Non-Believer Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Politicians fear the "Legal Challenge" of any cuts to PS terms, conditions and superannuation. They will not touch it with a bargepole. Therefore the only way to fund it if revenue doesn't match it is tax rises and reserves raids. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) 23 minutes ago, HeliX said: For what, like 50p of tax a year? Yes, but that's the starting point. 20 minutes ago, HeliX said: If the tax calculator posted previously is accurate, someone on 22k will pay less this coming year.. Yes. Only because they've moved the NI thresholds. The income tax is 20 quid more. As a principle, I don't think that's right for anyone drawing such a pittance to have a tax increase on top of all of the other increases they've faced in the cost of living. Every thousand pounds they earn on top, they will now pay an additional 20 quid. Other ways could have been found. Edited February 21 by woolley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 1 minute ago, Non-Believer said: Politicians fear the "Legal Challenge" of any cuts to PS terms, conditions and superannuation. They will not touch it with a bargepole. Therefore the only way to fund it if revenue doesn't match it is tax rises and reserves raids. Terms & conditions can be reviewed at any time which is why new starters at IOMG are on less holiday, sick pay etc than existing & has been the case for 5 years I think. Pension already accrued is impossible to reduce without a complex long legal case probably costing £ms and no certainty of any outcome, however pension being earned in future can be changed and has been over last few years with contributions being raised and value being reduced, its subject to review every 3 years by actuary and latest is due this year I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) 14 minutes ago, HeliX said: Is there a first world country with good free at the point of use healthcare with a tax rate as low as ours? At some point something has to give. This!!! As much as people would like to have it all, it’s simply not possible. People can bang on about bloat and reducing costs as much as they want, but the reality is if you want nice things you have to pay for them. I am as impacted by this budget as anyone, but if you step back and look at it objectively rather than just ranting about a tax hike, it’s not that big a change for the majority of people, especially with the NI changes. As I understand it, the 21-25k people that keep getting talked about here and on Facebook won’t actually be any worse off, and in some cases will be better off. Edited February 21 by CrazyDave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Anyone mentioned the potential knock on impact on second jobs? Annoyance has been frequently expressed about the 20% on it as was, it might only be a small rise but could potentially mean taking a second job for pocket money becomes even less desirable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 14 minutes ago, woolley said: Yes, but that's the starting point. Yes. Only because they've moved the NI thresholds. The income tax is 20 quid more. As a principle, I don't think that's right for anyone drawing such a pittance to have a tax increase on top of all of the other increases they've faced in the cost of living. Every thousand pounds they earn on top, they will now pay an additional 20 quid. Other ways could have been found. Personally I'd have introduced a new tax band, but as it stands this increase shouldn't hit the real low-earners too harshly given the other raises in benefits etc. And I don't think our Government would've passed a new tax band. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 9 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Anyone mentioned the potential knock on impact on second jobs? Annoyance has been frequently expressed about the 20% on it as was, it might only be a small rise but could potentially mean taking a second job for pocket money becomes even less desirable. This is a myth though. It’s nothing to do with how many jobs you have, tax paid is down to what you earn. If you have a second job it’s a two minute call to the tax office to get the correct tax code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Banker said: Terms & conditions can be reviewed at any time which is why new starters at IOMG are on less holiday, sick pay etc than existing & has been the case for 5 years I think. Pension already accrued is impossible to reduce without a complex long legal case probably costing £ms and no certainty of any outcome, however pension being earned in future can be changed and has been over last few years with contributions being raised and value being reduced, its subject to review every 3 years by actuary and latest is due this year I think. They can't be reviewed "at any time" without huge input, consultation and agreement from the employees and their unions which can take months if not years to obtain. This is exemplified by the changeover from Whitley Council to Public Service Commission in 2015 which left existing terms and benefits untouched for the recipients of the time (including the big tickets that were causing the problems) and introduced cuts for new starters and transferees. It will take over 40 years for the intentions to become fully effective in respect of this. Such is the timescales that have to be worked with, which makes the rate of burn of the reserves even more concerning. Edited February 21 by Non-Believer Typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 3 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: This is a myth though. It’s nothing to do with how many jobs you have, tax paid is down to what you earn. If you have a second job it’s a two