Asthehills Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Omobono said: Education is already cut to the bone and practically every school on the Island is struggling to come in on budget this year , if we cant afford to fund the future education and learning skills of the next working generation , then its a very poor show , and buying in mobile classrooms ,when some secondary schools are having to cope with record levels of students don't sit to well with governments dream of increasing the population to 100.000 ,and from recent reports neither can they find dentists or doctors surgeries to take them on , Is the 11.5 million extra pounds for DESC announced today not enough then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 13 minutes ago, wrighty said: I agree with the concept of the rich paying more tax, but this is the wrong way to do it. Effectively, anyone earning over £129000 is paying £2900 more in tax, whether they earn £129000, or several million. Reducing the threshold just increases the number of people this rule affects. Better would be to have a higher rate tax - say 25% earnings over £100k. This would generate similar amounts of money, but be graduated according to earnings, so those earning millions would pay more than those on £129000. once you understand the maths of the situation you will realise it has been deliberately done this way to only affect the people they want it to affect 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 14 minutes ago, wrighty said: I agree with the concept of the rich paying more tax, but this is the wrong way to do it. Effectively, anyone earning over £129000 is paying £2900 more in tax, whether they earn £129000, or several million. Reducing the threshold just increases the number of people this rule affects. Better would be to have a higher rate tax - say 25% earnings over £100k. This would generate similar amounts of money, but be graduated according to earnings, so those earning millions would pay more than those on £129000. The Island still retains its regressive tax model while propping up a Soviet style public administration. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 16 minutes ago, wrighty said: I agree with the concept of the rich paying more tax, but this is the wrong way to do it. Effectively, anyone earning over £129000 is paying £2900 more in tax, whether they earn £129000, or several million. Reducing the threshold just increases the number of people this rule affects. Better would be to have a higher rate tax - say 25% earnings over £100k. This would generate similar amounts of money, but be graduated according to earnings, so those earning millions would pay more than those on £129000. It’s one of those symbolic sacred cows, however, we’ve got to match GSY & JSY. Its been 20% for 45 years, before that it was 21.25% (4/3d per pound ) from the time that Manx Surtax ( at an extra 1/6d or 7.5% ) was abolished in the early 1960’s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 46 minutes ago, Two-lane said: I did not listen to the speech (mea culpa, my bad etc.). But what is the penalty for not making any savings? Anyone going to get fired? Also, over the years, I have never been impressed by managers who state that each department must make an e.g. 5% cost saving. All the departments are run differently - some good, and some bad. For someone to set the same parameter for all departments means that that person really has no idea how the organisation is operating. Of course any sensible manager is going to make sure his/her department is running inefficiently so that when the time comes to make a 5% saving.... [Years ago I worked at Marconi, part of GEC. At that time Arnold Weinstock was reputed to go through the accounts of every part of the organisation every month - so the rumour was. I doubt that Allinson knows what is going on anywhere in gov.] If Allinson thinks that he is going to see a parade of voluntarily self-inflicted bleeding stumps of any size from the IoMCS then he is more deluded than he was when at DfE. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 28 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: Thresholds for 10% and 20% tax are still low dragging low earners into paying tax. Not adjusting them is an effective tax rise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, Moghrey Mie said: Thresholds for 10% and 20% tax are still low dragging low earners into paying tax. Thresholds should be increased to take more low earners out of tax. Freezing them, given inflation, is effectively reducing them. Fairly disappointing non-progressive changes in my view. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 17 minutes ago, wrighty said: Thresholds should be increased to take more low earners out of tax. Freezing them, given inflation, is effectively reducing them. Fairly disappointing non-progressive changes in my view. In UK you also get an allowance on savings interest. Over here you start paying tax any interest that your savings earns. You can also put £20,000 per year in an ISA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 40 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Not adjusting them is an effective tax rise. Should have risen lower threshold & put higher earnings threshold up much higher to compensate 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 52 minutes ago, WTF said: once you understand the maths of the situation you will realise it has been deliberately done this way to only affect the people they want it to affect Good point. How many people will this affect? And how much extra will government earn? No mention of the bumper vat receipts yet from gov. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebushy Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, John Wright said: It’s one of those symbolic sacred cows, however, we’ve got to match GSY & JSY. Its been 20% for 45 years, before that it was 21.25% (4/3d per pound ) from the time that Manx Surtax ( at an extra 1/6d or 7.5% ) was abolished in the early 1960’s Except when it was 18%... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Asthehills said: Is the 11.5 million extra pounds for DESC announced today not enough then? how much of that is the pay settlement ? and overall pay increase , plus the money payed in student grants and the plans for the new school , soon spend that especially if there taking on swimming pools as well ! it will be good to see the breakdown when the bullshit has washed away and we real whats in the fine print 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Should have capped out the reduction in personal allowance to £100K across the board. How on earth you can justify a married couple earning up to £200K jointly before the allowances are scaled back affects such a tiny proposition of people. If anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 22 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Should have capped out the reduction in personal allowance to £100K across the board. How on earth you can justify a married couple earning up to £200K jointly before the allowances are scaled back affects such a tiny proposition of people. If anyone. Not if husband and wife are high flyers in the civil service , just look around and see who is married or living with who , there are plenty around , then add the pensions both will be picking up , should be paying a lot more tax ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 9 minutes ago, Omobono said: Not if husband and wife are high flyers in the civil service , just look around and see who is married or living with who , there are plenty around , then add the pensions both will be picking up , should be paying a lot more tax ! That’s sort of where I was going too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.