Author Topic: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?  (Read 12493 times)

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2009, 08:06:54 PM »
The connection between a person's character and how much they should pay in tax, is what exactly?

ole razzy

  • Guest
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2009, 08:13:27 PM »
Quite a lot of 1-1-k's I know are actually quite chavvy. I'm seeing a lot of bright orange fake tan, botox and silicon implants and that's just the fellas.I think I'd rather hang with the untermensch.

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2009, 08:51:58 PM »
It is character I am referring to now.  What they actually do for our economy is still an open question because the States don't even know how many pieces of property they have bought and sold over the years.....

I take it you are a non-property owning androgeonite who would insist that the "States" know about everything you own? Ever been to Russia my "???????"??
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

Offline Adrian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2009, 09:33:32 PM »
Does the JEP still used phoney letters or get real people to put their names to their phoney letters?

Offline moot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
  • Gender: Male
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2009, 10:24:14 PM »
Ever been to Russia my "???????"??

Going there in June - On a secret spying mission for the States. No comment

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2009, 12:30:22 AM »
Going there in June - On a secret spying mission for the States. No comment

Make sure you don't get mooted out or even outed moot !! ;) :D ;D :-*
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2009, 08:25:55 AM »
Fact of the matter is that we can alter the terms by which the 11Ks are allowed to live here. If they do not like the alteration they can move. There is no dilemma in my mind either fiscal or moral .If we believe that the original terms of contract , established in the glory days are not to our advantage change them!
If the 11k decides to sue the SOJ , where will that get them?

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2009, 01:05:19 PM »
Fact of the matter is that we can alter the terms by which the 11Ks are allowed to live here. If they do not like the alteration they can move. There is no dilemma in my mind either fiscal or moral .If we believe that the original terms of contract , established in the glory days are not to our advantage change them!
If the 11k decides to sue the SOJ , where will that get them?

Is there a new status?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2009, 01:09:21 PM »
pedantic or what ?

Offline Deputy Dawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 401
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2009, 12:24:22 AM »
Ten guys go into a bar where they meet for a beer every week.
Each week they each have two beers costing £2.50 each. Between them they spend £50.
The first is out of work he has no income and is given pocket money by his wife
The second and third are earning less than £10,000 per annum
The fourth, fifth,and sixth guys earn more than £10,000 and less than £30,000
The seventh , eighth and ninth guys earn £40,000 to £80,000 pa
The tenth has a six figure bonus every year on top of his seven figure salary.
They decide that as they have a routine to ask the landlord for a discount, he decides as they are loyal to give them 10%. Making the bar bill £45.
Immediately the poorer ones start to kick up saying that it isn’t really fair as it barely makes a difference especially the richest, the second and third agree with him.
The landlord then suggests that the richest guy should pay the first £25 and the rest should pay £20 split up in order of earnings.
The Rich guy puts up with this for a couple of weeks and then gets pissed off that he is paying  £20 over the odds for his beer, so one week he decides to move to another bar and make new friends.
This leaves the first 9 guys with insufficient funds to pay for their 18 beers .
Do this with taxes and our rich guys will find somewhere else to go.


I prefer this one...

Bar Stool Economics
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100 (Jersey prices!). If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a quid out of the £20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got £10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a quid, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.


Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3476
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2011, 09:28:16 PM »
Low and Middle earners hope to have an excellent enjoyable year ,shame about the drop in income, the States are after your money , and keep telling you it’s a level playing field.?



Phillip Ozouf said that financial forecasts had already been revised downward twice and that actual taxes received for 2010 were not reflective of such a large drop in industry profits“.

“ Taxes received for 2010 were not reflective.”  They are even less now  as according to the JEP 8th July  “States members bowed to pressure from Europe and scrapped  a controversial  element of the  zero-ten tax regime”. Under the new regime, locally resident shareholders will no longer pay tax on a deemed dividend

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/07/08/zero-ten-tax-clears-another-hurdle/

This is because of 20 means 20 and all the other taxes, including the less obvious stealth taxes working people of Jersey are having to pay, and  made up much of the shortfall. Things being a little tight have resulted in many not having a wage increase in the private sector while inflation still increases unabated, now another £10 million has gone south.

According to the States accounts  for 2010. The wage bill, including s/sec. and pensions etc is  £345,246,020. In 2009  the accounts show a figure of £327,149,000.

This means  the public sector have paid themselves £18,097,020 more, or in simple terms a wage increase of 5.5% although  this is not the complete truth. States employed  556 senior staff in 2009 this has actually risen by 52 to 598 during 2010.

