1

James Deale

Absolute propaganda.

We still facilitate (legally, for now) tax avoidance. We allow the powers of capital around the world to avoid paying tax through complicated structures here on Jersey.

It is only a matter of time until they crack down on the loopholes in their own legislation and put pressure on Jersey to amend theirs.

Report abuse

3

Flooded

There seems to be an inordinate amount of pro-finance propaganda recently. Could this be to generate a warm feeling about our ethics-free zone of finance, in contrast to the mounting evidence of cover ups, whitewashes and staggering incompetence in other areas?
Oh, and rarely has the JEP come up with such an absurd bit of photo-montage. I think the Photoshop should be put to better use. How about air brushing the Waterfront?

Report abuse

5

Jambo

Looks like we will die then.

Report abuse

7

PJG

Local Foreigner#70
IMO, your case is an exelent one for not raising GST .
At least till after tomorrow mornings boat.

Report abuse

9

J-Cat

@4 Whilst I have little faith in the government, I will gladly ‘take head’ whenever I can. It’s a scarifice I am prepared to make.

Report abuse

11

Euan Mee

Some puerile comments above. As a matter of fact, Jersey is a world leader in assisting developing countries in recovering assets; this conference is acknowledged everywhere as a valuable initiative – except by some sneering locals who seek every opportunity to knock their own Island.

Report abuse

13

Slawek

Remember !!

Do not steal – the goverment hates competition !!

Report abuse

15

Born Warrior

BridgetM. 4.

That’s the best typo yet!
I bet that’s the last time you’ll tell people to “take heed”…

Report abuse

17

tom jones

Steven Timms is a complete NuLabour muppet. Getting a thumbs up from him is like approval from Lucifer.

Report abuse

19

BridgetM.

no 15.Born Warrior

Yes of course, I meant to say take heed, As an 85 year old my pencil is not as sharp as it once was.

Report abuse

21

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #20
“…Are you saying it was moral/ethical to deal in slavery in the past because it was legal?…”
No. Are you saying that homosexuality was immoral when it was illegal? are you saying that not allowing women to vote was ethical when it was illegal?

Try not to confuse human rights with taxation, they very different things.

“…Tax avoidance in my opinion should be made illegal worldwide…”
And if it was I’d have no problem with that, but it’s down to those countries around the world who feel the way you do to change their laws, when/if they do then Jersey will comply with the law. Do you really think that Jersey should act as the world’s legislator and policeman?

“…I believe every country worldwide has a right to set its own taxes and also has a right to collect them from its own citizens…”
Absolutely, and I don’t think anybody disagrees with you. I think I’m right in saying(albeit in a very simplistic way) Jersey didn’t use to collect taxes from on the income of people not living in Jersey, but the EU etc. got all uppity and wanted us to treat them equally with those residents from whom they did, perfectly reasonable collect taxes from. A case of outside nations trying to force changes on who Jersey taxed. Jersey never tried to stop them collecting taxes from their citizens.

“…Are you happy with this state of affairs?…”
Happy? Well I’m a realist. I think I’d be happier if no country had any advantage over any other, but that’s simply impossible.

I’d certainly be happier if everything I bought wasn’t imported from China, who’re only competitive (in many instances) because they don’t pay what would be a living wage here, and don’t afford their employees the same rights and protections.

If you can get every country to agree not to take advantage of any other country in any way then you’ll have my support in demanding that Jersey joins in; however I suspect (and am thankful) that Jersey would not be the last country to sign up to your idea of global utopia. I also think that if it was ever achieved it wouldn’t live up to the expectations of the many that call for it. Life isn’t perfect, and part of life is commerce and trade.

Report abuse

23

Peter Anthony Troy

The salient question is who and from where will all the regulatory decisions effecting Jersey’s financial services industry be made? Not in the States of Jersey but in Brussels.

Thus Jersey’s primary industry be will not only be directed by off Island corporations it will also be regulated by new all powerful agencies of the EU. Therein lies the threat to the Islands economic well being.

Report abuse

25

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian
I would love to hear you explain how, in you utopian world, you would pay for all the services the Public expect.

Once you’ve removed any export business from Jersey, how would you raise ANY taxation for the funding of public services?

Report abuse

27

truthseeker

Tax avoidance…Tax evasion.semantics ? ….depends on how much of the double standard your own conscience permits really.

Report abuse

29

J Lamborrari

@ truthseeker #27
“Tax avoidance…Tax evasion.semantics ?…”

To avoid being arrested for assault I don’t punch you in the face.

To evade being arrested for assault I make sure I don’t leave a witness.

Report abuse

31

Euan Mee

J Lamborrari @ 29 – succinct, clever and very intelligent!

Report abuse

33

joker

Adrian #24

“Why should you get tax relief on pensions?”

Simple – because you’d effectively be paying tax on it twice, once when you paid your contribution and again when you received it. Didn’t realise you were in favour of double taxation as well!

