Tax deal with UK
Monday 9th March 2009, 3:00PM GMT.
JERSEY is on the verge of signing a landmark agreement giving the UK access to Island income tax data.
The move is designed to boost the Island’s image ahead of next month’s G20 talks about the offshore finance industry and tax havens. Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur will tell the States tomorrow that he has been called to London to discuss a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the UK.
The agreements allow tax authorities to obtain any information held by counterparts about people or companies on request. Although parts of the finance industry had lobbied hard against such an agreement, particularly the trust industry, their resistance has softened a little in the wake of mounting international pressure for tax co-operation in the wake of the credit crunch.
Behind the scenes, the expected deal is causing concern. It is understood that the finance industry could lose up to one-fifth of its business because of it.
Pictured: Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur is going to London to discuss a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the UK
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
You might as well wave goodbye to finance if he agrees to swapping information.
Report abuse
Better to lose a fifth than all of it.
If this can deflect the unwanted critism of Jersey as a tax-haven then I think it is the way forward; even it does result in a (hopefully) short-term reduction in the size of the Finance Industry over here.
I’m not a fan of TLS and his COM but credit must be given for this pro-active stance rather than just waiting to see what the G20 would do with us
Report abuse
Its alright and at least it will get the Tax Justice Network off our backs now. This won’t have a -20% business effect on business.
Report abuse
If I were in Terry le Sueur’s shoes I would tell the civil servants to get plan B down off the shelf and dust it off and update it ready for him to read when he gets back from signing this tax agreement.
Plan B has a smaller finance industry and a diversified economy, house prices that do not double every decade, a smaller civil service and a lack of multimilion pound prestige projects.
Report abuse
Jersey already has TIEAs in place with a number of countries including the USA I think. Also I think IoM and Guernsey have signed up to ones with the UK recently. As Sarah says there is unlikely to be a direct read through and any business that goes elsewhere in search of secrecy probably isn’t business Jersey wants in the medium to long term.
Report abuse
It makes you think that if all we have over here is quality/above board business, then why should such an information exchange risk us losing a fifth of certain types of business!
Report abuse
Errrhhmmm!!! Is this such a good idea, hasn’t the UK lost sensitive data in the past. This is something I think we should all drag our heels about, information about us going to the UK, what right do they have?
Report abuse
can’t think what he’s got to smile about
Report abuse
Well said Pip, the current way things are going is just too risky, what if finance industry sees a major decline, could we have 30% unemployment? I think its time to give up on finance and consider different sources of income.
Report abuse
I too am all in favour of plan B – lower population as well.
Report abuse
Congratulations to Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur for a welcome dose of transparency. This is what has been lacking in Jersey’s travails.
I retract some, if not all of my previous criticism. Well said Pip (4) and Annie (9).
Report abuse
Well if nothing else it means we will not need to lose the Water Front to the mess they want to put there and the 2 years of hell they want to put us through will be just a distant dream sorry nightmare. There will be plenty of room to put the housing that we will have no need of think of all that office space to convert to flats a new boom for the builders? And a end to the 4X4 problem be very few who can afford them out side of the odd farmer, While he is at it just as well give away what’s left of the fulfilment industry his side kick has been working so hard to shut down these past few years.
And Terry ask what else that bunch of failures want from us while your there save us a few bob on the airfares at least.
Report abuse
Well said Pip – diversify the economy. Stop putting resources and steps in place to develop an industry that is set to decline drastically.
And Jersey is full. Put up the no vacancies sign as soon as possible.
Report abuse
It could be good for both sides I wonder if there are many undisclosed finance and property rents by jersey people in the uk.Was this signed too quickly could a better deal have been done or did he feel he had no other option and what is in place to protect Jersey?
Report abuse
“Attention please, would the last passenger leaving Jersey on flight BA939 please turn off all the lights in the departure lounge, thank you…”
Report abuse
Jersey is drowning
Report abuse
Anyone who still believes Jersey is an independent, self-governing entity needs to read this story carefully. The UK Chancellor snaps his fingers, TLS comes running and does exactly as he’s told on a matter of huge importance to our economy without any debate or reference back to the States. Why? Because we have no choice. And as for the desperate;y needed Plan B – there is more elucidated in the comments above than I have ever heard the States discuss. Why don’t we develop a real Plan B ourselves and then whistle, tell TLS to ‘sit’ and do what he’s told? Seems to work for some people.
