Do you want to comment on Minister Denis Kellman’s Facebook status?
Where ever you go, in Barbados you will hear the bright classroom students saying “do not mind the MP for St Lucy, he is also talking foolishness.” […]When the BLP decided to increase the pensionable age and the rates i spoke out against them, explaining what would have happened.
I warned them that it would have caused the young people not to receive work at their most productive age and also it would increase the cost to employers decreasing employment. Also what occurred is that while the NIS was building reserves the country and the businesses were recording losses and down grades. it occurred because of bad advice from the actuary, causing the NIS Boards to rape the economy using a policy of their own Government. NIS then turned around and told the Government, we did not beg you to give us the reserves and if you want to borrow you have to pay us higher than what we can receive on open market, depriving Government of its credit rating, and having cash. They had no better opportunity to invest, but they bled the Government without caring that they are all part of the Government.
David,
When it comes to the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) of Barbados, the actuary has to make assumptions about fertility rates, population growth rates, longevity rates, rates of return on investments, rates of inflation, and rates of increase in the NIS insurable earnings ceiling to determine the level of contributions needed to fund the benefits promised by the scheme, and to cover its administrative expenses.
Through the use of actuarial principles, and demographic and economic assumptions, the actuary is able to identify risks and issues emerging within the NIS. He communicates these risks and issues to the NIS Board, along with appropriate advice and recommended solutions.
Mr. Kellman has asserted that Barbadian businesses recorded losses, and the Barbados Government was deprived of its credit rating and cash “because of bad advice from the actuary.” Bluntly put, this assertion is a lie. A casual observer might dismiss the outpourings of Mr. Kellman as a meaningless, rambling political diatribe, but embedded in his tirade is a very poisonous kite-flying pill.
The Minister of Finance has been granted the power to decide how NIS funds are invested. The survival of the NIS therefore requires the presence of a Minister of Finance who is knowledgeable, prudent, and competent, and who appreciates the necessity to safeguard workers’ contributions from political abuse. Our Ministers of Finance have consistently raided, and still continue to raid, our NIS contributions. Right now, Government is feasting financially upon the NIS. Remember the millions of NIS money literally thrown away on restarting the Four Seasons Project? That money is gone. What do we have to show for it? Who do you think will repay it?
In about six years, the contributions to the NIS will not be enough to cover total expenditure, so investments would have to be liquidated. From that point on, the Government would have to start considering the idea of repaying the NIS fund. If, at that point, the Government has little or no money, it will angrily accuse the NIS of trying to bleed “the Government without caring that they are all part of the Government.” The wicket for this argument is now being rolled by Mr. Kellman.
To give readers an idea of the sort of discussion we should be having about the NIS, I will highlight what I believe to be three major “risks and issues” identified by the actuary over the past fifteen years.
1. At the end of the pension reform exercise, the Owen Arthur administration legislated NIS contribution rates that were higher than what was required to provide the benefits promised by the scheme, and to cover administrative expenses. By deliberately injecting some “extra reserves” into the NIS funding mechanism, the administration sent the signal that it expected the NIS to be adequately funded for a long time, and it did not want to go through another pension reform exercise again in the near future.
The actuary suggested that some of the “extra reserves” could be used to provide a survivor’s benefit in those situations where couples were each receiving an NIS benefit. This suggestion was aimed at solving an extremely difficult problem faced by many NIS pensioners when their spouse (also receiving an NIS pension) dies.
Let me explain this problem by way of example.
Beryl, age 72, receives a monthly cheque of $401 from the NIS. Her Husband, Dolphus (age 75) receives a monthly NIS cheque of $800. Their total household income is $1,201 per month.
Dolphus dies suddenly.
Half of Dolphus’ pension = $400. Beryl’s pension = $401. The NIS will now pay Beryl the higher amount of these two numbers as a monthly pension, which is $401.
As a result of Dolphus’ death, Beryl’s household income has plunged from $1,201 to $401. Two-thirds of her household income has been wiped out! This is a real and serious financial problem faced by elderly NIS pensioners.
Recognizing the importance of the suggestion made by the actuary, I booked a flight from Atlanta, Ga and traveled to Barbados in 2009. I met with Dr. David Estwick, the Minister responsible for NIS at the time, and Mr. Best, his Permanent Secretary. I also met with Dr. Justin Robinson, Deputy Chairman of the NIS. Finally, I met with Mr. Jepter Ince, the Chairman of the NIS, in 2010.