Report abuse

35

Tom Jones

Joker, that’s not the logical arguement for tax relief on pensions otherwise it would apply to getting tax relief on money you put on deposit at the bank! Its simply a carrot to make people make some provision for their own retirement in a vehicle where your are pretty much forced to buy an annuity with most of it and so less likely to be a burden on the state in your retirement. Something that is deemed socially beneficial by governments just as mortgage interest relief is/was given to help you buy your own home. Logically though Arnold is correct if what he meant was that it is a regressive tax break. At least in the UK someone not earning can get a modicum of tax gross up on a limited amount of contributions to a pension, something we don’t offer over here.

Report abuse

37

truthseeker

Ah, Mr Lambretta now that I’ve gotten truly under your skin,let us remember that Jersey made a living from knitting and smuggling at one time, lot’s of casks of brandy avoided / evaded the customs, yet it was not tarted up as something else,smuggling was an income that’s all,so let’s call the baby by it’s name shall we.

Report abuse

39

Hector

Its very interesting to see that Richard Murphy has stopped allowing comments on his Tax Research blog (so its not really a blog anymore!), apparently because he can’t be bothered responding to comments from posters.

Report abuse

41

J Lamborrari

@ truthseeker #37
“…let us remember that Jersey made a living from knitting and smuggling…”
And the point you’re trying to make is? How far back in history are you going to take your ridiculous arguments truthseeker? are you going to come out and say that it’s okay to chase livestock over a cliff rather than enforcing their humane slaughter, because that’s the way it use to be done in St Brelade? rather than allow the next housing development we should return the plot to nature (you might have a problem with the HSE over the handling of all the lava)? What’re your views on education truthseeker; should we be wasting taxpayer money teaching stuff like CS, when all the kids really need to know is how to shape flint into a weapon?

“…so let’s call the baby by it’s name shall we…”
Okay, I name this legal industry ‘Financial Services’

Report abuse

43

Ben

It may well all be legal, but I sense some people are getting slightly worried at the moment.

Report abuse

45

Born Warrior

Peter 36.

Re: “No doubt Adrian will return to his simplistic mantra of ‘make tax avoidance illegal’, but could he perhaps explain how he proposes to do this? Tax legislators and authorities all over the world, including here in Jersey, will be waiting with bated breath for his answer …”

Oh really, I think you will find that the Tax legislators and authorities all over the world are not waiting with bated breath but are working together to create a Global tax code.

However, seeing as it’s question time, maybe you wouldn’t mind answering the following questions.
- Why is it wrong to believe that the costs of our mutual well-being should be fairly borne by all?
- Why should the financial interests of the ‘well-heeled’ few be pampered to, while the rest of us are left to provide the community with all the necessary services?
- Why is it wrong NOT to want to ‘pick up the bill’ for individuals/companies who abuse tax-haven legislation and dodge their responsibilities?

Luckily, most people and businesses meet their responsibilities but there are others who are shirking theirs. And the shirkers are aided and abetted by tax legislation which favours well-heeled individuals and corporate interests. For years, tax cheats have been ‘hiding’ their money and getting away with it. So maybe it’s time to restore fairness and accept the fact that the fundamental purpose of a tax system is to raise funds for goals which serve us all.

Report abuse

47

Peter

Born Warrior # 36

You refer to “tax cheats hiding their money” and those who “abuse tax haven legislation and dodge their responsibilities”. We are in complete agreement, such persons are engaging in an activity which is illegal and immoral. It is called tax evasion and should be eradicated, and as Stephen Timms was so kind as to point out, Jersey is doing rather well at that, in our own small way.

As for a global tax code, it will never happen because the major economies indulge in fierce tax competition between themselves. The Eurobond market in the City of London facilitates more (legal) tax avoidance than all the offshore centres put together.

Report abuse

49

joker

Tom Jones & Peter

I know what I was referring to is not the official definition of double taxation but it seemed the easiest way in plain English to explain what would actually happen if I understood Adrian’s proposal correctly of being taxed on the portion of your salary you contribute to pension only for it to be taxed again income when you receive it back. I wasn’t referring to any interest received on the capital etc just the capital you deposit. So like a bank, yes you pay tax on interest received on the deposit but you don’t pay tax when you withdraw the deposit to pay for something (ignoring GST of course!).

Report abuse

51

Mark

J Lamborrari (44, et al)
I hold with much of what you say but fear that on this story, you may be missing the point.

There is lawful, unlawful and illegal. The problems arise when we move from the lawful to the unlawful. In the first instance this is a moral matter and hence the indignation that surrounds some of our finance industry. Your post @6 is very clever, but the subplot is the move by government to bring transparency to the Jersey ‘finance industry’ and the concern of some that this will be to make some unlawful activities, illegal.

On this your arguments are, I fear, a very proficient dance on a pin head. Ultimately the industry of Jersey must be less ‘finance industry’ and more ‘professional services’. Change or die.

