Good Morning,

                A quote from L-Orrizont page 4, "Muscat wieghed wkoll li gvern gdid se jaghmel gwerra bla precedent kontra l-burokrazija zejda ghax din hija wahda mill-ikbar xkiel ghat-tkabbir ekonomiku u sostna li ghalkhemm zieda fil-paga minima mhux talli ma tiggarantixxix titjib fil livell tal-ghajxien, imma tista zzid l-incerrtezza sahaq li bit-trahhis fil kontijiet tad-dawl u ta l-ilma l-kompettivita tal-intraprizi tizdied u fl-istess waqt anke haddiema bil-paga minima jigu mghejjuna".

               Ist point. It is every politician's dream to cut unnecessary red tape, both from a customer/user point of view and also from an investor point of view. Red tape means time and money lost  which ultimately means loss of earnings. However red tape means accountability, safeguarding people's interests, supposedly better management of resources, enables fairness and equality. The thin line which borders into excessive bureaucracy is extremely difficult to define especially when this bureaucracy has been building up slowly during the past years; probably due to accumulation of bad and good experience. According to sociologists (forgot the name) it is a necessity for governments but it is an iron chain for the individual.

               So, the Malta Labour Party wants to tackle bureaucracy? Which government entity: MEPA? Social security? VAT? Tax? Health? How is this going to be worked out?  An application for a building permit will be handed out without necessary research? an application for a change of use can go ahead without Mepa approval? Waiver enemalta certificates?  These would definitely get things going at a faster pace but at what cost to the country?

           2nd point. What has happened to the "Living Wage" proposed some time ago by Malta Labour Party  Leader. There is a deep contrast between this concept (living wage) and the concept of not raising the minimum wage as outlined in the article above; complete opposites.

         So, the argument is that decreasing the water and electricity bills will indirectly benefit the minimum wage earners. By any chance do they realise that government has helped these families by subsidising energy costs and by the fact that they probably do not pay any taxes since government has raised tax bands?

         Ok, my electricity bill will be reduced, and factories will be more competitive since their cost will be reduced drastically. The question has always been who will pay for fuel we need to generate energy The answer is obvious the people who earn more will be taxed more. Business men will have their fuel costs lowered but taxed more; competition lost anyway. The end result would be that if presently, we are extremely conscious of energy wastage and investing in energy saving apparatus, we can end up wasting more energy  forgetting about energy savers and government forking out more on fuel costs. Who will be paying for this? Eventually, all of us or a Bailout?

Michael