Exodus fears played down as amnesty favours Liechtenstein
Friday 4th September 2009, 2:30PM BST.
FEARS that offshore account holders in Guernsey will take their cash and stash it in Liechtenstein to halve the back tax they pay the UK has been played down by a local tax expert.
The concerns arose because of a discrepancy between two amnesties recently announced by HM Revenue & Customs, whereby taxpayers with accounts in Liechtenstein receive more favourable treatment than investors in other offshore jurisdictions.
Under the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, savers who come forward to repay unpaid taxes will have to go back just 10 years and suffer a penalty payment of 10%.
But those with money in the Crown Dependencies who take advantage of the second disclosure opportunity offered in the past couple of years, will be liable for unpaid tax going back 20 years and possibly higher than 10% penalties.
Savers who open an account in Liechtenstein before March 2015 can take advantage of their disclosure facility, and would not necessarily have to transfer all of their assets there to benefit.
But PricewaterhouseCoopers tax director Mark Watson (pictured) doubted whether anyone would even look to transfer small amounts to Liechtenstein because of the possible repercussions.
‘There does seem to be the ability to undertake the transfers suggested to avail of the Liechtenstein disclosure agreement. But this is not likely to be seen in a favourable light by HMRC and we would expect HMRC to bring in measures to make any planning ineffective if they perceived the facility to be abused.
‘Anyone who avails themselves of this route is likely to face greater scrutiny from HMRC in the future.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full, click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Hang on a minute. I thought there was no financial crime going on in Guernsey because of a white list status proving that we are well run?
Is this saying that the advice if you are undeclared to HMRC is to sit tight and not cause unwanted attention?
Shouldn’t he be saying that we don’t tolerate evasion and we are doing everything we can to stamp it out?
Don’t we know if our clients are evading tax or not? Why not? I thought we knew everything about account holders here. That’s what I’m always told.
Was it a lie then? Someone help.
Report abuse
Don’t worry everyone. The tax dodgers will stay and keep us all fat. Hooray for crime! It pays!
Brings a tear to my eye, that does, I’m so proud.
*sniff*
Report abuse
hear hear jonathan seagull, couldn’t agree more, infact i’ve taken a leaf or 3 out of their books and set up a very lucrative hedge fund outside my house. I’m making a hundred pounds a week without breaking a sweat,
and i dont pay a penny in tax! isn’t it marvelous! more pimms anyone?
Report abuse
So the industry admits that tax evaders (criminals) are keeping money in Guernsey. Not just, tax “avoiders”, not just “overseas workers”, but criminals. Does anyone care to suggest what sort of numbers we are talking about here?
I wonder if HMRC are aware that the Guernsey Press is now publishing free advice on how to evade UK taxes!!!
Report abuse
It’s shocking. The Guernsey Press is condoning the worst possible types of criminals. Drug dealers, arms dealers, child traffickers, porn profits, it all could be here, this is saying, and we want it to stay.
Who can I escalate this up to?
Heads should roll. I mean it. A DISGRACE.
Why not say “we are trying to attract murderers we don’t want to lose them to the competition”.
Guernsey is going to the dogs. Maybe all those detractors and attacks have got some truth in them. Send in the tanks, UK, and get us cleaned up.
NO TO INDEPENDENCE. THE CORRUPTION IS ALREADY HERE>
Report abuse
The silence is deafening from the usual suspects.
Too busy persuading criminals not to leave?
Have all those responses to questions I’ve had from the likes of David and TL been lies?
This article implies that.
Has the editor been sacked yet?
Report abuse
Any takers yet?
Now we’ve kept the business (phew) I suppose you’re all busy counting the cash, yeah?
It’s no surprise that the accountancy firms are regularly sued for bad practice.
Who in our ‘white listed’ jurisdiction is helping these multi billion pound fraudsters?
Someone must be for this article to have needed to be written.
The Guernsey Press promotes the most serious criminal activity imaginable. Hiding the proceedsd of crime.
Well done. Police are informed.
Report abuse
Hey Arnald. The Police split up mate. They hated each other. Sting does rainforests now anyway, his financial detective business went bust when he realised that standing outside someone’s window singing “na na na nee nee nee” was unlikely to solve global poverty.
You’d be better off with one of the bands from the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal movement. Whitesnake or Saxon had good reputations for getting to the truth about tax fraud.
Meatloaf can spot a dodgy transaction from miles away. Find their numbers on the GFSC website.
Report abuse
I think there is a lack of comments because there really is little to comment about! It’s a non-story!
Report abuse
Greg
It would have been a “non-story” if Mr Watson had said that there would be no exodus, because our transparent and highly regulated financial system means that there have never been any people leaving money in Guernsey, which hasn’t been declared to the relevant tax authority. This is what we keep being told – Guernsey is golden – no criminals here.
This article, in one swift blow, utterly refutes all of these protestations, and makes Guernsey sound like exactly the shady tax haven that the majority of the world believe it to be. “Don’t move your money…HMRC might find you out….just stay put and remain hidden”
Report abuse
Belinda
It is a non-story because the Press invented the fear that there would be an exodus. Any person in Guernsey knowingly facilitating tax evasion is themselves guilty of a criminal offence in Guernsey. I would be surprised if anyone is making a business out of facilitating tax evasion.
Do we have undeclared tax evaders using this jurisdiction? Undoubtedly. All of the checks and balances in the world cannot stop criminals using our jurisdiction. You may think that you have been told that we don’t have criminals here but I doubt that anyone in any position of authority would be foolish enough to think or say that.
Criminals exist in every aspect of society. the key is to ensure that we are not facilitating them and that we are adhering to the best international standards of co-operation between tax authorities. That is where we have passed the tests as laid down so far.
All PwC were saying is that they doubted that any undeclared tax evaders would be stupid enough to move their money.
Report abuse
Greg
The article states:
-there is an amnesty by HMRC on tax evaders to come clean.
-Liechtenstein’s conditions are more lenient.
-there was a definite chance that a large amount of business would leave, reported using the words FEAR and EXODUS.
-the “exodus” won’t happen because the deal is not worth the risk of getting caught, according to an ‘expert’, who also warns that Guernsey would suffer more scrutiny.
We’re talking about major criminality here, not hedge veg filchers or fag end litterers
So the implication from reading this is
-it is known within the industry that there are long standing accounts with undeclared earnings.
-that tax dodgers probably had at least planned to move accounts at the time of the last amnesty, because
-there was a fear that a large amount of business would leave – how else qualify “exodus” if not with some knowledge.
-That the expert warns against even small transfers because of the threat of sanctions if HMRC are alerted.
No mention at all of criminality.
If people are able to tax evade then it stands perfectly to reason that the accounts could belong to criminals.
Criminals with lots of money should not be attracted here because of statements like this that advises non-action and so lessen the risk of detection.
It highlights the utter contempt the industry and its journalist patsies (still can’t forget the feature piece by Simon Tostevin on zero-ten) have for basic law abiding principles.
Do you not think that it is important for the public to know that the state sponsored industry is at the very least law compliant, if not socially useful?
So you want terrorists and child traffickers to use Guernsey as part of some “sophisticated” products that “punch above their weight”?
If yes, then I’m afraid you are an apologist for those that commit the worst kind of crime – funding scum.
