Will the SPCo destroy what tourism sector we have left?

[Hoops]

51 minutes ago, woolley said:

Subsidise the finance sector? The finance sector subsidises everything on the Island. Everything. We're a one trick pony.

We'd be a different island for sure if the finance sector hadn't been attracted in. For better or worse in the long run, I don't know.

[Non-Believer]

4 minutes ago, Hoops said:

We'd be a different island for sure if the finance sector hadn't been attracted in. For better or worse in the long run, I don't know.

A good few years ago now, I attended a seminar hosted by the then Chief Secretary, Will Greenhow's predecessor (Mary Williams?). The subject was the strategy for the Island which as stated was to turn it into an exclusive, high value, high cost, high pay jurisdiction with "trickle down" economics benefiting the whole of its society, this included attracting HNW residents.

Now I will leave it to everybody else to judge the long term effects and results of that strategy but I'd suggest that far too many unelected in Govt are still clinging to the belief that this strategy is still working and the plentiful financial benefits are still being reaped, largely for their own benefit.

As ever, turning this Govt culture around is a little like turning a bulk crude oil tanker; in the IoM's case, in heavy seas as well.

[asitis]

CSP's are still the single biggest Government tax take, and yet they are the single most over regulated, badgered and shackled by petty bureaucracy entities.

I fully support absolute transparency and regulation, and the survival of compliant CSP's, but the petty time consuming stuff which keeps no one in employment apart from some Government pencil neck hurts the sector.

The FSA is full of people who have no idea what it is they are trying to supervise or why, but chasing mice whilst the buffaloes are charging past seems to give them satisfaction.

I wonder if developers are regulated to this degree .... I suspect I know the answer !

[A fool and his money.....]

21 hours ago, Banker said:

What Iom taxpayers money is being used to subsidize finance sector? The finance sector is the only thing keeping the IOM going!!

 

i'd say 0% corporation tax on virtually all IOM companies is the mother of all subsidies.

[0bserver]

30 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

 

i'd say 0% corporation tax on virtually all IOM companies is the mother of all subsidies.

Not exactly a subsidy when it's presence generates money the island wouldn't otherwise have. 

 

[Hoops]

7 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Not exactly a subsidy when it's presence generates money the island wouldn't otherwise have. 

 

0% corporation tax generates money for the industry that they wouldn't have in other countries.

Private gain, public loss?

[Banker]

3 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

 

i'd say 0% corporation tax on virtually all IOM companies is the mother of all subsidies.

Banks pay tax at 10% ! The 0% tax is for all companies not just finance 

[Max Power]

28 minutes ago, Banker said:

Banks pay tax at 10% ! The 0% tax is for all companies not just finance 

Isn’t it 0% tax on profits up to £500k for every business and 10% thereafter, irrespective of what the business is?

Not many businesses on the island would be capable of that level of profitability.

[A fool and his money.....]

21 minutes ago, Banker said:

Banks pay tax at 10% ! The 0% tax is for all companies not just finance 

Yes indeed. But you would agree that 0% corporation tax is not representative of what it costs to provide public services, it's chosen to attract mainly financial type companies, CSP's that sort of thing to set up here.

The fact that it's the same for other companies as well is just an unintended consequence of the policy. 

Forgoing Christ knows how much corporation tax to facilitate this is a defacto subsidy, not only that it's a massive one. It may be a subsidy worth making - we may make more back from the employment it creates, that's another argument, but a subsidy it remains.

The only difference between that and reducing fares on the SP to attract tourist is that the latter would be a much smaller subsidy than the former.

[A fool and his money.....]

3 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Not exactly a subsidy when it's presence generates money the island wouldn't otherwise have. 

 

That's the reason for the subsidy I agree, it doesn't mean it's not a subsidy though.

If we were to lower fares on the SP for tourists, that would also be a subsidy. The reason for doing it would be that those tourists (many of whom would not have come otherwise) would spend (generate) money the island wouldn't otherwise have.

It's exactly the same, the only difference is you're presumably in favour of one and not the other.

[0bserver]

2 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

That's the reason for the subsidy I agree, it doesn't mean it's not a subsidy though.

If we were to lower fares on the SP for tourists, that would also be a subsidy. The reason for doing it would be that those tourists (many of whom would not have come otherwise) would spend (generate) money the island wouldn't otherwise have.

It's exactly the same, the only difference is you're presumably in favour of one and not the other.

They're completely different. 

Calling for a ferry subsidy is a literal injection of cash from the taxpayer. 

The finance sector just grows in economic conditions allowed by the government. 

[WTF]

14 minutes ago, Max Power said:

 

Not many businesses on the island would be capable of that level of profitability.

and if they were they wouldn't have accountants stupid enough to show it.

[A fool and his money.....]

13 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

They're completely different. 

Calling for a ferry subsidy is a literal injection of cash from the taxpayer. 

The finance sector just grows in economic conditions allowed by the government. 

There's none so blind as those that will not see!

The Government currently runs a ferry which costs money - to reduce certain passengers (tourists) fares means those costs may not be met, so the shortfall would need to be made up with an injection of cash from the taxpayer, you're completely correct.

The Government currently runs an island and provides a range of public services which cost money - to reduce certain taxpayer's (companies) tax bill means those costs may not be met, so the shortfall would need to be made up with an injection of cash from the taxpayer.

They are exactly the same. In both cases the reason for the subsidy would be as you say, to generate money for the island which wouldn't otherwise be here and in the case of tourism also facilities etc. It's arguable as to how effective each subsidy would be at achieving this.

[0bserver]

5 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

There's none so blind as those that will not see!

The Government currently runs a ferry which costs money - to reduce certain passengers (tourists) fares means those costs may not be met, so the shortfall would need to be made up with an injection of cash from the taxpayer, you're completely correct.

The Government currently runs an island and provides a range of public services which cost money - to reduce certain taxpayer's (companies) tax bill means those costs may not be met, so the shortfall would need to be made up with an injection of cash from the taxpayer.

They are exactly the same. In both cases the reason for the subsidy would be as you say, to generate money for the island which wouldn't otherwise be here and in the case of tourism also facilities etc. It's arguable as to how effective each subsidy would be at achieving this.

You should stand for Keys with that kind of understanding. 

[A fool and his money.....]

1 minute ago, 0bserver said:

You should stand for Keys with that kind of understanding. 

Basic economics fella, you're letting your own opinion distort the facts, not for the first time.