‘We are on our own’
Monday 28th November 2011, 2:30PM GMT.
GUERNSEY is on the cusp of a ‘great decade’ while the eurozone faces 10 years or more of recession or depression, according to one of the island’s most high-profile residents.
Multi-millionaire private equity chief Guy Hands (pictured), who moved to the island two years ago, said at the Chamber of Commerce annual dinner that although there were challenges, Guernsey could fare well in the future.
‘If we are left alone, not interfered with, and allowed to get on to do what we do it actually could be great,’ he said.
‘Guernsey is a stable place, has a good legal system, is on the edge of total chaos and huge volatility, and, if left alone, and we don’t get regulated out of business, I think it could be a great decade.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Thursday 23 February
- Recycling and export is the way forward for waste
- UK mail will arrive later
- Free motoring supplement
- Herm prepares for summer
- Win a night at the White House
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
“We are on our own” If we are ever regulated out of business then it will be “You are on your own” as people like Mr Hands will go where the money is to be made and leave us islanders to pick up the pieces.
Report abuse
yep he will, and I might too. Still unsure what your point is.
Report abuse
@ Captain Oveur
Tut. Bureaucrat’s sarcasm. It is all very nice that people support Guernsey, but will they, when the chips are down?? NO! It suits him right now to ask the regulators\chief minister to step aside cause HE is making money. When all goes t^ts up he’ll be gone! That’s Gsyboy’s point. Like you didn’t know!
Report abuse
Lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ in the report, also would those of us that are struggling to keep up with the ever increasing cost of living here also benefit from the ‘great decade’ or is it purely reserved for the high income individuals?
Report abuse
Your right gsyboy but it wont just be Mr Hands it will be all the fat cats. Good riddances to bad rubbish.
Report abuse
Yeah! All the fat cats will move away and all the thousands of others who currently have jobs as a result of the finance sector will be unemployed. Negative equity will bankrupt even more, and the few in work will have to stump up the cash for all the unemployed.
It sounds like nirvana!
Report abuse
Let finance go, we will all be bankrupt then but at least I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that the rich are not getting even richer at my expense!!
Report abuse
Are you suggesting that if we had no finance industry and thousands of bankrupt people without jobs that we would have a “single class” society?
Report abuse
Blimey Kevin, the socialist utopia; everyone is equal…..equally poor, equally hungry and equally out of work.
Oooh, I can’t wait!
Report abuse
Obviously not stupid because he has made loads of cash, but should research some things before making a speach.
‘If we are left alone, not interfered with, and allowed to get on to do what we do it actually could be great,’ …….er ………
VAT loophole closed, now that sir is Interference and the powers that be will just let it happen.
Its already happening, I wish you people would look further than the Finance industry, it is you that is ruining this island with your blinkers on.
Oh well, dont really matter as long as the same old people get richer and richer.
Report abuse
“If we are left alone..” says Mr Hands. Not much of an economist and certainly doesn’t read the papers, this fiscal expert who was first in and first out of the global money lending Ponzi-scheme before it collapsed.
Look at how the UK Govt has treated the Channel Islands over VAT free goods. Mr Hands, do you honestly believe the UK and Europe will sit back and watch us prosper while they go down the pan?
Gsyboy is right. Money is mobile and labour is fixed. Our Mr Hands will leave our shores at the drop of hat when it all goes t*** up, leaving us to head the clear up.
Report abuse
I presume he is only here to avoid tax – if he and others like him were prepared to pay their fair share of taxes then the UK would not be making swingeing cuts that disproportionately affect the poorest in society. But, hey, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Report abuse
More pretty boy talk bull****, moved to the islands, err probably does the minimum number of days to get his tax benefits, its quite clear that the uk and eu are not going to leave offshore jurisdictions alone.
Why wait for the tumble, GET OUT NOW and join THE EXODUS
Once the finance has left we can return and have the old guernsey back
RIP The Finance Industry
YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE
Report abuse
that has got to be the first time in a long time that Guy Hands has been described as a “pretty boy”!!
Report abuse
“If we are left alone, not interfered with, and allowed to get on to do what we do it actually could be great” Sounds like a statement out of the Godfather. As the world sinks further into recession eyes will turn to places like this and such questions? Like why is all the money from our countries ending up in those little offshore islands will be asked.
Report abuse
How can he possible say we have a good legal system? Our Advocates are the worst regulated group you could ever meet.
Report abuse
Rocquaine, true guern, gsy boy and pbfalla.
Put it all into a lot less words than I could, totally sums up this sorry situation!
Report abuse
He’s right to an extent ….We just need to make sure we keep the finance industry here
Report abuse
this island is reliant on the eurozone economic cycles as well as world wide debt schemes . once the eurozone bubble collapses so will this island . money will be worthless absolutely . we all will suffer so people i would say its time to stock up wiv food supplies . back to basics !
Report abuse
Agreed! Food and take money out of bank now.
Report abuse
What a complete and utter tool this man is, and a fine example of the arrogant, ignorant, self absorbed, selfish, money driven kind of person that this island’s tax breaks attract.
Embarrassing on every level.
Report abuse
…sorry, forgot to include ‘smug’.
If we weren’t already off the UK Gvt’s Christmas card list, we will be after they read ‘insights’ like this from one of our rich residents (who live here to avoid paying their dues over there).
Report abuse
‘If we are left alone, not interfered with, and allowed to get on to do what we do it actually could be great,’ he said.
Yes that’s what alot of us feel regards the practices of fractional reserve banking, private equity funds, and tax avoidance.
Parasitic psychopaths are supposed to represent 1% of the population but we attract more than our fare share, unchecked they will drive most everyone else into depression.
Report abuse
Interesting caveat from Guy Hands. I would say recent events with LVCR and EU concerns with zero-10 point towards Guernsey being anything but “left alone.”
Report abuse
PBFalla – “Once the finance has left we can return and have the old guernsey back”
If this happens I like many will probably lose my job as I work in finance and appreciate what it has done for me over the years. Loss of finance would probably mean unemployment numbers like we have never seen before and where would the money come from to support our island like services, benefits etc..? I understand your feelings for the “Old Guernsey” but would we have a Guernsey left! Could take decades to recover if it ever happens.
Report abuse
As of March 2011 the States states that 21.4% of employment comes from the Finance Industry. So pretty much a fifth. It roughly contributes 40-45% of all revenues as well.
Report abuse
It would mean a different lifestyle,it would also need new ideas,something which should be happening now,lots of islands around the world survive without finance.
Back to basics and the old guernsey
RIP finance ( lets rid the island of this cancer)
Report abuse
Believe me, finance jobs are already vanishing.
It doesn’t affect me at present as I have never earned a living through finance but I can see that should there be mass redundancies, things may well change.
However, Guernsey people have always been resourceful and I see see no reason why other industries shouldn’t flourish. (It may mean a few people getting their hands dirty though).
Report abuse
It isn’t just Messrs Hands, Winser and their fellow gin blossoms who have concerns about over regulation. This beauraucratic strangulation is stomping [not marching] in across all spheres of local industry thanks to the ever increasing importation of highly paid job justification people from the UK – Val Cameron and John Curran being two notable but by no means isolated examples.
