@Caswell

In essence if your submission is correct you are saying that all politicians are the same.

Checkit -out
The arrangements for the Prime Minister’s pension is different. Section 3 (1) of the Pensions (Prime Minister) Act states:
Every person who having been appointed Prime Minister on or after the 30th November, 1966, seases at any time after such appointment to be Prime Minister shall be paid a pension under this Act with effect from the date on which he ceases to be Prime Minister …
Technically, the Prime Minister can go to Government House and be sworn in an then got to his office and write his resignation, and qualify for his pension. He does not even have to serve a whole day.

According to Section 5, the Prime Minister is entitled to a pension of two-thirds of the highest annual rate of salary of such person at any time as Prime Minister.

To answer your question about the NIS pension, I feel that it is immoral to tax the NIS pension when you already paid taxes on the NIS contributions. If I were you I would not worry about the tax on the pension, I would be more concern about the unannounced cut in the rate of the NIS pensions. The following is an article that I wrote some time ago, you will be surprised at what the authorities sneak by the country:

After forming Unity Workers Union, I went to the National Insurance Department to ensure that we would be operating within the law. At the same time, I took the opportunity to collect some of the handbooks which explain the benefits that are offered by that department.
I am aware that the method of calculating the NIS contributory pension had been changed recently. However, I was not aware that the new method would result in persons receiving significantly smaller pensions. But that was not the shocker: the new method now makes it easier for self employed persons to cheat the system.
Previously, a pension was calculated based on the total value of the contributions that a person paid over the years. Now, the pension is calculated based the annual average of the best five years’ contributions. As a result, a self employed person can pay his contributions at the lowest rate for the greater part of his working life, increase his contributions to the maximum for five years prior to retirement and receive the same pension as a person who paid the maximum contributions for his entire working life.
At this point it would be best to explain using actual figures. Let’s say that there are two self employed persons contributing to the National Insurance Scheme for 25 years: one paying contributions at the rate of $14.65 per month for twenty years and then at a rate of $627.90 per month for five years; and, the other paying contributions for the entire 25 years at the rate of $627.90. Both of these persons would receive a pension of $382.50 per week. Who came up with this madness? Don’t take my word for it, go to the National Insurance Office and collect their Self Employed Handbook and read pages 11 and 12.
It is obvious that someone messed up. The new system is not equitable. Government must take another look and probably revert to the old formula.

I think they are.

And??? And??? It seems that one is only entitled to a good pension if one comes from ‘over and away’ or if one comes from certain sections of society.

Our leaders, including politicians, work hard for their office. There is no reason that their pensions should not be formed on the same basis as all others.

You see MD’s from corporations given ginormous packages, who have done far less for this country, yet you complain about thirty persons who burst their blood vessels for the country, to go home and eat sardines?

The money above is chicken feed. That must be Rihanna’s investment income for the month (and good for her).

And y’all see this ‘expert’ from the UN or that expert from some other overseas body strutting about with their chest AND ass in the air and listen to their every word, but when it comes to our own people, you complain, that they are not worth their pay.

Bollocks and bajan jealousy.

Wunna complain about eveerything.

Even so, who cares with what they are paid, with current life trends, and I am not being malicious here, they will not live that long anyway, especially with our health issues in this country.

Crusoe
I think that you just like making comments, without anything sensible to contribute.

Politicians like all other public servants serve this country. After retirement,all public servants should be compensated in such a manner that they can live comfortably, not just MP’s.
They have a history of enhancing their pension entitlements, while reducing the pension entitlements for the majority of other public servants.
Parliamentarians reduced the age at which they receive pensions to 50 years, while they systematically increase the age for others until it reaches 67. Eventually, they will be entitled to receive their pensions seventeen (17) years prior to everyone else. Is that fair?

MP’s are entitled to receive 1/2 of their salaries as a pension after 8 years service. Public officers qualify for 1/5 of their salaries after 10 years. MP’s qualify for 2/3 after 12 years while public officers have to wait 33 1/3 years to qualify for the same pension, incidentally statutory board employees qualify for the same pension after 40 years.

Public officers who are employed after September 1, 1975 qualify for both the National Insurance contributory pension and one from the Treasury, however, the pension from the Treasury is reduced by the amount that is paid by NIS. Parliamentarians receive both, whether they are employed before or after 1975.
Why should MP’s, most of whom are part time, receive such generous pensions while full time public officers have their pensions cut, don’t they have to live comfortably after retirement like former MP’s.

