2

Mark's Perspective

So?

Report abuse

4

allan bews

what a headline typical jersey

thats you care about -greed and money

Report abuse

6

Gross Misconduct

Headlines today the poor rich people of Jersey have lost some money!

My heart bleeds, how on earth will they manage?

Poor Fred Clarke’s family £100 million poorer with only £400 million to survive on. Gosh must be down to baked beans on toast all round then.

It has been a tough year for them, perhaps we should all have a whip round and show them how much we care.

Sheesh in the words of Stuart Syvret ‘You couldn’t make it up’

Report abuse

8

Jenna

I have no pity for these millionaires.

There are thousands more people in Jersey who take home an average weekly wage who have also lost out in the credit crunch. The big difference for them is it effects their everyday lives.

Report abuse

10

Keith

Great comments by all especially 3 Rich & Poor and 6 Gross Misconduct. Lets hear a comment from one of the downtrodden to hear their side, assuming of course that they haven’t had to sell the computer to buy some food.

Honestly what is the difference between having a million and a hundred million, other than the zero’s on the end, you don’t need that much money and will never spend it.

The rest of us keep slogging away to pay the mortgage/rent and rising utility/food bills. Let me know when you get down to your last fiver – I’ll lend you some sugar.

Report abuse

12

Adrian

Lucky for them tax avoidance isn’t illegal yet!

Report abuse

14

Marx

If we’d of taxed them properly and fairly in the first place, their fortunes would of been down years ago…

Workers Unite!

Report abuse

16

John Rambo

Lets hope Tom Scott can’t afford to buy Southampton FC as rumoured.

Report abuse

18

Hmm

It’s nice to see the socialists crawl out of their holes with their overwhelming senses of jealousy and envy and angst. It’s like being back in secondary school. I love it.

Report abuse

20

Bernard

14. Marx

If it wasn’t for people making successes of themselves then the workers wouldn’t have jobs!

Report abuse

22

Michael Neal

#14 Concerned

They certainly do and, if their income reduces, the tax they pay reduces accordingly. Apart from 1(1)(k)s, whose minimum tax bill will usually remain the same even if there income reduces.

#13 Rozel

Re the ‘politics of envy’, high net worths provide a massive benefit to the island by spending money locally, running businesses that employ locals and paying more tax in a single year than many of us pay in a lifetime. The net gain to the island is massive.

(braces for inevitable onslaught of contrary opinion)

Report abuse

24

Adrian

concerned unfortuantely not as much as they should hence the comment!

This sort of reporting doesn’t warrent a mention in the paper. I bet most ordinary people couldn’t give damn about these sort of individuals who make their profits from the rest of us anyway.

Report abuse

26

mad foetus

Here is an example of socialism in practice: socio-mentalists, take note.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes (in the UK this is), it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by £20.
Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.’The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a pound out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!”
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important….
they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore…..

Report abuse

28

truthseeker

Meanwhile back in reality ,even during the toughest times the rich took tea at the Dorchester,while the poor died in the trenches…

Report abuse

30

Marx

Fully agree with Adrian.

For each extra million someone earns in Jersey, they pay a smaller % of it. This is absurd, surely they should pay 20% for ALL of their income, not just 20% for the first bit… then less on the next.. and less on the next. It just doesn’t make sense.

Over the years, the rich have negotiated these tax deals with the governments to secure their position at the expense of others who don’t get the luxury of their lifestyle.

It is reasonable for those who can’t afford a good standard of living whilst being taxed, to get tax exemptions. It is not reasonable to give exemptions to those who will live a life of luxury with or without tax.

Also 20. Bernard doesn’t seem to realise that workers can exist in the public sector too…

Report abuse

32

Err

Well look out then, no one gets rich by being nice or being ‘transparent’ you would honestly be surprised what some families will do to keep thier wealth, mind your backs the plots are certainly going to thicken!! Most rich would write their bar bill of their business expense account anyway!! Just because they can.. like a lot of other things they can do.. Donations also come of the tax bill aswell (didnt you know!!)

Report abuse

34

Keith

mad foetus 26 – nice essay, I fell asleep part way through and you have posted this before, must be a favourite. Absolute twaddle in this context, the situation put simply is this. Due to disatrous global economic circumstances the government need more money, this must come from taxation, do we.

1 – Increase taxation to the working man who is being made redundant in huge numbers and if fortunate enough not to be in this position, is swallowing the no pay rise BS and struggling to pay his bills.

2 – Tax those people earning so much money that they will never spend what they have and won’t miss it.

