Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Talk the best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: As I said to you all, we do have a special interview at this time. Joining in a gentleman. He's been with us before. We've spoken to him on several issues.
Let's welcome back to our program, economist, political analyst Dr. Roger Hussein. Good morning to you. And welcome back to our show.
[00:00:24] Speaker C: Yeah, morning. Morning. Just a little clarification. I am not a political analyst and no India today, I know nothing about those things.
[00:00:32] Speaker B: Okay, I'll wrap the fingers of my producer once again.
But it's nice to have you with us because your opinion is very valuable in a matter like the one we're discussing. That's the salaries Review commission and all that's taking place. There's a lot of discussion in the public domain about it. When we initially were told of some of the increases proposed, persons were upset, some of them justifiably so, because they think that some of the increases proposed were astronomical. People describe them as obscene and all different kinds of things.
And then the discussion started about, well, how did they come about these proposals? And now the government, the cabinet has rejected the report. They've sent it back to the SRC and some are suggesting, well, that's not the way it should have been done. It should have been laid in parliament and then it should have been debated in parliament, rejected in parliament, and then we take it from there.
Let's get your view. Let's try to clarify for persons what is really taking place here and whether or not it's something that people should be as concerned about as they are. Let's begin with the initial report that was compiled and submitted your opinion on it.
[00:01:53] Speaker C: So thank you very much for the invitation. I appreciate it. I can only stay about 15 minutes, but I will respond to your question that you asked. I mean, to me the SRC does a review and makes a submission to the relevant groups and they did their base work and they make their submission. It's up to the politicians to accept or reject the report. From what I heard, you said just they didn't accept it and so be it. Dissented back and I wasn't aware of that. I didn't think anything would come up the report anyway in terms of the increase in the salaries of the various political figures. So let's see what they will come back with.
[00:02:41] Speaker B: A suggestion has been made that all this is just part of politics, that the exorbitant increases were deliberate, for the government to come out smelling like roses by rejecting the whole thing and sending it back, we had spoken to former independent senator Diana Marbert Wyatt, and she had suggested that rather than emotion play a major role in how people adjudicate on this thing, we analyze the process by which the SRC used to come up with its report. Is that something that we should be looking at? The process by which these increases were calculated? Because if the SRC is an independent organization, and they would have solicited independent groups to help. I think it was price, waterhouse, Coopers, or whichever one of them to help them compile this report, they should stand by. Unless it was skewed intentionally, they should stand by the initial report. Is that logical?
[00:03:45] Speaker C: Yes. As I said, I don't think the methodology behind the report would be flawed. I mean, I haven't seen the methodology, but the SRC wouldn't pull something out of the sky. I mean, they would have experienced this kind of thing. They would know it would be under intense scrutiny as it is. So I am really surprised at the amount of commentary it has generated, because I expected which politician in 2024, with the economy and a status stagnation with public servants not getting more than 4% increase, would go and accept something like, I think it was 38% to 35% increase. I saw, I didn't even pay that any attention at all. I knew that that was highly unlikely to go forward. I hear your suggestion that some people are saying that it was all part of our political propaganda plan. I don't even know if that's true. I think the SRC did their work and the various groups just thought it. In this day and age, with no money circulating, really, it was unreasonable to accept those salary increases and so be it.
[00:04:58] Speaker B: If I were to say to you, Dr. Hussein, I'd like you to.
Professor Hussein, if I'm to say to you recommend what salary increases should look like for our politicians, what would you suggest?
[00:05:15] Speaker C: Well, again, these are things that should probably be tied to deliverables. I mean, there should be a process by which to do it. I wouldn't be able to recommend a salary increase for a politician, to be honest. I could recommend a salary increase for people working in a company based upon their productivity, based upon various output targets I would have set before, and whether or not they meet these targets. So I am not aware of any country follows such a practice. Maybe they do, and if they do, that's fine. We could just look at what they use as criteria to pay their politicians and probably innovate and improve on it. But I personally am not aware of such a methodology.
And I didn't give it enough thought to determine what should enter into criteria to pay a politician. If I were to give it some thought, I would go with the debt to GDP ratio, the current account balance, deliver force participation rate, the murder level and real GDP growth rate. Combine them in some type of index format and rank salaries against that. If we were to do that in Tobago, people's salary would probably move sharply downwards in the last few years, but then you would have to factor into that random shock events like COVID. So again, let the people that are assigned to that in the SRC deal with that. I am merely offering a comment based on your question, but I am no expert on that.
[00:06:55] Speaker B: Yeah, the salary view discussion has more or less played itself out. We need to wait now to see what the SRC sends back to the government, whether they review what's going to take place. But there are some other discussions that I'd like to get your opinion quickly on because I know that we're limited for time. One of those is the property tax discussion. This morning we had prisons recounting to us their evaluations and how concerned they are. One of the evaluations suggested that someone's house be rented for $98,000 a month with a tax of 30 something thousand dollars for the year. And people are asking, well, how did the evaluations get to where they are? Somebody else sent a message saying that their evaluation is over a million dollars.
As somebody who would be closely looking at the impact these taxes would have on the economy, what's your take on some of these figures that have been presented?
[00:07:58] Speaker C: Satish. Again, you presume that I look at those kind of numbers. I don't.
I believe in the property tax. I find the formula that I saw was credible. What I would say to you, let me see if I could make a contribution, because the two things you asked me so far is not really my strong areas.
[00:08:17] Speaker B: Right.
[00:08:18] Speaker C: Let me see if I could tweak this a little. So what I would say to you, the property taxes come in at a time when the economy has experienced about six consecutive years of contraction. Except in 2019, we had, I think, 0.4% growth and we have returned to growth in 2022. And growth is expected for 2023. What we need to do is to strengthen the economy and allow incomes to grow by strengthening the economy. And in so doing, any amount of property tax as stated by the government will not be so burdensome. So the fundamental challenge to me is not whether or not we should pay property tax. I think everybody should pay property tax. I think the fundamental problem is how do we change the structure and performance of the economy. So that you don't get up in the morning and read four people shut in Mayal overnight. Which would make the high murder level. Would make some people afraid to open their business. Or intimidated. They won't want to work long hours. So that their income would be affected. Or if you have a labor force participation rate that is amongst the lowest in the Caribbean. I think we are the second lowest in the Caribbean as we speak. At 56%. That's something that policymakers should be looking at. Or you have about 100,000 Venezuelans to 120,000 Venezuelans here. Who mostly worked in the non tradable informal sector. That is using a palata foreign exchange. And therefore skewing the productive structure of the economy. Which by extension could asymptote compromise good. I think that's something we should become concerned about. Because if you asymptote compromise good. That in turn would perversely affect your capacity to earn income. And hence your ability to pay property tax. And a host of things like that. So we have. The fundamental challenge in the Tobago economy is not the property tax. Od SLC review the fundamental problem to me is we need to return the economy to growth. And not just growth. We need to return the economy to growth that generates foreign exchange.
[00:10:24] Speaker B: Yeah. I want to thank you for. Our time is limited. I want to thank you for the insight. Even though those were not necessarily your strong points. It's very valuable information. Because these are the discussions that people are having. Some of the things that are occupying their time. And I want to thank you for your time here this morning with us. And your comments on the issues that we discussed. Once again, thank you for being our guest here this morning.
[00:10:46] Speaker C: No problem at all. Have a good day everyone.
[00:10:48] Speaker B: You as well. That of course, ladies and gentlemen. On how we end our interview here this morning.
[00:10:53] Speaker A: Earth Professor Jose the best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
