Fresh Attack On Offshores

[John Wright]

We are twenty to thirty yeras ahead in our governmental and adminsitartive development than Jersey.

 

First the judges are no longer in parliament here. We have separated out the powers. Second we do have more transparency. Third, as we have had more incomers we have diluted, nassively the old boy/school tie/lodge influence. Fourth we have actually tried to be Human Rights compliant andhave made many administrative and legislative changes to ensure that is so.

 

I am afraid that if there has been systematic abuse of children at Haut la Garenne Jersey or the IOM would be an ideal place for a cover up yeras ago. First fear, no security of employment in those days so staff were compliant. Most staff were untrained. Children who were so difficult were criminalised, removed from family, marginalised and regularly sent off Island, with ot with out Court orders. parents were told thay had been placed for adoption and with no legal aid did not fight.

 

Thin is it happened in England in those day as well, children sent to Canada and Aus, told their parents were dead, the parents told the children had died. This happened up until the 1960's. It happened in Aus with aborigine choildreen removed fromtheir families.

 

There was not good governance or administration in those cases.

 

Thing is it shouldn't happen now. These things happened in the past and we mustn't judge now by the standards of then. Yes we must bring perpetrators to book. That may mean the judging of the standarsds of then by the standards of now.

 

The finace sector is a very different thing. MOst big money is not here, most african dictators don't have money here. What makes us money is insurance, shipping, airctafy regsiter and leasing etc. Being able to offer an essential service in a business or industry at a saving which makes profitwhere there would not otherwise be profit. That is not robbing the other place of money, it can actually be of assistance.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I disagree, people generally accept that taxes must be paid; they just do not want to be penalised for being successful, which is why there was the 'brain drain' of the 70's.

 

But there are other reasons for people using offshore centres; political stability, removing assets from a hostile regime etc.

 

Offshore centres are part and parcel of most wealthy people's planning; the only way they will completely disappear is if we stop using money and return to barter - not very likely.

 

Although offshore centres may not be criminal is their very existence unethical? If most of us accept that taxes should be paid is there not a contradiction when we accept that it is ok for other corporations to avoid tax and thus avoid their responsibilities?

In the old days, the courts had ruled that it is perfectly legitimate for a person to organise his affairs so as to mitigate his tax liability; so-called tax planning or avoidance. However, it has never been acceptable to evade tax which is not to use to the rules to reduce your tax bill but to disregard the tax rules and consciously hide your affairs. One was considered legitimate 'sport', the other criminal.

 

Now the distinction seems to be blurred, not by legality but by ethics. Problem with ethics is that one man's ethics are not the same as another's and we now have a blurring and too many grey areas. I also think that the argument that the offshore centres deprive many developing countries of important tax revenue which would alleviate their poverty, misses the point that internal corruption, lack of effective border duty collection and effective delivery of aid within the country would go a significant way to alleviating poverty; whereas the effect of offshore centres has often been to retain value of assets within a developing country by keeping them out of hte hands of corrupt govenrments. Controversial view, but a view nonetheless.

 

It is also interesting to note that the recently proposed changes in the treatment of UK non-doms could be argued to be no more than putting right the unfair tax treatment of domiciled UK tax residents, just as the IOM had to do and which brought about the nil corporate tax regime.

 

What I was trying to put across is that the very existence of tax havens, such as the Isle of Man, flies in the face of a supposed social responsibility.

Most citizens believe that they have a duty to pay their taxes because they are making a contribution to society. (Not that I agree with the fact that citizens have little say on how the money from tax is used and the fact that many taxes are unfair in so many ways, and are compulsory.) Yet the very basis of having a tax haven is to allow companies to exempt themselves from a social responsibility. Why should corporations be able to exempt themselves from the social responsibilities that individual workers are willing to pay for? No matter what country these companies originated from they are essentially skirking their responsibilties to society and are partaking in anti-social behaviour.

It is therefore unethical, and thus all economic activity in connection with such offshoring is unethical.

 

People all too often complain about spongers and scroungers and those who fiddle benefits but are the companies and citizens who make use of tax havens any different? Are we not hypocrits for criticising the behaviour of our fellow citizens when we work for companies who do the very same?

Why do we condone such behaviour in our society, is it simply because we need the jobs that those companies provide?

[Cronky]

What I was trying to put across is that the very existence of tax havens, such as the Isle of Man, flies in the face of a supposed social responsibility.

 

New Zealand, like the Isle of Man, does not levy capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

 

Does that make it a tax haven?

[The Old Git]

What I was trying to put across is that the very existence of tax havens, such as the Isle of Man, flies in the face of a supposed social responsibility.

