugh!” – you can feel that tangibly; you can feel it in your pocket. 

So hopefully you get to a position where the smaller businesses that we sometimes use don’t need to register, they’re not adding the 15% on top of it. And maybe that at least means some money in their pocket, too. 

If you’re actually adding certain value, as you said, you could claim certain inputs if you are registered for VAT, but that’s not for all small businesses. By lifting the threshold, Treasury is effectively removing certain businesses from the VAT net and promoting smaller businesses. 

That means that there’s less time for them on compliance. As you pointed out, that is a significant cost for a small business who doesn’t necessarily understand it. It results in more predictable cash flow, you’re not having to claim inputs and flow outputs. It’s the ability to price more competitively. You’re no longer carrying that 15%. You can compete against the bigger businesses if you don’t need to add that.

It’s a subtle acknowledgement of the economic reality – inflation and rising costs have pushed the businesses up. This R1 million threshold is way too low. The R2.3 million is more in line with what it should be. 

Take note, it’s 17 years. It’s more than double. But I think if you were to increase that with inflation, it would probably be even more. But at least it shows you that they are looking into these types of things. Hopefully they will keep these thresholds and brackets and limits, and they’ll just review them on a more regular basis. Because there were quite a few of these thresholds that will change in this budget.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, absolutely. 17 years to not go anywhere, is absolutely bonkers. And as you say, it’s the compliance burden, right? And also, SARS’ behavior with VAT. If you throw a stone in a room full of entrepreneurs, I promise you’ll hit someone who has waited for a VAT refund for an unreasonably long time. I’ve heard that story so many times, so it’s nice to hear that that is improving. 

I think that probably gives us a nice lay of the land of some of the really important changes. There are many more, and we’ll obviously touch on some of them now. But something that keeps coming up – and now that we are in earnings season, I’m seeing it again – is that every consumer-facing business in the country right now, when they talk about the macroeconomic environment and what’s happening to their sales, etc, they keep raising this point around online gambling and gaming. 

There’s a piece of me that thinks that at least to some extent, it’s a convenient scapegoat, but there’s also an element of truth to it. People are spending a fortune on this stuff. It is an extractive industry, essentially. It’s not leading to employment of South Africans, etcetera. The money’s going overseas.

It feels like an easy place for government to actually have a go here. It’s practically a sin tax. So I’m curious about what their thinking is on taxing and getting their fair share of this. Maybe if it was actually taxed properly then it would be slightly less appealing for people and they would spend a little bit less on online gambling and gaming and a little bit more in our economy, which is ultimately what creates jobs?

Tertius Troost: Let’s just maybe take a step back, (to ask) – what is it? I mean it’s a national online gambling tax and it’s looking to tax 20% on the gross gambling revenue (they refer to the GGR) which is the net amount that these institutions receive, less what they pay out.

Now, this is on top of existing provincial gambling taxes, which can range between 5% and 9%.

And what’s interesting in Treasury’s discussion document is that they say this is not a revenue driver. This is just to stop, as you said, the social harms and discourage problem gambling. And as you mentioned, there’s a lot of talk about people using grants to gamble, students using the amounts that they receive to gamble. That’s not sustainable. 

But in terms of where we are at with the process, Treasury has released the discussion paper. The public comments closed on Friday, and following that, they will then relook at the public comments and try to draft the bill around it. That’s also open, once again, the draft legislation to public comment, to see whether it fulfils.

But I wanted to talk about whether this actually will work – because as you stated, we’re trying to discourage online gambling. As you said, Treasury said it’s not a revenue driver, it’s to discourage. 

But the problem is – shouldn’t you regulate first and tax second? Because if we take an example of someone smoking, they did a lot more around the behaviour change and then taxed thereafter. They regulated the way they advertised; they regulated where you could smoke. So maybe they should first look at those elements and then if need be, say yes, okay, let’s add the sin tax.

The further point is, this is a tax that’s proposed on the actual corporate entity and not on the individual. If you’re trying to change behavior, you should actually do more taxes on individuals. If sin taxes are on the product that the people use, then they don’t want to use it. Shouldn’t (government) be looking at certain withholding taxes – on either winnings or on the amounts that they’re betting? That will maybe look at changing the use of it. 

