Lower early deficit revealed
(CNS): Government had expected to be running a deficit of almost $38 million for the first four months of the 2013/14 financial year but instead it is more than $12 million less, which was described by Finance Minister Marco Archer as “encouraging”. Although government finances are facing a hole of some $25 million, the figure is considerably less than predicted in the budget. Archer said Thursday that government coffers always suffer in the early half of the year because it collects a significant part of its revenue in the second half. Nevertheless, government has a long way to go to reach its ambitious surplus target of over $100 million and Archer said the situation would be monitored closely.
Explaining the public sector’s financial results for the four month period from 1 July to 31 October, he said that, against expectations, they were very encouraging.
The public sector typically experiences a deficit during the first six months of its financial year from 1 July to 31 December and then a surplus during the last half of the year from January to the end of June. The latter half of the year is the period in which substantial revenue is received from the financial services sector and highly seasonal sources of revenue, such as Tourist Accommodation Tax.
The budget expectation for the four-month period was $12.2 million more than the current amount of $25.6 million, far better than budget expectations. Government has forecast an overall year-end surplus of $100.3 million, with central government having a budgeted surplus of $95.3 million; and the remaining $5.0 million surplus is budgeted to arise from the activities of its statutory authorities and government-owned companies.
“The government is understandably pleased with the actual results for the first four months of the current fiscal year,” Archer said. “Vigilant monitoring of results for the remaining eight months is required to make a reality, the substantial budgeted surplus for the year to 30 June 2014.”
Category: Politics
Marco Archer is my knight in shining armour so far as the government is concerned. I have great trust in his ability. He is not only well educated by a street wise man who comes from humble beginnings. To think that someone almost convinced me to vote for Winston Connolly over Mr. Archer! Thank God for opening my eyes, ears and mouth to see, hear and speak out in defence of this good and able man who does not see itnecessary to be grinning from ear to ear and being every body's friend. Instead he is a stable and steady gentleman. Respect Mr. Archer, Respect!
Well there might be less of a defecit, but driving around the country you can start to see the neglect, the roadsides are overgrown, and the wild tamriand trees are trying to get into your car window as your driving on the Queens highway, the parks are overgrown and benches rotting in most of them, sometimes running a country is more than counting the figures just to say we are better than you, the cost it is going to get this country back on track and presentable is going to be more than the few pennies we have been saving.
Once again the Civil Service has delivered excellent results.
And in other news Bigfoot was spotted shopping in Fosters.
This is clearly a sign of good governence please give credit where credit is do. The new premier is already showing his worth.
Surely you meant … the new Finance Minister, Marco Archer. HE is who delivered on this, not the new premier.
Thanks again Mac!
Marco's reporting comes as no surprise,Mac left us in much better shape than Alden
did and no grey list to worry about either!
Please give it a rest about the West Bay RD. this was SO needed,park and walk get some
exercise!
Best thing to happen to West Bay since Foster's!!
Merry Xmas.
Marco's report has nothing to do with McKeeva since it relates to the present financial year which began on 1st July. It has to do with how our our finances have been handled since then.
McKeeva was one of the reasons we were on the grey list in the first place since he signed absolutely no TIEAs during his first term as LOGB (2001-2005).
In other words "They still have no idea how it really works". But they are still pretending they do. As long as the voters are fooled they still have the job.
surplus/deficit/surplus/deficit……etc……………..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Im still wating for the duty cut on fuel that was promised during ppm campaign. Looks like they should be able to finallly implement this now.
No, the UK interrupted that plan by insisting that there would be no new borrowing and we would have to spend much of that surplus to decrease existing liabilities. That might happen in 2017 but not likely before then.
And quite right the UK was to. The UK has had more to do with the improvement of the local books than any overpaid local politician.
This article does not make it clear that the Finance Minister is referring to a current operating deficit versus a projected budget surplus for the year as a whole. The budget which projects a surplus has already taken account of an even higher current operating deficit, so we are on track. That is the point.
"…pleased with the actual results…"
"actual"????? Realy??????
How about auditable? Until an unqualified audit is produced I will not believe any financial figures that come out of the government.
Until you learn to spell and use punctuation properly, no one will believe what you say.
Steady as she goes there Marco, let's keep it on the down low, let's blow the nay sayers out the water when we not only achieve the $100 mil surplus next year, but surpass it as well, and yes people, it will be audited.