Report abuse
Don’t panic, don’t panic Mr Mainwaring don’t panic.
Report abuse
Not bad considering that a few months ago he was saying that he is not worried about the pope having a go at Jersey.
Head out of the sand now?
Report abuse
Reading between the lines, I think this article is telling us that one fifth of Jersey’s finance business comes from people trying to dodge UK tax?
Report abuse
What’s going on. Has Terry shot himself in the foot again?? You may as well kiss the finance industry goodbye (as if the financial crunch is helping). Investors will NOT want their private details blabbed to non-Jersey tax authorities. Where’s the sovereignty of Jersey’s tax authorities?. Look at the hoo-ha going on about UBS handing over information to the American IRS. Investors will talk with their wallets & go elsewhere, Singapore maybe? Be warned, your tax base is going to shrink a lot more, so Terry, start increasing that percentage in your budget calculation on that GST increase you casually mentioned recently!
Report abuse
What’s really worrying is the concern that 20% of the finance industry may be lost as a result of this agreement. If that’s the case then that 20% of the industry shouldn’t be here in the first place ! If its undeclared money then that’s a criminal offence for those who are handling it, and statements like that merely give credence to the likes of TJN who claim that Jersey has far too much money here of the wrong kind.
Signing the agreement is completely unavoidable. Its also inevitable that automatic exchange of information under the EUSTD will be in within (my guess) 12 months maximum. Basically Jersey will be no place for anybody to hide undeclared funds but neither should it be. But if what is being speculated is correct, 20% of the industry disappearing could be quite a conservative estimate.
Report abuse
Hey don’t worry kids, 30% unemployment is only what parts of the UK have had in the past before and they survived! We’ll just have to cut back on the £90 lunches and pretty patterns in the cobblesmade by people paid more than some engineers and doctors. Kids will have to walk to school, cars will be replaced every ten years, houses will be for life and negative equity will just be a way of life. We’ve never had it so good.
Report abuse
I worked in a Bank in Jersey for 27 years and we were always careful, diligent and having to watch money laundering videos, online tests so that we knew the implications etc., Jersey is not a Tax Haven in any sense at all and I really don’t think we should be caving in to the dictates of the UK, France and US Jersey will end up a ghost island, with no way of supporting itself and having to give in to the UK Government, which at the moment totally sucks – somebody must save us!
Report abuse
Annie de Feu comment 9 “it’s time to give up on finance and consider different sources of income”
Earth calling Annie, are you serious. And do what, set up a giant removals business to shift half the population out.
What you fail to realise is that a majority of locals with families and mortgages work in finance, the island would be devastated without it and many locals would suffer.
If we lose finance healthcare, education, and the pension pot would be non existant – whoops hadn’t thought of that!
Report abuse
Jersey an independent island? What a load of codswallop. A mediocre local government jumps at the first hint of trouble… This island is heading downwards. Yet another nail in Jersey’s coffin….
When will Jersey people wake up to the threats imposed by the EU… Then it is the EU (and Germany’s Commisioner Verheugen in particlular – a failed SPD politician) which is behind the G8 and G20 moves to curb tax havens.
Its about time the island sought real independence…
Report abuse
James Le B, I wasn’t meaning get rid of it but not spend huge amounts of money on keeping it going.
We have gigawatts of potential tidal and offshore wind energy which could guarantee income for many many years to come. Our farming and tourism industry may still be able to recover as well if we stop spoiling the island with more and more immigrants and finance districts.
you say the majority of locals work in finance, that’s my whole point, its soooo risky.
Report abuse
i would suggest the majority of business in jersey is tax compliant and the level of due dilegence and corporate governance here is far greater than either the US or the UK. it’s about time both countries concentrated on gettign their own houses in order before trying to bully those who they perceive to be breaking the laws. well whose laws exactly? just becuase we do not charge CGT or IHT doesn’t make that illegal or immoral.
wake up!
