SamHandwich

Regulars
  • Content count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SamHandwich last won the day on October 19 2016

SamHandwich had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

182 Excellent

About SamHandwich

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/14/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

332 profile views
  1. Inheritance tax is also an option as a revenue raiser.
  2. The ridiculous thing is that we spent tens of millions of pounds in order to be able to accommodate larger aircraft, now the airport management are saying they can’t cope with the obvious consequences. They should have planned for this when extending the runway or not done it.
  3. DHSC Expenses 'Beyond Belief' says woman who receives £7,000 expenses per annum.
  4. Need to remember that they get this £7k regardless of what expenses they actually incur, so it makes no difference what an MHK nominally allocates to expenses and what they pay for from their salary. For this reason this whole exercise of publishing expenses is pointless. Not sure what Rob hoped to gain from this exercise, but the failure to anticipate the backlash shows a definite lack of judgement.
  5. Does anyone have a link to the actual post on Facebook?
  6. ...because Westminister is such a bastion of good governance isn’t it?
  7. The story relates to PayPal's working capital scheme whereby PayPal gives businesses a loan which is repaid when customers buy stuff using PayPal. They are saying this is unavailable in IOM, presumably due to difficulties enforcing the debt if it's not repaid. Nothing to do with normal people buying stuff on eBay.
  8. Citywing collapse being reported on the Independent (the UK newspaper, not the Isle of Man one) 'Calls for Virtual Airlines to be outlawed following collapse of Citywing'
  9. Richmond Hill is hardly Alpe d'Huez is it?
  10. I think someone has misread the Pink Book. There's £1.195million budgeted for Capital works to Broadcasting House. The line below that is £6.5million which is the total for that section. This is page 36 of the Pink Book.
  11. But if you're going to bring up historical interest rates then you also have to consider inflation which ran very high during those decades. Many a mortgage was inflated away with 5% nominal wage growth for a decade at a time.
  12. At 10% after all operating costs. Not like other people (pensioners) pay on their income at 20% VAT for all the food they buy in shops. It would seem that you want your debt to low tax paying banks to be subsidized by other people (pensioners) who earn less than you do and who pay more taxes than you do (no mortgage relief, full VAT on all food, full tax on income etc). It doesn't make much sense does it? But you forget that the pensioners of today were probably once mortgage holders and benefited from this relief in their working lives...in addition to much more reasonable property prices. (I say this with no knowledge of how long mortgage relief has been in existence).
  13. Banks do pay tax in IOM.
  14. the 6% reduction will be factored into the accrual rates at the age a person decides to take their pension. I can only guess exactly how this will happen, but i assume it will be something similar to the below based on my current knowledge of the Govt Scheme. at present depending on which section of the Unified scheme an individual is in they will have an accrual rate depending on which age they draw their pension. (i am not going into every rate for every section of the GUS scheme, but hopefully this will give an idea) The standard section of GUS for example has an accrual rate of 1.16% for pension taken at age 60. this would mean that for 1 years service a member would get 1.16% of their final pensionable pay for each year of scheme membership. if a person retired at age 60 with for example 20 years service and £20k final salary they would get 20 x 1.16% x 20,000 = £4640 annual pension (before any reduction for lump sum) The benefits reduced by 6% would be reduced accordingly. i.e. 1.16% x 0.94 = 1.09% 20 x 1.09% x 20,000 = £4361.60 annual pension. hopefully this helps your understanding a little better. *if you are interested in the accrual rates for other ages and scheme sections see page 14 https://www.gov.im/media/1352065/iom-government-unified-scheme-guide-august-2016v3.pdf just alter the figures above accordingly to work out what level of pension someone in each section of the scheme can expect to obtain. Thanks for that, so it's smoke and mirrors again, not 6% reduction but 6% of 1.6%, that will sort out our problems. The poor people on 20k final salaries are not the issue here really, when are we going to tackle the fat cats? A 6% reduction in the accrual rate translates to a 6% reduction in pension benefits received at retirement.£4,361.60 = 94% of £4,640. I pulled the years served and final salary out of the air to give an example of how the pension is calculated. just substitute £20K in the calculation to any amount you so choose. lets calculate for £60k final pensionable pay for arguments sake. 20 x 1.16% x 60000 = £13,920 20 x 1.09% x 60000 = £13,080 (£13,080 = 94% of £13,920) 40 years service at age 60 (for comparison) 40 x 1.16% x 60000 = £27,840 40 x 1.09% x 60000 = £26,160 I'm not trying to justify the pension scheme or give an argument as to whether or not it is justifiable this is just an example of how the reduction on future benefits is likely to look in real terms. I am sceptical as to whether the 2.5% increase in contributions and 6% reduction in benefit accrual will be enough to plug the deficit as it stands. It certainly won't do much when you consider the current pensioners/people retiring in the next couple of years won't be taking any real hit on their accrued pension benefits. I can definitely foresee further reductions to the accrual rates coming over the next umpteen years. Thanks for your input.I agree. The issue too is that the 2.5% is actually phased in right? To address it properly it should probably have been a more sizeable increase with immediate effect. And of course you are 100% correct in that the really big issue is with the recently retired (where in many cases, especially office work civil servants, paid next to nothing in). Do you know if the MHK's Tynwald scheme is impacted? Perhaps Chris Thomas can let us know? They accrued at a rate (from memory)at a rate of 2 years for each year done into a 1/60th's scheme. If that is the case their pension benefits accrue at a rate of 3.32% (of final salary) per annum Tynwald members are excluded from this change. See the bullet points on the second page of the explanatory memo to Tynwald: http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald%2020162018/2017-SD-0020-MEMO.pdf
  15. Many are but most are not. Let's face it, most people are office workers nowadays. Even if you're paid weekly you would tend to know your earnings as so much per hour rather than so much per week.