DoI not fit for purpose

[Non-Believer]

22 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Civil servants and gross misconduct do not go hand in hand 😉

Oh, they do.

But they tend to part company very quickly when it comes to accountability.

[Zarley]

15 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

They spat out Gawne and Harmer and cost Baker his seat. They seem to be very good a seeing off politicians. I’m not sure Crookall will be any different. I have to say though I read this this afternoon which pretty much sums up where I’d say 80% of the islands taxpayers are by now if Crookall or Cannan did elect to put the boot in:

https://fearandloathing2021.wixsite.com/fearandloathingblog/post/diplomatic-immunity-soon-to-be-revoked

From the article:

It will simply be applied as a gold-plated sticking plaster over the gangrenous festering open sore that is the DOI and its toxic arrogant and loose-spending management as well as other similarly dysfunctional departments of government with their equally toxic, corrosive, and destructive influence over everything they touch.

I wish Mr Fear and Loathing would just tell us what he really thinks! 

I wholeheartedly agree with him. 

[James Blonde]

5 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

TC asked for the job. He wasn’t delegated. He talks about it in the video with Paul Moulting. 

I know his hairline is actively receding, but that's just harsh. 

[James Blonde]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

If I ever need someone to explain my jokes I’ll be sure to give you a shout.

Thanks. 😊
 

No problem! But please book early, I'm fully booked until TT 

[Sheldon]

2 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

I can’t see many people disagreeing to be honest.

I've found one! You'll never guess who...

[Non-Believer]

3 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

I can’t see many people disagreeing to be honest. We do seem to be borrowing huge sums to basically re-finance about 15 years worth of total incompetence. If we don’t kick a few out to attempt to stop the incompetence we’ll be doing exactly the same in another 15 years time.

Going on the figures that Stu Peters posted earlier in the thread of a VED and Fuel Tax take of @ £130M over three years and a roads spend of @ £30M in the same period, it looks like the Manx motorist is paying for no small part of it already.

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Going on the figures that Stu Peters posted earlier in the thread of a VED and Fuel Tax take of @ £130M over three years and a roads spend of @ £30M in the same period, it looks like the Manx motorist is paying for no small part of it already.

Just a reminder that those figures need to be taken with a lot of scepticism, not just because some were clearly wrong, but because the fuel duty  includes non-road fuel etc.

In addition, the road expenditure doesn't include most capital spending - you may feel hard of paying for the Prom fiasco, but you can't deny it's a road.  I suspect there's also no allowance for associated admin/oversight costs, either of collection or spending.

One of the constant themes in Manx government is that the sort of financial information and systems that would be thought essential in a small company or even a charity or society, seem not just ignored, but incomprehensible in the civil service. 

[Stu Peters]

39 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Just a reminder that those figures need to be taken with a lot of scepticism, not just because some were clearly wrong, but because the fuel duty  includes non-road fuel etc.

In addition, the road expenditure doesn't include most capital spending - you may feel hard of paying for the Prom fiasco, but you can't deny it's a road.  I suspect there's also no allowance for associated admin/oversight costs, either of collection or spending.

One of the constant themes in Manx government is that the sort of financial information and systems that would be thought essential in a small company or even a charity or society, seem not just ignored, but incomprehensible in the civil service. 

Far be it from me to question you RM, but IIRC the figures were£40m VED take, then £14m spend over the same three years for routine roads maintenance and the same again (and I agree it was possibly a mistake) for capital schemes which included some surfacing work. You're right that the fuel duty will have involved non-road fuel, but the Minister wasn't able to give me the VAT generated by road fuel sales either. So whichever way you slice it, the motorist is getting a diabolcally poor return.

[Roger Mexico]

20 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Far be it from me to question you RM, but IIRC the figures were£40m VED take, then £14m spend over the same three years for routine roads maintenance and the same again (and I agree it was possibly a mistake) for capital schemes which included some surfacing work. You're right that the fuel duty will have involved non-road fuel, but the Minister wasn't able to give me the VAT generated by road fuel sales either. So whichever way you slice it, the motorist is getting a diabolcally poor return.

I can see why you would have thought that, but on closer examination the capital spend looks like was more than that:

In addition to the above there is an expenditure on road-related capital improvement schemes each year that are available in the Pink Book. Of this, the following capital money has been spent on overlaying, surface dressing, and micro-asphalting the road which can be classified as maintenance as well, although they are being funded through capital investment. For those three years as well, the total for those is £14,148,600.

