Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Excellent

About Yibble

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member
  1. Budget 2018

    This year's deficit £39m - next year's projected deficit £67m. Public Sector Employees Pension Reserve to be completely exhausted in four years time. No problems?
  2. Ballasalla Bypass

    Indeed. And if it wasn't for the pesky runway extension, they could extend their 'bypass' to provide more direct access to the housing estate, sorry "hotel" they are planning by Fort Island.
  3. I give a shit, and I found the article PK linked to very interesting. Perhaps not for the reasons the Guardian intended though. The EU actions proposed (at least as minuted) seem perfectly sensible. They're the sort of things that should be looked at, though it is disingenuous of them to direct "particular attention" at the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, but not certain member states; Luxembourg particularly comes to mind there. What is more concerning is the way the Guardian has reported the matter, and particularly the misleading spin contained in the article. That includes: The juxtaposition of the two sentences "A key focus for the inquiry will be the use of offshore tax havens to save on VAT." and " The leak exposed how the Isle of Man had issued £790m in VAT refunds to the owners of 231 private jets", so as to create a deliberate misleading impression that the VAT savings were somehow related to tax haven / offshore status. They were not. The refunds were issued under what are effectively UK / EU VAT rules and HMRC's own VAT guidance on the matter makes it quite clear that is the case. The Guardian has deliberately attempted to misrepresent the true position. The EU notice makes no mention of jets. It seems the Guardian may be attempting to spin some 'Fake News' here. The reference to "the UK’s “non-dom” loophole, which allows wealthy individuals to avoid tax by claiming that their true home is outside the UK. " It is no 'loophole', it is a basic and long established principle of UK taxation. It is how the tax system is intended to operate. It's also nothing to do with "claiming" where you live. The tests applied are real and significant and in practice it is no easy matter to change one's domicile. Again, an attempt to mislead. So, the Guardian is at it again. It's published an article by a disreputable individual which intentionally seeks to misrepresent the situation. If they have solid grounds for their accusations, why do they need to do that? Just as with the Paradise Papers, the real dishonesty uncovered here seems to be on the part of the Guardian and their 'investigative journalists'.
  4. 13 year-old cyclist forced off road by tractor

    Quite possibly. However nearly all the killing and maiming is done by the drivers.
  5. PK. Your comments here not be taken too seriously, because we have already established that you are dishonest and that you will intentionally misrepresent a situation in order to attempt to mislead others. However: Cutting through all the spin in that Grauniad acticle, the gist of the matter would seem to be that: Appleby acted as the corporate agent of FMBE's holding company (which does not necessarily imply anything more than handling local administrative and compliance matters for a non-trading holding company) Appleby withdrew from that role in December 2016, some 5 months before a US court ruled to allow the US financial authorities to take action against the bank. Once again then, it looks to me rather like the Guardian is trying to spin something out of not very much substance at all. That seems consistent with the way that the Guardian and the BBC have behaved all along here, risking the (already tarnished) reputations of both organisations.
  6. But you are calculating the average tax rate. Phillip was showing the marginal tax rate impact; the tax cost of someone (say) deciding to work some overtime, boost their pay by getting a promotion, or a new job, hit that bonus target etc. It's the marginal rate that is relevant to such decisions
  7. As the reserves dwindle, that will cease to be an option. They must either cut bloat*, or cut services in order to fund bloat, or put up taxes (and thus risk choking the economy). *'bloat' here including unfunded pensions entitlement.
  8. It would indeed be a harsh thing to do, but isn't the situation such that harsh measures are needed? The alternative would be to squeeze the rest of us even harder to pay for public sector pensions, which doesn't seem right either. I suspect the only 'fair' result will be for the pain to be spread around a bit, with the public sector workers taking a share of that. How would I feel if some of my entitlement to something was taken away through no fault of my own? Well pretty miffed obviously, but sometimes on just has to accept that the money is not there to fund something.
  9. Why so? Surely the press freedom argument hinges on whether there was a strong public interest motive for the disclosures and the law enforcement argument hinges on whether there was illegality. On the basis of reporting so far: there does not seem to have been any material illegality revealed, and what we have learned about avoidance adds little to what was already know, as evidenced by the ridiculous way the BBC, Guardian and others have had to try and 'spin' the revelations in to something they are not, because they haven't actually found much of interest. Frankly, the BBC and Guardian are guilty of having cried Wolf! here, and it's that which serves to undermine both their own reputations and consequently the principle of press freedom.
  10. True enough John. However I would expect most of HRMC's focus will be on combating aggressive avoidance, not evasion. Comments that "no laws are alleged to have been broken" were a consistent theme in much of the reporting around the paradise papers. Jasper OTOH is repeatedly alleging evasion, without being able to back up such allegations. Whilst he is clearly a troll, it's nevertheless important that his dishonest conduct is challenged.
  11. In which case, if your silly claim were true (which it isn't) we would see tax authorities prosecuting evaders as a consequence. So far, I don't believe the Paradise Papers revelations have identified anything which could result in a prosecution. It would appear then that you are, once again, talking out of your arse.
  12. Except that it doesn't seem like any significant amount of wrongdoing was exposed as a result (at least so far). All we got was innuendo. Pretty hard to construct a public interest defence out of that I would have thought. The data theft and the breach of privacy was certainly on a grand scale, but the public interest benefit so far appears to be minimal.
  13. New hotel

    The specialist report, commissioned by Dandara themselves, indicates that it should. If Dandara did not believe that a hotel could work, that would mean they bought the land with the intention of shoving a residential development there. I see no reason why that should be allowed. If Dandara can't deliver an appropriate plan then they should have to clean up or sell up, and that would be nobody's fault but their own.
  14. New hotel

    Nope. And there is no need for that blot to remain anyway. Dandara can pull down the old hotel and carry out remediation and landscaping work, so we would be left with green grass until such time as Dandara (or someone else) can come up with an acceptable plan. Dandara have no automatic entitlement to a profit on the land and should not be allowed to earn one by blighting it with a large housing development.
  15. That is an entirely separate issue. But anyway, who is pretending that? I don't think anyone disputes that Hamilton's Corporate jet was sourced in a particular way in order to attract the favourable tax treatment provided by the legislation for that route. I have certainly never suggested it's anything other than lawful avoidance. You however have repeatedly alleged tax evasion, and then repeatedly failed to substantiate that allegation, because you are talking out of your fundament.