 

New Zealand, like the Isle of Man, does not levy capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

 

Does that make it a tax haven?

 

I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. Any area that levies less direct tax that than where you live could be considered a tax haven. There's no rule that all countries have to set taxes at the same level or even have the same taxes.

 

After the he recent non dom issue I'm sure some in Europe could consider the UK as an offshore tax haven. It's all a matter of perspective.

[Theodolite]

MOst big money is not here, most african dictators don't have money here. What makes us money is insurance, shipping, airctafy regsiter and leasing etc. Being able to offer an essential service in a business or industry at a saving which makes profitwhere there would not otherwise be profit. That is not robbing the other place of money, it can actually be of assistance.

 

John, the BIG MONEY is here for the Advocates though, all 167 or so of them for a population of 80,000!

 

When your colleagues can charge £300, £400, £500+ an hour . . . . oh aye, the big money is here alright.

 

And it's not just the Finance Sector funding and feeding the greed in Athol Street either. Many locals have been shafted by your pals when legal "errors" have needed sanitising

[Gladys]

What I was trying to put across is that the very existence of tax havens, such as the Isle of Man, flies in the face of a supposed social responsibility.

 

New Zealand, like the Isle of Man, does not levy capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

 

Does that make it a tax haven?

 

I think it's all in the eye of the beholder. Any area that levies less direct tax that than where you live could be considered a tax haven. There's no rule that all countries have to set taxes at the same level or even have the same taxes.

 

After the he recent non dom issue I'm sure some in Europe could consider the UK as an offshore tax haven. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

The UK has long been considered a tax haven because of its favourable treatment of non-doms.

[P.K.]

As ever P.K. you present your case with both feet! But you do raise important issues

 

However, first the quibbling - Gladys never said people were "forced" to leave - she said people left because they felt their success was been penalized - and specifically raised the 1970s - there were 90% taxes in the 1970s - a punitive attempt to stop people earning over a certain level. Are you saying people should have been grateful to be taxed at this level or should have been stopped from seeking a life away from the UK where they were able to be better rewarded for their talents?

Quibbling is right. Care to point out where I deeply insulted Gladys by claiming she was a Daily Mail "reader" who thought they were forced out? Oh, I didn't. Never mind, no need to let the truth get in the way of one of your posts is there?

 

Secondly there is the issue of obligations and responsibilities to a state - you talk about gratitude - well is a person obligated to stay in a country out of gratitude to it for educating them? Should public services only be provided to those who sign a commitment that they'll always live and work in a country? Sounds rediculous to me!

It sounds rediculous to me as well which is why I didn't propose it! Nice try at intimating that I might have though....

 

The state educates and supports people - most people understand that and grudingly pay their taxes. But there are very real issues when people not only pay to support themselves but contribute far more than they receive. You can say they are paying for social stability (and yes that includes an army), but setting the tax burden correctly is a very difficult task.

 

People will leave a country for a myriad reasons - the climate, the neighbours, the commute, the job, pay - the tax burden is a part of that and why shouldn't it be. To say people are being selfish and greedy, well - yes, but what's your point? Your just using strong language to state the obvious and its a two way street.

There are complex issues involved and shouting about greed and selfishness doesn't really help.

Like it as it has all your usual. Especially the put down emotive stuff you are so good at - "shouting", "your just using strong language" (ouch! it's "you're"), "but what's your point?", "As ever P.K. you present your case with both feet" etc etc etc on a public posting forum? You know to me you're starting to look just a little bit foolish and being a MEA apologist isn't helping your cause.

 

By the way, I left my country of origin because it fell woefully short of what I was looking for at the time. But I can assure you it wasn't for financial reasons. There is no way I would ever be a member of "The scum that Thatcher spawned". One of those expressions I wish I had thought of....

[thesultanofsheight]

What has been uncovered in Jersey is apparently gross ineptitude at administrative level; it will be how the Jersey government responds that will determine whether the UK wades in.

 

I'm sorry but I don't buy that Glady's.

 

When Stuart Syvret tried to get his message across to parliament they staged a mass walk out leaving him standing there on his own, then they sacked him from his ministry consigning him to the back benches. Its now a few years on and oops ... he was proved to be dead right in what he was trying to alert parliament to - that abuse had happened and that evidence had been or was being covered up and police investigations stalled.

 

That's not failure or ineptitude at the administrative level that is a total plot by the establishment to silence a politician who has uncovered unpaletable truths and an attempt to not to have its dirty laundry washed in public. Its now been proven that a former police investigation wrote bones found by builders off as animal bones and then dumped them effectively stopping any investigation. On a small island that sort of stuff is not done without guidance from political masters.