No one is asking MP’s to go home and eat sardines. You obviously do not know the price of sardines. Some former public cannot afford biscuits because the pension does does not cover the entire month. They are said to be living in gentile proverty. So Mr. Crusoe if you have nothing sensible to contribute you don’t have to show your ignorance.

”So Mr. Crusoe if you have nothing sensible to contribute you don’t have to show your ignorance”

Wicked nouncer what! What ignorance? I have not spoken on ignorance. I said plainly that there is no reason that Parliamentarians should not have their pensions based just as the pensions of others.

The basis of calculation of payment of pension payments should be applied across the board, a fair rule is applied the same way for all.

As such, pensions are applied on the salary earned, which in this case now eccompasses all their emoluments.

There is no reason to penalise one group.

Your complaint is thus not their pensions per se, but their earnings.

Reality is they earned their salary.

If I speak from ignorance, you speak from illogical thinking, with no sound basis for objection to the basis of calculation of their salaries, other than you personally think that they earn too much.

But, that is your issue, no one else’s. The Parliamentarians studied hard for their law degrees, medical degrees, engineering degrees etcc.

Good for them

You want quality, you pay for it. You want to pay peanuts, you will get monkeys.

You, who represent a union, tell someone to not contribute???

Don’t like alternate opinions / arguments, do you?

THAT is interesting.

By the way Franklin, ‘Crusoe
I think that you just like making comments, without anything sensible to contribute”
—————
I am glad that you have made your position on education / healthcare and potential alternate industries clear per my suggestions, that you see nothing sensible in investing in either education or healthcare industries.

Fortunately, yours is only one opinion and I am sure that others will see the potential for these, alternat industries, particularly with current industries here failing more as time goes on. The service industries are still our future and viable service industries will require educational excellence.

Mr. Crusoe
I am sorry that I offended you. After what you have just written I realise that you really don’t understand, and I should be trying to enlighten you, not criticise your reasoning.

I am not concerned about the salaries of MP’s. I feel that their pensions are out of proportion with those of other public servants.
The formulas (formulae) for calculating the different categories of pensions are different, as a result MP’s receive significantly more for working a shorter period.
What they are doing is like looting the Treasury. I hope that you might be able to see through your bias long enough to recognise that MP’s make laws to benefit themselves without any independent oversight. This is not a party political issue both parties behave similarly when it comes to feathering their nest.

Crusoe
Let me help you remove the scales from your eyes.
I agree that people who serve in stressful or dangerous jobs should be allowes to retire early. Attending Parliament for one day per week, and not every week, sitting on top of a Ministry and having public servants write your speeches and position papers is really stressful.
What about policemen who have to chase down young fleet-footed criminals. They will be required to retire at age 67 years. Should they not benefit from early retirement.
What about air traffic controllers who are responsible for plane loads of people?
What about Court Marshals who have to go into dangerous areas unarmed to arrest defaulters?
I could go on but I hope you get the message, politicians are not the only ones with stressful jobs.

Crusoe quickly ducks but if he was expecting respite from the other end, the barrage continues.

We know very well (although like good Bajans we like to pretend) that most of our politicians who died early or got very sick early had their health ruined by

1. rum
2. outside sex
3. lickerishness
4. cigarettes

The idea that they are getting sick and dying from hard work is a LIE.

Dear Anthony: I stand corrected.

Caswell / check-it-out / Random,

I understand your comparison to the other jobs, to be fair. However, I also am of the opinion that you underestimate the stress in Government. I am not being uncharitable to you, just simply I think you happen to underestimate it.

Check-it-out also puts forward the alternate view to the bribery issue which I too appreciate, that underlying self-respect and character determine trustworhiness, I have seen people with much still do anything in their power for more, not even politicians.

However, it is a point that is accepted as a possible deterrent, to eliminate at least some of the potential for bribes.

Random Thoughts, no in your example your son would have to wait until 50 for the pension.

Remember too, that we must compare like with like. What do top Managing Directors get as salary, as pension packages?

Mostly, as we have seen recently, these individuals walk away with generous packages unlike anything their employees get. Even after shorter years, that is a fact.

While you might argue that one must compare public servants to Ministers, not Ministers to MD’s, I will ask why not the latter?

Surely these Ministers operate at that level? Are they lesser for serving their country, even if only for for eight years?

And one cannot say that they are less capable for sure, I have seen a few MD’s who are dolts, yet fare very well monetary wise.

Lastly, I am sure that you know that worldwide there is an issue with the continuing pensions, due to ever ageing population trends.

