CUSTOMS cannot cope with GST. Drug dealers think it's Christmas everyday

[moot]

A friend of of mine who has had a small retail shop in Jersey for more than a decade told me that GST has done much more damage to people like him than was predicted. It appears that residents are buying goods online not only cheaper but they are not paying GST and are not chased by Customs as they simply are overloaded with work. Sources have told that highly qualified drug enforcement Custom officers are sitting in offices day after day processing GST paperwork instead of following up leads to drugdealing and catching them
Of course this should be no news to any intelligent person and this was always going to be the case. People in Jersey are clever and innovative and will take adavantage of "opportunities! !
Also Sandpiper's M & S "Sale" has been more rubbish than ever. It seems greed and the name Sandpiper goes hand in hand. Someone tells me that it is now cheaper to buy M & S clothes in the UK online sale than buying it here even with postage. More so if GST isn't paid online
Sandpiper simply thinks we are all stinking rich or stupid. When they bought C.I. traders they said they were no asset strippers. The next thing they did was strip the company of most assets, sold them and kept the profitable bits
It seems we jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

[boatyboy]

Tetras explain a rich mans paradise, have alook at the gold plated schools, the brand new social housing, the heavy employment regulations for the workers. I know about Woolworths but as had been said, they are bankrupt, and owe money to suppliers.

I think you are terrific, PJ has its own Bridgit Murphy but anti everything when someones has a few quid more than you. I look forward to reading more of your biased, non factual, one sided leftist views. Thats what forums are all about. A bit of comedy lifts the day, and comedians are always welcome.

Boatyboy.

[danrok]

It appears that residents are buying goods online not only cheaper but they are not paying GST and are not chased by Customs as they simply are overloaded with work.

I bought an item for about £600 online just before Christmas, was expecting to pay GST, but it was simply delivered. No GST, or VAT applied.

Where would they find enough staff to cope during the busy pre-Christmas period, anyhow?

Now, the man who came up with this one is our Chief Minister!

[Tetras]

As I said BB when the rich pay their fair share then I will make no more comments, but as you well know things are stacked heavily in their favour. As about Woolies is it true that the UK branches will be paying redundancy or not to the stay they are laying off?

I make the same point yet again if the rich paid 20 means 20 ww wouldn't need GST or is this too hard a concept for you to grasp?

[danrok]

Jersey is a rich man's paradise. No income tax, no VAT, no UK style employment reg's, no CGT. An absolute paradise for them. Then they moan about unemployed people getting benefits even though they don't pay 20 means 20 because they are too mean to. Scrooge has nothing on them as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think rich people in Jersey moan about the unemployed getting benefits.  There's just not enough unemployed people to become a major drain.

Very few people are out of work through choice.

[moot]

I bought an item for about £600 online just before Christmas, was expecting to pay GST, but it was simply delivered. No GST, or VAT applied.
Where would they find enough staff to cope during the busy pre-Christmas period, anyhow?
Now, the man who came up with this one is our Chief Minister!

Yes, and I expect similar stories from others here. It isn't simply the Xmas period when they can't cope. It is any time and it will get worth as people buy more on line
Holidays, Long haul flights. I heard of someone buying a £2000 camera and just like your case, it simply arrived - No GST paid
Amongst the thousands of parcels which Customs are supposed to check how many contain drugs ? It was never going to be managable

[moot]

But many are in rubbish poorly paid jobs through no choice. If this is what capitalism is all about you can keep it!

Tetras, would you prefer we have a "revolution" in the island and adopt communism ?

[Sarah Ferguson]

Tetras

Social Security is an insurance policy not a tax.  It is kept separately from tax receipts as it pays for benefits and pensions. 

What we shall need to look at - like most other countries - is the effect of people living longer and the extra cost of pensions which that entails.  It is probable that soc sec contribution rates may have to rise and it is possible that the pensionable age will have to rise - in order to fund the longer living pensioners.  We are seeing these changes in the UK and talk of the same changes throughout Europe.

[Tetras]

Sarah I have had this out with others in the government. This is not a reason not to raise Social Security in my book. Please explain why this is not an option? Please explain why it is against the law to take the ceiling of off social security?

As regards people living longer yes the age of retirement will have to be raised but as you can guess this will go down like a lead ballon and anyone who dares to implement this will in my opinion be committing political suicide.

I have been on about this very issue for 30-40 years now and no one has yet listened as they assured me till very recently that there was nothing to worry about!! Have I been lied to or, have they been ill advised and consequently given me the wrong information?

I myself think the flaw in the system was allowing a previous generation to retire on the input of the suceeding generation. This is all fine and dandy when you have an ever increasing population on the conveyour belt that is life, but as we well know the baby boomers are the last generation where this increase has occured. The following generations are going to be less in numbers, has anyone in government factored this into the equation yet, and come out with a diffinitive answer as to how we are going to afford to pay for the baby boomers?