Most of us would love to be in the unfortunate position of earning above 150K and paying 50% tax.

Report abuse

36

Leah Holmes

Yes Keith, but Mad Foetus forgets (or won’t admit) that rich people are often only rich because of the poor man buying their product or service at an over-inflated price. Money follows a cycle it’s not as straightforward as ‘the rich pay more so they should get more for paying more’. They can only pay more because of other people paying them more than they should be charged in the first place. So of course they should pay more of that in tax so it goes back into the system to help the people they ripped off in the first place.

I’ve recently had a phone company bully me for money I don’t owe, and I don’t doubt a lot of people would have just paid it by now for the sake of being without the stress and threats of court action. If the majority give in to bullying then these companies quite literally get millions for absolutely nothing. Hardly a legit way to make money but it’s commonplace now among businesses!

I’m not sure where so many rich people actually think their money comes from. They seem to honestly believe they have simply worked hard for it.

I have known a couple of ‘self-made millionaires’ so I know exactly what their product cost to make (including advertising, wages etc) and I know how much each unit sold for! All they did to become rich was legally ‘cheat’ people out of their hard earned cash.

Hardly something to be respected or admired, but at least these guys admitted that was where their money came from. Some don’t have the decency to do that and continue to honestly think they earned it!

Report abuse

38

Michael Neal

#29: ‘there is no excuse for not paying 20 means 20′

As we’ve discussed in a previous post, the only people who don’t pay 20 per cent on their income are several hundred 1(1)(k)s.

‘You never know if people were charged on income without too many allowances Jersey might even function on a 10% tax regime.’

Unfortunately, this wouldn’t work because per above the only people who would pay more would be 1(1)(k)s and they would move elsewhere.

1(1)(k)s make a massive net contribution to the island by paying a lower tax rate on massive incomes, thereby paying many, many times more tax per year than the average tax payer. They also have higher disposable incomes and so spend more money locally, supporting local businesses and paying GST. Finally, since most have private health insurance and educate their children privately, they cost the state less than the average taxpayer.

#30 Marx: ‘surely they should pay 20% for ALL of their income, not just 20% for the first bit… then less on the next.. and less on the next.’

Apart from the 1(1)(k)s, Jersey residents pay 20 per cent on all their income. Likewise, the only people who have ‘negotiated these tax deals’ are 1(1)(k)s.

#32 Err: ‘Most rich would write their bar bill of their business expense account anyway!! Just because they can.. like a lot of other things they can do.. Donations also come of the tax bill aswell (didnt you know!!)’

You are correct that, unlike in the UK, non-staff entertainment expenses are allowable for corporate tax purposes.

However, charitable donations are not allowed as a business expense. Also, for an individual, it is slightly misleading to say they ‘come off’ the tax bill. Since donations come out of income that would otherwise be taxed, the deduction has the effect of reducing the donor’s income to what it would have been if the income given to charity had not been received. The deduction is therefore tax neutral.

#33 Monkey Magic

In my experience, a proportion of people of all incomes lack kindness and humility, and use mobile phones irresponsibly.

#34 Keith

In fact, under 20 means 20 the threshold before which individuals paying the marginal rate of tax are increasing. Since this has the effect of reducing the tax liabilities of people paying the marginal rate, there has been no ‘increase taxation to the working man’. In fact, the opposite is true.

Also, regarding the wealthiest ‘paying 50% tax’, why should someone pay a greater percentage of tax just because their income is greater? I wonder how this squares with Adrian’s statement that ‘it is only fair and just to expect all to abide by the same rules and regulations’.

Report abuse

40

mad foetus

What a load of hot air.

“I would happily pay 50% tax…”

Really? What if you earned £500,000? You wouldn’t think it was worth spending £1,000 on an accountant who could structure your affairs so you save say £100,000 in tax? And then, if you are so minded, you could spend that £100,000 on a pet project, say building a school in Africa, or giving to your favourite charity. If you pay it in taxes you lose all control, and it is wasted on a failure to hedge currency exposure by States civil servants. Or on drafting new laws that aid the finance industry?

What is the point of earning money if not to have maximum control over how it is spent? Is there not a moral duty to do that?

Or are you saying if you were very wealthy you would be happier seeing it given to the finance industry in a grant rather than to starving Africans?

You see, life is much more complex than you might think. The only fact is the more you pay in tax, the less you control what the money YOU earned is used for.

Report abuse

42

mad foetus

I should just add, of course, that because Jersey has a tax system that promotes social justice, and broadly aims to treat people the same, rather than discriminating against those with higher salaries, there is little incentive to try to minimise your tax bill here.

