isleofman.com: news - 'Robber baron state' accusation from MHK.
A member of the House of Keys has described the United Kingdom's decision to slash the Isle of Man's revenue from VAT as 'the actions of a robber baron state'.
North Douglas MHK Bill Henderson said it was 'unprecedented' for one nation to reduce another's income by a fifth, and questioned the human rights implications of the move.
Interesting suggestion when the UK was providing a massive subsidy without obligation for years to a place where people have a higher GDP per head than the UK itself.
And an interesting idea from a place that has specialised in facilitating tax evasion and avoidance, much of it perpetrated on the UK.
But I guess the importance of running credible tax systems in which people have to pay their way might now dawn on members of the Tynwald. At least, I can hope.
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!
We may not agree on much, but you’re absolutely right here: Mr Henderson’s comments are nothing short of idiotic. If the UK has indeed been subsidising us to a large extent, then we have no automatic right to expect that subsidy to continue indefinitely. If the UK has not been subsidising us, then we have the option of stabilising our income by withdrawing from the Common Purse Agreement and setting our own indirect taxes. Either way, there is no moral reflection on the government of the UK.
I couldn’t believe the audacity of Billy H’s comments about human rights. Every year for the last decade our developing coutry has effectivley lost tax revenues to the tune of ZAR60 billion through the muddy little boltholes of secrecy jurisdictions. 40% of our people still go to bed without a decent meal…how’s that for human rights implications…
Nadia
Exactly
And thank you for saying so
Richard
Richard.
When are the excact figures drawn up by the U.K government going to be released to Tynwald?
It seems as though this so called “agreement” between the two nations is a one sided “agreement” My understanding is that yourself and just about everybody else has absolutely no idea what the IOM residents contribute toward the common purse.
The IOM may have a higher GDP, but is it not also true that cost of living is only slightly behind London?
“Manx” people are not rich and have to contribute to UK VAT in everything that they do.
If a “Manx” person wishes to purchase just about anything at a fair price, it has to be done over the internet.
The VAT is paid to the UK purse with absolutely no record of purchase. Who decides who gets what? And is the figure substantuated with hard copy evidence?
There is little denial that the IOM have been recieving more than they should. But how much more and WHY has the agreement continued since 1866 with numerous revisions?
I would appreciate any factual based feedback you may have as your posts lead me to believe that you know the excact figures.
Without wishing to insult you, I am not interested in your personal views or guestimated figures.
I would like to see hard evidence. Evidence that the Crown will not even share with the Government involved.
Do you also have the same opinions of Jersey and Gurnsey regarding tax evasion? (you can find these places on the black list)
I appreciate your obvious knowledge on these matters, but I am afraid the personal way in which you make your point is disgraceful. To hope for the demise of an entire nation and play the “moral” card is confusing me amongst others.
You appear to be wasting an exellent talent on blind belief.
Such a shame.
Stephen
No one knows the right numbers
I have calculated figures on a rational basis that for technical reasons may well be generous to the IoM
I stand by them
It looks like a lower adjustment has been used that is generous to the IoM
And I stress this – in the absence of anything better mine is the best estimate there is
As for style – I could be mild and meek and get 100 readers a day if I was lucky and change nothing
So I shout a bit and upset a few people and things change a little. That’s the price of it
Sorry if you don’t like it – but I see no other option. I have had to stick my head above the parapet and have been shot at – sometimes I shoot back
Richard
As you say, Richard, the correct numbers seem a mystery to all. Even the formula for calculation is steeped in confusion, so your figures are at best a guestimate, yet you use them as fact to conclude that the Isle of man receives a large subsidy. Others have suggested that the IoM pays more than it receives back. So what are the true figures, surely these must be of paramount importance.
If, in fact, the Isle does receive more in real terms, then I agree, let the UK keep it, but how about an exchange for Kaupthing IOMs deposits that were spirited away to the UK in the dead of night and frozen solid.
Also, is it not true, for instance, that many items bought “off Island” already have had the VAT paid by the Manx puchaser to the UK, so is not collected on IoM.
Richard, where do you come up with you figures on the VAT agreement? Recent reports suggest that figures published by HMRC suggest that the Isle of Man received around £336m from the common pool for each of the last 2 years, but actually contributed £420m in each of these 2 years.
Also, it is sad that, for someone who claims to be concerned about the poor, you seem to rejoice in the thought of your near neighbours being condemned to poverty. Most of us who live in the Isle of Man are ordinary hard working people who want nothing more than the ability to raise our children in a place that gives them a good quality of life.
We are not a playground for the rich – for a start we don’t have the weather to attract their type here.
As for your stance that we are a “tax haven” – haven’t we led the way in ensuring we fulfil our obligations in combatting money laundering and tax evasion? Our laws on money laundering are stronger than most EU countries’ laws – it is easier to launder money in the city of london than in the Isle of Man.
Of course, as a small jurisdiction, we need to keep corporate taxes low, or at nil in order to attract companies to set up here. But that does not mean we are undermining anyone’s tax system – certainly not the UK’s, which is actually the biggest offshore tax haven in the world – look at your rules for “non-doms”, the fact that non residents don’t pay CGT on UK assets, the ability for non residents to hide behind UK structures like life interest trusts and limited partnerships, the “light touch” regime for hedge fund managers etc etc. You should look in your own backyard before wishing destitution on the Isle of Man.
Don’t you think there is a major element of hypocracy in the UK’s stance on offshore jurisdictions, when it does nothing different? If you want a tip from me as to the best place to stash your money away from the taxman – look no further than the USA – for $150 I could set up a Delaware LLC without even disclosing my identity. Maybe you should have a go at them for a change.
Freeborn
I published what I knew
It seems to have been broadly confirmed to be true
And I agree re Delaware
I have nothing more to add
Except that the IoM is far from being the place you pretend
See secrecyjurisdictions.com and look at the IoM report
Richard