work permits?

[mad_manx]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

To be fair. Rental usually includes rates pretty much everywhere. Not always. But usually. In my experience anyway. 

Never in the UK and I've helped many family members rent over there . 

Except in a houseshare the tenant has to pay the council tax.. 

The more deprived the location ( I.e cheaper rents )  the higher it is as there are less people paying it..

Most tenants here in the IOM don't have to pay the rates as the landlord usually pays it.

This also covers water and sewerage  as well.

 I helped a family member rent a flat in the North of England and while the headline rent was lower than over here by around £200 , the council tax / water / sewerage etc ended up well over 100 odd pounds per month. Was close to £150 if I'm not wrong

Edited March 18, 2023 by mad_manx

[Moghrey Mie]

4 hours ago, Ativa said:

So build more houses.

The purchase and rental markets are driven by supply and demand, but people moan when they try and do that as well.  People even moan when they try and do it on brownfield sites.  See the Westmorland Village thread.

I wish they would stop saying the government is 'looking at' things. We want to know what they are doing.

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/housing-top-of-the-list-for-government-says-minister/

 

[Ativa]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

@Ativa

What part of "concerned about the indigenous population being subsumed by foreigners" is it that you don't understand...?

Why is that an issue?

What are  the downsides of that being the case in 2023?

Edited March 18, 2023 by Ativa

[genericUserName]

More people, many more people, is the only long term viable way of growing the economy. The currently plan is far too conservative. 

Also - currently the population is significantly too small to justify the crazy costs involved with running a semi-independent government. Running all of those essential services for a tiny number of people costs far more, per head, than it would to run the same essential services for a more sustainable (i.e. much larger) population size.

Edited March 18, 2023 by genericUserName

[genericUserName]

Basically - significantly increase the population or else join the UK.

[finlo]

4 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

Basically - significantly increase the population or else join the UK.

Better still significantly reduce the size of government!

[genericUserName]

Just now, finlo said:

Better still significantly reduce the size of government!

That's the simplistic populist answer. But the reality is that we need all of the same services as people anywhere else in the British Isles. And supplying them to a tiny population is obviously hugely expensive per head rather than providing them for a much larger population.

Small government is a very expensive boutique choice.

[SuperHans]

Just now, genericUserName said:

Small government is a very expensive boutique choice.

No it isn’t really. 

[genericUserName]

Just now, SuperHans said:

No it isn’t really. 

Of course it is. The more people who use a service, the less it costs per head. In most cases.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In a democracy, you'd expect the public to be deciding on the future of the economy and on aspects of it  such as work permits, but it really does seem like that it is private business that has the ear of government. 

Making sure that people have jobs and that the economy is strong does obviously require an understanding of what will get businesses here and have businesses stay but how are island residents making the decisions here?

A multinational company is some sort of partner of government on a plan for the future of the economy. The public didn't decide on this partnership.  The public didn't even have a consultation to put forward concerns that would go into a first draft.

There was a government conference AFTER a plan has been drawn up and on a weekday when the participants would most likely be representing private business. And the agenda is presented and written in language more suited to white collar workers.

And then there is a very detailed and verbose consultation on something that could have very significant effects on society.  There are no separate consultations for the public and then one for private business to demonstrate the primacy of public views and treating private interests as separate.

For something as profound as work permits, you'd think, in a functioning democracy, there would be referenda or even public meetings to have these things explained in full and presented in an understandable way.  I can't imagine most people would be able to understand the consultation, nevermind the matter of being aware of it and how important it could be 

 

 

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, Ativa said:

Why is that an issue?

What are  the downsides of that being the case in 2023?

I don't want the indigenous population to become an underclass servicing the requirements of the better off imports.

For example housing is an issue that can only grow.

[CallMeCurious]

3 hours ago, genericUserName said:

That's the simplistic populist answer. But the reality is that we need all of the same services as people anywhere else in the British Isles. And supplying them to a tiny population is obviously hugely expensive per head rather than providing them for a much larger population.

Small government is a very expensive boutique choice.

So simple and popular is wrong? Given the amount of time government seems to spend trying to clean up its own mess time and again instead of doing what it is paid for maybe a reduction in staff might focus them on their delivering their own work and less time bickering and back stabbing.

Quality not quantity is what we need but not what we get. Small government means not having to pay for granite (from China) when tarmac (which we quarry on island) would do, not paying for toothless OFT and CURA while we get screwed over on energy prices and have money stolen (or misbilled) from bank accounts, collecting Beaman reports like they are a street in Monopoly and even then failing to deliver on them. Or buying a boat that is broken before it is delivered and somehow neglecting to account for scour from the bow thrusters on a multimillion pound terminal.

Given most government services are online, most information is available online, most payments etc. too where are the benefits of automation? Or is it a case of making more work, more rules and red tape to justify the head count? It seems a lot of time goes into blamestorming via the state broadcaster while conveniently bankrolling it to ensure it doesn't bite the hand that feeds it.  

We have a bloated very expensive government and no choice at the moment.

 

 

[CallMeCurious]

4 hours ago, genericUserName said:

Of course it is. The more people who use a service, the less it costs per head. In most cases.

Except airlines and ferries where it is exactly the opposite.

[SuperHans]

9 hours ago, P.K. said:

I don't want the indigenous population to become an underclass servicing the requirements of the better off imports.

For example housing is an issue that can only grow.

Agreed there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of work permits. Jersey and Guernsey have even more rigorous residency requirements and still manage to get workers. 

[Mikimoto]

13 hours ago, genericUserName said:

Basically - significantly increase the population or else join the UK.

...would prefer Ireland!