I explained the problem to each and every one of these gentlemen and recommended that the cost of an NIS 60% survivor’s benefit (similar to the 60% survivor benefit enshrined in our pension legislation) be looked at, calculated, and funded by the NIS.
Here is how the 60% survivor’s benefit would help Beryl, in our example.
Beryl has now lost only 26.6 % of her household income as a result of Dolphus’ death. This is a much more palatable situation, financially speaking.
Dr. Estwick showed some interest in the idea, but he was relieved of his responsibility for NIS soon after my visit. Dr. Robinson, and Mr. Ince, showed neither interest nor enthusiasm. Thus, a piece of good advice offered by the actuary, picked up by me and carried baton-like to the policymakers, remained unheeded, and untouched.
2. For the NIS to remain solvent and meet its obligations as they fall due, there must be an adequate amount of trust funds on hand at all times. To achieve this objective, contributions paid by employers and workers ought to be prudently invested. The Government of Barbados had a great opportunity to invest the NIS contributions paid by Barbadian Baby Boomers over the last 48 years in long term non-governmental investments. If these long term investments had yielded a rate of return of 4%, for example, the NIS pension trust fund would now have almost 3 times the amount of the total contributions that were put into it.
Alas, ignorance and political incompetence ensured that the NIS of Barbados suffered the worst possible fate that could befall the pension trust fund. Successive short-sighted Ministers of Finance have “borrowed” the NIS physical cash and have now left the NIS holding a “bag” of extremely risky treasury bills, notes, and Government bonds.
This reckless attitude towards the handling of NIS contributors’ money simply reflected what was taking place in the national economy where similar treatment was being meted out to taxpayers’ money. Over the past 35 years, Government spending soared, productivity plummeted as civil service offices became bloated with political cronies, government debt escalated out of control, taxation rates skyrocketed, government revenue fell, the fiscal deficit widened, the Central Bank printed money, bonds issued by the Government of Barbados became branded with “junk” status, and finally, the Government ended up unable to pay Barbadian taxpayers their refunds.
The great difficulty being experienced by the Government of Barbados, when it comes to payment of its debt, has now become painfully obvious to every citizen. The Government has now evolved into being a serious risk to the financial health of its creditors, and one of its biggest creditors is the NIS.
From as far back as the Owen Arthur administration, the actuary had identified this risk posed to the NIS fund by the high levels of contributions that were being borrowed by the Government. After the pension reform exercise, Owen Arthur raised the NIS contribution rates on one hand, and immediately started to eat into the increased cash flow on the other, by increasing government’s borrowings from the fund.
At the end of 2008, the actuary instructed the NIS Board to limit the level of government borrowing to the 57% of the total fund, which was already reached. The actuary further recommended that new avenues of investment should be pursued, in both local and foreign markets.
Rather than paying attention to the good advice offered to them by the actuary, the Owen Arthur, David Thompson, and Freundel Stuart administrations, as usual, made a worse situation worst through their relentless, ill-advised, misdirected use of NIS contributions.
3. In one of his reports, covering a period under the Owen Arthur administration, the actuary noted the unusually large sums of money that were spent on Information Technology (IT). He expressed the hope that this high level of IT expenditure would be justified in future years by creating a higher level of efficiency in the administration of the NIS.
Instead of seeing evidence of enhanced efficiency at the NIS, Barbadians are experiencing frustration and anger over the quality of service being delivered by the NIS. Every single major issue that has boiled over into the public domain, according to the management of the NIS, has been caused by “the computer.”
Has that large amount of money spent on IT, under the nose of Owen Arthur, delivered the desired results? Has the system worked? Has it been replaced? Blended with another one? Has the money been completely wasted?
Soon after assuming office, Dr. David Estwick informed Barbadians that the NIS was being used by the Arthur administration as an ATM.
Senator Andre Worrell, not having the foggiest idea as to what he was talking about, declared in the senate that the NIS “is being well-managed”.
Senator Reggie Hunte, forever looking at the world through parasitic eyes, boldly insinuated in the senate that the past administrations kicked around the NIS like a football so now it’s the current administration’s turn.
