£6m. more from social security if high earners targeted sooner
Thursday 23rd September 2010, 11:30AM BST.
HIGH earners could be targeted to pay more in social security charges from January to help the States raise an extra £6m.
But some deputies are warning the idea might drive some of the island’s top earners to Jersey.
Deputy Matt Fallaize (pictured) wants to accelerate raising the upper earnings limit – the cut-off point at which someone stops paying any more contributions – from £79,872 a year to £120,900.
The move, he said, would add an extra £6.3m. to the States’ coffers over the next three years.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
By declaring such a deficit, it is clear that the Social Security system is inherently flawed. The problem? A minority of lazy individuals claiming benefits whilst perfectly fit and able to work, expecting to be kept by the taxpayer. Yes, I agree that the system should provide financial assistance to those who are genuinely in hardship, but what about restricting benefits to those who clearly “milk” the system.
In another recent post of mine, I suggested that able long-term unemployed individuals should be given the choice of either assisting with community projects or having their benefits restricted. And how about arranging a States-subsidised childcare system for parents of pre-school children who want to work but cannot make ends meet after paying usual childcare rates? This should financially net itself off in a year or two of collected taxes from this additional workforce anyway!
Back to the suggestion of higher earners contributing more to Social Security, most high earners have had to work hard and make sacrifices to achieve what they have… so why should they have to pay more to continue to help a minority which, to be frank, cannot be bothered to help themselves? The only way in which I think this would realistically work is if there is a tiered system of benefits – the more you contribute, the more benefit you receive in times of genuine hardship.
In summary, I believe it is high time the States consider a complete overhaul of the Social Security system rather than looking for an easy way out of another financial hole!
Report abuse
Surely the answer is to stop paying people to breed and to stop paying youths in particular supplementary benefit and sickness benefit when they are perfectly capable of working.
Report abuse
I completely agree with Q!!
Stop benefits to those who dont actually need them and then tax payers money can be put to better use!
Report abuse
I agree, we are going down the same path as the UK. Find yourself in genuine need and you get precious little from the States, make a career of ‘working the system’, bash out a few extra kids and the money comes rolling in. Its all wrong, this is not what the Welfare State was created for. Effectively we are destroying civilized society rather than improving it.
Report abuse
Interesting that Deputy Fallaize uses the word “coffers”. Is it just me but I only ever use the word “coffers” with “pirate” in front of it. Like many a pirate crew, States members want to extract yet more money from Guernsey people who quietly ply their trade on the sea of life. Why? because it’s easier to do this rather take some of the hard and “vote losing” decisions needed to give us, the humble sailors, public services which we can afford in 2010.
Guernsey is in recession: we may not have been hurt as badly as some places but it’s still here. Long term growth will not return to our economy through inflating States spending but through the birth and growth of new business within the Island as well as the creation of local high paid jobs increasing both the tax take and, importantly, spending within the Island. The States’ role today is to create a climate which encourages growth and job creation both in the financial and non financial sectors.
As one of these encouragements to stimulate new employment, Mr Fallaize should propose lowering and not raising the cut off point for national insurance contributions.
Report abuse
Agree with the above comments, tax the rich to help the poor.
Unfortunatly it probably goes to the “chavs” hanging around outside Social Security smoking, if they can afford cigarettes, they don’t need our help.
Report abuse
Q
Just wondering…do you presume that someone on a salary of 120,000 works harder or sacrifices more than someone on a salary of 15,000? I don’t believe this is the case. Just because a person is fortunate enough to have the choice to work in a job which pays 120,000 does not mean they work any harder than others.
For the record, I believe in higher taxes for high earners. It’s just about being fair in a world full of inequalities.
I suspect there will responses about the ‘lazy unemployed’ but the point I’m trying to make is that people with more money than they need should contribute fairly to the society they are part of.
Report abuse
Hang on…I thought we were always told that social security isn’t a tax, it is an insurance policy so why should the premiums of a higher earner at £5192 per year, compared to Matt’s average earner’s contributions of £1,950 a year, need to be further increased? Forget the % game, look at the real cost and let’s not forget that the higher earner is also paying more income tax and probably more trp so their overall contribution to Guernsey isn’t insignificant. The idea that Social Security can just whip another £6.3m off a section of the public, out of the consumer economy and into the hands of the States (who we all know to be wise and thrifty) just seems wrong to me. Not exactly equitable, fair and just as Matt would have us all believe eh?
Just for once can someone in the big house derail the gravy train and get our elected and unelected servants to solve a problem without sticking their hand out for more, whilst giving us less.
Report abuse
Ahh it’s Thursday
pop along the SI in the scoobie
smoke, spit, chat on phone
pick up pay cheque for week…
hard day’s work that
time for a trip to the offie and off home to bash out another kiddie with the missus I don’t really live with
Ahh happy days
Report abuse
Bashing the upper-middle earners will achieve little, long term, save encourage more scrounging and more artifice. Why should we pay in 12k a year to achieve a pension (which will probably be means tested by the time we’re old enough) of 9k?
Anna – someone on 120k makes one hell of a lot more for the island, and would facilitate the employment of several others in the 15k – 80k bracket. Also, as both work as hard as eachother, don’t they both deserve an old age pension of 60% of average earnings? They will have each contributed at the same rate under Matt’s proposal.
Report abuse
Dear Dep. Falaize….go find your money somewhere else. I will not pay a single penny more to help you fix the bugger-ups that the states caused or keep susidising the lazy schmucks. Enough is enough….it is my money….I worked for it…It took me a long time to progress in my profession and I will not be told to pay more because it is fair….no way! I allready contribute more than enough thank you very much…it is rubbish to suggest that people who make more than others owe them something….if you want to earn more, get better qualifications. Take out a loan, work hard. That is what I did and I will not be made to feel as if I owe other people something…I am tired of this nonsense…go look for another sap!
Report abuse
Ed
Spot on!!
I regularly see young single mums out driving of an evening, at the gym during the day and out clubbing at weekends…. and they are unable to work because they have a child to look after???
Where is their child when they are out? It’s about time vouchers were given for essentials not cash for cigarettes, petrol and booze
Report abuse
carts: “Hang on…I thought we were always told that social security isn’t a tax, it is an insurance policy..”
Hmmmm, not much of a policy is it? Those that pay the premiums can hardly ever make a claim and never get a ‘no claims discount’. Whereas those who are actually encouraged to make the biggest and most frequent claims never pay any premiums. No, I think it is definitely a tax.
Report abuse
All,
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The States has already resolved to raise the upper earnings limit to £120k – Matt Fallaize is just saying the change should come in straight away (to generate a total extra revenue of £6.3m) instead of following the current resolution to phase it in gradually over a number of years (3 I think?)