Whilst many posters on here may have little sympathy for the finance related high flyers when they complain about this nonsense, it should be remembered that they do provide huge levels of local [and international] employment which keeps the money flowing through our economy. But more than this, the point about over regulation is very well made and this is also a creation of those who are likely to flee these shores in the event that things go t!ts up [as Hands etc are accused of].
The difference is that these over regulation freaks are the ones who will have created the problem rather than being destroyed by it. And once their damaging self justification antics have killed local businesses they will rise again to spout their nonsense elsewhere. At our expense and taking their taxpayer funded golden handshakes with them.
But will we rise again? Say no and get rid before it’s too late.
Mr Hands and his ilk may not be everyone’s cup of tea but he raises a very valid and cautionary point here.
Report abuse
Very nicely said.
Report abuse
@Sugared Brazil Nut
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
These Regulators are keen to keep making comparisons with the UK.I see even they are saying we have to ease up on the regulation to get business moving, so what are we debating in 2012..yet more regulation to keep these people employed!
Makes you wonder how we ever survived without them :)
Report abuse
I, like many, have an great deal of interest in anything that will impact upon the finance industry as I am directly employed by it.
Firstly, I fully agree that Guernsey needs to look at other industries which would allow us to sell goods / services to a worldwide market. We are certainly exposed to the risks associated with the euro / global finance industry and a degree of diversification is never a bad thing.
Having read various threads on this website it would appear that there are various people who believe that they have all the answers and would happily “do away with” the finance industry.
I would challenge those people to actually state what kind of new industry they think would replace all of those jobs or, even better, go ahead and enter that industry and prove that we don’t need the finance industry! I’d love to see a new sector open up and provide the kind of opportunities that we have enjoyed in the last 20 years or so.
The reality is that if the finance industry “left” the island, the following implications would be just some of a very long list –
As already stated in this thread, we would see unemployment levels like never before. Not only because of finance workers out of work, but other industries which are largely propped up by the finance sector. These include –
Hotels
Restaurants
Taxis
Cleaners
Postal service
Couriers
Window cleaners
Catering firms
Building trades
Marketing
Web-design / IT
These are just a few of the services that I can think of which are used by the finance companies in the island.
On top of this you would have a large number of other businesses which would find their customer numbers falling due to unemployment. I imagine airlines, car dealers, shops, hairdressers, gyms and other products / services which would be considered anything but essential would suffer from a significant decrease in demand. Practically EVERY industry would be impacted. I challenge anyone to give an example of a job / industry which would not be impacted by a collapse of the local finance industry!
Reduced tax revenues would also lead to job cuts in the public sector.
I would also guess that the majority of well educated and professionally qualified residents (and most non-locals) would leave the island and effectively follow the money.
The skills that these people have would be vital in generating new jobs and also in marketing whatever goods / services we produced to the rest of the world. After all, we need money to flow in from outside of Guernsey otherwise we would end up with a significant trade deficit.
However, not everyone would have the ability to leave. Those who have a mortgage would probably be facing negative equity.
With record high levels of unemployment, no dominant industry bringing money in and the wealthier members of the population leaving, selling your house may become difficult. I would also predict that the supply of houses would increase as unemployed individuals would be likely to default on mortgages and banks would be selling off property to cover as much of their losses as possible.
This would increase the demand for unemployment benefits and social housing, all of which would need to be met by the decreasing number of tax payers.
These are just some of the negative effects of the loss of the finance industry. I’m sure there are more, but i’d be typing forever.
I guess that the point I am trying to make is –
That whilst the finance industry takes a bashing and many people probably would like to see the back of it, it serves us well both directly and indirectly.
To those who think / say otherwise I challenge you to provide a suitable alternative.
Report abuse
Awaiting peabrain’s response with interest
Report abuse
Like many, you talk as if we have a choice in this matter, that is, whether finance stay or go.
The point is, GG, we haven’t…. you do know that, right…?!
I mean, c’mon, whether we are all for or against that industry matters not one whit, as the industry itself, the powers that regulate it (HQ elsewhere) and the rest of the world have most – if not all – the power.
I’m sure many in the con camp know what you’re saying could happen, whilst wondering why on earth our leaders continue to act like it never will.
By taking such a short sighted view, failing to diversify and putting all our golden eggs in one basket, we have created a falsely wealthy economy that yes, we absolutely cannot sustain should finance go, and most know as well as you do that there will indeed be a huge negative impact on those businesses that are almost entirely dependent on finance and that alarmingly, there IS no plan B.
Seems the pro and con finance camps both see the same situation only in a different way. The cons know they cannot effect the outcome but can effect their response to it, and choose to remain positive about a different, less wealthy future, whilst the pros think they can maintain the status quo regardless, and simply cannot face ‘the end’…
which it won’t be. That’s not how Guernsey rolls, as our history proves testimony to.
I think perhaps it is down to those who consider themselves qualified to run our island…who ironically, created and perpetuated this situation…to start pulling their finger our and coming up with alternatives, don’t you? It’s apparently their job.
Report abuse
A very patronising tone to that comment. I am well aware that factors outside of our control will impact upon our future prosperity. I was merely pointing out that whichever way you view it, ‘getting rid of it’ or ‘it leaving us’, both would be disasterous. I certainly would never wish for a collapse of the local finance industry like some people are suggesting they would. I also note a lack of alternative solutions being mentioned.
Report abuse
My apologies for having offended you somehow, GG.
I guess someone stating the totally bl**din’ obvious could be deemed offensive…
in which case, perhaps we should all be offended by your comments also…?
The old ‘alternative solutions’ demand that the pro-campers always trot out is a great way of patronising those ‘fools’ who dare to disagree with them, because pro-campers want alternatives that maintain the status quo, therefore, any plausible suggestions are immediately shot down on the basis they won’t – and can’t – generate the dosh required to maintain our entirely unreal Disney style economy.
I don’t have the answers, but that doesn’t impact on whether finance stays or goes, GG, if it’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen, and we are just going to have to deal with it, so go direct your angst at our leaders who created this mess.
In the choice between evolution or death, most choose the former. Painful, not always welcome, but an inevitable fact of life.
p.s. Is it Groundhog Day, or am I just repeating myself here?
Report abuse
Scarlett – yes, you are repeating yourself, as well as missing the point.
Report abuse
Er, which is, Terry?
Please, seriously, enlighten us all.
Report abuse
Scarlett – which is that GG was not saying that finance would never leave us, just that certain people should be careful what they wish for.
Your attempts to put him/her down simply addressed different issues
I don’t know anyone who does not wish that the island could diversify, it is just that there are few viable option out there which would not give rise to the circumstances described in GG’s original post.
Report abuse
Yes, I think we all know that change will…errr…change things, Terry, what seems to seriously bother some is that there are those amongst us who accept we won’t be able to maintain the status quo, who embrace change, and don’t waste their precious time on this earth worrying about something that they have b*gger all control over.
Those who fret over finance’s presence (or not), console themselves with figuring that those who aren’t worrying don’t ‘get it’, whilst the other camp think EXACTLY the same of them…!
If you want something to REALLY worry about, worry about the sun burning out, if you think it’ll help. That incident probably will mean the end of the world…
the finance industry deciding to depart our beautiful island won’t.
Seems we’re all capable of realising (and stating) the bl**din’ obvious Terry, but thanks for clarifying yet again what most already know.
Report abuse
Scarlett – yep, missed the point again.
You are so fixated on stating the bleedin’ obvious that you cannot read what is written.
