IoMtoday, published by the Isle of man press carries the following story:
CUSTOMS and Excise bosses have rejected claims that the UK Government is 'subsidising' the Isle of Man.
Critics argue that the Isle of Man receives more back from the VAT sharing arrangement it has with the UK than it puts in — effectively providing a subsidy from the UK government.
The Tax Justice Network, which has spearheaded the campaign to close tax havens and reform offshore jurisdictions, claims this so-called 'subsidy' amounted to some £221 million last year.
But figures produced by Customs and Excise show this not to be the case — and that in fact the Isle of Man has made a net contribution in each of the last two years.
In 2007-08 the Island's share of VAT receipts was about £339m but the Island collected and so contributed some £420m to the pool.
I am, of course, the source of this criticism of the Isle of Man. Please follow the link to see exactly why I say the UK provides a heavy subsidy to the Isle of Man - something that is never denied when I am in discussion with officials in London by the way.
But now we have new data which suggests that in fact the IoM collects more VAT than it receives back from the Common Purse agreement (again, follow above link for explanation). We do at least agree on the figure of £339 million — but it is now claimed that this is an underestimate of VAT collections on the Isle of Man.
Let’s consider this for a minute. Do so remembering these facts (updated since I last wrote): that the Gross Domestic Product of the Isle of Man is now £1.8 billion according to the latest data I can find from the IoM government. Even the CIA do not seem to have more up to date data than that. That for the UK is £1,460 billion, in contrast (computed for March 2009, from data here).
In 2008/09 the Isle of Man expects to collect £339 million in VAT - 59% of its total government income of £574 million. This is 18.8% of IoM GDP.
In the UK the identical VAT system (for all practical purposes) collects £83 billion a year - or 5.6% of GDP.
That means the IoM, which has reason to have a much lower VAT collection rate because of the very large size of its exempt VAT outputs in the financial services sector collects 13.2% more of its GDP in VAT than the UK does using an identical (indeed, shared) system.
From that I impute that over £230 million of the VAT receipt in the Isle of Man is subsidy and not derived from real economic activity. The Isle of Man press quote a lower slightly earlier estimate. The ball park remains the same.
Note also that the population of the Isle of Man is 76,500. That of the UK is 61.1 million. That makes IoM GDP per head about £23,529. That in the UK is, by chance, £23,701. According to the CIA this is about right. They say Isle of Man GDP per head is $35,000 pa and that in the UK is $36,600. Remarkable consistency there then.
But, apparently each of those people in the Isle of Man pays net £5,490 of VAT according to the latest Isle of Man data that £420 million a year of VAT is collected. That requires them at 15% VAT rate to spend £36,600 a year each on VAT chargeable goods (priced net of VAT, or £42,090 in total). In contrast in the UK each person pays net £1,347 each — requiring spending of £8,982 a head each (£10,329 gross) on VAT chargeable items.
Now I have to say that the UK data appears entirely plausible; take food, taxes, rents and mortgages and so on out of account and I think that level of spend per head looks plausible. There is a sanity check inherent in this data.
And I have to say this: to suggest that each person in the Isle of Man spends 178% of their annual income on VAT chargeable items a year is just plain straightforwardly utterly implausible. I hate to say this: but at face value the IoM data is simply wrong. How can people spend 178% of their income on VAT chargeable goods in the IoM? They can’t: that is obvious
So what are the explanations. They appear to be:
1) The IoM data is wrong. It doesn’t appear to be far out on GDP: there’s a sanity check on that. So it must be the VAT data that is wrong. I find it incredible that the £420 million figure is right. I have a strong suspicion that is gross for a start i.e. before claims for repayment from traders for input tax.
2) I’m right: easily the most plausible explanation. It is well known that the Common Purse was meant to subsidise the IoM. Why is it still not doing so?
3) The IoM has attracted a massively artificial tax base and these activities are not in any event taking place in the island, the VAT supplies are simply being ‘booked’ from there in classic tax haven fashion. They are actually, in that case, made in the UK but the profits are artificially booked in the IoM. In that case it remains the case that the UK is still subsidising the IoM with VAT because this would mean the VAT was always due in the UK in the first place and would have been collected here if, for example, the IoM operated VAT as does any other distance seller.
