Cost of government

[asitis]

We spent years of a huge VAT windfall on increasing CS headcount, which was and is not guaranteed income !

Madness.

[SleepyJoe]

Possibly efforts to pump money into the local economy to generate activity

Better now that government expenditure be redirected to climate response & developing 'green' enterprise on the IOM

[code99]

16 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Which is exactly why the public sector has to be properly resourced.

You seem to want  Utopia without being prepared to pay for it

What I posted has nothing to do with Utopia. The inadequate provisioning of public services on the Island is a net result of the deficiency in accountability and transparency within both the IOMG and CS, not necessarily a scarcity of public funding.

For years the IOMG has been engineering public sector employment to keep the rate of unemployment on the Island down. My view is that this is exactly what governments should do during economic downturns such as recessions, but this ‘policy’ has been going for far too long. It has created an entrenched dependence on government largess, and that some of these jobs in some cases are superfluous and even pointless impediments that keep people from bettering themselves.

Like everywhere else in the western world the Island needs medical professionals, social care workers, teachers, etc. No western government attempts to provide utopian public service, unless it is driven by some ideological principles, and clearly the taxpayers must pay for these types of services. What is less clear is the value the Department for Enterprise has actually produced. And how can the Department of Infrastructure justify the existence of their current senior managers who seem unable/incapable to either satisfactory deliver major capital projects or conduct professional due diligence when comes to planning and evaluating risks and benefits?

I am not recommending to make everyone’s tax returns to be publicly available like they do in Norway, but the general public must have a right to know ‘what/ why/ how and who’ are making decisions on our behalf and are ultimately paid for by us, IMHO.

Edited September 5, 2021 by code99
typo

[The Voice of Reason]

17 hours ago, finlo said:

You feel they're under resourced then?

Like most things you get what you pay for

[Lost Login]

17 hours ago, finlo said:

You feel they're under resourced then?

Parts are other parts are not. I would argue that education and health care need more funding on the front line. I am sure that many of us would argue that there are too many general administrators and managers and if I look at the Department of Education I just think leaving it to the head teachers to run their schools would largely see a better result  

However we as a public are partly to blame. When there was plenty of money around very few raised there head above the parapet to say pay and terms and conditions were far to generous and it is tough if you have a mortgage and debt based on that income to take a step backward. We also acceptable Government to report and be accountable, understandably, but we also have a blame culture where there is always somebody to blame or a claim to be made so we end up with a load of administration to cover for this.

Health and safety is generally a good thing. Nobody should be working with dangerous unsafe equipment but many would argue it has gone to far. Who is responsible for that? As a kid if I fell in a playground it was basically brushed off as an accident. Then people started to sue etc so you got a load of bureaucracy to demonstrate that playgrounds were checked and safe so there was a defence against claims or they were simple closed.

I think it far to simplistic to suggest all government is over resourced and inefficient and it is all government's fault.  I am sure we could do with better leaders etc but would we be happy to pay for them. I have not seen many standing for MHK over recent elections where taking the job would see them getting a substantial pay cut. The ones who stand who are probably higher earners seem to be either retired or have a business which will carry on providing additional income. Paying more might not attract more high achievers etc but we are never going to know as the idea would be shot down in a second. We get the mediocre in general because is roughly what we are prepared to pay for and accept.

I don't care what a person gets paid, if they are value for money. 

[Ramseyboi]

9 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Like most things you get what you pay for

You completely mis the issue - again.

The salary bill for IOMG is equivalent to private sector businesses that generate fortunes in profit and manage projects like the pro efficiently and as a very small part of what they do.

If you think we get value for money out of our bloated slow and inefficient civil service then you really need to look at the rest of the world - private and public sectors.

  

[The Voice of Reason]

4 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

You completely mis the issue - again.

The salary bill for IOMG is equivalent to private sector businesses that generate fortunes in profit and manage projects like the pro efficiently and as a very small part of what they do.

