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

Phillip Dearden

Regulars
  • Content Count

    424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

419 Excellent

About Phillip Dearden

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,494 profile views
  1. It looks like the management think that is the case. I am not in possession of info to suggest that they are wrong.
  2. Why protest? Do you want a bank that is competitive and thus viable or one that lives in the past?
  3. They may be going to liquidate it and notices in the paper re the liquidation or dissolution of "Isle of Man Bank" would cause a bit of a fuss. This is quite a common practice for liquidation/dissolutions. I have no inside knowledge of this particular case.
  4. I agree with the above but would expand slightly. If we are considering things from an economic point of view, I would include the employers NI. If you see the salary plus Employer's NI as the gross cost - which it is, as this is the cost to the employer, then your 17% and 21% become 19% and 29%. From about 57k, the total tax take is 29% (increasing very slightly as you increase salary). Our tax rates are progressive up to about £850pw, and then not ie as Roger say "pretty much a flat rate".
  5. Isn't a reduction in the volume of antibodies a normal post-virus effect? Surely it is the ability to re-create antibodies that matters, along with potency and volume and some stuff I don't understand. Virus's and immunity are complex stuff and a bit beyond me but I gather the falling away of the volume of antibodies is expected.
  6. Sorry, I did not meant to suggest VAT was going to re-vitalise our economy. I was querying whether extra activity here might influence the VAT sharing agreement so that the IOM received a greater share. I say "query" because I do not know how this calculation works.
  7. There is so much here to ponder. If every £1 I spend creates £1.80 of value to the economy, the same must be true of the recipient of my £1.80. He/they will spend their money and create 3.24 of value to the economy. After 30 days/cycles/transactions , my £1 will be creating £45m of value for the economy on each lap...and still growing. The Keynesian multiplier was about a Government spending money it had either created or borrowed to stimulate an economy from a temporary slump. It was not a way of creating economic activity. For the IOM, it is even less relevant as the Government cannot create money and any it borrows will need repaying. If they tax to spend, then the money taken out of the economy will also have a negative multiplier effect and so the effect will be neutral . It might work if the government could tax people who spend abroad and then the government spends that money with people who will spend it locally - but how feasible is that? I don't really see that selling either foreign cars or Mars bars to each other is productive [1] for the Island. You might say that one party makes a profit by selling these goods at a higher price than he bought them for but this is a cost for the purchaser so is the Island better off? Perhaps VAT? Really for an economy to work you need wealth creation and at the moment, for the IOM, that is the export of financial services and some manufacturing. A government wishing to stimulate the economy needs to expand those industries or supplement them with something new. Something new would be better as the old industries are mature and past their peak and some are not liked in far-off places but finding new productive and appropriate wealth-creating industries is hard. [1] Productive ina GDP/wealth-creation sense, I agree that these internal services are essential for our well-being and to keep the economy supplied.
  8. I wonder if that is completely correct? I am not arguing that we should throw the borders open immediately but I am querying whether most of our business is done locally. There is, obviously a local economy and it is very important. However, I suggest that most wealth creation on the Island is via the sale of Financial Services products to non-residents ie we export financial services. I suggest, that if this did not happen the internal economy would be much smaller. you cannot base an economy on selling foreign made goods to each other - somewhere, wealth needs to be created. If there were any value in this suggestion, then the timing of opening up borders would be quite important to the economy. I accept that much work is done on-line but I do not think important relationships can be created or cultivated in this way. Online comms will be useful for keeping things going but eventually travel will be required or the economy will reduce in scale.
  9. It is still like that - the fact you get your allowances and deductions when you submit a return means you are not taxed at 20% on every penny you earn. As it is possible to get an exemption certificate, if you are up to date with returns and payments, even the 20% up-front payment is a choice.
  10. Some people pay 20% on some of what they earn but how do you get to 20% on every penny - no allowances and no deductions?
  11. There have been recent payrises - which in the main have not quite equalled inflation. In connection with another matter I had to review Health Service pay-levels for the ten years from 2008 ie the austerity period. The result is complex as there are many bands and spines and you can compare against CPI or RPI. However, overall result was pay-scales for similar levels had fallen against inflation by between 13% and 23%. There are mitigating factors, job security is probably better than private sector and pensions are good but salaries did take an unhealthy hit.
  12. Aren't the figures becoming more meaningful? The "Active" on 3/5 was 28, ie 20 in Hospital and 8 presumed still unwell but self-isolating. Roger M has commented a few times that the "Still unwell" category was just the unwell who had not yet survived 14 days, ie after 14 days they dropped out of this category and into "got better". I guess this was OK as a best guess but it does lack a bit of precision. The newer figure of 41 "Active" looks like 20 in Hospital and 21 unwell and recuperating at home. As there were 4 new cases, it looks like some checking has been done and that 9 of those who should have got better by now, haven't yet. If my guesswork is correct, then the figures have become more meaningful. You could complain that they weren't perfect before or you could be pleased that they have improved, that depends on your disposition.
  13. I am sure it was great business but should it work? If the shares were acquired with the intention of selling them (when the development was complete) isn't that trading in shares and thus taxable? Although the Assessor sometimes challenges property sales as trading he/she rarely seem to attack shares sales. This tactic was also used for UK SDLT, caused a lot of bother.
  14. Derek - of course these questions must be asked. However, if the UK took over what do you think the IOM, and in particular, the economy, would look like. I do not know if it is likely to be considered and if it is, what would the response be, BUT, if the UK did take over I am reasonably sure they would impose UK law and taxes. That is not generally a bad thing but I suspect most of our wealth-generating businesses would not be able to live with the new tax position. Is there not a danger that we would be left with an economy comprising 800 crofters?
  15. If the Government's main financial problem is cashflow going forwards, how does borrowing fix this? Before Covid-19 I did not see any evidence that the Private Sector was being held back by lack of funds to invest in viable projects. On the contrary, the world seems flush with cash and if you have a good investment someone will fund it. I suspect the loan is to fund short-term liquidity given the recent reduced inflows and expanded outflows. Whilst this may be necessary, it will mean some belt-tightening in the future.
×
×
  • Create New...