Report abuse
Take a bow Jsimpson.
Never have I had my own feelings so acurately conveyed by someone else’s post.
I have worked damn hard, studied responsibly and sacrificed to get where I have done. Why the heck should I now be told to fork out for a monstrous gap caused by screw ups by govt and actual screw ups.
I have no problem with forking out for genuine misfortune. God forbid one day it may be me for some reason or other. But there are too many cases of self made misfortune or overegged puddings.
Report abuse
I agree that those who are genuinely in need should receive benefits.
Why won’t Social Security see further than the ends of their noses where the scroungers are concerned?
Why is it always the worker who have to pay for the shirkers?
jsimpson has said it right and far better than I could.
Report abuse
How about stopping the spongers benefits. That will soon fill the empty pot.
Report abuse
My last rant, I promise…..This really has to stop. The States are trying to get money that they wasted back by dumping it on the taxpayer once again. If they did not commission reports on idiotic things every week, employ consultants for everything and paying huge sums for it, wasting money on the incinerator debacle, the Jetty overpayment etc. etc. etc. The taxpayer is fleeced to the hilt again by their incompetence. THEY spent the money in ridiculous ways. Now they are short and we are being asked to fill the gap….because it is fair?????? What rubbish. The money you keep wasting is our money! I want value for my taxes…not for it to be wasted. And I will be the first to admit that people in need should be helped. That is what the benefit system is for and I have no problem with it. But to walk past the Social Security office on a Friday and seeing the age of the people waiting there makes one want to look for the school bell! There are far too many people on benefit who’s should not be on it….full stop! Why are people receiving money that are more than capable of doing an honest days work? The money they get should be used to better their lives…not keep them in beer and nappies until the end of days. The States has a responsibility to me as a taxpayer to use the money efficiently and with due care….currently something they do not do
Report abuse
Until 2006 (and the decision to introduce zero-10) Social Security was funded on the basis of an ‘insurance principle’. Contributions were paid at the full rate on all earnings up to just over £30,000 (that cap was the same for employee, self-employed and employer contributions); no contributions were paid on earnings above that figure. Once an individual had paid contributions on earnings up to that figure, he was regarded as having paid his premium to the insurance scheme in full; and for the 75% of the island which earned less than the upper earnings limit, the States topped up their premiums by transferring several tens of millions of pounds per year from general revenue (the majority of which comprised now-abolished company tax and income tax paid at 20% on all earnings with no upper limit, of course, so that in effect the more you earned, the more you paid into general revenue and, via the grant, into the Social Security schemes).
The previous Assembly decided to scrap the ‘insurance principle’ and raise the upper earnings limits to rather arbitrary levels which were different for employers and employees, thereby allowing for a significant cut in the grant from general revenue to Social Security. They effectively turned the ‘insurance principle’ model into a redistributive welfare tax.
As Chris J correctly points out, the States has already resolved (at the recommendation of the Social Security Department) once again to equalise the various upper earnings limits at approximately £120,000, which is the current employers’ limit but about 50% higher than the current employees’ and self-employed limit. My amendment merely proposes that instead of these changes having effect from 2014, they should have effect from 2011, which in the meantime would raise an additional circa £6m at a time when the budget deficit of the States is around £40m per year.
I am not proposing that anyone should pay contributions at a higher rate, but only that the same percentage rate should be paid on all income up to the earnings cap which the States seems to think is appropriate (circa £120,000). At present, an employee who earns £20,000 a year or £50,000 a year pays 6.5% on all of their income, but a person who earns £120,000 a year pays 4.3% on all of their income. I am proposing that they should pay at the same percentage rate, as they do with income tax.
My proposals are revenue-neutral for Social Security, but allow for a slight reduction in the burden on general revenue, the majority of which is used to pay for healthcare and education, not social welfare such as supplementary benefit.
Q,
I do not necessarily disagree that both the benefits and contributions parts of the Social Security system would benefit from serious structural reform.
Green Monster,
I did not use the word ‘coffers’. It was a word chosen by the journalist who wrote the article, which is why it is not a direct quote attributed to me.
Guernsey is not in recession, despite difficult economic conditions. Its government is, however, running a completely unsustainable budget deficit as a result of the zero-10 reforms of 2008, and addressing it will require a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. The sooner we deal with it, the better, in my view.
Bob, Carts, Beanjar etc.,
No, Social Security is no longer based on the ‘insurance principle’, and as I explained above hasn’t been since the reforms agreed in 2006.
Using the phrase ‘middle income earner’ in the context of my proposal is rather inaccurate. My amendment would affect about the highest-earning 3% of the population. They cannot realistically be considered ‘middle income earners’.
And as you know, there is not a government in the world which works out a person’s tax liability according to the value of public services they consume. Were such an approach adopted, public services would become unnecessary, and the allocation of services would just be left to market forces.
In most places, tax is collected in proportion to the ability to pay, often through higher tax bands for high earners. In reality, requiring a person who earns £120,000 a year to pay 6.5p in the pound Social Security, as indeed the person who earns £20, 50 or even 90,000 a year must, is not a very radical idea.
Report abuse
Usual rubbish, Matt.
Not insurance based, but not universal either.
You still do nothing about the high-earning pensioners, or the civil servants with rent rolls, investment income or self-employed earnings, Still do nothing about the unaffordable CS pension scheme – which presumably you are in as a deputy.
Go and create some real fairness, rather than one that doesn’t seem to affect you and yours or your screw-up socialist dreams.
Accelerating unfairness is still unfairness.
Report abuse
How about simply spending a bit less Matt?
Report abuse
Bob,
With respect, that was a rant containing virtually no coherent points which might be possible to debate.
For the record, though, I am not a member of the States pension scheme; nor incidentally am I a socialist.
I appreciate fully that you are unequivocally opposed to my UEL amendment. I feel certain that your point of view will be very adequately represented in the States debate next week.
Report abuse
Bob nailed it for me.
There is nothing fair in bringing an unfair arrangement forward by a few years.
Matt denigrates the financial contribution already made to Guernsey by his “3%” target (investments, taxation, employment etc) and fails to acknowledge that this creep has been going on for years, heading towards his original proposal of removing the cap altogether.
There’s a lot more earners now paying much higher premiums (or tax)than they did prior to the cap being toyed with and there’s nothing to show for it.
Since the cap was nudged forward, far more than his “3%” of the working population has less spending power and less for their own private pensions but somehow he calls it fair? Once he gets his way and removes the cap how long do you think it will be before 6.5% becomes 8% or 10%?