Report abuse
yes its official
TLS is not fit to run a race let alone a government.
And i use the word goverment loosely, considering he has taken it upon himself, with no prior discussion in the states, no vote on this in the states, not even some sort of public debate. No, TLS has appointed himself as the autocratic leader of the island.
TLS also seems to be a fitting acronym for all of his previous and present goverment policies,
Too Late, Sorry.
Report abuse
It seems to me it’s not the banks that are squealing but the trust funds – anyone from that industry care to defend its unsullied reputation? I can’t believe so many people still believe that Jersey makes its living honestly – finance centres exist in lax or tailored legislative environments for the sole purpose of making money by getting round the laws of other jurisdictions. It’s what they did. It’s how they made their money, and my use of the past tense is very deliberate. But this is not the burning issue – What are we going to do once finance leaves? Stronger links with the EU and France gets my vote. Nous sommes trop anglais.
Report abuse
It just seems really weird that Jersey agrees to let the UK have tax information yet when we have to provide tax information to Social Security or other States Departments, they do not have access to the data – we physically have to walk it round to them. Is this an efficient use of everyone’s time? Surely it would save a lot of taxpayers’ money if the various departments just had computer access to the data they require?
Report abuse
31. “Efficient use of everyone’s time?” – well if it stops our Finance Industry being closed down in its entirety then I think the answer would be yes.
Report abuse
Bruce, I work in trust at a high level and can fully endorse the work we do. You will find most clients are fully tax transparent, especially those with a UK or US connection, for some we even file their returns. It may seem strange, but some ordinary people find it very difficult to manage vast sums of wealth and look to professionals to do it for them, protect their children from the perils of vast sums of cash and take the advantage of tax mitigation where possible. Our remit extends much further than you may think, that is the true role of the trustee.
Report abuse
I expect back in ’97 or ’98 you could have got many a trust practitioner extolling the virtues of their industry in Jersey. This would be at the same time as they were shipping clients out to Swiss associate firms because they knew those clients activities wouldn’t pass the extended definition of crimes in the revised money laundering law (ie overseas tax evasion) if kept in Jersey.
Report abuse
So TLS is being called in is he? How long before fiance centres are called in? Why would those using a Jersey bank account be worried by an exchange of information? Maybe this would be because they are hiding it of another tax jurisdiction? The net is slowly closing in. Jersey needs to diversify before it is too late. Being reliant on one industry, which is frowned upon by the majority of people around the world, is not the way to safe guard one’s future as far as I am concerned. It is about time that each country had control of its own tax collection. It is all very well saying things are well regulated but if everyone avoided paying taxes nothing would work would it?
Morally and ethically there are big question marks over finance centres. It is wrong for them to drain money from other countries, image if another country was affecting Jersey’s standard of living, would everyone here say yes thats ok its all legal? I think there would be demands for it to be stopped. It is about time that the wishes of those affected by this removal of $255B a year from the system were consulted, after all it is affecting their well being.
pt I like your words “take advantage of” is this not what the rich and big business do to the rest of mankind by their use of finance centres? By all means finance is required to run business around the world, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of the poorer in society who do not have the luxury of tax mitigation for their meagre earnings.
I too would like stronger links to our roots on the continent and maybe being in the EU for the ordinary Joe over here would be a step forward, in regards human rights and employment protection etc. However it obviously wouldn’t sit well with those who benefit the most from the system as it is. Being in limbo as we are is in my view asking for problems as at some stage we will be reeled in by the UK if it becomes in their interests to do so. The EU is now the main player this side of the Atlantic and Britain ignores it at its peril, as do the Channel Islands.
Report abuse
its all over now terry what have you done
Report abuse
What is the problem? Jersey has had such agreements with various countries for years, why not with the UK? If UK residents are sheltering assets in Jersey they are breaking the law and Jersey cannot be seen to be helping them, you might as well help money launderers.
