JerseyATTAC

2012-01-11T20:32:00.002Z

Former Bailiff is likely to lead reform programme

Monday 9th January 2012, 2:56PM GMT.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache

WEEKS after calling for a drastic reduction in the number of States Members, Senatorial poll-topper Sir Philip Bailhache seems poised to lead the States reform campaign.

The former Bailiff has confirmed that he wants to chair the Electoral Commission, and says that work needs to start soon to get the work done in time for the 2014 election.

After the Privileges and Procedures Committee agreed last week to change the rules to allow politicians to sit on the body, Senator Bailhache appears likely to get the job of leading it.

He topped the Senatorial poll on an election platform based on States reform in which he advocated axing some Members’ seats, and is the preferred nominee of Chief Minister Ian Gorst.

Asked whether his established views would stop an open discussion of the reform options, Senator Bailhache said: ‘I do not think so. I have expressed provisional views about what the solution might be but I think most intelligent people in the Island have expressed views about the reform of the States over the years.

Deputy Montfort Tadier

January 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm

From Deputy Montfort Tadier, Vice Chairman of PPC

These comments are my own, and do not represent the view of the Committee as a whole:

I am a member of PPC and I certainly do not endorse this.

I outlined my position very clearly in my manifesto, in the States and more recently to the committee that the Commission should remain Independent, as agreed by the States last year.

This was supported by Deputy Judy Martinl. It is nothing personal, but NO States member should be leading the review, let alone those who have expressed clear views about their desired make up of the future States.

Sir PB’s position is one of regress, not progress, making the ultra conservation voice in the States, entrenching the disproportional power of the Constables further.

If he is allowed to chair the commission (which the States has already agreed should NOT include states members on it) there will certainly be a battle of attrition.

On the plus side, it will no doubt speed the formation of party politics in the island.

If Sir Philip were not a politician, then fine, he would have a valid claim to chair the commission, but when he became a States Member, with clearly stated intentions for the future of States reform, he must abide by the decision of the commission.

2011-11-08T09:15:00.001Z

Title - Who is paying for Jersey to be a tax haven?

From - Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy.

Live Link - www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/11/07/who-is-paying-for-jersey-to-be-a-tax-haven/

2011-10-16T15:43:00.000+01:00

Date:- 16/10/2011

Title:- The Inner Dimension of Politics.

By:- Tony the Prof.

Live Link:- http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/inner-dimension-of-politics.html

2011-10-06T11:18:00.000+01:00

Are You, enjoying ‘ The Party’?

They say there are no Political Parties, in Jersey - They’re right, there’s only one!

It is sometimes referred to as, ‘The Clique, The Establishment, The Black and

White, The Covert, or most recently, The Invisible Party!’ This secret Party, has

controlled Jersey for over 50 years! Now due to a growing number of people who

are willing to challenge it, It’s in decline! This hidden Party, have tended to do

things in two ways; 1) in secret and 2) for themselves! They are mainly comprised

of frightened and weak willed, wealthy old men and are led by not so old,

ambitious Neo-Liberals!

In these elections as in the past, they are secretly promoting and helping dozens of

their supporters who are disguised as independent candidates! This underhanded

way of getting their candidates into The States, is hijacking our democracy by

guile!

I believe this serves to subvert the new laws that control Political Parties and it

fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of this islands Government! This small,

but powerful group of islanders, also secretly take great delight in uncontested

elections. This coupled with the fact that so many of us don’t bother to vote means

they can get their candidates elected and get away with whatever they want! Most

of their supporters will sacrifice principle for position!

All of this must stop ..............and it must stop............. Right now!

Its time, if you did not know already, that this party is real and it is time you knew

them, for what they are and what they stand for- A secret group of people who

want control of our island and the £600M annual budget, collected from Your

Taxes!

We must be brave and stand up against them for they are powerful still but we can

take heart in the knowledge that the tide has turned. Their time has been and is

gone. We must forever guard against their return!

Let us take it upon ourselves, from this day forwards to educate ourselves in

politics and participate in choosing who governs us and how!

Let us teach our children these things also! If we can find no reason to do this for

our own lives............. Then we surely must find a reason to do so, for our children’s

lives and their children’s too!

It’s Your Voice - It’s Your Choice - It’s Your Future!.............. Thank You!

Deputy Paul Le Claire

(‘The Greatest trick the Devil ever played on the world was convincing it, that he doesn’t exist.)

2011-09-20T08:59:00.004+01:00

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post 19.9.2001

The long-term future of all Islanders is precisely what motivates us.

Just for the record on the subject of the Zero-Ten Tax Policy. In the final
paragraph of your editorial (Wednesday 14th September) you describe Zero-
Ten's opponents - "few of whom appear to have the Island's best interests
at heart". What nonsense! It is precisely the long-term future of all Islanders
that has motivated many opponents.

Clarity is essential here. Europe was not happy with an unfair system where
local businesses paid tax and other businesses did not. Now this particular
aspect of taxation has been harmonised and so the EU seems happier. What
opponents of the Zero-Ten Tax Policy say is that as a consequence of Zero-Ten
a Goods and Services Tax is being imposed on the Island population to fill the
coffers. The people must pay. Business need not. This is where the unfairness
lies. The EU is not concerned about how this money is raised; internal policy is
not their worry. That is for the States of Jersey to decide.

And what are the long-term interests of Islanders? I would point to the obvious -
a variety of jobs from which to choose, fair pay, fair rents or a house to live in that
doesn't cost the earth, time to relax and laugh, not just putting forward our points
of view but being seriously heard and so participate in the democratic process.
As one Jersey lady once told me - we have free speech but nobody is listening.
Could she be right?

Jean Andersson
Secretary
Jersey Attac

2011-09-20T08:58:00.000+01:00

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post. 19.9.2001

Opposers have been vindicated on zero-ten policy.

Dear Sir,

Your editorial “Vindication for zero-ten tax policy”( 14th September) is remarkable for
the extra-ordinary amount of misinformation contained in it.

Your editorial writer simply failed to explain that the zero-ten policy just approved by
the European Union is not the zero-ten policy which they declared was against their
Code of Conduct.

It was the original zero-ten plan that I and others claimed over the years would not
be accepted by Europe. And we were right.

Back in 2002, Europe told Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man that the zero-
10 proposal presented to them did comply with their Corporate Taxation Code of
Conduct.

When Europe later declared that it was not happy with the original zero ten
proposals, Jersey authorities made the excuse that “Europe changed its mind,
having first approved it and then disapproved it”. That line was also peddled by the
then Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, in one of his many forays into the political
arena.

Senator Le Sueur later let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that only the
bare bones of the proposal was put forward to Europe, it did not include the “deemed
dividend section” and it was only an “in principle agreement awaiting further detail”

When Europe saw the “deemed dividend section” it considered this and declared
that it breached their Code of Conduct and was unfair and discriminatory.

Which is what I and others had been saying for several years and been condemned
for doing so by the Le Sueur/Ozouf group of politicians who claimed hat we did not
know what we were talking about.

Having put Jersey’s finance industry into a position of great uncertainty for over a
year, with the subsequent loss of business, the politicians responsible for this fiasco
realised that the only way out of their difficulty was to alter the deemed distribution
section so that shareholders in Jersey companies would be treated in the same way
as foreign based companies trading in Jersey where shareholders pay no tax on
their profits until they were distributed.

Therefore, to suggest that those who supported zero-ten have been vindicated and
that those who opposed it now have “egg on their face” is totally wrong. We are the

ones who were vindicated by the first European decision...

What your editorial also failed to recognise is that this change to zero-ten is now
going to create enormous opportunities for tax evasion by local shareholders.

It now means that if an individual in a Jersey company builds up a substantial sum of
profits over a number of years and then decides that he no longer wishes to run his
business and sells it he gets all his profits tax free because there is no capital gains
tax in Jersey.

The Chief Minister has already announced that this new version for zero-ten will lead
to a loss of at least £10 million in revenue to add to our fiscal problems. How is this
to be recovered? Another rise in GST?

To suggest that anyone involved in this fiasco that has cost Jersey over £110million
in lost revenue deserves any praise or credit is an absolute travesty and another
excursion into cloud cuckoo-land.

Ted Vibert.

2011-08-17T20:34:00.000+01:00

FROM: WANTED IN EUROPE

JERSEY NEWS

0 comments
Leave your comments

Economy: Jersey to act on vulture funds

Tuesday, July 5th 2011

An official inquiry has been launched into Jersey’s role in forcing third world countries to pay millions of pounds in crippling debt.

Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur has revealed that senior law officers, top-ranking civil servants and finance experts have met to look at whether so-called vulture funds should be allowed to use Jersey courts to chase debts.

The funds buy up the debts of developing countries for a fraction of the amount owed and then aggressively pursue the debtors though the courts to recover as much as possible. Some of the debts date back to the 1980s, with nations having already paid back the original figure borrowed several times over.

In the past few weeks pressure has been mounting in Jersey to review the actions of the Royal Court after the UK clamped down on vulture funds.

Campaigners from the UK lobby group, Jubilee Debt Campaign, are now calling on supporters to write to the States demanding action.