4) If option 3 is right there is another factor to consider: not only is there a VAT subsidy there is a corporation tax loss too. Let’s assume, generously, that the VAT profile of the IoM is the same as the UK, when we know it should actually collect less because of the profile of the financial services sector. And let’s assume the £420 million figure is right for a minute. In that case the implied VAT to GDP ratio is 23.3%. It should be 5.6%. That implies an excess rate of 17.7%. In this case that means about £320 million of excess VAT is collected. This is net, I’ll assume, of trader claims for input so a good approximation to profit — which is not being earned by staff in the IoM as we have already allowed for their normal rate of return in the calculation and so must not do so again. That means at a 15% VAT rate some £2.1 billion of excess profit must be declared in the IoM to justify this level of VAT on turnover that is not actually located there in reality. Let’s reasonably assume that this should be subject to 28% tax in the UK where the supplies must be taking place for the charge to arise. This sum of £2.1 billion is probably not taxed at all in the IoM. That’s a tax loss to the UK of £588 million.
So now we can say that the new data revealed by the Isle of Man proves first of all that the VAT subsidy of over £230 million from the UK government to the Isle of Man is undoubtedly real — because the VAT claimed to arise there cannot possibly relate to economic activity really located in the island, and that the corporation tax loss arsing from the artificial relocation of that VAT turnover to the Isle of Man is costing the UK not less than £588 million a year.
In other words in the case of just two UK taxes VAT and corporation tax — abuse promoted by the government of the Isle of Man costs the people of the UK a combined minimum of about £820 million a year.
But then we must add on the cost from the Isle of Man refusing to exchange data as it should under the European Union Savings Tax Directive. Directly this refusal costs at least £27 billion a year. Extrapolated, quite reasonably, using the methodology in the link, and the loss to the UK from income tax abuse through Isle of Man based structures is likely to be not less than £700 million a year.
Add this together and the total loss to the UK from allowing the Isle of Man to operate as a tax haven — an activity we directly subsidise — is not less than £1.5 billion a year.
So much for the Isle of Man’s government claim that it pays its way. Anything further from the truth is very hard to imagine.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
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!
That last paragraph vs the headline.. £1.5 million or £1.5 billion?
Good posting Mr Murphy, I shall eagerly look to see if the IOM paper picks this counter view up!
I of course meant SECOND last paragraph…
The figures certainly seem to be dodgy. The IoM appears to be dodgy. But suppose that the IoM were subject to regular UK taxes. As a remote island with a damp chilly grey climate it would be poorer even than Cornwall, which sucks money out of the economy in unemployment benefit and then more from the EU in the form of Objective 1 funding. Assuming Cornish levels of poverty, what then would the IoM cost?
Captain, it’s corrected now, thanks
Henry – we already provide the IoM with half it’s government income. How much more would we need to provide?
And at least we would not be destabilising the world financial system by doing so
Seriously people all this Isle of Man bashing is getting beyond a joke. As you are well aware a business can register for VAT in the Isle of Man rather than in the UK. AND THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE AVOIDING UK CT!! As always the cynical view seems to be the one that is promoted.
😛 There was a popular song of old “Has anyone here seen Kelly, Kelly from the Isle of Man…” The word Vatman instead of Kelly does not quite fit. Darling does though. All together now………..
Tax Chimp
Go on then, explain how not – in detail
And why they’d do it too, in detail
Your chance to justify your claim is here and now….
Richard
If a certain A. Darling ran his own economy in a proper and business-like manner, he would have better things to do than chase the Crown Dependencies for “small change”. He and his political master have blown over £150,000,000,000 of taxpayers’ money.
IF your figures of £250m+ of subsidy for IoM is correct (which I doubt), it pales into insignificance when compared against the subsidies for just ONE of the UK banks operating under UK laws.
Talking of which… the freezing of Landsbanki’s UK assets triggered a run on Kaupthing leading to the collapse of KSF IoM. That will more than wipe out any so-called subsidy from UK for a few years to come.
Did I hear Alastair say, “Sorry”?
Tell me, Richard, why are you so loud about the Isle of man? Is it a personal thing or are you after A.D’s job next year?
Tax Chimp
We’re still waiting…..
Or was I right all along?