Report abuse

53

watermelon

I think using arguments about personal financial arrangements is disingenuous, the issue is corporate tax avoidance which deals documented body blows to all those issues regarded as externalities by many of the above…human rights in employment for example and by not contributing to the infrastructure of the countries they exploit. The IMF is infamous for its structural adjustment policies…free market above everything else. You need to examine the motivation and history of the authors of any report and who paid them. I think many are sick to the stomach of ‘I’m alright Jack’ and basic research will show that there is much evidence sociological and health based to show that the inequalities impact on us the lucky few in an unhappy way. Perhaps all our energies exhibited here could be dedicated to exciting diversification rather than rolling out the same old.

Report abuse

55

James Deale

Excellent progress does not mean we are there. More propaganda from the JEP. They probably won’t even let this be posted. Impartiality = not a word we can use in Jersey

Report abuse

57

Willy Wonker

They said

‘Jersey is making a very important contribution and it has become much tougher for those who want to bend the rules on tax,’ he said.

Really? Have they heard of the recent amendment to the Trusts (Jersey) Law?

Report abuse

59

Mrs Brady

If they say that we are okay, we are okay. The Edwards report said the same thing and I believed them too. They look such nice people and that nice man from England must know what he is doing becuase he is a senior member of the Brown government and is, as such, in a position of tremendous knowledge and authority. Come to think of it, perhaps he should be prime minister and then Labour might win the next election. I do like these reports. They give me such a warm, self satisfied glow.

Report abuse

61

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #48
“…A straight forward question for J Lamborrari. Can you tell me the difference in tax take to any given country of someone avoiding a million pounds in tax and someone else evading a million pounds in tax?…”
In pounds then the answer would be nil; however the legal avoidance of taxation is(or should be) foreseeable to the tax authority when setting out their own tax code, whereas the evasion of the same amount of tax will not be foreseeable, and therefore it’s impact on the budgeting and set up of a country’s tax code would be more greatly effected.

Adrian, am I to assume my straightforward question to you in post #25 is to remain unanswered?

“I would have thought changing the law gets around all these non issues certain people have been using as excuses for not doing the right thing….”
Sorry, but to some the right thing is to provide education, healthcare and security. Making this impossible is hardly a non-issue.

Report abuse

63

Born Warrior

J Lamborrari 50.

Re my question: Why is it wrong to believe that the costs of our mutual well-being should be fairly borne by all?

You say: “It’s not, I don’t see anybody anywhere claiming otherwise; can you?”

- If you read my post carefully, you will find that I make no reference to any comment on this thread, but simply asked a question (typed in plain English) based on my perception of the direction in which Adrian’s thoughts were moving.

Re my question: “Why should the financial interests of the ‘well-heeled’ few be pampered to, while the rest of us are left to provide the community with all the necessary services?”

You say: “You need to be more specific; are you talking about a global community, or Jersey?”

- Both, they are interlinked.

You say: “In Jersey it’s the ‘well-heeled’ who provide most of the community services used by all.
This is not untrue, as a general proposition, the wealthiest do pay the bulk of the individual income taxes, that is, those who pay, but I am referring to those who don’t.

You say: “I don’t think that the financial interests of the ‘well-heeled’ are pandered to anyway; care to explain further what you mean?”

- Pampering the ‘well-heeled’ and coporates is exactly what offshore financial centres do by providing facilities for them to get around the rules, laws and regulations of other jurisdictions…this is why ‘pamper centres’ like Jersey exist.

You say: “I could argue that many poor people are pandered to when you see the amount they receive on Income Support.”

- And I could agree, if I were sure they didn’t deserve it.

Re my question: “Why is it wrong NOT to want to ‘pick up the bill’ for individuals/companies who abuse tax-haven legislation and dodge their responsibilities?”

You ask: “What bill are you talking about?”

- The word bill is a euphemism for ‘tax burden’.

You say: “Each individual/company is responsible for their actions, and if found to be abusing legislation then Jersey’s authorities would take action; or are you talking about somebody that breaks no law in Jersey, but may break the laws in their home country? If so then it would be for their home country authorities to take action against them, surely?”

-I’m not talking tax avoidance or even tax evasion, I’m talking the vast grey area in between. About a third of total global assets is held in tax havens and offshore financial centres (out of sight/reach of the tax man) and over half of all world trade passes through tax havens…is this simply for ‘honest’ tax avoidance?

Report abuse

65

truthseeker

you know…you’re in denial…but you know alright….end of.

Report abuse

67

Mickey Mousehole

As Mr Pond is an expert on the amendment to the Housing Law, why don’t you explain why you think it makes it easier to bend the rules on tax and he can correct you, because he modestly asserts to know his stuff whereas I am confident you are simply reporting what others say.

Report abuse

69

Adrian

J Lamborrari in answer to your question. Which country in its right mind would put all its eggs in one basket? Especially one coming under more and more scrutiny? I view this as akin to playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives.

