What is the PNM's plan for the economy?

[De Dragon]

In case you were sleeping for the last 6 years govt's budget "far exceeds the projected revenue" even when revenues were high for 4 of those years.

I think you are confusing yourself, PP removed all VAT and that flopped (food priced raised) PNM replaced VAT (food prices raised along with tax revenue), companies like Nestle and SM Jameel absorbed VAT increases to be more competitive. Welcome to capitalism.

Noel Garcia http://www.looptt.com/content/completio ... gin-august

Well there is a new invention called a mortgage, 10% downpayment and income generated from office rental space pays back the bank. Years of buying and raffling off 3 BMWs must be building up to something.

Please inform yourself before talk.

Oh like One Alexandra and OWP? Hilarity is you advising me about a mortgage when I paid off my mortgage years ago, while you probably still squatting on some piece of State land somewhere

*after being made out to be an erroneous blather mouth, De Dragon gets personal and boasts over anonymous ppl on the internet*

No, you pathetically tried to be comical with your stale "new invention called mortgage" sheit, and when when confronted with facts about One Alexandra and OWP you chose as you always do to try to look educated and like always, are once again exposed as a sad little apologist for this total failure of a Government.

I admire your tenacity. After I shot down every one of your claims with citable facts, you respond with personal incredulity. Somehow One Alexandra and OWP are facts for something, something you are yet to explain. Then in a most infantile way, rather than discuss the issues, you reply with personal insult, a clear sign someone is incapable of putting forward a logical defence for their stance (ad hominem). Only to make it worst, you boast about your toys being better than my toys, another uninformed opinion backed by personal incredulity.

I'm glad ZR is back, at least he admits his illogical support for UNC and hatred of PNM and willing makes unsubstantiated political claims. You just do the same but are in Denial.

One again your attempts to look erudite and worldly fail. Who started the belittling talk about mortgage, yea I admit that I sttoped to your level, but when confronted with facts, you always resort to your one and only fall back position which is to claim to "shoot down" make me"eat my words" when sadly you do no such thing. You want to spew tripe here on a daily basis and when challenged, you go into your belligerent, obdurate mode, think the pages long argument you feebly tried to push about turbochargers. When multiple people who actually know about turbos called you out, miraculously your argument, you epically backpedalled and claimed that your argument was about something else!
Hilariously, you were found wanting with your back-up point as well You seem to want exclusive right s to name-call but feign offense when you are so treated. This makes you a hypocrite and childish.

[Redman]

So basically the government had the option of devalue or Austerity - it opted for Austerity with a minor devalue

It seems the Government does not want to stop imports

It wants to stop YOU from importing

yep and they want every body to stop driving cuz they enforcing the speed limit.


you make sense

[ingalook]

So basically the government had the option of devalue or Austerity - it opted for Austerity with a minor devalue

It seems the Government does not want to stop imports

It wants to stop YOU from importing

yep and they want every body to stop driving cuz they enforcing the speed limit.

you make sense

No bossman? How you get that??? The taxes, cracking down by customs are disproportionately affecting the small man

Nearly every policy decision taken by this government has been beneficial to BIG business

[Habit7]

So basically the government had the option of devalue or Austerity - it opted for Austerity with a minor devalue

It seems the Government does not want to stop imports

It wants to stop YOU from importing

yep and they want every body to stop driving cuz they enforcing the speed limit.

you make sense

No bossman? How you get that??? The taxes, cracking down by customs are disproportionately affecting the small man

Nearly every policy decision taken by this government has been beneficial to BIG business

How how would you describe "disproportionate" ingalook? 200% increase in business levy and green fund. Reduction of fuel subsidy which benefits the wealthy most, 50% increase on MVT on larger engine vehicles, increase in NIS contributions means those with higher income pay more into a scheme they use less.

Balance by a $12000 increase income tax threshold (exempting less than $6000 a month from tax and granting $250 increase in those who earn more), $500 increase in NIS pensions and increase and cap on joint-income of retirees with NIS and old-age pensions goes up to $5000.

Small man have to contribute, big man have to contribute. If we only pressure the big man and not allow the small man to share the weight, we get a welfare state that less ppl are willing to increase their income so they won't get tax more, thus you incentivise being poor. You end up with Venezuela, Argentina and Greece all rolled into one.

[drchaos]

Where the incentives to be in the middle class?

[Dizzy28]

Where the incentives to be in the middle class?

If kidnapping for ransom ever starts back like it was in 2002-2005 you would have all the incentive you need to remain middle class.

