The Isle of Man Pensioners Association have an interesting calculation on their web site.
As they show, it costs £527 a head for defence in the UK in 2007/08.
This is a cost to which the Isle of Man is meant to contribute. But it actually only pays £30.27 per head.
If it paid at the same rate as the UK (and there is no reason why not that I can think of) then the contribution should be £42.2 million. It actually pays £2.4 million. That's a subsidy of £39.8 million to add to that mentioned yesterday on VAT of £221 million.
Which comes to near enough £260 million in all.
Why are we wasting money in this way?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard
I sincerely hope that you actually meant £39.8 million and £260 million and not billion in each instance !
which just proves that you should not post when your mind is at least mildly fogged by feeling at least a bit under the weather
corrected now – thanks
Richard
I don’t know how the VAT share is calculated but it’s patently silly that the net VAT figure should exceed 17.5% of GDP! I think it may be that the problem lies in the fact that many “offshore” companies operate here and that their taxable turnover does not get included in the GDP figure for the Island whilst it is included in the VAT share computation. I really don’t see how the UK would have been happily subsidising the Island all these years without the fact being trumpeted around by people such as George Foulkes (and yourself, Richard)
Sorry you’re under the weather – must be that reading all those Guardian articles on tax avoidance just got too much for you!.
Clarke
No you’re wrong. This is historical legacy. This was signed in 1911 when the Isle of Man was suffering severe poverty. It is a residue of a past era. It is a mistake. It is one that has to be corrected.
Richard
Richard,
When it comes to defence contribution, I think you’ll find that dear old Jersey manages to be an even greater parasite on the UK resources than that of the IOM. It a subject which the government of Jersey never likes to discuss — why raise the subject when the chumps in the UK are happy to pay more taxes than they need ?
Then there is reciprocal health agreement which Jersey has always been the net benefactor by a long chalk.
– I could go on !!!!
John
Check recent history Richard – Jersey was wonderfully defended by HMG during WW2, whilst the Isle of Man was turned into one huge internment camp for people Whitehall didn’t want at large in the UK.
This constant sniping at the Isle of Man is tedious and petty – isn’t that axe ground to a keen edge now?
Stuart
The answer is in your own hands
Give up the abuse and I’ll happily stop talking about it
Until then – you’re in for a lot more. I am persistent.
Richard
I wonder what it would be for the Falklands, reckon it covers the cost of sending in the fleet there?
Richard,
With absolutely no shame, Jersey can safely take top prize for its UK defense contribution.
Have a look at page 30 of the States of Jersey 2007 Annual Accounts:-
http://www.gov.je/TreasuryResources/Expenditure/Accounts/2007Accounts.htm
Actual 2006 £1,059,915
Actual 2007 £42,840
I make that (based on a very generous population count of 85,000) a per capita of approximately
2006 £12.46 per head
2007 50p per head
Jersey claims protection under the British flag but laughs at the British taxpayers — shame on us !!!!
John
Jersey shouldn’t even be giving any money to the UK for defense. It has been called into question a number of times. Jersey should also not be paying the TV Licence fee which is another UK tax.
It is about time we became totally independant from the UK. They do nothing for us really.
Richard,
Re; JTM comments:
Since the beginning of time taxes have always been questioned by the taxpayers – this is right and proper.
However, if Jersey people do not want to be burdened with the cost of their defence (including diplomatic representation) and their TV licenses they should lobby their government to withdraw from these services. Services delivered at great personal cost by every hardworking UK taxpayer.
To take the benefits then claim they did want them in the first place is unfortunately a typical Jersey attitude.
Shame on Jersey !!!!!
How can the service of some tv and radio signals together with a non existent defence package be a loss for the UK working man? I don’t even watch the BBC and how much of the licence is a UK tax I wonder?
JTM – your missing the point.
You may not personally use the BBC and you may consider that UK defense (including international diplomatic representation) is non existent, but your government (which you put in power) has chosen to subscribed to these services.
Richard – great site. Keep up the good work. There are still some Jersey folk who are not self-centered.
So according to your figures the IOM is short around GBP497 per capita
The Falkland war cost around GBP700,000,000 and has a population of 3,140, so they are short GBP222,930 per Capita, just for that one incident, yet you continue to pick on the IOM ignoring far wosr offenders.
Creg
You may have noticed they do not spend their time trying to undermine the UK’s tax revenues
Keep to the point
Richard