I refer you to my first paragraph of my last post. I’m not worrying at all, but some people do seem to call for finance to leave, or at least wish it. That is what GG was talking about and is very different from the point that you are making (which is so bleedin’ obvious that it is not worth discussing).
Report abuse
My point was –
1. The finance industry is vital to us at present.
2. We lack diversification and should attempt to do something about it.
3. All sections of the community would be impacted by the departure of the finance industry – so be careful what you wish for (if you wish it to leave).
I didn’t mention anything about factors which will determine whether the industry will / is allowed to stay here.
Scarlett appears to just want “bash” the finance industry / generally try have an argument.
Good luck to you, because as you said yourself “I mean, c’mon, whether we are all for or against that industry matters not one whit”
Report abuse
Scarlett – I am also interested to know how ideas are “shot down”? Do you believe that the finance industry is able to stop new, viable businesses from establishing themselves in Guernsey?
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I would just question that if you or I had a viable business plan, is it possible that anyone or anything would be able to stop that plan being viable and therefore being taken to market?
Just for the record, whilst I clearly enjoy the benefits (as we all do) of the local finance industry, I am not of the view that it is the be all and end all.
We should be looking to maintain the finance industry that we do have as it is serving us well. Anyone that thinks we should expel the industry that is keeping us all afloat is, in my opinion, stupid (My guess is that Scarlett would agree with me on this point??)
We MUST ALSO be looking at other sectors (renewable energy for example) in which we can become world leaders.
So before you label me a ‘pro-camper’ based on one post on this forum, I would grateful if you read a little closer and don’t read what you want to read in order to use my comments as a base from which to have a pop at the ‘pro-campers’ as you refer to them.
Report abuse
GG, please be kind enough to point out EXACTLY where I am ‘finance bashing’ in any of my comments? I’m being as pragmatic as you are, but just coming at it from a different angle.
With regards to the shooting down of alternatives, I mean the poo-poo-ing of alternative ideas by ordinary (pro finance) folk, (often seen on here!), who simply cannot accept that things may change and we may have a less wealthy future…
funnily enough, the early privateers – then the growers of the 60′s and 70′s – thought exactly the same, but they went (and the world failed to end, as perhaps some predicted) and finance turned up.
Finance’s presence here is but a drop in the ocean of the CI’s life, and people are entitled to resent the negatives of what it has done to the island (and wish that negativity gone) as much as others are entitled to appreciate the positives (and wish it to stay).
We agree, we need to diversify, but man’s very nature dictates that in some cases, it is not until we are on the very brink of disaster that we react. Therefore, whilst finance remains a huge presence here, (with it’s obvious benefits) our leaders will not earnestly attempt to investigate alternatives, but instead, do everything they can to hang on to finance (regardless of the cost) to stay popular and keep the coffers topped up (understandable, but short sighted), and to ensure we support their actions (and not focus too much on what they’re NOT doing, ie. investigating less popular, less lucrative alternatives), they scare monger about how the end will be nigh if it leaves….
at which point, ironically, they will probably be the subjects of a finger pointing ‘why didn’t you investigate alternatives, now we’re all futu!!!’ campaign.
I get your point, GG, but I stand by my opinions regarding this.
…and Terry, so what you’re saying is……..I don’t get it….*lol* :)))))))))))))……oh well, at least you’re remaining consistent with the same old argument, bless you.
Report abuse
GG
Has accurately described the fall out that would occur if the major engine of our economy were to relocate elsewhere, the stark reality for many would be home repossession, personal bankruptcy and a great deal of misery for many local businesses that derive income as a direct result of decent salaries earned in this sector. Out of almost 8,000 people who work in the finance and related sectors there are approx 600 licences, which shows clearly that the baulk of the people employed are either local or locally qualified.
Report abuse
Dave,
I agree with what you and GG are saying but at the same time the people that are not earning ‘decent salaries’ must not be overlooked.
If you are local and not earning a good wage everything seems geared towards looking after the better off in our society at the expense of the not so well off.
Report abuse
@GG
Very well said.
I employ 20+ in the Building Trades sector, without a shadow of doubt, I would have to lay staff off were to the Finance Industry to leave.
Anybody that believes the Island can survive growing Tomatoes & Carnations and sustain our current standard of living is living in cloud cuckoo land I’m afraid.
Report abuse
Kevin
I accept that fully.
My job as a deputy is to make sure that those people are not over looked; we already have and have to preserve a climate where there are good jobs for everybody. I agree not everyone can be in a high salary bracket but by having a buoyant economy it will stimulate growth in all the other sectors which means that builders, garages delivery people and all the other service industries will need people. We live in difficult times and we have to do whatever it takes to look after the people you refer to if they are to have a chance to take care of their families. What we also need is apprentice opportunities for our youngsters and it is only by having profitable firms will there be scope for these apprenticeships.
Report abuse
One reason for farming to be encouraged, if we loose that and have to import all milk, as oil costs increase then the cost of milk may well rise above the local milk price!
No finance, lower wages, but tied to sterling, GSY becomes a third world case, UK/EU will have to bail out with grants.
Report abuse
Dave
Whilst on the subject of Appenticeships, do you agree that we need to curb the amount of Non-Local contractors currently working in the Island if we are to encourage companies to take on Apprentices. For instance a contract currently being carried out at St Peter Port School is,I am told, employing predominantly Non-Local labour on a States Contract!!
Report abuse
Forrest
I am always in favour using local people on local contracts and I attended a meeting of Friday afternoon to discuss this and other topics concerning local unemployment and licences. Short term licences are issued when the island is unable to fill all the jobs available with our own people. We turn the tap open when we need to and down again when unemployment rises and you will see from recent figures published that the number of short term licences issued has gradually fallen every quarter since the beginning of 2011. My view is that we will need to turn the tap down further if unemployment rises significantly due to the loss of the fulfilment industry and the reduction may have to be fairly substantial, although it will have to be done in a measured fashion. I will check on the SPP school project to see what the true picture is.
Report abuse
Deputy Jones, can you direct me to where the quarterly figures are published?
Many thanks
Lyle
Report abuse
We all like the sound of less regulation. What could be wrong with that?
But was it regulation or the lack of it which assisted the banks in being able to rack up enormous debts (using our money) and then cripple the world economy?
At the time, some regulators were calling for more regulation. Unfortunately, they didn’t receive the support of the political class and the boards of banks who obviously knew better.
Remember that when you have to go to the bank for a £5,000 loan and have to produce six banks statements and payslips.
Or more specifically, why weren’t any bankers looking at Greece’s bank statements and payslips before they lent it quadrillions of pounds.
Report abuse
Dave
It is certainly a big problem looming. I know of 3 building companies that have layed off staff in the last 2 weeks with more pending.
I know for instance that at ST PP school there is a Welsh Decorating & Plastering company carrying out the works, which grates considerably when you consider the building is being upgraded for the CFE and Local Apprentices!
If you speak to local Tradesmen you will not find many that are busy at present, with the worst months coming up it doesn’t bode well.
Report abuse
Forest,
If the high earners are contributing so much money into the local economy then why are the local tradesmen not busy?
Judging by what I’ve read from several posters on this subject some people maintain that those on a high income are almost singlehandedly keeping the building industry (and many others) afloat.
Clearly this may not necessarily be the case!