The trust industry also should not be afraid, it may put people off from coming to Jersey but if the trust is structured properly, it is lawful. If someone is trying to hide something and the trust has been structured in such a way that it aids this hiding, the trust company should not be practicing in Jersey. People mention the flight of business, why? Where will it go? Certainly not to Switzerland and all other jurisdictions will be under the same scrutiny as Jersey, so why not take the lead?
Report abuse
So long as its transparent and legal I have no problems with tax avoidance.
I assume all those who claim tax relief for expenses, children, insurance policies, mortgages,Infirm mother in laws, etc agree with me ?
Tax evasion on the other hand is illegal and we as a responsible community should assist any other responsible community to put a stop to it.
Well done Terry
I can only assume the 20% we will lose is from illegal activities, if this is so we should have done something about it a long time ago.
I do not work in finance but realise the Island depends on it maintain our present good life style. ( some may wish to go back to the old days of bean crock every night and the of pulling your teeth out by tying it to door knob, I don’t)
I am extremely concerned that some institutions are putting this good life at risk, Lets seek them out and send them to prison. Jersey finance must be a byword for excellence, for all our sakes.
Report abuse
I have one question for you and before I ask you can not say Jersey is the answer
What is a tax haven?
If we have lower taxes than somewhere else then there are potentially hundreds of countries that are tax havens so what is the definition of a tax haven…..anyone?
Report abuse
PJG so long as its legal thats alright then? Ethics don’t come into it? As far as I am concerned tax evasion and tax avoidance have the same end result a reduction in the tax returns of other countries. This has to be made up from taxing those paying tax more. This is why we have GST over here. Maybe you are happy with this I am not. It is about time everyone had the same types of allowance and not allow certain people to sheild their money from tax by have tax vehicles run through other jurisdictions.
As for illegal activities they will still happen no matter how stringent the safe guards are, especially when big sums of money are involved. Finance centres are geared for tax avoidance which can overlap into tax evasion this is the nature of the beast, saving money at all costs.
I myself don’t think anyone should have a good life at the expense of others it is wrong. Just because Jersey is dependent on finance doesn’t mean it is right to carry on. If this attitude had been adopted in the days of the slave trade we would still be dealing in slaves as this was legal at the time. I am sure the slave traders would have used to same arguments to justify their trade as you have used to justify finance carrying on. I am sure the slave traders would have thought their own business well run as well. I myself am embarassed by these types of activities, especially when talking to others from around the world, as this is the first thing talked about on mentioning where I come from. Yes we would have less money over here but this is not the issue. The issue is whether these practices are ethical, if the majority say they are not then they should go.
I am concerned Jersey is going down the greed route which will lead to eventual ruin anyway. As is often the case a short term gain is a long term loss. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how much money one has if one cannot live because the planet is ruined. Anyway judging from the way some world finance structures work, creative accountancy seems almost the norm. It is about time proper regulations were brought in to curb all these excesses before they cause collapses in the world economy and the environment of the planet, that is if they haven’t done so already.
Report abuse
Adrian
I assume you fill in the bit about expenses, insurances, children etc when you fill in your tax return ?
That is avoiding tax. In essence the same mindset as someone using an international tax vehicle, they want to keep more of their money for themselves. They are not criminals.
Laws are made, people live to those laws.
Accountants like lawyers advise us how to conduct our lives within those laws. Without these laws we would descend into anarchy
I am not too sure what you are advocating, when you say “As for illegal activities they will still happen no matter how stringent the safe guards are, especially when big sums of money are involved.” should we not bother with having any laws regarding tax and rely on people being ethical, like you, or should we do away with large amounts of money, even those donated to charity ?
And as for “I myself don’t think anyone should have a good life at the expense of others it is wrong ” I think you need to get real, we are all profit led. When an employer pays someone a wage he does it to make a profit, without this we would have no jobs. This employee sells his labour to make money to put in his deposit account to make a profit off the poor old banks and so the world goes round
Do I detect a red under the bed in you ? Stalin and Marx preached a lot of we are all equal, whether a Nigerian road sweeper or a Harley street surgeon we all deserve the same reward, ( even those 2 agreed with making and upholding some laws)communism is very ethical but look how it eventualy let the poor of those embracing it down.