Until I’m told exactly how my logic is wrong then this is what it says.
Report abuse
From another thread in response to me hijacking it
Thing is TL, you don’t know. This is the clearest indication that it is known to happen in Guernsey. That criminals are given a secure location to operate their finances through.
It means our exchange of information with the UK is insufficient.
It shows a lack of care by employees for filthy life wrecking crime.
It proves an industry completely at odds with society and with no plan to drop the attitude of dominionship.
Greg, so only communists catch criminals? I presume that my posts are nonsense to you because of your amusingly firm grasp on reality. Makes sense.
I’ll be quiet now until someone clarifies the situation.
It is clear that the democratic process does not involve an analysis on what is making Guernsey rich. Judging by a BBC2 doc last night, the money’s all in porn. Enjoy your pensions.
Report abuse
Arnald
Sorry but I have been away pursuing capitalist activities so hadn’t seen your request for me to comment.
In all honesty I don’t know to what Mark Watson is alluding. I’m inclined to think that his response is hypothetical if there are any accountholders out there who are not reporting their Guernsey bank interest, but I can’t be sure of his line of thinking. If he was asked a direct question then I guess its a direct response re the position of anyone who might be in that situation.
I am not naïve. Its inevitable that there will be some accountholders who are not complying with their tax reporting obligations although I would be amazed if the numbers are now significant. I would remind you that it is not the Guernsey finance industry’s responsibility to fill in a client’s tax return for them, but to report them if we believe that they are not declaring the income. For all the client knows, the Guernsey finance institution may have reported all suspected non-compliant clients to the FIU already, acting totally responsibly in doing so, but such clients may I guess now have the option of considering the Liechtenstein option. I really don’t know – I haven’t looked at it closely enough. Maybe you should ask Mr Watson directly if he will elaborate.
Report abuse
Belinda
Well said, bet there are some sore knuckles at the Press for letting this one slip out. Expect lots of ” well regulated, white list, kind to kittens” propaganda over the next few days.
Report abuse
Thanks David
I have been deliberately over the top in direct response to the article. One thing I can agree with with everyone is that Guernsey OFC’s regulations are consistently at the top end, if not exceeding, standards set out by relevant bodies concerning attempts to curb filth.
That’s why I was surprised to see this.
The Editor is savvy, why did he let it through. It’s the kind of hyperbole I do for effect, isn’t it?
At face value it implies known criminality.
If a client lies to you that they have declared income, what other information they have given to you can you trust?
With the level of ‘sophistication’ we offer, how far through the links do we check when faced with investments from other ‘sophisticated’ arrangements?
And if they’re hiding that what else are they hiding? Breaking one law makes breaking others much easier.
My point is – Guernsey seems to have no tolerance for people peeing in bushes – names in the paper, the lot. Yet we have absolute faith based on vested interest opinion that the finance industry is looking after itself and that no one is bad.
Where are the high profile, joint services operations, stopping all traffic and looking under the hood? Why is it alright for the cops and customs to check our petrol, invading our privacy, but not alright for a root and branch breakdown of all transactions in and out of our OFC? Why is there massive military investment in trying to tackle drug crime and a boys club mentality to tackling the causes of drug crime?
It shows that where people are making money they don’t really care about crime at all.
Report abuse
Arnald,
Please read David’s excellent response.
I would also like to add that you seem to read a lot more into the article than most would. There is no fear within the industry that we are about to lose a lot of accounts. We have the introduction of the EUSD as a good example of what doesn’t happen.
I’m pretty sure from your comments on various threads that your knowledge of Guernsey banking is extremely limited, however compliance departments in Guernsey are generally very officious and I would be surprised if major criminality have large funds held in Guernsey.
And please don’t compared tax evasion to major criminality…the two are not the same! Your comment about terrorists and child traffickers is laughable…please post your evidence! However I suspect it’s just the same made up assumptions as per usual.
Report abuse
Greg: what a foolish comment you have made “please don’t compared tax evasion to major criminality…”. Tax evasion is criminal behaviour. Penalties are (rightly) getting higher and higher and our regulations are going to become tighter, particularly if the scope of the EUSTD is widened as is currently proposed.
In the present economic climate, being seen as a jurisdiction which is sympathetic to tax evaders is just as bad as being seen as one sympathetic to drugs runners or terrorist financing. And Arnald has a fiar point in saying that breaking one law very often leads to breaking more and more.
Our industry is well regulated, but obviously not enough, or Mr Watson would have given a more reassuring response. Look at the GFSC regs – we only need to know the details of those with more than 25% beneficial ownership of trusts, companies etc to comply with AML regs. How easy it is, therefore, to “fly under the radar”.
At the present time, this kind of article, and the response from Mr Watson, is very damaging to our reputation. Your comment that tax evasion cannot be compared to major criminality further strengthens the arguments of those who believe that Guernsey is a haven for tax evaders.
Report abuse
Greg
What are you on about? Tax evasion is a massive crime against society. Its facilitation is a cancer. The fact that you are HAPPY to service criminals is a shocking admission on your part. Is everyone in the industry like this? It would seem it judging by this article.
EUSTD? Why would anyone want to opt for that? Oh yeah….keeping it hidden.
My comment is that YOU CANNOT KNOW what an account is being used for if the person you are dealing with is lying. We comply with regs, sometimes a bit better, but that just means the regs are worthless.
One account, one criminal, untold damage.
Get your priorities right and stop ruining the reputation of the industry by saying crime is good.
God, you people are unbelievable. Are we prostitutes?
You obviously know nothing about it. Guernsey workers are so myopic to the bigger picture.
Report abuse
Belinda & Arnald….tax evasion is not a crime that is similar to terrorism or child trafficking. Maybe you believe it is with your far left views, but believe me…it isn’t. One only has to look at the penalties for being caught participating in these activites to appreciate this.
Arnald- Please point out where I say i’m happy to service criminals? As per usual, you are just making things up!
And please cut out the drama…”One account, one criminal, untold damage”…such utter rubbish!
Report abuse
Belinda & Arnald…as for your comments re the EUSD, perhaps you should enquire to the tax authorities how much witholding tax has been collected from private individuals who wish not to have their details passed to “home” tax authorities. The figure is very small, which perhaps is an indicator that there isn’t the huge amount of tax evasion taking place that the Press article was trying to indicate.
Report abuse
But Greg, why would a tax evader not use our tax avoidance expertise to get to the same result?
What are they hiding?
Why should I believe you?
You don’t know what you’re talking about. PwC have not retracted the implications of the article. That means they know there could have been an ‘exodus’. that means clients that you probably serve are tax evaders.
Prove it wrong.
Report abuse
Hey Greg – you will note that I talked not about the directive in its current form but the PROPOSALS to extend its scope. If so, there will be a devastating impact on what is classed as “income” for investors in Guernsey. Not just interest or dividends, but a whole heap more. If you invest in a fund and the equity in one of the underlying investments increases, this gain could be treated as income. Plus there is the whole matter of scrapping the witholding tax option at the same time.
And believe me, serious discussions within the industry are already taking place as to how to cope with the changed directive, should it be passed in the form that is currently proposed.
Report abuse
Arnald
You don’t seem to know how tax evasion and tax avoidance differ. A tax evader is somebody who has either decided not to act lawfully, in which case no tax avoidance expertise can assist him, or is somebody who has taken tax advice and decided to ignore it. I’m afraid that not even the very best tax avoidance experts can help somebody who is not prepared to act lawfully!