The principle here is about an out of control States that refuses to let go of the tax teat and keeps squeezing for more money, because it is easier than showing restraint, logic, responsibility or creativity.
If the States can’t live within its means then it needs to cut its cloth accordingly before it removes the shirts off the back of those that work and generate taxable income.
Report abuse
Hello,
The company tax reforms of 2008 reduced the income of the States by several tens of millions of pounds per year. As a result, we now have a not insignificant structural deficit.
Some of the deficit could and should be addressed by seeking efficiencies and spending less; hence the establishment of the so-called Financial Transformation Programme, led by Policy Council working alongside Tribal.
But returning to a balanced budget, let alone generating surpluses for such things as capital investment and rebuilding the contingency reserve, will likely require tax increases as well as spending cuts.
All but a small handful of States members accept this, including the Treasury Minister. The point of debate is what the ratio should be between revenue-raising measures and spending cuts.
JSimpson,
All large organisations can realise efficiencies, and the States is no different. And I would not argue with your view that in the past not all spending has represented the best possible value for money. However, the budget deficit exists in the main not because of historic wastefulness, but because, as mentioned above, nearly a third of the island’s tax income was removed by the reforms of 2008.
Report abuse
For me, welfare state = self fulfilling prophecy and vicious downward spiral.
While us tax payers are out earning and propping up government, non-earners sit at home smoking, drinking and making more children who turn out just like their parents. I’d love to see the stats comparing number of children per family for working couples compared to non-working couples.
If you want benefits, you should work for them. If you want to claim unemployment benefit, sweep the streets to be entitled. If you want sickness benefit, you’ll have to be pretty bloody ill before you can’t do ANYTHING that would contribute. Come on you lot – get to work and stop the claim culture.
Matt – grow a pair, and tackle the real issue.
Report abuse
It’s taxation, so why not be honest and call it such. Using the Social Insurance as a vehicle to collect this tax, fools no one.
I blame the apathy of the average Island voter in allowing this insidious socialist element into our States. They will continue to attack and penalise the wealth creating section of our society, to subsidise the idle and the unemployable,to whom they will promise the world to secure their vote.
Eventually of course those that create our wealth will have had enough, and will move on elsewhere, in order to protect their standard of living, leaving this Island one day, in a desperate financial mess. You’ve only got to look at Gordon Browns legacy on the mainland to see the future for Guernsey at the hands of our newly powerful left wing brethren.
We are in trouble I’m afraid.
Report abuse
go matt fallaize – excellent logic and arguments. a very rare local politician – has both reason and heart.
Report abuse
Matt – excellent and informative posts – to your detractors if you know so much and can so so much better why not stand in the next elections – no? Thought not. One suggestion though Matt – put forward a proposal to cap child allowance at two – should close the gap a bit.
Report abuse
Started reading these comments but can’t believe the prejudice – it’s sickening. The majority of those posting obviously don’t understand the accumulative effect of social inequality. We don’t all get the same chances but some high earners seem to think they have worked harder than anyone else to get where they are. The rich get richer at the expense of the poor. If you want to pursue the capitalist dream you have to be prepared to support the casualities.
Report abuse
Dear Dep Falaize….I do not fault you for your commitment to the island and it’s people. I do however beg to differ on one or two points. When it comes to the waste of money and getting value for money….we are talking about millions here, not a couple of pounds! That money was wasted, not just misspent, and it is ongoing. To be quite frank…the States has almost no control over the way that departments spend as illutrated by the health budget. The civil servants are the ones who are running the show and that is the reality of it. I have to keep within may budget every month and I expect that the people who take my tax do the same. Secondly…there is a point where people say no more…and we have reached it in my view. I am tired of propping up a wastefull government and civil service, along with the benefit scroungers out there. I believe that many feel the same. It is time that you listen to people. I do not need a lesson in taxation or politics. What I need is a government that listens to the people and stops acting like a parent telling me what is good for me. You work for me….I do not work for you. Start listening! It sometimes feels as if the disconnect between the politicians is growing so big that the accountability is a distant memory. The bottom line is this…we want less waste, accountable goverment that provides the services for which we pay taxes (including social security TAX)and an absolute overhaul of the benefit system so that ONLY those that need help get it. If you are too lazy to work that is your problem, not mine. If you are incapable of using birth control…your problem, not mine. I pay enough tax thank you very much…use it better. I am fed up with this!!!!
Report abuse
Matt
Thanks for your reply. I was not here in 2008 and so am not up to speed with the reasoning behind ‘Zero Ten’. I do know that the reason I am here is the Bailiwicks value for money taxation policy and the reason I’m creating new jobs in my business here and not in the UK or France is the same.
The jobs are for locals so surely taking people off the dole is a contribution to the health of the H&SS budget?
Report abuse
The Social Services Department is being mis-managed by
Mark Dorey .. Castel
Al Brouard .. West
Scott Ogier .. St Sampsons
Michael Collins .. St Peter Port North
Andy Le Lievre .. Vale
Names for your diary.Not long to go now.
Report abuse
Higher earners in the UK face a top tax of 50% and just over 11% on ssi payments…despite this rather lavish arrangement, with top earners handing over 61% of their income, their system can’t cope and relies on loans and depleting reserves to keep social services afloat, or what is left of them.
This is in a “civilised” and mature welfare state that also, next year, will ask for 20% tax on everything you purchase. And still the UK will be broke.
Tax and spend governments just don’t work. Budget discipline, effective management, task and value driven focus, accountability and determination is what we need from our elected and unelected servants, not excuses and an outstretched hand trying to get back in our pockets.
If the States really wants to do what is right for this island and deliver the services they think we need, then maybe they should put their money where their mouth is and agree to fund their projects by closing the final salary Pension scheme instead of raiding the savings of private sector employees?
I just don’t see how it can be fair to claim you have the moral high ground, by raising the standard of someone’s life, when you are doing it by denuding someone else’s?
Report abuse
I am struggling to understand what all the fuss is about on here.
It seems to make sense to me that those who can
afford to, will now pay more albeit sooner? And all the rubbish about
the rich leaving for jersey? Good luck to them – I am sure
the John moulton’s of this world won’t be losing any sleep over this proposal.
Report abuse
Well done Matt Fallaize
The froth of those that cannot understand basic societal needs, and the responsibilities that come with accumulated wealth, should not obscure the argument.
The longer public services starve as a result of a blind faith in cuts, the more expensive it will become to raise them back to a level we enjoyed before.
Guernsey is supposed to be rich. By the sounds of it, through most of the ignorant comments on here, we are just unreconstructed scavengers.
The rich need to step up to the plate and cushion Guernsey’s economy until it picks up again.
