Manx Radio has just announced:
The Chief Minister has warned a revision of the VAT sharing agreement will have a significant impact on the Isle of Man, but stresses we are equipped to deal with it.
Tony Brown says while the subject is still under discussion it’s not possible to establish what the full repercussions for the Island will be.
Tynwald members attended a briefing earlier today (Wednesday) amidst concern the Island could be forced to revise the Customs revenue sharing deal it has with the United Kingdom, which currently provides more than half of the Manx government’s income.
I draw attention to my comments on the reliability of announcements by Chief Ministers and then add three additional comments. First, there seems to be no denial that the UK can do this. Second, there seems to be no denial that there might be some mistake — that the Isle of Man is rightfully owed this sum and therefore challenge will be made. Third, all the evidence that is needed that the Isle of Man have always known they were subsidised — whilst vehemently saying I was wrong on this matter - is clearly now available.
So I go back and draw attention to what Chief Minsters do. How can there have been such persistent denials of there being a subsidy if it is now clearly true that there is one without someone, somewhere not telling the truth?
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:
Vicar
It can
So long as it is done openly, and no opportunity to evade tax behind a veil of secrecy is provided
I have no objection to financial services in the IoM
I only object to the abuse it has facilitated
When it automatically shares information to a wide range of countries I will be happy
Richard
Richard, Interesting to see your “don’t care” shrug shoulders approach to Stephen’s, IMO, very valid questions and points. Got you on the back foot?
Richard
So, you cannot answer my questions then?
You created this blog and posted comments about a proud nation that were bound to be met with distaste and suspicion.
I have read every single post that you have made upon every single topic.
The vast majority of your comments concerning the Isle of Man have been met with genuine questions concerning the legitimacy of your claims.
In almost all circumstances, you have avoided answering the questions that raise suspicion as to your sources of proof.
The UK government cannot provide proof that IOM has been subsidised massively and NIETHER CAN YOU!!
If you can not handle the questions, then why have a public blog.
By all means, have your opinions and I will respect them.
Post them on an open forum, where you verbally insult anyone who questions your credibility, then please do not expect it to go uncontested.
I have no doubt as to your obvious knowledge and intellect regarding these subjects. But please do not dismiss all who ask you to sustantuate your claims.
You post your statements to pass your opinion to the “public. A public who are not always up to speed with the topic. If you “know” so much, then share some of this proof with the world and help them to understand.
Convincing people you are right will earn you trust and support.
TELLING people you are right will simply earn you suspicion and mistrust.
I would like to thank you, however, for an exellent blog page and some superb information and knowledge you have provided myself and others.
Stephen
1) I run this blog in my own time
2) I was the only person who suggested the UK was subsidising the IoM
3) It has proven to be true that this is the case – or how could the Uk withdraw the subsidy?
4) I have published all I know – there is nothing more to add
5) If you disagree with my analysis – that’s fine – but then prove to the IoM government how they can now counter claim – I am sure they will pay you handsomely. Publish why you disagree while you’re about it – since you are so sure you are right. Why not back your conviction with intellect? I have – and get shot by people like you for doing so – even though you offer only assertion in exchange for my reasoned analysis which no one has ever proven wrong
6) Sometimes I have other things in life to deal with other than this blog – now is one
7) If you don’t like me saying I have no more time when i have answered all your reasonable questions – bad luck
8) see if your politicians are more forthcoming than me
9) Respectfully – I think I have answered your points
I am not telling anyone I am right – respectfully, time and again that has been proven to be true
Richard
Richard.
Thankyou for your response.
1) Noted
2) The “ONLY” person? You truly are an “eagle” flying amongst pigeons.
I commend your modesty.
3) Proof is a strong word. (The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.)
Where is this evidence Richard? You made a roughly calculated assumption!
4) You have published all that “anyone knows”. Publishing the facts is commendable. Publishing your opinions is contestable.
5) Were you paid hansomely for your findings? I am not sure that I am right. I would never assume that. I simply asked you to share the details of your “proof” to convince me either way.
I would happily accept your proof. Not opinion.