minute call to the tax office to get the correct tax code. Thanks for your input. It's not a fucking myth and I know there are work arounds for organised people and that it all works out in the end. It is about perceptions though, and as you are about the least perceptive person on here it is no surprise that you do not understand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Thanks for your input. It's not a fucking myth and I know there are work arounds for organised people and that it all works out in the end. It is about perceptions though, and as you are about the least perceptive person on here it is no surprise that you do not understand. It is a myth. Nobody in their right mind is taxed at 22 percent in income from a second job unless they already earn over the threshold. Its not a “workaround” to make sure the tax office are aware of your situation FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 18 hours ago, piebaps said: The lower rate (or standard band) applies to everyone and not just those with jobs. Incorrect. It applies to local workers only. Income earned on Island by none residents, is taxed/ reported at standard rate. I.E. 22%. You can split your code between jobs or pensions. Incorrect. The code only applies to your primary employment. Subsidiary employment is charged at the standard band or the higher rate depending on your circumstances the high rate doesn't automatically apply. Yes it does Your code is simply a method of collecting your tax. You can ask for it to be adjusted if you want things done differently. Yes you can but only in so far as changing the levels of expected reclamation in the following tax year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 6 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: It is a myth. Nobody in their right mind is taxed at 22 percent in income from a second job unless they already earn over the threshold. Its not a “workaround” to make sure the tax office are aware of your situation FFS. This isn't even the point I was making, why do you have to be such a fucking wanker all the time? Don't reply to any more of my posts thanks, I do not welcome your views. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josem Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 4 hours ago, Fred the shred said: Josem is a prime example of this he is just a big yap, lots to say, critical in extreme, but no answers. That's obviously false - I'm glad to have contributed many positive proposals that would have been useful and offset many of the problems that the Government is now facing. I've published almost 800 articles on my own website with literally hundreds of positive proposals contained therein. For example, while the Government increases taxes on working families, for the last two years I advocated removing the 10% tax bracket in its entirety. See here (2022) and here (2023). You could do this by moving the 20% bracket to be marginally lower than it currently is, such that high earners continue paying the same tax rate, but low earners get a tax cut. The cost of this was under £3m in the 2018-19 tax year, which is roughly what the Government spends on heritage railways. The benefit of abolishing the 10% tax bracket would be the lowest-paid workers would essentially receive a 100% income tax cut, encouraging more people to get into the workforce, earn more money, get out of welfare, and reduce inflation by increasing labour supply by Manx workers. By encouraging people to get into work, we might also save some money on welfare spending (because they wouldn't need it! good!) and that would further reduce the cost of such an improvement to our tax system. Similarly, the people of Braddan sure would have benefited if the Government had introduced my proposal to "Cap all local government rates, charges and taxes at inflation, subject to a local vote". It is - of course - reasonable for people to disagree with my positive proposals to improve our community. But to say that I don't have such ideas? Absurd. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 46 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: They can't be reviewed "at any time" without huge input, consultation and agreement from the employees and their unions which can take months if not years to obtain. This is exemplified by the changeover from Whitley Council to Public Service Commission in 2015 which left existing terms and benefits untouched for the recipients of the time (including the big tickets that were causing the problems) and introduced cuts for new starters and transferees. It will take over 40 years for the intentions to become fully effective in respect of this. Such is the timescales that have to be worked with, which makes the rate of burn of the reserves even more concerning. Well yes they can be reviewed at anytime but obviously you can’t just change them without any consultation etc why did you want to change somebody’s holidays without discussing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 14 minutes ago, Banker said: Well yes they can be reviewed at anytime but obviously you can’t just change them without any consultation etc why did you want to change somebody’s holidays without discussing it? You're missing the point, it's not (just) about holidays, it's the wage costs and employment numbers that are the current point of concern and discussion, on here uf nowhere else. It takes years to implement any changes to these PS T&Cs and if change started tomorrow under the current terms it wouldn't be fully implemented for years. We don't have reserves to sustain us for that period. If you take the £100M reserve draw, that's only 1/6th the cost of the PS payroll of £600M, without the £40M pensions gap as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.