I think George Orwell had it right everyone is equal except some are more equal than others.
Report abuse
Gary people tend to nit pick over this. Those in finance would probably say a tax haven is anywhere where no income tax is leveed. They say that because places like Jersey charge income tax that they are low tax areas or finance centres.
I believe any country has the right to charge what tax it needs to run its own affairs for its own people. This is only right, however what happens if others tap into the diferences in tax levels and use this as a vehicle to save rich people and big business from paying their due taxes to their own country? By doing this your are impacting on other countries and affecting their tax take. Is this fair and just? I would have to say no as each country should be able to levee its own taxes without outside interference. However the pro-finance lobby would say but this is all legal and well regulated. They will also say but if we didn’t do it someone else would and that the whole economy is dependent on finance. Are these sound arguments to do something in your opinion? From a moral and ethical point of view I can’t see this. Others might have different morals or ethics, or maybe none at all, which would enable them to say yes this is good practice.
Also I would ask why are people opposed to tax havens, where no tax is charged, but are happy with low tax areas? At what point does a low tax area become a tax haven? Is a token tax payment of say £10 a year per inhabitant and client seen as making this country a low tax area? Maybe all the tax havens have to do is levee a miniscule amount of tax per person and then they might be able to be rebranded as a low tax area? If they then made sure they were well run and regulated then maybe they could corner the market and put the rest out of business? Maybe a financial guru could come on here and explain this? It would be interested.
Report abuse
Adrian
Its a big world out there and not everybody is as ethical as you tend to believe you are.
that’s why countries make their own financial laws, they make them in the full knowledge that accountants will scrutinise them so their clients will pay exactly the tax that is legally required (by every bodies laws )should an island such as Jersey start taking money from them by breaking their laws it would not take long for the sanctions to start hitting us.
It is the better than though moralists who fudge the issue, if the laws are not obeyed then someone ends up paying too much, Its those obeying the law that are paying the correct amount.
Report abuse
I would forget this argument now. We have signed the agreement and thats that. The Seminar the TJN are arranging should be ignored.
Report abuse
‘not everyone is as ethical as you tend to believe you are’. And that’s what we’re here for isn’t it? Not for much longer I hope.
Report abuse
Adrian, one final thought, you say ” I believe any country has the right to charge what tax it needs to run its own affairs for its own people”
well define own people, for instance if a Jersey woman marries an English man is it not (in your opinion) that the englishman should pay english tax? alot of the people who have money here have Jersey as their primary residence so the law says they can pay Jersey tax but you disagree with that?
I am just interested to know what constitutes a Jersey person in your mind?
Report abuse
PJG you hit the nail on the head no ethics leads to exploitation and slavery. Why don’t people have ethics? Is it because they are too self centred to care or worry about others? If it is then expect things to go even further downhill. Also expect economies and eco-systems to fail, thus leading to mass unrest, strife, famine, starvation, martial law and eventual death for those left over. Is this what we all want? If it is carry on as normal.
Even if people have no morals or ethics, don’t they have enough common sense to realise that they live on a finite planet and to want more and more for themselves is just not possible, without causing suffering to others and the planet’s eco-system?
I am not saying I am perfect but it about time people thought long and hard about things instead of burying their heads in the sand or blaming everything else but themselves for the state of things. We are all responsible for the state of the planet, does anyone think we are doing a good job? If they do then God help us. We will have to make sacrifies if not for ourselves then we should think of our children and their children. What sort of mess are they going to have to contend with just so we can do as we want? There is no room for greed and exploitation if you want a sustainable future.
Report abuse
48.Gary any income from a country should be taxed for that country’s benefit as this is where it came from. It shouldn’t make a difference if the owner lives in a low tax area, or the company is registered there. This is only fair is it not? Every country should be left unhindered to collect their own taxes. At present around $255B is not going to the countries it should.