Barbados is not an exception, as you would know this is why our pension age has increased. I wont even go too deeply into ‘borrowing’ from the NIS, by Government, that has its own implications.

It may even increase again, so maybe you will get your way, when everyone is asked to work longer, even MP’s.

Sargeant asked “Which politician got sick or died early from “outside sex”?”

Out of respect for their children I won’t name names. But one was my classmate.

Again Sargeant asked “Did some jealous husband/wife catch them in the act and ensure of their early demise? ”

No a jealous wife did not catch them perhaps if she had she would still be alive today. HIV/AIDS caught him. And some years later she followed him to the grave. He was under 50 and she was barely 60.

If we give ourselves inflated pensions now and if politicains feel that it is justified to retire/draw pensions at 50 why do we feel that our children and our children’s children will tolerate this nonsense Why do we fool ourselves that the coming generation won’t cut our pensions when we are 70, or 80 or 90 and at our weakest and most powerless

We have seen politions end up in the almshouse already, why do we feel it won’t happen again. Today’s current politicians will ALL be powerless old men and old women in 30 short years.

If in our greed we deplete both the public and private pension funds, then our children will cut our pensions, not so much because they are mean spirited, but it will be the only sensible acturial decision.

WE FOOL OURSELVES IF WE BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY IN BARBADOS CAN AFFORD TO START DRAWING A PENSION AT 50, when the current life expectancy is about 75? Are we so foolish that we believe that we can pay pensions to large groups of people for 25 years or more?

@Random Thoughts

From your subsequent posts I can’t determine whether you mean one or several politicians died from having “outside sex” but from the example cited the same could be true of the Banker,Nurse,Carpenter or Gas Station attendant etc. However, it is not a hill to die on so I’ll move on, BTW why did you change your moniker? 🙂

@Sargeant

Agree with your observation for sure.

If the actuarial study some years ago recommended extending the qualification age why not too the members of parliament?

@ Gatekeeper

No I haven’t heard of the rumour. Given the recent pm announcement there wasn’t going to be reshuffle can’t I put to much faith in the rumour. Though the pm can change his mind at any time.

‘what about his light workload?

Lol. Y’all really dont have a clue, do you. JMGM died in office, so too did EWB. Arthur started relatively young, so survived.

You really think FS can handle any more pressure?

Lol. THIS is what I mean. Think it is like running a corner shop, or candy factory or Broad Street shop?

Except the MD’s of the last two probably earn more than the PM.

And maybe the corner shop person too, depending where it is and how much tax he/ she DECIDES to pay.

Lol

David

Your question re the disparity of raising the age limit for ordinary citizens to receive pensions against the backdrop of the Parliamentarians maintaining their qualifying age of 50 is an excellent one. It would be fun to see what response you would get from any elected representative be they B or D. I believe that this is one issue where you would get consensus from both Parties.

Don’t say that elected representatives from different parties don’t have unity of purpose

David;

I also think that your point about the disparity between the age of retirement for Politicians and the rest of the population is a good one.

I think that Prime Ministers and the other Ministers essentially deserve the salaries they provide for themselves through their legislative power. However, I’m not so sure about their pensions and provisions for discriminatory pensionable age. They should not be exempt from the strictures they place on the general population and, as you state, if an actuarial study, suggests that pension ages should be raised it should be raised without exception.

Politicians of all stripes would probably justify the disparity on the basis of the importance of their jobs vis.a.vis all others; the short time span of a typical political career; the vagaries of the voters who regularly throw the politicians out of office; the need to maintain their standard of living when out of office; the “red herring” that many of them would have given up promising private sector careers to work on behalf of the people and cannot go back to those careers at the levels they should have reached; and because they have the power to make it happen.

Of course, none of the above reasons would withstand serious scrutiny, but they are all that I can come up with that a politician would use. IMHO, politicians consider themselves, despite whatever they may say to the public, recognize that they have the power to make it so in terms of their salaries and provisions for themselves in pension rights etc. and they grasp the opportunity with both hands.

Just like the passing of FOI legislation with teeth and no loopholes, don’t hold your breath re. the rationalization of pension ages between the general public and politicians anytime soon.

@checkit-out

So far in my research for info i have encountered very little online dealing with cabinets before the last 2 elections. What i can say it that david thompson seems to have taken on the most ministerial portfolio at the beginning of his tenure as pm but as such had parliamentary secretary to help deal with load.

History is repeating itself.
Decrease for you, increase for me!