If you think we get value for money out of our bloated slow and inefficient civil service then you really need to look at the rest of the world - private and public sectors.

  

The IOMG is not in the business of generating fortunes in profit. 
 

It’s to serve the needs of the populace which by and large involves spending money.

Its the same in the rest of the world

[CallMeCurious]

UK National Insurance to be raised by 1 and 2 per cent. So guess we'll follow suit with 'Covid' no doubt being cited as the reason. And of course it'll never come down again.

At 11% now with an increase of 1%, thats a 9.1% hike. 

The real kicker is this is basically a tax on jobs. You can bet they'll try and dress it as a 'only' a 1% increase while adding 1% to the employers contribution too. Making it a 2% overall increase or 18% to the employer (assuming they will increase wage to at least keep the employees take home pay from dropping).

This on top of 2.3% inflation. At least, they didn't go after pensioners. Yet.

Guess I'll just have to put up my rates again.

 

 

[forestboy]

18 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

UK National Insurance to be raised by 1 and 2 per cent. So guess we'll follow suit with 'Covid' no doubt being cited as the reason. And of course it'll never come down again.

At 11% now with an increase of 1%, thats a 9.1% hike. 

The real kicker is this is basically a tax on jobs. You can bet they'll try and dress it as a 'only' a 1% increase while adding 1% to the employers contribution too. Making it a 2% overall increase or 18% to the employer (assuming they will increase wage to at least keep the employees take home pay from dropping).

This on top of 2.3% inflation. At least, they didn't go after pensioners. Yet.

Guess I'll just have to put up my rates again.

 

 

They’ll go after the pensioners by breaking the triple lock. 
I’d much rather see a cut in foreign aid or maybe VAT increase. 

[asitis]

26 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

At least, they didn't go after pensioners. Yet.

 

I guess taking 271 billion from the 1950's women wasn't a bad ruse !

[Banker]

2 minutes ago, asitis said:

I guess taking 271 billion from the 1950's women wasn't a bad ruse !

Women should never have got it earlier in first place as they love longer 

[John Wright]

31 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

UK National Insurance to be raised by 1 and 2 per cent. So guess we'll follow suit with 'Covid' no doubt being cited as the reason. And of course it'll never come down again.

At 11% now with an increase of 1%, thats a 9.1% hike. 

The real kicker is this is basically a tax on jobs. You can bet they'll try and dress it as a 'only' a 1% increase while adding 1% to the employers contribution too. Making it a 2% overall increase or 18% to the employer (assuming they will increase wage to at least keep the employees take home pay from dropping).

This on top of 2.3% inflation. At least, they didn't go after pensioners. Yet.

Guess I'll just have to put up my rates again.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, forestboy said:

They’ll go after the pensioners by breaking the triple lock. 
I’d much rather see a cut in foreign aid or maybe VAT increase. 

 

3 minutes ago, asitis said:

I guess taking 271 billion from the 1950's women wasn't a bad ruse !

Has it actually been announced yet?

NI for social care doesn’t really make sense. Apart from a very small amount the NI budget goes to pay state pensions and not health care. NHS is funded through tax, not NI.

Im all in favour of the employees NI cap being removed so it’s paid on all income. But I’d it’s done through NI then the pension pot needs ring fencing and so does the care pot. Especially in IoM where we actually have an invested fund.

 

[display name]

10 minutes ago, Banker said:

Women should never have got it earlier in first place as they love longer 

They love longer?   Are you reaching the finish line just after the pistol is fired?

[asitis]

51 minutes ago, display name said:

They love longer?   Are you reaching the finish line just after the pistol is fired?

I would agree with you if it was a level playing field to start with, which it wasn't ! and also if Governments renege on promises made to one group of society, and as the ombudsman has recently found, do their level best not to reveal it to them, who will they pick on next ?

[CallMeCurious]

It won't be long before there will be no state retirement age or exemption from NI on pension income. After all, how else will you fund healthcare and social care with an ageing population?