In Jersey the issue is being championed by Deputy Daniel Wimberley, who is concerned about a serious risk of major damage to the reputation of the finance industry if the Royal Court is used in this way. He said that the whole thing was ’obscene’.

Wimberley's comments follow a judgment in which the Royal Court found in favour of FG Hemisphere and ordered that the Democratic Republic of Congo pay a debt of $110m. The case is now in the appeal courts, and judgment is expected later this month.

A statement released by the Chief Minister’s department said that the government was aware that the UK wanted to stop vulture funds extracting "harsh and inequitable payments from poor countries for debts that have, in many cases, been bought for a fraction of the cost."

The UK has made permanent a temporary law enacted last year which limited the amount a fund could claw back. The Chief Minister’s statement said that Jersey had been waiting to see what action the UK took before deciding what to do. The Jersey working party hoped soon to submit proposals for consultation.

link:

http://www.wantedineurope.com/content/news/news.php?id_n=8229#.TkwQ1TQaB3A.gmail

2011-08-17T16:42:00.003+01:00

VULTURE FUNDS,

AS A REMINDER THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO CHANGE THE SITUATION IN JERSEY:

an excellent blog to remind everyone what is still going on.

link:

http://tomgruchy.blogspot.com/2010/11/jersey-vultures.html

2011-08-13T18:45:00.002+01:00

VULTURE FUNDS

Bankers and others have been buying up outstanding debts owed by some developing countries and using law courts (including jersey's Royal Court) to enforce payment at the original value of the debt.

What is particularly unpleasant about this practice is that much of this debt had been partially written off through the process of international debt restructuring, which partly explains why the bankers were able to buy the debt cheap in the first place.

In summary, the vulture funds (many of which have bankers hidden
behind them) are forcing poor countries to pay long standing debts
that many of us had hoped were written off.

And they are using Jersey's Royal Court to enforce settlement because -- in the case of Congo -- a partly state owned mining company has a Jersey-based subsidiary.

John Christensen. Director of the Tax Justice Network.

A report by the Tax Justice Network, Jubilee Debt, Christian Aid and Global Witness is due out very soon regarding the extractive industries operating in developing countries, with a particular focus on the Congo.

2011-08-08T19:46:00.000+01:00

IT'S CRISIS TIME FOR JERSEY
Senator Stuart Syvret to join former 'Monarch' in Hollywood elections.

By Deputy Monty Tadier

Live Link: http://mtadier.blogspot.com/2011/08/its-crisis-time-for-jersey-senator.html

2011-08-04T17:11:00.000+01:00

C.I. VAT abuse can be ended by UK whenever it likes, EU says.

By: Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/08/04/channel-islands-vat-abuse-can-be-ended-by-uk-whenever-it-likes-eu-says/

2011-07-28T21:14:00.002+01:00

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post

Democracy must replace dictatorship

From John Heys.

July 28, 2011 – 2:26 pm

WHAT an excellent job done on your election survey. Well done, the JEP.
It certainly showed how unhappy people are with how we are being mismanaged.
We now have the clearest message possible that we, the people, have to bring about big change, and the only way to do this – it will be our last chance to stop the rot and get the useless, inept members out of the States – is to get out and vote for new blood in October.

We have been led so far down the wrong road that even with the people of Jersey voting for big change, it will be a long and difficult task.
But it must be done, and it is up to us.
We have seen that huge petitions, demonstrations and pleas for common sense get totally ignored, and when the damage done is obvious, the perpetrators resign.
We have to get rid of dictatorship and reintroduce democracy. October is when we will have a chance to do it. It may possibly be our last chance.

2011-07-15T14:46:00.003+01:00

WHAT WOULD I DO IF I BECAME P.M. OF THE ISLE OF MAN ?

(could Jersey's Government learn something from this?)

From: Tax Research UK , Director Richard Murphy

Live Link:- www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/07/15/what-would-i-do-if-i-became-pm-of-the-isle-of-man/

2011-07-09T18:01:00.000+01:00

THIS GUY IS NO CHICKEN IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE TAX DODGING ELITE.

From: Tax Justice Network

Live Link:- http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/07/this-guy-is-no-chicken-in-fight-against.html

2011-07-09T08:36:00.000+01:00

TAX AVOIDANCE IMPOVERISHES THE VULNERABLE AND IS MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE SAYS METHODIST CHURCH

From Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link:- www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/07/07/tax-avoidance-impoverishes-the-vulnerable-and-is-morally-unacceptable-says-method

2011-07-05T17:21:00.000+01:00

JERSEY PEER REVIEW SHOWS IT TO BE VERY FAR FROM THE TRANSPARENT PLACE IT CLAIMS TO BE.

From Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/07/05/jerseys-peer-review-shows-it-to-be-very-far-from-the-transparent-place-it-claims-

2011-07-01T11:18:00.000+01:00

WHEN WILL JERSEY REALISE THAT AS FINANCE INDUSTRY DECLINES ITS GOT TO LOOK FOR PLAN 'B'

from: Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link - www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/06/30/when-will-jersey-realise-that-as-its-finance-industry-declines-its-got-to-look-fo

2011-06-29T14:03:00.002+01:00

------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday 28th June 2011

Title: Vulture Funds - "Simply left to rest" Third world debt role questioned.

From: Tony's Musings by Tony the Prof.

Live Link: http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2011/06/vulture-funds-simply-led-to-rest.html

2011-06-29T14:00:00.000+01:00

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post

The Chinese government won't swallow this twaddle

John Heys

27th June 2011

Just mention Jersey as a tax haven and see what reaction you get from Jersey Finance chief executive Geoff Cook. Oh no, Jersey is a well regulated finance centre and definitely not a tax haven, God forbid!

So what has he been telling the Chinese? Talking to top-level Chinese lawyers and private client specialists (whatever that means) so that non-Jersey residents can hold cash deposits or investments without incurring any liability to Jersey income tax. What a well regulated centre it must be (Jersey Evening Post 17th June).

He then explained to the no doubt open mouthed Chinese that the Island offered round-the-clock multi-currency banking and provided leading expertise in estate and succession planning and that - now get this bit - tax neutrality underpinned Jersey's proposition preventing liability for unnecessary layers of taxation.

Does this statement mean that I could pop along to the Tax Office and ask if my tax can be classed as unnecessary? I have an idea what they would say.

He also pointed out our constitutional position to entice the wealthy professionals to use Jersey's financial services industry. Why? What would be the point if we are not a tax avoidance/evasion Island? How would Chinese investors gain? And would they avoid paying tax in their own country?

Oh boy, I can see how China would love that. So just who has he been flannelling? Us or now the Chinese? We know it is a load of twaddle - the Chinese communist government know too and will not take kindly to money being ferreted away in a tiny island somewhere in the English Channel so that some of their wealthy residents can avoid paying their fair share of Chinese tax.

2011-06-15T07:41:00.000+01:00

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post.

No alternative? Of course there is! We’ve been offered one on a plate.

14^th June 2011

Pat Lucas Tax Justice Network Jersey

In his letter dated 3.6.2011 Mr Boothman seems to suggest that Ted Vibert holds as a central policy that the finance industry has given Jersey more problems than benefits. Well, perhaps he does and perhaps he doesn’t. It’s a pity you turned down his challenge Mr Boothman because now you won’t be in a very strong position to tell us what his central policy is or what he thinks of the finance industry will you? Surely you know that Mr Vibert was simply issuing you with a challenge to publicly debate the motion with him at the Town Hall on the topic “That the finance industry has given Jersey more problems than benefits.” That would have been useful, enlightening and of great benefit to a lot of people.

You point out quite rightly that the finance industry is of pivotal importance to Jersey. It employs thousands of people, contributes tens of millions of pounds to the Island’s exchequer and supports dozens of other firms.  All correct.  But is this enough? What Mr Vibert was asking, I think, was “What’s the cost of that?
Remember, the finance industry in its present form enables the very wealthy and multinational companies to avoid paying tax. Why else would they put their money here?  No reason that I can think of.  But we, the ordinary people of Jersey are paying heavily for the fact that the rich aren’t paying tax.  For example, to make up for the hole in our finances caused by our unfair zero-ten policy that is solely designed to help tax avoiders we have to pay GST which has just gone up to 5%.
Many hard working people of this Island as well as the sick and elderly are struggling to cope with the sky-high cost of living while at the same time watching our social services which are far from lavish being further eroded. Those young people who might wish to remain in Jersey see no future here and go away.  It seems that little respect is shown for our Island which is being defaced by huge, ugly “iconic!” structures or our people who are permitted free speech but nobody is listening.  We all know all this of course but little or nothing is done to remedy a worsening situation.

You say that, “…unless someone is doing the baking there will be nothing for the States to slice.”  Nice analogy about earning money!  We are perfectly aware that we have to earn our living.  Please don’t talk down to us.  We don’t like it.  Neither is it true that Mr Vibert’s policies are nihilistic/destructive or that he is willing to tear down but does not offer any credible, coherent ideas for what he would put in place of what we have now.  Have you ever taken the time to ask him what he wants to do?  Have you spoken to him?  He has already made it clear that he is happy to listen to highly talented men of intellect who are honest and generous with their time such as Richard Murphy, John Christensen, Prof. Prem Sikka and Jacques Harel.

