2

Andy

Oh how the rich hate income tax they prefer to slaughter the poor with indirect taxation.

Report abuse

4

Waif

Ideally the very wealthy should face taxes of at least 70%. The money should be fed into providing services that are vital, rather than charging people who are already exploited at source. However, unfortunately such a drastic egalitarian move would cripple the Jersey economy ie all the wealthy would move away. Again we see that the diversification of industry would allow this too occur.

Report abuse

6

James Tobin

Exactly Mark. 10% increase in UK top taxation gives us a nice reason to up the rate agreed with many of the UK originating tax exiles. Agree it with Guernsey and watch that tax take leap up at least for a couple of years until they discover the delights of some other micro-economy but then things may be looking up all round and our budget deficit on the way down.

Report abuse

8

Toastedteacakes

Why should we penalise the rich, most of them have worked very hard for what they have or else they just got lucky. I am pleased that they chose to live in Jersey.

Report abuse

10

BS Deluxe

I eagerly await adrian’s comments on this

Surely raising their tax contributions to 20% (in line with the rest of us who are not so privileged) will mean they are still better off than 50% Uk tax!!!

Report abuse

12

Cynical Cyd

Dont start counting your chickens or any of the money towards our growing deficit, it hasnt happened yet and the boy Ozouf will be told in no uncertain terms that the Jersey elite (the 1.1k’s) that wield enormous power through the adulation of money do NOT want it.

Money talks, but in Jersey it shouts so loudly that the lone and almost silent voice of reason and humanitarian government is drowned out.

Report abuse

14

Warren J

I think it unfair that some UK residents will be paying 50% tax from April, while a significant proportion of the population live on benefits and have far too many children.

Sorry but I would always favour a low tax / low benefit society. Work hard and enjoy the rewards of your efforts. Alternatively, no work, no food. The benefit culture ultimately undermines society.

Report abuse

16

UK Student

If you think about it, the “because they can afford it” argument really is absurd. It costs the same to provide healthcare, policing etc to a multimillionaire as it does to someone on £20k a year.

Let’s just get everyone on 20% and be done with it – no tax breaks for 1(i)k’s but no higher rates either. The extra revenue can close this black hole.

Report abuse

18

Flymo

The 30th President of the USA was a chap called Coolidge. He believed in a slimmed down style of Government and cut personal taxes so much that the only top 2% of income earners were eligible.
People now had more money to spend. Items that were being bought created and secured jobs in the retail and manufacturing processes to ensure that this demand was met and so on down the social line. “The Roaring 20s”.

So in some cases, reducing taxes actually creates wealth.
If this were to happen in Jersey(!), we would need to ensure that the “new” money coming into the market place were to be spent here…

Report abuse

20

fred

communism vs capitalism that age old problem! As someone else has already pointed out, the 1.1 ks will not be made to pay more tax because they don’t want to. END OF. The one’s being hit hardest are middle earners such as homeowners (no interest relief above £300k etc). 20 means 20, that is unless you have lots of money in which case 20 means whatever you can afford to pay sir, or 20 means naff all cause I’m a spounger and don’t want to work until after my 12th child at the age of 25!

Report abuse

22

Andy

Nothing wrong with Capitalism if its managed correctly with fair laws and taxes. .

Report abuse

24

jj

23 Mo Nee

I agree with you but I dont agree on the flip side that because you are wealthy you pay a lower rate of tax than those who are not. At the moment they are not paying 20%.

Report abuse

26

Adrian

Long overdue if the rest of the island who are paying tax are expected to have to pay 20% let them as well. No doubt there will be others
who say but we mustn’t tax the rich they might leave…

I say so what if they don’t want to pay 20% let them go elsewhere. I believe if these people paid 20% a large part of this black hole could be filled without resorting to taxing the poorer in our community who are struggling more now than ever. GST is a regressive tax which hits the poorer in the community much more than those at the other end. This cannot be right in a caring society as far as I am concerned.

I am sure others would be willing to fill their shoes even at 20% so this would be no great loss to the island as a whole.

This has nothing to do with communism it is to do with fair and level taxation nothing else. What others seem to fail to notice in my posts is that I am for a level playing field for taxation this is not the same as communism which espouses everyone being the same and paid the same. Some people seem to be fixated on thinking that a level tax field equates to communism and is bad. Sorry to disappoint but it is neither.

If any of you are confused about communism and how it works then I suggest you read George Orwell’s Animal Farm and once you have read this you will know all about the pigs and other animals and whom they represent in his book. P.S. who do you think the farmer represents?

As fred and others have pointed out this is about fairness and equity and nothing else. Some are not more equal than others and therefore shouldn’t be treated as such IMHO.

If you actually analyse the whole system and you were to be brutally honest unless you know you can get to the dizzy heights then you could be excused for thinking why make the effort and only get halfway and end up taxed to the hilt for your efforts?

A very silly system to me I am surprised more haven’t seen throught it and voted with their feet. At the end of the day if you don’t bother everything gets paid for you by the state and if you escape the middle masses you end up paying less as well. A win-win if you
are rich or a workshy welfare claimant not much good if you are an honest hardworker in the middle trying to get on IMHO.

“legislation to protect you at work etc. etc.”

And who do you think fought for these sort of things? It couldn’t have been the nasty leftwing bad unions could it who are only looking after their own interests blah! blah! blah! Apparently it was all those considerate employers according to the likes of J.Lamborrari anyway!

“If they ever fell on hard times they’d be able to rely on the society they live in to be caring and support them at that time.”

Do you really think so? If people are selfish then no one will want to support those who are
unable to pay their own way will they? Well this seems to be the view put by certain people on here anyway.

Report abuse

28

Tom Jones

No 21, I agree. The saying is the equivalent to reasoned arguement that a “Glasgow kiss” is to diplomacy!

