http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/News/DraftStatesBusinessPlan2010.htm

[Calimachon]

Cut and paste below from this website:

http://www.gov.je/ChiefMinister/News/DraftStatesBusinessPlan2010.htm

Senator Philip Ozouf added: “£44 million is being invested in projects aimed at helping businesses and individuals through this difficult time. This still leaves over £110 million which will be needed to maintain public spending and services over the next two years, in the face of falling tax receipts.”

Is the public going to be made aware of the names of the businesses and individuals to be helped so they can judge for themselves, by future performance, if the venture has been successful or not.

Cali

[boatyboy]

BBC Business News

UK debt hits a record of £799bn

Total outstanding government debt in the UK has risen to a record £799bn, or 56.6% of UK GDP - the highest since records began in 1974.

New borrowing in June was £13bn, almost twice as much as a year ago, the Office for National Statistics said, after the downturn shrank tax receipts.

Business groups warned that, although it appears that public borrowing is in line with the chancellor's forecast, the government must not sit back.

"It would be wrong to tighten policy while the recession continues, but maintaining Britain's international credibility requires a robust plan for restoring our public finances over the medium-term," said David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce".

This must focus on curtailing public spending across the board, while avoiding damaging measures that would harm wealth-creating businesses."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8160614.stm

Jersey latest plan from Mr Gorse, put up social security payments. Just plain crazy, so Mr Gorse, did it not occur to you that stand alone small and medium businesses are already paying far to much in a recession and several have closed.

Cut your own staff then you won't need to send further struggling businesses to the wall. Further may I suggest you look up the theory of The law of diminishing returns. This would be better than taking advice from Officers in cosy offices in La Motte Street that have probably never tried nor could..................... run a business in a commercial environment.

Take a lesson from Ants, they milk green-fly they don't destroy them.

Boatyboy

[Calimachon]

Take a lesson from Ants, they milk green-fly they don't destroy them.

I like that analogy being a gardener well done and so true!

Cali 

[man in the street]

again social contributions look to be going up, for the ordinary joe whilst the high earner stuffs the spare cash that he or she gets away with into the wallet.
the midday moan in had quite a few comments on this,its been talked about for ages and thats all its , is hot air , surely it must be time now to remove the ceiling on contributions and create a fairer system.
 

[stoneface]

again social contributions look to be going up, for the ordinary joe whilst the high earner stuffs the spare cash that he or she gets away with into the wallet.
the midday moan in had quite a few comments on this,its been talked about for ages and thats all its , is hot air , surely it must be time now to remove the ceiling on contributions and create a fairer system.
 

Man in the street, you say you want a fairer system - does this mean that in conjunction with scrapping the cap on contributions, you'll support linking the size of the State pension and other benefits to the amount of contributions received? Because that's the point of the cap - benefits are fixed amounts, whereas contributions are linked to earnings. The cap is there so the social risk is pooled, but contributions are at least very roughly in line with expected benefits.

[man in the street]

not at all, earn more pay more, high earners i would guess have a bigger game plan than the bloke who cant afford a extra pension of his own.
tell me why someone earning twice as much as me pays the same.

[stoneface]

not at all, earn more pay more, high earners i would guess have a bigger game plan than the bloke who cant afford a extra pension of his own.
tell me why someone earning twice as much as me pays the same.

Because s/he gets exactly the same State benefits you do!

So you want him to pay more than you for exactly the same benefits? How is that remotely fair? And yes, it does matter because Social Security is supposed to be an insurance scheme. Your contributions are the premiums you pay to be eligible for benefits, and so must be linked to the benefits you receive otherwise the entire thing is a con*.

If there's no funding shortfall, there's no need to put up contributions. Also, I should point out that if the social security rate goes up, then everyone pays more - including high earners: they won't get a free ride on that.

(* it is for other reasons, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

[boatyboy]

Man in the Street you said,

not at all, earn more pay more, high earners i would guess have a bigger game plan than the bloke who cant afford a extra pension of his own.
tell me why someone earning twice as much as me pays the same.

I also heard the Phone in and a there are two issues regarding an increase........... and he addressed one of them and got it right between the eyes, ( so as to speak ) he said  (  my take on the same argument )

The more you earn the more you pay, its called tax. The single person earning £200,00 pays around £37,800 and the single guy or girl on £30,000 pays £3,800. If that is not fair then tell us what is.