Last January Richard Murphy came to Jersey and at a public meeting offered us a way forward in which we can use the skills and expertise that have been built up over the years in the finance industry. This is a credible and coherent Plan B which offers us an entirely new market that Jersey could exploit. It is the market for a well regulated low tax location where international transactions can be recorded for the precise purpose of ensuring they are not double taxed.

He went into some detail of how this would work and, if implemented, Jersey could become the ultimate transparency jurisdiction for those companies around the world who want to highlight the problems in the world tax system, want to draw attention to them, want to avoid double taxation which is unfair, but who want to be open, honest and accountable when doing so when tackling this impediment to international trade.

We were given this opportunity “on a plate” so let it never ever be said that we have nothing to put in the place of the present system.

Plan B for Jersey deserves to be read in its entirety by anyone who is serious about finding a credible, coherent idea for Jersey’s future. http://taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PlanBforJerseypdf

This is real alternative thinking: Mr Boothman may not like it because it upsets the status quo. We recognise that all change is uncomfortable, but at least we accept that change is inevitable. The economic model we’ve used is failing. The world will no longer tolerate it. We have to change. We have laid out a pathway for change. What is Mr Boothman’s alternative? That’s what we’re asking and we’re not getting any answers.

Live Link Plan B for Jersey http://taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/PlanBforJerseypdf

2011-06-11T15:56:00.000+01:00

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post

People will vote for vision and verve
9th June 2011

From John Heys

There is so much that I could have written about recently that I am swamped as to which subject to choose and, whilst deciding, I am immediately prompted to reply to Mr. ex Finance guru Boothman's letter attacking our next forward thinking Senator Mr Ted Vibert.

His letter is so full of erroneous assumptions it is ridiculous. For example, he states that the Tax Justice Network ( note the middle word Mr. Boothman, JUSTICE ) is not as he states hell-bent on destroying all offshore finance centres but is engaged in attacking tax evasion which is destroying the infrastructure of many countries. It is estimated that the UK alone is losing in the region of £90 billion a year, and if Mr. Boothman had taken the trouble to attend the lecture given here in Jersey he would have learnt just what the TJN does from the top man himself, Mr. Richard Murphy, and could have asked any questions and gained facts rather than erroneous opinions.

Yes, the finance business is a great asset to our economy, and as our elected leaders have consistently counted our total survival on it pumping in millions of pounds of our taxes to support it, we are now becoming well aware that it is not the golden egg-laying goose that Mr. Boothman would have us believe. For example, where has the £100 million debt come from? Mr. Le Sueur's flash of genius 0/10 move to reduce the finance tax take to only 10% and to make up the loss his next brainwave, the introduction of GST, now at 5%, release the finance industry and hammer the people. But his side-kick Senator Ozouf has stated it should be held at that figure for some time, a statement he has made before has he not, and we all know how hollow that was!

When Mr. Vibert started the JDA, of which I was a member, a manifesto was thrashed out and it was very comprehensive and would have been an absolute boon for Jersey. Unfortunately, due to ill health, Mr. Vibert was unable to see it to fruition - not just the action of tearing down the achievements of others. What a silly statement to make.

OK. Let's look at other island jurisdictions who are locked into a one-horse race. Just how are they doing? Are they too down 15% on their finance industry?
Full of erroneous criticism of Mr. Vibert but he has not got the guts to have a meeting with him to discuss ideas, stating that he holds no brief for the finance industry. Oh well, where did he work? I think that it is a disgrace to accuse Mr. Vibert of merely orchestrating a publicity stunt as a pre-election campaign, and accusing him of only wanting the £45,000 once in the States. I would suggest that this is bordering on downright libel, linked with all his attempts at character assassination questioning his past life in Australia - words like venom, rabble rousing and bringing Island politics into disrepute! Just where has Mr. Boothman been for the last couple of years? Our States have managed that with no outside help whatsoever.

How dare Mr. Boothman state that the widely-held opinion of him is that he has nothing worthwhile to offer the electorate. Once again he steps well over the mark, and will be proved to be pathetically wrong in October when the people of Jersey finally stand up and say we have had enough of this shambles, go to the polling booths and vote in men like Ted Vibert who have vision and the verve to see it through.
　

2011-05-30T15:05:00.000+01:00

Family Nursing and Home Care Cutbacks: A Comment

From Tony the Prof. http://tonymusings.blogspot.com

PATIENTS using Family Nursing and Home Care may soon have to buy their own medical
products after the charity announced cuts to its service. In a letter sent to FNHC patients on
Monday, the charity's finance director, Andy Cook, said that there were plans to get patients to
purchase their own dressings from their local pharmacy. In the letter Mr Cook said that the range
of dressings and other medical items distributed by FNHC district nurses would be reduced
to 'conform to an agreed list of products between us and Health'. The move has been heavily
criticised by Unite union official Nick Corbel, who has warned that patients will be put at risk.

What will happen in the future if you are one of those who require medical products that are
currently supplied by Family Nursing & Home Care (FNHC) who have recently announced the
closure of their outlet?

Currently you have to join FNHC and pay a membership fee of £50 upwards to be able to access
this service, and the scheme includes the provisions of feeding tubes, dressings and incontinence
pads for children three years and above. Dietary drinks are also medically required by the person/
patient for their well-being (to keep them alive).. The change in policy means that members will
no longer be receiving the service they have paid a membership fee for.

Financial assistance is currently provided to FNHC by Health & Social Services and Social Security
Department fund, and there are free medical supplies to under five year olds. Families with
children over five years pay 15% of FNHC retail price for the products.

According to the staff of FNHC stores, who received their redundancy notices on Easter Saturday,
the outlet closes on the 1st July 2011. One of my correspondents commented that "The staff
runs efficient and personal services which believe no private company would, or could provide."

The alternative will be purchasing items required from chemists or other outlets at full cost.

This reminded me very of the true story told by theologian Frances Young, in her book, "Face to
Face", and this was about the NHS in England. Cuts there came in earlier than in Jersey, under
the regime of Margaret Thatcher and the so-called policy "care in the community", which actually
often simply meant State care on the cheap:

Arthur's incontinence has always been with us, and the way we have handled it has really been
an extension of the babyhood practice of using nappies. We are geared up to it with suitable
washing machines and drying arrangements. But plastic pants became a problem: he got too big
for the typical baby-pairs you can get in chemists' shops. We heard from other parents about the
supply of disposable rolls and plastic pants. I asked our social worker. She said I could call in at
the Community Health centre and pick up what we needed. I could and did. There was a funny
old man who would just take your word for it, fill a plastic sack with rolls, produce a couple of
pairs of plastic holders and all was fine. We went about every three months. We only needed
rolls for school.

Then came the cuts. So what did they do? They employed a secretary to check up on every issue
from the Community Health stores. The secretary must have cost more than they saved. The
informal arrangement no longer worked. A call from the social worker got us on the list, but then
they would only give us a couple of rolls at a time, and we were lucky to get any plastic pants.
There was no way we could call frequently enough to get enough rolls for school use. School
kept pressing. Other parents were on the laundry service; they had a regular supply delivered
every week. Why didn't we apply? Eventually I tracked down the District Nurse and a formal
application was put in. We were put on a two year waiting list. Think of it - people coping with
incontinent old people on a two year waiting list! They're likely to die before they get what they

That is the trouble with removing a system that works. The alternatives usually require form
filling, and bureaucrats checking, and replacing the front-line staff who know the people and
their needs, decisions become bedded down with line managers checking decisions at a lower
level; instead the whole enterprise, as I am sure will also happen in Jersey, becomes more
formal, with forms to complete, assessments to check, before any alternative support is given to
the needy.

They now will have to justify their need to clerical staff, rather than it being assessed on a
common-sense basis by an organisation which can supply nurses to change dressings, for
example, and who will know how people are coping. It is another burden, another hoop to jump
through. As Frances Young says:

Professionals are always telling us to keep fighting for our rights, but we have got better uses of
our time and energies. What concerns me is not our particular situation, but what it reveals
about the stupidity of the whole set up, what it reveals about the hardships more vulnerable
people must suffer. And this is supposed to be a caring society. Those who need the care are
subject to suspicion and discouragement. They are exposed to unnecessary indignities - like the
time my husband and I were sent separate bills to cover the parental contribution to Arthur's
care. I hear people from disadvantaged backgrounds, immigrant groups, crying out at the way
they are treated and saying this society is racist; I tell them it is not just those with the `wrong'
colour skin who suffer in this way in our society. It should not simply be interpreted as racist.
Granted that it is worse for them at times because of racist attitudes, it is still a fact that even
people like us, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, comfortable, middleclass and articulate, are
subject to being treated as non-persons when we present our vulnerable face to officialdom.