Report abuse

30

BS Deluxe

25 Toastedteacakes

If it is besides the point then why did you raise it in the first place in your comment 8?!

Again you make another sweeping statement…”The fact is they made the right choices, invested wisely and even in their retirement they are contributing to society one way or another.”

…..or perhaps they just won the lottery or inherited their money. Some people do not earn it and do not contribute to society very much at all. You may find that the richer you are the more loopholes their accountants and lawyers can find to save them paying taxes.
A lot of people in finance are rich and remember these are the decision makers that got us all in this fine economical mess with their “wise” investing. Also, do not forget that their are rich criminals too….and we all know what they contribute to society!

I for one do not put a person on a pedestal just because of their financial status…..and in my opinion neither should Jersey!

Report abuse

32

Adrian

Michael IMHO=In My Honest Opinion. You don’t need to be humble to have an honest opinion. I think your argument is irrelevant about who uses this and that. Costs of any given society should be borne in a fair and equitable manner and paying the same percentage tax as your next door neighbour is the fairest way of all, as you both have 80% left to do with as you see fit. What could be fairer than that? A rich person is in a much better position to shoulder more of this responsiblity than they presently do in Jersey, so I think it is about time they took the strain. If certain people like you expect the OAP owning their own home, on a basic states pension, and maybe even paying tax to pay 3% out of their meagre pension for all necessities of life, a rich person can pay 20% out of something they probably won’t even miss let alone need IMHO. I can’t believe that you can’t see that this is wrong.

By the way I paid for my children to go to private school so according to your argument I should be getting a rebate as I have paid twice as much as someone who sent their child to a states school. Fairs fair after all!

“Surely his bigger house will mean he also pays higher rates than me. Is it more likely that this person will be spending more money on the island than I do as his disposable income is higher than mine?”

Will he really pay much more rates? Will he spend more money in Jersey? If he is half as crafty as most I know he will be buying off the internet to save money because of the expensive cost of items over here. Disposable income means squat if you don’t spend it over here.

Another thing you may not have factored in to your “rich keeping your taxes down.” Property prices in any given area will reflect the ability to buy. If you live in a much poorer area with no rich people present you wouldn’t expect may £10M properties to be about as none there would be able to afford these prices. However should you concentrate many multimillionaires, let us say 250 plus in 45 square miles like Jersey, don’t you think house prices would rise to follow the money? I would, maybe this is also a contributary factor as to why house prices in Jersey have risen so high, besides just finance as soon seem to think?

“why should I be upset?”

Most people who understand taxation would agree that a percentage of ones wages is the fairest way to tax people as you all loose the same in percentage terms. This is fair and equitable.

As far as I am concerned 80% tax above a predefined living level should be enough especially for a multi-millionaire, as the more you earn the more you can afford to pay can’t you?

Just in case you are unaware the less someone pays in tax the higher someone else’s tax will be unless you cut government expenditure to compensate for the difference.

For illustrative purposes only say one billionaire earns £1B. He moves to a place like Jersey. They tax their rich in a similar way to Jersey. Looking at what Jersey’s 1.1k’s pay as an average he would be paying not a lot more than £100,000.

£1B at 20%= @£200M tax. Between 25-30% of Jersey’s annual expenditure and you say this wouldn’t make Joe Public’s taxes lower?

In this example I make it a loss to Joe Public of @£199,900,000. I believe the black hole is less than this at present though I don’t know for how much longer.

I would say most people wouldn’t like those best able to pay tax avoiding paying most of it, even if it is legal!

All I have done here is point out the otherside of things, this is not meant as an attack on you Michael, it is meant to make people think on things. I think what I have written is fair and straight forward. I don’t believe this is “red’s under the bed” stuff like some on here seem to be portraying.

Kaiser I thought that was what the banks did in capitalist countries! Oh sorry its not, as they get these people to bail them out at the same time, don’t they? Don’t you just love capitalism. This appears to me to be a win-win if you’re in the right game. (sarcasm)

J.Lamborrari “It’s not that you statement is untrue that bothers me so much….”

It should be!

Report abuse

34

Pip Clement

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].”

If Mrs Thatcher had said government rather than socialism she would have been nearer to the truth.
Government expenditure rose in real terms during her period as Premier, as did civil servants if you include the ones spun off in to quangos. A ‘bonfire of red tape and forms’ was promised in the run up to 1979 but the reality of government revealed that a lot of the forms produced data that the government actually needed.
Real government is about running the country or the Crown dependency!
A lot of commentators from right and left propagate the idea that a change in the party of government will result in huge changes in policy.
It does not!
It could be Gordon Brown or David Cameron in 10 Downing Street in May. 60-70% of government policy will be the same whoever wins. They will face the same problems and have the same civil servants to advise them.
Either government will be keen to fill the tax gap and if there looks like some easy cash can be gained from offshore centres then they will be on the job before you can say knife!

Report abuse

36

Adrian

Michael how many people would you need to employ to look after your house if you were to spend much of your time traveling around the world? How much money would you spend in Jersey? Maybe you could employ a hundred at most? Would they be well paid jobs above the minimum wage done by non migrant labour?

If you use non migrant labour you slow the upward spiral in population. If you slow the upward spiral then less buildings are required to house said population which also means supply can more likely equal demand which means prices won’t go up as high as they would have done…which means wages don’t need to be as uncompetitive as they are in Jersey now. All is linked and all has an effect as far as I am concerned.

As for the purposes of reality no one is an island, we all interdepend on others, so I think we should act as a unit not a singularity. As a the well known TV manager said “there is no I in team but there is me.” Maybe people should think about this a bit more often then things might improve for everyone?

So you don’t agree that more wealth in any given area pushes up house prices then? Sorry but I have to disagree with you there.