If Government is doing accrual accounting and its fiscal year runs from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year and it collects most of its revenue in Janaury to June period as that is when I presuppose most annual banking licence fees etc are collected, the revenue collected should be allocated as income troughout the year as the fees collected ae an annual fee not a monthly fee.
What you are referring to is revenue smoothing. Taxes are non-exchange transactions, in other words, there are no future obligations on the part of the Government for the collection of those taxes, it is earned once it is paid and therefore there is no matching principle requirement.
Now put your hand down, sit, and be quiet.
A greater concern is the fact that they are probably cash accounting – that not only renders any debate over the matching principle redundant, but raises the possibility that the "saving" in a smaller than anticipated loss is simply due to putting off settlement of liabilities. Until we get auditable accounts produced on a recognised basis the Mionster can tell us any number he wants – basically meaningless.
According to the budgeted figures, the $ 100 million projected surplus is an accrul accounting based surplus. If one adds back budgeted depreciation/amortization and projected change in non-cash accounts related to operations there is a projected operating cash flowing surplus of $ 118 million. From that $ 118 million, $ 46 million is allocated for invesing activities ( purchase of/ n construction of fixed assets) and $ 28 million for financing activities (payment of loan principal) resulting in a projected increase in cash holdings of $44 million. As you stated, if accounts were prepared on cash basis, surplus could be achieved by defering payment of amounts due to suppliers of goods and services to Government and its statutory authorities and Government owned companies
Deferring payment is irrelevant to accrual accounting, it is actually when you recognize the expense is what makes it cash and accrual accounting. So even though they may choose to not pay a supplier until July, it doesn't mean they have not recognized the expense before July. until you understand what accrual and cash accounting means, do not attempt to explain the surplue or deficit.
If cash accounting is used and a supplier is paid in July for services/goods received in May or June, the expense would not b recognized until date of payment ie July.
Yeah it seems that it is a field day for thosewho are studying Accounting 101. And Another Ting,
They are not cash accounting so that renders the rest of your post irrelevant.
This point was already apparently considered extensively by the Government who determined that if you are going to spread it across the entire year this would mean that if funds are collected in January, funds for February – December (fees are for the calendar year, not fiscal year) would be considered unearned revenue but becausethese fees are non-refundable, Government apparently took the stand that it is considered all earned when they get it. At least this was what was explained to me. So it looks like they are not doing straight accrual accounting but some kind of hybrid of cash and accrual accounting which they do accrual accounting when looking at expenses but cash accounting when doing receipts, very conservation approach. Is this ethical in the accounting world? I thought you had to do one of the other.
I agree that if accrual accounting is going to be used then it should be fully utilized not quasi-accrual accounting as it seems they are doing. I also agree that the fees are non-refundable but fees are mainly collected in January for the calendar year not jst for January and,, those fees span two separate fiscal years, as the Government's fiscal year ends June 30. and therefore should be recorded on an accrual basis.
I think the books are being cooked and these statements from the government are pointless voting grabbing crap.
Marco is an able Minister. But he will damage his reputation if he pins it on the Financial Secretary’s numbers.
There is no integrity in government’s accounts, nor will there be until audited accounts are approved. How long must we wallow in this pit of despair?
Tis time around tis able Minister is an Accountant as well as a Statitician!! He does not have to depend wholly on The Financial Seretary's numbers. he has the ability to scrutinize the numbers!! Way to go Marco!!
He is not an Accountant, he is an Economist.
Accounts are not audited until the financial year has ended. That has nothing to do with this issue.
Um, dude, in case you have been living in a cave, it’s been ten, TEN, years without audited accounts. The numbers have no integrity and that has everything to do with surpluses, real or imaginary.
No, idiot. I actually understand the issue but it is obvious you wouldn't know audited financial statements from the whole in the wall.
hole.
not surprising that the deficit is smaller considering the amount of fees they are ripping out of the private sector, this golden goose aint going to quack for much longer. instead of trying to expand the base they are going back to the same trough again and again and the financial sector is not going to take it much longer, i hear they are introducing even more fees on this sector in 2014, which is simply outrageous.
With all the tax agreements signed and the pressures by the USA and Europe the financial industry is on a steady decline.
This Christmas we are looking forward for a garbage surplus! Do you hear me Osbourne! Like garbage containers are full to there max! Get those trucks and garbage collection up and running!
Great time to outsource it, put it out to tender – not the household garbage, just all the rest.
Yes, our complex yard stinks, the garbage hasnt been collected in days. Should I carry it up and throw it on the fire?