There is something about the way state services are organized which creates an 'us' and `them'
situation which is profoundly alienating. I am glad that I have experienced something of this, and
can stand with at least a small measure of understanding alongside the real poor and
inadequates in our society. It is time we realized just how uncaring and inhuman our institutions
are. It is time Socialists realized that this is what their ideals have produced -- it has gone bad on
them. It is time Conservatives realized that cuts have hurt the most vulnerable members of
society whatever they say, and that stopping waste has created waste, and hardship .

And she notes what we will see in Jersey, that more expensive options will be available, and an
extra financial burden placed on those who are struggling with enough burdens as it is:

It is since they came to power that supplies for incontinence have mushroomed in Boots and in
chemists' shop windows. At last we can get what we need - by paying for it. Society may need
handicap, but it will not bear the cost of handicap. The unfortunate are made to feel that they
are to blame for their misfortune.

One of the comments on the JEP website is particularly pertinent in this respect:

Someone needs the Nurse opinion on this one as some patients, like my late father have leg
ulcer problems and the amount and cost of dressings is extortionate to them. For the old its
often a choice between food and electricity or changing dressings regularly. Looks like we'll be
back to the old days when the patients had to rewash bandages.!!

Links:
http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/05/23/family-nursing-patients-may-have-to-provide-own-
dressings/
"Face to Face", Frances Young, 1986

2011-05-27T16:39:00.000+01:00

THE ISLE OF MAN AND JERSEY CREATE OPACITY-
ACCORDING TO H M REVENUE AND CUSTOMS

From: Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/27/the-isle-of-man-and-jersey-create-opacity-according-to-h-m-revenue-customs/

2011-05-27T13:47:00.000+01:00

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post.

Let’s talk things over in public

May 26, 2011 – 3:00 pm

From Ted Vibert.

JOHN Boothman (JEP, 18 May) is full of accusations but totally unable to back them up with facts. When he wrote his last letter about me and the JDA in November last year, he wrote about me having ‘nihilistic policies’. I challenged him to produce any policy I have ever supported that could be described as ‘nihilistic’ in this way. Silence.
In his previous letter Mr Boothman also advised me that I should choose my friends more wisely. Such pompous arrogance is hard to understand in this so-called enlightened day and age but political dinosaurs don’t seem to learn any lessons.

He claims that I ‘snuggle up’ to the Tax Justice Network. I am not a ‘snuggler’ but I do sit comfortably at the same table and on the same level with men of intellect who are highly talented, generous (in terms of their time towards helping Jersey) thoughtful and moral.

People like Richard Murphy, John Christensen, Professor Jacques Harel of the Institute d’Etudes Politiques de Rennes, Nicholas Shaxson, author of ‘Treasure Islands – tax havens and the men who stole the world’ and Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at Essex University.

When Richard Murphy came to Jersey recently to deliver his ‘ethical banking’ proposal, Mr Boothman and his mates failed to turn up.

So much to say from the comfort of their bunkers but so little to say face-to-face. Such political cowardice is typical of this group.

In my last letter, I challenged Mr Boothman to stand in the Senatorial elections and let’s see who is ‘equipped for the task’. I repeat that challenge. I also challenged him to publicly debate the issues with me.

He wouldn’t.

So I now issue him with another challenge to publicly debate with me at the Town Hall the motion: That the finance industry has given Jersey more problems than benefits.

While I can understand his fear of crossing swords publicly with people of the calibre of Richard Murphy, why would he be afraid of me?

So here’s your chance Mr Boothman to prove that I am ‘ill-equipped for the task of being in the States’. Come and publicly humiliate me with your superior intellect and knowledge. After all, I am just a Jersey bean from Grosnez. Rise to the challenge and defend your industry. I dare you.

2011-05-20T08:39:00.000+01:00

JERSEY SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF TAX FROM TAX ABUSERS TO ORDINARY PEOPLE.

From Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Link: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/19/jersey-shifts-the-burden--of-tax-from-tax-abusers-to-ordinary-people

2011-05-20T08:33:00.001+01:00

Jersey approach to EU Code of Conduct is just bravado, everyone else has lost faith in it.

from: Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/19/jerseys-approach-to-the-eu-code-is-just-bravado-everyone-else-has-lost-faith-in-t

.

2011-05-19T10:13:00.000+01:00

JERSEY WILL FAIL EU CODE OF CONDUCT RULES AGAIN

From: Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/18/jersey-will-fail-the-eu-code-of-conduct-rules-again

2011-05-08T19:30:00.002+01:00

"Peace and all good to Goldman Sachs"

Sister Nora Nash of the Order of Saint Francis of Assisi in Pennsylvania speaks up for fairness and justice.

It will be a happy day when Jersey does as much.

Live Link: http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace-and-all-good-to-goldman-sachs.html

Répondre

Transférer

2011-05-01T20:16:00.002+01:00

STEP FORWARD ' HIGH CALIBRE CANDIDATES'

LETTERS TO THE JERSEY EVENING POST 30/04/2011

from Ted Vibert, President of the Jersey Democratic Alliance

Your editorial headed “Step forward high calibre candidates” raises some very interesting questions.

The first and most obvious is- who are the right people to be elected to serve in the States?

Your editorial states that “it is always important that the island should be led by capable and committed politicians with the best interest of the community at heart”

That set me wondering whether that referred to those members of the House who blindly follow the Ozouf/Le Sueur form of government, which persistently and consistently ignores the wishes of the public?

It is clear to me that the island has been led by a gaggle of wealthy politicians who promised us that we could leave the running of the island to them, as they were all experienced businessmen with an effective record and would ensure that they would cut waste, eliminate unnecessary expenditure and provide transparency and accountability.

Are these the” high calibre of candidates” we should be looking for?. Or should we be looking for people with a practical, commonsense approach to Jersey life; people with a social conscience who are deeply concerned about the way our society has drifted into the haves and have-nots; people with intellect who recognise the struggle that ordinary people are enduring; people who love their island and who are appalled by what has been happening to it and who say sadly “jersey is not what it was” and are determined to make a difference and stand up and fight for ordinary people and do the greatest good for the greatest number.

Do the electorate want more of the same or do they want people who are not bamboozled by the highly paid echelons of the top civil servants, who now have immense power in policy making thanks to weak-willed, supine politicians of the “right calibre” who are well on the way to ruining what was once a lovely place in which to live and bring up your family; people who can research and then articulate their concerns in a cogent and powerful way.

If those who have ruled us are regarded as members of “high calibre” are they not the same people who have led us into this abyss of incompetence by:

· Failing to carry out the simple and fundamental task of hedging the euro cost of the largest contract ever set by the States of Jersey for the new incinerator, costing us at least £4 million pounds and possibly 10million.

· Siting that incinerator on a scenic spot and building one that has so much capacity that Jersey’s burnable waste , which is going down dramatically because of re-cycling, will never ever use up the capacity so that our authorities responsible for this whole debacle are hoping against hope that the States will allow Guernsey and Alderney to ship their waste to us to keep it burning

· Failing to take action over the massive increase in population, when all the warnings were given by concerned people and organisations that this was taking place( even back ten years ago when that thoughtful and clever locally- born public servant, Mike Romeril, the Environmental Officer, who publicly reported that his detailed study showed that 85,000 was the maximum population that Jersey could comfortably sustain
,
and was then driven out of the island with his family because he dared to disagree with the expansionist policies of the Walker years, and being forced to leave the island, the island he loved so passionately totally disillusioned with his treatment by the hierarchy of politicians and senior civil servants..

· Wasting the opportunity to provide the island with a magnificent waterfront development and, instead, giving us a conglomeration of monstrous ugliness.

· Allowing the top public servants to increase their salaries to astronomical proportions

· Letting those same public servants engage consultants at enormous cost instead of doing the job themselves.

· Allowing public servants to continue with their gold plated pension schemes

· Failing to diversify the economy thereby allowing the island to become hostage to the finance industry, which is built on the shifting and dodgy sands of tax avoidance?

· Ignoring advice that the zero-ten tax regime would fall foul of the European Code of Conduct and would have to be scrapped.

· Causing the tax burden to shift savagely from the corporate/business sector on to the shoulders of the public( as a result of introducing zero ten, corporate tax has dropped from 52% to 12% in ten years and personal tax- that’s you and me- has risen from42% to84%.)

· Allowing a consultant for the Hospital to be engaged at a ludicrous cost.

· Despoiling our coastline with developments like Portelet and protecting Jersey’s ugliest building, the Odeon, and blocking a £40 million development that would have rejuvenated an ugly part of St. Helier.

· Threatening to remove grants from private schools and dismantle what is an excellent education system.

· Allowing our road system to deteriorate to such a degree that it will cost £100million to put right.

· Letting our housing stock deteriorate so much that £84million has to be spent or urgent maintenance..

· Failing to tackle the Housing problem and provide decent homes for young people at a reasonable cost.

The public know who are those States members responsible for this shambles and it is they who will decide who are “the right calibre” at the next election. It is unfortunate that some of those responsible will not face the electorate this time round. But the electorate have long memories so you men of “the right calibre”, don’t get yourself too comfortable. Your time will come to face the music..