6) Appreciated
7) If you do not like bieng contested by, it seems, just about everybody, bad luck.
8) I have little faith in politicians, no matter how forthcoming.
9) Points cannot be answered. Only made. Im sure intellect would tell you this.
Once again you are making a reference to proof, without the means to supply and? You rant about an island that supposedly witholds information, without the ability to supply any yourself.
As I said. I am not saying you are wrong. But without proof, many will be reluctant to accept! Thats why you get shot by people like me Richard.
OK, so I assert with logic provided
Do you?
For someone as pedantic as you nothing is provable
No one can prove the sun will come up tomorrow but I bet you assume it will
The predictive quality of evidence can be very powerful – as my work showed
And candidly whether you agree with me or not makes no odds – don’t you appreciate that the result has been acvhieved and you’re squabbling after the event?
Richard
Stephen,
We seem to be wasting our breath. Richard does not seem to be able to appreciate that another point of view to his might just have some merit.
I doubt whether he cares about the adverse ripple effect this move has had and will have in the months to come on we 80,000+ Manx folk (well, I was born English, but 30+ years here makes me Manx – almost!), if, indeed, he is solely responsible.
Tough times ahead when the Government in one stroke loses one fifth of its income, but we will survive and be even stronger and, dare I say, more independent of that other Island. Well, we will need to be if passport controls are introduced to enter the UK.
Richard – By the way, just looking at my passport (travelling to UK tomorrow – will they let me in?), says European Union, British Islands, Isle of Man. No mention of the word United Kingdom anywhere. As Richard will know, British Islands is a geographical description, not nationhood. If anything it’s an EU passport!!
Stephen, “contested by, it seems, just about everybody”? It’s not necessary for us to continually say we agree – but we do. And there are lots of us – tell us the stats, Richard.
Oh, and Stephen, what have you published for us to discuss?
Carol
Thanks
The likes of Stephen never say anything
Safer not to
Over 80,000 reads here in the last month
Richard
Richard.
Thank you.
You are right. Your work did highlight the fact that some of the VAT revenue that the IOM has been recieving has been unwarranted.
I believe the reasons for you making others aware of this were justified.
That cannot be taken away from you at all.
You are obviously very good at what you do and highly knowledgable on the subjects you report.
My personal issues, were merely the manner in which you treated others who questioned your work. Even when you must be aware that not all of your readers understand the topics entirely. (myself included)
The fact that they are reading your blog’s and becoming educated on your work should be something you are proud of.
Some of the comments you leave for people are insulting and belittling, rather than diplomatic and informative. (Pedantic?)
If you read back through your posts, you will see that in some instances, you appear to be making direct attacks on the people of the IOM, who are innocent and will now pay the price.
You cannot blame a nation for the actions of the government.
Just a shame the UK will not disclose the facts and figures for the residents of the IOM to see who is responsible for this mess and hold them accountable
Carol.
I have a vast amount of published information that you would be welcome to read, should the intergration of weapons systems, hydrogen fuelled air breathing jet engines and rocket motor retraction units be of any interest to you?
I have never took anything away from Richard regarding his posts.
I simply asked that he share the figures he has obtained and to name the source of these figures.
Richard replied that his calculations were guestimated, based on the population of the island.
I do not see this as conclusive proof, which is fine so long as there is no claim to be unequivocally correct.
Richard has the oppertunity to provide people with knowledge that they have no access to. Rather than take this oppertunity to gain support from Manx residents, he instead insults them when questioned.
I have not said he is wrong either.
But, as a Manx resident I would like to know exactly what the government I am helping to finance with my taxes are unlawfully extracting from the UK.
Too much to ask?
Stephen
I would not say I have been rude
I would say I have answered abuse fairly and moderately, shown frustration with impertinence and pedantry and don’t suffer fools
But rude or insulting no
I’m a pussy cat compared to what is written about me
Richard
Richard
I quote from http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/
“Richard is a serial entrepreneur, having directed more than 10 SMEs in sectors as diverse as IT, the toy industry and environmental auditing in both the UK and overseas.