As per definitions of nationality I would presume you would agree that where a person is born defines their nationality? As per Jersey this issue has been muddled as the state has decided that there is more than one category of Jersey born person. Since 1973 there have been two categories, one has a stamp in their passport and one doesn’t. If Jersey is outside the EU then it could be argued that only those islanders with a stamp in their passport are true Jersey people. What do you think about this? Most people don’t seem bothered by this as it doesn’t affect them as around 90% haven’t got this mark in the passport. However I think it is wrong to do this to any minority, and I am sure this minority would like this rectified. Maybe you think this is fine?
Report abuse
Adrian,
You appear to have uncritically believed a load of propaganda:
“Every country should be left unhindered to collect their own taxes. At present around $255B is not going to the countries it should.”
Surely, if you know what taxes you should be collecting, you must be able to collect them. That figure is a made up one, a complete guess. All we know is whenever the anti-Jersey lobby has estimated a figure before it has been many magnitudes overstated.
And you forget structures. If an Indian man chooses to invest in a Jersey fund that invests in a number of companies, including say Rio Tinto, a London listed company with global assets, exactly what should be taxed where? Where are the profits and losses made? Where whould you be able to offset your losses against your profits? What if he invests in a fund of funds, some of which make profits and others losses.
In the real world, your argument makes no sense.
Report abuse
This is exactly why the whole lot needs sorting out. Next we will have investments in the blue cheese society lunar branch which as it outside any tax area is rated at zero percent. All this is total tosh and is made worse by the atendent things like trust, accountants and lawyers. It is about time all this was brought to an end all it is doing is helping support those who wish to circumvent taxes which were origionally brought in to tax the richest people in Britain not the people at the bottom of the pile. Let us return to basics before the whole lot blows up in our faces.
Report abuse
“circumvent taxes”?
there are tax laws. people arrange their affairs within the tax laws so they pay the minimum amount of tax. just like when you buy duty free at the airport, or take out a mortgage because of the tax relief available.
if a government decides to give tax reliefs, people are entitled to use them.
the problem with people like Adrian and the Tax Justice Network is they think that rather than following the law, people should do what the Tax Justice Network thinks is right. I’d prefer the rule of law to that of some people with a sense of self-righteousness any day. But then, I believe in democracy.
Report abuse
51.mad foetus even though laws are made they can be circumvented hence the massive tax avoidance industry.
As per duty frees I would be quite happy to do away with them. Mortgage tax relief is being done away with for everyone except big business now.
Those writing these laws are by nature people from the upper socio-economic spectrum and they view things differently from the rest of mankind. Hence tax avoidance is seen as legal whereas if these laws were written for the benefit of everyone tax avoidance would be illegal. Plus an added benefit for things as they are is that it supports a whole raft of people doing jobs that have only existed since the introduced of income tax. If tax avoidance were done away with these high paying jobs to exploit loop holes in laws would be null and void saving businesses the necessity to pay these high wages thus offsetting some of the loss in revenue due to no more tax avoidance vehicles.
I prefer to cut through red tape and do away with layers of bureacracy and all that this entails especially in the outaly of large sums of money. Why have three or four tiers of this which rakes off large sums from businesses which could be going towards tax payments?
As being democratic you can’t have this when a small group is dictating terms to the rest can you? Democracy is a word often banded around by those trying to justify bad habits and immoral things.
The Nazi’s came to power in a democratic country and made draconian laws. I presume you would have supported their right to do so and would have abided by their rule of law? As without laws we all know everything falls apart don’t we? Laws are only as good as the law makers and to blindly accept them is to lead down the road to dictatorship.
It is good to see so many people that are of upstanding moral and ethical character that they are pleased to support “democracy” and laws that help all the big businesses, financial vehicles, banks etc to exist and carry on. Why is it we have a financial crisis now then?
Report abuse
Surely Gordon Brown should do the same with the ‘non-domiciled’ tax policy the UK runs. Some of the richest people in the world have based themselves in London as they were encouraged to move there and despite recent windfall taxes on them, still pay little tax in the UK
Report abuse
‘As per definitions of nationality I would presume you would agree that where a person is born defines their nationality?’