Report abuse
Wont a lot of the deficit be filled when we start charging 10% corporate tax?
Report abuse
Just a thought; maybe us tax payers should be means tested, I earn a reasonable salary, and pay a lot of tax, I also pay a lot towards social security as well. I also pay a lot into a personal pension and other financial retirement planning. Yes, I get due max tax considerations on these, but I can’t help thinking that, whilst me and a lot of people who are going down this route as well should be considered too. We are putting funds in place toward a quality of life that we hope to enjoy, hopefully without being a drain on SOG benefits. Maybe a higher tax free allowance.
Pie in the sky? Could pigs fly?
Report abuse
Deputy Fallaize I would like to support your idea but before I do I would like you to tell us the following.
Exactly how many people get paid unemployment benefit
Exactly how many people get paid because they are too sick to work
Exactly how many people are on supplimentry benefit.
Until we know these figures how can anyone say whether your proposal is a good one or not.
Personally I don’t see how it can be fair for lower paid people to pay a higher percentage of their earnings than higher paid folks. It is pretty clear though that a lot of folks want to know exactly what our money is being used for so please supply the information asked for.
Report abuse
Arnald
Ever considered giving one of the Thursday morning Truchot unreconstructed scroungers a leg up by donating your expensive laptop?
Report abuse
Kevin,
Perhaps put your question another way…how many people (not corporations) are paying into ssi? What’s the proportion of employees paying in, compared to the total population that ultimately benefits?
It would be interesting to see if this is sustainable, especially with the aging population demographics that we’ve been constantly warned about.
And, once there is more money leaving the ssi coffers, than going in, what happens next? You can’t just keep increasing the levy as the pool of contributors shrinks.
Perhaps our politicians should be addressing this very real issue, rather than playing for votes and popularity?
Report abuse
Ah Ray
That old chestnut.
Ever considered being on the telly?
Issues around unemployment are not solved by handouts, this has never been a point of contention. But social security is vital. Ideas that stopping funds based on assumptions that some people are just plain lazy are steps away from wholesale discrimination.
It’s easy for you to use your expensive laptop to quip unintelligently about the lives of others, but for the services that seek to improve those lives, and for those departments to cut their costs, simply telling people to “get on their bikes” is not an option. Where to?
Society is more than the sum of its parts. If we have social problems then they need addressing by all of us.
Report abuse
But Arnald, that is exactly what happens at the moment. The rich (and the not so rich) step up, the lazy step down. The scavengers are those taking handouts – not those making a living.
Report abuse
Yes Arnald of course those in need require society’s assistance.
However if you honestly think that the bunch of chavs pushing prams that deface the town square every day are needy then you really are deluded.
Report abuse
Truth Man
How many people are we talking about, that you can honestly say fall within your definition?
Are young mothers not allowed to stay home and look after their babies? Why is it alright for older wives to have tax breaks if they stay at home on their spouse’s salary, that luxury a product of high income or accumulated wealth?
Maybe if childminders fees weren’t so high, or rather, if there were a state rebate for childminding, then maybe it would become more viable to take part time work.
I don’t believe for one minute that the amounts ‘wasted’ by those few at the bottom who feel there is nothing better than doing nothing (or working the black market) through the SSD are anything like the amounts lost through legal tax loopholes that only the rich can afford.
To solve issues like this there needs to be investment in the public, not division.
Report abuse
Quite frankly I can only say that I find the majority of the views on here ignorant and bigoted. It is scapegoating of the highest order, little evidence to back anything up, and stereotyping throughout. Here we have the descendants of those that blamed the Jews for a nation’s problems, or the “reds under the bed”.
I would never say that there is no one that plays the system but this imaginary band of hundreds of scroungers is quite ridiculous.
The selfishness of many also beggar’s belief. “Why should I pay for those that can’t use birth control” and such nonsense. So to use the same logic, we should not help those that get lung cancer, though smoking, that that get skin cancer by not applying sun block. No medical care for those that pick up an infection because they didn’t wash their hands after going to the toilet. After all, why should I pay tax for these people. The moral high ground is all well and good until you realise that we are not perfect and we all take advantage of State assistance at some time.
If you are mugged because you are stupid enough to walk home on your own at night, why should I pay tax towards police to sort out your misfortune? I am sensible and don’t do that, so you can go to hell for state assistance!
Quite frankly some people just need to have a word with themselves and grow up.
Matt, I think given that this time of tight budgets, your proposals are well thought out and logical, unlike most on here. After all, we are talking about the £80,000 to 120,000 bracket and not middle earners.
Report abuse
deputy Fallaize,
please supply the info asked for.
carts if Deputy Fallaize supplies the info it’s easy to work out what you are asking for. I think I know where you’re coming from.
thanks.
Report abuse
Kevin,
It is a fair point, of course, that taxpayers and contributors want to know where their money is being spent. The Social Security Department, of which I am not a member, would be best placed to provide a detailed breakdown of the exact number of beneficiaries and claimants in each category.
However, it is, with respect, incidental to my amendment about the upper earnings/income limits on Social Security contributions because these contributions are funding the contributory schemes only, i.e. principally the island’s pension pot. Under my amendment, all of the additional money raised in contributions would be ploughed into the contributory schemes; not a penny of it would fund non-contributory schemes such as supplementary benefit.
At present, the contributory schemes do not ‘wash their face’ financially. Income raised through Social Security contributions is insufficient to provide for the sustainability of the island’s pension pot, for example, which is why a grant is required from general revenue each year. It is this grant that would be reduced by circa £2m pa for each of the next three years, if my amendment were to succeed, thus providing an additional £6m+ to assist towards alleviating the structural budget deficit of the States and/or paying for public services such as healthcare, education and policing.
Carts,
You are right – Guernsey’s changing demography will have a major impact upon the sustainability of things such as the Social Security contributory schemes. Fortunately, the States, at the recommendation of the Social Security Department, has been wise enough to put in place measures as early as possible which will provide for the sustainability of the schemes.
That is what the ‘pensions puzzle’ consultation process was all about. You may remember that two of the changes agreed by the States were the raising of the upper earnings limit and the raising of the pension age over time. Those decisions were taken specifically in order to ensure the schemes would be sustainable through the looming so-called ‘demographic timebomb’ as the number of economically dependent people increases and the number of economically active people decreases.
Thus the final sentence of your 9.24 post is quite incorrect.
Report abuse
Arnald:
I don’t know the statistics, however I do know what rattles my cage. Is most certainly is not those who go out, work hard, and expect not to have it squandered by the tax man and the claim culture. On the other hand, those who spend the hard worker’s earned funds whilst contributing nothing themselves do tend to get my goat.