[eliteauto]

Where the incentives to be in the middle class?

the what? Why?

[Redman]

its ludicrous to maintain that economic policy is different between parties, especially neither party has a established economic POV...they all just react to oil prices,spend as much as they can and do as little to endanger their re election probabilities.

So any one believing that x policy is for PNM or UNC people,financiers et al really demonstrating a fundamental disconnect with reality.

[Habit7]

its ludicrous to maintain that economic policy is different between parties, especially neither party has a established economic POV...they all just react to oil prices,spend as much as they can and do as little to endanger their re election probabilities.

So any one believing that x policy is for PNM or UNC people,financiers et al really demonstrating a fundamental disconnect with reality.

I think PNM set the trend with the encroaching welfare state with high subsidies and transfers and boasting about it. It left any other populist party to continue the trend and exacerbate problem with more subsidies and transfers. The bottom eventually fell out during the twilight of the UNC term with falling oil prices. They choose to gun it despite the reality of a cliff being ahead. This allowed the PNM to be seen as fiscally prudent saviours by them campaigning a reversal of what they initiated.

Both parties want a welfare state. One wants to do it in a populist, open the flood gates of government spending for 5 years, get voted out and then claim "look how much we did". The other wants to build up a long term hedge with govt funded infrastructure rather than govt funded subsidies.

[Redman]

Seems to me that the differences are just different ways to keep the population in check,while exploiting the treasury through different mechanisms with the same result.

Short term policy 5 year window little or no foundation building.

So we constantly in a 5 year cycle

[Dizzy28]

So basically the government had the option of devalue or Austerity - it opted for Austerity with a minor devalue

It seems the Government does not want to stop imports

It wants to stop YOU from importing

yep and they want every body to stop driving cuz they enforcing the speed limit.

you make sense

No bossman? How you get that??? The taxes, cracking down by customs are disproportionately affecting the small man

Nearly every policy decision taken by this government has been beneficial to BIG business

How how would you describe "disproportionate" ingalook? 200% increase in business levy and green fund. Reduction of fuel subsidy which benefits the wealthy most, 50% increase on MVT on larger engine vehicles, increase in NIS contributions means those with higher income pay more into a scheme they use less.

Balance by a $12000 increase income tax threshold (exempting less than $6000 a month from tax and granting $250 increase in those who earn more), $500 increase in NIS pensions and increase and cap on joint-income of retirees with NIS and old-age pensions goes up to $5000.

Small man have to contribute, big man have to contribute. If we only pressure the big man and not allow the small man to share the weight, we get a welfare state that less ppl are willing to increase their income so they won't get tax more, thus you incentivise being poor. You end up with Venezuela, Argentina and Greece all rolled into one.

I would agree more or less with you here except
1. Whilst fuel subsidies benefits the wealthy the most its loss or reduction affects the poor the most given the purchasing power available to them.
2. 50% Increase on larger engines vehicles - the rich can and will possibly switch to the high prices 2.0l and smaller turbo charged engines that Audi, MB, Porsche offers. These would still be out of the price range of the middle class. A luxury tax should be based on the primary determinant of luxury which is cost.

[Habit7]

I would agree more or less with you here except
1. Whilst fuel subsidies benefits the wealthy the most its loss or reduction affects the poor the most given the purchasing power available to them.
2. 50% Increase on larger engines vehicles - the rich can and will possibly switch to the high prices 2.0l and smaller turbo charged engines that Audi, MB, Porsche offers. These would still be out of the price range of the middle class. A luxury tax should be based on the primary determinant of luxury which is cost.

1. http://m.guardian.co.tt/columnist/2014- ... gives-rich

2. Middle class already buying Audi and MB. Upper class now disincentivised from buying more expensive Audi, MB, Toyota, Mitsubishi, etc.

[Dizzy28]

I would agree more or less with you here except
1. Whilst fuel subsidies benefits the wealthy the most its loss or reduction affects the poor the most given the purchasing power available to them.
2. 50% Increase on larger engines vehicles - the rich can and will possibly switch to the high prices 2.0l and smaller turbo charged engines that Audi, MB, Porsche offers. These would still be out of the price range of the middle class. A luxury tax should be based on the primary determinant of luxury which is cost.

1. http://m.guardian.co.tt/columnist/2014- ... gives-rich

2. Middle class already buying Audi and MB. Upper class now disincentivised from buying more expensive Audi, MB, Toyota, Mitsubishi, etc.