Unfortunately due to a lack of foresight by successive governments who have gone for the easy short term option of growing the economic bubble on the back of finance, Jersey now faces a very uncertain future. I place the blame for this fairly and squarely at the feet of the type of politicians, over the years, who have gone along with this easy short to medium term option. However, as some are aware the old saying of “a short term profit tends towards a long term loss” will I believe end up being true.

This is why we are where we are now with people getting worried for the future.

I also blame the voters who didn’t have the guts to go for a different type of politician, and thus gave the green light for what has happened over the last 20-30 years. I believe this is going to come back and haunt them in the near future.

As per what will people do over here without these easy well paid jobs (in comparision to the manual work carried out by previous generations) the answer will be to adapt or move on somewhere else where they can get a job. This will obviously not sit will with many who have flocked here for an easier, better paid life.

I myself wish there were another option, and I don’t like to see anyone losing their job through no fault of their own, but due to the way of things and peoples general lack of concern for others outside their own immediate family, this is where we are heading as a society. This is why I don’t agree with this type of capitalism as it encourages the worst traits of humanity, as it a case of winner takes all regardless of circumstances, or peoples feelings. This is also why I believe it is doomed to failure as the group culture will always survive the individual culture. Co-operatives are the way to go as they work on an inclusive and not exclusive remit.

Since Jersey has failed to a large extent to stay diversified like it was in the 1960′s and 1970′s it will make life very hard for everyone over here, if finance where to be hit drastically in a short time. This would lead to a reduction of the population as people move elsewhere to live. It cannot be any other way. This will mean in turn that less money will be needed as there will be less public services required for a reduced population, so the straining infrustucture will be given some respite from over use.

Even though wages would be less than before as Jersey would be much poorer there would be a corresponding fall in import/export and travel costs as market prices are dictated especially in island situations by what the market will bare. In a rich island this will be much higher than a poorer one. However I believe that though the population would be reduced somewhat, as would wages and job oppotunities, that this would be more than made up for by the greatly increased quality of life that the remainder would enjoy.

The main result of this economic boom since finance took such a hold has been a greatly reduced quality of life and a much more stressfull lifestyle. This cannot be good for family life or general wellbeing and enjoyment of life.

So basically I would expect to see an outward migration of those sorts who didn’t have much affinity for the island as a whole and would then have nothing to keep them here as the money would have gone. This would leave behind those whose heart was in it. I believe the community spirit would then begin to return as those chasing the money would have all gone.

What people forget is that throughout Jersey’s history its people have changed with the times, as one thing went out of fashion another came in. I believe Jersey needs to find its next niche in the world and the sooner done the better.

If you have half the population for example you will need much less spent on public services won’t you? The resulting tax take will be less due to less demand and through prices of goods and services as well as wages falling.

At the end of the day things can’t carry on as they are. We are living an infinite lifestyle on a finite planet with finite resources and a finite eco-system. Even you must agree that the infinite and finite don’t mix.

On a final note to your question.
Which outways the other?

The needs of the few or the needs of the vast majority?

I say the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the minority. Therefore if all finance centres where curtailed, though the people in these areas would loss out short term, until they had redeployed into other fields, (just like those who ran slavery in the 18th century as an example to illustrate this) they would adapt. However on the otherside of the coin the vast majority whose lives are affected by tax avoidance around the world would be better off through reduced taxation/better services.

Can you honestly put a reasoned argument against what I have said and has this answered your question for you?

Report abuse

71

Julie D

Duck Pond regards himself as the expert and likes to say so Thanks for the insight, though. Getting confused with a pledge though.

No-one is allowed to disagree, it seems?

Trusts; no transparency, no look through. Opaque for trust purposes. Donner et Retenir, come back, all is forgiven! Oddly, we could see Vandevell one of these days. I think about this when I am doing my roof.

Report abuse

73

Charles Hawtry

It’s a massive case of who are they trying to kid? when they bang on about recent amendments aiding transparancy!

Report abuse

75

Born Warrior

J Lamborrari 64.

You say: “I too make no reference to a specific thread, in fact I specifically said ‘anywhere’”

- Ah, come on, this one really takes the cake! You’ll obviously say anything to wiggle out of a hole. I’ve got to ask, are you referring to anywhere on ‘This is Jersey’ threads in general; or ‘anywhere in the entire history of Jersey documentation/literature’ (including legislation, reports, etc.; or simply ‘anywhere in the world’?

Re my comment: I’m not talking tax avoidance or even tax evasion, I’m talking the vast grey area in between. About a third of total global assets is held in tax havens and offshore financial centres (out of sight/reach of the tax man) and over half of all world trade passes through tax havens…is this simply for ‘honest’ tax avoidance?”

You say: “In most cases; yes.”