 

Could it happen here? Well how many MHK's who have challenged the results of public enquiries here have had hatchet jobs done on them in the media and been openly laughed at in Tynwald for their views? Its happened on more than one occasion in the last few years (luckily ours don't involve murders).

 

The only difference I can see in Jersey is that the elected member has had the intelligence and presence of mind to stick to his guns until the government has been forced into a stand down.

[bluemonday]

Culture of concealment’ divides Jersey as abuse scandal grows

Click

 

 

and back to offshores, Darling goes a hunting.

Clicky

[localyokel]

Culture of concealment’ divides Jersey as abuse scandal grows

 

Click

 

Jersey is well and truly f**ked on this case.

 

There was also a particularly nasty (surprise surprise) piece in the Mail today

 

Sunday Mail

 

linking former Channel Islands care home children and workers to known child abuse investigations in the UK, and the News of the World links a former States Senator to paedophile activities at the home (bizarrely the News of the World also makes a point of saying that Sir Jimmy Saville was a regular fete opener at the home in the Seventies. They then go out of their way to explain that this 81 year old childrens charity supporting childrens TV entertainer who never married was not aware of what went on. Hmm, the power of suggestion ....)

 

Jersey cannot keep a lid on this now because those affected are making off Island contacts and telling their stories. Its going to get very very ugly at a political level and many of the other dependancies are going to have to fight hard to avoid the "culture of concealment" accusations.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

MOst big money is not here, most african dictators don't have money here. What makes us money is insurance, shipping, airctafy regsiter and leasing etc. Being able to offer an essential service in a business or industry at a saving which makes profitwhere there would not otherwise be profit. That is not robbing the other place of money, it can actually be of assistance.

 

John, the BIG MONEY is here for the Advocates though, all 167 or so of them for a population of 80,000!

 

When your colleagues can charge £300, £400, £500+ an hour . . . . oh aye, the big money is here alright.

 

And it's not just the Finance Sector funding and feeding the greed in Athol Street either. Many locals have been shafted by your pals when legal "errors" have needed sanitising

 

Is it not now true that resident owned companies in the Isle of Man have to pay tax on their profits yet non-resident companies do not? This is hardly fair for homegrown businesses. The more I read about Offshore Centres like Jersey and the Isle of Man the more I think they should be dismantled. I haven't really heard much about their benefits other than the obvious in providing many well-paid jobs.

 

Is the Isle of Man likely to last much longer as an Offshire Financial Centre?

[Albert Tatlock]

A front page 'attack' from the UK Independent. Plus columnist view.

 

The European Union will declare war today on Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra and Switzerland. Weary of losing billions of tax euros, the EU's 27-strong high command of economics and finance ministers, Ecofin, is meeting in Brussels to agree a strategy aimed at bringing the continent's tax havens under control.

The "home trio" of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man attract about $1trn (£500bn), much of it ex-UK.

 

So is this just a storm in a tea-cup (for us) and are they really just after bringing the last 'non-cooperating' countries such as Liechtenstein in line? Are we in for surprises from the coming budget, especially given the knee-jerk budgetary responses we have been seeing in the UK recently?

[ai_Droid]

Is it not now true that resident owned companies in the Isle of Man have to pay tax on their profits yet non-resident companies do not? This is hardly fair for homegrown businesses. The more I read about Offshore Centres like Jersey and the Isle of Man the more I think they should be dismantled. I haven't really heard much about their benefits other than the obvious in providing many well-paid jobs.

 

No, this was how it used to be, but now everything is zero (well zero-ish) rated.

 

This change has stiffed the smaller business though, as company filing fees have raised severalfold.

[Chinahand]

Sort of agree with Ai Droid, but then there is the matter of the retained profits charge which as far as I'm aware is charged only to resident companies - so these changes are a real bait and switch move.

 

There has been a debate about what is a tax and what is a fee over the BBC licence fee - this is similar, I think, the Manx Treasury has zero rated corporation tax for everyone, but introduced a fee it only charges to resident companies - this fee is proportional to the profits the company makes, is compulsory etc etc - if it quacks like a tax, taxes you like a tax, but is called a retained profits charge will that really keep the OECD happy?

[triskelion]

I like how the media has invented the term 'super-rich' to exclude its own editors and columnists, who would, by comparison to the majority of British people, be deemed merely 'rich.'

 

The India article post by AT illustrates the hysteria, as it relies on assumptions, vague estimates and rounded figures.