Where do you see the Isle of Man in 10 years

[0bserver]

1 hour ago, genericUserName said:

Why not introduce a small amount of corporation tax? Starting at say 5% - but with some kind of scaled reduction based on how many people are employed locally.

So a company with many employees locally might still pay zero.

Because there's no need to. Our USP a low tax jurisdiction isn't quite so unique these days.  Doing that would just push companies away to other low tax places, taking the local jobs with them. We also have a skills and labour shortage - it would be understandable if we had a massively high level of skilled people looking for jobs, but we don't (granted that could easily change with Manx Telecom, Manx Gas and H&B reportedly letting people go). 

We need to cut the bloat and run government on a lean budget. Stop running wild life parks, outdated museums and non-transport trains and trams.

Government should be being run to serve the needs of the Isle of Man and it's residents. At the moment the island is being run to serve the needs of the ever expanding government. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by 0bserver

[genericUserName]

48 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

Doing that would just push companies away to other low tax places, taking the local jobs with them.

The island needs to raise much more tax revenue in order to vastly improve infrastructure, healthcare, education etc.

Companies should contribute more towards that - perhaps according to some kind of calculation based on a ratio of how much profit they earn here vs to the number of people they employ. The more people a company employs here, the less it would pay as a %age.

If companies are really so tight that they cannot afford to pay a small %age of tax then they should probably not be encouraged anyhow. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by genericUserName

[0bserver]

58 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

The island needs to raise much more tax revenue in order to vastly improve infrastructure, healthcare, education etc.

Companies should contribute more towards that - perhaps according to some kind of calculation based on a ratio of how much profit they earn here vs to the number of people they employ. The more people a company employs here, the less it would pay as a %age.

If companies are really so tight that they cannot afford to pay a small %age of tax then they should probably not be encouraged anyhow. 

It doesn't need to raise more tax. It needs to spend the income It already has more wisely and make some big cuts to the non-essentials. If it's not health, education, essential infrastructure or security then it needs to go. 

[Non-Believer]

It may not be a question of what it needs to spend (going forward). It's more like what it's already spent, in terms of accrued debt and liabilities.

[ian rush]

All the old people now be dead, no one working to pay the state bills. House price collapse.

[0bserver]

25 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It may not be a question of what it needs to spend (going forward). It's more like what it's already spent, in terms of accrued debt and liabilities.

Even if that's the case and tax rises are needed to fund legacy debt (remember when Allan Bell said the island wasn't legally allowed to accrue debt? Oh, how we laughed!) It's still essential to wean government off the toxic habit of profligate spending. We simply cannot carry on like this. 

[HiVibes]

18 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

You’re a smart guy Ian, but even so I think it’s necessary to point out that after the old people die, other people also become old and will die. It’s been happening for a while now.

So you saying we need a cull?

[genericUserName]

8 hours ago, 0bserver said:

It doesn't need to raise more tax. It needs to spend the income It already has more wisely and make some big cuts to the non-essentials. If it's not health, education, essential infrastructure or security then it needs to go. 

I would prefer to see government raising significantly more whilst avoiding punative levels of taxation. And the money raised should be spent not only on health and education but also on considerably improving infractructure and services. Not only sustainable power generation at an affordable price but also better facilities, public transport, etc. Cost savings will not fund that.

Anyhow Government will need to raise significantly more tax if it wants to grow the economy and bring the population up to a sustainable level. That does not mean taxing the public more (people here are already taxed at roughly UK levels). It means taxing companies just a little. Companies should want to pay anyhow - if they want to be based in an environment which attracts people.

Let's not forget that companies which employ very few people and which also pay no tax are of very little benefit to the economy.

edit: and to be clear - I have already noted that the more people a company employs locally the less it should pay relative to profits.

Edited February 10, 2023 by genericUserName

[english zloty]

1 hour ago, HiVibes said:

So you saying we need a cull?

Makes sense. Solve the health crisis, housing crisis and make everyone left economically active at the same time. Could use the incinerator to reduce gate fees. The savings can be used to build the largest internet skate park roller disco pub in Europe which will attract 1m young visitors a day to the Island to ride the horse tram.

This policy should be in the Island Plan forthwith. 

[Banker]

2 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

I would prefer to see government raising significantly more whilst avoiding punative levels of taxation. And the money raised should be spent not only on health and education but also on considerably improving infractructure and services. Not only sustainable power generation at an affordable price but also better facilities, public transport, etc. Cost savings will not fund that.

Anyhow Government will need to raise significantly more tax if it wants to grow the economy and bring the population up to a sustainable level. That does not mean taxing the public more (people here are already taxed at roughly UK levels). It means taxing companies just a little. Companies should want to pay anyhow - if they want to be based in an environment which attracts people.

Let's not forget that companies which employ very few people and which also pay no tax are of very little benefit to the economy.

We definitely need to increase the tax take but by the wealthy paying more, so higher NI  , get rid of tax caps, higher rate say 25% for over £100k , one off charges for retirees moving here etc

[genericUserName]

Just now, Banker said:

We definitely need to increase the tax take but by the wealthy paying more, so higher NI  , get rid of tax caps, higher rate say 25% for over £100k , one off charges for retirees moving here etc

That would raise relatively little vs corporation taxes levied at a low %age.

[Banker]

3 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

That would raise relatively little vs corporation taxes levied at a low %age.

It would have to be calculated but increasing corporate tax does risk losing some of our biggest employers eg egaming who can move their operations anywhere 

[NoTail]

1 hour ago, HiVibes said:

So you saying we need a cull?

Worth considering. Presumably preference should be targeted to retired civil servants, that would be a double saving. 

[HiVibes]

8 minutes ago, english zloty said:

Makes sense. Solve the health crisis, housing crisis and make everyone left economically active at the same time. Could use the incinerator to reduce gate fees. The savings can be used to build the largest internet skate park roller disco pub in Europe which will attract 1m young visitors a day to the Island to ride the horse tram.

This policy should be in the Island Plan forthwith. 

Add a bull run through the streets of Peel as part of the method and you have a TT replacement to boost Tourism right there.

[CallMeCurious]

12 hours ago, 0bserver said:

I would understand if taxes went up slightly to support and improve the health service, but there's so much bloat that needs to be cut first. 

That's their catch all excuse though isn't it. Every year the budget gets overspent and then they come cap in hand. And no-one is ever going to vote against healthcare spending.

If they want a bridge over the glen so bad why don't they do as Ramsey Pier did and get off their lycra clad arses and do something themselves. Get the cycle shops etc. to invest/sponsor and have volunteers etc. They can pay for the upkeep too.

Then if they want they can charge a toll or you can use the current route for free.

Maybe it's time government started focusing on the core services and the 'nice to haves' become 50/50 public/private. That way it would get at least some real world commercial viability. After all it seems to work for Beach Buddies et al.