Thursday, October 31, 2013
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
The Government must reduce the 70 per cent proportion of its payroll that goes towards salary deductions, a leading businessman yesterday warning it was causing a “remarkable contraction” in consumer spending and the wider economy.
Describing this as a “humungous problem”, Franklyn Wilson, the Arawak Homes and Sunshine Holdings chairman, said it explained why government ‘pay day’ no longer produced the sales spike many businesses once looked forward to.
And he suggested the figure, revealed in recent government presentations on Value-Added Tax (VAT), explained why some Bahamian commercial banks were so opposed to the Government’s Homeowners Protection Bill.
Mr Wilson said he suspected the chief concern for some banks was the limits the Bill proposed to impose on salary deductions, rather than fears it would alter the industry’s risk/return ratio and cause the mortgage market to grind to a halt.
He called on the Clearing Banks Association (CBA) to engage in “constructive conversations” with the Government about how best to tackle the salary deduction issue “in the national interest” without disrupting the industry’s business model.
“To me, the most significant thing that has come out in the press in the last week is that 70 per cent of the Government’s payroll goes to salary deductions,” Mr Wilson told Tribune Business.
“That one is a humungous problem. I believe the business community and all people in this economy need to look at the impact of that.
“When you take all the public service, and they have only 30 per cent of their income available for spending, that leads to a remarkable contraction in disposable income.”
Recent presentations given by John Rolle, the Ministry of Finance’s financial secretary, have shown that almost $20 million per month ($240 million per year) is deducted from civil service salaries to ensure they can meet their debt servicing obligations to the likes of banks and credit unions.
Of that sum, 69 per cent (almost $12 million) went to Bahamian banks, while another 17 per cent was sent to credit unions. Of the remainder, some 10 per cent ($2 million) goes on insurance, with the 4 per cent ‘balance’ headed elsewhere.”
In total, some $140 million of the Government’s annual payroll goes on salary deductions to the banks, with $41 million going to the credit unions and $24 million to insurance companies.
While the Central Bank of the Bahamas’ non-binding recommendations are that borrowers’ debt service ratios should not exceed 40 per cent of monthly income, the Government allows salary deductions up to 75 per cent of a civil servant’s take home pay.
And the Auditor-Genera’s recently-released 2010-2011 report revealed that even that 75 per cent threshold was being breached by the Government.
Analysing the implications, Mr Wilson told Tribune Business yesterday that many civil servants had to finance rent, and activities such as numbers, from the remaining 30 per cent of their salaries.
“Those who are religious and want to pay tithes, the general rule is 10 per cent of their salaries go to tithes. They’ve then got only 20 per cent left,” the Arawak Homes chairman added.
“It’s no wonder that churches are complaining their contributions are going down. When you have church incomes going down, that has implications, because all their charities and social programmes are challenged.”
As for the broader economy, Mr Wilson said: “There was a time in this town when every company looked forward to government pay day as impacting their sales.
“Now, only 30 per cent of government salaries directly affect every business in the country - $0.30 of every $1. With that 30 per cent some gamble, some pay tithes. You can see why there is a lack of velocity of money in this economy, and that cannot change even if the rate of unemployment is cut in half.”
He argued that some banks’ reliance on salary deductions as a means of securing loan repayments was why some institutions were so against the Government’s proposed Homeowners Protection Bill, which was proposing legal limits on this practice.
“The public now sees some banks’ opposition to the Homeowners Protection Bill was not for the good of the economy and the protection of risk,” Mr Wilson told Tribune Business.
“There are certain banks in this country pleading: ‘Don’t touch salary deductions.’. That’s what this was about.”
He added: “These figures show that the Government, in the national interest, has to do something about this.
“The reality is this: Seventy per cent of government payroll going on salary deductions is a number that cannot be allowed to grow, and it must be decreased. They have to change the rules on salary deductions.”
Mr Wilson said it would be “prudent”, given that many commercial banks “have made salary deductions such an important part of their business model”, to engage the Government in discussions on how to remedy this situation.
This, he added, would ensure banks were “not destabilised” while, at the same time, recognising that the ‘salary deduction’ model was out of control and damaging the Bahamian economy.
Urging the banking industry to direct its energies towards something “more productive” for the economy, rather than fighting the Homeowners Protection Bill, Mr Wilson said he understood that the sector had a responsibility to deliver returns for its shareholders.
Yet he added that this had to be counterbalanced with the greater good, namely the economy as a whole, and whether business models were sustainable.
“It’s only sustainable if it’s in line with the national interest,” Mr Wilson told Tribune Business. “A lot of things get out of control, grow more extensively than expected.