Report abuse
Towards a more equal society in Guernsey (Part 1 Setting the scene)
In Francis Fukyama’s “Origins of political order” he tells of a fantasy that is played out in the minds of certain right-wing commentators. In this dream, the role of the state is much diminished in terms of the services it provides and everybody pays much less tax.
Sound’s great he says and of course, such a place exists. It’s called Somalia; amongst other no things there’s no regulation and no taxes. Unfortunately, there are no roads, no law and order and everyone is very, very poor. So you don’t pay tax but you need a tank (that’s a real one not an urban 4×4) to get about and protect your property. Suddenly, paying taxes and having a civil service doesn’t seem such a bad idea.
In Guernsey, a fantasy exists about how good it would be if the Finance Industry left the island for good. In this reverie, Guernsey would return to a much lamented past of good manners and genuine industry. However, many contributors to this forum correctly point out the unpleasant reality of Guernsey without Finance. And, of course, such a place does exist. It’s called the Isle of Wight. And, of course, that’s when the fantasy becomes a nightmare.
I think the major factor that generates this delusion is, perhaps, not the Finance Industry itself but from the inequalities it plainly generates in a highly crowded small island. If you add to this Guernsey’s ultra conservative government and institutions, people think that there is no prospect of change.
For example, there is a call (rightly or wrongly) in some quarters for cutting public service pensions (in large part teachers/nurses/low paid public service workers). On the other side, there are no quarters calling (rightly or wrongly) for an examination into private sector executive pay (or, dare I say it, such matters as advocates hourly rates). Even the Tory-led coalition is calling for restraint amongst the most highly paid in the private sector. So you can see how, in a small community, in difficult times, resentment begins to build.
Report abuse
i think that when the fulfilment industry does close and we have alot of unemployment we can all see how this would effect the people of guernsey so times this by a couple of 100 if the finance industry
does shut down then we can all have a long holiday
Report abuse
Kevin
I think its all down to confidence Kevin.
I know a lot of people in the Industry feel the uncertainty about what the States intend to do with the Open Market is a huge factor. Nobody is going to invest in Open Market refurbishments etc if they think the Open Market will be downgraded and you can’t blame them.
Report abuse
Beat THE TUMBLE we all know its going to happen,like a pack of falling cards,are you going to be the ACE or JOKER in the pack
Get out at the top and comeback on the bottom rung,when guernsey will be for guernsey people
Bring back the good old days
Report abuse
Lyle
When I have a little more time I will find them for you.
Report abuse
Towards a more equal society in Guernsey (Part 2 – Mind the Gap)
In Europe/USA, the inequality problem started when people started taking the central tenets of the free market e.g. individual rights, limited government and property rights as unarguable and almost holy articles of faith. And up till 2008, the high priests of the free market had a point. Their religion had seen off opposing economic ideologies which were finally symbolically crushed in 1989 with the demolition of the Berlin Wall.
However, the consequences of the post 2008 financial crash are yet to be realised. One of the measurable legacies though is the large gap worldwide between rich and poor Yesterday, a report from the OECD revealed that the gap between rich and poor (from 1980’s to 2008) grew in 17 out of 22 countries with, at times, the UK being the worst offender. It also reported that it is wrong to assume that there is an automatic trickle-down effect to the poorest in society.
The situation in Guernsey? The States issues a fine book of fact and figures containing very interesting statistical information. Other information though is notable by its absence. For example, even though every developed country seems to track and publish the gap between the rich and poorest earners; Guernsey doesn’t. So we don’t know how much the top 10% in Guernsey earns compared to the bottom 10%.
But we do know that Guernsey’s Finance industry will have followed the fortunes of the global markets so it’s reasonable to assume a large gap between rich and poor exists in Guernsey. We also have a wealthy Open Market community in Guernsey which accentuates this wealth gap still further.
I hope, in common with other jurisdictions, that data relating to the wealth gap in Guernsey will eventually be made available.
Report abuse
I have followed the logic of a lot of what you have said. I agree with a lot of it.
I’m just not sure that a wealth gap in Guernsey is worth getting upset about to such a large extent, as some people do.
It would be an issue to me if people could not change their own circumstances for the better, but mostly if they really want to in Guernsey they can.
A wealth gap is going to exist between those in professions such as medicine, law and finance because skilled individuals get paid more to compensate them for their knowledge. It just so happens that in a small island like Guernsey a lot of people work in Finance and it is unbalanced because of this.
Those outside Finance should be fairly compensated for their roles, and in most cases they are. It’s just not as high as those in the Finance industry. I don’t see why that is unacceptable.
I know if I wanted to be a artist or animal rescuer I would not make much money doing it, but that would be my choice. I also know if I want some more money at the moment I could always get another job in the evening and that would be my choice. I also know I could study for a job with higher earning potential and that would be my choice.
I kind of get the feeling that some (NOT ALL) people who get worked up about the gap in pay expect to get paid more just because. They have not done post school study or extra hours, they just don’t like others getting paid more.
I just don’t want to see the culture of I should get paid more just because I’m entitled take over Guernsey. People who work hard should be compensated for their efforts and not attacked just because they did well for themselves. That can’t be good for society as a whole.
I kind of think the term poor is relative too (some people think not having a holiday makes you poor) and if you look at it objectively those at the lower end in Guernsey are not in poverty the way they can be in other countries. In fact I hear that those that on benefits (those worse off) sometimes have a better standard of living than those working. I think there is always going to be a rich and poor divide and the real issue is whether has it arisen due to fair circumstances?
The issue of directors pay is one that needs to be examined and you are correct we don’t know what degree this happens in Guernsey. It has to be kept in mind though it needs to be set at a level to attract decent directors, motivate them and not a penny more. It may need to be lowered but distortion of the facts by the media and green eyes should be removed for an unbiased judgement to be made. I’m not a fan of law to regulate it, I don’t think it fixes the root cause so I prefer self regulation (even though it’s not working). Ideally shareholders should cause more of a stink as it’s their money and they can boot overpaid directors out.
Other issues such as the value we place on nurses etc are good questions too. Its also not wrong to ask is it fair that when I had a lawyer deal with a query for roughly two hours it cost me £550? Its debatable.
Also why don’t they produce financial data for Alderney – such as RPI? (They managed to get the UK and Jersey in the booklet). Who is supposed to do produce these figures? They get paid Social Security I believe based on changes in Guernsey’s RPI but the economies are totally different. (If i’m incorrect please let me know). I’m concerned it could be leading to a wealth inequality to a degree between the islands.
Report abuse
Dani
I am grateful for your post. Thank you for replying.
I think we are quite close to agreement in many areas. Just for clarity, I am talking about the gap that occurs between the very top and the bottom. There are also, I agree, people who think they are owed a living. I do not speak for them. Equally, there are those who work hard in proper jobs who just need a bit of extra help.
So, let’s take just one social issue – Housing (for the avoidance of doubt, I think Housing is one of the few effective departments operating within the States).
Presently, there will be couples, both of whom will be working hard (at the most highly paid jobs they can get) trying to afford a mortgage and perhaps staying with their parents as they strive diligently to save for a deposit.
Meanwhile, at the very top, there are people living in vast houses, the land of which could be used for the creation of many affordable homes instead of just one largely unaffordable one. Further some people at the top can buy a large portfolio of extra properties which effectively increases house prices still further and provides a very significant unearned income whilst, effectively, consigning others to a life time of living in rented accommodation (which is fine if that is their choice).