In parallel with his practice career Richard has been chairman, chief executive or finance director of more than ten SMEs.”
An impressive In parallel with his practice career Richard has been chairman, chief executive or finance director of more than ten SMEs.
An impressive C.V.
Did you resort to using every tax and financial loophole to achieve your current position. I hope your practises can withstand investigation.
Richard,
On what basis does the Isle of Man government make the claim in their latest set of accounts that Isle of Man customs and excise collected £452m?
I realise that I’m sitting in the infants with special needs section of the taxation primary school, but is this the VAT that you reference? And have they collected it or haven’t they? I don’t see how they can have personally as it would seem to suggest such an enormous spend by 80 000 residents with a few thousand visitors a year.
I’ve long had a suspicion that the IoM government takes a big hand out from the poor old UK tax payer, and then uses it to further undermine said tax payer by making it possible for massive levels of tax evasion and avoidance- I just can’t understand how this VAT agreement works.
Thanks for any clarification you can give me.
Phil.
Phil
That’s the sum paid to it by the Common Purse
It does not, and clearly cannot, collect that sum
Hence the revision
Please read what I have already written (search common purse agreement on this blog) – have no time to do more
Sorry
Richard
Tosh
I walk the talk
Richard
Richard
Did I mis-hear or did you imply on The Politics Show today that the IOM is a non-transparent location involved in criminality?
CEF
CEF
I said the Isle of Man is opaque. It is opaque.
I said that its opacity has been used for criminal purpose – tax evasion is illegal and can carry criminal penalty
It is used for tax evasion
Now what is the problem with what I said?
Richard
@Richard Murphy
No matter what, it is Manx residents who are going to suffer, and as one of many residents whose families has been on the island for centuries and have no involvement with the finance sector, I’m sure you can understand we dislike being associated with this behaviour.
You also seem to have ignored the benefits the UK government enjoyed when the deal was made in 2007. between this and the reversal of the shared NHS agreement, this will cripple the Island, including the inhabitants who were not politically involved in any way.
Can you expand on how you view the Isle of Man as being opaque, rather than just generalisations, and can you name any specific examples of tax evasion? To me your arguments on the Politics Show seem incredibly vague, describing the Isle of Man as promoting criminal behaviour as extremely unfair, and severely biased. Perhaps using the term ‘Manx Government’ would be more appropriate? There’s a large distinction.
@Richard Murphy
Richard
Almost every country would qualify for this tag look at your new league table). You just have your own obsessional ‘kick list’.
The Girrl
Euan
Accepted – I used ‘Isle of Man’ as shorthand for Manx government
But it is elected by the people of Man
Re opacity – see http://www.secrecyjurisdictions.com/PDF/IsleOfMan.pdf
Re tax evasion – 42,000 people paid tax under the last UK tax ‘amnesty’ targeted at the IoM, Jersey and Guernsey – focusiing on just 5 banks
Now there is another programme in progress
That’s because systematic abuse takes place – and the IoM’s refusal to take part in automatic information exchange under the European Union Savings Tax Directive to date has deliberately facilitated that
Richard
Automatic information exchange is next on the Isle of Man Government agenda, as you presumably know, as talked about recently by Alan Bell.
@Richard Murphy
Members of the House of Keys are elected by residents, Tynwald passes legislation. I don’t think residents are concerned with financial supervision when hearing politician’s aims for health care, education and other outgoings, which is what residents are most concerned about.
Mann was made part of the British crown during the 1765 act of Revestment without a say from residents. Subsequently the Isle of Man is often mistaken for being part of the UK, similarly with Jersey and Guernsey for different historical reasons. Despite being the oldest continuous parliament in the world, because of the crown’s involvement, I wouldn’t say Tynwald is entirely representative of the Manx population.
For this reason, I’m not sure why you would group Mann, Jersey and Guernsey… this seems to be a common insesitivity made by misinformed people such as Lord Wallace, who also made some interesting statements about the Isle of Man whilst grouping it with Jersey and Geurnsey, statements which would be quite comical in their inacurracies and misunderstandings if the context wasn’t so serious. Out of interest, of the 42,000 people you’ve mentioned, do you happen to know what proportion are associated with purely Manx offshore finance or trade? Which five banks? – Do they also happen to be trading in the UK?