I think the first point that Treasury should look at is just the regulation around gambling and the effective policing thereof, and thereafter maybe looking at “Okay, let’s see if we can tax”. 

But the other point is, I know Treasury says it’s not a revenue driver, but I don’t believe it. 

All taxes in South Africa are revenue drivers. We look at the sugar tax in the past. It had a nice story around it of, “we’re trying to help people to live better lives”. If you look at all that money, it just goes into a pot for the fiscus and they use it. They don’t do a specific targeted use of that. That’s just my view.

The Finance Ghost: It’s a really interesting point. They’re taxing the corporate, not the individual. That does talk to behaviour, and maybe government is not that worried about the behaviour. 

I have sometimes had these debates with people where they say, “you know, it’s so terrible that someone gambles online”. And obviously there are extremes. Taking your social grants and gambling online is clearly a no-no. 

But I don’t know so much that it’s so terrible that if you would have spent R100 on clothes you actually don’t need or you spent that R100 entertaining yourself online betting on your favorite soccer team. I mean it’s R100 out the door on something you didn’t need anyway. Is it really so terrible? Within reason, it’s ok. 

I guess it’s like anything. People want to entertain themselves, they want to have fun. As much as it might irritate the clothing retailers that they’re not selling quite as much in the way of clothing. Like I say, an extra item of clothing in the cupboard versus entertaining yourself –  is it really so different? 

So government seems to be saying, well, “we’re going to see where this thing lands, what we really want to do is just plug the tax hole, because that’s where it is a problem.” If someone buys local clothing, there’s a whole value chain, right? There’s tax, there’s earnings here – government gets a slice of that. But if you go and swipe your card and you gamble overseas, the money’s gone.

Tertius Troost: I think there have been studies though, that this isn’t necessarily in our environment only for recreational purposes. People in South Africa gamble with the belief that they can get themselves out of poverty and win a big amount. And that is the problem that we have. So it’s actually more of an education aspect in line with that. 

The Finance Ghost: That’s very fair. There’s a huge percentage – like you say, maybe the trick is, it needs to be this regulatory piece where there’s lots of education. Maybe showing people that you’re much more likely to lose than win here. This is not an income, this is a form of entertainment. That probably does need to happen out there, and hopefully it will.

That’s going to be an interesting thing to see in years to come. 

In the meantime, of course, SARS is very focused on making sure we have more taxpayers, which obviously just spreads the burden out. 

There was an interesting comment that I know you wanted to talk about, which was around a comment, and I quote, “Supported by new technology, they registered 1.3 million new taxpayers across various tax categories.” And this piece was interesting: “Engaged with social influencers to facilitate tax compliance.” 

I did have a small laugh at that. I imagined someone doing an Instagram video with the SARS logo in the background. “Brought to you by SARS. Please also register for tax”. I’m not really sure how this is working in practice, but I was curious about your thoughts on that one [Laughs]. 

Tertius Troost: [Laughs]. I thought you’d like that, Ghost. The important part there is that the registration of the 1.3 million new tax base actually brought in R4.9 in additional revenue.

Yes, Treasury did mention an aspect about content creators and influencers, but what you must also understand is that there are some people in the country that should be registered, maybe people from abroad that don’t know they’re tax resident in South Africa. 

I’ve had a few of those as clients – that arrive on my doorstep saying SARS knocked on their door because they purchased the property. They’re now on SARS’ radar. All of a sudden when I look at the facts, I see, “oh, but you’ve been a resident in the country for quite a while and you owe them quite a significant amount of tax”.

So it just shows that SARS’ technology and their administration is working well, and that the extra amount that Treasury provided to them in the budget last year is being used well when we look at investment into technology. 

The point around influencers, content creators, it’s something that has been in the media, and it’s quite topical. These people are definitely subject to tax. What is interesting, though, is that they might be subject to tax on the products that they receive in kind or the services that they receive in kind.