The survey reffered to in the Guardian Article is very simplistic and clearly not done by an economist
It says the rich benefit by $22,500 and $33,000 per year and the poor benefit by $4,500 to $6,750 per year.
However it makes no mention of what the poor earn and what the rich earn. If I make 60,000 a year then 6750 (upper limit of benefit) is 11.25% of my salary
If I make 500,000 a year 33,000 is 6.6%
Therefore a loss of subsidy means the poor loses out on a larger benefit % wise.
One income class can benefit more with a subsidy and the other income class loses more with the loss of the subsidy.

This is the reason personal income tax is based on salary ranges with increased rates for higher income in most developed countries and not a fixed flat rate as Trinidad and Tobago has.

[Habit7]

Guardian article based of IMF study though with the same conclusion. I don't know if this is the same one but here is one of them https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p15250.pdf

[ingalook]

So basically the government had the option of devalue or Austerity - it opted for Austerity with a minor devalue

It seems the Government does not want to stop imports

It wants to stop YOU from importing

yep and they want every body to stop driving cuz they enforcing the speed limit.

you make sense

No bossman? How you get that??? The taxes, cracking down by customs are disproportionately affecting the small man

Nearly every policy decision taken by this government has been beneficial to BIG business

How how would you describe "disproportionate" ingalook? 200% increase in business levy and green fund. Reduction of fuel subsidy which benefits the wealthy most, 50% increase on MVT on larger engine vehicles, increase in NIS contributions means those with higher income pay more into a scheme they use less.

Balance by a $12000 increase income tax threshold (exempting less than $6000 a month from tax and granting $250 increase in those who earn more), $500 increase in NIS pensions and increase and cap on joint-income of retirees with NIS and old-age pensions goes up to $5000.

Small man have to contribute, big man have to contribute. If we only pressure the big man and not allow the small man to share the weight, we get a welfare state that less ppl are willing to increase their income so they won't get tax more, thus you incentivise being poor. You end up with Venezuela, Argentina and Greece all rolled into one.

OK - "Luxury cars"

The bulk of the cars sold new from the firm are below 2000cc - I 'd estimate less than 5% are over this

For foreign used cars the portion over 2000cc was more around 20-25%

Also there are just some cars the firms were not bringing with the bigger engine for whatever reason (2.3 Teanna, 2.2 Mazda 6) - if people wanted these cars they had to buy foreign used

German and UK cars were now coming out of Europe foreign used, if you wanted an BMW M3 and didn't like the price the firm was calling you could get it 30% less foreign used - you think he big boys liked that??? Drive yuh 328 and hush yuh kant!

Colm has already indicated his next target is Turbo - how many turbo cars have ever been available NEW from the firm?

1.4 TSi Jetta
1.4 TSi A1
For Focus ST (probably around 2010 or so)
Niassan Juke Turbo
Evo 6 (I think they brought in like 4 or something
Audi 1.8t
Mercedes Kompressor

When we go to foreign used right down to Nissan Note has a turbo option

Who is this policy biased against really?

I think i dealt with the Green Fund in this thread way back in the day already - you ignored my post as I recall

Same way you conveniently ignore all the other points where the Government seems intent on increasing the profit margins of the "big" boys

You and your trickle down economics - I'm hope you are being paid well for all this relentless spinning you doing

[ingalook]

Who does this affect more I wonder?

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=667839

And who does it benefit?

[Dizzy28]

Guardian article based of IMF study though with the same conclusion. I don't know if this is the same one but here is one of them https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p15250.pdf

Although higher-income groups capture most of the benefits from lower fuel prices, subsidy reform can still result in a sizable reduction in the real incomes of low-income households and thus increased poverty. Therefore, well-targeted measures to mitigate the impact of energy price increases on the poor are critical for building public support for subsidy reform. Some approaches in different country contexts are discussed below. Box 1 discusses additional measures that can help promote successful subsidy reform.....page 13

Basically substantiates what I have been saying. The rich benefit more when it is present but the poor feel the hurt more when it is removed.

[Habit7]

Guardian article based of IMF study though with the same conclusion. I don't know if this is the same one but here is one of them https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p15250.pdf

Although higher-income groups capture most of the benefits from lower fuel prices, subsidy reform can still result in a sizable reduction in the real incomes of low-income households and thus increased poverty. Therefore, well-targeted measures to mitigate the impact of energy price increases on the poor are critical for building public support for subsidy reform. Some approaches in different country contexts are discussed below. Box 1 discusses additional measures that can help promote successful subsidy reform.....page 13

Basically substantiates what I have been saying. The rich benefit more when it is present but the poor feel the hurt more when it is removed.