Richard
Graham
Good heavens you people are paranoid
I have nothing personal in this at all
I dislike all tax havens – the UK included
Richard
Richard
I’m a long term expatriate Manxman, so I know the Island and its ways of doing things very well. When I was a boy I remember my parents trying to hide tears from us children because they had had all their money taken from them by a ‘bank’. I have a very strong sense that you have this just about spot on but my grasp of economics and tax law is too slender to fully understand two things:
1. How can VAT be ‘booked’ on the Isle of Man if it isn’t to do with some VAT collectable economic activity on the Island?
2. The VAT to GDP ratio arguement has lost me pretty much altogether.
I know you are using the right figures because I have checked, and I don’t want to be a pain by asking for the infants’ version of your arguement, it is just that I’m fascinated enough to want to understand the claim that the IoM is subsidised through the Common Purse agreement fully.
On a final point, I vividly remember as a secondary school pupil being taught about the CPA and being punished for suggesting that it sounded like we (the Manx) would be in a lot of trouble without it! My then history teacher turned a frightening shade of red and caned me shouting ‘that’s Manx money boy, every penny, and don’t you forget it’! The punishment was written up as ‘gross insolence to the Nation’!!
Regards,
Phil Lister.
Phil
Many thanks for your comments
In essence my argument is simple. VAT is at 15% on sales. GDP is a basic estimate of the income of a place – which might approximate to the maximum value to which VAT can be applied. You can’t collect more than the tax rate of 15% multiplied by the maximum sales figure to which it can be applied – just not possible. But the Isle of Man does – by almost 50% more.
And anyway, significant parts of income are not subject to VAT – housing, financial services, government activity and so on – so the actual VAT rate must be way below GDP times the VAT rate as it is in the UK.
If the data for the Isle of Man is odd there can be three explanations. 1) GDP is wrong – but that looks unlikely. 2) The VAT system is different – which is partly true as the IoM has so many non chargeable financial services supplies, but that would make the error bigger, not smaller or 3) the tax recovery is distorted by either a) the common purse agreement hiding a subisidy or b) false billings recorded in the IoM or c) both of these.
Best
Richard
I can find no other reasons.
@Henry Law
“The Isle of MAn appears dodgy” – good grief! Richard’s ability to whip up a storm from nothing is amazing! If you have such a problem with the so called “subsidy”, why don’t you nag the UK government – that’s where the alleged “subsidy” is coming from.
[…] which could of course afford a 0% tax on corporate profits because of the £200 million (or more) subsidy it receives from the UK Exchequer each […]
This is a real David and Goliath situation and it would be interesting for a similar in depth survey to be carried out on business done in London, which for many years has been a major centre for money laundering and where some of the fattest companies have mananged to avoid paying any tax to anyone.
Re VAT, the Isle of Man has to have a qualified staffed infrastructure out of all proportion to it’s small population in order to collect VAT so the cost of collection must be considerable.
Most of the population of the Isle of Man seem to be decent hard working people and many on the breadline. If the Island did not retain it’s brave 1000 year independent status, the cost to the UK could be considerably more.
I have to agree with Robin’s final observation. The Isle of Man was, for many years, a tourist resort serving the north of England. With the advent of cheap (to hell with the carbon!) flights to Spain and elsewhere in the sixties, The Island suddenly found itself with almost zero income from that source.
If you remove the subsidy (imagined or otherwise) you would simply condemn The Isle of Man to being a suburb of Liverpool with residents relying on handouts from that nice man, Mr Brown.
In that event, 1.5B (or whatever other figure you choose to dream up)would pale into insignificance as the populace held out its hands for whatever taxpayer-funded money was available.
And, as Robin points out, 1.5B is a drop in the ocean compared the the money that British taxpayers have lost through the long-term shenanigans of the fat cats in London!
If, indeed, UK is subsidising IoM (still a most questionable theory), as I said in my post of 19th May “…the freezing of Landsbanki’s UK assets triggered a run on Kaupthing leading to the collapse of KSF IoM. That will more than wipe out any so-called subsidy from UK for a few years to come.”
Maybe the bankers in London would like to contribute???