So how do you define people born in one country but who have a passport for somewhere else. My cousin was born in Singapore but due to having one British parent and one Australia parent, has a passport for both those countries and is eligible for a Singaporean passport if she so wishes. It it very hard to define someone’s nationality at times.
Report abuse
54. Nick so I take it you don’t define someone’s nationality by the country of their birth then?
Report abuse
Nick (54) – just on a point of order, Singaporean law doesn’t allow dual nationality so to take this ‘citizenship’ up your cousin would have to relinquish both the UK and Australian ‘passport’.
I have ‘settled’ in Singapore and had to give up my UK passport – not nationality. My identity documents states that my Nationality is UK but a ‘citizen’ of Singapore. I am classed as a ‘national’ of Singapore but (for obvious reasons) viewed s a foreignor since do not ‘look like’ a local.
Given the complexity of the above – Nick (54) is right – it’s hard to define someone’s nationality as easily as identifying a passport.
I gave up UK because because all my family, investments and home were elshere. Am I British – yes. My nationality – Singaporean because that’s where I’ve put my ‘lot’ and will take the good with the bad. If you hold more than one passport – does that mean you’ll thrown in everything for each country? Difficult!!
Report abuse
Adrian,
How can you moan about the stamp in your passport when you want to send “J”s home and stop people who are not born here benefitting from the tax status we have, so if a person is on holiday and gives birth whilst here you are happy for that baby to enjoy local status is that what you are saying?
Maybe the true answer to the moral dilemma you are having would be to have a global tax system one rate one set of rules for the whole world, what do you think?
In the meantime in the real world you are going to have to accept that people have diverse views and although i don’t agree with your or you mine we will have to agree to disagree.
and as i have said before Adrian ,if you are so against non locals being here then try living a day without using a service or product where foreign labour has been involved.
Let me tell you, in Jersey you can’t!
Report abuse
Gary 57. You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not against J cats and 1.1k’s being here what I think is wrong is the fact they both can ignore the qualification period applicable to everyone else. By everyone else I mean those born here and those of a lower socio-economic status. Why should both these groups be able to bypass local laws? I do however think that too many J cats are let into Jersey and they should only be brought in as a last resort. Any country in the world would try and be self sufficient as much as possible with its own labour.
An EU passport holder new to Jersey is allowed to work in Jersey. A minority of the Channel Islanders having this bar in their passport technically cannot work and claim benefit there. However someone from the EU can claim benefits in Jersey once they have worked here for a period of time I am lead to believe. Therefore if people from the EU can come here and work why not have the same for Channel Islanders?
Yes a global tax system would stop all these abuses that are occuring as money could not be moved around to avoid due taxes.
This is not against people coming to Jersey it is about unfair tax structures permitted over here. This has nothing to do with where someone origionates it is economic. However it is going to be necessary to cap the population as it cannot be allowed to continue to grow in a finite system, surely you can see the logic in this statement? I would have a one in one out system to help stabilise the population hopefully you will see that this isn’t being against new comers but for reasons of environmental well being and for those already here, who whether local or not, would not want to be living on top of each other, just to carry on with our unending immigration policy to help pay for the old and rasie tax receipts.
I am sure anyone from the UK would say that unlimited immigration causes problems. What do you think would happen to the UK if 40-50 million immigrants came into the Uk over 30-40 years? How do you think those already there would take it?
Report abuse
Adrian, you quite rightly tyalk about the Js and 1(1)Ks not having to qualify, but you can go to the UK and buy tomorrow if you can afford the property, the same cannot be said for those coming to Jersey.
I completely understand your stance on immigration, but we cannot say its ok for our students to go to the Uk and get educated (even if we do pay, think about 1(1) k’s paying into our tax system) and then come back here to enhance the local workforce, if we want to be moral we should educate outr own people but we simply cannot, so there has to be an exchange and unfortunately this is not always in our favour. Also I know of a local couple (with the stamp in their passport) who ran up thousands of pounds worth of rent arrears in states rental and now live in a big house in the Uk courtesy of the UK government for whom they have never paid a penny into!
At least the people we are talking about contribute to the economy of the Island!
