Posts by Alfie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Brent Jackson,
Great cartoon on money-laundering...
And another one.
-
Following the blanket secrecy which surrounded negotiations and the farce of those “public consultations” which effectively excluded anyone who opposed the TPP, the Nats have finally had enough and proffered two fingers to the democratic process.
The committee considering hundreds of public submissions had a stupidly tight four week schedule in which to give each submission due consideration before writing a final report for parliament. That period has just been reduced to just five days. It would be impossible for MPs to wade through all the submissions in that timeframe, let alone write a considered report.
The Nats are sick of hearing opposition to the TPP and just want to get the job over and done with. This surrendering of any pretence of due process can only lead to one conclusion. That the outcome has been predetermined.
Democracy. It’s one of those annoying things which has to be worked around.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Hilary Stace,
That's a damn fine story from Michael Field.
Naturally the two Tobys have come up with an excellent column on NZ's role as a tax haven -- well worth a look just for the great animation sequence of Michael Woodhouse.
-
Nice piece on the Panama Papers by Raybon Kan.
-
Key is still defending his government's position on NZ's role as a tax haven, providing much needed shelter to the impoverished one per cent. In parliament today Grant Robertson referred to a statement Key made in 2005 when he was a mere National Party finance spokesman.
Key said he'd like New Zealand to become the "Jersey of the South Pacific" and articulated his desire to develop our offshore banking industry. Until today, he was happy to wax lyrical on the benefits of economies which are built on "offshore trusts". It's only the poorly informed who refer to them as tax havens, y'know.
Isaac Davison sums up Key's earlier statements in the Herald.
Key's comments in parliament today suggest that he views the damage currently being inflicted on NZ's international reputation by the Panama Papers as little more than collateral damage. Part of the price your country has to pay when its leader's surreptitious motive is looking after his wealthy buddies.
Whether he sees our country as the "Jersey of the South Pacific" or the "Switzerland of the southern hemisphere", Key's former role in the money markets still dominates his thinking. Of course he can imagine a future NZ which idolises unproductive middle men whose only role is to prevent the fair distribution of wealth.
Key's constant striving to be part of the Davos crowd is becoming increasingly embarrassing. New Zealand deserves better than this.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Sacha,
one of them posh silent Ws, innit
Much posher now the company's been bought by infamous brothel owners, the Chow brothers. Although I note they're being referred to in the MSM lately as "property magnates".
-
Many people here will be aware of Xeni Jardin, one of the founders of the wonderful BoingBoing blog. After being diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, she wrote a moving account of how a non-user of recreational drugs turned into an advocate for medical pot.
-
As it's a quiet day, here's a couple of relevant links.
The Atlantic - What is Mossack Fonseca
There are around 80 known tax havens in the world, and New Zealand is one of them. Michelle Madsen writing in the Independent talks about her 2013 investigation into the shady Panamanian law firm at the heart of this leak and provides an idea of the scale of the problem and how tax havens work for the world's elite.
Mossack Fonseca may be the world’s fourth largest offshore law firm, but it’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s just one law firm, in one tax haven. Just think what the others are hiding.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Steve Barnes,
My first thought on that was “Those are the guys that dumped on the banks in the aftermath of the GFC, fucking bankers getting their own back”.
In the PM's case it may be even dirtier than that Steve.
...Gunnlaugsson once owned – and his wife still owns – an offshore investment company with multimillion-pound claims on Iceland’s failed banks.
I've yet to find a decent analysis of the implications of that statement, but it looks like the (as of today) former PM may have been playing both sides of the game.
There have been some farcical goings-on in Iceland over the past 24 hours. Yesterday the PM asked the President to dissolve parliament, but he refused because the PM had failed to consult his own colleagues. Then the PM resigned, but his party is still running the show. Other officials are falling on their swords. It's all a bit Monty Pythonesque.
-
After initially suggesting that the IRD are too busy to investigate this petty little multi-billion dollar rort, our PM seems to be squirming a little today. He’s now saying the Government “would consider any recommendations to tighten the rules.”
How that plays out obviously depends on who he chooses to make those recommendations and whether any subsequent “consideration” would be made in good faith. One only has to remember the compensation for David Bain and the vindication and subsequent elevation to sainthood of Judith Collins to imagine how such an enquiry might be manipulated to achieve the desired result.
Overnight polling may explain Key’s changed attitude. Speaking to John Campbell yesterday, John Key explained why his government didn’t intend to do anything about New Zealand’s role in the offshore trust / money laundering / tax haven situation.
Key claims that the industry was worth around $24m to NZ every year in “fees, tax and GST”. As the offshore “investors” are not required to pay either tax or GST in NZ, one can only presume that’s the take for the small group of lawyers, accountants and psuedo-directors who administer these schemes.
Which begs the question, if these people make a good living helping the world’s elite to avoid their tax liabilities, how likely is it that they aren’t taking advantage of similar schemes to minimise their own tax?
And if so, what is the net benefit, if any, to the New Zealand taxpayer?