Property prices have no effect on me but they are and they do to others. The higher the price the better for me personally, but I am not so self centered as to want to have my cake and eat it. I would much prefer everyone to be able to afford a house rather than be siting on loads of money myself. A house is meant to be first and foremost a home not a money box to be exploited IMHO. It therefore doesn’t really matter what worth it has if you are using it for its intended purpose.

I wish for everyone to shoulder their part of the burden on ability to pay so that those not so fortunate can have some sort of life over here. Maybe you think this is to much to ask? I don’t.

I personally think it is fair for people to pay more of a realistic figure for the benefit of settling in a safe and reasonably secure island. If they prefer to take a gamble in a less stable place to save a few pounds then so be it. I am sure there are some people out there who would be prepared to pay more to help others. I say bring them in.

I would prefer to avoid potential future problems in any given society rather than wait and risk the lid blowing off later on. Others appear to want to wait and see.

These are my own personal opinions on this subject and I am only pointing out what I see as problem areas that need addressing, others are free to disagree and carry on as normal.

Report abuse

38

Mo Nee

“I am aware that over time they may have paid more taxes in a monetary value than Joe Bloggs, but in relation to their overall wealth it is very little.”

It would be very little assuming they live the same lifestyle as Joe Bloggs, however we know they do not. Generally what people spend is in relation to what they earn and whether they have inherited or worked hard to earn that money, they are entitled to spend it how they like without others having the attitude of ‘you have more money so you can give more’.

Report abuse

40

BS Deluxe

38 Mo Nee

“Generally what people spend is in relation to what they earn and whether they have inherited or worked hard to earn that money, they are entitled to spend it how they like without others having the attitude of ‘you have more money so you can give more’.”

Well thank you….in that case I do not want to pay more than somebody else earning a lower wage than me. Perhaps with your logic I may be able to negotiate a lower tax rate!!!

Report abuse

42

Mo Nee

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood – those who earn more do already pay more than you in monetary value, just as you pay more in monetary value than those who earn less than you..

Report abuse

44

J Lamborrari

@ Art Laffer #43
“…social contract… …feel the resentment on this site…”
Maybe that’s where the contract falls apart; the poor seem to hate the rich for not keeping them in the lifestyle to which they’ve grown accustomed.

“…could help to free up more housing stock”
Is there much housing sat empty?

Report abuse

46

Adrian

J.Lamborrari if it took unions in the past to force through employment protection for workers do you honestly think things would carry on as they are if unions were done away with? As far as I am concerned it would be back to the bad old days of anything goes IMHO.

So you are saying that unions bully people now but back in the 1970′s everything was fine? Are you saying that employers can be trusted to do the right thing without a union looking over their shoulder? Are you also saying no bullying of workers occurs by managers or owners whatsoever in any company?

So you are telling life is not a colour I agree with you on that not that I thought that anyway. You are saying life is grey and everything about life is grey. I am saying no it isn’t. When you wake up and go to work is this a grey area of your life? Probably not a good analogy to use I know. If you are only talking about compromise then yes there can be many grey areas.

However if you are talking about right and wrong this cannot vary depending on how you feel on the day can it? Surely it can’t vary depending on if you’ve lost a £10 note or found a £10 note?

Unions were set up to protect the working man from exploitation and intimidation from guess who?

Mo Nee your comment reminds me of the Two Ronnies and John Cleese sketch on the class structure in Britain.

Report abuse

48

Deputy Trevor Pitman

Just for the record, of 123 1.1.K residents in 2008 (the most recent figures available)only 45 of those are listed as paying the often quoted bench mark figure of £100.000 or above.

This obviously leaves 78 who are paying less. Of these 61 actually pay less than £50.000 – 32 of these individuals in fact paying less than £20.000 tax.

The Minister does not wish to admit that we actually even have 1.1.K individuals paying less than £10.000! Yet at the same time the Council of Ministers are happy to hammer ‘middle Jersey’ and those who can aford it least. Can all of this really be justified, particularly in the present economic climate?

Raising these issues is not about jealousy or wishing to penalise people for being rich, as is so often the response spun by those who would defend such practices.

I say good luck to anyone who has had the vision and drive to make a lot of money – provided it has been achieved ethically and honestly. I flag these figures up because now, more than ever, we must put in place a taxation system that is fair.

Report abuse

50

Adrian

J.L.”from what I understand the unions did quite a bit of damage during that decade”

but you said previously that unions were worse today than decades ago. In case you were unaware the 1970′s were decades ago and you thought they were alright then!? A bit of a contradiction there me thinks.

J.L.”Between employers and government; yes, on the whole.”

If the employers and government sort things out between them where does that leave the workers? At the mercy of both IMHO! It appears you may partially agree with my comment as you don’t give 100% support to your argument.

“The loss of £10 in itself is neither right nor wrong, I think you don’t really grasp the issue.”

Sorry you have failed to understand my question. If you lost ten pounds out of your pocket and someone saw it fall to the floor would you expect this person to give it back to you or not?

If the roles were reversed would you give the person the money back?

Quite simple really. Maybe now you grasp where I am coming from?

Let us see if you can answer questions yourself then. If you fail to answer it must be because it undermines your argument as far as I am concerned.

“from guess who?…”

You still haven’t sussed this out either. If unions are required it means workers need protecting from someone else. Who might this be do you think?

Yes I agree there might be some employers in the position you have stated however I would venture to say there are many more who aren’t. I must admit I find it hard to see why an employer would be on less money than their employees as this isn’t the business model I am familiar with. I take my hat off if there are these sorts in your comment above but not to the others.

J.l. “yet their employees will walk to another job for a couple of pound more a week, while the employer will do everything to keep them employed.”