Way to go on extracting one point out while ignoring the general thesis.

Fuel subsidy benefits the rich in a disproportionate way to the poor. Removing the fuel subsidy cause increase poverty if done by itself. But the saved money from the removal of subsidy, redirected and targeted to the poor can alleviate more poverty than a fuel subsidy ever could all while not subsidising the rich.

[Dizzy28]

Guardian article based of IMF study though with the same conclusion. I don't know if this is the same one but here is one of them https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p15250.pdf

Although higher-income groups capture most of the benefits from lower fuel prices, subsidy reform can still result in a sizable reduction in the real incomes of low-income households and thus increased poverty. Therefore, well-targeted measures to mitigate the impact of energy price increases on the poor are critical for building public support for subsidy reform. Some approaches in different country contexts are discussed below. Box 1 discusses additional measures that can help promote successful subsidy reform.....page 13

Basically substantiates what I have been saying. The rich benefit more when it is present but the poor feel the hurt more when it is removed.

Way to go on extracting one point out while ignoring the general thesis.

Fuel subsidy benefits the rich in a disproportionate way to the poor. Removing the fuel subsidy cause increase poverty if done by itself. But the saved money from the removal of subsidy, redirected and targeted to the poor can alleviate more poverty than a fuel subsidy ever could all while not subsidising the rich.

This is a big "if" though. It assumes that the savings are redirected towards poverty alleviation.
Do we know where the savings accrued from our Subsidy reduction are going?

[Pirate]

^^^ Good point, to date it was not immediately obvious to the public.

[De Dragon]

^^^ Good point, to date it was not immediately obvious to the public.

All that money will simply be stolen, mismanaged or used as a propaganda tool to say that the deficit was reduced, all the while never truly benefitting the quality of the lives of the citizens. First world type taxation without the first world type return to the citizens who have to bear them.

[bluesclues]

Guardian article based of IMF study though with the same conclusion. I don't know if this is the same one but here is one of them https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p15250.pdf

Although higher-income groups capture most of the benefits from lower fuel prices, subsidy reform can still result in a sizable reduction in the real incomes of low-income households and thus increased poverty. Therefore, well-targeted measures to mitigate the impact of energy price increases on the poor are critical for building public support for subsidy reform. Some approaches in different country contexts are discussed below. Box 1 discusses additional measures that can help promote successful subsidy reform.....page 13

Basically substantiates what I have been saying. The rich benefit more when it is present but the poor feel the hurt more when it is removed.

Way to go on extracting one point out while ignoring the general thesis.

Fuel subsidy benefits the rich in a disproportionate way to the poor. Removing the fuel subsidy cause increase poverty if done by itself. But the saved money from the removal of subsidy, redirected and targeted to the poor can alleviate more poverty than a fuel subsidy ever could all while not subsidising the rich.

Jus wanted to say that when I hear a good idea... I listen. I dont have to think up all the solutions or take the credit for other ppls good ideas. This is a good idea, however I'd prefer not to disseminate the savings through the welfare system, but through a gainful employment system to provide more jobs for the poor first and the rest after.


What PNM gonna do with all the money they save? Nothing.. because next budget we gonna have reduced GDP growth from slowed economic activity, then they will probably want to boost the economy with a big project at the level of genius that they function and announce "we now have enough money to build a rapid rail without the IMF help'

Then doubles will go to $15 for one, unemployment will be at mor than 30% and the population reduction will become quite blatant.

[Numb3r4]

What is the plan for crime?

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

What is the plan for crime?

Speed guns. Smh.

[Numb3r4]

^^^ Oh good I feel so safe......

[mrtrini45]

Termination of Employment





http://www.cnc3.co.tt/press-release/lea ... me-workers

The Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries is set to become the first Ministry to terminate the employment of workers, amid the current economic climate.

Many of the workers to be sent home, do not as yet know, as letters are to be sent to them by Monday May 23rd giving either two days or five days notice.

CNC3 Digital has acquired a copy of a memorandum sent by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to the Director of Surveys, labeled S:22/6/5 and dated May 4th, 2016, instructing that the employment of casual and regular daily paid workers be terminated because of redundancy.

Termination of Employment

It has as its subject, "Realignment of Portfolios - Termination of Employment".