Obviously, I dont mind people living in large houses. But for me, there comes a point where those at the very top can still be richly incentivised to use their skills and work hard; but the enjoyment of “super-profits” should be for the benefit of all society. I admit, for some, this is a very unpalatable thought which is why, if you can bear with me, I will argue it in a separate post – but it revolves around, the vexing issue of what people are entitled to versus what people actually deserve.
Finally, I am also tempted to say something along the lines of what Mrs Hobbesvlocke says to me when we go out for an evening which is “Where are you going in that outfit? 1985!” i.e. in terms of people being able to improve their prospects by working harder, I would say your post reflects a state of affairs which existed, for some, up to about 2007.
In declining economies, however, the relative gap between rich and poor only gets larger and is of concern (as revealed almost daily) in most developed countries. I think this decline is also being reflected in the Guernsey economy and is magnified by the shift in the tax burden from corporate to personal.
Report abuse
Can’t remember where I read this … probably the Daily Mail ..
GREED: A word commonly used by liberals,low achievers,anti-capitalists and society’s losers to denigrate,shame and discredit those who have acquired superior job skills and decision making capabilities and who,through their application of those job skills,achieve success.
Neil Boortz
Report abuse
Your welcome. I enjoy your posts.
We do mainly agree but I disagree on the type of wealth gap that presents itself in Guernsey. I would say it occurred naturally rather than down to inequalities in chances and opportunities.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say about sharing “super-profits” as this is a new concept to me. I currently disagree with the idea but will remain open minded.
I feel that if you earned it, you earned it. There is no distinction between big houses and even bigger houses for me. I also think what constitutes big is a subjective area and can potentially cause a lot of grief.
I still feel this way in spite of my position on the housing ladder. I am a young person who is currently renting trying to save for a mortgage without help from my parents on a single salary.
I would also say that despite the housing department being effective it is an even more considerable barrier to me purchasing a house (that I want – without restrictions once I have actually got into the financial position to do so) because it is not human rights compliant and I can’t wait until after election time so states members will actually have the mentality to sort that out…
Anyway my reasoning is this, pretty much everyone starts at the bottom. Anyone in the situation you describe can work hard to get a house, and eventually a bigger house. And a bigger house if they want one and they have gone out and got theirs, they have worked for it. Its theirs and theirs alone. It is not their personal responsibility that others are at the beginning of the process. We already have a social system that deals with this.
I would say that if they have a big income (hence big house) they are paying more income tax and social security to support those at the bottom and are thus in my view sharing their super profits already.
Report abuse
Hobbes and Dani
Why don’t you two just get a room?
I believe the Atlantique will have some spare very soon
Report abuse
Dani,
I’m guessing from your posts that you have a quite well paid job in finance given that you are currently renting, able to save money and consider a mortgage on a single wage.
Obviously you have been(and are) working hard towards this target and good luck to you.
However I have to take issue with you saying that you don’t consider a wealth gap worth getting upset about.
I’m not sure you would have the same point of view if you were at the bottom of the income scale.
There are many people on the island both single and married who would love to be able to buy rather than rent for whom house ownership is just a dream.
The vast majority of these people work just as hard as you but by the nature of their employment earn a lot less even though they may still have had to put a lot of effort into becoming qualified in what they do.
That is why so many people on a lower income resent paying extra taxation and seemingly not gaining much benefit from it whilst the finance industry are presumably making the money yet not contributing to the economy.
Report abuse
Kevin & Ray
Funnily enough I don’t actually have enough money on my own to afford my rent so will be advertising for a flat mate come January. I’m located on the outskirts of town, with very good sized dining room/living room/kitchen to share. Individual would have their own good sized bedroom and private bathroom with parking space and of course the pleasure of my good company all for£700.
Kevin
The point I was making was that I have been at the bottom, and am still working my way up. I believe that the economic system we have allows us to do so. This is important factor to me when considering a wealth gap. Getting a mortgage is hard for all young people and it wouldn’t bother me at all if further assistance was given to them. I will be interested to hear how Hobbes think the situation could be improved.
I would say I emphasize with your friends that feel their own property is a pipe dream but I would give them the same advice that I would apply to myself. If they really want a house, work extra hours, get extra jobs, study for extra earning potential or transfer into an industry that pays better. It’s all up to them an I think that is the most important thing, that they are in control of their own circumstances.
I also of course understand that everyone works hard and not just those in Finance. I myself have done a variety of jobs – cleaning/food serving jobs/kitchen kp/laundromat work/shop assistant/nursery assistant as well. I would never ever say anyone who does those sorts of jobs does not work hard and apologize if this was reflected in my tone in the above post.
In regards to the burden being on the public as opposed to businesses this is a good issue. I share your desire for the quality of life to be high for the average person. I would like it to be fair also, it is one that has been been brought into the lime light fairly recently and I know that it concerns you.
As I know you are more well informed would you be able to tell me whether the increase percentages were before or after inflation? Some rises were on the lower end of the scale and may just be inflationary increases to keep the same amount of revenue being derived from this source of tax. Also I believe the petrol tax was the largest increase – are they reviewing this? I feel this information would give me a better formed opinion if you want mine.
Other factors that would determine my opinion on the matter is how big should the burden on businesses be? If it gets too high, then they will leave, how would the quality of the average person’s life be effected because of it? And would extra taxation be needed to be made on individuals to keep their public provided services the same?
As well as increasing the tax burden on the huge international finance houses along the front – how does it affect the smaller local finance providers that already have the burden of licensing fees, regulation etc generally geared to the larger companies?
Also in regards to the distribution of wealth… say if the finance industry was not here, there would still be a wealth gap. Some people will always have more money. Hypothetically leaders of the construction industry could be at the top. Local traders done good. Would we still want them to pay out extra so wealth would be distributed more equally? Would we still find this as easy to consider fair? That is another aspect that I am reflecting on and would ask you to consider also.
Report abuse
Dani, thank you for your post
Some of the points you raise in your focussed reply have forced me into a rewrite of part 3 – which I had just finished :-)
Yours is a persuasive missive on why things should stay pretty much the way they are. I agree your point that big earners pay substantially more tax than everybody else.
However, I believe it is worth revisiting some fundamental ideological issues because, as we have seen post 2008, the principles of the free market, unfortunately, didn’t have all the answers after all.
Report abuse
Towards a more equal society in Guernsey (Part 3a – Meritocracy versus Guernocracy)
For fun, let’s assume that Guernsey is the only human society that ever existed and it has always been organised as a meritocratic free market with fair equality of opportunity – i.e. tries to make sure everyone starts from the same starting line through, such things as education and welfare initiatives.
According to Rawls (moral and political philosopher (b.1921-d.2002)), two questions would arise:-
Is Guernsey actually meritocratic and, intriguingly, who actually deserves the financial benefits that superior individual performance bring?
Instinctively, almost everybody would answer “yes” to the first question and “to the individual concerned” to the second.
Taking the first question, what actually happens in Guernsey is although it has undoubtedly made strides towards a meritocracy,-
1. There is only one state school focussed on academic excellence. If you can’t pay to go private, mostly, that’s too bad.
