Jump to content

Phillip Dearden

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phillip Dearden

  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 can
  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 th
  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
  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.
  16. You were not imagining things. 15/4/2020 : "In total 90 patients have been instructed to self-isolate and 13 are being treated at the hospital. The contact tracing process is already underway led by Public Health." This puzzled me at the time, I thought it was a typo but now I think it was a new-number - "Tested positive and still unwell" ie 258 - 13 - 4 - 151 = 90 (Positives less in Hospital less deceased less Presumed Recovered) I am also just trying to understand.
  17. My figures are very tentative and I am prepared to accept they could well need improvement so any queries are welcome. I think we generally agree. My 48 unwell in the community was just an effort to review the figure of 1 in the tweet referred to by Roger M. Your active 70 could well be the 48 unwell in the community plus the 22 in Hospital. I don't think MMCC residents can be part of the numbers as they did not produce a blip on arrival and if they were tested before they arrived would it not have been in the UK and added to UK figures? 272 self-isolating did not become 48. 272
  18. People should come to MF and ignore Twitter! Aaron I must have double-counted Abbotswood and he has lost a person (307 v 308) The Govt. presentation of the figures are not the clearest (I blame no-one for this, they have been developing as we go, under pressure) so I say the following somewhat tentatively but using 23/4, are the number of oustanding cases something like; Total Positive Tests 307 Being Treated at Hospital (22) Deceased (16) Presumed Recovered (221) Still unwe
  19. There has been the odd error of 1 or 2 that is quickly corrected and I guess this has alarmed Roger. These small differences do matter as we need the population to have faith in what they are told. I can understand that getting accurate stats out quickly is putting someone under pressure and thus small glitches will happen. Roger suggests we can't have faith in "cases" as these are a function of testing which is reduced but isn't that likely to happen when we get over the top of the curve? The people who are ill will have been tested and less will feel ill so that there are less tests r
  20. Has John compared Total tests with Concluded tests? Total Tests 2554 2654 Concluded (2,503) (2,534) Awaiting Results 51 120 John compared 2,654 with 2,503 which are not the same thing.
  21. We are mixing up two separate issues. Many Government schemes required contributions, more do now and the contributions have increased. The issue is not that employees should have contributed, it is that the contributions did not, and still do not, go into a fund so the pensions will have to be paid out of future tax revenues. Please don't all shout at me about this - I don't think it is the best way to fund pensions by a mile and I expect our current politicians are a little bit disappointed in their forebears. Re who pays? Well if there was an easy answer it would have come out by
  22. I expect you are right. I hope no-one thinks I am suggesting this is not a problem, I accept that it is. I just don't think that the former teachers, police and health-service workers should take a hit because of the way our government organised its finances many years ago.
  23. Wrighty - that's a bit cheeky. I agree that the calculations are arcane and subject to many variables that have to be estimated and then change over time so that the calculation requires amendment BUT that does not mean meaningless. Most pension schemes involve money being put aside and invested (ie not in a bank) to fund the expected pensions. Any difference between the fund and the amount actuaries think should be held is a shortfall or deficit. In the Government''s case there is no fund so the whole liability is a shortfall or deficit. Many very wise actuaries and accountants have
  24. I don't think anyone denies that government borrowing has its place. The IOM Government has borrowed in the past and some of these loans still exist. I don't doubt that at an appropriate rate new loans could be raised. However, and this is not an objection but a polite enquiry, what would the borrowing be for, what question does it answer? The Government has £millions of cash and investments, the problem looking at the Balance sheet is that its liabilities are greater. More borrowing does not fix that. The Balance Sheet is misleading as it leaves out the Government's biggest asset - the c
  25. You are quite right that MERA is £200. It is the Salary Supoport Scheme that is £280 and I that is what I thought was being discussed but it is confusing. MERA is for those who have been made redundant or lost self-employed income.
  • Create New...