Senator Darcy Boyce evidently lacks the talent and ability needed to effectively communicate government’s energy and fiscal policy to the public. Astounded and perplexed onlookers are now shaking their heads in disbelief over the idea of Senator Boyce’s signature appearing on contractual documents related to the Cahill WTE project. In the face of a deafening cry from Barbadians for answers, Senator Boyce has chosen to remain steadfastly silent. Yet, Senator Boyce unashamedly appeared in the national media recently trying to convince Barbadians that the Government’s borrowing of NIS funds is a very good thing for the country, and ought to be encouraged. This argument by Senator Boyce directly opposes the recommendation made by the actuary.
The Minister responsible for NIS, Dr. Esther Byer-Suckoo, appeared in the press recently stressing that the NIS is being well-managed and that the NIS fund is strong. Pray tell me, how can a fund be possibly strong if the majority of its investments is made up of “weak”, “risky”, Government “junk” debt?
These utterances by politicians and political pretenders all serve to tell us one thing – the political class intends to raid the NIS until practically every cent is gone. To date, no objection over the treatment of our NIS contributions by the Government has come from the Barbados Employer’s Confederation, the NUPW, or the BWU. Mind you, all of these organizations have representatives on the NIS Board.
Mr. Joseph Goddard, a long standing representative of the NUPW on the NIS Board, ended up accepting a diplomatic posting from the government.
Mr. Tony Marshall, former Chairman of the NIS, ended up accepting a diplomatic posting from the government.
Sir Leroy Trotman, according to the poor-man’s news agency (better known as rumour), is anxiously waiting to receive his.
Minister Kellman, whose ministerial portfolio is housing by the way, seems to be hinting that the destruction of the NIS fund is now seriously underway, and the actuary, the NIS itself, and the BLP have already been identified as the scapegoats.
I warned Barbadians about this same said thing. here it is a bright classroom person has responded to me without dealing with opportunity costs of both arguments. But proffers that he asked government to increase the cost to the fund by 60% to survivors. He also failed to accept that it is the young people that would offer the NIS 21.35% of sustainable earnings for a longer period and would create economic activity to create employment while the experienced people would create savings. Another point not appreciated by the bright student that investsments in the local government creates or keep jobs at a rate of return of 21.35% of each insurable dollar, along with a higher rate of investment income reported because of the special rates paid by government. Then again this is commonsense not education.
This a comment which should have been posted to Walter’s Tell it like it is blog. Many of his revelations of recent blogs shed light on why he has not been invited to share opinions in that forum. Given his near understanding of the issues, an educated Barbadians in a discipline where many are not it makes sense his views should be sought. Instead we allow our politicians to label bright Barbadians and the landscape is the poorer for it.
Loading…
Walter Blackman
David,
This is what I detect Mr. Kellman’s arguments to be:
If you move the NIS retirement age from 65 to 67, you would collect 2 more years of contributions from these elderly workers. These collections would increase the reserves of the NIS, but they would hurt Govt, businesses, and the economy. (I don’t know how he reached that conclusion)
Mr. Kellman insists that the move would create damage in other areas:
By working another 2 years, those 65 year-olds who should have gone home would be preventing young workers from getting jobs.
Imagine a supermarket owner with 5 workers. Two of the workers are age 65. The supermarket owner wants to cut his staff to 3 workers, so he plans to “retire” the two workers who are 65 years old. In Mr. Kellman’s mind, the increase in the NIS retirement age would force the owner to keep these 2 workers for two years longer and “would increase the cost to employers decreasing employment.”
Lastly, Mr. Kellman is claiming that the 65-year old worker would be saving his/her money. If we sent home that worker, and hired a young worker instead, that young worker would pay NIS contributions for a longer period. That young worker, unlike the 65-year old would not be saving. He would be spending, and his spending “would create economic activity to create employment”.
I hold the view that these arguments are not the ones that we should be focusing on when it comes to the NIS. I also believe that there has to be a political motive behind Mr. Kellman’s utterances on the NIS at this time. I have tried to pinpoint that motive, and nothing Mr. Kellman has written makes me think that I am wrong.
Loading…
Bush Tea
Kellman shiite!!
