From Adrian Rabet.
MUCH as I like Senator Terry Le Sueur as a man, his rebuttal of the attacks on the current status of 1(1)(k) residents’ tax arrangements are indefensible.

Why should he be able to say that their arrangements with the States are any more sacrosanct than my own?
It may well be the case that they promised to pay a certain amount in tax indefinitely, but firstly it is a precept of law that one government cannot be tied by the decisions of others, and secondly I cannot recall being asked a similar question – if so, I would like to pay no tax, as this was the case when I first entered employment in Jersey.

Furthermore, the States did not ask my permission to vary my tax rate and amount as I became more successful, nor did they ask me whether I wanted to opt out of GST or the zero-ten proposals. These changes varied my own arrangement with the States of Jersey – why should I not have the ability to reject them in a similar way to 1(1)(k) residents?

I believe that my situation under the law should be treated equal to others. This derives from the Magna Carta of 1215. Consequently, the States of Jersey must act like real legislators and inform 1(1)(k) residents that times have changed and so, necessarily, must their arrangements in order that they pay their tax in a progressive manner and in a way commensurate with their earnings and wealth.
2 Old Farm Close,
Route du Mont Mado,
St John.