Jump to content

manx-person
 Share

Recommended Posts

Support the current population?

 

If well done and the right company's locate here, because we are squeaky clean, we can increase our population and everyone benifits.................

 

 

But that's just the same strategy the Island has been pursuing for the past thirty years, and it hasn't really worked. For a while it looked like it was working, but that's when we were raking in the VAT money (and a nice little subsidy via the RHA agreement) and could afford to offset the costs of low tax with cheap and easy cash whilst maintaining infrastructure and services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same as we do now, well regulated compliance.

 

Support the current population?

 

If well done and the right company's locate here, because we are squeaky clean, we can increase our population and everyone benifits.................

Oh Blade come on. Say Localyokel is right, and I don't think he/they are too far out, and we lose 200 jobs over the next 3 years. What wonderful whiter than white initiative is going to replace 200 jobs, and the tax reciepts of 200 people who no longer work here?

 

Please tell me as lots of people are saying there are no problems here, but none of them are coming up with solutions or even suggestions as to what our 'whiter than white' business plan is. Or how its going to make us money. If you want to take no risk you just opt to stay in the UK and pay tax in the UK. Why go to the cost of paying Manx lawyers fees, Manx CSP charges, or Manx overheads for running a structure when you can just do it in the UK cheaper?

 

Even some of the VAT structures you can do on the cheap somewhere like Malta where you can get a lawyer or accountant at half the price, and pay half the management fees. They'll tell you they are whiter than white and ultra compliant with everything as well.

 

We are a high cost area and if we aren't bringing anything different to the equation why would you pay for a higher cost service to deliver the same benefits that can be delivered somewhere cheaper?

Edited by hboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't really worked? For the last 30 years? We have done very well if yo you look at it over 30 years.

Sure, if you ignore that a massive amount of at least the last fifteen was paid for entirely by the VAT agreement.

 

I'm not saying that we haven't come a fair way in the past thirty years, because we have. However, we're not talking about how many jobs there are out there, or how much disposable income the average inhabitant now has compared with thirty years ago.

 

We're talking about making ends meet and the health of government finances. A lot of those extra jobs brought over were bought with heavy tax concessions on the part of the government, and these simply wouldn't have been affordable had we not had the VAT deal funnelling money into our pockets.

 

More to the point, having successfully imported a large number of companies and a large number of jobs in that time, we have found that doing so hasn't resulted in a sustainable economy capable of standing on its own two feet. Just look at our government revenues: in real terms we're making less now than at any time since the turn of the millennium (before the VAT grab started in earnest), and that's despite continual growth - so we can't just blithely wave it away as a consequence of the financial crisis.

 

In that sense, no, I'd say the strategy hasn't really worked out.

We are not in recession, yes I know!! but we are still hanging in there

I don't understand why you're always referring to the cyclic aspects of the economy when our problem is fundamentally structural in nature.

We are getting on Okay and once the civil service/ public sector is taken care of we will be Okay.

Great. All we need to do now is work out how to make swift and drastic reductions to the public sector without reaping any negative economic side effects negating any of the benefits or gutting services. That should occupy us until lunch time, then maybe we can sort out that cold fusion thing and square the circle. Edited by VinnieK
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great. All we need to do now is work out how to make swift and drastic reductions to the public sector without reaping any negative economic side effects negating any of the benefits or gutting services. That should occupy us until lunch time, then maybe we can sort out that cold fusion thing and square the circle.

 

Yes............It is hard but I am sure we will do it, we have no other choice........

 

Some people proved the Higgs Boson this year, our problems are not in the same league.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes............It is hard but I am sure we will do it, we have no other choice........

 

Maybe prayer might help that faith along!

 

Some people proved the Higgs Boson this year, our problems are not in the same league.................

 

Well, that proof is still tentative, but let's say your analogy holds: CERN involves the work of dozens, if not hundreds of highly qualified, highly educated specialists and rakes in somewhere in the order of $6bn per year.

 

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Allan and Eddie, but I'm not sure our resources really compare even taking into account the disparity between the two challenges.

Edited by VinnieK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FATCA and the UK equivalent are a major shift that will affect all offshore centres, and other onshore jurisdictions will follow quite quickly. Personally, I don't think it will be such a bad thing; some clients will go, but are they the clients you would want anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FATCA and the UK equivalent are a major shift that will affect all offshore centres, and other onshore jurisdictions will follow quite quickly. Personally, I don't think it will be such a bad thing; some clients will go, but are they the clients you would want anyway?

I agree with you Glady's but there are clients you want and clients you need, as all businesses need clients to pay salaries. There are lots of businesses that need cleaning up, and lots of clients that don't fit the IOM's model anymore. However, when they go even if they won't be missed, they'll leave a dent in the CSP's profit and loss account that could put jobs at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We have other ways of making a living that we are good at, we should concentrate on them.

Do us all a favour: make a list. Preferably with some idea of how much extra we can expect from each?

He (and I suspect everyone in government) is planning on putting all his money in the Oriental casino and betting on China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FATCA and the UK equivalent are a major shift that will affect all offshore centres, and other onshore jurisdictions will follow quite quickly. Personally, I don't think it will be such a bad thing; some clients will go, but are they the clients you would want anyway?

 

Gladys,

 

Some advocates / CSP types are facing a loss of 85% of their revenue, the government also loses filing fees etc. The advocate who deals with my affairs says he's glad to be retiring soon after 40 years as an advocate, the future is dire for the CSP / legal services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

FATCA and the UK equivalent are a major shift that will affect all offshore centres, and other onshore jurisdictions will follow quite quickly. Personally, I don't think it will be such a bad thing; some clients will go, but are they the clients you would want anyway?

 

Gladys,

 

Some advocates / CSP types are facing a loss of 85% of their revenue, the government also loses filing fees etc. The advocate who deals with my affairs says he's glad to be retiring soon after 40 years as an advocate, the future is dire for the CSP / legal services.

 

I think this is probably mega-bollocks.

 

FATCA will produce an unpleasant extra administrative burden for businesses (all Financial Services, not just CSPs) and Government, this will increase costs and reduce profitabiility, which is not pleasant BUT the main effect is to disclose income to home-tax authorities. If an IOM business is relying on non-disclosure as the rationale for 85% of his custom then he needs a new business model. He should also be considering some Suspicious Transaction Reports.

 

Advocate is either mis-advised or dealing with the wrong sort of client.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FATCA will produce an unpleasant extra administrative burden for businesses (all Financial Services, not just CSPs) and Government, this will increase costs and reduce profitabiility, which is not pleasant BUT the main effect is to disclose income to home-tax authorities.

 

Claudie,

 

I don't know about your clients but the CSP I know are just losing these clients as they close their accounts. What's the point in investing through the IOM nowadays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...