- If you truly believe this, and cannot see how the well-heeled and corporates exploit cross-border loopholes not merely to reduce their taxes but to escape them, then I’ll leave you to support the tax-avoidance industry and end our conversation here.

Report abuse

77

J Lamborrari

@ Born Warrior #75
“…You’ll obviously say anything to wiggle out of a hole…”
What are you talking about? You asked a question, which I answered (a rarity on these forums at times), in answering your question I posed one of my own, in part to show that the question you asked seemed to me to be pointless, as I’ve never heard any reasonable argument to the contrary; you then shot back a reply implying that I had somehow not answered or understood you question, and suggesting that I read it more carefully. When I pointed out that I hadn’t misunderstood your question, and in fact your understanding of my answer seemed lacking, you then accuse me of trying to wiggle out of a hole??! I’m in no hole, but I’m still waiting for you to answer my question.

“…‘anywhere in the world’?…”
I was referring to anywhere, although I will limit it to reasonable suggestions, not anything that is clearly the rantings of the insane or racist etc.

“…If you truly believe this…”
I do. Would you care to share your figures for the amount of dishonest tax evasion that you know to be going on in Jersey. How much do you see in your area of the Jersey financial industry, or did you see when you worked in it?

Report abuse

79

Adrian

J Lamborrari so you agree with me, the needs of the majority outway the needs of the few.

Are there a few people in Jersey as compared to where it gets its revenue from? If the answer is yes then you know who comes first as you have already answered the question.

I have explained in my detailed response above. Less people will mean less demand for services, pretty obvious in my book. As I have also said Jersey has had to adjust in the past and it will have to do so again. Just because people have got used to easy money doesn’t mean it will always be thus.

Indeed if finance went tomorrow what could many of these people do? Could many do a hard day’s physical graft for minimum wage?

I have no wish to see lots of people out of work but did anyone in Jersey care when the likes of the miners in the UK were dumped out of their jobs? Many here, being of a right wing mentality, weren’t bothered were they? So why are these types going to be bothered if finance goes?

If you lived elsewhere in a higher tax area would you be pleased to pay more because money was being funnelled away to low tax areas? If you are honest you would not be. So if you wouldn’t put up with it why do you expect others to do so?

As I have already said being dependent on one sector for your livelihood is very silly and I blame the politicians for this. Who else can you blame besides the voters who elected these sorts? Maybe you are one of the one’s responsible for this state of affairs as a voter? You do appear to think things are fine over here.

As per funding I would have had the foresight to have diversified away from finance before it hit the rocks then we wouldn’t be in this mess would we? No way would I have let unbridled growth inflate this bubble ever bigger each year until it is now so large that it will be pretty catastrophic when it goes pop. I have to wonder why so many flats are being built at the moment. To me it is as if the developers are desperately trying to maximise their profits before the winds of change hit home.

As per negative equity the UK have had to contend with it for many years as have other countries around the world why should Jersey be immune from world events?

Report abuse

81

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #79
“J Lamborrari so you agree with me, the needs of the majority outway the needs of the few…”
I agree that if all people have equally weighted needs, then the group with the greater number will have needs that outweigh the needs of the smaller group; this is basic math.

“…Are there a few people in Jersey as compared to where it gets its revenue from?…”
Again, basic math, but the answer is yes, there are fewer people in Jersey then the rest of the world.

“…If the answer is yes then you know who comes first as you have already answered the question…”
Here I have to disagree, you’re mixing the weight of need with right, and practicality.

Suppose you have two men; one needs 1litre of water to survive, the second needs 2litres of water to survive. You have 1litre of water and it is your decision as to which man gets this 1litre of water: based on the weight of need, you just killed both men.

You asked a simple question and I answered it, with my answer I asked you a question, you chose to ignore my question. I wonder why??

“…I have explained in my detailed response above. Less people will mean less demand for services, pretty obvious in my book…”
Yes it is obvious that fewer people would require less Public services(although there is the argument that the amount of Public services per person would increase) But your ‘detailed response’ omitted a crucial detail: The answer to my question.

How would you fund the required Public expenditure, however much reduced it may be? Once you’ve completely removed all the current source of income to the Public purse, how do you think even a tenth of today’s services could be provided? and I don’t think ‘we’ll adapt’ is a good enough answer.

“…Could many do a hard day’s physical graft for minimum wage?…”
Many could, but some couldn’t. But what physical graft are you talking about, what manual industry do you expect to spring up that could sustain the population, and provided Public services, including those to help those that aren’t able to do the hard physical graft? Or are you saying you accept the weak must be sacrificed for the greater good?

“…I have no wish to see lots of people out of work but did anyone in Jersey care when the likes of the miners in the UK were dumped out of their jobs?…”
Yes, people in Jersey did care.

“…Many here, being of a right wing mentality, weren’t bothered were they? So why are these types going to be bothered if finance goes?…”
They might not be, but does that make it right? Is that your argument: Some people didn’t care, so screw the whole population?!