This is a government of monkeys playing wid guns….
@Walter Blackman, can you please contact me for a new radio show Layne & Holder coming to a new radio station soon. It will be Apolitical, No bull, No bias, Inviting Ideas/Solutions while engaging from the average man on the street to world leaders. We may not be Hannity & Holmes but we will do our best. Do contact me at 430-4695.
Loading…
XXXX
opening a can of worms, Mr. k. don’t have the basic education for situation of that caliber, stealing lambs or land is his forte
Walter you have done well to understand the minister. Unlike the actuary whose conclusion is informed by a science, Kellman appears to be saying his conclusion is based on commonsense. How can we do a comparative to determine the better option? Why are politicians allowed to make statements in this part of the world and avoid robust fact checking.
Loading…
alfred vaughan
“Walter Blackman September 18, 2015 at 8:08 AM #
David,
This is what I detect Mr. Kellman’s arguments to be:”
If you are referring to Mr Kellman’s nonsensical response at 5.36 am then you are a genius to detect something from it
Loading…
Walter Blackman
David,
Mr. Kellman represents the people of St. Lucy in the House of Assembly, and he is a member of the cabinet. He also suffers chronically from “call-in-programme fever”.
After reading my article, an intelligent politician, seriously interested in the welfare of Barbados and Barbadians, could have decided to propose the 60% NIS Survivor’s benefit to Cabinet. He could have also become determined to let his colleagues know that the wanton, profligate use of NIS funds by the Government is putting Barbadian NIS pensions at risk and must stop. He could also have demanded to know how much money has been spent on IT at the NIS, and why the computerized systems seem not to be functioning the way they should.
Mr. Kellman could use Cabinet, the floor of the House Assembly, the DLP St. Lucy Constituency Branch, and the call-in programmes to champion this cause.
Instead, this is what we get from Mr. Kellman:
“a bright classroom person HAS RESPONDED TO ME without dealing with opportunity costs……”
“…..he asked government to increase the cost to the fund by 60% to survivors.”
“He also failed to accept that………”
“Another point not appreciated by the bright student…..”
Rubbish.
When he was on the opposition bench, Mr. Kellman scorned the “matchbox” houses being built by the Owen Arthur administration. The most recent significant pronouncement on housing, coming from Mr. Kellman, amounted to bad news for those Barbadians waiting to get a “government” house. Mr. Kellman told them the money was supposed to be used to build housing for them, but so much money ended up being spent, that the completed housing must now go to richer people.
Word on the ground is that Mr. Kellman has been dealt a bad hand in housing because his predecessor made maximum use of most of the funds available. NIS is the only game in town, with hundreds of millions of dollars at the disposal of the Minister of Finance. If houses are to be built, and government doesn’t have the money, where do you think they will be looking to get this money from? Where do you think they are looking all the time?
I, and every reader on BU, would be naive to believe that at least one member of the cabinet would stand up in defence of the NIS fund. In the end, it will come down to Barbadian workers having to take a stand to defend their own interests. We hope then that the NUPW and the BWU will stand up and fight with them.
Loading…
Walter Blackman
Kammie Holder September 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM #
@Walter Blackman, can you please contact me for a new radio show Layne & Holder coming to a new radio station soon.
@ Walter
“We hope then that the NUPW and the BWU will stand up and fight with them.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Boss, you talking bout the same two unions that had government by the balls a few weeks ago over the BIDC age discrimination situation?… when the whole country was in their corners?
You mean the same two unions who in exchange for a photo-op with a stink liar (who has lied about EVERY shiite he has dealt with in the last 7 years), dropped the matter just like they dropped the NCC matter?
This is the same two unions whose forte seems to be about getting employees to walk out over sick buildings, broken fans and the hiring of temps?
Walter…these are petit players… suffering the ‘Caswell syndrome’. That is, not understanding the level at which they need to operate in order to fulfil their mandates.
Good luck waiting on them to protect the NIS funds… Kellman will probably get to build his airport in St Lucy after all… LOL
Steupsss… first thing the damn girl need is a good hair dresser…
Loading…
Hants
Bushie wrote “first thing the damn girl need is a good hair dresser”
Bushie you learning from Donald Trump?
