Freggyragh Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Well, Boredom, I'm not an economist or a royalist, so I won't try and argue that full independence would be a sound economic move, certaily not in the short-term. As I have said, I take my hats off to Allan Bell and the financial sector for what they have delivered. As far as I am aware the Lord of Mann isn't actively disputing his claim, so what is wrong with having both? There's a lot of irrational lèse majesté directed towards this guy - I lot of which is quite pathetic - 'I'll kick his ass' type stuff - convenient when the brick shithouse martial artist in question is on the other side of the Atlantic! There is also a lot of ignorant anti-Americanism coming out - as if we didn't all listen to American music, watch American films, eat American food, listen to our kids speaking American English etc. It is as if Omaha Beach never happened. He is not trying to claim any rights here, he is using the publicity to raise money for charity. Why is it you can't stand the idea of him raising money for Malawi, raising our profile and enjoying a bit of limelight? I'm not convinced of his claim, but if they don't care in London if he claims the title, then why do you. Of course, the minute he expects me to tug my forelock or brings the Manx people into disripute I join the revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Freggyragh They don't give two hoots in London, he only published a notice in the London Gazette which is the medium for all public notices. Publishing it doesn't make the subject of the notice any more valid than publishing a happy birthday wish in the Courier makes the birthday any more valid. In any case, if the notice carried any real legal weight, it was published in the wrong jurisdiction; he should have published in the IOM press. Which latter point brings me back to my earlier comments on this, from whom is he claiming the title and who 'crowned' him in the summer of 2007? If he really is raising money for AIDS affected children in Malawi, then great. But my suspicion is that this is really a bit of a scam and I do worry about how it reflects on the IOM given its already precarious position with the US. All that is needed is for some deluded purchaser of a title (for substantial sums we are told) to find out that it is meaningless, to kick up a fuss, then point to the IOM for not publicly declaiming King Dave and we have another debacle on our hands. I truly think that the IOM Government should look at this and consider making some kind of statement which distances us from his activities and claims, much as they do when scam financial service websites alluding to addresses in the IOM come to their attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Gladys, I'm on a wind up. Your' just upset because he's married aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Not the aliens, just the ale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Boredom - you like editing - were you steven in a former life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Not the aliens, just the ale. Aha - you're the real steven! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Gladys, I'm on a wind up. Your' just upset because he's married aren't you? Yes, the bastard threw open the windows of his Majestic apartment and with an expansive sweep of his arms said 'All this could be your's, baby!'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Boredom - you like editing - were you steven in a former life? I'm a bit like Freggyragh, my typing gets shakey after a few sherberts. You're both steven - omfg - sock puppet overload!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Sorry its an estimated £270m not £300m Tax Research Any comments now? Thanks oldmanxfella, appreciate this. But I'm still confused - as I said I am not particularly well informed about this. Have I got this straight: The VAT is charged in IoM and this is collected by UK Customs and this is then 'given' to the IoM as part of its revenue, hence this revenue comes from the UK? Or is it that Manx should be grateful to the UK that UK Customs doesn't just pocket this for themselves as they are perhaps entitled to? Or is that the Manx would be incapable of levying VAT by themselves and are thus dependent on the UK for this revenue? Or is it that this is VAT which is specially collected in the UK to be sent over to subsidise your low tax rates? Or is it VAT collected in IoM lumped in with some collected in the UK into a 'common purse' and this is parcelled out? Please could you explain this 'revenue dependency' - I find it almost as bewildering to understand as 'Crown Dependency'. I really would like to understand. I am sorry if I sound at all facetious, it really isn't meant to be, but somehow whenever I try to express what I think this revenue dependency could be, it sounds that way. Looking at the figures the loss of this generous gift from the UK would be totally devastating. Are you not worried by this? Do you care to comment on any of the other views/points/questions raised in my reply to your initial post? Fishing, Oil, Defence, etc. