Crown Dependencies May Have To Change

[Albert Tatlock]

From MR: "Jersey's new chief minister believes change could be on the horizon for Crown Dependencies such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."

 

...from the way he's sounding, we might be in competition again...our spuds v their new potatoes.

 

Are we to simply lie down and take all of this proposed change without a fight?

[manshimajin]

Mr le Sewer has not exactly enlightened me with what he said. 'Things will change' - Yessss....I mean they have even got a limited form of democracy being introduced on Sark...but actually what does he expect will change? Sounds like a case of saying nothing well.

[Pollsterblue]

This bloke seems to have a lot to say about the IOM and tax - http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/12...n-its-doing-it/

[La_Dolce_Vita]

This bloke seems to have a lot to say about the IOM and tax - http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/12...n-its-doing-it/

 

Yeah, he really hates the tax havens. His stuff is good to read if you want to hear criticisms of the tax havens.

[Gladys]

The uninformed ramblings of a mad man, more like.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The uninformed ramblings of a mad man, more like.

 

But why? Maybe I am being naive, not sure. He seems to argue his case very well.

[%age]

The link didn't work but here is one for other of Richard Murphy's Isle of Man related writings

 

click

 

I would hardly call it rambling or uninformed. Some of it is well worth a read.

 

To protesteth too much is rarely a good form of defence, but that is what many on the Island are doing just now. The recent PAG talk at the Sefton regarding Tax havens, showed that. It was almost embarrassing to see so many people from the audience get up and speak so eloquently in the defence of the (almost) indefensible.

 

edited to add:

 

The uninformed ramblings of a mad man, more like.

 

Somehow, I don't think so:

click for the lad's CV

[oldmanxfella]

The uninformed ramblings of a mad man, more like.

 

Somehow, I don't think so:

click for the lad's CV

 

The CV makes interesting reading. I'm always wary of anyone who fights for ethics and fair play who has a late nineties internet start up on their CV.

 

Yes, low tax areas are bad but spoofing millions off gullible investers in the biggest false gold rush of all time is entirely acceptable practice.

[manshimajin]

Yes, low tax areas are bad but spoofing millions off gullible investers in the biggest false gold rush of all time is entirely acceptable practice.

If low tax areas are bad does this mean high tax areas are good? IMO the issue is much more subtle than that. It involves not only personal ethics but the sense of value that people feel they are receiving from the taxes they pay.

 

So in the IOM we have a relatively low tax environment with reasonable services - at least broadly comparable with our higher taxing UK neighbour. In those circumstance it seems natural (at least to me) that people may prefer to live in a legislature that gives them similar services for a lower price. I don't see anything bad in that.

 

On the other hand if a high taxing legislature delivers excellent quality in its public services people may be very happy to pay more tax. A good example from what I can gather is Finland. The Finns appear reasonably comfortable with paying high taxes because they receive excellent public services in return (education, health, transport).

 

So thinking a bit laterally about the issue, Governments who fail to deliver services that represent good 'value for the tax take' may be trying to wriggle out of this situation by criticising lower tax regimes rather than by trying to fix up their own problems and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

 

Maybe the question people should be asking in the UK is not why does the IOM have a lower tax environment but why is it that the UK Government can't deliver a similar quality of public service for roughly similar taxation levels as the IOM? (Iraq, Afghanistan, PS size, over-complicated regulations, failure to apply bank regulation effectively, inability to deliver a consistently good health service etc...???)

 

PS: I suspect that this is where people like Richard Murphy may go off track - he is viewing the situation through a conventional (ie accountant's) mind - he is not questioning the inefficiencies and failure costs of the UK administration - he is accepting the UK as his 'norm' and attacking other people for having something better. (and OK I accept also that some people are not ethical in their tax affairs - but that applies everywhere not just in the IOM).

[triskelion]

The recent PAG talk at the Sefton regarding Tax havens, showed that. It was almost embarrassing to see so many people from the audience get up and speak so eloquently in the defence of the (almost) indefensible.

It was pretty cringy at times I agree, but there seemed to be a disconnect - John wasn't saying he was anti-low tax, he was saying he was anti-tax competition, criticising countries, indeed such as the Isle of Man, that deliberately structured their taxation system to 'encourage' businesses to relocate.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Maybe the question people should be asking in the UK is not why does the IOM have a lower tax environment but why is it that the UK Government can't deliver a similar quality of public service for a roughly similar tax revenue to the IOM? (Iraq, Afghanistan, PS size, over-complicated regulations, failure to apply bank regulation effectively, inability to deliver a consistently good health service etc...???)

 

I'd of thought relative population would be one reason; the size of the Island in comparison to the UK, because it is more difficult to manage projects, schemes, and services as the number of people in which they cover grows bigger; the UK spends on defence (I don't think the Island pays that much per head in comparison to the UK). Just running some off the top of my head, I haven't thought them through very well but they would seem to be my first impressions.

