Polity by Rob Salmond

Read Post

Polity: Is being a tax haven worth it?

97 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Russell Brown,

    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...
    ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Pattison,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 24 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Pattison, in reply to izogi,

    Deleted.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 24 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    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.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19686 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    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.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1386 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    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.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Alfie,

    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.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    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.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1386 posts Report Reply

  • Jarno van der Linden,

    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.

    Nelson • Since Oct 2007 • 81 posts Report Reply

  • Brent Jackson,

    Budgetriage ?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to izogi,

    but that explanation of "New Zealand taxes at 0%" seems overly simplistic.

    It's only the LTCs that have 0% tax.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    (I owe this information to Cactus Kate, who apart from anything else, is at least an expert in this area)

    roflnui

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • 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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1321 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to simon g,

    we don’t need this kind of nonsense.

    Apparently.
    As you were....
    I give up.
    Bye, and fuck you all...

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    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.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Alfie,

    Is the British rep Mark Thatcher?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to simon g,

    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).

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    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.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    Sorry you had to read that, Stephen. I've been out making a show then eating dinner.

    Steve Barnes is now very fucking banned.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Paul Brislen,

    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.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2895 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah,

    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.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • Deborah,

    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.

    New Lynn • Since Nov 2006 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Deborah,

    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.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2895 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie,

    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.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1386 posts Report Reply

  • Amanda Wreckonwith,

    If we are going to be accused of conspiracies - isn't Geoffrey Cone the ex husband of Deborah Hill Cone?

    Link to Slater - result!

    Since Sep 2012 • 171 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.