Also – I think we’d be surprised how much the welfare state and the culture behind it costs the tax payer. Imagine – a family of two adults and two kids, in States Housing, getting relief from this, relief from that and free pocket money to boot must cost a fortune in taxes to support. Multiply that by the number that live like this, and I reckon you’d have a sum you couldn’t even add up on two hands.
Report abuse
Yes, Social Justice
Though don’t forget that the esteemable Deputy Maindonald was quoted in the GEP last year as saying that a middle household income was £80K!
I’m glad to see I’ve been called ‘deluded’ again. I’ve missed that.
Greater redistribution of the islands oft-trumpeted wealth and success can only mean less social problems and a greater pool of educated and enthusiastic youngsters to continue the trend. Retrogressive and discriminatory taxes will only make things worse.
I cannot understand what planet some of you are on.
Report abuse
@ Social Justice…..Oh here we go again….the bleeding heart’s lamenting about social justice blah blah blah. I said right from the start that the benefit system is good….if you are incapable of working then I have no problem with a person receiving help. However…the emphasis is on incapable…not do not want to!!!! Even if there are just 20 people like that it adds up very quickly does it not? How can this be a bigoted view? I am sure if you add up the allowances etc. this comes to quite a figure at the end of the year. And I am sorry, but I do not feel that my tax should be wasted on people like this. This also has the adverse effect of impacting on people who really do need help with housing for example, but cannot because someone is placed there who really should not be there. As for the pregnancy comment…you must be joking!! Why is it wrong to expect someone to take responsibility for their actions? It really is not rocket science is it? Take a pill. If society starts condoning young people getting babies to secure housing and income then heaven help us all. If this makes me a bigot then it is a tag I will wear with pride. As for Arnald…move to Cuba…looks like your kind of place.
Report abuse
Matt Fallaize
If you take a look at the Guernsey Facts and Figures 2010 (Page 9) issued by the States you will see that Guernsey GDP fell by 2% in 2009 and is not likely to go above 0% in 2010.While there is no empirical way of defining a recession it is normally defined as two or three quarters of negative growth in GDP. So, my friend, Guernsey is in recession according to the definition used by most commentators.
At the end of the day you and I want the same; a small but effective public sector which can support the members of our society who have genuine need. My problem is that you want to make a short term raid on a narrow range of taxpayers (while missing a significant proportion of Islanders) who will be the future drivers of our long term prosperity through spending and tax revenue.
Be patient: work out how the whole tax picture will look post the zero-10 review but don’t discourage this group of high achievers now. Instead, be their champion by giving them incentives to generate the revenue you seek in a long term and sustainable way.
Report abuse
Matt – you may not like what I posted, but it was coherent. More so than your post of 24th September. That you don’t want to debate isn’t unusual for you. You’ve never been able to address any of those points convincingly here before, nor on the old editor’s blog where you’d post yards of rhetoric.
“At present, an employee who earns £20,000 a year or £50,000 a year pays 6.5% on all of their income, but a person who earns £120,000 a year pays 4.3% on all of their income. I am proposing that they should pay at the same percentage rate, as they do with income tax” Isn’t true. Every employee pays 6.5% contribution on “employment” earnings up to the limit. Only after that does the higher paid employee pay nothing on his higher earnings. If the lower paid wish to pay a lower overall rate (as Matt would wish) let them earn over the threshhold – they are currently allowed to – there’s no glass ceiling or anything. At the other end of Matt’s rather fatuous argument is the fact that we don’t all pay the same rate of income tax (using Matt’s reckoning on GSSA, anyway) as pesonal allowances reduce the amount paid by the lower earner.
Example: Take two employees, both single. One on 100,000, one on 20,000. Combined GSSA and Tax rate is 17.5% for the 20k person and 21.5% for the 100k; this changes to overall rates of 8.5% and 19.6% if they are married, with only one income per couple and no other complications.
Then:
“My proposals are revenue-neutral for Social Security, but allow for a slight reduction in the burden on general revenue, the majority of which is used to pay for healthcare and education, not social welfare such as supplementary benefit.” So would tackling the unfairnesses within the system, rather than continuing to load contributions onto a small pool of earners; so would charging the over 65s at the same rate as everyone else. Why should a multi millionaire pensioner cease paying at full rates because of age? Insurance principle. Still there, despite your assertion to the contrary.
Then
”
In most places, tax is collected in proportion to the ability to pay, often through higher tax bands for high earners. In reality, requiring a person who earns £120,000 a year to pay 6.5p in the pound Social Security, as indeed the person who earns £20, 50 or even 90,000 a year must, is not a very radical idea.”
News for you, Matt – you evidently don’t understand the sytem – as stated above all employees pay at 6.5% – up to the same point. It’s the same for all employees – or is it? No, because bank pension schemes are chargeable as a perk on the employee, whereas CS pension schemes are specifically exempt, even though there is often a much greater benefit. A bias (surprise, surprise) embedded within the system for states workers.
Middle incomes – per household range from around 50 to 150 thousand IMO. This group is comparatively much closer to the low paid than to the rich. If this is a tax, then call it one and charge everybody on their entire world incomes, rather than narrowly burdening those that are employed or self -employed middle (yes, seriously) earners.
The states still has no real appetite for cost cutting. I remain incredulous at the willingness to pay Tribal Helm 6% on all savings they recommended, when most of those savings should have already been implemented before Tribal went anywhere near the books. Most of us here could have made the same recommendations, and indeed many of have done for years.
Cut spending before raising any taxes or charges.
Abolishing the requirement for all CS employees to join the pension schemes we can’t afford would go further than your proposals and eventually save millions a year. Don’t hear you doing anything about that.
States members used to all be in a pension scheme. Has that changed? Is there no pension for deputies any more? Editor’s comment in the press a few days ago indicated this hadn’t changed.
More coherent, Matt?
Report abuse
Green Monster says
“…raid on a narrow range of taxpayers (while missing a significant proportion of Islanders) who will be the future drivers of our long term prosperity through spending and tax revenue.”
Come on then. Who would this be. In what way are these raidees the future ‘drivers of our long term prosperity’? This just sounds like emotive claptrap.
It implies that the wealthier would rather leave Guernsey, uproot their employing businesses and establish themselves elsewhere. That sounds like a threat.
The future drivers of our long term SOCIETY are ALL the children on this island. Propserity has very little to do with anything.
What you are talking about is the preservation of wealth for a minority.
jsimpson
I am playing “Arnald response bingo”. I score again with “move to Cuba”.
Report abuse
The world is a very small place Arnald and business can be fairly easily done in many, many countries. It’s a competitive landscape and nations compete to attract businesses in the same way that companies compete to attract customers.