 

In those circumstance it seems natural (at least to me) that people may prefer to live in a legislature that gives them similar services for a lower price.

 

I don't think the issue is so much about where people live as to where and how people can move their monies to avoid taxes.

[manshimajin]

I'd of thought relative population would be one reason; the size of the Island in comparison to the UK, because it is more difficult to manage projects, schemes, and services as the number of people in which they cover grows bigger; the UK spends on defence (I don't think the Island pays that much per head in comparison to the UK). Just running some off the top of my head, I haven't thought them through very well but they would seem to be my first impressions.

 

I don't think the issue is so much about where people live as to where and how people can move their monies to avoid taxes.

 

LDV on your first point there is definitely an argument that the UK is more complex to administer but there is also a potential issue of over-complexity in the UK. Also there may be benefits of scale in the UK that we don't have. I would not say that the UK should have the same tax as the IoM but for similar services it is markedly more expensive. So why should the IOM be criticised for low tax by the UK because politicians in the latter have run up enormous debts in Iraq for example?

 

On your second point the question I would ask is "why do people want to move their money"? The standard answer is greed. But if you (asuming you are a capitalist) live in a country that offers you very similar services for twice the cost wouldn't you want to move your money and/or your business to the one doing the same for half as much? This is why I suspect that the issues are not as simplistic as they are painted to be by politicians or Mr Murphy. As I said there are always people who are not ethical so in every country there is a small percentage of the population that is into tax avoidance, black economy, money laundering etc...

 

It is easier for politicians to blame 'tax havens' rather than fixing the structural problems at home - that is my point.

 

I don't know how many Finns go in for tax avoidance as a percentage of the population compared with UK or US citizens but it would be interesting to see whether it was common there or whether the good quality of public services minimised this.

[Gladys]

The link didn't work but here is one for other of Richard Murphy's Isle of Man related writings

 

click

 

I would hardly call it rambling or uninformed. Some of it is well worth a read.

 

To protesteth too much is rarely a good form of defence, but that is what many on the Island are doing just now. The recent PAG talk at the Sefton regarding Tax havens, showed that. It was almost embarrassing to see so many people from the audience get up and speak so eloquently in the defence of the (almost) indefensible.

 

edited to add:

 

The uninformed ramblings of a mad man, more like.

 

Somehow, I don't think so:

click for the lad's CV

As a some time visitor to his website, his basis of debate is from a prejudiced viewpoint using distorted 'evidence'. He is not interested in an open discussion and has a view of the IOM that is more than 25 years out of date. Quite where his position stems from, his cv will not reveal.

 

On the other hand, I would have liked to go to the PAG talk and listened to the Sunday Opinion presentation. The speaker was from the Tax Justice Network and from the radio programme valid, cogent and well researched points were put across by the TJN speaker, without the emotion that is obvious in RM's arguments. Malcolm Couch responded with equally cogent and valid arguments; it was a real, mature and intelligent debate.

[%age]

I'd agree to an extent. I don't think there was too much debate.

 

Plenty of bleating from the audience though. The Manx Radio Perspective programme on Thursday evening recorded that part. Worth a listen before it get taken off the Listen Again this Thursday.

 

What is Richard Murphy's forum name? Or perhaps we could all have a guess or make one up for him.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

On your second point the question I would ask is "why do people want to move their money"? The standard answer is greed. But if you (asuming you are a capitalist) live in a country that offers you very similar services for twice the cost wouldn't you want to move your money and/or your business to the one doing the same for half as much? This is why I suspect that the issues are not as simplistic as they are painted to be by politicians or Mr Murphy. As I said there are always people who are not ethical so in every country there is a small percentage of the population that is into tax avoidance, black economy, money laundering etc...

 

It is easier for politicians to blame 'tax havens' rather than fixing the structural problems at home - that is my point.

 

I don't know how many Finns go in for tax avoidance as a percentage of the population compared with UK or US citizens but it would be interesting to see whether it was common there or whether the good quality of public services minimised this.

 

Oh okay, well in terms of your point that it is easier to blame tax havens then that may be case, there may possibly be envy. Though I wonder what the politician has to gain from criticising the tax havens rather than fix structural problems. In the UK, for example, most people in the UK know very little about the Isle of Man, far fewer still whether it has better public services than the UK.

 

But the issue over social injustice is a different thing. I am not quite sure about your conclusions: if I lived in a nation that had semi-decent public services and I had to pay £10 a month to MY (because I live there) government but then realised I could pay £3 a month in another nation what would my motivation truly be? Would I take up this opportunity to save cash because my government was providing shitty services or would I simply pay less elsewhere because I will save more money? If anything, it would seem that paying monies in another country would only lead to less revenue for MY government and shittier services. (But was this your line of thinking. I still do not quite understand why you mention LIVING in a tax haven, as opposed to companies relocating and people using accounts offshore, the issue does not seem about emigration to the Isle of Man or other tax havens)