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Freggyragh, Boredom et. al. not to put a dampner on this discussion of Howe, but perhaps it would be better in the 'King of Mann' thread - then the posts can be seen by people interested in that topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Skeddan - Ree ny Marrey dy jarroo, If we levied our own VAT there would be descrepencies, - and maybe a decent trade selling booze and fags to the UK - a bit like the old days - Except that it alone wouldn't provide for a population of 80,000. Andorra has gone down this route - but then they are much closer to potential consumers. We would have to ship all the stuff here, and then ship it back again - and it would effect our ability to trade freely with the EU. There was talk of 'abrogation' of VAT back in the eighties - but didn't come to anything. The thing is, the financial services industry is extremely well regulated compared to most juristrictions and the Manx economy is now heavily dependent on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 VAT 'sharing' comes about from the common purse mechanism which arose when duties were equalised between Man and the UK - the effect of equalisation was to remove any possible profits from smuggling (eg in the 1820's there was no duty on foreign grain imported into Man and no import duty payable on Manx produced flour - hence Liverpool merchants exported their imported foreign wheat to Man claiming back the duty paid and imported the ground flour - the savings in tax outweighed freight costs - the loophole was rapidly closed when the press reported it!) - the common purse is a mechanism by which the duties that would have been paid in Man are estimated by using the relative populations plus some estimate for the 'at one time' tourist dominated economy of the Island - apparently the Island does well out of this, it avoids unnecessary bureacracy etc (as there were pre 1840 in Douglas with outgoing customs inspection) but limits the Island's freedom to alter rates (eg booze cruises by the Racket). The interesting site linked to but then link removed makes another claim that London by allowing the tax-haven status of the Island is giving the owners of captital invested via the Island some £270M in additional income (if I read them correctly) by avoiding tax - they also make the claim that corruption is widespread and quote a recent court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The interesting site linked to but then link removed makes another claim that London by allowing the tax-haven status of the Island is giving the owners of captital invested via the Island some £270M in additional income (if I read them correctly) by avoiding tax - they also make the claim that corruption is widespread and quote a recent court case. Sorry I've been hovering here. I took the link off as I'm not sure of Skeddans objectives here he seems awfully interested in various matters and whilst its informative in retrospect its not particularly flattering to the IOM. I wouldn't like to see it used from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 If I'm understanding right the £270 million is really just a 'tax loophole' that is being used by some people and companies based in IoM - not a sum paid from the UK revenue to the IoM govt to pay for public services. So if this loophole was closed, the IoM wouldn't be bankrupt - schools wouldn't have to close and social services discontinued. Rather a few people doing nicely out of this wouldn't be creaming quite as much anymore. Is this so? If so then sorry oldmanxfella, I don't think your arguments about how IoM is dependent on the UK for this money are very convincing. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, please explain, but it seems to me that what you say about IoM's revenue dependency is starting to look rather bogus. Come on, is there not a simple straight answer to the question - how much is the UK taxpayer paying in subsidies to the Manx Government? £270m ? Or does the money actually flow the other way - as it seems to from what I had understood before oldmanxfella started to put me right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smooks Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 VAT 'sharing' comes about from the common purse mechanism which arose when duties were equalised between Man and the UK - the effect of equalisation was to remove any possible profits from smuggling (eg in the 1820's there was no duty on foreign grain imported into Man and no import duty payable on Manx produced flour - hence Liverpool merchants exported their imported foreign wheat to Man claiming back the duty paid and imported the ground flour - the savings in tax outweighed freight costs - the loophole was rapidly closed when the press reported it!) - the common purse is a mechanism by which the duties that would have been paid in Man are estimated by using the relative populations plus some estimate for the 'at one time' tourist dominated economy of the Island - apparently the Island does well out of this, it avoids unnecessary bureacracy etc (as there were pre 1840 in Douglas with outgoing customs inspection) but limits the Island's freedom to alter rates (eg booze cruises by the Racket). The interesting site linked to but then link removed makes another claim that London by allowing the tax-haven status of the Island is giving the owners of captital invested via the Island some £270M in additional income (if I read them correctly) by avoiding tax - they also make the claim that corruption is widespread and quote a recent court case. That's very interesting Frances, what was the site you mention please? Incidentally just to clarify matters, I'm by no means hostile to your comment. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.