"Wake up and smell the coffee!"

[JackCarter]

21 minutes ago, woolley said:

All of this is true, but it hasn't stopped them descending deep into the mire. They were enslaved to the finance sector and now have been oiked up and puked out like the cat does with a hairball.

https://www.ft.com/content/28b1e534-f3c8-11e4-99de-00144feab7de

At the same time they never had the luxury of a nice VAT agreement on the back of which to build up a reserve fund, or to cushion the effects of introducing a zero/10 corporate tax regime.

I'd say that because they never had the VAT freebies they've had to spend money prudently not like Saudi Princes spending the oil windfalls like us. As I said above the low earners in Jersey get virtually nothing; not even the right to stay there or buy property. It's a much more fiscally responsible way of operating where the low earners don't drag the rest of the economy down having to make provision for them.

AND they funded their public sector pension scheme. There's an argument to say that they don't need big reserves to the degree that we do as their main Treasury liabilities are largely funded moving forward as they have no collosal unfunded PS liability (they have funding requirements but it's not potentially billions like us), no NHS to fund, no real benefits budget either except for anyone born there or whose been there very long term. As long as their income is in line with their outgoings moving forward they're probably in a much more stable medium term position.

[Donald Trumps]

There's no public mandate to increase the population to 100k, or to allow them to access the NI Fund - indeed we await the repayment of the money taken from the NI Fund to build the hospital

[TheTeapot]

The low earners drag the rest of the economy down sounds a bit snobbish jack.

[JackCarter]

32 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

The low earners drag the rest of the economy down sounds a bit snobbish jack.

It's true though. In economic terms we can't accept too many without that being the unintended economic impact. It was different when we had the UK reciprocal agreements when the UK subsidized or paid for a lot of the 'free' services we provided to new residents. But places like Jersey have managed to not have that happen by being totally exclusive to low income earning workers (can't get the right to live there, can't buy property, can't get a proper lease, can't get NHS or anything else) and that's just as snobbish. But it's meant they aren't in the position we are as those people will just leave once their jobs come to an end. No long term liabilities. 

[TheTeapot]

Why are you posting like a normal person rather than your usual twat state? What's going on? 

[woolley]

It is a bit unnerving isn't it? But hey. Let's rejoice!

[JackCarter]

24 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Why are you posting like a normal person rather than your usual twat state? What's going on? 

I'm not drunk enough yet. 

And others are talking sense for once. 

[quilp]

Probably got his hole over the weekend... 

[Max Power]

I have advocated increasing our population for a multitude of reasons but VinnieK's post has given food for thought.

As many in retail and business will tell you, we don't have enough 'chimney pots' to make the island spin.   

Leaving aside the issue of infrastructure, including health and education, we simply don't have a large enough population to create a vibrancy to attract key workers earning a wage which, gives a decent level of disposable income. This in turn reduces the chances of attracting employers here who will pay those salaries, so we seem to already have a self regulating population?  

 

[the stinking enigma]

The legalisation of cannabis and cultivation for overseas medical use opportunity is there. But they wont take it, they will just follow the uk 6 or 7 years after they do and the opportunity is gone. 

[dilligaf]

49 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Why are you posting like a normal person rather than your usual twat state? What's going on? 

He chose the wrong log-in ?

[dilligaf]

1 hour ago, Donald Trumps said:

There's no public mandate to increase the population to 100k, or to allow them to access the NI Fund - indeed we await the repayment of the money taken from the NI Fund to build the hospital

Why is that then ?

[the stinking enigma]

Uh oh.

[VinnieK]

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

I have advocated increasing our population for a multitude of reasons but VinnieK's post has given food for thought.

As many in retail and business will tell you, we don't have enough 'chimney pots' to make the island spin.   

Leaving aside the issue of infrastructure, including health and education, we simply don't have a large enough population to create a vibrancy to attract key workers earning a wage which, gives a decent level of disposable income. This in turn reduces the chances of attracting employers here who will pay those salaries, so we seem to already have a self regulating population?  

 

With respect to retail, I'd be interested to know what the effect (if any) of factors other than population is.  For instance, how much more viable would businesses be were commercial rents lower. 

I ask about rents in particular because I was surprised to find the ground floor of the old Isle of Man Bank building on Prospect Terrace going for £20,000 p/a and the news agents on Michael Street in Peel going for £10,400 p/a, for a comparison I found two similar commercial lets in the middle of Brighton going for between £10,000 and £16,000 and a couple in the centre of Norwich in the £15,000 to £20,000 range.  It's not a scientific survey at all, I know, but it made me wonder:

• if costs, like commercial rents, on the Island are relatively high (given the population size and logistical costs of operating on the Island);
• how much this contributes to businesses struggling (in the case of retail, both by eating into profits and hitting demand by pushing up prices);
• what can be done to alleviate this.

Similarly, how much of an effect do housing costs, rental and sale, have on retail through the pressure they put on consumers' disposable income, as well as having a further effect on salaries and/or recruitment?  Also, thinking of the wider economy, how much commercial property is owned outside of the Island---that is to say, how much of the income generated by local businesses ends up leaving the Island for good in the form of rents?

Assuming one hasn't already been made, what might be needed is a comprehensive study of the Island's economy covering its different aspects (like rents, property prices, etc., and things like, as you mention staff recruitment) and how they interact with one another, with a view to determining what we can reasonably expect from the economy as is and what can be done to help out both the populace and business (I fear that there sometimes seems to be too much emphasis on the latter, under the assumption that's what's good for business is automatically good for the populace). 

Perhaps such an exercise could even prompt and help us to decide on what kind of Island we actually want.  It's seems to me, perhaps unfairly, that ever since the first VAT renegotiation, there's been only a piecemeal strategy of keeping things ticking over with as little threat to the status quo as possible---build a little less here, increase charges there, ease up on this regulation, boost population or dip in reserves to fill that shortfall.  Such a strategy is fine when part of a managed transition to a different status quo, or when riding out a temporary slump, but it only works for so long if there's no definite end-situation in mind.

[finlo]

There is no plan, we're praying for a ship of miracles to sail into Douglas harbour.