When will the Minister for Social Security, senator Paul Routiier, come clean over the chaos that appears to be going on down at his department over the administration of Income Support and other benefits?
I have heard several complaints now that staff are stating that there is a 4 to 5 week delay on dealing with changes of circumstances on IS. That is a month without adequate benefits being paid to families in need. Many are suffering hardship; some are going into debt as a result.
This is compounded by further delays and errors in other benefits. It seems that the various departments do not communicate with each other properly to deliver the “one-stop shop” unified service we were promised.
In the past, there was the parish welfare system to act as the safety net when benefits (notoriously Family Allowance) were delayed. But that no longer exists. In an emergency, a special payment must be applied for, but this too takes time. The special payments are also more restricted that the flexible discretion of the welfare system, and appear underused.
Letters often go unacknowledged and without reply or action. Phone calls get widely differing answers from different staff and on different days. Supervisors and managers appear to be permanently tied up in re-assessments, reviews and appeals. Just what is going on?
Is the department understaffed? Are staff adequately trained? These cannot be mere teething problems as the Minister has claimed in the past. The new system has been in place for 6 months now, dealing with what are often urgent cases of hardship. It appears to be failing to deliver adequately to those families most in need.
Now I hear that similar problems are occurring at the Housing Department, who struggled to complete rent rebate and abatement claims due to the reorganisation throughout last year. Now those applying for their housing qualifications following the latest reduction to 12 years receive a standard holding letter excusing what may be a lengthy delay due to an unprecedented surge in demand.
The change in the delivery of the benefits system appears to be failing. Both of these departments appear to be delivering a poor quality of service. Both ministers appear to have cut staffing to the bone in seeking impossible efficiencies. It is about time both ministers held their hands up, apologised and stated what they would do to improve the service delivery. That is what ought to happen, but do not hold your breath in anticipation.
What is your experience? Let us know at contactus@jdajersey.co.uk
Geoff Southern
Taxing the Rich – How Things Change (OR NOT)
We are told repeatedly that Jersey is not a tax haven; it is an Offshore Finance Centre.
We have a flat rate of tax at 20%, which applies to everyone [apart from finance businesses (10%) and foreign owned non-finance businesses (0%)].
This flat rate is even supposed to apply to wealthy [1(1)(k)] residents who are required to pay a “benchmark” of around £250,000 in tax for the privilege of living in one of our luxury mansions and occupying a few vergees of our precious land.
As a rule of thumb, wealthy residents can expect to pay 20% on their first £1m of (declared) Jersey income; 1% on the next £1m and 0.5% on the rest.
We have 135 such wealthy residents. If they paid their tax at the “benchmark” rate, that would generate over £33m, almost enough to cover GST. That would be handy, wouldn’t you think?
So how much do the wealthy pay?
In 2002 they paid £10.7m tax in total, or around £79,000 on average.
(Questions in the States, 4th November 2003)
You and I, being taxpayers at the 20% tax rate, might expect the government to chase a better return from its wealthiest residents, so what has the Treasury minister done about it?
In 2006 Terry managed to extract the magnificent total of … … £8m from the 135 wealthy residents; an average of only £59,000 each.
(Questions, 15th July 2008)
Why is it that the wealthy cannot be made to pay their fair share, or at least the agreed benchmark rates? Why can we not vote out a Treasury Minister who prefers to tax the poor through GST rather than the wealthy?
Do I suffer from the politics of envy? I do not believe so. I believe in progressive taxation, as does Terry Le Sueur. Even with the addition of GST, he argues that our tax system is “mildly” progressive.
Our tax system is not progressive; examine these effective tax rates (ETR) :
|
Low to moderate earners (marginal rate) Moderate to high earners (full rate) High earners (20 means 20) Finance Sector (pre-zero/ten) Finance Sector (post 0/10) Foreign owned non-finance (post 0/10) Richest 1(1)(k) residents |
ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR ETR |
= = = = = = = |
8 % 14 % 20 % 13 % <10% 0 % <6 % |
If you think this makes sense as tax policy then you are probably doing well out of it. It makes little or no sense to me. Geoff Southern
-
Click here to read the transcript of the Debate on July 15th 2008 by the States of Jersey
-
See below the Proposition of Vote of No Confidence in the Bailiff
Click here to read the report that accompanies this proposition
Accepted and lodged with the States, below we print the full text of the explosive proposition from Deputy Shona Pitman calling for a vote of no confidence in the Island's Bailiff.
