paswt

LOL tell me Blade Runner do you own a large property?

That in itself is very lame justification for implementing it unfairly So if there was a flat charge per head, that would mean a tax capper in a mansion would pay the same as a single parent on minimum wage. Is that fair? Can't see a problem with that provided an individuals income was taken into account , or a local income tax, would you consider that a fairer option ( a single parent on minimum wage would then probably pay nothing) ? Not really. You have dealt with the bottom end as the minimum wager would be exempt, but I still think the tax capper in a mansion should make a greater contribution and commensurately down the scale with an element of that dictated by the amenity of the property everyone owns and lives in. Would not the" tax capper" be a net contributor to the Manx economy through tax and probably employ quite a few in maintaining his/her mansion ? Can't really see the "tax capper" being a drain on the services provided by the "rates" or is it that these rich people and those in houses a bit posher than mine need teaching a lesson?

Ah I see where you are coming from now Woolley. You object to anyone who has more assets (a more desirable house for example?) than you and irrespective of their income they should be obliged to lose that asset or downsize in order to make you feel better. Some folk inherit money ,some start out with nothing and by working hard , taking chances, making sacrifices and having a bit of luck have made a few quid. Others take the easy option and the 'safe job' ,steady pension etc. (and good luck to them) and enjoy a modest lifestyle . However it's a bit sad when they begrudge those who they perceive have "more " than they have and advocate that they should be penalised .

That in itself is very lame justification for implementing it unfairly So if there was a flat charge per head, that would mean a tax capper in a mansion would pay the same as a single parent on minimum wage. Is that fair? Can't see a problem with that provided an individuals income was taken into account , or a local income tax, would you consider that a fairer option ( a single parent on minimum wage would then probably pay nothing) ?

It didn't seem like you were grasping the bleedin' obvious. Illustrated by the fact that two of us gave virtually the same answer simultaneously. In post 115 I stated that the "rates" were a "property tax" so perhaps it was a little patronising to attempt to put Lisenchuk down and a perhaps deliberate attempt to grasp the wrong end of the wrong stick .

Well it might be, Hells teeth Lisenchuk don't give them any more ideas , Woolley sound like he would be up for another handout

Well it might be, but we are talking about a property tax here and by convention this has always been raised on property values in the same way as income tax is raised on income. You seem to be advocating a Thatcher style poll tax instead, and as I recall, that didn't go down too well either. But it's a rate raised on property. Not on how many reside in the property. That would be a poll tax. thanks for clearing that up, we'd be lost without you 2! You're welcome. Could see that you were struggling with the difference. I didn't have the benefit of a degree in "stating the bleeding obvious"

But it's a rate raised on property. Not on how many reside in the property. That would be a poll tax. thanks for clearing that up, we'd be lost without you 2!

Ignorance is bliss, eh? I believe you. Out of academic interest what was your rate bill last year , Ive been "up front" about mine ? About £700. But what has that to do with the principle? I live in the country. I assume you live in town? If you want to pay less rates, move out of town, downsize etc. Nobody forces you to continue to pay those charges. It's voluntary. I chose to live where I do , "rates" are a property tax which has to be paid I find it amusing that when I venture to disagree with folk who assert that the system is fair (based on the value of property and not the occupation of the property or the household income ) I'm told to "bugger off" move downsize etc etc. I s'pose I should expect a bit of flack from those who are "doing quite nicely thank you " under the present system , and those who may perceive that they live in what they may consider a cheaper or less desirable property . I am obliged by the unsolicited opinions and advice I have received in relation to my domestic situation and , sadly for some, I reject them all .

Sorry Sweetie, Actually I can't give a rat's bottom as I have some uninteresting and badly written code to debug, also it's Friday. I'll let TJ represent me here... well you both went to university and got lots of sterstificates , I left school at 15

I believe you. Out of academic interest what was your rate bill last year , Ive been "up front" about mine ?

You really are an arrogant individual , what gives you the right to dictate what others do and where they choose to live. I can understand people arguing that social housing can be "blocked" by a single individual . Could you define who is a "more deserving buyer "? you perhaps (and one would assume that you would determine the price) "comrade"? Out of academic interest could you afford to buy a property in the 'million plus' ? Details please on the "ancestral homes" on this island occupied by "old guy"

The rate level should depend on facilities provided by the authority. I agree with much lower rates in rural areas, the argument that you can drive from Bride to Douglas to go to the cinema or play bowls at Noble's park holds no water. Thought you had "bugged out"of the philosophical debate , make your mind up son lol

Well when you buy a house you know what to expect. If you inherit you can always sell. I'm not getting into a philosophical debate about this, you know the system, embrace it or bugger off somewhere else. LOL I'm only too aware of the system , I have no intention of selling thank you . You are the one who has pontificated on the subject I have responded to your posts and pointed out where they don't bear scrutiny. The veiled "boat in the morning" comment from you is hysterical given you sold your old mum's place on the island (Glen Auden ,if memory serves) and then proceeded to slag off the island and extoll the virtues of other parts of Britain. Now you're threatening to return ? Did you attend the "Bernard Manning Charm academy "?