Loading…
Simple Simon
@Walter Blackman “Yet, Senator Boyce unashamedly appeared in the national media recently trying to convince Barbadians that the Government’s borrowing of NIS funds is a very good thing for the country, and ought to be encouraged. This argument by Senator Boyce directly opposes the recommendation made by the actuary. The Minister responsible for NIS, Dr. Esther Byer-Suckoo, appeared in the press recently stressing that the NIS is being well-managed and that the NIS fund is strong.”
If I have a choice in believing the politicians or the actuary.
I will believe the actuary.
In my own private pension plan I am not permitted to borrow from my own pension funds, nor am I permitted to promise the funds to settle a debt. I fact I cannot touch my pension funds in any way until I retire.
Loading…
Simple Simon
@ Walter Blackman “If houses are to be built, and government doesn’t have the money, where do you think they will be looking to get this money from?”
Why build new houses? I passed by the pretty pink, green and blue houses near to the Lancaster School Meals Center/Pitcher Gully today and they are unoccupied and overrun by bush.
If the government can’t manage to get poor people build into the already built houses funded by middle class people’s tax money, why build more houses?
Just to have those new ones overrun by bush too?
Loading…
Simple Simon
@Bush Tea September 18, 2015 at 8:59 PM “Kellman will probably get to build his airport in St Lucy after all…LOL”
It is unfortunate Dr.Robinson who is known to frequent BU has allowed Walter’s views to go unchallenged. In the mean while we have minister Kellman using his FB page to do the impossible?
Dr. Robinson is , will always be selfish man . I know of him before he become the way he is now
Loading…
Walter Blackman
David September 18, 2015 at 3:24 PM #
“Unlike the actuary whose conclusion is informed by a science, Kellman appears to be saying his conclusion is based on commonsense. How can we do a comparative to determine the better option?”
David,
Please understand that there is no better option to be determined here. The pension reform committee recommended that the NIS retirement age be gradually increased to age 67, by the year 2018. That recommendation was accepted and passed into law by the Owen Arthur administration.
The pension reform committee encouraged Barbadians to submit their views and recommendations on NIS pension matters to assist them with their deliberations and recommendations. Any argument against raising the normal retirement age should have been raised and submitted back then. Did Mr. Kellman produce any argument or evidence then? If not, then it is a monumental waste of time for him to try to do so now.
As you have undoubtedly realized, if you think rationally, then you are going to have an extremely hard-time keeping up with Mr. Kellman’s zig-zagging way of reasoning.
For mirth, here are Mr. Kellman’s own words on his facebook page, telling the world how he functioned as one of Owen Arthur’s top advisors:
“When Mr Owen Arthur was Prime Minister he often wondered why he had to hear from me, what he did not hear from his experts.”
Presumably Owen Arthur heard from both Mr. Kellman and the experts on whether or not the NIS normal retirement age should be raised. The evidence shows that Mr. Arthur did not listen to Mr. Kellman.
For a classic example of vintage Kellman’s twisted thinking, I give you another excerpt from his facebook page:
“In Barbados we must stop accepting that savings and investsments are the same. I think this is Walter’s problem, he has not appreciated that NiS must create work to be viable.”
The only Barbadian who accepts that savings and investments are the same is Mr. Kellman.
To be viable, the NIS must efficiently collect contributions from workers. Mr. Kellman says no, the NIS must create work first. Where has he seen that written?
To put the icing on the cake, Mr. Kellman has written all of this nonsense to convince himself, and his facebook followers, that I have a problem. Nothing that I have written can be used to support his claim.
How best do you deal with a mind like this?
You leave it alone.
Loading…
Dompey
Walter Blackman
Should we take the silent response by the staunch proponents of the BLP agenda as an admission of the shortsightedness on the part of the Arthur administration.
Of course not, the Arthur administration has done no such wrong or if you listen to some propenents here wasn’t capable of committing acts of wrongdoings.
Loading…
pieceuhderockyeahright
@ Mr Walter Blackman
You said the Mr Kellman said that “When Mr Owen Arthur was Prime Minister he often wondered why he had to hear from me, what he did not hear from his experts.”