2. Some Parents who can, pay private school fees because their children will enjoy better prospects
3. There is generous post-18 education assistance but still some clever students will be put off by the expense.
4. Some sort of discriminatory network may exist. For example, if society was completely meritocratic, the chances of a child doing the job their parent’s did would be the same as doing any other job. If there was data available, it would be interesting to know, in Guernsey, if the children of professional people (Doctors, Lawyers etc.) were more likely to follow in the footsteps of the parents than would exist by chance.
5. The extensive Trust industry is evidence of large scale inequality as it appears quite a few people have access to large amounts of unearned income. In some cases, this can continue for generations.
6. Individuals are born into circumstances of varying quality and support.
So it would appear that quite a few people don’t exactly start from the bottom or the same starting line. Perhaps, not so much of a meritocracy; more of a Guernocracy.
Needless to say, more taxes would help address 1,3 and 6 above
The second question, to whom do the benefits of superior performance belong? is such a good one it deserves a consideration all on its own.
In reflecting upon both these questions, the important thing to remember is that, per Adam Sandel:-
“The circumstances that people are born into are neither fair or unfair, they are just natural facts. What is just or unjust is the way institutions deal with these facts.”
Next time – super profits for super people?
Report abuse
Hi Hobbes
To bring our disagreement back on focus – I still don’t see how any of these issues mean that those with more money should be taxed more, simply because they have more money.
We live a society where people have free choice, so if people want to pay for their kids to go private that is up to them. If there is an issue with public schools, the issue is that the government has not delivered. This has nothing to do with those more money, this is not their responsibility. The money the government receives should be used effectively. Your issue should be with them.
Trust funds kids are a good example too. They are the result of someone doing well for themselves by legal means and should be celebrated. How they choose to spend their money is up to them in a FREE SOCIETY. They could spend it all on antique’s/ palaces for their dogs / charity whatever. It is up to them. If they want their children to benefit (and who does not?) it is exactly the same thing. The trust find child can then spend it on what they want. Although the trust fund child did not earn the money, the parent did and it is their money to decide how it is spent.
You also bring up the idea that through background kids have different chances. Some rich children do have extra benefits but the important thing is those from lower income have a good chance too. We should ensure that they do, and this is something that is already recognised and continously improved upon. It is up to the government to provide this, not rich peoples.
As regards to university fees this is means tested in Guernsey. It is weighted on income of the parents already.
Report abuse
Dani
It is a pleasure to read your posts mainly because you are so eloquent however I do not entirely agree with your views.
We live in a society where those with adequate funds have free choice, others are stuck in a poverty trap with limited opportunities. Those who are able to escape are likely to do so by chance combined with talents rather than by talents alone.
It is up to the government to provide chances however this is far more challenging than you suggest. Absolute efficiency is currently impossible and using your example of schooling more funds would easily result in improved results which is exactly what occurs in private education. Taking issue with the government over any perceived failings is futile when they simply do not have the funds to improve things.
Report abuse
Dani,
I think your points about the rich or about super high earnings would perhaps stand up if there was an infinite amount of money/resources to go round. There isn’t and the only way someone can have something is generally by someone else not having it.
Also the word ‘earn’ is a difficult one. Did you see the programme last night which showed how various players in the collapsing institutions which triggered the global financial crisis ‘earned’ payoffs of $100m and more?
Do you really think a bank trader gambling with other people’s money is worth more than someone who cares for the sick or someone who cleans his toilet? What would happen to the world if no-one wanted to do the caring and menial tasks? It might be the market that dictates what they get paid, but is it moral?
Do you think everyone has the same life chances and choices? That is the philosophy in America and look at that country.
Report abuse
Hi Rocquaine
There is always going to be a limited amount of money going around, you are correct. I personally think it is fairer though that the money is up for grabs and anyone can go for it if they want it. In Guernsey those for whatever reason who cannot go for it have the social security system to help them out and give them a decent quality of life. (Hopefully it does anyway).
The financial crisis issues occurred in the UK and I respectfully will keep my comments to Guernsey as that is what I have been discussing. I did not see the program. I do not endorse unethical business practice and have not been endorsing it. I was saying a natural wealth gap in Guernsey has occurred and those in finance do tend to earn more due to the nature of the skills people within have.
I would point out though those directors would not have got off with such huge payoffs if corporate governance had been followed and shareholders exercised their rights as I said above. I also don’t think it is OK that they get paid the amounts that they go, but again that’s up to the shareholders. They clearly think they are worth it.
I would also point out it this climate the media are giving a one sided view and not giving all the facts which makes it hard for us all to have an objective opinion. Take for example of directors being paid for failure. Bonuses are usually contingent of the director continuing to work for a company to prevent problems of them leaving all the time. So they are paid a few years later. Recently when directors received their bonuses that they earned when the company was doing well in periods of lay offs it seemed unreal. Im not debating whether that was ethical or not for them to take them but I am saying most people are unaware of the whole issue, so cannot be objective and this is perpetuated by the media being emotive against the industry. I also think the stigma of the UK finance industry is rubbing off on the GSY one when it is not necessarily warranted.
Earn is a difficult one and you can read my views on it above.
I do think that a gambling bank trader is worth more, because that sounds like a type of investment job that people optionally pay for. They can control the risk level he takes it would be illegal not too. I would say someone in this job probably has a degree or professional qualification so it would be moral and ethical to pay them more than a toilet cleaner on that alone. I do not dispute that the toilet cleaner works hard, but I would say if they wanted to change their circumstance they could.
I think there are shades of grey of how equal people’s chances are. I’ve just read Hobbes post and he states them well. But on the whole, definitely more yes than no. I don’t see clear cases of equality, they can all be overcome if you go for it.
I’m not advocating supreme capitalism either, I love the comfort net of the social system. I’m all up for improving the lot of everyone I just think we should be objective in doing so and that taking from the top is not the right way to do so just because it seems to be the emotional favorite. It defeats the objective of working hard it you cannot keep your own money.
Report abuse
Dani & Hobbesvlocke
This is a classic capitalism v socialism debate
Capitalism has served Guernsey well via the finance industry to raise standards of living generally, however in any small isolated society a rich/poor divide will naturally create discontent. Conspicuous consumption makes it harder for the less well off to appreciate what they actually have due to the comparisons with the Jones’s next door.
Having said that there is scope for applying socialist principles in Guernsey for the greater good in order to achieve a better balance and equality. We are an affluent community by global standards and as a society we should be ensuring that as a bare minimum no-one falls below the poverty threshold as defined by our government.
I tend to agree with Hobbes.
Report abuse
Thank you Rocquaine and Kevin for putting more meat on the bone
Spartacus, as always, the consensus seeker. This is a good thing. And Dani thank you for your posts. Without them there is no discussion.
Likewise Ray. I’m sure one day we’ll agree on something:)
If you can stand it, only 2 more posts to go.
Report abuse
Towards a more equal society in Guernsey (Part 3b – Super-profits for super people)
So far, we have shown how a Guernocracy differs from a Meritocracy. Other forum contributors have also highlighted, that in a Guernocracy, the mono-culture of finance means that unless you are involved in it, you are likely to be at a disadvantage even if you are a skilled and diligent employee of another industry.
This can also mean that many people who were, perhaps, much better suited to being a teacher, nurse, policeman etc. find themselves choosing a finance career just so they can gain some sort of financial parity. It makes these people less happy and Guernsey loses out because, for example, good local maths teachers are being lost to finance but Guernsey needs them anyway, hence the need for teachers licences. This misallocation of talents is another feature of a Guernocracy.