Report abuse

44

Whatever

3. Rich and poor: “Anybody holding on to more than they need is doing something wrong” – alright Robin Hood. Get real. Society would be a far worse place if it was as critical of success as you seem to be.

4. Allan: “what a headline typical jersey” – the same headlines are current in the national news actually, in particular regarding the Times Rich List.

Report abuse

46

Keith

38 Michael Neal – pay rises should be performnance based and not tied to current economic status. Some companies are still doing very well and their employees should recieve a performance based pay rise rather than have their bosses exploit the current climate to increase profits whilst keeping workers down.

38 Michael Neal “why should someone pay a greater percentage of tax just because their income is greater?” – because thay can comfortably afford to.

39 Mad feotus – if the rich paid their taxes as they should instead of spending money on tax avoidance we would all be paying less. Also the African school scenario – you talk as if it’s an either or, why can’t it be both?

Report abuse

48

Leah Holmes

Mad Foetus, the thing is that you probably don’t believe it because you are only aware of your own attitude towards money.

If I was earning £150k I’d happily pay £75k tax, and likewise if I was earning £500k I would happily pay £250k tax.

£75k is plenty of money, I would have a perfectly comfortable life.

I currently have the least money I’ve ever had and yet this is the best time I’ve ever had. People’s love of money just causes problems, for everyone, and personally I’d prefer to avoid that totally.

Kate #41, as I’ve already pointed out in another post. Money moves in a cycle. If the vast gap between rich and poor was just levelled out a little bit the SAME amount of money would be circulating the economy! The same amount of taxes would still be paid. It would simply mean the rich had a little less (but were still rich) and the poor (esp. those that work blinking hard day in day out for little money and often complete disrespect from some rich people) would have a bit more.

But the actual amount of money available wouldn’t change.

Report abuse

50

Leah Holmes

Mad Foetus, my only aim career wise is respect and success in my chosen field. That doesn’t include (and probably will never include) any substantial amount of money.

Thankfully.

Report abuse

52

PIGSY

“Happiness costs nothing” how many people hand on heart can say there happy & satisfied with there lot???

Report abuse

54

Leah Holmes

Mad Foetus, as long as you ARE living just now also! Don’t let it all be for tomorrow.

Report abuse

56

Michael Neal

#45 Adrian: ‘workers are employed only to make a profit they aren’t employed for welfare reasons.’

Surely work is mutually beneficial? Employees also ‘make money’ from the owners of business because they’re being employed by them.

‘Those running big business will use and dump them as they see fit.’

Again, it’s a quid pro quo. An employee can leave a business any time they like subject to a notice period. Even with the legislation Jersey has, it is very difficult for an employer to ‘dump’ an employee, however incompetent.

‘They can pay them less if they so wish, or cut their conditions of work, or cut their pensions etc etc.’

If the employer did this, they could be sued for breach of contract.

‘a rich person who has their property in a company could end up paid for by the state if they have no assets in their own name!’

The state looks at all the person’s assets, not just property. Since the shares in the company owning the property are worth the same as the property, the person would pay exactly the same.

#46 Keith

Re performance, I agree that it should be rewarded. However, looking at current profits is too short-term. We may be heading into a depression and, even if we aren’t, things are going to get much worse before they get better. Sensible companies are strengthening their balance sheets and this is why they are looking to freeze wages. Likewise, dividend payouts are much reduced or nonexistent.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely right that some companies who are still doing well are using this as an excuse to freeze wages. But consider this: when the recession is finally over and jobs are more available, do you think any of the staff of these type of companies are going to stick around? Such companies are therefore shooting themselves in the foot, though I recognise this doesn’t help people who are trapped workng for them at the moment.

Re higher tax rates, I accept they can afford to but the question is still whether we should be taxing people whose absolute tax bill is many, many times larger than average.

Mad foetus has picked up on an important point: that tax is a moral issue. Is it fair to make someone who already contributes an enormous amount of tax by virtue of their enormous income (as well as the tax paid on the incomes of their employees) to pay even more?

The other issue Mad foetus has rightly raised is how the money is spent. Everyone in society could pay much less tax than they currently do if the public sector was even vaguely efficient. A big opportunity is being lost as the current crisis could have provided the impetus to truly reform the public sector.

#48 Leah

Re money moving in a cycle, as I pointed out in response to your previous post, there would be less money in the economy if tax rates for the wealthy were higher because there would be less incentive for people to make money by building businesses.