The letter states:

"Pursuant to the assignment of responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, the Land Administration Division and Surveys and Mapping Division now fall under the portfolio of this Ministry.

"Previously these portfolios were placed under the purview of the former Ministry of Land and Marine Resources.

"As a consequence of the realignment of portfolios in September 2015, certain duties, responsibilities and functions were rationalized resulting in excess staff in the daily rated cadre of workers.

Workers no longer required

"As such, please be advised that the casual/regular daily rated workers on the attached listing are no longer required as the functions previously performed became redundant and/or have been incorporated into other functional areas of the Ministry.

"In this regard the enclosed Lay-Off Notices are forwarded for delivery please, taking into cognisance Clause 19.6 of the Collective agreement:

19.6.1 "Regular Workers shall be given not less than five (5) working days notice prior to lay-off.

19.6.2 Workers other than those who are permanent or regular shall be given not less than two (2) working days notice prior to lay-off".

Letters to be sent by Monday 23rd May

"I shall therefore appreciate if the attached letters are delivered by Monday May 23, 2016.

Please note that pursuant to Clause 18 of the said Agreement, these workers will be entitled to severance benefits."

It is signed by Joy Persad-Myers, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries.

The memorandum has been copied to the Auditor II, Accounting Executive II, Commissioner of State Lands and Administrative Officer II (Surveys and Mapping).

CNC3 Digital did not acquire a copy of the attached listing showing the names or number of workers to be sent home.

Several calls to the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, Clarence Rambharat went unanswered. CNC3 Digital has not been able to reach the permanent secretary for comment.

FOR MORE TOP STORIES: http://www.cnc3.co.tt/latest-news

[bluesclues]

Termination of Employment





http://www.cnc3.co.tt/press-release/lea ... me-workers

The Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries is set to become the first Ministry to terminate the employment of workers, amid the current economic climate.

Many of the workers to be sent home, do not as yet know, as letters are to be sent to them by Monday May 23rd giving either two days or five days notice.

CNC3 Digital has acquired a copy of a memorandum sent by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to the Director of Surveys, labeled S:22/6/5 and dated May 4th, 2016, instructing that the employment of casual and regular daily paid workers be terminated because of redundancy.

Termination of Employment

It has as its subject, "Realignment of Portfolios - Termination of Employment".

The letter states:

"Pursuant to the assignment of responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, the Land Administration Division and Surveys and Mapping Division now fall under the portfolio of this Ministry.

"Previously these portfolios were placed under the purview of the former Ministry of Land and Marine Resources.

"As a consequence of the realignment of portfolios in September 2015, certain duties, responsibilities and functions were rationalized resulting in excess staff in the daily rated cadre of workers.

Workers no longer required

"As such, please be advised that the casual/regular daily rated workers on the attached listing are no longer required as the functions previously performed became redundant and/or have been incorporated into other functional areas of the Ministry.

"In this regard the enclosed Lay-Off Notices are forwarded for delivery please, taking into cognisance Clause 19.6 of the Collective agreement:

19.6.1 "Regular Workers shall be given not less than five (5) working days notice prior to lay-off.

19.6.2 Workers other than those who are permanent or regular shall be given not less than two (2) working days notice prior to lay-off".

Letters to be sent by Monday 23rd May

"I shall therefore appreciate if the attached letters are delivered by Monday May 23, 2016.

Please note that pursuant to Clause 18 of the said Agreement, these workers will be entitled to severance benefits."

It is signed by Joy Persad-Myers, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries.

The memorandum has been copied to the Auditor II, Accounting Executive II, Commissioner of State Lands and Administrative Officer II (Surveys and Mapping).

CNC3 Digital did not acquire a copy of the attached listing showing the names or number of workers to be sent home.

Several calls to the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, Clarence Rambharat went unanswered. CNC3 Digital has not been able to reach the permanent secretary for comment.

FOR MORE TOP STORIES: http://www.cnc3.co.tt/latest-news

Great is the PNM.

[drchaos]

Almost half of the H&S fund is now gone with only 8 months into this administration ... If they blow almost half of the savings in only 8 months of being government, what gonna happen in year 4 and 5?

[eliteauto]

Almost half of the H&S fund is now gone with only 8 months into this administration ... If they blow almost half of the savings in only 8 months of being government, what gonna happen in year 4 and 5?

source?

[shaneelal]

^We need to be told how that widthdrawal will be spent, really hope it's not being used for backpay.

Govt withdraws $2.5b from ‘Heritage’ Fund*