Phillip Dearden

Is that right? I am no economist but I think the theory is that even where the inflation is caused by exogenous factors, a rise in interest rates will dampen domestic demand for all goods and this will reduce prices across the board ie of many, but not all, of the components of the price index. It is a blunt weapon and it certainly has some negative consequences for the economy but evidence shows that it works. Look at UK and US inflation for the last two years. Inflation rose, followed by interest rates and inflation then fell. US rates rose earlier than ours and their inflation has fallen faster than ours. You might say this is a coincidence but it is a pattern repeated throughout history and has some theoretical support.

Pensions will be based on salaries (average, final etc...). Contributions would normally be based on expected pensions ie "what do we need to invest now in order to be able to pay this pension when the time comes". The difficulty with this scheme is that there are no contributions invested and future taxes will fund the pensions. In this context, I can't see that the phrase "Government contributions" means much. I suspect it might be used in internal budgeting but that does not assist with funding.

Do Government contributions mean anything in this context? The Government is the pension provider and the employer so these monies would be paid by IOM G to itself.

This is correct but isn't it also silly? You could divide the Earth's population up into 85k units and if each one concluded they were not big enough to matter and so continued to pollute and exploit then the planet becomes uninhabitable. On the other hand each 85k unit could decide to do its bit and there might be a chance of sustainability?

I thought Roxanne had been incredibly patient and tolerant.

That is actually a bit controversial. Milton Friedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon..." . Some prices increases are exogenous (ie external) but in the conventional theory the extra money needed to pay for the increased costs (in this case fuel and some food) will result in a reduced demand for other goods so that other prices will fall. A general increase in prices can only happen if the Government increases the money supply (to fund expenditure) by more than economic growth. I am not able to say if Milton F was correct but his argument does mean that there is at least a defensible view that the current inflation is the result of government decisions. I did not say fault because they may have been doing the right thing and inflation may be the collateral damage. The real world is more complex than simple theories and the increased money supply may have originally pumped up asset prices and only latterly "leaked" into conventional RPI basket-of-goods prices.

I am sure there is no legal maximum time limit and I have seen liquidations go on for many years. However, unless there is money to be found, usually from the sale of assets or stock but possibly from a creditor, then the liquidator will want to finish it quickly. If the money runs out, he or she is not going to get paid. Usually, liquidation means there is not much money about.

No, its nothing to do with being shut down. It is the Actuarial estimate of our current value of the Govts. obligation to pay pensions. If the govt. were a company, this is the amount that would be required to be in a fund to cover the pensions. The Debit (cost) to the Revenue Account is the recognition of the obligation to pay deferred remuneration to employees, to omit this would be to ignore a substantial cost of Government operations. "lump sum"? Also not relevant.

The pension liability is a factor but that's because the pensions will have to be paid. "not payable in a lump sum", how is that relevant?

Is there much in it now? Whilst many reserves have positive balances the Net Total of all Reserves, Funds, Revenue Account etc (ie the bottom half of the Balance sheet) is minus £566m - see audited accounts 31/3/2021. This includes the NI fund.

It was either ridiculous or a very good demonstration of prejudice.

BUT does buying a car through a business save tax? If its a company, any private use will involve a Benefit in Kind charge. If its a person trading in his own name we are just talking about someone buying a car - they could only claim for the business element. Company Cars used to be seen as a low-tax perk but the BIK charges have been ramped up a lot since those days.

Per Wooley - I believe all income/trading profits are taxed on distribution, whether dividend, capital distribution or on liquidation.

I was not keen but I have moved on.

I think that you have spotted the problem but I suspect not easy to fix.