Your age-old “prove it wrong” demand is wearing very thin. Proving a negative is impossible. If you want to make allegations of criminality then I think the onus is rather on you to prove your own case, not the other way round.
Report abuse
I take it still by the half hearted attempts to state that the article is wrong, unlike any other thread where strong beliefs are backed up by evidence, it seems that no one can prove anything about this.
Arnald’s sky is falling in and they are saying that we cater for unspeakables. Probably nonsense but how can I tell?
You’ve got reponses saying they’re wrong, but with an even flimsier logic “because we’re well regulated”.
Like Madoff was well regulated.
Or the entire finance industry.
What’s well regulated about trillions of taxpayer money just to keep paying you guys?
What is well regulated about Landsbanki or Kaupthing.
Well regulated only means complying with the regulations. That could be “get away with murder”.
Your claims are meaningless. Until the banks can prove to the police the provenance, the realtionships and the individuals connected to the money and to the business, I’m afraid Guernsey will always service dirty money. Guernsey’s finance industry is fundamentally flawed. Criminals are able to effectively bribe your morals to look the other way.
Report abuse
Arnald, you as an individual could be responsible for serial rape and a string of murders!
Prove it wrong.
Ridiculous thing to say, I know, but isn’t this about the level of debate we’re getting from you on this thread?
Report abuse
Greg – ref your 1.02 post. If you read my posts, you will see that I refer to the general climate – particularly in the wake of things like the Madoff fraud, and the UBS disclosure hoohah. 150 years for financial crime? Don’t see many child traffickers getting 150 years, do you. I don’t have particularly “far left” views, but I am a local Guernsey resident, working in a respected FSB and care a lot about the island’s reputation.
I reiterate my argument that tax evasion IS a serious crime and that being complacent about it, particularly in the media, is very damaging. What is “far left” about appreciating reputational risk? Personally yes, I disagree with tax evasion, but that is not the point I have been making. This article, and the responses given, cast Guernsey in a poor light.
Report abuse
Totally agree with you on that Belinda. Tax evasion is serious and not to be treated lightly. The above article does paint Guernsey in a bad light IF you take it at face value. However, pausing to consider what is actually said by whom in that article shows that it is only the Press which mentions fear of an exodus, not anyone working in the finance industry. The quotes from PwC sound very much like answers to a direct question – e.g.:
GP: So, police officer, do you think that drivers who have broken the speed limit in a speed camera area during the last 2 weeks will start using backroads with no cameras rather than make use of an amnesty under which we fine them only £10 each?
Officer: I doubt they would bother using backroads, most speeders will think that they have got away with it anyway if they didn’t see the camera flash and would be unlikely to put their hand up.
GP: The FEAR that speeders will start using small backroads with no cameras to speed along was dismissed by a police officer who says that most speeders are not actually caught on a day to day basis and will continue to use the main road, despite all best efforts to catch them.
ThisisGuernsey readers: Oh my God, the police condone speeding and tell speeders to keep using the main roads…etc. etc.
So, I think we do accept that this island adheres to the best standards. I think that we also accept that those working in the finance industry are not actively assisting tax evasion and are doing their best to spot it and report it (as obliged by law). But despite that, some clients will lie about where their money comes from or whether they have declared all taxable income in all relevant jurisdictions.
The fact that some clients will break the law does not mean that legitimate use of the jurisdiction is tainted. It just means that we must continue our best efforts to weed out the bad ones.
But I think that we must also accept that some people will see corruption, greed and criminality wherever they look and repeatedly make 1 and 1 add up to 15. But there you go.
Report abuse
David
My point was that if you want to not pay tax you don’t have to do it illegally. The fact that someone wants to evade, and this article was suggesting there were enough evaders for there to be ‘fear’ of losing significant business, then their reasons must not be purely for increased wealth.
I didn’t write this article. I had long taken it as read that we are collecting enough verifiable information to ascertain exactly what was what, criminality-wise. After all, you keep telling me you know everything about your clients and can state categorically that there is no foul play occurring. I believe you.
This thread has nothing to do with the chicanery of avoidance.
It is about an appalling admission that we may have a chunk of business that is illegal. You see, I didn’t believe it when I read it, but no one either cares or really denies it.
I find that bizarre considering Guernsey’s usually rabid reactionary responses to even the pettiest things.
Martino, I am accountable for my own actions. I take liability when I enter into business. If I dealt with criminals then my name would be linked with theirs. If they got caught, I would be next. The only way I could secure my cash would be to hide it. This article implies that people have done that. It also implies that we need the business.
Why defend that? If I were running a car hire company and I told the world that it was known that several of the cars were stolen, would I get much business and would my fellow businesses respect me?
Only if they were doing the same thing. So when someone asks why I haven’t got rid of them yet and my sanctimonious answer implies that it’s because they are needed for the business, would that be a sufficient reason to ignore the issue? What if the cars were unroadworthy and could cause death? Then should I start worrying? Or should I only start worrying when someone in a uniform starts taking notes, or when a car explodes?
Why is everyone suggesting that financial crime is somehow acceptable because Guernsey does its best? Or is it, like my stance on the regulation of drugs, that people think that the law should be changed and evasion should become legal, that we have a right not to contribute to society?
Report abuse
Belinda
Nice to know that you work in a respected FSB.
Does your employer know that all of your posts on this thread are during working hours ?
How much are the drug runners and child traffickers getting away with while your not doing your job ?
Report abuse
Arnald
I think you are probably reading far too much into the article in question, which I agree was misleading, indeed perhaps dangerously so. TL’s posting of 5.13pm yesterday is I think a very accurate summary.
Report abuse
Ray – how irrelevant is your comment? Nothing intelligent or useful to say so you resort to snide comments.
TL – nice post. Unfortunately, there are many people who will take the article at face value, and therein lies the problem
Report abuse
Belinda- Re the EUSD, it would not matter if a broader scope of securities is included. At present, most banks in Guernsey require all account holders to decide whether they are happy for info to be disclosed or whether they will pay a witholding tax on designated investments. The overwhelming majority have decided to allow info to be disclosed. The only change in designated securities would that those few who currently pay the witholding tax would probably pay slightly more.
As for your views on tax evasion being a serious crime, please do not confuse fraud (a la Madoff) with tax evasion. The two are very, very different.
Whilst tax evasion is a crime, it is not as serious as terrorism or child trafficking.
Arnald- This will be my last response to you, as you seem unable to carry out a logical debate! You seem to be able to take peoples comments and then twist them totally out of context so that they suit your purpose.
Report abuse
Belinda
There’s nothing snide about my post.
Can’t you see that you are stealing from your employer ?
Report abuse
Totally agree, David.
Belinda’s posts are pitched at the right level for this topic. They would have presented a realistic industry viewpoint, if anything at all had to be presented in the first place. It’s not something we are supposed to advertise.
The problem I have is how it highlights systemic flaws, exacerbated by any ‘sophistication’ the cash may be wrapped in. If the UK were investigating the ultimate beneficiary for evidence, and we must be clear here – if someone wants to evade it means they have something to hide, the monetary saving can be made with disclosure, it’s what you lot get paid for – then how easy would it be for HMRC or the cops to get access to their files?
