THE latest revelations about the tax paid by some of the Island’s wealthiest residents are nothing less than shocking.

Speaking this week in the States, Assistant Treasury Minister Eddie Noel said that 18 of those qualified to live here through 1(i)k housing status paid less than £10,000 in income tax last year.

He also trotted out a tired and frankly unacceptable excuse for this paltry level of contribution, suggesting that the people in question might make compensatory contributions to the community by spending money in the general economy or by employing staff.

As far as most Islanders are concerned, there is nothing fundamentally objectionable about the principle underlying the 1(i)k housing category. In essence, it is a social contract. Those lacking ordinary residential qualifications but wealthy enough to pay very substantial sums in tax are given licence to occupy property. They are offered a privileged position, but only in return for very significant contributions to the exchequer.

When this system works there are winners and no obvious losers. The 1(i)ks are able to become part of a community which offers the quality of life – and tax arrangements – that they are eager to benefit from and the community benefits from the hefty amounts of tax they pay.

If, however, more than ten per cent of these supposedly super-rich residents are paying under £10,000 in tax, the system is quite clearly at least partially broken and could well be due for a major overhaul.

Deputy Noel did not explain why the 18 were paying no more than a great many quite run-of-the-mill taxpayers, so there can be no examination of extenuating circumstances. As a result, neither he nor any other defender of the present position should be in the least bit surprised if many Islanders are simultaneously perplexed and outraged by what has been revealed.

It will be widely assumed that the best accountants and tax lawyers that money can buy have been involved in minimising the taxable income of some of those living here on privileged terms.

There may, of course, be other factors involved, but unless other information is forthcoming, many taxpayers will conclude that there is one set of very pliable rules for the top tier and another utterly rigid set for the ordinary man or woman in the street.