I’m not sure where you gain your information from, but using a paper referencing Wikipedia is a little odd.
The Manx Government seems to have been effective in satisfying information requests, with several deals including the recent tax agreement with France earlier this year. Not being a member state of the E.U., would it not be strange for the Isle of Man to join the Directive? Instead, information is shared directly with indvidual countries – the OECD recognises this and put the Isle of Man on the tax “whitelist” earlier this year following the G20 summit. – Again can you think of any particular denials of information from the Manx Government?
@Euan Craine
Sorry, in regard to the above it might seem when I use the word “you” I mean you personally, Richard, I actually use the term generally.
I know it wasn’t you who grouped the nations of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey together but it infuriates me when this is done. The only thing that connects us is the British Crown. from my perspective it seems Britain created a monster in the Manx Government, and it is residents who always seem to bare the brunt of these financial impacts.
Euan
There’s nothing wrong with Wikipedia as a general background source – which is all it was used for
Every bit of data is referenced. See http://www.secrecyjurisdictions.com/
As for IoM information exchange and TIEAs – sorry – read this blog for what I think (indeed, know) of TIEAs – which are utterly useless
As for your other questions – sorry – please search the blog – I do not have time to do so for each enquirer
Richard
Hi Richard
I’m a newcomer to your blog, having tracked it down following your appearance on the Politics Show. I’m manx, born & bred, a chartered accountant, with a small local practice.
Excuse me if I re-iterate what has been said.
It seems the Island collects £420m VAT. This is handed over intact to the UK, which then repays £339m to the Island. On the face of it, an impartial observer might take that to mean the Island subsidises the UK to the tune of £81m. That is not of course the case. Economists on both sides have arrived at a complex formula based on the advantages of the common purse arrangement to each jurisdiction.
Your argument appears to be, that since the Island collects more VAT per capita than the UK, you (the UK taxpayer)must be subsidising us (the manx taxpayer)to the the tune of that “excess” VAT. If I follow your figures correctly, you reckon that, if we were part of the UK, we’d collect VAT of some £100m, not £420m.
Actually, we do not “export” our goods and services solely to the UK. We also have a market in the EU. Also, for better or for worse, we are a financial centre. It might be that VAT collected by financial centres in the UK – eg, the City – is far higher per capita than that collected in the remainder of the country.
These are, I assume, the considerations that those bright economists in Westminster take into account in agreeing the common purse arrangements.
Regards
Fred
Fred
No doubt they might have bought your argument at some time
But then they probably noted you mainly supply financial services – VAT exempt
And they also probably noted my data on the implausibility of the VAT you supposedly collect coming from people located in the IoM – see the information on the required levels of consumption compared to income that would be needed if this were to be true – and you’ll see why they realised they had got the sums wrong, my logic was right and you were being subsidised
And I note the IoM has no basis for refuting the logic now
If I’m wrong – please show me why
Richard
Hi Richard
It’s a Monday morning and you are doubtless a busy man, so I didn’t expect such a prompt response.
I don’t know how the £420m is made up. I can only say, from personal experience, that some relates to the provision of locally generated, standard rated, professional/ consultancy services to customers within the EU generally, and not solely to those in the UK. At worst we are subsidised by the EU generally, not solely by the UK.
Don’t forget, too, that the funds we generate thru international commerce tends to end up in the UK anyway. Not Dublin, Washington or Bonn.
Also, financial centres, by their nature, tend to generate more income than is “consumed” by their residents. This is as true of the UK’s financial activities as of the Isle of Man’s.
Following your line of argument, is the UK subsidised by another European state, if it generates more VAT per capita than the other state?
Regards
Fred
Fred
Argue how you will – VAt is a tax on final consumption and IoM people could not consume £42,000 each on national income of £24,000 each
No finessing can overcome that fact
Richard
@Richard Murphy
Same applies for the British population – VAT income 83 million – population 60 million