This refers to a fallacy of “connectedness, relationship and reliance” on Lucy’s son Kelly that did not obtain in real life. Truly mal-reported speech
When you examine a lot of what Lucy’s son says, you realise the common denominator in all of his pronouncements speak to “third parties of un-confirmable existence” in this realm, “Zoe-like spectres” whom, were it required that they be subpoenaed to a real world court of law, would force any judge to issue “a warrant for the arrests of ghosts” who could not attend the summons.
It is really quite difficult to tell who, between the truly affable character Kelman and Stinkliar, which one is the more dangerous liar.
I mean look at it this way.
Kelly will state untruths to big up heself purely because of his concept of himself so while the outcome of his misleading statements brings us squarely at the door of incompetence Stinkliar is a pathological liar who, like a Guyanese, gine lie to you even if the truth was the easier path, dat be jes de man.
As Dereck Alleyne of the Unban Commission once said to a group uh we ole menses a few years back “if Stinkliar tell you walk, you bettah had fly de france out uh Dodge Town, hear???”
Loading…
Walter Blackman
David,
At the end of 2011, the NIS investments stood at $3.7 billion. Out of this $2.2 billion is owed by government. Government can only pay this money one way – it has to levy taxes.
Workers paid for their NIS benefits through contributions. To receive their pensions, they must now pay for them again through taxes.
The government promised civil servants, members of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary generous pension benefits. These monthly pensions amount to millions of dollars in liabilities but they have not been pre-funded. Taxes have to be raised.
I have not even mentioned other local and international creditors that must also be paid.
Where is all of this money expected to come from? Are Barbadian workers destined to become working slaves?
Loading…
Walter Blackman
pieceuhderockyeahright September 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM #
@ Mr Walter Blackman
“Kelly will state untruths to big up heself purely because of his concept of himself so while the outcome of his misleading statements brings us squarely at the door of incompetence ……..”
pieceuhderockyeahright,
Kelly is a politician, and he will argue forcefully that his technique has worked well for him in St. Lucy. Politics is such a funny thing, that maybe, if Kelly starts talking sensibly, the people of St. Lucy might vote him out. LOL.
Has the time come to make the NIS an independent agency managed by a Board of competent professionals.
If Dr.Robinson manages to join in he discussion along with the question above sensible Barbadians want to know the rationale used to appoint the DLP’s biggest campaign contributor Bjorn Bjerkhamn to the Board of the Central Bank.
Loading…
Dompey
Piece
Sir rather than articulate your usual verbal diarrhea, you ought to have at least try to challenge Walter Blackman’s claims with corroborative and substantive evidence.
Piece let’s be serious for one moment, now there is a time and a place for every and anything, but now is the time to defend your party’s position with the compositional lucidity of a Kant, against the backdrop of these damaging accusations.
A blog we are discussing the management of NIS funds why not find the time to discuss Kant too.
Loading…
Walter Blackman
David September 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM #
“Has the time come to make the NIS an independent agency managed by a Board of competent professionals?’
David,
The actuary addressed this matter on page 14 of the 14th actuarial review of the NIS as of December 31, 2011:
“Unlike most other Social Security institutions in the region that are operated as quasi-public sector entities where the Board oversees the entire administration, the NIS office is staffed with public servants, and the Board manages the fund. Whist this approach has its advantages, experience suggests that NIS operations could be more effective if greater autonomy was given to the Board on human resource matters and the conducting of financial audits.”
Loading…
Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right
@ the Honourable Blogmaster
Your outreach to Mr. Justin Robinson IS NOT GOING TO BE ANSWERED for the following reasons
1) To answer this extremely sensitive subject will display his “betrayal” of his masters because it would (openly) indicate, to them, and to us, that he not only reads BU BUT, more importantly, is foolish enough to be drawn out into the fray,
2) This topic deals with several nuances not only of their being a flagrant ignoring of advice to perpetuate the life of the NIS funds but there is a possibility that he would obviusly have to ignore and not respond to the sound allegation (an oxymoron to be sure) that the NIS is the personal wallet of the Ministers of this current administration (as it was before them)
while it is said that he is a foolish man devoid of any sound economic or actuarial skills it cannot be said that he is a foolish man.
If you read the Auditor General reports there is no state run entity producing timely certified/audited financials. A scan of the NIS Boards through the years who do we see? Politically motivated or ignorant individuals serving because of legislated interest. The NIS Scheme is to important to the financial health of the country for politicos to have unbridled control.