[…] deal, the UK could give two years’ notice to terminate the agreement. As some may know, I have proven, time and again, that the UK provides a massive subsidy to the Isle of Man […]
It’s surprising actually that people dispute that the CPA is basically chicanery. As an expatriate of one of Richard’s other favourite islands, it was always a considerable source of vexation that the Isle of Man was able to get a rebate on VAT that effectively allowed it to undercut “the rest of us” [even in the islands, there’s sympathy for the notion of unfair tax competition]. As I understood it, the calculation behind the rebate is based on an assumption of population per acre. The product of that calculation is clearly going to produce an absurd result in the IOM given its extremely light population density. [I may be wrong about that – does anyone know?] Clearly, the more densely populated islands of Jersey and Guernsey could not compete on those terms, even if they were alowed into the CPA – they might even find themselves net contributors.
The economics of this is clear. Why does the IOM charge VAT? VAT at 17.5% on every bill a trust company issues is not helpful to it in pricing terms compared to the low rates of GST elsewhere (and previously zero rates of course). Surely the most logical explanation is that Richard is right on this – the island gets much more from the CPA then it costs it in terms of its economic competitiveness.
And if 0/10 is canned too, then the IOM will be broke, pure and simple.
Not that this will be much comfort to Jersey and Guernsey. For the second time in the same entry, I find myself agreeing with Richard – the 0/10 strategy in the islands must surely fail any close scrutiny. The whole point of the OECD rules was to eliminate tax practices that distinguished between resident and non-resident entities. A company that was controlled and managed in Jersey, for example, was taxable on its income only if it traded there or if it was beneficially owned by a Jersey resident. Under the 0/10 rules what happens? All companies – apart from Trust Companies/Banks etc – pay 0% tax. But if those companies are owned by Jersey residents, then there is a forced tax charge so that the net income of the company ends up getting taxed at 20% as a dividend – actual or deemed – in the hands of the Jersey resident.
The net effect, therefore, is pretty much exactly the same as it used to be – as far as the OECD is concerned at least.
This concern was always there that 0/10 doesn’t work, but Islanders were assured that pain that the system brought in terms of the necessary shift of the tax burden on to them was worth it becuase, apparently, OECD/Ecofin etc – even “Red Dawn” had signed off on it. Whether that was a complete fabrication – possible – or a political whitewash that is no longer palatable post the credit-crunch – more probable? – I don’t know.
What is clear is that the Islands have bet the house on 0/10 and if it doesn’t work, they are in enormous trouble. PWC may be sued – but they’re also being sued over the Madoff collapse, so Jersey better get it’s claims in quickly. You do have to ask yourself if 3 weeks was enough time for PWC to come to a robust conclusion over changes that would radically alter Jersey’s fiscal system in response to a movement with such obvious political overtones!
Mark, you make the observation, “All companies – apart from Trust Companies/Banks etc – pay 0% tax. But if those companies are owned by Jersey residents, then there is a forced tax charge so that the net income of the company ends up getting taxed at 20% as a dividend – actual or deemed – in the hands of the Jersey resident.”
The same is true for the Isle of Man although I would point out that
the tax charge is not made on the Company, it’s made on the shareholder as an individual because dividends are deemed to have been paid.
As we all know, a Limited Company has a very clear legal standing as an entity on its own. So if 0% tax applies to ALL companies, then all’s fair and even.
The argument, surely, is that the forced taxation of island residents on dividends that have not been paid is grossly unfair when the same charge is not made on non-island residents. Even Gordon Brown hasn’t managed to impose that on his surfs!
There’s an element of “swings and roundabouts” in all of this.
@andrea
Andrea
I agree – if this is subsidy, what exactly was/is in it for the UK?
Graham – it’s correct that it is the shareholders that get taxed, I didn’t suggest that the company got taxed – only that its “net income” ends up being taxed as a dividend (i.e. the tax is paid by the shareholders). 0/10 will only pass the EU test if all shareholders are treated the same – so everyone pays tax or no-one pays tax, wherever they are resident. The problem there is that it effectively means you either kill your OFC industry, or you have to scrap income tax. And if the CPA is scrapped or re-evaluated, where does that leave the Isle of Man?
Anyway you look at it, the CPA makes no sense at all – the maths is inescapable. You don’t spend 178% of your income on VATable goods and services, so why do you get such an enormous rebate – over half of your GDP. It makes no sense, and in the absence of any other logical alternative, it must be a subsidy (give me another explanation for it) – and HMG clearly no longer feels inclined to continue it. That is going to be an enormous challenge for you – even more than it is for Jersey and Guernsey, I think, but even they are in real difficulty with the EU now gunning for their 0/10 approach – this is undoubtedly a crisis for the islands, and they will have to innovate, adapt and reinvent themselves like never before.