“…If you lived elsewhere in a higher tax area would you be pleased to pay more because money was being funnelled away to low tax areas? If you are honest you would not be. So if you wouldn’t put up with it why do you expect others to do so?…”
Few people want to pay higher taxes, so honestly I would not be pleased, but I’d expect MY government to take action against the people in it’s jurisdiction using local tax laws, I would not bleat that somebody else’s government should change it’s laws to their detriment to solve my problems for me.

“…Who else can you blame besides the voters who elected these sorts? Maybe you are one of the one’s responsible for this state of affairs as a voter?…”
Hands up, yes I’ve voted in the past I take my share of your ‘blame’ for the state Jersey’s in; are you not a voter too? I assume you blame democracy then.

“…You do appear to think things are fine over here…”
Things are not perfect, but they are better now than they would be if the finance industry were to vanish as you propose.

“…As per funding I would have had the foresight to have diversified away from finance before it hit the rocks then we wouldn’t be in this mess would we?…”
Good point… what would you have diversified into I wonder? gold, oil, a land of milk & honey?? Maybe I’ll take you business plan to the board: “I plan to diversify, using foresight” I’m sure they’ll approve me a big fat budget salary! Dare I ask what your foresight would have had you diversify into? maybe that would make it clear how you’d fund the Public services question you keep evading/avoiding

“…As per negative equity the UK have had to contend with it for many years as have other countries around the world why should Jersey be immune from world events?…”
Never once have I suggested Jersey should be immune from world events, but why would you welcome or engineer your own downfall, if you were able to avoid it?? If the UK jumped of a cliff, would you too?

Report abuse

83

Arnald

80
If you are not an apologist of blatant financial terrorism then you would do some proper research and not defend the utterly indefensible with your pointless tap dancing. For the sake of what?

It’s the paucity of intelligence that lies behind your intellectual-by-numbers responses that exposes a base selfishness that so tarnishes the CI populations.

Report abuse

85

J Lamborrari

@ Born Warrior #82
While I did think your original question seemed odd, seeing as how the answer was very obvious and it seemed to be asking a question that didn’t need to be asked; you prefixed, oddly for what you now say was a rhetorical question, your question with;
“…However, seeing as it’s question time, maybe you wouldn’t mind answering the following questions…”

I answered what, while odd, was a reasonable enough question with what I believe to be a reasonable answer.

Instead of at that point making it know your question was rhetorical you responded with the implication that I had not read carefully enough what you wrote, even though this was not the case, and in fact it was you that had not done so with my response.

To say I am the one on the offensive is simply not true, you took and accusatory and attacking stance before I did by way of defense.

Your suggestion that I should resist challenging every word, comma and full stop I find odd, what should I challenge? Or would you prefer that nothing was challenged? How agreeable that would be if the status quo was not challenged, rather than the ill-thought through revolution some here support in broad strokes, but fail to consider the detail.

Report abuse

87

Adrian

Peter is there a way around paying income such that a person can get the money equivalent to income (in another form not seen as income by the taxx authority) and thus avoid the tax due on it?

Report abuse

89

J Lamborrari

@ James Deale #88
It’s good to hear your view on the industry, and other than your view on propaganda I basically agree with you.

“…Just open your eyes and stop reading the propaganda…”
I haven’t been sucked in by any propaganda, I can see that it’s not an ideal industry, but few are, I accept that with it’s great benefits it does bring some problems, but life is a compromise often. However I haven’t been sucked in by the propaganda of the other side of the argument either, those that bleat about how evil/greedy/lazy those in power are, and how there’s a great conspiracy operating.

Report abuse

91

Born Warrior

J Lamborrari 85.

Re: “Your suggestion that I should resist challenging every word, comma and full stop I find odd, what should I challenge?”

- You should challenge the main point!

Re: “Or would you prefer that nothing was challenged? How agreeable that would be if the status quo was not challenged…”

- Questioning one’s beliefs and those of others is a necessary part of our social and perceptual development and not simply a sign of our awareness of global issues. Therefore, passive acceptance of another person’s views as ‘RIGHT’ is not only a mistake but also a risk. On the other hand, total dismissal of the opinions (which you have a tendency to do)of others is an even greater mistake, as they often provide new options which help us form fresh ideas.
Of course, we all want our opinions to be ‘RIGHT’, but there is a big difference between ‘wanting to be right’ and ‘being right’. Thus, I welcome the comments which challenge my convictions, as they oblige me to either change my current views or prove to myself that there is no need to do so. They also allow me to harness the collective insight and understanding of specfic situations. Which brings me to my main grudge: ‘challenging the least challenging points’ (single words, isolated sentences, etc.)…a ploy which often causes us to lose sight of the real issue. Maybe it is just your way, but sadly (at least for me), it puts an abrupt end to any form of intellectual exchange.

P.S. Our aim, as a community, should be simply to make people think and not to make people think as we would like them to think.