So to answer your question, the wealthier could indeed leave Guernsey, uproot their businesses and establish themselves elsewhere and they can be attracted to do so with grants and tax breaks from their new hosts.
You may well be glad to see the back of them but I’m not sure the island’s economy would.
Report abuse
Arnald
I almost agree 100% with you although I’m not sure what “propserity” means and you make implications about a threat to leave the Island which are not included in my post. I have seen from previous posts that you are sure you are right on most if not everything so I will not argue with you. This reply is simply to clarify my view for any third party reading this thread.
Where I disagree with you is your proposed methods and your pessimism about the Guernsey people. You talk about the “preservation of wealth for the minority” and seem to see the only way of fairly redistributing wealth is through government intervention in the economy (basically taxation).My view is that there is a better way which empowers the majority. I don’t want to bring everyone down to “average” salaries through taxation (a myth anyway). I want an environment where every child in Guernsey can go on to earn more than their parents did if that is what they choose.
As we saw in the 80’s, if our economy is booming with lots of high paid jobs, the tax take increases without the need to increase rates of tax. This will be true again if territorial tax is introduced and companies are taxed. High paid jobs do not simply “pop up” but are created by Guernsey men developing world class companies, giving opportunities for wealth creation to other hard working people who may lack the same creativity or leadership skills. True, the local businessman will earn what for you are unacceptably high rewards but he enriches a whole pool of other Guernsey people along the way with everyone spending their money on the Island and paying their taxes, thereby protecting the genuinely vulnerable in society.
As I proved in my previous post, Guernsey is not at the top of an economic cycle. My point is, given the present economic uncertainty, Government must, for instance, ask itself how to encourage a young degree student to take a chance to setup her own business and create jobs for others, given all the risks associated with any new business (including the risks of failure), when she sees a government which is so worried by the short term that it sacrifices long term economic growth?
Report abuse
Hello Hello
“You may well be glad to see the back of them but I’m not sure the island’s economy would.”
I haven’t said that, but again there’s that implication again – if taxes become more progressive then there’ll be an island wide exodus.
Why should that be if those individuals and businesses have got the islands future, long term interests at heart?
Report abuse
Arnald
Those individuals with the island’s future long-term interests at heart would stay and the others would leave. Maybe 70/30 would stay because it such a great place to live, even if personal taxes were raised. The loss of the other 30% could be significant to the economy.
Re businesses, you have to look at the split between businesses owned by local individuals (which is substantial in several industry sectors, and those businesses which are owned by non-local corporate shareholders. You’d probably see a similar 70/30 split amongst locally-owned businesses (for the same reason as above), but the non-locally owned corporates have a duty to their shareholders (non-local of course) to maximise after-tax profits and if there are far more tax-efficient jurisdictions to go to then that’s exactly what would happen. However, if corporate tax rates remained very low and only personal rates rose, then there would be no reason for the corporate to relocate although there’s a tipping point beyond which individual executives would want to relocate from here (or decline to move here in the first place to run the local operation) if local tax rates were too high (which invariably means that the corporate has to pay extra salary to compensate).
Personally, I would stay if personal tax rates (including social insurance contributions) remained below 30% overall. Above that rate, I’d almost certainly relocate to one of the many other jurisdictions which would welcome myself and my business. Fortunately I own my own business and can make that decision myself without reference. But I employ tens of dozens of staff locally. Some would relocate if the business moved. Others would choose not to, and would suffer the same fate as many other people whose employers have closed down locally. That’s just the way it is – the massive financial risks that I take in building up my business, including mortgaging my house to the hilt, guaranteeing my company’s bank borrowings and working our way out of a recession require a return on capital invested – and that’s measured in after-tax terms, not pre-tax terms. If that risk/reward equation swings to the extent that I am still taking lots of risk and not getting the after-tax returns, then I either close down my business to get rid of my excessive risk and do a job with far less risk (getting rid of lots of local jobs in the process), or I keep my business and relocate it elsewhere. Either way – a big rise in personal tax rates would result in a loss of local jobs.
Its vital to strike the right balance. Some, like me, would take some persuading to leave Guernsey. Others would go at the drop of a hat if the tax regime was materially less welcoming. High taxes are a huge deterrent to entrepreneurs. Guernsey is lucky that there is no CGT, which does give a bit more scope for slightly higher personal income tax rates but beware of that tipping point, and be particularly aware of the fact that foreign corporates have a different agenda altogether.
Report abuse
I thought this would be one of the usual “let’s bash Matt Fallaize and Arnald” rants until I read Bob’s comment that he thinks “middle income” households are £50k to £150k. SERIOUSLY????? No wonder we have a “welfare state” – if that is considered “middle income” then what is the incentive for people who are simply not qualified enough ever to be company directors et al. Better let the state pay than struggle along on “Low Income” household wages. I would love to see some real figures.
On another point – I quite agree that for social security purposes, world income, and not just Guernsey derived income should be included. If it is to be treated as a form of tax.
Report abuse
Bo Nidle
A sliding scale of income tax up to 30% would bring in a fair whack, don’t you think?
Indeed, Zzzz. As the general rhetoric moves ever further into the realms of fantasy, the people in the real world find themselves struggling to compete. Many will just roll over.
To mitigate the stresses on society borne out of unrealistic aspiration and the pressure of ‘social competition’, there should be a concerted effort to realign wealth distribution, so that those on lower incomes feel that they are not swimming against the tide quite so much.
It does not have to be that radical. Just the fact that the higher earners and the inherited wealthy are pulling more weight than the bare minimum would incentivise more to do better.
If those earning, say, £100K feel they cannot afford 25% on their income, and are so affronted at a base level by the ideology, then should they be considered valuable members of Guernsey society?
Aren’t they planing against the grain?
Report abuse
Would our problems not be solved (or at least reduced significantly) if we simplified the whole system?
£10k tax allowance for all, no mortgage relief, no other allowances whatsoever, 20% of everything else (including worldwide income) goes to the tax man. As for Social Security, 5% paid by both the employee and the employer, with no upper earnings limit, and include unearned income. The idea that SS is insurance is a fallacy, it’s a tax and it ought to be treated as such.
Basically everyone would pay 25% of all of their income over £10k and employers would pay 5% of the salaries that they pay. Such a simple system would also significantly reduce the amount of staff needed to collect the money, simplify IT issues etc etc.
Report abuse
Green Monster
“I want an environment where every child in Guernsey can go on to earn more than their parents did if that is what they choose.”
You think this is possible for the majority with little wealth redistribution? I’m not sure where you get your facts from, but I like to look at the real world.