Yours sincerely

Ted Vibert

2011-04-20T20:04:00.000+01:00

LOOKING FOR PLAN 'B' -

WHAT NEXT FOR ISLAND HOSTS OF OFFSHORE FINANCE

from: Tax Research UK,
Director: Richard Murphy

Live Link: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/04/20/looking-for-plan-b-what-next-for-island-hosts-of-offshore-finance/

2011-04-16T20:29:00.000+01:00

Title: Looking for Plan B: what next for Island Hosts of Offshore Finance

from: Tax Justice Network, Director John Christensen

Live Link http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/04/looking-for-plan-b-what-next-for-island.html

2011-04-13T12:31:00.000+01:00

'Consumer spending down..but there is hope if we realise more is not always better (as I show)'

from Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

live link:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/04/12/consumer-spending-down-but-theres-hope-if-we-realise-more-is-not-always-better-as-i-show/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+%28Tax+Research+UK+2%29

2011-04-10T12:10:00.000+01:00

Following Senator Alan Breckon's article on
'NO TO GST' please click on the following link to see his excellent FLYER

NO_TO_GST_Flyer.zip
3033 Ko Télécharger

2011-04-10T09:39:00.000+01:00

Senator Alan Breckon

PRESS RELEASE

Embargoed till 6am Monday11th April 2011

“SAY: NO TO GST”

Food, Light and Heat

We can’t afford not to !

Senator Alan Breckon has lodged a new proposition to remove GST from foodstuffs in line with the UK’s VAT arrangements as well as from domestic energy and fuel. (P36/2011)

In December 2010 a similar proposal was narrowly defeated by 26 to 24 votes.

Since the introduction of GST in May 2008, the economy has changed. Consumer confidence reached an all time low as the recession bit into people’s spending power. Jersey did not respond to this by helping the ordinary citizens instead has penalized the individual with what is becoming crippling Income Tax rates, Impots and of course GST. All this when some companies are not making a fair, or any contribution, to the tax take.

Show your support

In order for the public to show their support a number of things have been put in place & organized;

A. Public meetings

B. Poke A Politician

C. Email ``No To Gst´´

D. Flier (attached)

Public meetings

A number of public meetings will be held where Senator Breckon will be making a presentation and seeking public comments – a chance for people to have their say.

Town Hall – Monday 18^th April at 7.30pm

Parish Hall, St Clement – Tuesday 26^th April at 7.30pm

Parish Hall, St Saviour – Thursday 5^th May at 7.30pm

Communicare, St Brelade – Friday 13^th May at 7.30pm

Senior Citizens Association and Age Concern - Town Hall,Thursday 12^th May at 2pm.

Poke A Politician

A Facebook address has been set up so that the public can “poke” a politician to let them know how they would like them to vote, address:

www.facebook.com/NoToGst

Email your support

If the public do not have a Facebook sign in then an alternative email address has been created so that they can show their dissent electronically re this tax on life’s basic essentials, address:

NoToGst@yahoo.co.uk

Unless GST is removed from basic essentials it will continue onwards and upwards, the time to stop it is now!

For more information please contact

Senator Alan Breckon

Tel: 01534 618532

Mobile: 07837 509067

a.breckon@gov.je

2011-03-29T19:34:00.003+01:00

TAX INFORMATION EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - INDIA

MONEY TRAIL NEGOTIATIONS

FROM: Tony the Prof tonymusings.blogspot.com

This question, asked today in the States, makes it clear that it was the wording and clauses of the original TIEA that were the problem, but it doesn't give away much of substance!

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE CHIEF MINISTER BY DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 29th MARCH 2011

Question
What were the precise reasons given by the Government of India for not signing the Tax Information Exchange Agreement?

Answer

The issues that prevented the signing of a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) with the Government of India in New Delhi on the 18th March 2011 arose from differences discovered between the TIEA we had negotiated and those that India had recently signed with other jurisdictions.

Because of the need for the representatives of the Indian Ministry of Finance and the Jersey delegation to clear points of detail with other relevant parties there was insufficient time available to resolve the issues concerned before the Treasury and Resources Minister had to leave New Delhi. We expect the issues to be resolved in early course. The TIEA will then be able to be signed and in due course it will be presented to the States for ratification. Only when the TIEA has been ratified by both parties will it come into force.
But what triggered this upset, after months of careful planning? This story in Monday's JEP gives a clue:

INDIA has asked for Jersey's help in an investigation into bribes allegedly paid to the country's former telecom minister for granting 2G mobile phone licences. The former minister Andimuthu Raja has been under investigation for some time, but the fact the Jersey authorities had been asked to help became public last week during proceedings in India's Supreme Court. And the news happened to coincide with a visit to Delhi by a senior delegation from the Island seeking to secure a tax information exchange agreement with the Indian government. (1)
The Financial Times also notes that:

Charges are to be brought against India's former telecoms minister and two companies suspected of corruption by the end of March, the country's investigating authorities have told the Supreme Court.

The Central Bureau of Investigation said on Wednesday that it was preparing charges against Andimuthu Raja, the former minister, for his alleged role in a corruption scandal that an official audit claimed had lost the national exchequer an estimated $39bn in revenues in the auction.

In a submission to the court, which is overseeing the investigation, the CBI said as many as 31 companies had been summoned for questioning, with 26 already having been examined. It also said that its investigation had sought information from overseas, including the financial centres of Singapore, Cyprus, Jersey and the Virgin Islands, and that it had raided the offices of 'hawala' money transfer operators
and the Hindu, another newspaper, reports that:

The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that the money trail of the 2G spectrum allocation transactions was traced to six countries, and their links to foreign bank accounts were established

Letters Rogatory were sent to Singapore, Cyprus, Jersey, the Virgin Islands and two other countries (3)
Links(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/03/28/jersey-to-help-in-probe-into-india-bribes-t
(2) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72130720-4f9f-11e0-a37e-00144feab49a.html
(3) http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1540376.ece

2011-03-23T08:29:00.000Z

JERSEY'S TRADE MISSION TO DUBAI AND DEHLI.

from : Tony's Musings

Link at:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2011/03/tax-information-with-teeth.html

2011-03-22T19:47:00.000Z

from Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

WPP to quit Jersey? And come back to the UK? A double whammy!

Live Link:
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/22/wpp-to-quit-jersey-and-come-back-to-the-uk-a-double-whammy

2011-03-19T18:21:00.000Z

From Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

CHANNEL ISLANDS LVCR FULFILLMENT INDUSTRY

This letter was published in the Guernsey Press today (but I can’t find a link as yet)

In your article “becoming a target of convenience” (4th March 2011) you seem to imply
that the Channel Islands LVCR fulfillment industry has become some kind of imaginary
scapegoat for the demise of independent UK music retailers. You say that “research” has
shown that supermarkets are the problem. Presumably the research to which you are
referring to is the boldly titled report Setting The Record Straight, which was announced
with much fanfare in the Channel Islands press a couple of weeks ago but which the
Guernsey Government seem to be very reluctant to let anyone see.

Needless to say I have been dealing with objections like this for a very long time. They
are exactly the kind of thing that people with a vested interest in seeing this immensely
distortive and unjust practice continue have been feeding to HMRC for years. So,
for the record: supermarkets entered the music market 15 to 20 years ago, serving
an entirely different part of the market (top 40 chart CDs aimed at young people or
those with a passing interest in music) to that served by most of the independent
sector (music for serious music consumers, leftfield and experimental bands, new
upcoming independent artists, back catalogue and collector music). Supermarkets have
not significantly changed their position in the market in the last 10 years. However,
online sales (of physical CDs, not downloads, which still remain marginal in the albums
market) have risen from 11.6% of the UK music market in 2006 to 29.6% in 2009.
2006 is a pivotal year because that was when HMV’s opening of a distribution centre
in Guernsey (in order to compete with Play.com) caused a stampede to the Channel
Islands. This increase has been disproportionate to the rate at which online sales were
growing before 2006, and far disproportionate to the growth in online sales of books, an
important control group because their exemption from VAT within the UK removes any
incentive to send them offshore.

A business like mine – Delerium Mail Order, a much respected specialist online CD
retailer – should have benefited from this shift to online, because it was a purely online
business. However, there are no independent online stores left onshore in the UK,
save for a few that are attached to high street stores in high footfall areas or selling
exceptionally niche product. Why? Because they have to charge VAT. My business
saw nothing but growth until 2006, then HMV opened its centre in Guernsey, all my
competitors went offshore, and I shut down at the end of 2007 as it became impossible
to retail CDs and charge VAT. According to the CEO of thehut.com, by 2009 96% of the
online music market was offshore.

But even so, there are now many other product sectors experiencing the same market
distortion caused by the abuse of LVCR. Retailers Against VAT Avoidance Schemes
(RAVAS) represents retailers from across many sectors who have the identical tale to
tell of VAT free Channel Islands based websites undercutting them purely through the
avoidance of VAT. The distortion in the market for CDs and DVDs and the destruction of

UK online retail is just an example of what happens when a tax avoidance scheme gets
out of control.