Walter made several points in his posit. If BU was the chair of NIS we would be compelled to issue a clarification statement. Dr. Robinson has commented on BU many times, we have commended him in the past for walking where others fear to tread.
Loading…
Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right
Dese is difficult time Blogmaster.
You talking bout a state agency that is financing the Guvment of Barbados and is not only accountable to the leader of the Eager Eleven Stinkliar but to the very man Stinkliar try to oust.
Robinson might be foolish but he ent nuhbody fool
Loading…
TheObserver
I was looking forward to Sunday’s contribution from both Caswell, Jeff and Walter, but It seems as if Walter’s was a few days only. It wopuld be amusing if “AC” stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Just wanted to say “I enjoy the contributions” but just four words would never be considered as prolix.
Loading…
Simple Simon
@David September 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM “Sensible Barbadians want to know the rationale used to appoint …Bjorn Bjerkhamn to the Board of the Central Bank.
Dear David:
I am only a Simple Simon, but I wonder if you have not hit upon the rationale yourself “the DLP’s biggest campaign contributor.
Loading…
TheObserver
I was looking forward to Sunday’s contributions from Caswell, Jeff and Walter, but It seems as if Walter’s was a few days early. It would be amusing if “AC” stepped in to fill the vacuum.
Just wanted to say “I enjoy the contributions” but just four words would never be considered as prolix.
(I am using ac’s keyboard).
Loading…
Simple Simon
@David September 19, 2015 at 2:14 PM “where others fear to thread.”
Correction: Tread as in walk. Not thread as in sewing. That is Dr. Robinson has from time to time been willing to walk/tread the walk/tread on BU.
Loading…
TheObserver
I have been reading the various postings, and though they touch on a number of different areas/issues, it appears as if there is one underlying problem. It is like being given a bad piece of meat and though you might bite into it at several different places and attempt to describe the taste of each section, the meal is ruined because the meat is rotten through and through.
I see contributors trying to offer suggestions that will bring about changes, but they are opposed by those who seek to maintain the status-quo. The latter are quick to point out that similar problems existed when the other party was in power.
If our politics is reduced to “Wait your turn. It’s our turn now”, then Barbados is locked into a vicious circle, where drivers want their hands on the wheel but have no outright destination.
All discussion is reduced to
“Where ya going?”
“It doesn’t matter. I got de wheel”.
The current minimum national insurance contributory pension is $179 per week or $716 per month. An elderly couple living together and both of whom receive the minimum national insurance contributory pension receive $358 per week or $1432 per month.
Telephone/electricity/water about $210 [$70 for each utility]. That leaves $1222 for food etc.
The current minimum national insurance non-contributory pension is $151 per week or $604 per month. An elderly couple living together and both of whom receive the minimum national insurance non- contributory pension receive $252 per week or $1008 per month. Telephone/electricity/water about $210 [$70 for each utility].. That leaves $798 for food etc.
The question is when one person of the couple dies how much should the widow/widower receive to enable them to live a dignified life and how much can the national insurance afford to pay. I think Walter’s suggested 60% top-up to the widow/widower is too high. I don’t like that Kellie’s suggestion that NIS should be about job creation. I would suggest that the widow/widower should receive about 25% of the deceased’s pension rather than 60%
So a contributory widow/widower would receive $895 per month. Not a lot but sufficient to buy food, water, electricity and telephone service.
So a non-contributory widow/widower would receive $754 per month. Not a lot but minimally sufficient to buy food, water, electricity and telephone service.
HOW SHOULD WE TAKE CARE OF OUR VERY YOUNGEST PEOPLE
What we are forgetting in this discussion is “What about the youngest people?” What about the new-borns whose mother’s still receive only 12 weeks of partly paid maternity leave. This 12 weeks of leave has shamefully remained the same since 1967. Many things have changed since 1967 including our understanding of the needs of new-borns and children under the age of 1 year.
So I’d suggest that we restructure the NIS to permit new mothers 26 weeks of NIS payments. This is especially so since the World Health Organization has recommended that infants be exclusively breast fed for a minimum of 6 months, and since in fact Barbados has signed to say that we agree with this 6 month period of exclusive breast feeding. I’d also permit mothers who adopt to receive this paid maternity leave also. It might encourage more adoptions and create better situations for some of our children who we are suffering to remain in bad homes.