The second issue is that social security in Jersey is already expensive esspecially if you are self employed. This idea is a weak willed stealth tax, and as Stoneface says above,

If there's no funding shortfall, there's no need to put up contributions.

The funding shortfall is in the States workers pension scheme, now theres a thought !!

Boatyboy.

[stoneface]

The more you earn the more you pay, its called tax.

Rhetorically neat, I'll grant you, but disingenuous.

If you want to be semantically correct, Social Security is not a tax, it's a contribution to an insurance scheme. A compulsory one, yes, but an insurance scheme nonetheless: you pay your premium and you get your protection. There's no particular reason why it should be linked to the amount you earn, because it certainly isn't income-insurance.

If you want to throw out semantics, then every amount charged by the government is a tax and should be linked to earnings. However, alcohol duty, for example, is a tax but you don't pay more if you earn more, nor do we link the cost of a driving licence or passport to income.

The problem here is that social security is a hypothecated collectivised tax. If we had individual social security accounts for contributory benefits, then hypothecating the tax would make sense. Since it is collectivised, then it shouldn't be hypothecated, because there is absolutely no connection between the amount of contributions to pay for the required benefits - in other words, social security contributions should be abolished, and it should be funded out of general taxation. We're having this argument because we have a defined tax going towards paying for defined benefits and some people would like to have their benefits paid for by everyone else.

[man in the street]

i feel there will be a shortfall in years to come, and feel that social security is a con, if you are ill ,its doubtfull that your sick benefit will cover your rent.
is not tax and social two different pots. i dont mind what i pay in tax and social, so long as it is managed correctly and evenly.
 if i earn more i expect to pay a bit more.

[stoneface]

i feel there will be a shortfall in years to come,

There probably will, as our population ages (and the young people leave the island because they can't afford to buy a home), social security payments will go up while the ratio of recipients to workers will get higher so "contributions" have to go up to pay for it. In reality this is just the current and past generations voting themselves an entitlement to their children's wealth, and no different from a Ponzi fraud.

if i earn more i expect to pay a bit more.

Then you've misunderstood what social security is supposed to be - but I'm sure the Social Security Department will be happy to take extra contributions from you.

[Chevalier Blanc]

There again let us look at the other end. Old age puts you in a home costs you nothing States pay, they keep your old age pension and let you have £20 for pocket money.
Person owns their house, they have to sell house to pay for the old age home.
Tell me where is the fairness in that? We have both payed our social all our lives so why should i be penalized because i have a house?
Some people pay the max every month because they earn enough and others do not because their wage is to low so they never hit the max mark. They both get the same benefits even though one payed more. So with that example why do i have to give my home up if i go into an old peoples home?
The low payed earner scores on benefits, so why can i not score at the end of my life.

[man in the street]

they do stoneface. if i am lucky enough to do overtime my contributions go up, and my tax goes up.
as regarding a ponzi fraud, this is why i do not have a personal pension , as i see the likes of bernie madoff, making off with it.even if i could afford one.

chevalier blanc, all though i do not own my home, and with todays outlandish prices doubt i ever will
 i do not think you should be penalised at all, you work hard to leave your children or whoever something
and the state tell you to sell it , hardly a recipe to get people to get on and get ahead is it?

[stoneface]

There again let us look at the other end. Old age puts you in a home costs you nothing States pay, they keep your old age pension and let you have £20 for pocket money.
Person owns their house, they have to sell house to pay for the old age home.
Tell me where is the fairness in that? We have both payed our social all our lives so why should i be penalized because i have a house?
Some people pay the max every month because they earn enough and others do not because their wage is to low so they never hit the max mark. They both get the same benefits even though one payed more. So with that example why do i have to give my home up if i go into an old peoples home?
The low payed earner scores on benefits, so why can i not score at the end of my life.

That's the problem with means testing benefits. The thrifty and prudent get penalised, while the profligate get subsidised. Yes, that can also be turned on its head to say the poor get helped while the rich can afford to pay for themselves, but it's just never as simple as the class warriors like to make out. The only lesson you can draw from it is that you'll never devise a system that is both fair and also practical to implement. Hence why I'd much rather see a system of individual accounts, so that we can avoid as much as possible the politics of envy.

[man in the street]

i would just like to say that , i do not envy the rich, i am reasonbly happy with my lot as it stands today, but relise that my wage is not keeping up with inflation any more stealth taxes will deminish my quality of life, not a extravegent life by any means .

off subject here , but out off curiosity is your atvar of easter ilsand how you see jersey in the future?