I agree with your comment about migration as I said but it was we locals (through our elected government) that invited people to come here, albeit to do farming jobs etc but invite them we did because they were cheap! Now we are reaping what we have sown!
Report abuse
59. Gary J cats and 1.1k’s are coming to Jersey, they are not local people and are buying immediatley. Island born people are not allowed to buy immediatley are they? As far as I am concerned what is good for one group is good for another. Why should people born here have to do a qualifying period if these select immigrants don’t have to? Why should the rest immigrating here have to do a qualifying period as well? It is wrong.
I myself have never had a say in who the States have allowed to come in, as they don’t represent me or my views and are therefore acting against me and my views on things. They have also acted against me, in my opinion, (and the rest of those affected) by allowing a racist stamp in my passport just so that Jersey could be technically outside of the EU and so that finance could be developed. Many of those in finance are not local and most using the financial system are not local either, but they both benefit greatly. I don’t believe Jersey is getting a fair return from this state of affairs and neither is the rest of the world. The one’s gaining the most are the select few, this is also wrong as the burden should be spread evenly on a given percentage of income.
I myself don’t agree with cheap migrant labour for many reasons.
1. Morally and ethically wrong.
2. Exploits those at the bottom of the economic pile.
3. Affects the environment due to overcrowding.
4. These people are more likely to end up needing welfare at a later date thus increasing the burden on an already stretched system.
5. Affects local people’s wages who work in this sector.
6. Affects local people’s chances of getting jobs in this sector.
7. Increases housing shortages.
8. Pushes up rents.
9. Increases the burden on the hospital as these people will end up getting free treatment there as they can’t afford a doctor or dentist.
10. Increases exploitation of the rest of the work force as those in charge can threaten to get in cheap migrant labour if they ask for too high a wage.
11. Those benfiting from cheap labour can offload these people onto the state to look after once they have exceeded their usefullness.
However legal things can be immoral and unethical but are allowed by the state, whereas illegal things can be moral and ethical but are made illegal on grounds of perceived loss to the state or big business. Laws are therefore not always for the benefit of the people are they? However to disobey them can lead to imprisonment. What I am trying to is that laws are not always right and to use the legality argument to support say tax havens, is illogical in my view.
Report abuse
TIEAs are not worth the paper they’re written on as a source of ‘transparency’. Mere lip service.
Report abuse
Adrian 60
J Cats can only buy selective J Cat properties which are above our already expensive market prices so your comparison with Jersey born isn’t strictly fair. Despite anyone’s opinion of the finance industry Jersey doesn’t have enough locally qualified people in order to fill the gaps in demand. The choice is either stifle the industry or continue to help it grow by allow J Cats. The latter is better for the economy. Don’t forget a lot of our hospital consultants and doctors and engineers are J Cats so it’s not just finance.
The stamp in your passport is not ‘racist’ to you or those not from Jersey – it is only there as a simple fact that we are not part of, nor do we share any of the EU privileges. That stamp is as much the EU saying ‘you are not entitled’ as it is Jersey’s government allocating restrictions. If your not happy with the system you cannot be happy with Australia’s or the US’ system which also require visas for locals to work outside those countries or foreigners to work inside them. Also – Australia’s points system is just another version of the J Cat system.
Cheap labour is attracted here because they get paid better than they do back home otherwise they wouldn’t come. They may not be as well paid as ‘locals’ but that is their choice and no one forces them. In fact speaking to many they are more than happy and they are free to leave. So -
1. Why? – they are here by choice and don’t arrive in slave ships.
2. In every market economy there will be the bottom of this pile. This is not exploitation – see 1.
3. Agreed. But it’s the environment v economy balance.
4. These proud people would rather go back to their home country than live on welfare and it’s harder than simply turning up with your palms showing.
5. No. Locals don’t want the work otherwise they would be doing it.
6. See 5
7. ? How when they can’t buy and have restrictions on what they can rent?
8. For the restricted market only
9. paid for by a larger economy and tax receipts
10. Agreed but that’s already happened
11. How exactly? See 1.
Report abuse