One answer to that is to pay them a couple of pounds more a week, then the employer would be doing everything possible to keep them wouldn’t they? Also they would save all the hassle of advertising for a new person to fill the old person’s post and have the added risk that this new person might be no good and then have to go through the whole process again a couple of months later. What a waste of time and money for a couple of pounds saving per week. I wouldn’t take the risk myself I would prefer to have a happy content workforce which is more productive. A revolving door policy to employing people is not one I would advocate. Most people I know would stay loyal to an employer, if they were decent, even if someone else only offered a couple of pounds more a week. Not every worker is on the make as you seem to imply from your posts.

“You have to give up your bitterness and them vs us attitude.”

No I don’t need to as I have no bitterness, I am just pointing out that there is a them and us and it can be a battle to the death monetary wise. You have failed to understand my point I was making.

You have even failed to realise there is a them and us. Workers need to wake up to this IMHO and realise that they have to secure their slice of the cake or risk losing it as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned weakness tends to be exploited especially in business as profit is what it is all about.

Why was the minimum wage introduced due you honestly think? It wasn’t because some employers would still be paying £2 or £3 an hour to today if hadn’t been do you think?

These are the points I am making maybe you now see where I am coming from?

Trevor Pitman “The Minister does not wish to admit that we actually even have 1.1.K individuals paying less than £10.000!”

If this is true this is a disgrace IMHO. I would have to say if this is the case then I can see this as one of the reaons why the CoM needed to bring in GST!!

Trevor Pitman “Raising these issues is not about jealousy or wishing to penalise people for being rich, as is so often the response spun by those who would defend such practices.”

Very valid point. Tax needs to be seen to be fair and just as without this you risk anarchy in any given society IMHO. It appears some might prefer the risk!

As per my earlier example I make it a tax rate of 0.0005% in real terms. I think this is correct Michael but I could be wrong, I know my maths isn’t very good! What do you think?

Report abuse

52

Leah Holmes

#44 It’s actually the attitude of some rich people that causes others to hate them, not their money.

Some rich people have made their money purely on the basis of market forces (rather than earning it through hard work) or due to other people’s hard work (think some high-level business people, footballers, pop stars etc). How convenient it is that market forces only seem to affect high-paid jobs! If it affected jobs like administration then such positions would get paid a lot more as good ones are exceptionally hard to find, harder than a department manager anyway.

Like many other people who have worked for private firms I have both brought in and saved millions for companies in the past (as an administrator), but many companies don’t have a system in place to reward all staff for their contribution to the profits, only sales staff and directors (it’s their job!).

The people setting the pay level and terms for lower-paid jobs are those in the high-paid jobs, and there must be some intent to keep a ‘them and us’ scenario, if it was purely done on how much each job contributes to the company then pay levels would not be as they are at all.

Scientists (by this I mean your average lab worker) are fairly low paid given the skill involved. However, most of them are truly earning their money, cures would not be found and crimes would not be solved were it not for their work.

If everyone aspired to be rich just for the sake of being rich then we would be uneducated, we would have no doctors, nurses, no cures, we would have no-one maintaining the island’s infrastructure, it would be a disaster. Rich people (alone) cannot successfully run anything, business or otherwise.

I respect rich people who have truly worked hard and who fully understand that they owe a debt of gratitude to both staff and the people who bought their products, they wouldn’t be rich were it not for such people. They certainly should not consider themselves superior to the people who have helped make them. They are not a self-contained unit who got rich purely through their own brilliance and it is unacceptable for any to think that they are.

More understanding that they don’t actually “keep” the rest of us any more than we “keep” them wouldn’t go astray either! They only have the money because others aren’t paid according to what they have truly earned.

Report abuse

54

the voice

deputy pitman thank you for the figuers concerning the 11k residents i wonder if you could also inform us what we are paying the unemployed. not the people who have lost their job because of the resession but the people who know how to use the system and have say not worked for the last three years or more. a worried middle class working man

Report abuse

56

Adrian

I would also ask the deputy to post on here a breakdown of what 1.1k’s are paying per annum to enjoy the luxury of living in a better place than from whence they came, saving lots of money and generally having a better life than they elsewise would back home. There are as always two sides to every story.

We know 45 pay a minimum of £100,000 so what about the other two thirds who aren’t?

It would be nice to know how many pay less than £5,000 if any. How many pay under £10,000. How many under £15,000 etc etc in £5,000 bands would be great then I can work out the difference between what they could be paying and what they are paying approximately.

It would be an interesting exercise to see if it adds up to a saving to them of £3M, £4M, £5M etc. It would at least give a ball park figure as to how much these people, as I see it, are costing the island as a whole.

There’s a reason why people are rich and there is also a reason they keep hold of it as well. Moving offshore goes a long way to holding on to it.

Do 1.1k’s as part of their package have to spend all year in Jersey spending their money to help the locals survive? Maybe they only have to spend the odd week here? If this is the case, and some do this, I doubt their input into the economy is much at all unless they happen to run a local business that is.

However even if they do run a business here how much do they make from a local business selling things in an expensive island? Probably more than they would in a run down sink estate area in the UK and without the inherent social problems like burglary, etc etc.

Indeed should they run a local business will they be employing locals who will be most likely on higher wages than any migrant labour they could employ on less money? If they are businessmen I would expect them to go for the migrant option to save money and maximise profits. If this is the case then what is the point of running a business over here? It is going to push up the population level even higher than it would elsewise be meaning more people to house maybe in social housing if they are on minimum wage or the states paying these people rent rebate to enable them to rent in the private sector and so it goes on.

So there’s a reason why it isn’t as black and white as some in the states would have you believe.

the voice valid point. It would be good to compare both ends of the spectrum to see what is what and the costs/profits caused by them as well. At the same time maybe have a breakdown of nationality on welfare percentage wise as well? If the government is too scared to do this then local versus non-local would suffice. Then we could all see if it is the so called lazy locals or not causing this problem.