If it’s hidden, it’s hidden.
If the only clues an investigation has is a reference to Guernsey, would a name be enough? If it were traced to a specific service provider, would they release information on the strength of the name alone, or would they need detailed knowledge of the structure including names of accounts and products?
If the evaded cash has come via other jurisdictions, washed and had so much treatment that it bears no resemblence to the original income, would we have an ultimate beneficiary name to be able to help in the first place? Or do intermediaries deliberately obfuscate the trails as part of the service?
Greg, the UK clawed back £400M at last amnesty. So aside from the fact that existing criminals will be the biggest users of evasion techniques, the amount of money is staggering. £400M will represent the more law abiding minority, maybe those that have made historic disclosure failures, or about to unravel. It means aside from all the other criminal activity they are profiting, stashing and investing, every time they use anything that has some public funding, they are stealing it. Over many years all those things we take for granted cost a lot of money. They become BIG thieves.
I don’t know many people in the finance industry who would be as blase as you seem to be about evasion. It undermines the arguments put forward by secrecy jurisdictions that their houses are in order.
PwC, and the other service providers are quite happy to do everything they can to help people erode the real world through greed. Far from adding value to the world they seek to distort all meanings of wealth and responsibility.
The results, if you hadn’t noticed, create misery.
The City is a net drain on the UK for a while yet and as a satellite we are involved in that abomination. Clearly you are cut of the same cloth. Has no one learned?
It’s obviously me that is mad and not everyone else. Wibble.
Report abuse
Liechtenstein will end up being the major player as it hasnt bowed down to US/UK/EU as much as everyone else. Guernsey may now end up reverting back to Agriculture and Tourism thanks to New Labour oooh arr.
Report abuse
Squawk! Gregs doesn’t get Arnald! There are children as young as twelve that don’t get Arnald!
Gregs. What’s logical about you? You say evasion is not a serious crime. Other people do. Why are you right? Arnald has gone someway to over explain what he/she/it thinks and it is not beyond reason that liars and cheats are up to other wrong living, even if the extremity of the argument is offputting. What do you respond with? “Only I know.”
Well, judging by the dog’s breakfast people with your attitude have made of the western world, I don’t think you should bother to responding to anything. I’ll stick to listening to David and Belinda with some obvious outside experience.
It’s the arrogance that many people hate with a passion. You’ve nothing to be arrogant about. Your shuffle paper. It’s not big or clever. It’s been called socially useless. I wouldn’t be proud and arrogant if I was involved in helping the world go to pot.
Report abuse
Seagull:- A couple of points. You’ll notice (if you can bothered to actually read my posts) that I said tax evasion was not as serious a crime as terrorism and child trafficking. If you think it is, then maybe you should speak to a victim of the bombings in London and Madrid and tell him/her that you believe the perpetrators are only as bad as someone who doesn’t declare all their income to the UK government. I’m sure they’ll agree….
Arnald’s points, as per usual, generally come from huge assumptions. Why note assume that perhaps if their is being money hidden in Guernsey from the Uk tax man that it comes from normal people fed up of paying huge sums of thier cash to a wasteful government? Why automatically assume that anyone evading tax is a major criminal?
I don’t understand your point about “dog’s breakfast” and “people with my attitude”? Would you like to expand? And what arrogance? What paper shuffling? As you don’t even know what I do for a living, perhaps the arrogance is on you for assuming I work with people evading tax. Major clue for you…I don’t. I don’t deal with Guernsey companies, I don’t have Gurnsey clients. And I work in a paperless office…….
Arnald, maybe finance industry workers can appear blase about tax evasion because it actually isn’t that much of a problem. Bank workers are very aware that as soon as any illegal activity is noticed that it has to be reported, otherwise they put their job (and perhaps more) on the line. Perhaps you again confuse evasion with avoidance?
Report abuse
Andy
Liechtenstein and Switzerland have moved most away from their original positions. They’ve been humiliated. Guernsey has done everything right so far in comparison. I think we have friends in high places. The usual blather from the GuernseyIndependents about New Labour trying to ‘destroy’ us is patent nonsense. You’d think they’d have done it since 97 hmmm?
No, Gordon Brown saved our necks with his preposterous support for soul-sucking practices.
Report abuse
Squawks Gregs. I was in London on that 7/7. Just out of on the train actually. Well, I say train, I mean seagull teleporting, but you couldn’t know about that. I don’t give a fish-head what you think. If you evade tax it means you have something to hide. You don’t have to pay tax by using legitimate avoidance. There’s no suspicion of major criminality, it’s criminal full stop. I’m saying it’s serious because David and Belinda are. David says damage. You say meh.
I say you’re wrong. What value do you add anyway. Why be in Guernsey servicing non Guernseys if not for tax advantages? Oh and paper shuffling’s an expression.
It’s going to be like what’s my line now.
I think you’re the Tom Cruise guy from Minority Report. Do I win a sticker?
Report abuse
Arnald
I think you are completely wrong. Brown has wanted to destroy all offshore jurisdictions ever since Labour were elected in 1997 but Blair blocked it, just as he blocked Brown’s desire to kill the non-dome regime. Look at just how things have progressed since Blair stood down.
Report abuse
David
Brown was Chancellor. He made decisions based on the City boom. The City failed and has become a burden. He has repeatedly defended the model, his tough talking is desperate populism. He has put himself on the right of the main European centre-right parties on this issue.
I have no doubt that he understands how it all works and he has had ample time to do something he has had it in for OFCs. His speeches to bankers resemble the kind of platitudes you give to dignitaries.
The mild rules coming in are not proportionate to the damage caused. This is partly Brown’s fault. Others were pushing for more.
He has been a very good ally.
The City, and the industry, commands far too much political power. Unaccountable and with no social responsibility, governments are limited in their options for cleaning up the mess that they were given. They gave away all our money and nobody has been punished, in fact they’re having bumper rewards.
Now with the UK likely to have a lost generation, as happened under Thatcher, things are going to be tough. What’s Brown doing about it?
Nothing, he’s making it worse. Alan Greenspan says it will happen again. What cuts after that time?
It’s like religion, a blind faith in abstract theory but with a massive human cost. An unaccountable and destructive overlord.
Play the games to make money by all means, but disentangle it from the real economy.
Report abuse
Mr Seagull, I’m in Guernsey because my wife is a local. Nothing to do with taxes! Why are you here? Are you related to Arnald?
And yes, you are a criminal if you evade tax. I’ve never disputed that. But you’re not as bad a criminal as Bin Ladin. If you can’t distinguish between different levels of criminality then I guess this debate is over.
Report abuse
Greg – not all of the Guernsey finance industry is about banking….plenty of us work in other areas like trust and co admin, funds etc. It is these industries which have hitherto escaped the scope of the EUSTD which are now threatened.
Tax evasion is a serious crime. You are really really bad for the Guernsey finance industry if you think it is not much to be bothered about. It is called theft and is usually linked to fraud – check out the HMRC website if you don’t believe me! So all those people who evaded taxes, stole from the Government, as a result the national services were underfunded and FAR more people died than did those in any terrorist attack. Fortunately some of us working in finance take these things seriously. Your attitude is what makes MY job so damn difficult…
And finally Ray, still nothing to contribute. But to revert on your wholly irrelevant point – have you ever heard of flexible hours and part time working? It helps single parents like me remain in work and pay our taxes (and of course gives value to the States of Guernsey for the education it paid for).
