Instead of Ken Eves writing to the Examiner (February 7) and wittering on about greed in his letter he should have done some very basic research and calculations.

It is true that there are probably many more rip-off merchants than there used to be but whilst our Manx government ministers do have some faults and weaknesses they can’t be considered to either be rip off merchants or greedy.

However, the fact that our ministers are so poorly paid for their considerable responsibilities whilst having to ignore all the ill informed criticism and hassle proves that they are not greedy because if they were they would have got themselves a job which would earn them much more than they earn as a government minister.

Did Ken bother to find out that the 2022/23 government’s revenue expenditure was budgeted at £1.15 billion ?

Assuming that we have 10 government ministers currently earning on average only £80,000 each then their total annual cost or salary would be £800,000.

Does Ken not think that increasing ministers’ salaries by 25% equivalent to a total of only £200,000 could result in very much more than a £200,000 decrease in expenditure against the budgeted revenue expenditure of £1.15 billion ?

Does Ken also not accept that higher salaries would increase the motivation of our existing ministers or attract more capable and more efficient ministers ?

Surely if our ministers were being paid more then we would tempt a better calibre of person to try to be elected as an MHK in the hope of becoming a minister?

How much of the £1.15 billion of the 2022/23 revenue expenditure budget does Ken think is wasted ?

If 10% or £115 million of the £1.15 billion of government expenditure is lost through inefficiency and waste would it not be worth chancing paying the ministers an extra 25% or £200,000 in an attempt to save some of this huge amount, especially when the government would recoup 20% or £40,000 of the increase in the extra tax that the ministers would have to pay ?

In other words the government’s cost of a total salary increase of £200,000 would only be £160,000.

Of course it would make sense to vary the salary increases that I believe to be justified so as to reflect the amounts of expenditure that each minister is responsible for so that those responsible for the biggest departmental budgets such as the DoF and DoI ministers would get a bigger salary increase than those with smaller departmental budgets.

Ken should accept that consideration of these matters requires a calm and sound sense of proportion instead of allowing his frustration at the greed of some people, who are not our ministers, to eclipse the advantages of increasing their salaries by what amounts to absolute pea nuts in comparison to the budgets which they are responsible for.

Name and address supplied.

The letter above led to this response:

First of all I’d like to say that I am only passing on my opinion on what ‘name and address supplied’ has to say (Manx Independent last week).

He/she/they (or whatever) says that our ministers are ‘so poorly paid’ (his words, not mine), £70,000 to £80,000. Oh I wish I was paid so poorly.

I do not have the time, nor the inclination to research this, that and the other about our MHKs but I do know that most of them are honourable people doing their best for the Isle of Man and they deserve the salary they get, which is a very good salary for what they do.

To say that MHKs should be paid even more for what they do is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Like it or lump it, Mr/Mrs or whatever, they get a very good salary for what they do.

Also, I certainly do not accept that giving our MHKs higher salaries would increase motivation (most of them are honourable people ‘in my view of course’) of our existing MHKs(cost of living rises excepted of course ).

You also say that ‘if we paid our ministers more then we would tempt a better calibre of person to try and be elected as an MHK’,so what you’re saying is that our MHKs are not very good at the present time.

I am going to finish this letter by saying, if you’re not an MHK looking for a rise or a future wannabe MHK (on a really good salary) then, if in future you need to say something about anything really, you then be man enough or whatever to put your name to your thoughts as I do.

Ken Eves

Barrule Road

Willaston

The writer of the letter who castigates Ken Eves for his remarks about greedy people getting jobs in the Keys seems to think that the more money you offer will attract people of greater ability.

Where from?

The Isle of Man?

I doubt it.

The UK when someone who knows nothing about the island tells the Keys how it should be done?

Is that what Mr Name and Address Supplied is suggesting?

As he chooses to remain anonymous let’s call him Mr Patronising as that sums the tone of his letter up.

The right person for any job needs the ability and vision to get those involved on his side.

Even then not everyone will be happy.

Currently in the UK money seems to reward failure.

It hasn’t harmed Boris John’s earning power.

Probably Liz Truss will produce a book shortly tell her readers how she messed up the UK’s economy for a large advance.

Throw in Nadine Dorries as Polly, Boris and Liz as Basil and Sybil Fawlty and the former Tory chairman as Manuel and you’d have Mr Patronising’s dream team.

At least if Mr Patronising wants to slag someone off , let him use his name.

John Wright

Bemahague Avenue

Onchan

Share your views with our readers!

If you'd like to see your letter in print, include your name, full address and a phone number.

We don't print full addresses or phone numbers but we must be able to verify the identity of the author of every letter we publish.

We respect anonymity when requested.