Report abuse

93

J Lamborrari

@ Born Warrior #91

“…Which brings me to my main grudge: ‘challenging the least challenging points’ (single words, isolated sentences, etc.)…a ploy which often causes us to lose sight of the real issue…”

So why, in response to me answering reasonably your question did you choose (wrongly BTW don’t forget) to pounce on what you thought you saw in my answer with:

“…If you read my post carefully, you will find that I make no reference to any comment on this thread, but simply asked a question (typed in plain English)…”
Forget that you were wrong in misreading what I’d written for a moment, and explain how my question was not about the issue? Even including ‘typed in plain English’ seems to be done to imply that my understanding was lacking.

Or if you don’t feel like answering that question perhaps you’d like to take this opportunity to answer the question that I’ve asked over and over of those claiming that the Finance Industry in Jersey is vile, evil, greedy, immoral etc. etc. etc. and explain how Jersey’s public services would be funded without any exports if the detractors got their way and closed it down.

Report abuse

95

Born Warrior

J Lamborrari 93.Y

You seem to have confused this site with a battlefield, and your desire to be the ‘Victor’ makes talking with you almost impossible. However, notwithstanding my reservations, I decided to reply to your post simply because it seemed impolite not to.
Unfortunately, there is no excuse for my ‘pouncing’ and using a somewhat discourteous manner but, seeing as I was talking to you, it seemed appropriate to use your way of speaking.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have an ‘issue’ with your attitude. Therefore, until I see noticeable change for the better, I prefer not to discuss any matter whatsoever with you, but I’m sure you won’t miss my comments…as you so much prefer to talk than listen.

P.S. If we are supposed to talk more than we listen, we would have two mouths and one ear.

Report abuse

97

Adrian

J Lamborrari “if a successful fisherman could think of another way to earn a living should he stop being a fisherman?”

As far as I am concerned the answer is yes if:-
a) he was hunting whales
b) fish stocks are in danger of collapse for future generations if he doesn’t stop now.
c) he is damaging the environment.
d) he is wastefull of resources.

Would you be one of the one’s who carried on regardless, as why should you stop if you are successfull? Who cares about the future when they won’t be here? I would have to say the type of person who was a greedy, self serving, capitalist would.

J Lamborrari at the end of the day what is wrong is wrong. If it is immoral it is wrong. If it is unethical it is wrong. Just because it is allowed doesn’t mean it is right does it? A simple example of this was slavery. It was a legal business once, then it became illegal. It was always immoral and unjust but it once was legal. This is where people should draw the line IMHO, legality has no baring in this case I’m afraid.

Report abuse

99

J Lamborrari

@ Born Warrior #95
“…You seem to have confused this site with a battlefield, and your desire to be the ‘Victor’ makes talking with you almost impossible…”
No, I confused this site with a forum for debate of the issues; where people could ask questions and get answers; in doing so maybe those people who have different views to mine could explain themselves coherently enough that I might better understand their view, and perhaps find my mind changed and that I agree with them. This sort of reasonable debate and sharing of ideas could find us all the victors.

Unfortunately it appears that most people don’t share this open minded view, and the site is just little more than a place for comments to be plastered like graffiti.

“…I prefer not to discuss any matter whatsoever with you, but I’m sure you won’t miss my comments…as you so much prefer to talk than listen…”
Yeah, I hate to listen, that’s why I’m so pleased that nobody can be bothered to try and answer the question I keep putting to them! It’s odd that in one post you complain that I don’t want to talk about the issue, in the next you avoid answering my question on the issue, and just take a pop at my attitude.

“…P.S. If we are supposed to talk more than we listen, we would have two mouths and one ear…”
No, we have two ears to be able to better tell the direction from which a sounds comes, aiding hunt or escape, and one mouth because that is what’s required for it’s purpose.

Report abuse

101

J Lamborrari

@ Adrian #97
“…a) he was hunting whales
b) fish stocks are in danger of collapse for future generations if he doesn’t stop now…”
So if he was working within a well regulated fleet, you wouldn’t have a problem with regard to a) & b)?

“…c) he is damaging the environment.
d) he is wastefull of resources…”
c) & d) could also be answered by comment on good regulation, but I would further add that the same aaccusation could be levied at just about any human activity to a greater or lesser degree.

“…Would you be one of the one’s who carried on regardless, as why should you stop if you are successfull?…”
No.
“…Who cares about the future when they won’t be here?…”
I do, I can’t talk for all, and from what you’ve said I’m unclear on you view.

“…J Lamborrari at the end of the day what is wrong is wrong. If it is immoral it is wrong. If it is unethical it is wrong…”
Absolutely, and I don’t see the Finance Industry in Jersey as immoral, or unethical; so I guess that’s the issue: you see morality as black and white, screw the consequences of doing to ‘right’ thing; I want to do the right thing, mindful of the consequences and the fact the life is a compromise, and people can’t be expected to all think alike.