Report abuse

58

Leah Holmes

Michael, that’s not necessarily the case. If the only incentive is ripping people off and living an overly extravagant lifestyle then maybe, but you can set sensible costs and live a less extravagant lifestyle. I also notice that compared to the UK Jersey seems to almost discourage self-employment, yet more self-employed people also helps the economy.

It’s pretty clear where the States loyalties lie and they seem to have little interest in looking to areas other than finance. That short-sightedness may well come back to bite them.

Report abuse

60

Adrian

Michael Neal Work isn’t really mutually benefial as if it were there wouldn’t be as much incentive to employ people would there? Profit comes first. We all know companies will cut to the bare minimum and will employ cheap foreign labour to undercut the local workforce and thus force them to accept less pay and conditions.

As per you next comment that doesn’t hold water either as we all know that there are ways to get rid of people you don’t want. A boss can make it much harder for an employee who is out of favour for whatever reason (they may just have a grudge against them) until they have basically no option but to walk. You can move person to another job they don’t like and hence get rid of them as well under the pretext that they are needed there. Is this true?

To cut pay and conditions I have been led to believe all a company has to do is tear up any agreements they have and rewrite terms and conditions sacking all staff and re-employing the staff they want. This could be achieved via a take over for example. Is this true?

I believe also pension funds are not ring fenced by law so that a company can basically raid them at will. Is this true?

How can an ex-employee sue a big multinational company who have top lawyers at their disposal to rebuff any allegations and who could dig into the private life of said employee to increase their chances of winning the case? You well know this is nigh on impossible to do especially in Jersey, as we have no free legal aid that I know of.

How will the state know what someone owns if they have lots of their property in trust funds registered in many places and running through different companies? Surely a person could thus be rich but have no real assets and thus the state would be forced to look after them? Can this happen?

Refer taxes is it right that some are on a negiotated tax structure whereas the rest have no choice?

As far as I am concerned 20% of £1M is £200,000 tax. Do any of the top 100 people even pay this figure? Please remember the top 100 average £80,000 over here. This means if they were in the real world they would only be earning £400,000!

Tax paid by myself is my own business it has nothing to do with my company. If it was their concern they would be paying it wouldn’t they? You cannot take this an employers contribution as it is not.

As per how tax money is spent it should be up to the majority in a society to say where it should go. Not a very small minority who could have vested interests. I see GST as one of these resultant issues due to an inability to tax across the board, by a weak government unwilling to pull big business and the rich into line. Hence the most vulnerable in society are penalised the most.

One thing is for sure we will be having less tax receipts in the coming years as peoples’ wages fall in real terms and more people are laid off. What happens then?

Report abuse

62

BS Deluxe

Maybe everyone is missing the point.

Maybe it shouldn’t all be about who and how much we are all taxed, but what and why are the politicians WASTING all of out tax income on????

47 Stomach ache

“Every £1.00 of income tax received from the 11(k) resident by the Comptroller on behalf of the States of Jersey, is a £1.00 less that has to be collected from the “ordinary” Joe on the street”

That may be true but so is the opposite. If the politicians wasted less of our money, we would pay less, surely?

Report abuse

64

Adrian

Stomach Ache I have to ask the obvious question does £8M make squat all difference in an expenditure of £680M? I believe not.

Also more tax from the most able to pay would go a lot further than a few pounds collected from many poorer people would it not?

As per charity it would less likely be needed if wealth was spread more evenly wouldn’t it? As per giving money to charity there are positives to this as rich people are only too well aware of like prestige and a possible knighthood for services rendered.

Report abuse

66

harvmiester

Socialism and envy alive and well in Jersey!! Shame.
Well done Mr Scott for building a successful business empire and making millions. People should try and emulate your achievements (and others like you) not knock you down at every opportunity.

@ The Envy and Socialist community remember the wealthy paying tax in Jersey and bring their business activities through the Island allow you to have a great standard of living, with all the services and a stupidly low tax rate of 20 pc and much lower I hear for many!! Wake up and smell the coffee. You could all learn something about achievement from Mr Scott and the like.

PS I hope he buys Southampton FC….

Report abuse

68

new face in hell

“Michael Neal Work isn’t really mutually benefial as if it were there wouldn’t be as much incentive to employ people would there?”

Adrian, you do have some strange views. Why would people work if they didn’t benefit?

The fact that people in Jersey choose to work for agreed wages and can leave if they want is one of the many things that distinguishes us from North Korea.

