Trevor’s written questions for next week’s States sitting take in three different ministries – Treasury & Resources, Home Affairs and Social Security. The first question to Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand relates to the timescale for setting up an Independent Jersey Police Authority. The second relates to a proposition Trevor lodged late last year regarding the need to formulise an all-encompassing strategy to finally tackle youth offending.
Having agreed to put this on hold until 20th April to allow time for the unfolding of work being undertaken by Professor Andrew Williamson, Trevor tells us that with just a month to go he hopes the answer will give an adequate ‘progress report’ which will indicate whether to proceed with the debate or delay a little longer.
Trevor says that his questions to the Ministers for both Social Security and Treasury & Resources have their root in the need to identify any individuals ‘playing the system, whether this be at the top or bottom of the economic ladder’.
The question to the Minister for Social Security follows on from Deputy Gorst’s statement, quoted in the media last week, about benefit fraud. Given the department’s spend of £93.8 million, specifically it seeks clarification of the total amount of monies involved with the nine cases prosecuted by the department in 2009.
Finally, Trevor states that his questions to the Treasury & Resources Minister will provide further detailed background information in support of on-going discussions on taxation between the JDA and a number of other progressive politicians. He added:
‘Like the question to Social Services, the question put to T& R about the very lowest levels of tax payment amongst 1.1.K residents will help build up the true overall picture in order to achieve a full and fair perspective. With provision of both sets of figures it will enable us to move away from spin and hearsay in two, highly emotive areas of politics to examine cold, hard fact.’
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010
Question
“Having agreed to defer my proposition P.201/2009 ('Strategy for dealing with young offenders: establishment of a working group') to await any developments arising from related work being undertaken under Mr. Andrew Williamson relating to the creation of a ‘Children’s Plan for Jersey’, will the Minister advise as to what stage this work has now reached and when he expects it to be concluded?”
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010
Question
“Given that with 123 such residents there is no possibility whatsoever of any individual being able to be identified will the Minister clarify the number of 1(1)(k) residents, if any, by year for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, who paid tax within the following brackets:
(a) less than £5,000
(b) between £5,000 and £10,000”
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010
Question
“Given that Social Security recently highlighted the fact that there had been just nine prosecutions for benefit fraud in 2009 would the Minister clarify the collective total amount of the de-frauded monies involved?”
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010
Question
“Will the Minister advise what progress has been made regarding plans for the creation of an Independent Jersey Police Authority and further still, at what date does he believe the necessary preparation work will be completed and the Authority launched?”
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES
BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010
Question
“At present those 1(1)(k) residents granted such status after 1st January 2005 are taxed at the following rates:
The first £1m of foreign income at 20%
The next £500,000 of foreign income at 10%
The balance of foreign income at 1%
All Jersey source income at 20%
The Minister has further advised the Assembly recently that the taxation percentage of all 1(1)(k) residents can be legally increased/enhanced. This being accepted, will the Minister advise what increase in tax revenues could be expected if all 1(1)(k) residents were to be taxed instead at:
the increased rates of 25%, 12.5%, 2% and 25% respectively; or (b) alternatively by a straight-forward 1% increase in all four categories?”
"The Least Among Us"
2 months ago
It is good to see a balanced approach being taken to those who would sponge off of the public, whether it be those who fool themselves that they are some kind of elite or the won't work because I'm too lazy sorts. The former make me sick because they tend to be people who are as thick and useless as they are generally arrogant. The later make me furious because they get the 99% of people who would only claim a benefit as a last resort a bad name. It would be good if the JDA can follow up these questions with the answers because while both leave me fuming I would wager a pint that the monies that could have gone to better things will be much, much higher from our ironically named high-value residents.
ReplyDeleteTrevor
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that increasing the rate for these residents to 30%/15%/5%/30% is more realistic? I just can't go along with this rubbish that just because a person is richer they should be pay less tax as per our current system.
This approach just can't be justified and those who try to scaremonger that all our imported wealthy people would be on the first boat in the morning are just talking out of their pants. Taxation must be fair and equitable in todays world. We simply can't go on letting greedy, moronic bankers edge us closer to the abyss.