According to the Leader of Government Business, Hon McKeeva Bush, there will be no new direct taxes in response to the government’s urgent need for money to pay for civil service salaries, accounts payable and to keep the country running generally.

It seems clear, therefore, that the admonition by British Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in charge of the Overseas Territories at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Chris Bryant, that the Cayman Islands must urgently seek to broaden its revenue base in sustainable ways is going to be ignored in favour of one-off sales of public assets.

Specifically, Mr Bush apparently has in mind the possible sell-off of the George Town sewerage system, Cayman Airways, the Turtle Farm and Northward Prison.

The problem with this is that none of these seem to us to be particularly valuable enterprises that would attract either much interest in their acquisition or produce much capital value if they were sold. The best one could say is that their divestiture would reduce government expenditure in covering their respective losses.

Since reduced expenditure seems to be forced on the government at the present moment, simply because there is no money to spend, we have to question the likely immediate merit or benefit in such thinking.

Likewise, the collateral focus on public-private partnerships for new infrastructure projects does not seem to us to have much to do with the urgent need to raise money to keep the country running.

This is the same “trickle-down” economic theory that was relied upon by the previous government to prop up the economy but, as we repeatedly pointed out, was inevitably going to be too little, too late, given the direction in which the economy was clearly heading.

The difference in the case of the latest proposals is that government would not have to come up with the project financing but, unless Mr Bush has in mind that private enterprise would pay for the privilege of participating, it is hard to see how this would contribute anything meaningful to the Treasury in the coming weeks and months.

Therefore, no matter how much Mr Bush may pontificate against the imposition of new direct taxes, it is hard to see any realistic alternative, except increased indirect taxation – principally import duties.

Mr Bush appears, in particular, to have rejected out of hand the possibility of property taxes, but the fact remains that this is one means of raising immediate revenue.

Yes, the real estate lobby will say that it will depress sales but, at the same time, they are also saying that the real estate market is in the doldrums anyway – so, really, what difference would it make to the current market?

The possibility of a property tax was, in fact, floated many, many years ago by the then Financial Secretary, the late Sir Vassel Johnson but, at that time, it was shot down, not unexpectedly, by the real estate lobby and special interest players.

However, in many countries, property taxes are a substantial source of revenue for local governments, financing many municipal services such as schools, emergency services and recreational facilities.

Plus, it would be a way for the country as a whole to benefit from large areas of undeveloped land, which may ultimately be sold at a very substantial profit to the landowner.

This time around, the concept of property taxes is being championed by another influential and knowledgeable figure: former chairman of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, Tim Ridley.

We must assume that Mr Ridley, and Sir Vassel before him, had thought carefully about the relative advantages and disadvantages before advancing such a proposition, and what Mr Bush and his colleagues are apparently saying is that they know better than the collective wisdom of these two pre-eminent financial experts. Frankly, we find this hard to believe.

Most, if not all, foreign investors are used to the concept of property taxes anyway and, at the rates proposed, the sums involved would not be particularly material in relation to the purchase transaction as a whole. We hardly think that the historical absence of property taxes has been a major factor in any decision to invest in real estate in the Cayman Islands.

After all, such investors expect and do enjoy decent roads and other infrastructure when they’re here – how do they think they are going to be paid for?

We are also sure that a way could be found to “grandfather” in existing land titles so that any such tax does not become an intolerable burden on current lad owners – big and small, while at the same time avoiding any diminution of the desired immediate boost to government the required “sustainable” revenues and, at the same time, being able to demonstrate to the UK government and lenders-in-waiting that the government is expanding its revenue base in order to borrow more.