Moving on to take the second question posed in 3a “who deserves the benefits that superior performance bring?” Some of the Guernsey’s wealthiest will be both skilled and hard working. They surely deserve all the rewards their talent brings. Rawls might disagree. Consider the following:-
1. Society values different skills at different times. Today, if you can handle a lot of clauses/sub clauses in your head without falling asleep, you can earn a fortune as a lawyer. In a different time, knowing the difference between a past participle and a predicate was no good at all, if you were about to get your skull cleaved from your shoulders by a mad bloke with an axe.
For example, in about 457AD, two mad blokes with axes called Horsa and Hengist (breaching the terms of their housing permits), managed to secure most of Kent for their own use. These days, the opportunities for mad axemen are, I fear, much reduced – even if they are very mad and do have their own axe.
2. Aside from differences in the quality of upbringing, individuals are endowed with different innate abilities e.g. some people have an innate facility for kicking a ball into a goal. Lots of footballers train really hard but some are just naturally better. They were given their talent by chance.
So, given the above; to what extent can we say an individual really deserves ALL the rewards their talents bring? Conversely, is there at all a sense in which fortune played its part i.e. a person being born with talent and that talent matching what society values at the time?
Rawls argues society benefits top earners in that they can earn more than they morally deserve. E.g. is it right that Apple (contains some notable individual shareholders) sits on US$82 bn cash which is more than the US government has on current account? This is the same Government that struggles to pass basic healthcare legislation for its population but is lobbied by Apple to take on China to protect its intellectual property rights so as to become even more profitable. In Guernsey, the finance sector also lobbies the Government for its own particular advantage.
The above shows that the super-profits (my words not Rawls’) that some individuals earn can be so great that there must surely be capacity for the wealthiest both to be fully incentivised to continue what they do so well AND make a further contribution to the society which made it possible.
For me, in Guernsey, this translates as the very top earners paying a bit more tax so everyone can have better education and health. Similarly, funds may become available for more robust housing subsidies for people, like Dani, who work hard but are struggling to afford a mortgage in a housing market skewed by the finance industry.
Also, it may provide the funding to incentivise people to take the worthwhile careers that make the best use of their talents for themselves and the community rather than having to follow the cash.
Apologies for length
Next time: Finally, a short conclusion.
Report abuse
You are correct that skills and talents vary over time and some are unique to that individual.
Keeping an overview in sight though most can be developed and applied. I would suggest if people can identify that you get more money from remembering a sub clause or two I would suggest if they wanted to be rich, they could choose to be so. Nothing is stopping them. What adds value is not a secret. It is a challenge to everybody to have mind numbing boring sub clauses don’t forget that.
You also discuss the idea of people having to sacrifice their own pleasures to get good paying jobs. That again is up to them. If they really loved being a math teacher so much, nothing is stopping them from being a math teacher. Everyone experiences the happiness trade off and how they deal with it is up to them. No-one forces them to go work in finance. There is always freedom of movement. To say a rich person should pay more (who arguably did a job they didn’t like to make money) so someone else can be happy is not fair.
Even in an ideal world not everyone could do what they loved or the jobs needed to be done would not be done. Human resource allocation would be bizarre. It would not necessarily be on a basis that was best for society either as you suggest.
In terms of the responsibility of large companies like Apple, please remember it would be taxed by the US government. As would all its employees, they get a juicy bite out of it too. The emergence of huge companies is a different subject and does not validate the taxation of the rich purely because they were rich.
I really am glad that you want the younger generation to benefit and have a good chance, and that you want greater social equality but you must recognize that it is to some extent already there. Improvements can and must be made by the government to continously improve all our lives, but why it should be done on the dime of someone purely because they have been successful is not fair. Taxation should be collected in a fair and objective basis.
And in all fairness should a person like me ever get a nice big house I intend on spending my money like I want. It would be mine and no-one else would have no right to tell me how to spend it. If I want to spend it on good causes for to society I will, but any unfair tax on myself will be over my dead body. Anyone no matter how much they earn has the right to feel like that too.
If you want to look at the effect of a greater taxation on a Guernocracy you also have to factor in the high net worth individuals that are attracted here because of the tax system. They will leave and this could a skills shortage and again a detrimental effect on the economy and thus the benefits for those at the bottom. The open market would definitely be affected.
I think the answer Mr Rawes provides does not place a very high onus on the individual and is not empowering. This in itself does not promote enterprise and thus a better quality of life. It does to a degree pander to those who do accept a degree of responsibility for their own circumstance.
It is an easy answer, because on whole the mass will always want the rich to pay more. Emotive situations are skewered to give it weight.
Most importantly though it is not fair which is contradictory as this is the injustice which process tries to correct.
I would also suggest Mr Rawes is not a Guernseyman and is an American and this should be taken into context as their social system is not as developed as ours. They did only just get health care, I can see why his argument has more weight there. It is also an economy where money can get you anywhere, for example – their political process. Guernsey does not share that culture to the same extent.
Report abuse
Dani,
You mention in your post that you don’t want high income earners to be subject to an extra tax burden as you don’t consider it to be fair.
I think I speak for many low earners when I say that we feel that we are already subject to an unfair tax burden.
Our government(rightly or wrongly)has gone to great lengths to safeguard the finance industry at the expense of everyone and everything else regardless of their profession or income.
You will no doubt argue that we all benefit from finance and to some extent we do, however it is now reaching the point where the financial and social cost of accomodating the finance industry is becoming too much of a burden to those on a low income.
As a result of the zero tax regime we are ALL paying towards safeguarding the industry BUT (and this is the important thing) some 70% of us are not really seeing any gains whilst the other 30% are reaping the rewards.
Report abuse
Kevin
The only important thing is that there is a net benefit to everyone and there is. Re-evaluating the position is good however.
Are in particular talking about the TRP though? I feel like being the devils advocate now. I read in yesterdays press that it went up by such a degree on individuals this year as over the last few years it had gone up so much on business to compensate for the burden that is placed on the individual.
We are all paying towards the safeguarding of all industries not just finance. The bugger is the other industries do not have as large a presence. I would love it if they did. It would be interesting to see their return on investment figures too.
The money on alcohol and cigarettes is an indirect tax – you don’t have to pay it if you don’t want too and it is implemented to raise revenue to offset the social and health costs in theory not for the finance industry. Duty on fuel is supposed to go towards the maintainance of the roads and other public transport services and is also indirect. These will always go up every year with inflation so the same amount of the budget will be derived from this sort of income.
Taxes on the individual have remained at 20% for all of us.
I have only been stating that taxing rich individuals is not completely fair and objective. My thoughts on the business v individual is still developing along with the information I gain access to on the matter.
Report abuse
Great post Dani
You raise a very interesting point.
It might be in the nature of some of the poor to think the rich should pay more.
Similarly, as we have seen, it might also be in the nature of some of the rich to seek power after power and advantage after advantage.
In the end, my argument boils down to the fact that super-profits cannot be earned without the existence of Governments, laws, infra-structure and people. And, as such, there is a voice that has been silent for far too long that highlights the importance of Community alongside personal freedoms and entitlements.
Report abuse
Yes Hobbes.
But it is not the government taking one for the team like you think it is.