So that's only part of the capital budget that can be pinned down to specific uses.  You need to look at the Pink Book for the rest and then try to work out what they have included and that they haven't .  Which ain't easy.

(Incidentally the VAT isn't that easy to work out because a lot will be reclaimed by commercial organisations etc).

Of course why motorists should expect a 'return' on their taxes is another issue - we don't expect it with other types of taxation.  No one is demanding that all alcohol duties and so on should be put into services for the drinking community.  

[asitis]

6 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Of course why motorists should expect a 'return' on their taxes is another issue

I agree, however, I would like them to do rather less on coloured crossings , paved sleeping policemen and other functional, but enhanced in a decorative manner projects, and fill in the fecking holes which knock seven bells out of your suspension !

[Andy Onchan]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I can see why you would have thought that, but on closer examination the capital spend looks like was more than that:

In addition to the above there is an expenditure on road-related capital improvement schemes each year that are available in the Pink Book. Of this, the following capital money has been spent on overlaying, surface dressing, and micro-asphalting the road which can be classified as maintenance as well, although they are being funded through capital investment. For those three years as well, the total for those is £14,148,600.

So that's only part of the capital budget that can be pinned down to specific uses.  You need to look at the Pink Book for the rest and then try to work out what they have included and that they haven't .  Which ain't easy.

(Incidentally the VAT isn't that easy to work out because a lot will be reclaimed by commercial organisations etc).

Of course why motorists should expect a 'return' on their taxes is another issue - we don't expect it with other types of taxation.  No one is demanding that all alcohol duties and so on should be put into services for the drinking community.  

I'm pretty sure the detailed data is there. Most probably the Cyril responsible for answering the question wouldn't have bothered to look beyond the headline numbers because detail is not important in their eyes.

[James Blonde]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Of course why motorists should expect a 'return' on their taxes is another issue - we don't expect it with other types of taxation.  No one is demanding that all alcohol duties and so on should be put into services for the drinking community.  

Government don't run pubs though... so that's just a bit of a non-sensical analogy. 

[Zarley]

9 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

17 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

Government don't run pubs though... so that's just a bit of a non-sensical analogy. 

Of course why motorists should expect a 'return' on their taxes is another issue - we don't expect it with other types of taxation.  No one is demanding that all alcohol duties and so on should be put into services for the drinking community.  

Is it really a nonsensical analogy?

The government runs the police, the courts, and the health and social services - who are the ones who get to mop up after the drinking community. 

 

Apologies for the screwed up formatting.

[Non-Believer]

11 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Of course why motorists should expect a 'return' on their taxes is another issue - we don't expect it with other types of taxation.  No one is demanding that all alcohol duties and so on should be put into services for the drinking community.  

I think it would be a bit unreasonable to expect "all" of the revenue raised to go back into roads, but to me it's the scale of the revenue that's being raised that's staggering. For the privilege of owning and running a motor vehicle(s) on the Island's roads, all 500 miles of them, and as Stu has posted it doesn't even include the VAT component.

Bearing in mind this is on top of direct taxation and other Govt fees and charges, is it any wonder that people are feeling the pinch and have shrinking disposable income to spend in the local economy? Or businesses less money to invest, when the Govt is sucking £130M out of vehicle users alone?

And can we please now dispose of this "fuel tax is to save the environment" bollocks. Nobody has reduced their fuel purchases because of extra duties because the fuel is essential to life. It's a revenue raiser pure and simple, doubtless to pay salaries and pensions to rising numbers of "Blue Carbon Officers", Stickleback Counters and other jobs for mates and empires amongst others.

Keep digging please Stu, this needs publicising more widely, it's time people knew.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, James Blonde said:

Government don't run pubs though... so that's just a bit of a non-sensical analogy. 

Not really - they don't run petrol stations or car dealerships either.

It's very odd this insistence (and it's by no means new) that some motorists have that 'their' taxes should be totally used for their related interests.  No other group of consumers demands that the tax revenue from their spending should be hypothecated to be spent on things that they want.  And as Zarley points out those things are usually defined rather narrowly while the revenue is taken very inclusively.