Sometimes when you promote the product, you are actually paid physical money. So definitely that is something that those people should be registered for – they should be paying provisional tax and they should be filing a tax return. It just goes to show, again: educate the public and tell people that there are taxes that they should look into. 

Once again, I’m very impressed with SARS under Edward Kieswetter. I know he’s ending his term now in April. We don’t have any guidance on who would be new, but at least they’re taking over a ship that seems to be sailing in the right direction, with regards to the use of technology, AI, and those types of aspects. I think it’s something positive.

The Finance Ghost: It’s amazing what happens when you put a commercial person in charge, right? But that does make sense. It’s less about using social influencers to achieve the registrations, but rather to go after the influencers themselves! 

Maybe that’s the trick. It’s like, “hey, we’ll work with you, we’ll pay you in order to get some people to register for tax”. And as you say, yes, they’re like, “Ha! Gotcha. You should be paying tax because clearly this is your business.” You’ve got to love it. 

Tertius Troost: [Laughs] 

The Finance Ghost: Anyway, let’s talk about some of the other relief that actually came through in this budget. There was one that made me very happy, which was that tax-free savings account (TFSA) contributions are now higher.

I always say to people, if you’re going to get just one thing right every year, just please max out your TFSA. And not everyone can do it. But what you should absolutely not be doing is dabbling in single stocks and everything else, if you haven’t even maxed your TFSA. It is literally the government giving you this walled garden to go and build up your ETF exposure over your lifetime. 

You can chop and change between the ETFs with no tax. You’re basically turning yourself into a little fund manager. You just have to stick to ETFs. You’re not allowed to buy single stocks. It’s such an absolute no-brainer. And I was happy to see that that contribution has gone up.

Tertius Troost: Yeah, most definitely. As you say, max it out for yourself, max it out for your spouse, max it out for your kids. It’s definitely a no-brainer. So that increased from an annual limit of R36,000 per year to R46,000 per year. But what is interesting is that they didn’t change the lifetime limit, so it’s still limited to R500,000 that you can invest in your lifetime.

But that does just change the timing. It would take you less than 11 years – if you’re doing it on an annual basis – to get to that.

There are many studies that show that if you start (saving) very early, even if you start it for your kids and you leave it for when your kids reach retirement age, they can pretty much retire off that amount. That’s how compound growth will really work. 

What I wanted to talk about was how it’s kind of hidden away, but there was some targeted relief to higher earners because, like I said, not everyone can afford the tax-free savings account and the full contribution to it. 

Also, the retirement contribution deduction cap was lifted from R350 000 to R430 000. Once again, not everyone can get close to that – but it shows that there is definitely a bit of a give-back to the higher earner if they’re willing to save. 

It says if you earn more, then Treasury wants you to save more, and if you can build capital, do it locally. So do it in our TFSAs; do it in our retirement funds. Then it’s just a structured,  incentivised financial discipline, rather than a blunt tax break. They’re not just saying, “We’re going to give you relief and keep the higher earners here”. We actually do it by providing them with additional methods to save in South Africa.

The Finance Ghost: And it’s great to see. The one thing with the tax free savings cap – and I’ve seen a lot of this as well – people are quite rightly saying, “Hey, where’s the increase in the cap?”. But of course if you do the maths, it’s been around for 11 years, as you said. So you couldn’t actually have reached the cap yet, mathematically. 

But we’re going to get there in the next couple of years, and then obviously Treasury will have to look at increasing the cap, right? Otherwise, they are punishing people who started really early, which would be silly behaviour.

Tertius Troost: If you listen to the comments by Treasury, they’re saying that – I don’t know whether they’re going to raise it. I think they’re going to keep it there for quite a while, because I mean you’re still getting that tax-free growth in it.

Hopefully – I do agree that in the future they should, but it’s probably going to be, everyone reaches the cap and they’ll probably leave it for a couple of years thereafter, before really looking at it.

The Finance Ghost: Ya absolutely. And the one thing that’s really interesting is, as you say, they’re trying to encourage you to grow your capital here in South Africa. But they’ve also made it easier to take money out of the country now, haven’t they? They’ve actually given some more relief in that as well.