Report abuse

70

Adriana

A New Face In Hell,

For many thousands of unskilled islanders wages are not “agreed upon”. There is no cosy and civillised debate and discussion with a potential employer concerning their personal monetary worth. They are told the wage, quite often a mere couple of pounds above minimum wage. The only thing to “agree” upon is whether they take it or leave it. Most of the time they take it because they simply do not have the luxury of making a choice.

Oh, and by the way, people in that position do not usually financially have the option to “leave if they want” and start life afresh in pastures greener.

You have the detached views of someone very well paid for what they do, with more than enough spare money to have the freedom to do exactly as you choose, when you choose. Unlike the girl who serves you in the corner shop, the man who fills your car with petrol, or the woman at the call centre who attempts to handle your problems – the people who keep your life running smoothly on a daily basis.

Remember that next time you part with cash for an unskilled service. If those people had the option to “leave if they want”, many would undoubtably take it. And then who’d fill the supermarket shelves for you?

Report abuse

72

Phil

CM

Well done for pointing out the many grammatical errors. Just one thing though, apostrophes aren’t required in plurals. Please ensure your posts are grammatically correct in future!

Report abuse

74

new Face in Hell

“Remember that next time you part with cash for an unskilled service. If those people had the option to “leave if they want”, many would undoubtably take it. And then who’d fill the supermarket shelves for you?”

Have you not made this argument about nurses before? People get paid what the market will bear. Nothing stops them taking night classes, second jobs etc. But paying them more makes their job more attractive than it should be, sucking in migrants who will work for less than the locals, thus bringing wages down again…

Incidentally, this is why it is immoral to buy Fairtrade produce. Because the farmer is paid a “fair price” rather than the low “market price”. But the reason why the market price is low is because a product – typically coffee or sugar – is easy to grow and land in hot countries is cheap. If some farmers get fairtrade prices others see it and start growing coffee or sugar only…all the fairtrade demand has been used up, so they have to sell it on the market, where “market prices” are even lower than before because of the glut of produce generated by those who thought fairtrade prices were achievable for all.

You cannot buck the market. Reality is not about abstract principles, life is rich and strange, like an oil painting.

Report abuse

76

BS Deluxe

65 Keith

I can assure you it is absolutely true, but I will not divulge too many details on this forum because it would be too obvious I was talking about them if they happen to read these blogs.

I can tell you neither of them are born and bred, but one did have quallies which should have been rebuked for being out of the island for so long, but they were not and were easily handed back to them. Others are not so fortunate.

Actually I do have morals and work hard for a living (as does my partner).

My gripe is why should I work when I see my tax money paying for a good lifestyle to the “not so needy”? These people are now better off than my partner & I and we are not a burden on the taxpayer!

They were actually told by the Social Security it would be better for them if neither worked!!

Explain that.

Report abuse

78

Adrian

Jersey Student since you are one of the rich is it possible to answer me this? What is wrong with the rich paying up to 20%? Are you saying that this is too harsh for the rich? If it is, why do you expect others to pay up to 20% of their incomes?

jer I am talking in reference to the 20% tax band which at present gives some allowances this can be as high as £30,000-£40,000 depending on circumstances. I have no qualms with this as some people do not earn enough to live over here, as we know things are very expensive in Jersey, even though we don’t have VAT. If a rich person claims similar levels to this I have no problem with that either.

However I can’t see how earning vaste sums of money can only incur say 1% tax on it. Do others see this as fair in the 21st century?

I have mentioned the pay your way scenerio as certain people seem to think it is wrong for others to get help. However, mention certain things like school fees and it is a different issue. Either people are interested in being part of a community and all that goes with it, or they don’t give damn about others. If this is the case surely they can’t be expecting things, like free schooling, which others like couples with no children, have to pay for?

I believe we should have an all inclusive society where everyone is bound by the same rules and conditions. No one is special and why should they be? This is not the Victorian age where the workers have to doff their caps to the upper classes. However it appears some think this is still the case.

As for certain groups threatening to pull the plug on the rest of the community if they don’t get their way on tax, this is really sad isn’t it?

As per rich people they inflate prices over here, especially for property, due to their ability to pay more than the market price. Businesses can charge more as they perceive Jersey residents to be richer than most, though this isn’t always the case. However they can almost charge what they like, as they know we have no proper competition over here. Its not like we can drive to St.Malo to save some money is it?

Also as Adriana said if no one did the rubbish jobs nothing would function would it? So how come most get treated like dirt then? Everyone deserves respect it shouldn’t depend on the size of one’s wallet should it?