Few within the island cannot have been horrified by the stories of cruelty and abuse coming out of the Haut de la Garenne enquiry. Yet if these terrible allegations have not been bad enough, the attitude displayed by some of the island's leading figures have surely only compounded this sense of shock and outrage amongst the public caught in the full glare of the world media spotlight.
In the space of only a month we have now heard revelations of the island's Bailiff - in his former role of Attorney General - doing effectively nothing to remove a convicted paedophile from the Honorary Police force. A convicted paedophile who was to go to offend again and again whilst in this position of power.
As if this was not shocking enough, with concerns already expressed for the Bailiff's apparent disregard for the strictly apolitical nature of his mandate, come the May 9th Liberation Day celebrations and the Bailiff's traditional address islanders were in for another unwelcome surprise...
Insensitivity? Incompetence? Arrogance? We leave readers to make up their own mind.
Click here to read the report that accompanied this proposition
GST - Proposition Brought Before the States
Click here to read the report that accompanies this proposition
If one thing has brought more ordinary people together in anger at the way this disastrous Council of Ministers than any other it is almost certainly the introduction of GST. Inarguably highly regressive, this pernicious tax will hit both 'middle earners' and those on lower incomes hardest, while leaving those with the greatest wealth effectively almost untouched.
The JDA has promised since 2005 that we would strive to see GST rescinded and we hold true to our word in 2008. Nevertheless, with the majority of States Members seemingly wholly blasé about the impact GST will have on ordinary people (check out the guilty on GST - A litany of shame) in the meantime our politicians will also continue to fight to secure meaningful exemptions. below we print the proposition form the JDA's Deputy Shona Pitman in which she seeks to overturn the Council of Ministers' incredibly callous and immoral taxation on the very basic essentials of a healthy diet.
Due to be debated in September, we can only hope enough of the Deputy's colleagues are brave enough to back her in her efforts to protect the long-term health of interests of both adults and children alike by ensuring a healthy diet is affordable for all.
Click here to read the report that accompanied this proposition
or Why We Can Do Without GST
False forecasts
When Michael fish failed to forecast the “great storm”, he lost his job. What happens when the States of Jersey Treasury gets its forecasts wrong? Not a lot. Why? Read on.......
Geoff Southern
Proposition to End the Dual Role of the Bailiff
Click here to Read Deputy Pitman's Proposition 8th September 2008
For most people the twin roles of the Bailiff as head of both Judiciary and Legislature is an anachronism that should have long been consigned to the history books. As such, you will have probably read about the JDA’s intention to try and finally do just that early in March. After all, if Human Rights are taken seriously in Jersey then they surely need to be seen to be so by the public.
You may also have been somewhat surprised when just after our announcement St. Helier No. 1 Deputy, Paul Le Claire then suddenly announced that he was bringing a proposition. Effectively little more than a request that States Members all had a nice cosy chat about the issue, perhaps you will have been less surprised when publicity achieved the Deputy’s proposition was then suddenly dropped.
The
JDA aren’t interested in publicity stunts – as a consequence I’m sure
you will now be very pleased to learn that the JDA’s
Deputy Shona Pitman
who originally proposed the initiative will be lodging the real thing
for States debate this coming month.
Much as certain elements within the establishment try to ‘spin’ the matter otherwise the fact is there are real conflicts of interest here – not to mention real Human Rights concerns. The JDA believes it is now high time the States finally faced up to these issues and dealt with them as a genuine democracy surely must. No date for the debate is yet available, but at time of writing we believe the proposition should certainly be debated within the month. We will be publishing the full proposition on this site in due course, so watch this space for the full details.
More very exciting news related to this issue will follow soon. Meantime, our congratulations go to Deputy Pitman for once again proving that out of all those Deputies newly elected to office in 2005, she alone has proven the one brave enough to try and tackle the reform issues most are simply to timid to challenge! If ever there was any doubt that more younger people are needed in our moribund States Deputy Pitman certainly demonstrates quite clearly that they are.