Let us not forget Minister Gorse proposes a further 2% increase on s/sec waiting in the wings for higher earners. Up goes the huge social security States of Jersey contribution  as an employer. Who has to pay the increase ? Everyone (GST).

Senator Ozouf  has had the benefit of no expense spared consultants and  an army of highly educated civil servants. If Jersey is  doing as well as he proclaims, why the GST increase, why the charity funding cutbacks all affecting which  level of  Jersey’s  society, and now a new position has been created at a cost of  £120,000 a charity executive organiser.   

The cost of the public sector wages, s/sec. and pensions is spinning out of control, even the UK understands this, obviously Ministers don’t, other wise you would be reducing ( non front line ) staff and entering talks about closing the final salary pension scheme. We see neither.

Boatyboy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 10:33:16 PM by boatyboy »

Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2011, 01:28:55 AM »
BB,  Gorst has already proposed 1.5% on all employees and pensioners to pay to protecting their property in case of needing long term care.  Clearly he has not studied the mess the insurance companies got into in the UK charging compulsory PPI to people who could not qualify to benefit from the insurance.  He might have had an argument had he protected homes, but he did not. He chose to protect those who own houses, and every working person and pensioner  has to contribute regardless of any likelihood of benefiting from the system.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 02:41:57 AM by Mark Forskitt »

Offline Calimachon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
  • Gender: Female
  • http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2011, 04:00:46 AM »
BB,  Gorst has already proposed 1.5% on all employees and pensioners to pay to protecting their property in case of needing long term care.  Clearly he has not studied the mess the insurance companies got into in the UK charging compulsory PPI to people who could not qualify to benefit from the insurance.  He might have had an argument had he protected homes, but he did not. He chose to protect those who own houses, and every working person and pensioner  has to contribute regardless of any likelihood of benefiting from the system.

I am dead against Mr Gorst's proposition especially as a lot of retirees have, in fact, made provision for their retirement already in the knowledge that there was a liklihood that they would lose their home in payment for elderly care.  This will mean that people who have made that provision will have to pay twice.


It is no easy task being a politician but there has to be equity!

Cali
TOMORROW (Noun) = A mystical land where 99% of all human productivity, motivation an achievement is stored

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3476
Re: Letter in the rag - Why aren't I taxed like a 1.(1).K?
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2013, 01:04:39 AM »



As the JEP takes down selected interesting articles that can never been found again on the internet, I hope members do not mind the recycling of an excellent piece by Andre in the comments section and the following debate is enlightening.  Of course the JEP are enjoying the success of their blog, which can be manipulated by not allowing the public to have their say on a regular basis especially when the stories are not promoting the Government that pays them hundreds of thousands a year. Well lets be honest can you blame the JEP, no not really, can you trust them in that case, I shall leave that with you reader ?

Andre

February 7, 2013 at 12:19 am
It is Jersey’s long obsession with property inflation which has made Jersey too expensive. Having property prices racing ahead of ordinary inflation was never sustainable. Jersey only kept the property boom going for such a long period because of population growth. In boom periods, rising wages covered the cracks in this ‘policy’.

But the end result was that wages, rentals and operating costs were all jacked up, making Jersey less and less competative as a place to visit and a place to operate from. Jersey has effectively priced itself out of its own market. Short term greed has killed off long term prosperity.
The boom times are long over. People’s disposable income is falling. And indeed, rising housing costs are eating into that disposable income, along with all the other cost of living rises. It simply isn’t sustainable. Yet many landlords tack on automatic cost of living rent increases as if it were still the 80?s or 90?s. That is the inherent problem for Jersey. So many years of rocketing property inflation has left some landlords with a complacent belief that they are somehow ‘guaranteed’ an income that will never fall.

In the meantime we will see more shops close, until rentals fall to levels that are sustainable. And I think some will stay empty for a long time until there is a general realisation that property prices and rentals have to be commensurate with the real economy.
What is happening is called ‘market re- adjustment’, and what is happening here is happening in High Streets across the UK. Mothercare is re-negotiating its rentals with its landlords. If the landlord won’t agree, they have promised to shut the shops in question. The big companies have the clout to do this. Tougher of course for the smaller retailers. But in the end, landlords may be left with a simple choice: less rent or no rent at all.
Here in Jersey, where property investors thought that the value of their investments could only ever go one way, this will be a profound shock. The equivalent of gravity being reversed.

But Jersey cannot possibly sustain rising property values with an economy that is actually declining. None of this should be a surprise. It was entirely predictable.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/02/06/47-jobs-lost-as-retail-group-closes/