LVCR was never intended for the purposes of avoiding VAT and distorting competition
in favour of tax avoiders, a fact that whilst denied by those with a vested interest
was recently confirmed to me directly by senior HMRC officials. In a way, I feel
some sympathy for the Channel Islands in that that the islands’ position has been
unscrupulously exploited in this way by large retailers and its economy made dependent
to a large extent on an immoral industry that has completely misrepresented the central
tenants of the European Law that governs LVCR. To that end, even though neither I nor
my employees received any compensation when the UK government’s incompetence
and inaction destroyed my business, I would certainly not be against the UK government
helping the Channel Islands out if and when it chooses to end the exploitation of LVCR
via the islands. The UK Treasury will recoup the £100m-200m in VAT that it is now
losing. It would be appropriate if, for as long as is needed for the Channel Islands’
economy to readjust, some of this money could be used to provide some economic aid
to the Channel Islands population that was directly affected i.e. those who are least
able to defend themselves from the consequences of this kind of logistical tax deception.
The main benefit to the UK economy from ending LVCR is in stopping the distortion of
competition and the main benefit to the Channel Islands is to have a fulfillment industry
free from the spectre of tax avoidance.

It can fairly be argued that there would be an impact on the Channel Islands economy if
LVCR were to end. I would like to see the UK government address this in order to repair
the damage caused by its inaction in preventing the development of a Channel Islands
economy partly based on tax avoidance.

2011-03-19T16:56:00.002Z

Small businesses call on EU to end Channel Islands tax loophole

Daily Telegraph, March 18, 2011

By Sean O'Hare
LONDON – In a strongly-worded letter to the European Commission, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has called upon the EU to ensure that the UK Government brings an end to the abuse of Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR).
In the letter, written on behalf of the Federation's 200,000 members, the FSB’s national policy chairman Mike Cherry describes the UK’s failure to protect VAT on internet retail as having “grave consequences for fair competition on the internet within the EU market” and calls on the commission to take firm action to ensure that the UK “ceases immediately from allowing such a flagrant tax avoidance scheme to continue.”
Read more...

2011-03-12T14:13:00.000Z

Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf's response in the Jersey Evening Post to Senator Alan Breckon's request to remove the Island's Goods and Services Tax from food and fuel.

GST warning

Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf

SCRAPPING GST on food and household fuel bills would lead to the tax rising on other goods and cost the Island £8 million, the Treasury Minister warned today.

Speaking following the launch of a new bid to create the exemptions, Senator Philip Ozouf said that the matter had been debated six times by the States and rejected at every turn.

As reported yesterday, Senator Alan Breckon, the chairman of the Jersey Consumer Council which campaigns for a better deal for consumers, is calling on States Members to back his new proposal to remove GST from foodstuffs in line with the UK and domestic energy costs.

Article posted on 11th March, 2011 - 2.59pm

2011-03-10T09:51:00.005Z

10.3.2011 Senator Alan Breckon

PRESS RELEASE from Jersey Evening Post

Embargoed till 6am Thursday10th March 2011

“SAY: NO TO GST”

It’s Not Over Yet!

New fight to rectify this injustice

I have lodged today a new proposition to remove GST from foodstuffs in line with the

’s VAT arrangements as well as from domestic energy and fuel.

Old story: new fight: against background of changed circumstances.

In December 2010 a similar proposal was narrowly defeated by 26 to 24 votes (vote attached A). In the ensuing 3 months new and fresh information has come to light which I believe should tip the balance the other way and rid us of this insidious tax from these most basic and essential items, namely:

The Review of the Fiscal Strategy Review
Company Tax versus Personal Tax figures, 2000 -2011

The Review of the Fiscal Strategy Review

The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel’s “Review of the Fiscal Strategy Review (SR2/2011)” summarizes that the Treasury Minister does not have a “fiscal strategy” or an Economic Growth Plan. What the Minister has is an insistence of targeting individuals through

20 means 20

ITIS

Impots

GST

Social Security Contributions

The Review adds that there should be no further increases in Income Tax, GST or Social Security unless an Economic Growth Plan is compiled and the aims of the Comprehensive Spending Review are met.

Company Tax versus Personal Tax figures, 2000-2011

If there is one table that people should read and digest this year it is the Company Tax versus Personal Tax figures, 2000-2011 table handed out to States Members during question time on 1^st March 2011 (Attached B).

This extraordinary table details very clearly the shift of balance from Corporate Tax to Personal Tax

· Company tax has been slashed from 52% in 2000 to an estimated 12% in 2011

· Personal tax has doubled from 42% to an estimated 84% in 2011

This policy will cripple the local economy. As people’s spending power is reduced, the economy will spiral down – forget economic growth.

Retail Price Index

Adding to this, the RPI has risen by 2.3% for the 12 months from December 2009 to 2010:

However, within this,

Food rose by 3%
Motoring costs rose by 4% (the average prices of petrol / diesel rose by 11p / 12p per litre)
Fuel & light costs: rose by 5% (Domestic heating oil + 26%, gas + 17%)

More of the same is on the way.

Average Earnings

The rate of growth of average earnings in the private sector in Jersey has seen a downward trend over the last decade. The latest increase of 1.1% is the lowest recorded since private sector earnings were first reported separately in 1995. 1 in 7 households were found to be in the category of relative low income before housing costs, rising to more than 1 in 5 households after housing costs (Jersey Income Distribution Survey report 2009/10)

Pensioners

During 2010 single pension increases were limited to less than £2 per week which many found inadequate to meet the increases in their basic living costs. That is why this proposition seeks to highlight the plight of those on low and fixed income who are faced with difficult and life threatening choice – heating or medical costs. Pensioner households account for half (50%) of the lowest income quintile before housing costs, and for two-fifths (37%) of the lowest income quintile after housing costs (Jersey Income Distribution Survey report 2009/10). How are they surviving?

versus Jersey Price Comparison 2010

Over the last 5 years food prices increased by 30% in Jersey, by 25% in the UK. The effect of the introduction of GST in May 2008 in Jersey is clearly apparent.
Direct food comparisons show that meat prices were, on average, about a quarter higher in Jersey than in the UK
Fresh vegetables were almost a third (31%) more expensive in Jersey than in the UK.
Since 2005, bread prices have increased overall by more than a third (35%) in Jersey.
Cereals have seen an overall increase of 38% in price in Jersey and of 25% in the UK.
Over the five years to June 2010, domestic energy prices rose by almost two-thirds in

Jersey (62%)

How can we expect the ordinary person to pay for GST on top of these rates of increase?

Conclusion

Since the introduction of GST in May 2008, the economy has changed. Consumer confidence reached an all time low as the recession bit into people’s spending power. Jersey did not respond by helping the ordinary citizen but rather by penalizing the individual with crippling Income Tax rates, impots and of course GST.

All this when some companies are not making a fair, or any contribution, to the tax take.

Unless GST is removed from basic essentials it will continue onwards and upwards, the time to stop it is now!

For more information please contact

Senator Alan Breckon

Tel: 01534 618532

a.breckon@gov.je

Vote on GST Budget Amendment 9^th December 2010

POUR: 24	CONTRE: 26
Senator B.E. Shenton	Senator T.A. Le Sueur
Senator A. Breckon	Senator P.F. Routier
Senator B.I. Le Marquand	Senator P.F.C. Ozouf
Connétable of St. Ouen	Senator T.J. Le Main
Connétable of St. Helier	Senator F.E. Cohen
Connétable of St. Lawrence	Senator J.L. Perchard
Deputy of St. Martin	Senator S.C. Ferguson
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S)	Senator A.J.H. Maclean
Deputy J.A. Martin (H)	Senator F.du H. Le Gresley
Deputy G.P. Southern (H)	Connétable of Trinity
Deputy of Grouville	Connétable of Grouville
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H)	Connétable of St. Brelade
Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire (H)	Connétable of St. Martin
Deputy S. Pitman (H)	Connétable of St. John
Deputy K.C. Lewis (S)	Connétable of St. Saviour
Deputy I.J. Gorst (C)	Connétable of St. Clement
Deputy of St. John	Connétable of St. Peter
Deputy M. Tadier (B)	Connétable of St. Mary
Deputy of St. Mary	Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S)
Deputy T.M. Pitman (H)	Deputy J.B. Fox (H)
Deputy A.T. Dupré (C)	Deputy of St. Ouen
Deputy M.R. Higgins (H)	Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré (L)
Deputy A.K.F. Green (H)	Deputy of Trinity
Deputy J.M. Maçon (S)	Deputy A.E. Jeune (B)
	Deputy E.J. Noel (L)
	Deputy T.A. Vallois (S)

B Company Tax versus Personal Tax 2000 - 2011

Year Total general revenue income £m* Company Tax £m % Personal tax (IT + impots + GST) %

2000 398 208 52% 166 42%

2001 415 227 55% 181 44%

2002 436 215 49% 198 45%

2003 444 216 49% 218 49%

2004 445 212 48% 212 48%

2005 467 202 43% 242 52%

2006 524 217 41% 257 49%

2007 559 238 42% 290 52%

2008 660 233 35% 352 53%

2009 674 214 32% 391 58%

2010 496 (E) 79 (E) 15% 362 (E) 73%

2011 521 (E) 65 (E) 12% 436 (E) 84%

*2000-2006 Treasurer’s Report p.xi. Financial Report & Accounts, 2006

2007-2008 Treasurer’s Report Table 2, p.7. Financial Report & Accounts, 2008

2009 Treasurer’s Report Table 4, p.8. Financial Report & Accounts, 2009

(E) Estimates Draft Budget Statement 2011 Summary Table B p.74

2011-03-08T16:57:00.000Z

BBC GUERNSEY REVEALS ITS COMPLETE POLITICAL BIAS - AGAIN

From Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/08/bbc-guernsey-reveals-its-complete-political-bias-again

2011-03-08T16:51:00.002Z

THEY'RE REALLY TOLERANT OF OPPOSITION IN GUERNSEY -TO THE POINT OF DEMANDING IT MUST STOP -
NOW

From Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/08/theyre-really-tolerant-of-opposition-on-guernsey-to-the-point-of-demanding-it-must-stop-now

2011-03-06T21:14:00.000Z

THERE IS ALWAYS AN APOLOGIST FOR TAX ABUSE -
TODAY IT IS SAINSBURY AND TESCO

from Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link:- www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/06/theres-always-an-apologist-for-tax-abuse-today-it-is-sainsbury-and-tescos

2011-03-06T18:29:00.002Z

Letter to the Jersey Evening Post

This gravy train is out of control

From John Heys.