Most have to work hard so a few can have an easy life. This is the plain fact of living. Maybe those having an easy ride should remember this and appreciate others for allowing them this luxury, as without others they wouldn’t be where they are today, would they?

This is not to be taken as an attack on anyone, but I have noticed a growing discrepency between the haves and the have nots. Looking through history often whenever this reaches a certain point we tend to get a redistribution of wealth through violence, and a break down of law and order. I am not into violence myself but not everyone else is so easy going.

The Third World has major issues that must be addressed before the richer countries are swamped with economic migrants, as this is the future if things don’t change for the better.

Maybe when Britain’s population tops 100M people might start to think on things a bit more? Then again maybe not?

The poorer we make the rest of the world the more migrants we will get. This will end up collapsing the western infrasture anyway from the inside. Even if this were not so is this a good way to treat others? Would we put up with being treated as we treat poorer countries?

Report abuse

80

Leah Holmes

It was simply the way it was signed that made it look like a name, so apologies for that. I did say ‘if peoples’ only motive’, that doesn’t need explanation, and it doesn’t include you. It is an ‘if’ statement, given the knowledge that where money is, some will follow purely for the money alone. It was no a comment on your family by any means. Plenty of rich and poor alike have grown up in Jersey.

I don’t assume the rich to be amoral, I don’t think my post said that. I personally know two that aren’t. I do meet a heck of a lot that do think money gives them special rights though, that’s not the same as immorality per se.

It is undeniable that there are attitudes that are exaggerated by the introduction of money and power. Thankfully some manage to not be corrupted by either. For all I know money would change me… I hope to not find out.

Report abuse

82

new Face in Hell

Adrian gets it right for once. Yes, you gotta pay tax on bank interest. Should have put it in a moneymarket fund!!!

But listen Adrian, the deal is they pay 20% on the first £500k, 10% on the next and 1% on the rest. Its the deal that is offered.

You have made it clear that as this only raises £8m (in other words, around £150 per adult in Jersey), its not worth doing. I would sooner save my wife an I £300 a year and allow these people in, but thats your choice: you must have more money than you make out.

Report abuse

84

Adrian

new face in hell how much differnce does £8M make in an outgoing of £680M? In real terms not much.

Michael Neal Employers get the better deal if they did not they wouldn’t bother would they? They aren’t there to look after people are they?

As I said before can a rich person hide or keep all their assets away from the relevant departments to make it appear that they have no assets so that they could get free care if they wanted? Yes or No? Also i have been told that disposing of one’s property at least 7 years before needing care in old age means the state can’t take your property. If this is so why not just put it into a company name then you aren’t the owner are you?

80k comes from 8M/100 as this is the top 100′s contribution according to the media. Is this wrong?

I have known employers to make things difficult for a person which usually results in them leaving. How does one prove this is constructive dismissal?

As you well know employers don’t pay money for nothing. I view the contribution to social security as part of the cost for that employee not an extra given as an act of kindness.

“If your allowances are £30-40k, your income will be many, many times more than this and you will pay tax accordingly.”

Not necessarily so Michael. Married man’s allowance around £18,000, 2 kids say £5,000. Wife’s eanred income around £5,000 in her own right. Thats £28,000 before you’ve started on anything else. Therefore those earning around £30,000 will not be paying a bean on the above example will they?

Re property prices:- prices of housing stock will be affected by what each property is worth in realtion to another if a big house is worth £2M the one down from it might be worth £1.75 for example and so on down the scale. Raise the top end and the rest will go up. Thus an abundance of richer people will skew property prices higher.

If they weren’t here the £2M property for example may only fetch £1.5M or less. This would have a knock on effect for the rest of the market.

I suggest even your flat would be worth/cost less if the top end was worth less. You might not see it as being so but I do.

We’ve touched on the public sector before many who wouldn’t be paying tax if they were put into the private sector on their poorer wage structure. This would therefore impact on tax returns wouldn’t it?

As I have said before those with the most get the most benefit including special tax concessions not avaialble to Joe Public.

I view companies as separate entities from their owners as if they weren’t the owner would be liable for all debts. If this is the case then surely the owners can’t use this as mitigation for a better tax break can they?

As per bank interest I view this as double taxation as you have already paid tax on the money before hand, would you not agree on this? Interest is not a profit on one’s money, as it only maintains the status quo doesn’t it so why is it taxed? I believe this is morally wrong and should be stopped. If you get more than inflation then it should be taxed e.g. stock market profits.

Thanks for your input though.

Report abuse