Mark
Your assumption on how VAT in the IOM operates is wrong. Trust companies do not charge VAT on every bill as most services are charged to individuals or companies outside the EU. Even where VAT has to be charged to the client, we are still comptetive as service providers here are generally cheaper than the Channel Islands.
Secondly, the rebate is calculated on respective GDP’s. As ours has been rising favourably compared to the UK, we have benefited.
Mark, you say… “0/10 will only pass the EU test if all shareholders are treated the same”. But the EU cannot regulate taxation in another country (USA, for example). Even in UK, overseas investors can request that dividends be paid gross and then settle the tax in their own country.
So what’s the difference? All the Isle of Man is doing is making sure it’s own citizens pay tax (even though they may not have yet put the money in their pockets!!). Should we criticize them for that?
The alternative is to deduct tax from all shareholders, including citizens of other countries. I don’t imagine they would be too pleased with that idea, in the same way that UK investors in Australian gold mines would not be too impressed if the Oz government suddenly started taking tax off them.
Graham
I think you need to read this http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/10/16/the-crown-dependencies-an-analysis-of-what-has-happened/
The abuse in the CDs has nothing to do with the US and is nothing like anything the UK does
And it really is horribly abusive
If you believe in a level playing field as the CDs claim then their tax systems are pure hypocrisy
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Richard
Where are your ethics hiding? Compare Delaware company formation and tax compliance with, say, the system in Jersey. Which is abusive? Are you a spokesperson for machtpolitik? What happened to civil society?
Richard
So how about the Maltese corporate tax system, within the EU of course ? All Maltese companies pay a corporate tax of 35% on their assessable profits, but non-residents of Malta get handed back 30% of that tax, leaving a net 5% tax payable by non-Maltese residents, while the full 35% tax is suffered by local residents. How is that compliant with the EU Code of Conduct and that’s from a full member of the EU whose tax system, like that of Cyprus, Gibraltar, Ireland and Luxembourg, has already passed EU inspection.
Rupert
I think (and the Girrl can confirm – she seems remarkably well connected to the Code group) that the Maltese scheme has failed the EU Code
Revision is being required
Richard
[…] being lost as a result. I stress though: a subsidy remains: I have estimated that subsidy as £230 million a year. VAT was estimated to be £339 million of total income this year: income tax just £127 million and […]
I have read the coments with interest seems many of you do not fully how tax systems work for one everything taxed here and we do not have PAYE and there fore your tax one year behind those you pay your weelky or monthly you can assest for more at the end of year and if you come work you can not claim your tax back like PAYE and a portion of this goes to England. Everything here on the Isle is subject to VAT yes at present 15% however everthing as an import tax or added price tax built into the orininal price which means a larger ammount of VAT paid per item like a load in England 40p in the Isle of Man £1.15p (15p VAT) and car costs a £1000 more than England £150 to be added so VAT generated here far outways per head in England. The VAT agreement as it stands today was produced by the English Goverment not the Isle of Man along with extra taxes on all items based on a percentage return to Isle of Man economy the following year of the payment decided the English Goverment.
However the D Brown and A Darling leadership have caused such huge loses in the UK and now have demanded a 200m payment this next and 500m next year no doubt the Isle of Man will pay this with a cost jobs, huge increase of unemployment,firms closing and firms leaving the Island. I wonder how they are going to pay this without VAT generated income the only way I see that as a Soverein Dependence Island the UK Tax payer will end paying the bill. Reason is that D Brown is finishing all agreements starting with health and Vat etc and forces the Isle of Man to go totally Independent it will cost the UK Goverment a huge ammount of money in lose revenue. The Defence contribution from the Isle of Man 500,000 not what is stated and over 4,000 Manx men and women serving for Queen and Country. I watching closely to how much damage the Labour Goverment can do before you get Consertive Goverment in power and try sort the mess out.
Unilateral actions – VAT claw back, cancellation of reciprocal health agreement and now talk of passport controls on entering the UK – Roll on a Conservative Government – then the Isle of Man should have a different relationship with the UK.
Colin, I feel you are missing Richard’s main point that VAT receipts on The Island are the equivalent of every man, woman and child spending £42,090 a year on taxable goods. And even though I play ‘devil’s advocate’ at times, this is clearly a nonsense.