Your example was Apple, yes they make a lot of profit, but it does get taxed. It’s employees get taxed. They may even have a State sales tax. That’s why the government makes laws and develops infrastructure. They are there to support business because they get a return from it. Otherwise it would not cater to it.
Apple would also provides wealth creation through jobs, develops specialist industry skills and interestingly enough as a big company responds to the idea that it has more responsibility and would make charitable donations and evolving to social pressure will be reducing its environmental/social footprint. The larger a company gets them more it is under scrutiny and thus as cultural trend is acting this way. Further taxation on the rich is not needed to correct this. It happens naturally.
In some poorer countries companies are now providing services to the community such as safe drinking water/health care/education when their own governments cannot provide them.
I think you are looking at a rich person in a one dimensional view. Imagine if we were talking about J.K. Rowling, her imagination and enterprise earned her fortune. I bet she helps out the community already through donations of both her money and time in the development of reading skills in children.
It is also IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to begin at square one no matter what system you propose. I think that this is true even in a communist system, their are always human ills affecting the system. I would say that they are already minimal difference between chances in Guernsey and no huge deterrent to financial mobility because good people have already campaigned for this. Focusing so much on such small areas that cannot be effectively dealt with by taxation on the rich won’t help anyone in the overall picture.
Report abuse
I would also like to add thank you for such great banter, but I think I’m going to nip it in the bud now…
I imagine we will stay at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and where it stems from and will continue to consider it as one that focuses on the benefit to all is always the way to go.
Report abuse
Hobbes, are you going to run for deputy? (I’d place a fair wager that you are not already one!)
Report abuse
Thank you Roquaine
I’d never run for Deputy. The job nowadays is too difficult. I rarely criticise deputies directly except on matters affecting education.
But, intuitively, you have second guessed the main topic of the conclusion.
Report abuse
Hibbes, I would love to hear your views on education – it is a subject I have a particular (but not professional) interest in, but that is outside the scope of this thread.
I agree that being an effective deputy is a difficult, if not impossible, task given the breadth and depth of a vast number of topics one would need to have and acquire to do the job properly. Whether that concern troubles many of the current or future incumbents I could not say. It is certainly an argument for not reducing numbers.
Report abuse
So we have the lawyer doing a job he hates and getting paid £1m a year and the cleaner doing a job she hates and getting paid £10k a year.
Moving on, do you really think that if the high net worth individuals departed, we would be left with a skills shortage? Gadzooks, no F1 racing drivers, what would we do? (I am not here talking about medical consultants and their ilk, I would assume they came primarily for a job rather than to escape the taxman).
Our current government schmoozes the incoming rich in a way that is distasteful. And I would have no concern if the open market were to collapse. Indeed (and I am a LM house owner) I would have little concern if the local market properties took a pasting – it would mean more people could afford somewhere to live. I find it amusing that newspapers claim to think it is a disaster if house prices fall a smidge and at the same time think it is a disaster that millions of younger people cannot afford a home, without ever realising that these two things are related.
I’d also be interested in knowing if you are female or male Dani, I initially assumed from the spelling of your name that you were female, but your posting does not seem to bear this out.
Report abuse
Rocquaine
The point is the cleaner does not have to be a cleaner, they can be a lawyer if they want to. No-one forces them to remain a cleaner, they can increase their income if they want. If they work full time too they would get paid more than £10K a year. You are undervaluing their efforts. I would also say the cleaner could be both a woman or a man, same with the lawyer.
I am a female, though I don’t see why this matters for the current discussion.
I did not say that if the banks left there would be a skills shortage. Or anything about F1 drivers. I think the free market provides a fairer way of valuing a job. If people don’t like their wages they can go on strike or ask for a wage in a particular profession. Or move profession.
Hobbes thinks that because there are higher paying professions, they tempt skilled workers into these jobs and thus they suffer because of it. All I’m saying is that there is a happiness/job trade off in most cases and that they have a choice in the matter. I also do not believe that if rich people were taxed more this would change the outcome of the individuals decision and is a moot emotive point to stir up support for it.
Your opinion on the open market is your own and your entitled to it. I am inclined to think that it is beneficial to the island on the basis that government do try and preserve it, they would not do this against our own interests. I am open minded to see the information that will be released about the open market though as they have only just started collecting data to make a more informed assessment.
I would point out that there are other factors that increase the value of property too. Baby boomers investment property for rental. The number of people wanting entry level housing (not millions though – there is only 60,000ish on the island) and the amount of properties available. I’m glad your willing to have your property devalued as most wouldn’t and my current thinking is the most effective methods for making first homes more affordable would have this effect.
Report abuse
I would also like to say thank you for saying my posts are eloquent.
So I hope you don’t mind me further explaining a point that I disagreed with Hobbes about which gave the impression I think there would be a skills shortage if F1 drivers left.
Hobbes believes that people are not being paid fairly or their true value is not being correctly represented. That is why the maths teacher may leave to work in Finance.
I believe the logic here falls down again because no matter what way you value a job, one will always be paid more thus there will always be a happiness/money pay off in some areas. I don’t believe that doing a job that makes you happier would be arguably better for society either as then there really would be a lot more F1 drivers/professional golfers, landscape gardeners, professional shoppers, sports people etc and this would not result in a economy that would benefit us.
Report abuse
Towards a more equal society in Guernsey (Part 4 – Finally a conclusion)
The April 2012 elections will shortly be upon us and we’ll soon be receiving candidates’ manifestos.
Some of them will no doubt contain statements which effectively say:-
• Education is good for children
• It’s better to be rich than poor
• I think the elderly should be given food
• I like being safe at night
• Guernsey is nice
No one can argue with those things but they are just bland statements of best practice. What do they really mean?
For what is worth, I will gladly give my vote to any candidate who gives me the impression through their radio interviews or manifesto that, at some level, some thought has been given to the following:-
If you could start again in Guerney (in terms of rules, systems, culture and institutions), how would it differ from what is currently in place?
In performing this exercise, you must assume that you do not know which part of society you are going to be born into e.g. whether you will be born rich or poor, strong or weak, talented or average.
Further, I would like them to have read this phrase and be ready to talk about it.
“The way things are does not necessarily determine how things ought to be” – Theory of Justice
whilst remembering from 3a “the circumstances that people are born into are neither fair nor unfair, they are just natural facts. What is just or unjust is the way rules, systems and institutions deal with these facts”.
Finally, in terms of this thread, Dani has stated rightly that what we have in place is pretty good. Equally, others like Rocquaine and Kevin have argued also correctly, in my view, that more needs to be done. Spartacus is weighing everything up very carefully.
As I say each Election time; these ones are the most important yet.
Many thanks to all of you for getting as far as this sentence.
Merry Christmas
Report abuse
Nicely put.
Put Dani does think there should always be continous improvement, but does not see why only the rich should have to pay for it.
Report abuse
Dani,
I can’t speak on behalf of Hobbes, Rocquaine and Spartacus but I’m not saying that the rich individuals should necessarily have to pay for continous improvement, I’m talking about getting something back from the companies.
We probably have no choice but to make the island a good place for finance but is it giving enough back?
At what point do we say this has got to stop somewhere?
Preferably before it completely screws up our economy.
If something doesn’t change Guernsey could eventually become a floating Monaco(full of millionaires and devoid of any working class locals!)
Report abuse
Thank you all too – would be good to continue over a pint!
Report abuse