“When you get to 70 per cent of government payroll, it seems reasonable to conclude you can’t keep doing that. The cycle has to be broken at some stage.”
Comments
B_I_D___ says...
As an employer, I am all for permitting salary deductions direct from the source to guarantee the loan payment. But on the flip side, I am horrified as to how much of a cut the banks are willing to whack out of the employees paycheck. They know what the employee is getting paid, and they are more than happy to loan them so much money that they deduct a MAJORITY of their pay and leave the staff with mere pennies for their spending money. There most definitely should be a cap on how much of that cut they are allowed to configure through the salary deductions. If the employee is maxed out at 40% deductions, then they just don't get approval for the next loan. Only problem there is they will then go to a money man, loan shark, or some payday paycheck hole in the wall...may start missing a few payments and get themselves into a lot more trouble than just a defaulted loan at a reputable banking institution.
Posted 31 October 2013, 4:08 p.m. Suggest removal
john33xyz says...
Maybe this kind of information (about the danger of loan sharks) ALONG with ALL SORTS of other INFORMATION that could benefit the public and educate them about services available and things to be wary of could be put on THE PARLIAMENTARY CHANNEL instead of a STUPID repeating tape of births and deaths and church functions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course, people would be upset if the channel gave this info instead of birthdays, deaths, and church functions and call their MPs and get it to be changed back. So I say let them stay stupid and get their fingers cut off by loan sharks. That's what they really want in the first place. Happy Birthday too (I'm sure it's somebody's birthday today).
Posted 31 October 2013, 8:07 p.m. Suggest removal
The_Oracle says...
Used to be a life in the civil service was one of humble service and modest income.
Today, it is access to pillage and scheme at will, and live high off the hog!
The public and private sectors have been living beyond their means for decades,
Ever since the "Serve no more" message was embraced along with wild abandon, sorry self determination and independence!
With no credit rating system or credit bureau the banks, credit unions and private lenders including loaned furniture care not if the borrower is under water, their interest rates across the board cover them quite nicely!
Posted 31 October 2013, 4:57 p.m. Suggest removal
TalRussell says...
Is this all legal or just an acceptable custom that has gone on for far too many years? Is there such an act that allows/obligates an employer to deduct financial obligations incurred by an employee? What act permits such an assignment of wages. If there is no such act I would suggest the employee can cancel the assignment at any time. What happens if an employee obtains an original $3000 loan on household furniture with an agreement to pay $100 every paycheck but now only owes a $600 balance, and the boss knows he/she is going to be fired/quitting, can the boss be demanded by the lender to deduct the full balance owing from their final pay check? Point me to the act governing employee payroll deductions?
Posted 31 October 2013, 5:26 p.m. Suggest removal
ThisIsOurs says...
It's a three-way street but the ultimate responsibility lies with the employee, these are adults, this is not a prison state and at the end of the day, the employer only facilitates what the employee wants.
The employer could however act as a guardian, if they are processing deductions, they could stipulate the maximum deductions they would assist the employee in setting up. This only works if payments are deducted before the employee is handed a cheque.
If deductions are standing order payments at the bank, then the bank could put a cap on the amount of auto deductions they take away from a regular salary deposit.
Again, at the end of the day, it is the employee who must be taught to be responsible, with shining examples from our leaders like Shane Gibson who always walk the live within in your means talk. Make the most of what you earn *honestly*, do not try to acquire possessions that your salary cannot bear, do not scheme to acquire more by unethical means, save at least 10% of what you earn.
Posted 2 November 2013, 2:15 a.m. Suggest removal
The_Oracle says...
The banks have also inserted themselves into the "construction industry with the system of "draw downs" by contractors against lent funds.
Apparently borrowers cannot be trusted to make payments or spend funds on stated purposes, so the banks take over.
A letter is presented and signed, making direct deduction/payment legit,
However in most cases of default,
The employee quits, and the employer notifies the lender and is not liable.
No bank has taken it up to put a lien against a terminTion payoff to date.
Good idea though!
Posted 31 October 2013, 9:59 p.m. Suggest removal
B_I_D___ says...
Yeap...to my knowledge no employer has been held liable if an employee quits or has been fired...you pay them what's collected up to that point and it's done. Now...had an employee just quit who just recently started a new loan...I suspect a very unhappy bank next week...
Posted 31 October 2013, 11 p.m. Suggest removal
Straight_Talk_Bahamas says...
I wrote about this in 2011
http://www.straighttalkbahamas.com/2011…
Posted 1 November 2013, 12:07 p.m. Suggest removal
SP says...
BREAKING NEWS......FNM & PLP Sunshine Boys bagman breaks silence!
Posted 1 November 2013, 8:04 p.m. Suggest removal
Log in to comment