An even more worried working man.

At the end of the day it would be beneficial for all over here to know the true score. If it is different to what I think, so be it, at least we would all know, and why not?

Report abuse

58

BS Deluxe

53

“Just because a I(i)K may be paying little direct tax, doesn’t mean they’re not contributing much to the local economy. I presume they must be enjoying their wealth by spending it, paying GST in the process?”

Yes you may “presume” but it does not make it so does it?

….and what exactly is your point? Everyone in Jersey has to pay GST when they spend their “wealth” locally….not just 11k’s!

I would say that 100,000 non-11k’s would probably contribute more GST than 123 11k’s….wouldn’t you??!

I would say that it could be possible these 11k’s are contributing to the economy in other ways…..like driving increased rental values, paying minimum wages etc.

Report abuse

60

C Le Verdic

# 59 “I fear if the heat does go on too much they will just pack their bags and move south where they will be more welcome and have a bit of sunshine. In fact I know of one family that is considering this move already.”

We live in hope!

Report abuse

62

Adrian

matt “In fact I know of one family that is considering this move already.”

Is this a sob story designed to frighten the residents into leaving things as they are?

Report abuse

64

Born Warrior

Unions aren’t just about wages and conditions, they’re about workplace regulations and safety codes and making sure earning a salary doesn’t mean risking your life. They’re about uniting little people and taking on giants and narrowing the gap between the people who own businesses and the workers who labour to make them successful…and the sooner all workers (public and private sector) realize this the better.

Those who represent the wealthy are working very hard to destroy the unions or at least lessen their impact and, by the sound of things, their efforts are paying off. It is very sad to see the people who might benefit from the unions attacking them. What workers should remember is that if they had to depend solely on the generosity of their employers for days off work, there’d be no such days…not even Sundays!

Report abuse

66

Adrian

Valid points Born Warrior the workers haven’t been given a day in lieu of Lib Day falling on the rest day. This says it all IMHO. As far as I am concerned big business works with the government to control the workers, giving them as little as they can get away with all round the world.

The cake needs splitting up more evenly than it is at present as far as I am concerned. The rich appear to be getting more and more of it and the rest less and less from what I can see.

As far as I am concerned the 1.1k issue needs to be looked at much more closely. If the poorer in society are expected to put their hands deeper in their pockets, (some who are on the breadline) then so should everyone else IMHO. No one should be given special treatment tax should be applied across the whole population to the same agreed standard IMHO.

Report abuse

68

ADJ

Trevor Pitman and the JDA have hated 1.(1)K’s and the finance industry ever since they came into existance. I recall all the JDA and Time 4 Change air heads attending an ATTAC seminar last year just before Jersey was congradulated by the Foot Report and was white listed by the G20. I would therfore take any JDA members views on anything taxing with a pinch of salt.

Report abuse

70

donald pond

“Donald #51 & There’s a reason #53

With due respect I think you are both missing the point.”

Deputy Pitman, perhaps you have missed the point: you criticise 1(1)(k)s because some of them pay less that £20k a year in tax, as if they are somehow exploiting the system. As I am certain you have NEVER paid anywhere approaching this, yet are happy to vote to spend money on all types of nonsense for your narrow client base of electors, can I suggest you are exploiting the system?

And on the subject of exploiting systems unfairly for your own narrow ends, can I remind you, you have no democratic mandate at all to comment on Island-wide issues. If you believe in democracy, stick to issues relating exclusively to that portion of St Helier that elected you.

Report abuse

72

J Lamborrari

@ Deputy Trevor Pitman #48
“…Just for the record, of 123 1.1.K residents… …£50.000… …£20.000… …£10.000!…”
That’s quite an obsession with cash Deputy in 2008.

“…Can all of this really be justified, particularly in the present economic climate?…”
Yes.

“…a taxation system that is fair…”
You flag up figures, but don’t show any proof that the taxation system isn’t fair Deputy.

@ 55 “…I abhor anyone playing the system just the same as I do people evading their tax as per the context of this story…”
Sorry Deputy, but where is your evidence that anybody is evading tax? Tax evasion is, as I understand it, illegal; I see nowhere in the article any accusation of wrong doing. And as for abhorring the playing of the system; I could argue that some people played the system lobbying for tax-payer’s money to be given to the Woolworths staff made redundant last year.

@ 63
“…The issue at hand here, Matt, is simply the 1.1.K system…”
Exactly, but you’re concentrating purely on the cash figure paid in taxes, not on the 1.1(k)s, not on percentages etc. just the pure cash figure.

Report abuse

74

donald pond

J Lamborrari

You should understand that whenever a person talks about the need to have a “fairer” tax system what they mean is a system where they pay less, yet the services that they personally consume constantly improve. If whenever you see “fairer” you replace it with “more favourable to me”, Pitman’s rambling will make more sense.

Report abuse

76

Adrian

Sorry J.Lamborrari but your argument is flawed.

As you well know there is a slight difference between 65M years and 40 years isn’t there? Though not according to you it appears.

J.L. “The government are there to represent all, including the workers, are they not?”

Who would the government listen to the most? The unions or the CBI? Who has the most clout, big business, or the working man?

Good on you you appear honest well done. However you did say your morals depended on any given situation. So here you have contradicted yourself as far as I am concerned.

J.L “I think it would be from those parties that an employee can not adequately and fairly protect themselves from and from whom they don’t get protection from government legislation.”

What parties could have an affect on workers do you think at work? Any ideas there?

J.L. “You would do well to accept that just because you are not familiar with something, or that you have not experienced it does not mean it happens. Reality is not limited by your experience or understanding.”

