A Tynwald committee has recommend the government use the tax system to attract all workers and not just high earners.
The Economic Policy Review Committee has said the island’s economic environment is primarily attractive to those earning over
£60,000 per year.
Damning both for people considering moving here as it is for those just about managing, the report says the financial realities of island life are creating “serious barriers to population growth at present”.
Chaired by Claire Christian, who this week joined CoMin, the committee also found that the government’s failure to raise personal allowances “disproportionately affects low to medium income earners”.
£60,000
The biggest conclusion of the committee sets the tone for what is not pretty reading.
It says: “The island may seek to present itself as a great place to live and work, but the reality is that the island’s economic environment is primarily attractive to those earning over £60,000 per year. It is particularly unattractive for single people.”
Included in this is the tax regime, the cost of living, and the cost of mortgages which the committee says will “discourage UK residents from moving to the Island, will discourage Manx students from returning to the Island, and will encourage Manx residents to leave the island”.
Recommendations
The committee has made three recommendations, including seeking Tynwald support to ensure that tax incentives for people to move to, and stay on the island “should not only be available to the highest earners but should as far as possible be extended to the working population”.
It also wants to see these applied to single people as much as they do to couples and to families with children.
The committee also wants to see comprehensive analysis of the impact of Budget proposals on net incomes for all family types and called on Treasury to devise a strategy to address the impact it not raising personal allowances has had on low to medium income earners.
You can read the full report here.
It will go to Tynwald next month for debate.



7 Comments