Tertius Troost: Ya. That’s an exchange-control change. As we know, you can flow capital out of the country but it is subject to certain rules and regulations, specifically monitored by the Reserve Bank through the authorised dealers (which are the commercial banks). And one of those rules was that on an annual basis, without obtaining any form of tax clearance certificate, you could take R1 million out of the country. But now they’ve actually pushed that up to R2 million. So that’s also positive. 

Once again, this is not aimed at everyone. This is people trying to really hedge their bets and maybeget some hard currency offshore. So that is also just positive. It’s just a little bit less of an administrative burden for those people trying to flow money out.

The Finance Ghost: A couple of other ones we should touch on before I let you go. I know donations tax saw a change, primary residence exclusion as well – perhaps you can just take us through those?

Tertius Troost: Yeah. So with the donations tax, there was always a limit of a hundred thousand. That’s not subject to donations tax. That’s lifted to R150 000. Being a homeowner, the primary residence exclusion has lifted from R2 million to R3 million. That’s not necessarily for people owning houses in the Joburg market, it probably won’t help them much. But I know people in the Cape Town market will really love that. [Laughs]. 

The Finance Ghost: I joked with a friend, “Wow, you know, garden sheds in Cape Town are now out of the net. How exciting!” I mean, it is a bit of a joke, how ridiculous the property markets are across the two cities. 

But it was high time that they increased that primary residence exclusion, let’s be honest. I would say your Joburg property is now basically a tax-free asset from a capital gains perspective. Unfortunately. 

Tertius Troost: [Laughs]. Let me put it in the tax-free savings account, and then it’ll be regular savings.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, essentially. The overview of this thing: it really does feel like it’s a pro-growth budget. We’re giving relief to people where government has historically been squeezing them. And that’s what’s so interesting. 

I mean, you and I both do it because it’s just how we’ve been conditioned. It’s like, “Oh, you know, it’s good news on tax-free savings and we know that not everyone can afford it, but it’s good news”. 

Because everyone is so browbeaten into always thinking about, “How on earth do we help people who have nothing, at the expense of the middle class?” The truth of it is you can only do that for so long – and then it actually starts to have the opposite effect. 

Because you cannot cannot squeeze the middle class into…not working poverty (per se) – obviously people still have way better quality of life than those who are genuinely on the breadline – but you do squeeze them into a point where, they’re not having as many kids, and they’re not spending, and they’re not doing all of this kind of thing which actually grows the economy. 

I think something like Curro becoming essentially a non-profit organisation is a cautionary tale for the middle class in South Africa. Where people have emigrated or are having fewer children, yes, it’s a global phenomenon, but this tax squeeze is part of it. 

And so for me personally, just seeing stuff like this is really encouraging because they are now giving tax relief to the people who are actually working, investing, and then creating jobs for others, which, as a capitalist, as I am, makes me feel like that’s the right thing for the country to be doing. So that we actually get people to see a future here, which I think they’re starting to do, as opposed to a few years ago, when it was looking pretty bleak. 

That’s kind of my summary of the budget. I’d be keen to get your final thoughts, and then I’ll let you go.

Tertius Troost: Yeah, I completely agree. I think South Africa is really poised for growth. It’s ready to turn that corner. I’ve summarised it like this before, and I’ll reiterate it: it’s a budget where relief is where it counts. It supports small businesses, and it’s a pivot to stability.

I think that’s clear-cut. You can’t get a better summary than that.

The Finance Ghost: Absolutely. Tertius, thank you so much for your time again this year. Really appreciate it. We are operating in an exciting place in the world at the moment, in my opinion. 

I’m pretty bullish on South Africa, and it’s nice to see this kind of thing coming through. So well done to those in government who made it happen. I know who you are, and you know who you are. So congratulations to you.

And Tertius, if I don’t get to do another one of these with you this year, I’ll certainly see you for the budget next year, I’m sure. But perhaps later this year, we’ll touch base on what’s going on in the world of tax again.

Tertius Troost: Most definitely. Looking forward to it. Thanks, Ghost.   

The Finance Ghost: Ciao.