Report abuse
OH LOOK IT’S PIMMS O’CLOCK!! Come on chaps.
since Arnald kicked the ball out on this blog 6 days ago, it’s all gone a bit pete tong. Greg said this, david said that, belinda wants to give greg a ‘big ol slap’, Ray’s busted belinda for blogging when she should have her head down at work, Davids polishing his pistols waiting for jonathan seagull to fly by (no chance he teleports you know) and Arnald? Well he hasn’t slept in almost a week poor boy. Why dont we all put down our plastic safety spoons for a mo and have a pimms.
Life’s too short and so am I. So kiss and make up -in real life you probably all know each other anyway – this is guernsey after all.
Let’s all move on to the next blog
Report abuse
Mr Seagull, I’m in Guernsey because my wife is a local. Nothing to do with taxes! Why are you here? Are you related to Arnald? Is he a seagull too?
And yes, you are a criminal if you evade tax. I’ve never disputed that. But you’re not as bad a criminal as Bin Ladin. If you can’t distinguish between different levels of criminality then I guess this debate is over.
Report abuse
Is Osama Bin Laden a tax evader do you think?
Paperless office, local wife – good to cut down your C-footprint. My office is the phone on the Weighbridge and my wife lives on the moon.
I’m always late for dinner. The dog grows large.
Whatever. Arnald just regurgitates Guardian columnists, I read it, I know. Doesn’t make it wrong. I do OK out of the finance industry i don’t want it to be attacked. When I first read this I didn’t think anything of it, more so when Arnald weighed in. But thinking about it it’s the last thing Guernsey needs is more heat on top of incompetent and conflicted interest politicians, allegations of dodgy land deals and shouts for independence/attacking UK peers.
Report abuse
Belinda, what are you on about?
1. I said tax evasion was not as serious a crime as terrorism or child trafficking. I think the UK government back me up on this..I don’t see them offering an amensty to AQ members?
2. Tax evasion may have links to fraud, but for you to link to Madoff (as you do above) is just plain daft.
3. To link tax evasion to the underfunding of the armed forces is incredible! Do you really believe that? Honestly? Do you have any idea of how public finances work? I think you should look into it before making such ignorant statements.
Report abuse
Greg
You could say that about any ‘taxpayer has been disadvantaged’ story from the past few years. The Tax Payer’s Alliance have made a career of it. The fact is, a tax evader is operating outside of the system. They are doing this for a reason which is not purely financially motivated. Any reduction in tax take affects public finances.
Admitting that Guernsey has tax evaders on its books makes it look like that we have outlaws in hiding. What part of serious do you not understand?
With reference to some bad analogy up there, if I was some sort of serial baddy and I applied for a job in a school I wouldn’t get it. So why should I get a fancy investment portfolio with the added perk of complete secrecy from the authorities? That portfolio may well be funding child trafficking. Are you admitting that the industry is amoral and is just providing a conduit, and therefore a school should be amoral and recruit on the bases of cost and efficiency?
The checks are not good enough, Guernsey knows that, the rest of the world knows it and yet we still have people saying it’s a minor issue.
I think you should look into the damage global finance has caused directly and indirectly before making such ignorant statements. You’ll be surprised how much is out there and how it’s all inextricably linked to our way of life.
If you work in the industry, Greg (guessing some currency trading – socially valuable whatever it is I’m sure), then it truly sounds like you are covering for clients.
Are they laundering too, goes hand in hand.
Report abuse
1. Ok – you and I disagree on the seriousness of tax evasion. I am just relieved that I do not work for the same company as you and wish you luck with your next GFSC visit.
2. – I did not link tax evasion with Madoff, just used the well publicised case to prove that financial crime is penalised heavily. Have a look at what is happening in relation to the UBS case if you don’t believe me.
3. – who mentioned the armed forces? Personally I was thinking about the funding of the NHS. And actually it is quite, quite simple: the less money you have available to services, the less they are able to provide. Dress it up however you like, but therein lies the reality.
Finally, you obviously are unable to put across a sensible argument as all you can do is call my well-reasoned arguments “ignorant”.
Report abuse
Seagull, Mr Bin Ladin has fully paid all his taxes over the last 3 years. He has enough hassle being chased by security forces, so he doesn’t need the tax man on his back too!
Report abuse
People actually die from tax evasion. Starve, or go without medical treatment because their (probably non-Western) government hasn’t the resources to feed, treat inoculate or educate them.
Evasion isn’t only a decadent, first-world “sport” played by taxi-drivers and ice-cream men. On a large enough scale it robs governments of billions that could be usefully spent on waste and bureaucracy. Instead, governments turn to health and education budgets for money to waste. Disgraceful, yet that isn’t a crime even though it kills more people than tax evasion. Ho – humbug.
Evasion is a crime and is every bit as serious as genocide (though indirectly) and as trivial as a parking misdemeanour.
The truth is that those that were too big an evader to want to cough last time are still too big now. Either way, take-up will be around zero, whether from here or through Lichtenstein. There’s always one or two though, that missed the last deadline – so who knows?
Scarlett – pour me one!
Report abuse
David/TL/Greg
How can you explain the MG Rover case then?
All legal but you can’t read the case without intense nausea.
Of course you are immune to that.
Then there’s the Icelandic banks. We helped cause the downfall. Willingly.
You are liars.
Report abuse
Arnald
Barely worth responding to you after your last sentence. I’m inclined not to bother but I cannot let it pass.
MG Rover – don’t know much about it but it appears that they used a Guernsey trust in about 2002-ish to extract some funds, apparently legally. So a Guernsey trustee apparently legally set up a trust for them, no doubt acting upon legal advice to confirm that it was legal. Unlike you, I tend not to race to conclusions about whether anyone in Guernsey did anything wrong.
I must be missing something about the downfall of the Icelandic banks. Quite what did “we” do to help cause the downfall. The Guernsey bank was solvent until the UK government somehow froze the Heritable money under the anti-terrorism legislation. So did “we” act willingly ? Did “we” recklessly lend money out of Iceland to unsuitable borrowers ? I don’t think so.
Arnald, I suggest you take a long, hard look at what you wrote and re-assess Guernsey’s actual role in the events to which you refer. By then you might realise what an ignorant fool you really are.
Report abuse
David
Prove it. All the time proof is coming out about how lax we are with morality. That may be OK in your book, but it most definitely isn’t in many people’s.
The only reason the sector has public support is because it has no idea what it does. That’s because people like you don’t want the public to know. you keep saying it.
Socially destructive and arrogant.
Google Kaupthing Guernsey.
You tell me if it’s well regulated.
Report abuse
A case in point David. You obviously don’t know about MG Rover and the scams (hidden) by the directors to make themselves rich.
Blind.
Report abuse
Belinda…in answer to your points.
1. Fair enough. I’m also relieved you don’t work for me. I have a great relationship with the GFSC thanks! I hope you do to!
