John Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 thats how far you need to go to get away from the scousers these days. They live in secret amongst you.... Thats good as i am off there for 3 weeks on Saturday !!! Why not emigrate John? Even you could get to be prime minister out there. Why when i can stay here and make your life hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 thats how far you need to go to get away from the scousers these days. They live in secret amongst you.... What do you call a scouser without a shellsuit? A Manxman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 thats how far you need to go to get away from the scousers these days. They live in secret amongst you.... What do you call a scouser without a shellsuit? naked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 I wondered where you got the £200 million figure from - but then found it on Richard Murphy's "Tax Research UK Site". He calculates that the UK's VAT receipts are 6.5% of GDP while the IOM's are 18.8% of GDP. He claims the Islands should be the same as the UK's and any difference is a subsidy - approximately 12% of GDP equals roughly £200 million. I have to point out that Mr Murphy's logic is extremely poor. I've pointed this out to him on his blog, and I think I'll start a thread on it as well as its a bit buried in this thread on the Turks and Caicos Islands, but the nub of my argument is that he totally ignores imports when he calculates the VAT payments the IOM makes. Gross Domestic Product only accounts for local Consumption, Investment, Government activity and Exports and removes all imports from its calculation. I = C + I + G + (X-M) Let me give you a simple example. An Island consisting entirely of retirees who are simply running down their savings. No Investments, No Government spending, the economy consists of just the consumption of these people buying imports. GDP = C + I + G +(X-M) In this simplified example the GDP is ZERO - no economic activity occurs on the Island, it is all imported in - the consumption is netted out by identical imports. BUT the retirees have still spent lots of money buying the goods - and hence have to pay VAT. This is collected and sent to the big common purse which then remits it back. At todays VAT rate, the retirees get back 15% of their consumption (ignoring exempt items etc!) - but that is an infinite percentage of the GDP which is ZERO - there is no net economic activity on the Island. Mr Murphy is totally incorrect in saying that VAT as a percentage of GDP cannot be more than VAT rate - that totally ignores imports. Given this his calculations are extremely disengenuous. No Cars, few domestic goods, etc etc are produced on the Island, but the Manx people pay out VAT to import them. The IOM does not track imports or exports - it calculates National Income using the income approach. Hence trying to use GDP to understand VAT reciepts is entirely pointless. Given all this I have no idea if the IOM recieves a subsidy via the common purse - but I can definitely say the £200 million figure is entirely bogus. To start with I disagree with the paradigm that you employ, it is far too simplistic and far too narrow in scope. In addition the taxes that should be paid by UK companies and corporations let alone individuals that are lost by HMG could also be interpreted as a subsidy to the IOM by the nations who should be getting the tax receipts. That is of course outside of the matter of the subsidy provided by the UK by the ‘Common Purse’ though as a loss to the UK Exchequer it does represent a subsidy in effect. (In fact I believe that the 200 mil suggested by the ‘Common Purse’ is if anything probably on the conservative side of an estimate.) HOWEVER --- that aside --- Reading what I am reading about the forthcoming G20 meeting and what the German contingent have to say in the closing document of the pre meeting recently held in Brussels it looks as if Germany is probably going to be far more diligent in getting rid of tax dodgers havens than even the UK was proposing. (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/106809.pdf ) It even mentions the formation of black lists of companies that make use directly or indirectly of tax dodgers havens in their day to day business. (There’s an article in Der Spiegel about this) The issue isn’t one of transparency, nor of good governance, nor about meeting OECD requirements, it’s about completely closing down tax dodgers havens. THAT is the real agenda and THAT is what WILL happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Rog is consumed with hatred for the Isle of Man, and it makes me happy to know that his desperate desire to see us fail will never come to fruition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 Rog is consumed with hatred for the Isle of Man, and it makes me happy to know that his desperate desire to see us fail will never come to fruition I have no hatred for the Isle of Man. Just the opposite. I do detest how decent Manx people have been exploited by a small number of Manx people who have gained positions of influence and even power, many of whom I knew from schooldays, are themselves being exploited by big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 rog has a point it is gauling to watch clueless individuals climb the civil service greasy pole to attain influence and financial rewards that they could never of achieved in the private sector whilst working behind a shop counter etc .. infact it stinks when you know your taxes are supporting such clueless pricks.. and as for all the directorships now awarded to both sitting and ex_politicians well its just fucking obscene like my language. .. but we are not supposed to re-alise they are only legal ways of paying bribes and/or services rendered alledgedly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I would have just left the Turks and Caicos islands to it. Global warming will sort them out soon enough. Glub glub - if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 What this highlights clearly is that there is a concept in anti money laundering circles known as "politically exposed persons" - these are people deemed to be at high risk of being suseptible to money laundering because 1. they are influential politically and 2. they are likely to be f**king crooks who think they can get away with it. Just pick an Island is all I say ...... this is just the latest report to highlight what happens 7 days a week in most mainstream democracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.