Jump to content

Local Authorities 'no choice'


0bserver

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

It's typically Douglas ratespayers who whine that the authorities should be merged or that we should pay an all island rate. But there really is no reason why the whole island should fund Douglas.

That’s the usual argument despite 60% of the IOM population working in Douglas most days. Even if you go for a crap once a day at work you’re still using our amenities which your employer and everyone else in Douglas pays for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

That’s the usual argument despite 60% of the IOM population working in Douglas most days. Even if you go for a crap once a day at work you’re still using our amenities which your employer and everyone else in Douglas pays for. 

Isn't sewerage MUA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

60% of the IOM population working in Douglas most days. Even if you go for a crap once a day at work you’re still using our amenities which your employer and everyone else in Douglas pays for. 

Those businesses pay rates. The people visiting Douglas every day are already supporting Douglas ratespayers via those businesses.

Also - the 60% of the population figure is clearly nonsense. 60% of the working population perhaps.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major Rushen said:

Why don’t they offer bonds to local residents?

All to do with AML , KYC & GDPR , basically the administrative costs of taking identification/address  documents etc , checking sources of funds, ensuring data updating etc for everyone who wants a £2k bond is prohibitive 

Edited by Banker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, forestboy said:

It’s time single occupancy had a 25% reduction like in UK. 

I thought this single occupancy was supposed to be going through?

Also could anyone explain why l pay two lots of rates one to Onchan the other l think is to Government/ Douglas? It makes my rate bill higher than a member of my family who has a family of 5 much larger house and actually pays much less than l do, and now they have the cheek to inform us today via Manx radio they intend to increase this quite considerably as l understand it! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I thought this single occupancy was supposed to be going through?

Also could anyone explain why l pay two lots of rates one to Onchan the other l think is to Government/ Douglas? It makes my rate bill higher than a member of my family who has a family of 5 much larger house and actually pays much less than l do, and now they have the cheek to inform us today via Manx radio they intend to increase this quite considerably as l understand it! 

 

One is normally domestic rates, the other water and utilities. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I thought this single occupancy was supposed to be going through?

Also could anyone explain why l pay two lots of rates one to Onchan the other l think is to Government/ Douglas? It makes my rate bill higher than a member of my family who has a family of 5 much larger house and actually pays much less than l do, and now they have the cheek to inform us today via Manx radio they intend to increase this quite considerably as l understand it! 

 

Like everyone else, that’s local authority rates (parks/bins/street cleaning etc ) to Onchan and water/sewerage rates that are collected centrally via Treasury

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 360 View said:

Like everyone else, that’s local authority rates (parks/bins/street cleaning etc ) to Onchan and water/sewerage rates that are collected centrally via Treasury

That's not correct as I only get a single bill, as far as I know only Douglas and Onchan get two.

Although that doesn't mean you're being charged more it's just that everyone else's are lumped together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I thought this single occupancy was supposed to be going through?

We've been promised Rates reform for years. They've supposedly been working on it.

For years. Ever since it was realised that valuations from the 1970s were probably no longer applicable.

Wasn't the Island aerial photographed a couple of years ago as part of the process? Perhaps one of our elected could explain how far we are down the line in respect of this reform process and how many more years our government intends to take over reviewing the situation and implementing change?

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

We've been promised Rates reform for years. They've supposedly been working on it.

For years. Ever since it was realised that valuations from the 1970s were probably no longer applicable.

Wasn't the Island aerial photographed a couple of years ago as part of the process? Perhaps one of our elected could explain how far we are down the line in respect of this reform process and how many more years our government intends to take over reviewing the situation and implementing change?

Money wasted on aerial photography because rates based on how many square metres your house occupies was never going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Money wasted on aerial photography because rates based on how many square metres your house occupies was never going to work.

 

1 minute ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Money wasted on aerial photography because rates based on how many square metres your house occupies was never going to work.

Rating and Valuation Act 1953-time for an update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Money wasted on aerial photography because rates based on how many square metres your house occupies was never going to work.

And there's me thinking that it was so they could hike the Rates of those serfs who didn't have swimming pools in their back gardens....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, genericUserName said:

Also - the 60% of the population figure is clearly nonsense. 60% of the working population perhaps.

I presumed it was for the working population, but it's pretty accurate.  According to the 2016 Census (the question wasn't asked in 2021) 59.7% of the working population (in total 41,636) worked in Douglas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...