SO now we move from the realms of the absolutely unbelievable to those of the totally ridiculous.

Articles in the JEP of 2 March state that there will be an urgent review of vast amounts of our tax being thrown away on unnecessary positions held by people brought over from the UK on the gravy train. There should be no need for a review, as it should not have occurred in the first place.

One such is a Mr McLaughlin, donated £216,000 after hasty downsizing from £312,000 with no real explanation from Health Minister Anne Pryke, who compounds the preposterous situation by actually proclaiming that she thinks it is good value.

Why was his engagement increased from three months to two years? And why has yet another UK survey team been engaged to look into the health system at a snip of only £730,000?

It is reassuring to know that Mr McLaughlin’s money is not a salary, but only a contract for services and our Chief Minister states that the poor chap will not even get sick pay or a pension. How on earth is he expected to survive?

Another revelation regards a Baroness Ford, engaged to head the Jersey Development Company at a measly £40,000 for 24 days attendance, or £608,333 for a full year.

Senator Le Sueur keeps stating that these ridiculous situations are good value for the money, yet it is he who has warned us all that things are tough and we are all to cut back on expenditure, that there must be savings by the States.

Both must not wait until October, but do the decent thing and resign right now before they agree to more damage to this troubled Island of ours. We just cannot afford this continued mismanagement.

Article posted on 5th March, 2011 - 3.00pm

2011-03-03T16:25:00.000Z

TAX US IF YOU CAN . AFRICA EDITION

from Tax Justice Network. Director: John Christensen

Live Link http://taxjustice.blogspot.com/2011/02/tax-us-if-you-can-africa-edition.html

2011-02-22T22:26:00.000Z

AS THE MIDDLE EAST STRIVES FOR FREEDOM WE MOVE TO RULE BY AN ELITE

from TAX RESEARCH UK, Director RICHARD MURPHY

Live Link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/02/22/as-the-middle-east-strives-for-freedom-we-move-to-rule-by-an-elite

2011-02-17T22:55:00.000Z

JERSEY IS CELEBRATING LOSING ON ZERO-TEN

from Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/02/17/jersey-is-celebrating-losing-on-zero-ten

2011-02-15T16:23:00.000Z

Jersey to keep Zero-Ten, but with the abusive bits taken out, and an unsustainable budget deficit.

from Tax Research UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/02/15/jersey-to-keep-zero-ten-but-with-the-abusive-bits-taken-out-and-an-unsustainable-budget-deficit/

2011-02-14T16:49:00.000Z

TERRITORIAL TAX,
the new threat to our tax base.

from Tax Reasearch UK, Director Richard Murphy

Live Link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/02/14/territorial-tax-the-new-threat-to-our-tax-base

2011-02-09T16:35:00.000Z

Just a domestic chartered accountant

from Richard Murphy , Director Tax Research UK

to read article please use link below

Live link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/02/09/just-a-domestic-chartered-accountant

2011-02-07T18:20:00.000Z

THE E.U. HAS MOVED QUICKLY TO KILL ZERO-TEN IN THE CROWN DEPENDENCIES

from Richard Murphy, Director of Tax Research UK

Live link www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/02/07/the-eu-has-moved-quickly-to-kill-zero-ten-in-the-crown-dependencies

2011-01-28T19:47:00.000Z

Finance, Faith and Jersey

Mike Dunn's interview with Richard Murphy on the 24th January, 2011, during Richards visit to Jersey.

to read the article please click on the following link:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/27/finance-faith-and-jersey

2011-01-27T16:36:00.000Z

From Richard Murphy – Director of Tax Research UK www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog

My Speech in Jersey on Monday 24^th January 2011

I promised to post my speech made on Monday evening in Jersey upon my return. This is it, for those with patience:

“Good evening and thank you for the warm welcome that I have received in Jersey today.

It’s amazing that when I put on my blog that I was coming here several serious journalists from well-known newspapers and news organisations called me. They wondered if I would be let in. They were concerned for my safety. Did I, they asked, think I could trust the authorities?

I was astonished by their line of questioning. I know I have been critical of Jersey, but it seems that the perception of your island in the popular, and even highbrow press, is much worse than you can imagine. And I assured all enquirers that I was not concerned for my safety, well-being or security and that I did not expect the Jersey authorities to take untoward action against someone who’s done a few very simple things, some of which have led me to talk about, write about, and broadcast about this great island on which you live.

Let me remind you what those things that I’ve done are.

In my work I have called for three things.

The first is for a massive increase in the transparency of the world’s financial system.

The second is an end to tax haven activity.

The third has been for the promotion of the concept of tax compliance - where people and corporations seek to pay the right amount of tax in the right place at the right time.

I have found it amazing, and still do find it amazing, that calling for three things that seem so obvious has given rise to such significant opposition. But let me deal with these issues and why they are of such importance to Jersey.

There can be absolutely no doubt at all that opacity within the world’s financial system helped create the financial collapse that we witnessed in 2008. I know that a great many people say the tax havens have nothing to do with this financial failure. To some degree they are right. As I’ve argued in my book on tax havens, nothing really happens in the offshore world. It’s all a giant pretence. In that case the financial crisis was, of course, created onshore. But that’s not the whole story.

What was happening onshore was hidden through offshore structures. It is not chance that Northern Rock had operations in the Channel Islands. And it’s not chance that one of the biggest funds based here belonged to HBOS, which failed so spectacularly and sought to bring Lloyds down with it. The opacity in these funds helped to create the world financial crisis because people could pretend for too long that all was well when it really was not. We’ve all paid the price for that.

And around the world we are still paying the price for that opacity. Now let me be clear - no one I know argues that individuals should have to undertake all their transactions under the blaze of publicity. They are entitled to privacy and I think they should have privacy precisely because if they undertake transactions in their own names they are personally accountable for the consequences.

But when people choose to use companies, some forms of partnership, trusts and other arrangements to undertake transactions using privileges granted to them by parliaments so that they are to varying degrees unaccountable for their actions then the price that I and others argue that they should pay for this privilege is that they be open and honestly accountable for the use they make of the privilege, such as limited liability, that societies have granted them to make sure that no one inadvertently suffers as a consequence.

Jersey, and a great many of the tax havens of the world - and let me be unambiguous when I say Jersey is a tax haven because I mean it - Jersey is a tax haven –have gone out of their way to abuse this principle of openness, honesty and accountability by those who take advantage of the privileges granted to them by society.

And when I say granted to them by society, that society is not, of course, in most cases Jersey society. It is society in the place in which they live. But there is an extraordinary characteristic of all tax havens which is that they go out of their way to provide secrecy for those who make use of their services, almost all of whom, of course, live somewhere else in reality. That’s why we also call tax havens secrecy jurisdictions. What Jersey, and other tax havens are doing is making sure that they create regulation for the benefit of people who do not live here which let those people who live somewhere else in the world avoid their obligations to the societies in which they really live. And they can do that because the deliberate veil of secrecy that Jersey and other tax havens provides to them that prevents the authorities in the places where they really live from identifying the fact that they are doing so.

Historically this deliberate abuse was of course designed to facilitate tax evasion. No one now pretends that this wasn’t the case. People from this island comment on my blog regularly saying that when I talk about tax evasion I am talking about what happened here until the late 1990s. And I’m sure it did.

My response to them though is a simple one.

How do I know tax evasion has stopped when the secrecy carries on?

How do I know tax evasion has stopped when at least 50% of all the personal bank accounts maintained by people not resident in this island who hold accounts in banks in St Helier do not disclose the information on income received to their home tax authorities?

How do I know it has stopped when despite the fact that you have signed some tax information exchange agreements the OECD says you have almost no practical experience of exchanging tax information - a fact confirmed by my correspondence with Colin Powell last year. you’re being compliant – and that means you have to be transparent.