So more NIS benefits should go to our very youngest citizens, those young citizens whom we expect to fund our pensions 15 1/2 years time.
Our children/grandchildren deserve this.
It maybe a good political move as well since there are more female than male voters, and the party which increases maternity leave can expect grateful votes from young women and for at least a generation grateful votes from the babies as they grow up.
If there is anything that I am ashamed of as a Bajan it is to tell non-Bajans that we have not changed our maternity leave period since 1967, and yet in the face of stagnant population growth, the old men who run things ’bout here refuse to budge.
The minister posted this doc on his page, seems he thinks it is important for you to see it.
Loading…
watchman
@ David
If the bajan born PM and Ministers don’t care why should he, the bajan gangs that run this country over the years are like maggot, they always find something to feed on, this time it is NIS,
Loading…
Walter Blackman
Simple Simon September 19, 2015 at 5:47 PM #
HOW SHOULD WE TAKE CARE OF OUR VERY OLDEST PEOPLE
“The question is when one person of the couple dies how much should the widow/widower receive to enable them to live a dignified life and how much can the national insurance afford to pay. I think Walter’s suggested 60% top-up to the widow/widower is too high. …. I would suggest that the widow/widower should receive about 25% of the deceased’s pension rather than 60%”
Simple Simon,
I suggested 60%. You have suggested 25%. Someone else might suggest 50%. That is fine. That’s what our discussion about NIS should be partly about. Let me show you how my 60% came about.
Let us look at a situation that currently exists.
Remember that Beryl, age 72, in my example paid NIS contributions over her working life. Her husband did the same. When Beryl’s husband died, Beryl did not get a cent from the NIS for her husband’s contributions. She continued to get $401 from her contributions only.
Beryl’s friend Priscilla, age 52, has been “living with” Frank, age 68, for 4 years. Priscilla never worked, so she never contributed a cent to NIS. Frank’s NIS pension is $1200 per month.
Beryl and Priscilla enjoy household income of roughly $1200 per month whilst their “spouses” are alive.
Frank dies.
Priscilla, who never contributed to NIS, gets $600 per month from age 52. That is, she gets 50% of her deceased “spouse’s” benefit.
Clearly, Beryl is not being treated fairly in this situation. If Priscilla can get 50% of her “husband’s” benefit and she never contributed to NIS, why can’t Beryl, who has contributed, get the same?
My position is that the NIS should provide that type of survivor’s benefit, not to Priscilla only, but to every eligible spouse. The survivor’s benefit has to be at least 50%, but since the Occupational Pension Benefits Act (dealing with private pensions) stipulate that the survivor’s benefit should be at least 60%, I thought it would be a good idea to treat NIS and private pensions similarly. Otherwise, I would settle for a 50% survivor’s benefit.
To determine what impact this additional benefit would have upon the NIS reserves, the actuary, not Denis Kellman, would have to calculate the associated liability. It might not be as expensive as you think.
Loading…
Walter Blackman
David September 19, 2015 at 6:33 PM #
@Walter
“The minister posted this doc on his page, seems he thinks it is important for you to see it.”
David,
As Bush Tea said, this is a case of a monkey playing with a gun.
The chart (from the CIA?) that Mr. Kellman posted shows clearly what everyone in Barbados already knows – the population of Barbados is ageing.
An ageing population creates complex problems that call for effective solutions from policymakers.
For example, health care costs in Barbados will escalate from here onwards. The real pressure has not been applied yet, and the QEH seems to be already broke.
NIS pensions will have to be paid to an increasing large number of pensioners but Government has used up most of the cash. How will the policymakers get back that cash in time to make sure these pensioners receive their promised benefits?
Civil servants will be retiring in droves every year. Where is their pension money coming from?
Barbadians are expected to live longer in retirement.
Therefore these problems are not only going to be severe, they are going to persist for a long time.
Mr. Kellman needs to get up off his pathetic backside and carry some ideas to the Cabinet of Barbados. The same way that he can brag on his facebook page that he offered expertise to Owen Arthur in the past, why can’t he post what expertise he has offered PM Freudel Stuart in the present?
Loading…
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.Cancel reply
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.