2. You did link our disucssion with Madoff as part of a general link to financial crime.
3. Sorry, my mistake in assuming you were talking about the armed forces. But my point still applies. The funding given to the NHS is not based on the expected tax take, and it is not reduced due to any shortfall in the tax take. It’s not as simple as you think…public finances are generally not very simple. But you will generally find that short falls will be funded by increased activity by the DMO (just look at UK gilt issuance for a guide). I don’t think Labour have cut any spending in the NHS, and especially for reduced tax take.
4. I don’t agree that your arguments are well-reasoned, and I think your have over simplified many points (as with your NHS comments). However we can agree to disagree on that one.
Arnald- So tax evaders are not financially motivated???? Do you really believe all tax evaders are terrorists etc?
And I don’t trade FX, and I don’t deal with clients who evade tax!
Report abuse
Arnald
Everything I have read about Rover so far suggests that what they did with their Guernsey trust was not illegal. The truth is that none of us know the details. It also happened at least 6 or 7 years ago and it is totally wrong of you to even attempt to compare regulatory and operational standards of 2002/3 with regulatory and operational standards of today, even IF what they had done was illegal re. their trust. But hey, that doesn’t suit your agenda does it. Just because they had an offshore trust its a scam and so everyone in Guernsey’s finance industry should be hung drawn and quartered – that seems to be your unfettered belief even if nothing illegal took place. Absurd.
Re. Kaupthing, it had nothing to do with Guernsey. In case it has escaped your attention, the Icelandic bank which was here as Landsbanki, not Kaupthing. I have yet to see anything anywhere which suggests that anything untoward took place in Landsbanki Guernsey. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction as you seem to believe otherwise. I’m all ears.
You accuse me of being blind. I think you’re the one with the sight problem as you are seeing things that aren’t even there. Mind you, seeing as you are talking out of your behind you are probably looking out of it as well.
Report abuse
David
I said it was legal. Doesn’t mean to say it isn’t wrong. Slavery was legal.
Your argument no longer has any ground. Guernsey is a conduit for legal thievery.
How do you think all those bosses have got such high earnings and bonuses within the worst trading conditions for ages?
Not through success. Through theft.
What makes me so wrong? So far I come up with examples and all you do is say so what. I can demonstrate that 5 guys were lying and dealing to use their company as a backdrop to make personal fortunes. They lost the tax payer £16M by avoidance. They did it using Deloitte, Barclays and a Guernsey Trust co. It was hidden.
What are you talking about? It may be legal but it’s not a good model is it?
Oh maybe it is. Screw everything.
Report abuse
Greg
Yes they are terrorists. By not paying tax you subvert the way of life for the majority.
That’s why we’re at war in Afghanistan. Therefore this is a war on financial deviance.
The aggressive avoidance as seen in MG Rover needs closing too. Guernsey needs to get real.
Report abuse
Arnald
Firstly, nobody has yet been found guilty of anything, so hold your horses.
Secondly, nobody in Guernsey has been accused of acting unlawfully. You have no idea of what advice was given or taken, or of what representations were made to the Guernsey trustees when taking on the business, so your accusations are premature.
Thirdly, it happened 6 or 7 years ago. Would it happen today ?
Fourthly, you conveniently don’t mention that this nearly all took place within the UK. They happened to use Guernsey for a part of what they did, and seemingly lawfully too.
Fifthly, what makes you think that the Guernsey trust in question was not reported by the Guernsey fiduciary to the FIU ? How do you know that this didn’t happen as soon as Rover went bust ? How do you know that Guernsey’s financial regulatory system did not actually cause the trust to be reported to the UK authorities in the first place ? You don’t.
Nobody, I repeat nobody, will ever prevent people from carrying out thefts or frauds. There will always be people minded to do so. They will require bank accounts and they will require anonymity. The policing of the financial services industry is very tough and catches the vast majority of such thefts or frauds. The regulatory system is now 1000 times more likely to pick these things up than it was even 5 years ago, and Guernsey’s policing system is as good as anywhere else’s, and indeed better than most. You seem to conveniently forget that, but of course that wouldn’t sit with your agenda either.
If you want anybody to say that nothing which happened 5,10 or 20 years ago in Guernsey’s finance industry of a dubious nature is ever going to come to light, then nobody is going to say that. Nobody is that naive. However, if 99.9% of anything of that nature has been subsequently driven away from here by enhanced regulation and much higher standards of operation then that’s not bad progress, is it ? But no doubt you will still focus on the other 0.1%, totally disregarding the progress that has been made.
And remember, we aren’t even talking about anything unlawful here re. the Rover situation, at least as far as Guernsey is concerned. In case you haven’t realised, money laundering is all about the proceeds of crime.
You don’t like the finance industry. That’s entirely your perogative. But you are stuck in a time warp, totally unwilling to recognise that the industry has changed so massively over the past decade to become what it is today – a highly regulated and highly responsible mature international finance centre.
Your problem is that you don’t accept that what is lawful should be lawful. You consider tax avoidance to be illegal and immoral. Well, you are entitled to your opinions about morality, but you can’t change the fact of what’s legal and what’s illegal. If you wish to choose to spend your life getting that changed, then good luck to you.
Oh, and by the way I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Try falsely calling someone a liar next time you are in the pub. I doubt that you’d be pleasantly surprised at what would happen next.
Report abuse
David. I do not doubt your professional integrity, I refute your assetions that legality means acceptable. We’re not talking about ‘facilitating global enterprise’ anymore. We’re talking about ‘how much money can we make as fast as possible even if it jeapordises peoples lives’. It does cause hardship, it is causing social destruction, you say it isn’t. Therefore you are not telling the truth.
Guernsey is a part of it. I am voicing my objections at the cavalier denials and promotion of tax evading as per this article.
The regulations are useless in maintaining some sort of public protection. It doesn’t mean anything that we comply.
It makes it worse. It lets people have an opinion that it’s ok.
Report abuse
It has to be said that the spate of articles coming out about how the finance system hides the goings on of basic avarice lends some weight to Arnald’s extremism.
David, I fail to see the validity in responding to a moral issue by citing how well regulated we are. Simply looking at GFSC rules for CDD leaves a lot to be desired when referencing transactions related to these complex structures.
In fact you trot out a very tired and old message. Things have gone beyond legality now.
Greg, again you are conforming to the stereotypes being pumped out by the media. Belinda has every right to make those connections because they are valid. Just because you don’t deal with evaders doesn’t mean that all the other institutions aren’t. If we are not able to recognise good business from bad, and this PwC endorsed piece would suggest that we are not, then there is a very strong argument to shut us down until we can deal with it.
Get away from your comfort zones and see how it looks from the other side. Or is that a function of being successful in this industry. Callous disregard of valid criticism based on personal wealth enhancement?
Sounds like MG Rover.
Report abuse
Arnald
In your 5.43pm posting you refer to “cavalier denials and promotion of tax evading as per this article”. I wasn’t aware of any tax evasion in the article and you certainly will not find me to be in the slightest bit cavalier or supportive of the promotion of “tax evading”. I know perfectly well the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. You and I certainly differ on the morals of tax avoidance, which is entirely lawful, but let’s just say that we don’t accept each other’s views on that point.
If the Phoenix Four deliberately set out to defraud then the question is whether the professional advisors involved either knew, or should reasonably have known (without the benefit of hindsight) of their intentions. That would presumably develop into a conspiracy to defraud case. Remunerating senior management through employee trusts in a totally lawful and tax-compliant manner was very popular at around that time. Nobody yet has provided evidence that this was not the case re. Rover, so just how culpable is the Guernsey trustee ? You seem to be drawing your own conclusions based on mere speculation which is highly unwise.
