Polity: Is being a tax haven worth it?
95 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
It’s actually puzzling that some of the usual commentators can’t get their heads around this.
Usual people may be offended by this.
Being "unusual", I am not...
;-) -
How did LTCs become law? Literally in the middle of the night, under urgency, as a 71-page SOP that was dropped-in to the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill in December 2010. The SOP was bigger than the bill, received no select committee scrutiny, and was handed to members two days before being read.
No wonder it ended up such a defective piece of kit.
-
Ian Pattison, in reply to
Deleted.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It's actually puzzling that some of the usual commentators can't get their heads around this.
When you've been splattered by consequence-free corruption for years like the press gallery, guess it must become harder to remember the damage it does beyond the bubble to reputation-based things like trade, global research alliances, etc.
-
New Zealand's international reputation taking a hit is one thing. But the average Joe Blow in the street will probably go meh and forget all about it because it has no affect on his life.
But let's assume that this squirming from Key and his associates has a much darker side. The important question which should resonate with kiwis is, how much tax revenue is NZ losing because wealthy kiwis are stashing their wealth in offshore trusts?
While John Key (RNZ, sorry - can't find a link) told us last week that he'd checked with his lawyer Whitney (who we now know is not really a lawyer) and he'd confirmed that the PM has "no investments in Panama". Was that always the case? And where exactly are Key's assets stashed nowadays? How many of his friends and colleagues operate offshore trusts?
Some serious follow-up questions are required.
-
The original question was...
Is being a tax haven worth it?
I used to think it would be a good idea until I realised I was not, akshully, in that club.
I think more people should realise that we have a Government that is looking after people we would never be allowed to become. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
how much tax revenue is NZ losing because wealthy kiwis are stashing their wealth in offshore trusts?
They don't have to, they can just buy another house in Ponsonby or Parnell, no CGT.
Wealth is different to income. -
A few interesting links on the Panama Papers.
The ICIJ has a huge amount of information online already including a long read showing some of the individuals involved in tax evasion and this little game which shows how easily money can be laundered and tax evaded.
On the local front we have Nicky Hager on selling secrecy, this from the RNZ team placing NZ at the heart of the scandal, and a piece from Andrea Vance at TVNZ showing that NZ ticks all the boxes to qualify as a tax haven.
No Right Turn looks at David Cameron’s anti-corruption summit and asks just how cynical is the choice of NZ’s representative, Judith Collins. Although to be fair, Judith has proved that she knows more about corruption than the rest of the cabinet put together.
-
He commented that he was told by the government that they had greater priorities.
There must be a name for an issue that the government deems too important to change ($24 million!!!), while simultaneously being not important enough to change.
-
Budgetriage ?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
but that explanation of "New Zealand taxes at 0%" seems overly simplistic.
It's only the LTCs that have 0% tax.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
(I owe this information to Cactus Kate, who apart from anything else, is at least an expert in this area)
roflnui
-
simon g, in reply to
Some stupid shouting and conspiracies that add nothing to our knowledge. There are facts aplenty to challenge Key on, we don't need this kind of nonsense.
I'd happily back the Investigative Journalists over the kind of people who call talkback at 3 a.m. ranting about The Truth.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
we don’t need this kind of nonsense.
Apparently.
As you were....
I give up.
Bye, and fuck you all... -
In terms of Icelandic politics, with the Panama Papers, the Pirate party is now on 43% support (up from 34% at the start of the year). If the Panama papers fallout triggers an election, they will be the governing block. They are a very, very anti-corporatist party.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Is the British rep Mark Thatcher?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Lizards, I tell you. LIZARDS!
(I was just thinking that somebody should turn the International Reptilian Shapeshifter Conspiracy into a movie. Maybe get Stephen Fry to play the Duke of Edinburgh. I'm sure there would be a role for Rhys Darby as well).
-
Steve, when I see you posting links from a site called "Wide-awake Gentile" who is a classic antisemite, Jewish Finance type, may I just say: no, fuck YOU.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Sorry you had to read that, Stephen. I've been out making a show then eating dinner.
Steve Barnes is now very fucking banned.
-
Hebe, in reply to
I find it hard to believe the government, senior ministers and all, are spending so much time defending a position based on its value to us of $24 million a year.
There has to be more to it than that and that, frankly, worries me.
Exactly.
-
Steve Barnes is now very fucking banned.
Well, that makes it easier for me to comment here again. It's a shame that we've lost some other women from this site in the meantime.
To be very clear, I totally agree with the final thing that tipped you over into banning him too. Stephen, I'm sorry that you had to see all that nastiness, and thanks for deleting it, Russell.
-
I find it hard to believe the government, senior ministers and all, are spending so much time defending a position based on its value to us of $24 million a year.
There has to be more to it than that and that, frankly, worries me.
I'd be going with cock-up rather than conspiracy. I think they genuinely just didn't understand what the issue was when it first came up, and then they saw that it had little to no impact on our own tax take, so they were left defending a fairly untenable position. Don't forget that news of the Panama Papers first broke here on 4 April, just over a month ago. It's a complicated issue, and I think that everyone has taken a bit of time to get their heads around it.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Steve Barnes is now very fucking banned.
Well, that makes it easier for me to comment here again. It’s a shame that we’ve lost some other women from this site in the meantime.
Ditto.
-
RNZ reveals that four of the five law firms who summoned former Revenue Minister Todd McClay to the "My mate John suggests..." meeting have ties to Mossack Fonseca. Auckland-based firm Cone Marshall features most prominently.
And despite assuring the PM that he had no connection to Mossack Fonseca, it seems that Key's personal non-lawyer, Ken Whitney, was not being entirely truthful.
The Panama Papers also show the man who has long handled Prime Minister John Key's personal legal matters, Ken Whitney, had links to Mossack Fonseca through two companies - registered in the British Virgin Islands, with Mossack Fonseca as their agent. Mr Whitney also acted as a referee for Karen Marshall of Cone Marshall in 2009.
Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a junior Minister's mind?
A: Only four. The fifth one wasn't a lawyer.
-
If we are going to be accused of conspiracies - isn't Geoffrey Cone the ex husband of Deborah Hill Cone?
Link to Slater - result!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.