IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[Roger Mexico]

10 hours ago, mad_manx said:

So why is the other chap employed and on the Manxcare payroll ?

Tax?  We know he is employed on well over £200K (we know he was paid more than Ranson was) so it must be a bit at that level and presumably he's still classed as resident here.

[Dirty Buggane]

But would it not be cheaper to not give him the £200,000 as I imagine the tax is nominal compared to that. Or you mean work in England and pay manx tax, until we know who is paying him or getting the double bubble its a mute point   

[Holte End]

 

16 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

The residents and staff were promised they were going to the new home they were shown plans it really is the bees knees absolutely great.   

That's not what Hooper said in keys.He said he didn't know was passed in 2015 as he wasn't there. Asked if he was going to break the Will of Tynwald, yet again he didn't answer.

Edited March 15 by Holte End
due to stupidity.

[Jarndyce]

11 minutes ago, Holte End said:

That's not what Hooper said in keys.He said he didn't (know) what was passed in 2015 as he wasn't there

Interesting answer from a Minister - is he being disingenuous or demonstrating his incompetence?

Edited March 15 by Jarndyce

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Tax?  We know he is employed on well over £200K (we know he was paid more than Ranson was) so it must be a bit at that level and presumably he's still classed as resident here.

Surely he’ll have lost tax residence by now, or at least be subject to dual tax, with appropriate relief, after his consecutive stints at Derby ( on the payroll there and subject to PAYE ) and Liverpool.

He’ll have had to do a UK tax return for Derby. As he’s now being paid by Manx Care he will have ITIP deducted and he’ll then be given relief on that against his UK tax.

Manx Care are either providing his services to Liverpool for free or they’re invoicing Liverpool. Whichever it is we deserve to be told.

[Gladys]

53 minutes ago, Holte End said:

 

That's not what Hooper said in keys.He said he didn't what was passed in 2015 as he wasn't there. Asked if he was going to break the Will of Tynwald, yet again he didn't answer.

If only there was a written record of Tynwald proceedings. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Surely he’ll have lost tax residence by now, or at least be subject to dual tax, with appropriate relief, after his consecutive stints at Derby ( on the payroll there and subject to PAYE ) and Liverpool.

He’ll have had to do a UK tax return for Derby. As he’s now being paid by Manx Care he will have ITIP deducted and he’ll then be given relief on that against his UK tax.

Manx Care are either providing his services to Liverpool for free or they’re invoicing Liverpool. Whichever it is we deserve to be told.

Oh it makes no sense.  But people indulging in complicated arrangements to save tax that turn out not to be legal isn't exactly a new thing.

What wouldn't surprise me is that his latest posting was allowed to without agreement as to how salary would be handled and they're simply refusing to admit they cocked up.

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Interesting answer from a Minister - is he being disingenuous or demonstrating his incompetence?

Hooper is just making a cast iron confirmation that he is a duplicitous, self-interested, arrogant little shit.

[Holte End]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

If only there was a written record of Tynwald proceedings. 

Hansard should be out by the next administration. 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Oh it makes no sense.  But people indulging in complicated arrangements to save tax that turn out not to be legal isn't exactly a new thing.

What wouldn't surprise me is that his latest posting was allowed to without agreement as to how salary would be handled and they're simply refusing to admit they cocked up.

Is he actually an employee of Manx Care (or DHSC) or is he a paid contractor? I suspect the latter and he'll be billing his time/services to whoever will be happy to pay him! It's possible he may be double dipping. Since the Magson/Ranson affair I do not trust any words that come out of IOMG or MC on employment matters.

Edited March 15 by Andy Onchan

[Ghost Ship]

18 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Is he actually an employee of Manx Care (or DHSC) or is he a paid contractor? I suspect the latter and he'll be billing his time/services to whoever will be happy to pay him! It's possible he may be double dipping. Since the Magson/Ranson affair I do not trust any words that come out of IOMG or MC on employment matters.

I don't know how it works with Manx Care but in the UK a trust's medical director would be an executive director on the trust board and I'd expect them to be an employee of that trust (or a secondee from another NHS trust - like Magson) and not a contractor or other "non-employee".

Assuming he's an employee of Manx Care it would be bonkers if they aren't recharging the UK trust where he's working - unless Manx Care are getting some benefit from the secondment.

As I said in a previous post, regardless of his employment status with Manx Care there's absolutely no reason why the Manx taxpayer should not know what the secondment arrangement entails.  It won't (or shouldn't) involve the individual employee's T&Cs of employment.

I suspect the only reason the Manx tax payer is not being told the details is because you "don't need to know".

 

NB - by "don't need to know" I mean they don't legally have to tell you even though there's no reason why they shouldn't, or they don't want to tell you, or they're too scared to tell you, or they actually want to make it look like there's something dodgy going on.

 

[Andy Onchan]

6 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

I don't know how it works with Manx Care but in the UK a trust's medical director would be an executive director on the trust board and I'd expect them to be an employee of that trust (or a secondee from another NHS trust - like Magson) and not a contractor or other "non-employee".

Assuming he's an employee of Manx Care it would be bonkers if they aren't recharging the UK trust where he's working - unless Manx Care are getting some benefit from the secondment.

As I said in a previous post, regardless of his employment status with Manx Care there's absolutely no reason why the Manx taxpayer should not know what the secondment arrangement entails.  It won't (or shouldn't) involve the individual employee's T&Cs of employment.

I suspect the only reason the Manx tax payer is not being told the details is because you "don't need to know".

 

NB - by "don't need to know" I mean they don't legally have to tell you even though there's no reason why they shouldn't, or they don't want to tell you, or they're too scared to tell you, or they actually want to make it look like there's something dodgy going on.

 

But we should know if we're getting value for money. Isn't that government the mantra these days?

[Ghost Ship]

35 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But we should know if we're getting value for money. Isn't that government the mantra these days?

I think I've already said in two posts that "... there's absolutely no reason why the Manx taxpayer should not know what the secondment arrangement entails..."

[WTF]

46 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

But we should know if we're getting value for money. Isn't that government the mantra these days?

there are NO government departments giving value for money , not sure what you were thinking there AO

[Andy Onchan]

2 minutes ago, WTF said:

there are NO government departments giving value for money , not sure what you were thinking there AO

I know....please forgive me!