Phillip Dearden

Members
  • Content count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

150 Excellent

About Phillip Dearden

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

185 profile views
  1. Did you read my comment? I accept that the government has to balance its books and that this is likely to involve reduced expenditure. Nowhere did I suggest increasing government expenditure. I did add that the reduction of expenditure (whether on salaries or pensions) will have an impact on the local economy which we will have to acknowledge. Some posters did not like this but none has offered an explanation of why it is incorrect.
  2. Is that always true? If govt. Reduced expenditure and reduced taxes by the same amount I would agree with you. The economy might even be better off if taxpayers spent their money on economically productive items. However, in this case the problem is that the government is spending more than it receives in taxes. If it reduces expenditure to balance its books (which it eventually has to) there will be reduced expenditure into the economy but no inrease in taxpayer wealth due to reduced taxes. This will have a negative effect on GDP and tax revenues so you need to save more than the number you first thought of. This is quite a bad thing so it might be worth spreading the effect over a period of years and allowing growth and inflation, and possibly even some stealth taxes, to mitigate the effect.
  3. Isn't it the other way round? If she is a member of the Lords, she is treated as UK resident and domiciled? (s41 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010) I ask because I have never considered this before but that seems to be the effect of the provision referred to.
  4. It's not logic, it's an opinion. We are relatively wealthy and we can help. People in SL and elsewhere are more in need than people in the IOM. We do not have to help and whether we choose to or not reflects our level of humanity and compassion.
  5. Very few of the people I went to school with returned to the IOM from University. The IOM only has a narrow range of opportunities so that isn't really surprising - the physicists, Archeologists, Professors of Mathematics, Economists etc have to go elsewhere. Accountants and Lawyers enjoy it here but that is a very small sub-set of the careers available in the wide-world beyond our shores. I don't think this should be surprising, any small town will only have a limited range of careers and young people have to go and find what they need and want in the wide world. I also don't think this is a bad thing. I suggest the main aim of our education system should be to prepare the Island's young for the opportunities that might come their way rather than expecting it to produce material for our economy - which may be something very different in future.
  6. It, sort of, is. Laws are just rules that we make up so that society can operate safely and efficiently. We like to think they are not arbitrary ie random or whimsical but this is just a question of perspective. In this case rules and guidance are quite clear and anyone who wanted their petition to be considered would have been well advised to observe the rules, whether they liked them or not.
  7. Harsh. We hope to have state pensions and will be grumpy if (when) they are diminished but I don't think we ever had a guarantee or promise of a state pension. The PS workers took the promise of a pension as part of their remuneration - it is a debt due by the employer to the employees. To reduce this would be more like shaving a % of everyone's bank account. Would that be reasonable?
  8. It is dangerous to predict the future and I don't have any greater insight than everyone else but, for what it's worth, I do not think the IOM is screwed but there are issues to resolve.
  9. That's true but not helpful or relevant. The PS staff were offered terms and took them - some salary immediately and some later (the pension bit). It is not the fault or responsibility of the PS employees that their employers did not put the pension element in a fund. I expect, if they thought about it at the time, they would have been a bit concerned about this.
  10. There is no fund but the Reserve is due to run out in 2022.
  11. The XS of Pension obligations over employee contributions is about £90m now and due to be £124m in 2025 and £136m in 2030. This all has to be met out of Government Cash, I can't see that charging it to a Pension Reserve makes much difference. The government's plan is to fund it out of increasing revenue and reduced costs. It is not really just about PS pensions, the government has just about broken even on its Revenue Account - which is good. However, it needs a surplus to fund loan repayments, cap-ex, increasing pension obligations etc...this all has to be considered together.
  12. There is no fund. Its all being paid out of Tax Revenue. There is a Pension Reserve but that is just an allocation of Reserves.
  13. Notwell is correct here. The schemes were largely set up in the 60s and were unfunded from inception - they were copies of UK public sector schemes. If the CS had stayed at a constant size, the payouts would have been constant (subject to inflation) but as the CS has grown significantly, the pension obligations grew in a similar proportion but the cash effect is felt 30+ years later ie increase CS in Year 1, experience pension cost increase in year 31+ (approximately). The reason costs are rising now is due to the earlier growth in PS payroll - which itself was a response to the growth of the IOM economy. Look on the bright side - if this cost had been funded there would be £3bn in a fund which has instead been spent on IOM services and infrastructure.
  14. I was not talking about religion.
  15. Lots of us believe made up stuff and often, because we believe it, it exists.