Report abuse
Yes, David. You believe running down the world’s economy is a good thing, I believe it isn’t.
You believe making the poor poorer is justifiable, I do not.
Prove to me where the ideology that makes you rich is benefitting anyone except for those who are rich already.
The Trust co was not fraudulent. That’s what we do well here. Circumventing decency through legality. promoting immorality and social decline.
You are very, very wrong.
Report abuse
Arnald, i’m not going to bother commenting on your crazy comments re the Afghanistan war, but with regard to your quote “Prove to me where the ideology that makes you rich is benefitting anyone except for those who are rich already.” perhaps you should look up “The Childrens Investment Fund” to see where not just the rich are benefitting from this ideology. Further to this, look up Warren Buffett. He’s going to give 85% of his total wealth the The Gates Foundation when he dies.
So, just 2 bits of proof for you.
Report abuse
Arnald
There is no point in wasting my time trying to argue degrees of morality with you when its obvious that I won’t be able to persuade you. I accept that our views differ to the extent that we will never agree.
Report abuse
Greg
Poppycock.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
A few philanthropists do not add anything of value. It is pure empire building. Next youo’ll tell me Madonna is virtuous.
You guys crack me up. Like children with shiny things.
Report abuse
Arnald- so are you calling them liars as well?
I think it’s about time you got a job, moved into the real world and developed a sense of reality.
Report abuse
@arnald
just to add a bit of substance to greg’s comments re philanthropy,
The Gates Foundation $29.5 billion available for charities.
Warren Buffet to give $31 billion to the Gates Foundation.
George Soros has given over $6 billion to charity.
Ted Turner pledges $1 billion to UN projects.
Michael and Susan Dell Foundation have pledged $530 million for work in US and India.
Jeff Skoll 2nd employee of E Bay and founder of the Skoll Foundation which has assets of $514 million.
The Childrens Investment Fund income for 2007 £324 million.
Elton John Aids Foundation has raised $150 million since inception in 1992.
Michael Bloomberg donates $140 million every year to education and public health projects in New York.
Oprah Winfrey gives $50 million every year to educate children and families. So far has given $303 million to worthy causes.
John Paul Getty gave over £140 million to charity in his lifetime.
JK Rowling set up Volant Charitable Trust which has a yearly budget of £5.1 million.
So Arnald there are plenty of wealthy people who realise the importance of wealth and the need to give something back to communities around the world. This isn’t the rich helping the rich, it is succesful people trying to make life better for those less fortunate.
I am not going to get drawn into an argument with you as I think the facts stated above speak for themselves, and quite frankly some of you posts are incomprehensible.
Report abuse
Nonsense. You list a few people and then try and justify the gross disparities across the globe and then tell me to get a life?
The finance industry is facilitating the loss of an estimated £160BN of rightful tax from the developing world every year.
I say that fact makes you lose the argument. Get over it.
Report abuse
Oh, and propping up the system that pays your wages has made the global taxpayer liable to the tune of $11TN and rising.
Your pathetic attempts reveal a contempt for the truth. That says it all about the industry here. Look at the piece in the paper today ‘MG Rover makes us look bad’. No it doesn’t make us LOOK bad, this is what we do. It proves that the truth must not be publicised, only this crazy fiction that is repeated ad nauseum.
There is no room for this daft arrogance. The more it happens the more we are mocked.
Report abuse
Arnald, you make me laugh!
You ask for proof…but when proof is provided you just ignore it. No rebuttal or reasoning, just your usual ignorant approach.
Report abuse
Arnald, are you actually just an internet troll trying to provoke arguments? Otherwise you don’t half talk a lot of rubbish.
Why when people answer your “prove it” comments do you just ignore their attempts?
Report abuse
The Kid
What proof? A few names of generous charity givers isn’t proof of anything. I’ve never said people can’t be rich and I didn’t say rich people were not generous. That’s your interpretation. I’m saying I don’t like Guernsey to be tarnished by a reputation of sordid activities because of an unaccountable industry that hides its business and then boasts about how good it is without being able to back it up. There is no political recourse or democratic principle.
I asked for proof that what we do is not damaging the lives of others, because I am asserting that the checks and balances for handling the amount of power that we do are insufficient to safeguard against the inherent risks. You give me a list of bored rich folk.
Please explain to me how tax avoidance is not socially destructive. You should be able to manage that, no? It is what we do after all, presumably someone has a PR line about it, haven’t they?
Report abuse
Arnald – I have done that previously and you ignored me then (and then called me a liar without being able to show that anything that I had said was untrue). I cannot be bothered to go down that route again.
Your own perception of truth appears to be the one that is most divorced from reality. You see what you want to see and are arrogant enough to ignore comments to the contrary – and yet you call others arrogant.
I think your comments above speak for themselves and that most clear thinking readers will appreciate them for what they are – the mad ramblings of an idiot unable to separate fact from conjecture from conspiracy theory.
It really isn’t worth us trying to discredit your arguments – you do a much better job of that yourself.
Report abuse
No Arnald, you actually posted (and i quote),
“Prove to me where the ideology that makes you rich is benefitting anyone except for those who are rich already.”
And I showed 2 examples of where people who have profited from the ideology of the system have given something back.
But you choose to ignore this proof, and state you actually asked for something else. Well, unfortunately for you, everyone’s post history is posted above.
Why would anyone bother answering any of your other questions when you choose to ignore answers that don’t appeal to you?
Report abuse
Arnald.
When you get hit with an inevitable,and hopefully mild, heart attack have you got plans on how you will pass your time while you recover?
Perhaps you could write a book on your experiences in the Guernsey Financial system ?
I believe that the first few lines of a speech or a letter are always the hardest so here is a starter for Chapter 1.
THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT
When I say cat I mean of course a fat cat white list Trust Administrator slobbering over his latest six figure bonus earned by knowingly aiding and abetting the abomination of legal thievery through tax avoidance
When I say sat I mean of course swanning around while preparing a story to shake off the journalistic patsies sent to ask him about the scum funding filthy life wrecking crime that is legal tax avoidance
When I say mat I mean of course the very finest Persian carpet bought with the ill gotten proceeds of facilitating the tax dodging wishes of multi million pound fraudsters,drug barons,child traffickers,terrorists and porn kings,thus bringing about the social destruction of the rest of the tax paying nations
Prove I’m wrong !!!!!
Report abuse
Yeah, yeah I’m a loon. Next.
I can tell you that more extreme language was used on Newsnight last night. If I’m mad then there are a great deal of mad people around. Maybe not here, but that says it all.
Doesn’t say much for our education system that we’re taught to behave like spoilt sheep.
Keep it up!
I’m sorry if I think your ‘proof’ is worthless. It’s all in the numbers, see.
TL You’ve done nothing except to be indignant when I suggested you couldn’t be a socialist. Most people use that as an insult towards me, socialism, so you ought to be pleased. How do you explain the state of western capitalism then? Who caused the crash? Are you all idiots?