I know some people could view this as nebulous none facts but I think this is very relevant to us today and anyone coming up for retirement in the next 10-20 years, unless everyone is happy to work till they drop that is?

[danrok]

A lot of pensioners are already working during what would have been their retirement, for various reasons.

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/7646418.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3460233.stm

Many people are perfectly fit, able and willing to work when they reach retirement age.

Working part-time in Jersey can be quite appealing due to the income tax threshold.  So, if you work part-time in a shop you probably wouldn't have to pay any income tax on that.

[Tetras]

So retirement isn't what its cracked up to be then?

I think most people would agree that at 65 enough is enough. I know of some ardent workers who were mortified to be told "that's you have to retire." However within a few months of de-stressing they were loving it. One even said to me he wished had gone at 60 when he had the opportunity to. He worked till 65 for his wages. He would have been entitled to 2/3 just for staying at home. So his full wages were actually in reality only  1/3 and he had to pay tax on it but when he retired because his wages dropped he didn't have to pay tax. I had warned him about this but he thought he was missing something. He was right he was missing the best 5 years of his retirement to work a full week on 1/3 wages to pay tax. If anyone thinks this is good then by all means carry on. People like myself have so much to do outside of work we really haven't time to work. However there are some with the protestant work ethic drummed into them, and they will work till the coffin stops play.

I still think GST was a bad move and will bear the fruits of its introduction with increases in states workers to cope with all the extra work and with many bussinesses going to the wall as they can't cope with paying someone to do the government's work. Obviously there are those who will vehmently disagree with what I have said, and think its fine to have GST as they didn't want the rich to leave Jersey.

P.S. You can take what I have said above in relation to the example of a worker working past 60 as fact as it happened to an old collegue from work who has now retired. Hopefully there are now enough facts for the people who thought there weren't enough before. Will this make any difference to peoples' attitudes!?

[Sarah Ferguson]

Tetras

I actually said "It is probable that soc sec contribution rates may have to rise and it is possible that the pensionable age will have to rise - in order to fund the longer living pensioners."

It is not against the law to raise the celing on Sec Sec but it very much depends on the actuarial valuation - what should contributions be in order to fund benefits and pensions.  The main point is that the contributions pay for benefits and pensions.  The employers and employees  pay part and the States tops up the contributions for the low paid.  In other words the higher tax payers are contributing to the pensions for the lower paid.

When ITIS was brought in the number of tax payers went up by 36% but the tax take only went up 11%.  However the increase was £20 Million so this actually paid for the increase in supplementation (the States contribution).

Making changes to Soc Sec is more complicated than just raising the ceiling  - it  requires an analysis of all the factors involved.  Since, also, it is not a tax then the changes are merely increasing the amounts available for pensions and benefits.

[Tetras]

So basically there is nothing wrong with getting rid of the social security ceiling and collecting 6p in the pound from those over £36,000 or there abouts? If this is correct can someone get this sorted out in the government as I beleive we could be bringing in £8-10M extra by this on thing along. This is equal to the 100 richest contributors imput to tax is it not?

[stoofa]

While I appreciate that social sec is a seperate contribution to the public purse and from Income Tax receipts and is utilised for a specific purpose, to my mind the fact the fact that it is not technically a tax is probably of little interest to the average employee given that it is a deduction at source and an easy parallel with ITIS could be drawn - ie it behaves like a tax.

The very fact the ss pot is supplemented (ultimately from tax receipts) by the states also degrades the distinction a little in my view (I appreciate that most other social tax systems, including UK NICs, operate on a similar principal)

However, if you simply look at the mechanics of ss, it is fair to say the cap does produce a somewhat regressive system. I would have thought there was a reasonable argument that it would be desirable to have a system such that, as a minimum, supports the funding requirement directly through contributions to the ss system itself.

Of course as simple as that sounds it would be a reasonable fundamental reform to the SS system, and these things are never easy in practice, but to my mind it would be an area for reform that would indirectly increase the public spending pot in a fair manner.

If you look at the link below (from gov.je) supplementation is in the region of £50m pa

http://www.gov.je/NR/rdonlyres/9D259D07-DCB8-410F-B822-B9CF3B426D61/0/SOCIALSECURITYREPORTANDACCOUNTS2007.pdf

Unsure if this has been considered or there is a fundamental reason why this type of idea isnt implementable... As always 10 lines of waffle on a forum has a habit of simplifying compex issues =)

[Sarah Ferguson]

Actually as tax income has gone up £20Mn, supplementation has gone up £10Mn - it is around £60Mn now. This ensures that workers below the average pay level get a full pension for the years worked.