Show me some examples of where this happens. The vast majority, if not all, would be running a business to make a profit. If they are unable to pay themselves properly where is their profit? I would say to these sorts if they are really in such a state they would be better working for someone else who is able to run a business more successfully wouldn’t you?

J.L. “you do not have the option to reduce your employees wages in line with profit”

Rubbish of cause they can do this, isn’t this what BA is trying to do at this very minute?

As per the example I have given an employer could easily lose more money rather than pay a few pounds extra as you did say yourself. Costs for advertising for a new job, loss of productivity whilst the new person beds in, the chance that the new person isn’t fit for purpose etc etc. Are you honestly telling me you would go down this route for a couple of pounds per week? If you are you wouldn’t be in business very long IMHO. You have stated that a couple of pounds could bust the company, so if it costs more than a couple of pounds to find a new employee you have just bust the company well done you!

J.L. “I’m happy making my own choices and don’t need to have some bullying union act for me.”

But you’re happy to enjoy all the conditions and rights you now have at work thanks to their work previously?

It is your choice to avail yourself of a union or not. If you think you can get a payrise off your own bat go for it. Most companies I know negotiate with the union to come to a new rate of pay. Why should someone not in this union be given a payrise if they can’t even be bothered to pay their subscription to the union and then slags them off as well?

J.L. “IF true, it doesn’t automatically make it a bad thing; your obsession with cash is really not pleasant Adrian.”

Yes it does as far as I am concerned. I have no obsession with cash, I haven’t moved from my place of birth to save tax have I? I am prepared to pay my fair share and I expect all others to pay theirs. What about you?

As per my wrong example below show me where I am incorrect please.

£200,000,000 x 0.0005 = £100,000.

Remember you said this is incorrect in your previous post!

I await you answer with baited breathe.

J.L. “If you had 5people who paid a average of £10,000 in tax, and then a 6th person joined them earning £1m a year what percentage tax rate would you put him on in your ‘fair’ system?”

In this example I won’t bother with allowances for ease of reply even though I know there would be some in reality.

Average tax = £10,000.

Average income = £50,000.

So we have 5 people earning around £50,000 agreed?

One person at £1M paying tax at 20%= £200,000.
Do you agree with this?

So therefore I would expect this person to pay around £200,000 in tax at the tax rate of 20% wouldn’t you?

There’s you answer in black and white not the grey as you say you work in all the time.

I see no difference in monetary terms between tax avoidance and tax evasion if they both save the same amount of money. What do you say? Is there a difference or not?

Report abuse

78

Danny Boy

You can always spot the struggling intellects on sites like these by the way they quickly slip into personal abuse when faced with an argument that they can’t handle. Donald Pond 70,74 and mad foetus 73 really prove this point with the personal attacks on Deputy Pitman. Maybe I’ll join them for a while? I don’t think that I have ever heard such nonsense as Donald’s barmy and embittered rant and the abuse from mad foetus (perfect name, dear boy)sums it all up.But tell us, pray, Donald, how is that you have a right to comment on anything island wide or within your parish as you don’t have a mandate from anyone? Possibly just shutting up would be a welcome respite for we who are tired of parasites having excuses made for them. Mad foetus, when can we expect to see you standing for election? In these pressing economic times most people could use a good laugh. Deputy Pitman keep up the good work.

Report abuse

80

Adrian

donald we had at least one billionaire in Jersey in the dotcom boom of the late 1990′s. It wouldn’t surprise me if there is at least one now. How do you personally know there isn’t?

donald “They may have an income of £5m:”

This still works out at £1M tax at 20%.

donald “The idea that there are a small number of people who can pay for an entire society only works in feudal societies..”

In my opinion this is cobblers as in feudal societies the top bannanas would be extracting taxes from their minnions.

PJG it is generally accepted that the fairest method of taxation is for everyone to pay the same percentage of tax. So if you earn £10,000 you pay £2,000. If you earn £100,000 you pay £20,000 etc etc.

If people expect things from society like education etc then they have to give something in return for this. Just because someone won’t use their entire payments of tax up from the government doesn’t mean they should pay less to make up for this. Others seem to think this is the case.

Just in case you are unaware leaving aside allowances for ease of calculation anyone on more than £50,000 is paying around £10,000 tax. How can a so called wealthy person be paying less? If you think is fair then you are having a laugh as far as I am concerned.

I would also like you to justify yourselves to senior citizens who are being crippled by the high cost of living over here (made worse since the introduction of GST) and may also be paying tax themselves, as they have very few allowances they can use to avoid paying tax. Sorry but this is very wrong IMHO and it needs sorting out.

PJG “I have a feeling the rich are subsidising my meagre contribution…”

I myself have a feeling that the middle earners are paying more than the rest put together!

Totally of the mark but thinking about farming for a minute, a farmer I know dispatches his chickens who aren’t performing well because he can’t afford to keep them.

Danny Boy don’t worry about these sorts they bluster at anything vaguely critical of tax, tax avoidance or finance.

Mad foetus argues that deputies shouldn’t be there as they don’t have an islandwide mandate, but then argues that anyone who doesn’t secure top spot in the Senatorial elections has a right to be elected first minister, by a small band of 52 people, ahead of someone with the most votes from the voters!

He then apparently sees nothing wrong with there being 5 unelected people in the same assembly who have, neither islandwide, nor parochial mandate. He sees nothing wrong with these people being able to sway the assembly with their speeches, if they so wish, either. donald appears to be in the same vein as mad foetus, maybe they are two clones working together in the same finance cubicle?

How these same people can accuse people in the states who show affinity with the working man of being self serving individuals is beyond me.

The only reason I can see for certain types attacking the JDA is because fear is driving them to do this. Fear that they could loose their jobs if things changed.

