I wish to add my voice to the call for government to take a pay cut before doing anything else. I was insulted when the Premier refused to cut her $4000+ per week salary while saying in the same breath that she felt the pain of the rest of us.

@ PwndDwg: your suggestion that “we can’t expect the country’s largest employer to make thousands redundant overnight. But we can expect them to commit to and implement a plan to do so over 5 years. We can also expect them to immediately cut salaries and eliminate expensive perks (especially GP-xxx hundred cars which would also relieve congestion and used car prices!)” gets my vote!!

PLP – Never heard a bad idea it didn’t like.

So, Laverne, stop distracting and discuss your ideas for dealing with the precarious position in which we find ourselves. What is your plan for attracting foreign capital, introducing liquidity to the economy and addressing the debt.

Look, I even made it easy for you by telling you what needs to happen. What are your plans to achieve growth?

Please read any biography on any successful politician learn something!

However, as I’ve asked him, why does he feel it necessary to write opinion columns with Larry Burchall?

Sir John is a former Premier of Bermuda and I think most Bermudians respect him for his contribution to Bermuda.

I’ve asked Sir John why he feels it neccesary to publish his opinion on Bermuda’s economy and I’ve yet to receive an answer. As you have the answers for all that ails Bermuda, maybe you can provide an answer for me.

I mean, why didn’t Sir John Swan ask Cal Smith to partner with him? Or Craig Simmons? Or Quinton Sherlock, or one of the lecturers at Bermuda College? Why Larry Burchall?

Given their analysis what is incorrectly clouded by their opinion and what is fact?

Isn’t it the PLP who are overspending and have no options? It’s the PLP who have chased away IB employees by the hundred, and have to now deal with the diminished tax base. And it’s the PLP who appear to have no ideas other than to increase public debt by $2-300,000,000 every year.

Wouldn’t it be the PLP that should ‘strike fear in the hearts’ of voters?

On a more serious note :

” IF the Government does what it has always done, we will continue to get the same results “.

Bermuda’s financial crisis will drive thousands of people into poverty and put many more at risk Bermuda is struggling to fill huge budget deficits , with an election looming there are no simple solutions.
Bermuda can not provide a fiscal stimulus to our combat the crisis , most countries are cutting education and social services.

Here’s another question. How much have salaries of MP’s increased in the last ten years. I seem to recall that was an unpaid position not too long ago!

How are you increasing Revenue?

No problem with the Sir John/Larry duo because their aims are transparent, founded in mutually exclusive self-interest.

Typical PLP response when they can neither comprehend nor re-butt a factual based argument.

The PLP thrive on emotion and despise logic.

For those who don’t want to push back because of whatever ties & profit they have with plp SHAME ON YOU!!! You are the type of people who are the catalyst for the destruction of this once paradise.

Unless Mr. Swand and Burchall are telling fibs the figures presented abocve apparently are straight from the Finance Minister’s presentation a month or so ago.

So is approximately 75% of Govt revenue not immediately being allocated to salaries and debt servicing? As a CPA do you believe that such expenditure is sustainable for your small and severely fragile economy?

Are our finances all of a sudden rosy and we have all been mislead by the Combined opposition?

Keep on leveraging Bermuda to the hilt?

Some method to reduce payroll must be undertaken but I don’t believe a blanket 4-day work week with the accompanying 20% salary reduction will fit. Some of the positions pay less than $50,000 gross (before deductions). Yes a job is better than no job but I think the higher paying positions should bear the brunt of the cuts. These positions have my discretionary income that could absorb the reduction.

Also, some consideration must be made to household income and dependants. For example, a person earning $100,000 gross might sound like a prime candidate for a 20% salary cut. However, if this person’s spouse is out of work and they have a child then this salary is not as rosy as the initial perception. Now, I’m not saying that we should pay for these people’s joy, but we need to be aware that all is not as it initially seems.

In any case, what government employees should consider is that they only enable their employer (the government) to continue to hire them next year by adding more value than the cost of employing them and facilitating their employment. You salary and facilities are tax dollars. You need to generate revenue or collect taxes in excess of the cost to keep you employed.

Efficiency gains are required. I heard mention of 700 Dept. Education employees versus 500 teachers. Madness. The economy will perhaps not recover for 3 to 4 years. Government can’t keep borrowing to pay at this rate. It also keeps prices high since there is still so much (borrowed) cash in the system. When people in mass can’t afford $7 loaves of bread I guarantee you that the price will drop.

Ride

The reason this is wrong is the figre they are using for expenditure in 2010/11 is 1.26 Billion. That sounds good, but that’s not actual expenditure. Taking from the same report they reference, 1.260 billion contains 150.7 million of non-cash retirement expenses.

You can’t say “CASH REMAINING” and then include $150.7 million of non cash expenses!!!! People read the report for yourself.

Larry is a nice guy, but an accountant he is not!

Bernews, please make the correction as you are starting to print false figures like the Royal Gazette.

1) Where do you think these people, most of whom have families, will get new jobs? In the private sector, that is constantly dwindling? Look at how many redundancies/ lost jobs we had in 2011. And the trend is likely to continue through 2012.

2) If you DID cut government jobs, you would not really be saving money because these people would have to go on financial assistance, which would have to be increased to meet the demands. It is better to have people working then in the unemployment office having to be supported by the remaining taxpayers.

3) As someone who has worked in both government and the private sector, I can tell you, the pay and benefits is WAY better in the private sector than government, so please don’t assume that government workers are all “living easy” with bloated pay checks because that generally is not the case.

4) Mediaguru2 – your suggestion of a four day work week is very interesting, but personally, I think that can only work if rents, groceries, utilities, etc were ALSO reduced by 20% to compensate for it. 20% is a lot to lose from one’s pay, and simply reducing spending will not work if your creditors will not help you to reduce the costs.

5)Tommy Chong – you are spot on. Make them take a ministerial pay cut! It is LONG OVERDUE.