From the blog of Richard Butt — editor of Isle of Man Today:
ONE reader of my blog, I was surprised to learn, is Richard Murphy.
Mr Murphy has been quoted in so-called liberal newspapers such as The Guardian and on the BBC decrying 'tax havens'.
He is director of Tax Research LLP and a tax advisor to the Trades Union Congress and has a website that dishes out criticism to the Isle of Man and many other places.
He has been a bit of a running sore for the Island's politicians, although whether they'd admit to that and give him further credence is quite another matter.
Anyway, he spotted me describing him as 'the blogger who's so angry about the Isle of Man' recently. He responded.
The result was an email correspondence and he's agreed to write a piece for our new Examiner Essay strand in the Isle of Man Examiner this week.
Of course, as with everything in any of our papers, the fact we've published opinions doesn't necessarily mean that any of the staff here at Publishing House agrees with them.
It's not our job to tell you what to think. We wouldn't want to. After all, we're not the Daily Mail.
I think that part of our job is our job to stimulate public debate.
I'm sure that some politicians and the great and the good will moan about our decision to give Richard Murphy a platform.
But he's been in the UK media a lot. Whether he has had an effect on the customs agreement and the UK's decision to unilaterally change it is something I don't know. If he has, that damage has already been done.
If there are holes in what he says, I hope readers will point them out. Public debate is, after all, a continuing process.
When the article's actually published I’ll link to that too!
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:
Richard, the article is in the ‘Examiner’ tonight. I had a good read of it whilst waiting to pick my daughter up from school. Let battle commence!!
Is there a link for us manxies overseas?
@Creg
I’m told it is a few days away yet – they like to protect paper sales for a few days before going on line
I have no idea myself whether what I submitted has been edited or not as yet
So you’re not alone in having to wait. I’ll link when I have one to publish
Richard
I look forward to reading this too, Mr Murphy, although I too will need to wait for online publication. Perusing through the manx message boards, Mr. Butt’s decision to publish your piece does appear to have provoked the usual angry sniping, disparagements and point scoring attempts, but alas.. no arguments to counter what they object to reading in that article. Its a pity as while you are right, the Isle of Man Government has to try and adjust to its reduced means.. and from what I’ve read of the proposals so far, its not come close to being realistic or radical enough yet. The High Net Worth Individuals have already been assured by the Mr Bell that their income tax bills would not rise.
I’ve just read your piece in the Examiner. In it, you refer to the Isle of Man receiving a subsidy from the VAT sharing agreement. Lord Myners says much the same, the IoM Government flatly denies it although some members of Tynwald seem unsure.
Can I pose a theoretical question? Imagine everything was as it is, except the Isle of Man had no finance sector. All the revenues came instead from selling turnips (!)
What would then constitute a “fair” division of revenue under the VAT sharing agreement?
Richard –
I would welcome your opinion as to the logic and fairness of the UK’s unilateral decision to opt out of the reciprocal health care agreement with the Isle of Man.
This would seem an illogical decision, considering such agreements exist with European countries and such as Australia. Also considering we Manx either born or ‘naturalised’ most have family connections with the UK, and, of course,our Manx soldiers are currently fighting in Afghanistan.
Perhaps, as a fellow GP, your wife might have an opinion also. Can I count on your support as to the gross unfairness of this move. It will also affect visitors to the Island for the TT races, various conferences etc, although our Dept of Health has agreed to waive any charges arising for the CAMRA conference next year as a goodwill gesture.
I would welcome your thoughts.
Best wishes, Phil
Phil
I strongly suspect this is down to one thing: a lack of willing to be reciprocal
If the numbers treated were broadly similar each way that would be fine
I’m sure they’re not: the Uk bore most of the cost I suspect
And the IoM was, I suspect, not willing to compensate
The outcome is harsh
But if the Isle of Man asked people to pay tax for what they get things would not be so harsh
And if you’re in doubt – my wife is firmly of the opinion that cracking down on tax havens and inequality is as important for healthcare as anything she can do in surgery
Richard
Richard,
Leaving the Tax issue to one side, which really is a separate story, I don’t see how the UKs cost here would be excessive or even more than the cost to the Isle of Man Health Service.
Just imagine you came here for a conference and fell ill. Beyond admission to A&E, you or an insurer would have to pay the full costs for or your treatment, even for repatriation to the UK, and vice versa for the Manx going to the UK. This will affect the older population more ( such as coach tourists to the IoM and those elderly Manx travelling to see family in the UK) as many will got be able to get travel insurance for their pre-existing conditions etc. We do not even have access to the E111.
Not a very friendly way for the UK to deal with a close neighbour and family is it. Thankfully there is a lobby underway with ‘friendly’ Labour MPs who also cannot see the logic and fairness if this move.
I’m also beg to believe that your wife might have a more sympathetic opinion than you suggest.
Phil
Phil
Glad you know my wife better than me!
Your problem Phil is that you don’t seem to appreciate you live in a secrecy jurisdiction: Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain. That regulation is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. To facilitate its use secrecy jurisdictions also create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so.
That’s called economic warfare by any other name. That’s what the IoM does to the UK
There are casualties. I agree this one seems unfair
But it’s nothing compared to the damage the IoM has deliberately caused the UK over many years
Create a fair, open, taxed IoM first – then you’ll have my sympathy (and I suspect my wife’s)
Until then – you bring this on yourself
The solution is in your hands – change your government and your economy
Richard
Richard,
I wouldn’t profess to know your wife better than you, obviously. It’s hard enough to know one’s own wife sometimes.
I did say, please leave the tax/VAT issue to one side for now and I am glad you and I agree that the unilateral cancelling of the reciprocal health care agreement by the UKgovernment is blatantly unfair and a gross move.
