2bees Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 And Zac Hall and Kate Beecroft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I don't think so, most come in on higher salaries than they were getting before, they are not getting a pittance, their on £56,000, plus £10,000 as a member of a department, plus expenses, all for working 22 weeks a year, most of the time is blocks of holidays, Easter, Christmas, summer recess, then there are the jollies as printed on this website, John Houghton asked the question, just look at the Speaker of the Keys trips what for?. Being an MHK was meant to be a part time job, the up lift for ministers was meant to reflect that they had to spend more time working. I have not a lot of time for many MHK's but I expect that many of them are working pretty hard mush of the time. The idea that most only turn up one a week for a day or two when Tynwald or the HoK's is sitting and the rest of the time they are sitting twiddling their fingers doing nowt shows how out of touch your thinking is. Their basic salary is not £56,000 it is £38,771 plus £6,575,90 in expenses. There are then various uplifts dased on that £38,771 depending what appointments you have. http://www.tynwald.org.im/memoff/remall/Pages/default.aspx Otherwise the rest of your post is pretty accurate although if you describe travelling to New Zealnd for a week and probably in economy as a jolly then you you have a different understanding of what a jolly is to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I don't think so, most come in on higher salaries than they were getting before, they are not getting a pittance, their on £56,000, plus £10,000 as a member of a department, plus expenses, all for working 22 weeks a year, most of the time is blocks of holidays, Easter, Christmas, summer recess, then there are the jollies as printed on this website, John Houghton asked the question, just look at the Speaker of the Keys trips what for?. Being an MHK was meant to be a part time job, the up lift for ministers was meant to reflect that they had to spend more time working. I have not a lot of time for many MHK's but I expect that many of them are working pretty hard mush of the time. The idea that most only turn up one a week for a day or two when Tynwald or the HoK's is sitting and the rest of the time they are sitting twiddling their fingers doing nowt shows how out of touch your thinking is. Their basic salary is not £56,000 it is £38,771 plus £6,575,90 in expenses. There are then various uplifts dased on that £38,771 depending what appointments you have. http://www.tynwald.org.im/memoff/remall/Pages/default.aspx Otherwise the rest of your post is pretty accurate although if you describe travelling to New Zealnd for a week and probably in economy as a jolly then you you have a different understanding of what a jolly is to me Why obviously he wasn't an MHK when Mike Proffit was at the MEA he flew to Australia for a jolly - sorry conference - with his wife 1st class. Paid for by the MEA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 MEA is still looking after its own. Look forward to energy hikes next year to pay for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxie44 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Arguing for no rent rise is effectively arguing for a rent reduction...surely there should be some rise linked to inflation? As should be the case with wages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxie44 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Arguing for no rent rise is effectively arguing for a rent reduction...surely there should be some rise linked to inflation? As should be the case with wages I don't understand why public sector tenants don't contribute to rates ?They do. Included in the rentsYou don't pay much rent then. Or mabye you pay far to much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxtrust Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 And Zac Hall and Kate Beecroft. I would disagree Zac was only a first officer and Kate isn't a fully ACCA qualified accountant Neither of these positions pay above £45k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Arguing for no rent rise is effectively arguing for a rent reduction...surely there should be some rise linked to inflation? As should be the case with wages As should be the case with turnover and profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The commissioners do not need to increase the rents it is up to them as long as they can meet any shortfall from their own funds Also known as increasing the Domestic Rates for private households. The "big" (as it became known) Social Housing rent rise in 2012 happened because it had to. "Most" Local Authorities had been wanting to increase their PS rents incrementally for about ten years. They were prevented from doing so by Central Government which was largely due to the likes of Cretters wanting to protect his voter-base in Pully and Anagh Coar. Thus the rents had fallen way behind what they should have been. Then the Fiscal funtimes happened and reality had a little nibble. It was realised that the PS rents were way too low and they were duly increased, by a walloping lump that should have been phased in incrementally over the previous ten-odd years. Cue howls of grief. But let's be honest, PS housing still runs at a deficit, unless I am wrong (and I stand to be corrected) the current figure equates to a loss (of expenditure over rental income) of about £2.5k per house per annum. So not even beginning to reach even the break-even figure. Maybe some authorities have the funds to run at this sort of deficit for some time. But they need to think hard and do their sums before they decide to defer the proscribed PS rent increase, because doubtless if they do find themselves running out of money, the first thing they'll do is hammer the private ratepayers (again....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Don't forget that much of the deficit is due to high admin charges, bloat, duplication, gold plated pensioned tradesmen and probably numerous contracts that needed re-tendering years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzylizzy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 The commissioners do not need to increase the rents it is up to them as long as they can meet any shortfall from their own funds Also known as increasing the Domestic Rates for private households. The "big" (as it became known) Social Housing rent rise in 2012 happened because it had to. "Most" Local Authorities had been wanting to increase their PS rents incrementally for about ten years. They were prevented from doing so by Central Government which was largely due to the likes of Cretters wanting to protect his voter-base in Pully and Anagh Coar. Thus the rents had fallen way behind what they should have been. Then the Fiscal funtimes happened and reality had a little nibble. It was realised that the PS rents were way too low and they were duly increased, by a walloping lump that should have been phased in incrementally over the previous ten-odd years. Cue howls of grief. But let's be honest, PS housing still runs at a deficit, unless I am wrong (and I stand to be corrected) the current figure equates to a loss (of expenditure over rental income) of about £2.5k per house per annum. So not even beginning to reach even the break-even figure. Maybe some authorities have the funds to run at this sort of deficit for some time. But they need to think hard and do their sums before they decide to defer the proscribed PS rent increase, because doubtless if they do find themselves running out of money, the first thing they'll do is hammer the private ratepayers (again....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzylizzy Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Us council house tenants do pay rates as well it is included in our rent and as far as I am aware it is not a reduced rate - private ratepayers getting hammered ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxie44 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Arguing for no rent rise is effectively arguing for a rent reduction...surely there should be some rise linked to inflation? As should be the case with wages As should be the case with turnover and profits. As should be the case with Tax. Must have ' confidence ' Mr Skelly must we not ? Well I'll bet there are lot of the less well of on the Island who don't have much confidence in their future. MR Skelly however is positioning himself well to be the next Finance God. I've said it before , increase Tax , there is no doubt that the Islands rich are in a much better position to pay a small increase in Tax compared to the poor who have been drained relentlessly by our ' caring ' Government. As for the threats to pull out by the rich, where are they going to go ? Even with a small increase in Tax we would still be competitive. Or is it just down to the old favourite - Greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Increasing tax here would have the opposite effect. Our competitive advantage would be totally destroyed and business and jobs would start to disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee Cee Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 dizzylizzy - if as you say, rates are included in your rent, then that simply means that the rent component is even lower than we thought. It is time to raise these rents to a fair (i.e. market) rate, and let the benefits system help those who are unable to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.