Wow look how the Alden has already turned things around..
Why? Why even report this without reporting why?! Answer is they probably don't know!
Audited accounts please then maybe we will believe you Mr. Marco
You obviously have no idea of the time period before audits are done. Audits are done much later. What is wrong with providing current figures? It's a lot more information than we used to get.
OFFS. Stop with the nonsense. We haven’t had audited accounts in a decade. That is the point. The numbers are garbage and have been for ages.
So the numbers were wrong again and so is Minister Archer about a $100m surplus. Why am I not surprised? Stop the political rhetoric. Where is the accountability?
No, you are misunderstanding the issue, due in part to the poor way that it has been reported. This does not change the projections for the $100m year end surplus, as the budget took into account the operating deficit which occurs at this time of year. Don't sweat it; we are on track.
Make the civil servants contribute to their health care and pension instead of Government paying ALL of that on their behalf and the deficit would be much smaller.
The civil service with all they benifits and unfunded fantasy pension plan is going to suck the life blood out of the children of this country .
but hopefully I'll get mine it does, right?
Opinons are not facts and everyone is entitlted to theirs. However, you are incorrect with regards to the pension as CS contribute 50% to their pensions. We have been contributing from day one. In my opinion… and this is just my opinion… I believe tht our health benefits make up for the fact that we haven't been given even a cost of living, or any pay raise for many many years…this was long before the 3.5 which was given and taken back twice…and 3.5 barely half of cost of living.
By no means am I saying CIG must not cut cost, yes they should but there are numerous other ways they can and should cut first. This I am sure we all hope this present Govt will do first. After which if need be…. the health care option contribution should be further explored…
I am thankful for my job but CIG should be thankful for employess such as myself and the others who go above and beyond duties daily to ensure our areas of responsibilities and many outside our areas gets done to serve the public needs.
While some CS, as with a minute percentage of employees in the the private sector are slack unrelibale and dishonest. Many of us are not…we are honest intelligent and reliable employees who give back much more than they are paid for.
please ask any CS you know and they can tell you..or show you if they feel so inclined…it's on our payslip….we contribute half to pensions. Thank you.
11:41, civil servants DO NOT contribute any money to their pension. Their payslip has a sum of money reflected on it but that is paid in to their pension account by Government on civil servants' behalf. It DOES NOT come out of their take home pay. To put it simply and one seems to have to do this with some civil servants: If you earn $5000 per month in salary, you take home $5000 – there is NO deduction for pension even though the payslip records one as having been paid by Government over and above the $5000.
CS were automatically given a pay rise that was equal to the amount CIG started paying into each employee pensions funds when first introduced. The amount is based on a percentage of each employee salary. In effect CS did not see it come out of our salaries because it went right back out.
THIS IS A FACT -CIG Payslips have listed the following…
EARNINGS
Regular Salary $$
Motor Car upkeep if you get it $$
Employee Pension $$
Employers Pension $$
Total Earnings $$
DEDUCTIONS
Employee Pension Contribution $$
Employers Pension Contribution $$
Civil Service Association Fee – if you are a member $$
Credit Union GCM – if you send funds their $$
Total Deductions $$
Direct deposit – Acct number of the bank your salary goes to – $$
This is not my opinionthis is how it is reflected…this was also what staff was told..so for all intent and puposes that's what it is…
Thank you…
Without figures your list is meaningless. Civil servants do NOTcontribute to their pension fund. Government pays the civil servant's portion for them. It is one of the perks of being a civil servant. Like free health care.
Does not apply to all especially the new civil servants are being placed under different agreement.
Call it what you will CS DOES contribute half of their pension contribution.
The payslip has it listed exactly as i outlined so for all intent and purposes that is what it is. Sorry if it offends you.
Regarding figures, use your imagination please. To say without figures it is meaningless is the height of ignorance….but… everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Mines is not an opinion…it is a FACT they payslip say it…. CS were giving a pay raise when they first started paying pension, it was equal to the amount CIG contributed and it went back out immediately.
Going foward when they were given any type of increase their increased portion contributions were factored in and came out of CS increase ie salaries accordingly.
While some negative things you hear about CIG are the actual case, not everything you hear about what takes place in CIG is always facts and always negative.
Whether you and others like the above statement, is not here nor there….It is what it is… a FACT…unless the payslips are all lies… I rest my case but by all means do continue to comment on this if it pleases you.
Best wishes to you and yours for a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.