If I were them I would be more worried about the EU getting stuck in. Then they would have reason to be worried IMHO. Not that I believe many in Europe would give a stuff for their plight, if this were to happen.

Report abuse

82

J Lamborrari

@ Danny Boy #78
“You can always spot the struggling intellects on sites like these by the way they quickly slip into personal abuse when faced with an argument that they can’t handle. Donald Pond 70,74 and mad foetus 73…”
Just an interesting observation, but I not that the unique gravatars linked, I believe, to the email address used by a poster on this site are the same for posts attributed to both Donald Pond and mad foetus. I wonder whether they’re one person posting under two names, or two people sharing an email address; considering I think I’ve seen one quote the other to agree with a point made, I do hope it’s the latter, and not somebody trying to play silly games.

Report abuse

84

BS Deluxe

“I have a feeling the rich are subsidising my meagre contribution (a 5 figure sum)long may they be pleased to do so.
Do not frighten the goose that lays the golden eggs away just to satisfy your jealousy.”

PJG have you not been reading these posts?

According to Mr Pitman there are plenty of 11k’s who pay little more than the average finance workers tax contribution…….and we are NOT millionaires so why shouldn’t they pay more…..at least the same percentage as everyone else?

Now this IS a disgrace!

Report abuse

86

Adrian

J Lamborrari just admit you lost the argument!

J.L. “Who would the government listen to the most?…”
The electorate?

I don’t think so the government are clever at spining things aren’t they?

J.L. “What the hell are you talking about??”

You stated somewhere earlier words to the effect that you would assess each individual situation before making a decision as life is grey.

J.L “trying to make a profit….”

Without a profit the company goes bust, end of story, no if’s or but’s about it, doesn’t it J.L.?

J.L “The difference is that what I was suggesting was that wages don’t drop without agreement.”

I can’t believe you just said that!
With agreement there wouldn’t be a dispute would there? So if the unions don’t agree to the management demands what will happen next do you think?

J.L. “what are the BA management threatening the union or workers with…”

Reduced wages and working conditions and a reduction in pensions if they agree and job losses if they don’t agree I believe. Maybe nothing to worry about in your book but I bet those at the sharp end with mortgages to pay and families to feed don’t have the same outlook as you do.

To avoid you being confused I have not moved my place of birth to avoid tax. What about you?

J.L. correct I was talking about an income of one billion.

Assuming no allowances for ease of calculation at 20% tax I make this £200 Million tax don’t you?

Now re-read what I posted in 76. I reproduce it below for ease of understanding for you.

Adrian 76. “As per my wrong example below show me where I am incorrect please.

£200,000,000 x 0.0005 = £100,000.

Remember you said this is incorrect in your previous post!

I await you answer with baited breathe.”

Prove me wrong on the above please if you are able.

There’s you answer in black and white not the grey as you say you work in all the time. Would you not agree here?

J.L. “There is no difference in monetary terms, but that’s not the issue is it Adrian”

I think there is an issue here as both end up costing the tax payer don’t they? Someone has to pay for the shortfall however it was so caused.

J.L. “the issue is whether it’s fair or ‘right’, and there is a big difference there.”

I would say the issue ALSO includes whether it is fair or right. I personally think it fails the test on both these counts as well. You however disagree and see no problem with it. Your view won’t be coloured because you depend on this for your livelihood by any chance?

J.L. “You go on and on about the caash amounts 1(1)ks have or pay in tax Adrian, it does seem a little obsessive.”

Maybe you don’t mind paying more and more tax to get by, but people like me are finding it hard enough as it is already to get by. Why should myself and others possibly be forced out due to not enough money in the taxman’s pocket to pay for everything over here? If people are avoiding tax then other people will be left carrying the can IMHO and pressed in to making up this shortfall. You might fancy paying 10-17.5% GST on top of VAT I sure as hell don’t fancy it in the slightest! Even if I did I doubt very much I could afford it. Not all of us have a well paid job, such as it makes no difference to us, do we?

No disrespect to you in all this, but I think what I have posted is a correct and fair analysis of the situation.

Report abuse

88

Adrian

It appears donald can’t tell the difference between one million and one billion! If this is the way things are done in Jersey in general is it any wonder we are in such a mess?

Report abuse

90

Adrian

PJG employers aren’t benevolent, do gooders who employ workers just for the sake of it because they feel sorry for them. They expect a good profit from these workers and will get rid of them if needs be. It is a two way street not a one way one which people like you seem to think.

How many people get rich by their own efforts and no one else’s? No one is an island, we all depend on each other, so let us start acting as such.

As far as I am concerned everyone should be taxed at the same rate whatever that is set at.

What makes you think all rich people work their butts off and therefore deserve more allowances than others?

As I have said before it isn’t about what one gets back, it is about what one needs to put in to maintain a proper system. If we have all become self obsessed then let us be honest about it and stop paying into a central fund, then we can all survive, or starve, by our own means, with no help from anyone else. This is basically what you are saying as far as I am concerned.

I myself believe if some had paid a similar contribution in percentage terms in comparision to the lower mortals we may not have needed GST!

I would happily pay 20% of my income in tax after a few basic deductions like everyone else gets. I would be more than happy with 80p in the pound on one billion if this is what I earnt in a calendar year. Unfortunatley I don’t so can’t contribute to this degree.

mad foetus may I suggest you get your “wife” to take up a basic accountancy course!

Report abuse

92

Bob

Not that I want to start a mass arguement but how many of you who have posted on this site.. many who have valid points to post, would be willing to state how much they pay in tax each year??

I think we can all agree Jersey has a serious problem be it the 1(i)K’s or the population on benefit (deserved or not). Neither are paying their way are they?

The government will carry on hammering us (The middle earners) because we seem to sit back and take it but what else can we do?

Feel free to comment but note I ask questions and am not stateing facts.