What you are saying is pure ideology. It is impossible for future generations to keep over reaching the previous, except for the privileged minority that build on an already large pile.
If you want EVERY child to do better than their parents then you’d have to introduce taxes on wealth for a start, say inheritance tax.
What you really mean, of course, is that you would like YOUR children to do better than you, and you are probably saying it from a position of privilege.
Thatcher’s dream failed, if you hadn’t noticed.
Report abuse
Arnald
More tripe from the master of tripe. It has to start somewhere. I can trace my family back to some pretty dire beginnings. My granddad was pretty much in poverty, my dad had no quals, but outdid his dad, and, through my parents’ loving support I have (I think) outdid my dad.
Yes, my children will be relatively priviliged to some others and I will pour myself into them and their hopes and dreams.
So if you look at a family today, you would be right, but if you take the blinkers off, most will have started somewhere.
The indefatigable BTF
Report abuse
Arnald
I think you’ll find that history will show that Lenin’s dream also failed
Report abuse
Ray
Okaaaaay……keep them coming (another Arnald Bingo success!), because, as any fule kno, a comment about a few percent increase in income tax, banded, is straight out of the Bolshevik handbook.
You’re not very good at this.
Billythefish
I can’t see how what I’m saying is ‘tripe’ when the evidence is clear. Talk about stating the bleedin’ obvious with your razor sharp analysis.
How much more than ‘everything that one needs’ can one go?
Tripe? No.
Report abuse
Arnald – you really are quite incredible. Do you honestly think that the majority of “society” (as you put it) in Guernsey are poor?
Give us all an example of anyone who is poor, really poor – go on…
Report abuse
Gilthead
When have I said “poor”?
Desperate stuff.
Why do you think we have people on benefits?
Report abuse
Arnald – by implication.
Your argument – if you can call it that – is the “fairer” distribution of wealth from the rich to the…er…not so rich. Utter cobblers.
There are people in Guernsey who are in genuine need – that is why we have a welfare state. And rightly so.
What I, and many others, object to is the raising of taxation to support the bone idle, the drunks and those that choose to do nothing more than take from society.
Incidentally where do they fit in with your idea of a fairer inclusive society? Difficult isn’t it.
I suspect a Stalinist style mass extermination might do the trick.
Report abuse
Gilthead
“I suspect a Stalinist style mass extermination might do the trick.”
…tick! Another score! Good game, good game.
Report abuse
Arnald
Better raise the tablet dose my friend.
You are now using inane insults instead of your superior intelligence to back up your minority of one outlook on life.
Report abuse
Arnald
I am fascinated by you: you are truly wonderful in a weird way.
You are wrong when you state “If you want EVERY child to do better than their parents then you’d have to introduce taxes on wealth for a start, say inheritance tax.” I could point out many examples (the large majority) of Guernseymen who have been able to generate greater prosperity for themselves and their families than their parents or grandparents ever did through education, taking opportunities when they come along, and hard work. I am not alone in this as I see other people contributing to this site giving personal examples which support my view. Their examples illuminate a period of economic growth over the last 20 to 30 years. The problem for you is that this generational growth on growth happened when the rates of tax in Guernsey have hardly moved. Some people may have gained more than others but the reality in Guernsey is that the vast majority of people are more prosperous and secure than their grandparents ever were. Introducing wealth taxes does not achieve what you seek as I am sure you will know from the French experience.
Thank you for the compliment that I am an idealist and, in a spirit of farness, I throw this back to you as well. Of course I want my children to do better than me and I’m not sure how “a position of privilege” impacts on a natural parental desire; it’s a strange parent who does not wish the best for their offspring but I also want to create an economic environment in Guernsey where your children can become the high earning businessmen of the future because I know that if they do so we all benefit.
Incidentally did you notice that North Korea is now allowing private enterprise? Another failed dream?
Report abuse
Arnald:
I am a little lost. Who exactly is it you want to take money from, and who do you want to give it to?
Report abuse
It’s a pity this thread has descended in to farce.
It is a serious subject and I’m sure the politicians will be delighted that we’ve distracted ourselves from the message.
Back on topic..Matt, we all want a caring and supportive society and we already pay for it in income tax and SSi contributions…the real concern here is that you need to show some restraint in the big house before you are entitled to take the moral high ground. Stop wasting what you already get and offer up an end to pension apartheid, where civil servants get pensions that we can’t afford ourselves. Once you have done the good housekeeping and created a fair comparison with the private sector then we can all contribute the same, and benefit the same. Now that would be fair!
Report abuse
Green Monster
Low taxation is not a problem for me at all. I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion. It is true that a generation has been well provided for by the finance industry. I can’t be bothered to talk about why, but take it as read that any successful sector will raise the general standard (as well as the cost) of living. Of course it will.
But it is finite, as well as fragile, and believing that it will go on forever is naive. The sector aside, the whole thinking behind Guernsey’s taxation structure can only work in the good times. As is being demonstrated now, despite increasing personal wealth (for the top earners), more people are struggling to make ends meet, and more people will become reliant on the public sector for support in one way or another.
Clinging on to the idea that “it worked for me” does not necessarily mean that the foundations are strong enough for the next generation. If we have to cut investment into health and education, the two most obvious examples, then those services will be in real terms worse than they were for us. The same with infrastructure, culture and small business.
There will be less opportunities down the line for future generations to achieve what you have done.
As Gilthead and Truth Man are failing to see; it’s not about taking from someone to give to someone else, it’s about making sure that there is the closest thing as possible to equal opportunity.
Flat taxes and no taxes on wealth can only mean more of the pot goes to fewer people. It’s a mathematical given. And it just so happens that the wealthier people get, the more they want to hold on to it, necessary or not.
Meanwhile, back in the bingo hall “…North Korea….Pills…”
One more for house!
Report abuse
Arnald – good lord I almost agree with you! Scrub out a couple of numbers on your bingo card.
However the last 10 years of prosperity have given the less well off even more opportunity to “better” themselves and, sadly, many have not taken it.
Getting back to thread (and the thrust of many arguments on here) – the States need to get their spending under control before raising taxes (of any kind). That surely is the point.
Fallaize’s motion is treating the symptom and not the cause.
Report abuse
Arnald:
I do not fail to see at all! I just couldn’t work out, from all of your posts, what the main thrust of your opinion is.
For what it’s worth, we refer to totally different things. You seem to want equality. I want the lazy, who drag our society down in everything they touch, to stop taking from those who have worked for their money/wealth.
Actually, I suppose we do want the same thing, you just want to take it from the top, and I want those at the bottom to get off their bottoms and work for the equality you want to give them for free.