All I can say is - wibble. There's more than one solution, the Island chose rates as they are. Another well reasoned argument?

Eh? Other way around - I have a big (for here) apartment of 150 m2 and my rates are based on this even though it would house a family of 4 or more in comfort. IMO rates should be based on the size / value of the property with possible single occupancy reductions. & FWIW I also pay local income tax which on the Island would be levied by the parish one lives in. GD you have posted that you would not entertain buying a property in the million and over bracket so if you do move to this island you be rate subsidised by those who do , at least to some extent. If you had your way you would benefit further (as you have posted that you are single ) in that your rates would be reduced further. So not really "Eh Other way round" My property, it could be argued, is a lot bigger than I actually "need" which is occupied by myself and my wife (both 'pensioners'). Why should we be penalised to benefit "high earners" like you? I would have no objection to local income tax as a case could be made for residents to pay their "share" based on their income .

We'll have to agree to disagree. Expect a knock on your door any moment now... That is an easy cop out. At least I can demonstrate my proposals as equitable,how would yours measure up under scrutiny? Sounds like GD is happy for someone else to pay his "share" and is prepared to do anything to defend his right to "charity" despite the fact that he has indicated that he is not impoverished. My property belonged is an "inherited family house" which I chose to live in , I have a relatively frugal lifestyle and live within my means . It amuses me that folk who chose to live in 'social housing' who may 'enjoy' (as a household ) an income which may well exceed my own defend their right to "subsidised housing accommodation" and think it entirely justifiable that their "rates" should be subsidised by those who live in their own homes. This is not a rant about 'corpy tenants' , it's an attempt to establish what is "fair".

Well he gave the state of the rock speech at Mt. Murray this morning, claiming that the vulnerable are a priority. IMO the sewerage charge is long overdue but should be as a percentage increase on rates, not a flat charge per property. Rates? property tax more like . Whatever happened to "the polluter pays" My other half and I occupy my property and the rates last year were over £2,000.00. As far as I'm concerned you can stick your opinion where the sun don't shine. That's called a Water Meter, there's more chance of an intelligence meter for MHK's (one or two excepted). I wouldn't object to a water meter, should not the "rates" one pays be in some way linked to the occupancy of a property ? I expect you would get the hump if, (assuming you make up your mind to ever relocate here) the government decided to increase the dog licence to £1000.00 to pay for the clean up costs of the dog excrement on the island and towards general street cleaning? Is it that you think it quite reasonable that others should subsidise your lifestyle (on the basis of "they live in a nicer house than mine so they must be able to afford it ) ? Percentages ,average percentages are meaningless , my feet are in the oven ," my head is in the freezer my average temperature is normal"

Well he gave the state of the rock speech at Mt. Murray this morning, claiming that the vulnerable are a priority. IMO the sewerage charge is long overdue but should be as a percentage increase on rates, not a flat charge per property. Rates? property tax more like . Whatever happened to "the polluter pays" My other half and I occupy my property and the rates last year were over £2,000.00. As far as I'm concerned you can stick your opinion where the sun don't shine.

That hurts. I'm "hurting", coming to terms with the death of a lovely man, as a result of a racing incident . That said I think we have nothing else in common. edit to add that I really appreciated the sympathies expressed by folk on the site .

I would be grateful if this thread doesn't degenerate, I 'lost' a dear friend yesterday .

Has the landowner a duty of care to ensure the health safety and welfare of the "trespasser"?

I guess its a constant theme because it keeps happening.....the flag marshall was luck to escape with the injuries that he did. I marshal on the mountain, I am only too aware of the risks and consider it a privilege. I am obliged by the opinions of people who are concerned for my safety.

I couldn't be a road racer either as I've not got the ability or the bottle but I admire those who do. Can't say I've a lot of respect for "armchair critics", most of whom, in my experience, have not had the courage to grasp any opportunity in life, envy those who have and end up bitter and feel life has treated them badly.

do tell...........he may speak well of you