Report abuse

94

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #90
“…As far as I am concerned everyone should be taxed at the same rate whatever that is set at…”
Okay Adrian, how would that work? Those on benefits obviously can’t afford to pay Income Tax at the moment, so increasing their tax burden to a flat % wouldn’t be affordable for them. And anyway you can’t really justify any system that allows for direct benefits from taxes, such as Income Support, and still claim that the % given in taxes is equal.

Whatever system has to allow some variance at both the bottom and the top; I believe this can be both fair and practical. What you propose ‘may’ seem fair, but isn’t practical, and wouldn’t work.

What’s more important, having a system that is 99% fair and 100% practical that works, or one that is 100% fair 1% practical and doesn’t work?

Report abuse

96

Adrian

Can anyone else explain my example to J.Lamborrari? I am finding this very difficult. I know my states education was somewhat lacking but even I know what 20% of £1,000,000,000 is.

J.Lamborrari “Whatever system has to allow some variance at both the bottom and the top”

Do you mean a system where:-
a)those at the bottom pay zero,
b)those at the top are approaching zero in real terms,
c)those in the middle pay proportionally the most in real terms?

J.Lamborrari “Why after using this format yourself do you feel the need to tell others they are incorrect?”

I was just pointing out that there are two systems for counting one billion, the American system and the British system, that is all. I wonder how many are aware of this variance?

Report abuse

98

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #96
“Can anyone else explain my example to J.Lamborrari?…”
An explaination of your example:
#32 “…one billionaire earns £1B…. …£1B at 20%= @£200M…”
Lets ignore the unnecessary @ and whether you’re using the ‘correct’ measure of billion and getting you math wrong, and assume this calculation is trying to show 20% of £1,000,000,000 is £200,000,000; if we do this you calculation is correct, and nobody has questioned it.

#50 “…As per my earlier example I make it a tax rate of 0.0005%…”
Well your earlier example was of an income of £1bn, so using the above % rate that would give tax of £5,000. This is not the £10,000 being talked of in the post being discussed, in fact I don’t know where that figure comes from.

#76 “…As per my wrong example below show me where I am incorrect please.
£200,000,000 x 0.0005 = £100,000.
Remember you said this is incorrect in your previous post!…”
Well as I’ve already explained this isn’t the sum I was claiming to be incorrect, it’s another new sum, I can again confirm you’re basically correct with the math. However, it should be noted that the sum uses 0.0005 not the 0.0005% which you previously were talking about.

#93 “…what is 20% of £1,000,0000,000? Can you work it out or is it beyond you?…”
Another new set of figures to which I gave you the correct answer, and to which you ask in #96
“…Can anyone else explain my example to J.Lamborrari? I am finding this very difficult. I know my states education was somewhat lacking but even I know what 20% of £1,000,000,000 is…”
Another variation on some of the figures you’re throwing about the place.

All the while you suggest other’s take accountany courses and suggest that other’s have the sums wrong.

Care to show where I’m wrong Adrian with the above summation??

“…I was just pointing out that there are two systems for counting one billion, the American system and the British system, that is all. I wonder how many are aware of this variance?…”
You know what Adrian, I simply don’t believe you; I think you were pointing it out to try and score a point that I’d said something wrong. I don’t doubt that I may have mistyped, or said something incorrect somewhere in error, and if you want to pick on grammar too then be my guest, it doesn’t bother me, but please do so in the context of the arguments on the issues not just petty point scoring, or trying to move away from your failing arguments.

Report abuse

100

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #99
“…you finally agree what 20% of £1,000,000,000 is…”
I never disagreed with that, but that’s not the issue; still trying to avoid the issue with this nonsense Adrian?

“…J.Lamborrari 91. “This from someone who mixed up £1,000,000,000 with £200,000,000″
Adrian 32. “£1B at 20%= @£200M tax.”
Adrian 93. “J.Lamborrari what is 20% of £1,000,0000,000?”
J.Lamborrari’s answer 94. “It’s £2billion, but I’m unclear as to way you keep asking me maths questions?”…”
What on earth are you talking about? You appear to just be picking out random quotes that prove I’m right; it’s okay Adrian I know I’m right.

“…If said person in this example pays £100,000 tax per annum how long does it take to pay £200,000,000?
I make it 2,000 years!…”
Your maths is correct Adrian, although this isn’t a maths competition, so it really isn’t the point; but as you like maths so much seemingly I’ll give you an equation to ponder:
Which is higher 1 or 0.9999R (where the 9 is recurring infinitely)?

“…In percentage terms is this a large or small number?…”
I would say that it’s small.

“…Do you think a percantage rate of 0.05% is a big amount to be paying if this was a real example?…”
I’ve already said that I consider 0.05% to be a small amount, whether real or not doesn’t change it’s size, but it’s not a real example though is it Adrian.

So are you saying by way of argument that you don’t agree with low taxation, and that anybody living in your imaginary world should be paying higher taxes.

While I understand your argument, I don’t agree, and I don’t think it has a great deal of merit for this issue here in the real world.

“…J.Lamborrari I just pointed out an interesting fact for some who may be unaware that there was two systems…”
But you chose to say I was incorrect, you didn’t mention that your previous use was incorrect, or that anybody else’s use previously was incorrect, or ‘our’ use generally was incorrect, you chose to try and make some sort of point that I was incorrect, when of course I wasn’t, I was just using the commonly accepted usage of the word.

“…If you want to interpret it as something else go ahead…”
It’s not that I want to Adrian, I’d prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, but your attitude makes we doubt your sincerity whether I like it or not.

“…By the way I never have a go at peoples’ gramma or spellings…”
Post 88 being an exception? It was clear exactly the point Donald Pond had been making, and that his point was correct and relevant, but you still jumped in with an exclamation that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Report abuse