However, the point that you DO raise, which is well worth considering, is what should be the alternative? The common purse agreement was always intended to help sustain an economy in a region that has few natural resources. However, abuse of the system has been rife.
To give you an example, the film industry apparently raised over £150m in additional tax revenue directly (& unfairly) at a cost to the UK taxpayer. So an agreement that was biased in the Isle of Man’s favour was systematically (& blatantly) abused to support industries such as film. (Having closed that loophole, I wonder why there are no films being made here these days?).
On the other hand, as you correctly point out, The Island continues to pay large sums to the British Exchequer so that “our borders are guarded against invaders” (as if!!!).
The Common Purse Agreement is dead – full sstop! So how do we deal with a situation where its death will result in an annual loss of revenue to the Isle of Man Government of at least £50 million from April next year, rising to £100 million from April 2011.
Added to revenue reductions already projected, due to the UK economic performance and lower VAT rate, this means the Island faces an estimated total loss of £90 million in the 2010/11 financial year and £140 million in subsequent years.
With overall net revenue spending estimated at £572.1 million in the current financial year, the potential loss of £90 million next year had ‘serious implications’ to the whole way of life on ‘The Rock’.
Of course, one answer is to simply give up the limited ‘independence’ the IoM now has and become just another region of UK. Naturally, as a region with ‘special needs’ it would be able to hold out its hand to central government and collect all the state aid that’s offered, and then Darling’s £150 million would look like small change compared to the cost of regional subsidies… and that would take the smug look off Darling’s and Brown’s faces! (although they are unlikely to still be running UK into the mire by the time that happens).
I will say again what I have said before, the CPA was a “swings and roundabouts” system which, although abused by one side, was equally abused by the other. Now that Darling has taken his short-term gain, either The Island must become totally autonomous, cut all ties with the UK and form its own banking system or allow the financial industry and all associated services to die a slow, painful death. If Manx politicians choose the latter (or allow it to happen through inaction) then Plan B had better be a very good one otherwise Richard will be paying MORE tax to subsidise yet another region of UK with special status!
Graham, Very good points indeed,apart from Richards VAT receipts unless it includes the Private Sector VAT payments for goods, building maintenace so there all subject to VAT but they seem to this every here every couple years to reduce Company Tax for that year could be why there is a high figure as it all goes in the same pot.
In terms of the proliferation of exempt financial service organisations on the Isle of Man, including online gaming companies, have you remembered to factor in the reverse charge liabilities on the (now old) Schedule 5 (UK VAT Act) services that exempt businesses suffer? Output tax liabilities can be massive, with no little or no right to recover the corresponding input tax. Do you know how large some of these businesses are? The figures dwarf your analyses, which seems to unprofitably focus on the required spending per person on the Isle of Man. You’re looking in the place to justify yourself.
Don’t forget, where these IOM entities are UK VAT grouped, the UK Treasury benefits, as those sticking liabilities are paid into that into that purse. That’s why I am suspicious about the UK Govt not being upfront on the figures.
Otherwise, the VAT is collected in the IOM, in which case I dont think it is surprising that in comparison to the UK, the IOM collects proportionally more VAT per person. Yes – it is because the populations are so very different (one big, one small). This brings me to your analysis, which again, because the bases are so obviously different, the % comparison gives a ridiculous and deliberately misleading result.
We have all seen the leaf-cutter ant on TV, carrying “the equivalent of a grand piano” in its mandibles. But it isn’t actually a piano, it’s just a tiny piece of leaf. But the ant is strong in relation to its diminutive size. So is the IOM.
Sloblock… The Isle of Man is only as strong as its political leaders. The current collection does not give me any reason to be optimistic. Apart from the one-sided renegotiatoion of the CPA, they have already rolled over on a dozen different issues – fishing rights, reciprocal health, not to mention a myriad of assorted legislation coming from the EU (even though IoM is not in that particular club – all the drawbacks with zero benefits!!).
Time Tynwald got a bit of fire in its belly – or got fired!
[…] Of course it had to end: it was a wholly unjustified subsidy — as I always said. […]
[…] level of subsidy was between £182 million and £203 million. I, of course, predicted a figure of £230 million: but I was using 2008/09 data and I used GDP not GNI for the UK in doing […]