Report abuse
Arnald – interesting last paragraph. I see that you are now challenging the state of capitalism rather than just Guernsey. I’ve taken us down that path before as well and expressed my view that the ills of the world arise from other aspects of the capitalist system, not the services provided by non-secret offshore jurisdictions. My defence of Guernsey is because I do not see the connection between the wider effects of capitalism, 99% of which we are unable to influence, and the services that are provided from here.
Your attacks are like attacking the green grocer who sells food to a serial killer, ignoring the fact that 99% of the customers are normal people.
Be honest, attack capitalism in general. You know you want to.
Report abuse
TL
Who caused the crash? Were we part of it?
Who is being asked to accept the reduction in standards of living?
Who is asking for their business to be allowed to carry on as normal?
Just because you don’t see a connection between Guernsey OFC and all the other FCs doesn’t mean they’re not connected. You’re just in denial.
You are willingly supporting the degradation of people’s lives. That’s not big or clever, so the attitude is pointless. You have no bases to your lack of theory. Just vested interests.
Report abuse
Arnald – taking your argument to its conclusion, you are also supporting the degradation of people’s lives. Do you have a bank account? A credit card? Do you buy products from multi-national corporations?
Of course you do, unless you have reclaimed the hermit’s cave up near the fairy ring….but even then, there is your use of the internet – plenty of shocking stories there too.
As TL says – be honest about what you are arguing against. You are doing yourself no favours at all.
Report abuse
I am talking about a financial system that is designed to conceal transactions causing risk to the real economy disproportionate to the wider social good.
That is different to everyday consumerism, a highly regulated environment with transparent checks and balances.
If the auditors can’t even pick up the risk, as tragically proven, then what hope is there? If the regulators fail to see the failings then what use are they?
Really, it’s not hard to see that, you don’t have to be mad to make those connections. It’s widely reported in all of the main media. The BBC devoted hours in the last few nights explaining it all.
Are they wrong? that’s what you’re telling me.
Report abuse
Arnald
Your attacks are so widespread that you’re bound to be right sometimes.
If you buy 4,999 tickets in honest Jack’s lottery you will win a prize.
The only problem with your posts on finance matters is that you cannot seem to get passed your sincere belief that ALL the world’s ills are the result of what happens in Le Truchot
Report abuse
No Ray
ALL Guernsey’s transactions happen in Guernsey which is where my children are growing up. I want them to be able to trust the only employer that pays enough to live here.
How can I teach them that it is something to respect when my questions are met with drivel?
This thread started with a shrug towards criminality. I suggest that shrug is indicative of an attitude that sees no wrong in subverting the democratic process. It is shared by the people that do the jobs here. I find it quite worrying that people who work here don’t understand basic cause and effect, or how the products they service actually work..
Otherwise they’d answer my questions properly.
Report abuse
There are so many things wrong that any critics get mired and lose focus. Amusing to see responses about Gates and others. I wonder how much tax they dodge with all these structures.
Belinda, your examples of retail banking are not the same thing at all. We need the utility of being able to manage our income and outgoings for day to day transactions. Unfortunately we all need a bank account to function in this world. The type of service we provide has nothing to do with the real world and everything to do with making rich people richer. With that I have to agree with the extremists.
Whether or not we can lose the more aggressive tax avoidance products and legals and still maintain a viable jurisdiction is something the Foot review will no doubt be looking into.
The folly of this States is that they did not seek to maximise earnings in the good years in order to directly invest in diversifying the economy.
Maybe external borrowing will be needed to attempt to set up an alternative job provider and pay it back by taxing the blood out of the dying parasite?
Report abuse
Look at my Wad – agreed.
Regrettably, the blood will simply continue to be sucked out of the host, at the same time as the parasite is still feeding.
I too was amused by the list of philanthropists.
Buffet is to give away 85%…after he’s dead, mind. What does he need it for now? The Gates foundation has billions…AVAILABLE – I’d be more impressed if it had nothing, having given its billions away already. All this generosity is used for personal or corporate advantage, political influence or whatever. It’s as cynical and calculated as any other aspect of business.
I find myself agreeing with Arnald’s extreme moral standpoint, while indulging in the hypocrisy of aiding the rich avoid tax in order to feed, clothe and house my family. I have always found it somewhat distasteful, and always will. However, the counterbalance to this moral position is democracy. Democratic process has brought us here. Governments elected for their fiscal prudence are in charge of the drawstrings around the loopholes. They choose not to close them, thus the loopholes are the loopholes of, by and for the people. So we exploit them with a clear conscience, and do. Yet real morality goes beyond compliance with democratic principles and laws. It still nags.
But this has to apply to all aspects of life. Every act of individual consumption is a deprivation of the potential consumption of another.
Report abuse
Democracy can only be half useful if the electorate are knowledgable about what they are voting about.
Nobody cared about the finance system before the crash, save for a few, and my outbursts were rounded on with some venom. Now that details of the processes and how they are use and by whom, and their histories, are being published, it becomes quite clear that more attention was needed.
No critic of the system has ever had a question satisfactorily answered. It always comes back to “because we can”.
Which is exactly what those UK MPs said.
Still no retraction or explanation about this article. It does only mean one thing.
To get a proper democratic decision concerning issues like this, only education can suffice. Let in the critics, let them take the accounts apart, let them find no meat for their arguments. People can mock the “prove it” angle, but by doing that you make it look like there is a great deal to be ashamed of.
David, it’s not a question of you agreeing with an opinion – the facts are that tax havens allow hundreds of billions to get stolen from developing countries. You can’t disagree by correction, you can only question the source. Richard Murphy has argued his methodology at World Bank level. What have his detractors done?
Heads in sand for as long as possible to make as much money as possible until running away and hiding.
That’s what bankers do.
Report abuse
We have a full democratic debate, though, Arnald.
Regrettably, the masses have declined to elect a government that gives a fig for the kind of education the masses need to make informed decisions. Why?
The masses simply do not want (or need) to participate in these decisions, and I am not one to argue with them. To suggest they can all be educated to a level at which they actually understand the question properly and fully is crass. They haven’t the time or the inclination to be educated, let alone the ability to absorb such complexities. When I explain an intricate tax arrangement, even a highly sophisticated client will often glaze over, look out of the window, look at their feet or start thinking about wallpaper.
The loopholes will remain.
If murphy had to argue his methodology, then presumably others were countering, whether from an embedded position of power or otherwise. They were evidently unimpressed, as no change has come about.
Report abuse
If a Chinese ‘legal high’ manufacturer wanted to set up a production facility for Spice that would pay good wages and guarantee work for a large proportion of the employable population, tapping a known European market, and deciding to invest some of the profit into the local sports scene, what would be the outcome?
How do you think the arguments would be played out? Do you think people would have objections, and what would those objections be based on?
It is not that people don’t give a fig, it’s that they don’t know a fig may exist for them not to give. When an issue is addressed, such as the incinerator, then some people engage.
Taxes are going to go up, it is inevitable, and public services will be reduced. Will we be told the reasons or will we just be told to accept more hardship on the lower paid in order for the finance industry to carry on regardless?
There will always be loopholes and there will always be exploitation. Life, I’m told, isn’t fair. Isn’t it a necessary trait to evolve, though, the ability to understand why things aren’t fair, as distortions affect market efficiency, and then work to achieve a better system for everyone?
Or is that boring? I wonder…
Report abuse