Report abuse
Truth Man
At what stage can you say that those at the top are benefitting from the social frameworks and perks given to them by the majority?
There is no comparison in financial terms.
Report abuse
Arnald:
I am not sure I understand your post – is it a genuine question?
If so, are you suggesting that those at the top are there because of our charity? For me, it is more a case of hard work getting people what they deserve. Ironically, a lack of hard work does not follow the same rule. Under the welfare state, even those who can’t be bothered are afforded luxuries that most of us have to work for.
Report abuse
Truth Man
So you think the wealthier you become the more tax breaks and privileges you should be able to claim from general revenue?
Report abuse
There is really nothing very radical about Deputy Fallaize’s suggestion here whatsoever. It is simply amazing to see the hardcore, right wing reactions of so many to this modest proposal on here. Guernsey currently has a budget deficit, brought about by the States’ decision to cut corporate taxes. It is therefore obvious that there will be a real need to develop a mix of both tax increases and spending cuts to resolve this deficit.
This particular move on Social Security contributions is a very neat – and dare I say it – fair way of raising some much needed additional revenue to help balance the books, sooner rather than later. This policy suggestion is simply good common sense to me; but we need to be considering other new taxes and levies too. The idea that the budget can be balanced simply through extra efficiencies and cuts in public spending is “for the birds”…
Many reasonable people on low and middle incomes now think that the richer members of our society – perhaps those who earn above £100,000 or so – should be making a larger contribution proportionally than the rest. We need to have a review of personal taxes, including income taxation rates, if we are to have a serious debate about how we are going to plug the gap in our island’s finances. This is all about balance. There is some scope for raising personal taxes for some; there is also scope for considering again whether capital taxes would be useful in Guernsey. Lets have this debate in public and examine all of the options, rather than having a knee jerk reaction from many people on here, up in arms over any suggestion of a higher tax or social secuiry contribution on the wealthy.
Report abuse
No but come to think of it Truth man, hard work does not automatically mean you will be at the top either.
My poor old Dad worked hard doing a manual job all his adult life (he died when he was 62yrs), and I mean very hard and when it came to sickness benefit after being diagnosed with cancer, sorry sir you cannot claim until you have been ill 19 weeks, well you guessed it, he was dead without being paid a penny, so lets get these anomalies ironed out once and for all and pay out the people that deserve it, and if the whole system needs looking at well lets do that and make it fair for everyone instead of the chosen few.
Report abuse
Arnald-That does seem to be the way it works in Guernsey,taxing the poorer people more so that they can give companies zero tax,and limit the amount of tax the rich pay.Jersey is even worse,they make cuts then give finance extra money,at the same time their deputies give them selves more money when they are already paid more than a lot of workers.
Report abuse
Chris – there is much in what you say, but what you say isn’t altogether relevant to Matt’s proposal. He does not advocate taxing the rich, just a very narrow band of workers. If he were remotely interested in fairness, he would not just be interested in the upper earnings limit, but also the lower one and the age one. Many people bump against the current higher limits with bonuses and/or overtime, as contributions are computed and imposed monthly or weekly. So many lower-middle earners may pay more as a result. Yet contributions will continue to exclude the fat rentrolls of many states members, dividend income, interest, pensions and so on, as their “full time” earnings only are taken into account. Easily manipulated.
If my rent roll is 100,000 and my full-time earnings are 20,000 I’d pay GSSA on the 20k only. Not only am I getting 120k a year, but I am property rich, with around say, 5 million. If on the other hand, I earn 120k, but pay rent, drive a very flash car on HP and give all my other money away to my ex wife and kids and various charities – I’d pay on 120k. But I have nothing. Income taxes aside, the property millionaire me pays around £1100; the other, no capital me £6600. Please explain the “fairness”, because I simply don’t get it.
To suggest all opposition to his acceleration of an unfair and ill-considered extension to GSSA as right wing or kneejerk is every bit as dim and reactionary. If Matt wanted to raise £6m he could campaign for fairness in the GSSA system across the board, removal of the tax cap for the ultra-rich, the imposition of super-rates on open market properties or whatever. Neat, maybe. Fair- certainly not.
Debate in public – that’s what this is.
Balance – not from Matt F.
Raise taxes on the wealthy – OK by me – just make sure they are the wealthy.
Capital taxes – no problem whatsoever.
VAT – absolutely. Use UK rules, rates and exemptions. Cheap and quick to implement, most businesses can put in place very easily, and most accountants know how it works already if they can’t. Increase benefits and tax allowances to compensate the lower paid.
Put taxes on all marine diesel, with a non repayable tax credit available to genuine fishermen and other commercial operators upon submission of their annual tax returns.
Report abuse
Arnald:
I did not say that, did I?
I think the people who claim benefits should have to contribute, in some way, to be eligible for what they are claiming. There should be a philosophy of ‘you get nothing for nothing’ from the States.
Report abuse
valeite:
I agree, hard work does not necessarily mean you will make it to the top. However, the thrust of my opinion is that there is a whole group of people who think benefit claiming is a career in itself. for me, those who work hard should be rewarded, and those who don’t work, well, should get nothing.
Currently however, for doing nothing you also get rewarded. That is wrong.
Report abuse
Truth Man
What you are saying, then, is that the State should employ the unemployed.
Surely that becomes expensive?
If you are proposing that work is done for the amount someone on supp ben, or inval ben, does that not just become a punishment, a sort of community service?
My point is that if the “work shy problem” is solved by enforced quid pro quo then those that receive any social benefit should have to work for society too.
I imagine that would not be very popular with the wealthy.
Bob is correct about the narrowness of this particular idea, but it’s quiet clear that any of his “I have no problem” alternatives would never see the light of day. Something has to be done, if the rich are lobbying hard enough to leave them untouched then the burden shifts downwards. Unfortunately, the middle blame the poorer and the tiny number of the “grey scale needy” (those that are too difficult to assess without further bureaucracy) are suddenly made scapegoats.
The very fact there is division about how SocSec issues should be solved shows that there is an inbuilt bias within the debate.
Nobody should get something for nothing if they are not deserving. But those folk need to employed. Is the private sector failing in its claims that it is the saviour of the economy or is the public sector failing to produce the necessary quality of employee?
Either way it costs money.
Investment. Smaller profits, better long term prognoses.
At least Dep Fallaize has the gumption to question the unquestioned status quo.
Report abuse
Arnald:
If you like to call it community service then so be it. I call it earning one’s benefit. I see no problem, whatsoever, with those on job-seekers allowance performing tasks that give something back to the community that is supporting them in their ‘time-of-need’. Do you?
Report abuse