“…Just because it is allowed doesn’t mean it is right does it?…”
No.

“…This is where people should draw the line IMHO, legality has no baring in this case I’m afraid…”
Legality alone does not make something right or wrong, I’ve never claimed otherwise, but there is a huge difference between the legal/moral issue of operating a trade in humans (or animals), and the collection of taxation or international trade in goods or services.

The Finance Industry in Jersey is trading on an international level, in a well regulated and law abiding manner on a level playing field with every other nation. I see no moral problem with that.

Report abuse

103

J Lamborrari

@ Pablo the Fish #98
“…I can also:..”
Yes, but in an effort to make understanding the difference between the two I was keeping it as simple as possible.

“…avoid being arrested for assault if I make sure I don’t have a witness…”
I would say that was evasion, not avoidance.

“…avoid being arrested for punching someone in the face, if I live in a country in which punching someone in the face is not classed as a criminal act’…”
I would say that if the result of your action could not be arrest than you’ve neither avoided nor evaded.

Report abuse

105

Adrian

J Lamborrari that is where we differ then. As in the cricket analogy I view tax avoidance as b) and though not illegal it is to be frowned upon as it is not cricket is it? Using loopholes to exploit others(nations) falls in this category IMHO.

As per shades of grey how many shades are there? Answer too many to mention. This is often used as a cop out by those on a sticky moral and ethical wicket. Please bear in mind that any amount of grey added to white changes it to grey. It is the same as saying something is the truth. Either it is or it isn’t there are no grey areas are there? However you think there are and I don’t.

“but there is a huge difference between the legal/moral issue of operating a trade in humans (or animals), and the collection of taxation or international trade in goods or services.”

Why is there? Both were/are legal businesses by law so what is the difference? Both are morally and ethically wrong as far as I am concerned.

It appears that you are one of those that uses grey areas to justify things. Where do you draw the line is 99.9% black (wrong/immoral) or does it have to be 50% (wrong/immoral)?

If you use different shades of grey then there is no real boundary between right and wrong, is there?

How can there be a level playing field when taxes are set differently around the world and different people can avoid different quantities of tax from their neighbours due to their ability to use/pay an accountant?

Report abuse

107

Born Warrior

J Lamborrari 99.

Free-market advocates (like you) support tax competition because they wish to attract across-border investments. Collectivists (like me) dislike tax competition because they wish to stop money leaving the countries where it is made.
I can’t deny that the world’s most important tax havens are in America and the UK and that even though citizens of both countries are not allowed to benefit from their ‘tax-avoidance’ policies (tax treatment of Non-doms, etc.), both populations benefit indirectly from this massive influx of money (in a similar way as the population of Jersey benefits from the finance industry).

At present, both America and Britain are desperately trying to stop tax evasion and, at the same time, attract more investors to their ‘onshore’ tax-havens. The only way to do this is to crush the competition (eliminate little tax-avoidance centres like Jersey), so the heat is on. Hence all these ‘getting-our-act-together’ attempts and trying to please the big boys…but it’s just not enough. In the end, Jersey (and similar places) will have no choice but to give in and change direction. Fortunately it won’t happen overnight and hopefully Jersey will receive some help from the British govt. during the period of transition. As people move away to find work, the population of the island will dwindle (with all the consequences and benefits) and those who are left will have to pay much higher taxes to cover the costs of sadly reduced public-services, it’s as simple as that.
I don’t have a crystal ball, so I don’t know whether life in Jersey will be better or worse…I just know that it will be different and that collectivism serves ‘the many’ and not ‘the few’.

P.S. These are my views in a nutshell. I have no need to shake you or anyone else off in an attempt to avoid issues, my wish was/is simply to discuss matters in a civil manner.

Report abuse

109

James Deale

107 Born Warrior

“In the end, Jersey (and similar places) will have no choice but to give in and change direction. Fortunately it won’t happen overnight and hopefully Jersey will receive some help from the British govt. during the period of transition.”

You sum it up exactly. I think unless we take action now we’re on the road to losing our independance.

Report abuse

111

Adrian

J.Lamborrari your views are based on legality and not much else from what I see. Therefore you see nothing wrong with tax avoidance. I on the other hand see this as a moral and ethical question which outways legality issues I’m afraid and this is where we part ways.

My views will in no way be weakened by anything you could say. The bottom line is I believe in the group ethic you believe in the individual as out ywaying the needs of the group, and see nothing wrong in taking advantage of others. This is the typical Anglo-Saxon work ethic which is use others for your own gain as long as it is “legal”.

Tax avoidance increases taxes in the countries thus affected in reduced tax takings. You think this is fine, I don’t. I view it as legalised theft from that community. People in low tax areas are benefiting at the cost of many millions of other people, hence the needs of the few, like Jersey, are put ahead of the needs of the majority i.e. other countries.

It doesn’t matter how it has occured (i.e. loop holes) it is still wrong.

Report abuse