Casualties of economic warfare!! Bit harsh on this issue. With this attitude, don’t be surprised if the IoM government becomes entrenched and battle hardened.
I do feel your government and economy will change long before ours.
Best again,
Phil. (gas mask and helmet at the ready)!!!!
Phil
I hope your patient communication skills are better than your reading skills
I did not for one moment agree that “the unilateral cancelling of the reciprocal health care agreement by the UKgovernment is blatantly unfair and a gross move.”
I’d prefer a little integrity on your part
Richard
Can I take it then that either you don’t have the figures or you don’t have an opinion of how a fair revenue share should break down? Or you do, but you’re not willing to share them? 🙁
Paul
I am baffled how many times I have to publish this
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/11/26/the-isle-of-man-is-still-being-subsidised-by-at-least-40-million-a-year/
A lot fewer insults and a little more diligence on your part would help
Richard
Not sure what insults you’re referring to, but none were intended. The link doesn’t really help either. Let me put it this way – IoM Government says (and claims HM Customs agree) it raised c£442 million and retained c£339 million. What is wrong with those figures and/or what is the subsidy?
Please don’t assume just because I’m in IoM that I have a specific perspective on this – I am genuinely trying to figure out the rights and wrongs of what will be a major change here with an open mind.
A bank collects money
It does not mean it belongs to it
The IoM collected VAT
It does not mean it belonged to it
Some businesses making sales in the UK charge VAT and pay it to the IoM as that is where they are based – but the collection belonged to the common pool as it realted to UK sales
So the numbers you quote are irrelevant
The ones I quote are relevant – they relate to economic activity and they show the IoM was subsidised and if the adjustment is £140 million it still will be subsidised
Richard
Casualties of economic warfare!!
Mmm, attempting to get your own way by killing the natives? and your wife as a GP agrees with this? I thought human life was paramount to most doctors?
It all similar to the use of deseased blankets by the English to kill the native American indians, so “soften” them up.
I guess some tactics are never to underhand
Creg
How crass can you be?
The UK is defending itself from economic attack. It is right to do so
That attack is designed to increase inequality and deny tax revenues to the Uk government used to pay for health care
A wise doctor would always look at the causes of ill health. Inequality and lack of resources are tow major such causes
Now either make sense in future or don’t post
Richard
Is it possible to estimate how much of the c£442 million related to UK sales? That would give a meaningful figure with regards to the debate here in IoM (something so far lacking from all parties!)
I am beginning to think that there is a polarised view of what the Common Purse stands for on either side of the Irish Sea.
Paul
@Richard Murphy
No
And it is irrelevant
It is a meaningless figure that has no bearing at all on the debate
Richard
Okay – so what figures do have a bearing? In the link you sent me, you state that you are ignoring the UK budget 2009/10 and use 2006/7 instead. But what formula were you using to get to the £135 million you go on to quote?
Paul
Paul
I have answered all your questions already
Please note what I have said in the documents I refer to
Richard
My old physics master used to have a mantra: “I’m not interested in your answers, I want to see your working out!” You wouldn’t have impressed him much at all!
All you’ve given me is the ballpark figures of what IoM receives and what you think it ought to, along with an abridgement of your philosophy on the issue, but no figures to back up your stance.
I was hoping to get some meaningful data off you which might show that our Tynwald knew it had been receiving a subsidy all along, and that IoM had been badly governed and its people misled in this regard.
But I end here no wiser than I was when I posed my first question, and will have to concede (through gritted teeth) that the only party willing to produce any figures to make its case is the IoM Government.
Paul
Paul
Paul
I find your comments incomprehensible
I have laid out here time and again my logic (try here is you really can’t search for yourself http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/05/18/isle-of-man-costs-uk-at-least-15-billion-a-year/ ) but you say I have proven nothing.
I proved enough to get the agreement re-written according to a great many people
And the resulting logic seems remarkably similar to the one I used to prove there was a subsidy
If after that you say there is no data then you are being wilfully blind and there is nothing I can do for the wilfully blind
So either come back with reasoned argument or stop wasting my time – because the calculations I have done are as well sourced as any could be
Richard
Richard,
At last – an answer to my very first question! Thanks very much!
Here’s a friendly tip for the future: Immediately after an article of yours appears in a newspaper somewhere, you might find the odd local gets in touch with a question or two.
The chances are they googled you, and are neither familiar with your website nor necessarily minded to trawl through it.
So just give them the link to the information they ask for straight off – that way, they won’t need to “waste your time”.
Best regards,
Paul
Paul
Apologies
I assumed, obviously inappropriately, that you could search a site
Richard
Never mind – after all, I’d assumed you were rational and objective. we all make mistakes!
Paul
Dear Richard Murphy
Would you be prepared to comment on the content of:-
http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/615.html
PSG
PSG
The abuse to which you refer does not surprise me
The excuses made do not surprise me
The apparent regulatory failures are what we have come to expect
The moral is simple: do not invest in the Isle of Man: it is too dangerous to do so
Richard
[…] mentioned recently I had written an opinion piece for the Isle of Man […]
[…] mentioned recently I had written an opinion piece for the Isle of Man […]
Unfortunately your advice comes too late for hundreds of pensioners who transferred their life savings to the Isle of Man after being advised, by an Isle of Man fund provider, their money would be “secure and guaranteed” in an investment vehicle comparable to a building society.
Within a few short years the pensioners lost up to 60% of their savings.
And the Isle of Man regulatory authorities rule that this is perfectly normal conduct(on the Isle of Man).
Dangerous? A more appropriate term would be lethal!