This secrecy is pernicious. You can tell me Jersey does not want tax evaders’ money in the island, but your banks’ behaviour does not confirm that. You can say you are transparent, but when I cannot find out anything that goes on in a Jersey company, meaning anyone who trades with it is exposed to enormous risk, I cannot believe you. And you can say that you have the best reputation in the world, but because it is hidden behind a veil of secrecy that is deliberately impermeable because your government ensures that is the case, how do I really know that is true?

And how do I know that illicit financial flows, the sort of illicit flows that Christian Aid thinks cause the deaths of thousands of children in Africa each year because money flows out of that continent into Western banks as a result of the corrupt activities of their leaders, assisted by Western financial institutions in tax havens, how do I know these flows are not taking place in and through this island? How can I know? That is my question.

You can say, take my word for it, but I could have done that in the 1990s and then discovered that there was really tax evasion going on. I need to see that

Now of course, it’s not just you here in Jersey who needs to reform. So does Guernsey, so does the Isle of Man, and Cayman, and Monaco, and yes the UK and USA in some cases too. You’ve all got to reform – to be transparent, open, honest and accountable. It’s what the world is demanding. And it is what the world must get if the whole market economy is not to be dragged down and destroyed by the secrecy you supply and by the mistrust and chaos and corruption and non-payment of tax that secrecy causes. That’s the real risk.

And remember, all economists agree, markets can only deliver the best solutions for the people of the world if there is openness, honesty and accountability - if there is free access to information. That’s what I want. That is why I am the friend of free markets in this debate. It is the offshore finance industry that is its enemy, the force that threatens to destroy the market system like a cancer eating away inside it, waiting at any moment to bring it down as it almost did in 2008.

So you have a problem – a problem because you are threatening Western market-based capitalism. I agree, it’s not a problem made by Jersey alone. But you heard what the press said to me before I came. They think you’ve got a big problem on this issue. And they’re right.

And you have a tax problem too. The fact is that the EU has now said you’re not compliant with the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. I did, of course, warn they might when working with Ted Vibert and a shadow scrutiny committee here in the island more than five years ago. Jersey wanted to ignore what I said then. I suspect too that many in the Jersey establishment still want to ignore the message Europe – and ministers from the UK - have delivered now. But it is clear. And it is unambiguous. They say you are running an unfair tax system that is unacceptable to Europe and they have told the UK to make you change it.

They say you are running a tax system designed to help those who do not live here to not pay tax. And they say it’s unfair because the EU says that whilst your government is helping people who don’t live here avoid tax they’re making those of you who live here pay more tax. Look whose side Europe is on! It is the EU that is on the side of the people of Jersey. They’re not a threat to you. They’re trying to save you from the mess you’re in.

Your politicians won’t say that – because they’re seeking to penalise you for living in Jersey.

And the EU is saying it is wrong that you’re being forced to pay when others aren’t.

And they’re saying the fact that you’re paying when others aren’t is deliberate.

And that is not acceptable to Europe.

Or to put it another way – they’re saying despite all the protestations they’ve heard from your politicians you are as much a tax haven now as you were way back in 1997 when the EU began to tackle this issue.

And they say they’ve had enough – and they’ve told the UK to put things right.

And the UK is duty bound to do so – which is why all the talk of independence is re-emerging from those who want to make sure it’s you who will keep on paying to keep the secrecy of the finance industry in this island.

I know, of course, that your ministers say there is a review that might let them off the hook. But that’s wishful thinking, just as it was wishful thinking from 2005 to 2010 that I might be wrong, when I wasn’t. If I’ve learned anything over the last few years it is that the EU really does not like those who try to get round its rules on tax by playing fast and loose with the interpretation of those rules. But that’s what your ministers are doing – they’re hoping that by claiming that the abuse they promote is not in business tax but is instead in personal tax they can get away with it.

Note they’re not saying there’s no abuse. They’re effectively admitting there is abuse. They’re just saying that it’s legal abuse even if it still means you are a tax haven.

But why are they doing that? Just to keep the finance industry happy. A finance industry whose aim is to make sure that the wrong amount of tax – 0% tax in this case – is paid in the wrong place, which is Jersey.

I remind you. You can’t say the banking crisis did not happen offshore – as your finance industry claims - unless you also say nothing happens offshore except some accounting for transactions that really happen somewhere else. And you can’t claim no tax is paid as a result unless it’s also true that you’re a tax haven that is artificially relocating those transactions so that they’re recorded – and supposedly as a result are not taxed – in Jersey even when they should be recorded and taxed somewhere else. In other words, your politicians are helping people play games so they don’t pay tax where they should – and is it really any surprise as a result that Jersey is so deeply and profoundly unpopular elsewhere, including in the Treasury in London? No one likes someone who cheats them out of their money – and that is what Jersey is trying to do to the other countries in Europe. So much for the ‘good neighbour’ policy your politicians like to talk about.

But, it’s not only London that’s got reason to be annoyed. You have too. You’re paying the price for this. Way back in 2005 I suggested some other things would happen here as a result of the madness of zero/ten. The first thing that I said was that the taxes that Senator Le Sueur then said would make up the gap caused by zero/ten would do no such thing. I disagreed with him, openly and accountably at the time. I said you’d have a deficit of £100 million as a result of zero / ten.

And I said GST, which he claimed would be at 3% for good would increase and increase and increase so that the ordinary people of Jersey would be made to pay the price for the tax avoidance of those who enjoy the benefit of 0% tax – no tax at all – who are rich people from elsewhere. And that is exactly what has happened.

You have the financial crisis caused by zero/ten. There still is a financial hole in your budget of £100 million a year, as I predicted.

That is threatening your public services.

That is threatening your children’s education.

That is threatening your pensions.

Any politician who denies that is not telling the truth.

And every time I raise this point the answer is always the same: we can raise GST. So you will be filling the hole that companies left by their tax avoidance - tax avoidance that your politicians are encouraging but which you are paying for.

This is not sustainable. It’s often been said I’m no friend of Jersey. And it’s always been slightly painful to hear that. I first came to the Channel Islands as a boy. I learned to swim on Herm. I remember the old boats - the Sarnia and the Caesarea - with affection. I remember islands dominated by tourism, agriculture, old buses and of course, perpetual summer sunshine. I fell in love with islands, here in the Channel Islands. It’s a love affair that continues with them and their people to this day. If I have been a critic of what’s happened here, and in other places it’s because I believe that the finance industry has sold you short.

I accept that finance has brought jobs to Jersey. And I accept that notionally Jersey has one of the highest standards of living in the world. But young people can’t buy homes. Your brightest and best either go into finance or leave – and that’s not much of a choice. And as for politics, what choice have you got? A perpetual barracking that finance must be kept happy, or else.

Or else what? That’s the question I got round to asking because people here kept asking me to do so. What is the alternative, you asked?

Jersey used to do so much, but what it did has by and large gone. There’s finance left, and a service sector that by and large services finance. That is the hollowed out economy that John Christensen warned of when he was here – and because of which he left.

But unlike anyone else, it seems, I accepted the challenge of thinking about what else Jersey could do. In doing so I have accepte
d the fact that like it or not Jersey has developed some pretty strong expertise in finance, or at least in processing financial transactions that really take place elsewhere. So what, I asked, can Jersey do with that skill whilst it transitions to a new world – a world that will be – in the long run – more open to other business?

The answer was what I called Plan B for Jersey. I published this last summer. So far, as far as I know, it is the only alternative vision for your economy that exists. I accept that it is odd that it comes from outside your island. And I accept that many will reject it simply because I wrote it, although if that is the case I think it is an indication of closed minds on their part because I have offered it in good faith and at the request of all those who challenged me to do so.

The plan is, in essence very simple. It says that finance is now the core skill of this island, but that, unfortunately, the product that it wants to supply - based as it is on secrecy and unacceptable tax avoidance - is one for which demand will disappear as international regulation outlaws it, as I am certain will be the case. In that case I looked at your situation as if I was a marketing consultant, or a company director - and I have plenty of experience in that second role.

Whenever a company wants to expand it has four options. The easiest is to sell more of what it already supplies to its existing customers. But in this case, what you already supply is a dying product, so that won’t be possible. And in that case it will also not be possible to sell your existing product to new customers, which is the second alternative when marketing. Like it or not, many of your existing products are moving out of fashion. So that option is also a non-starter.

The hardest option is to supply a new product to new customers. You could, for example, launch an aerospace industry here in Jersey - but let’s be candid, this pushes the boundaries of credibility, so I ignored it.

That left me just one option left, and that was for Jersey to sell a new product to existing customers. And this is the option that I have suggested. Jersey Finance tells me, often, that Jersey’s clientele is in fact international finance, and is made up of sophisticated operators within that market. They say that Jersey is not really in the market for small-scale tax avoidance activity. And they suggest that there isn’t a significant private client business based in this island. What they say your island is doing is meeting the need of international finance for what they describe as a well regulated, tax neutral (by which they mean tax-free) location in which transactions can be recorded so that double taxation does not arise.

Now it so happens that I think the double taxation is a problem. I dislike it. I genuinely think that transactions should only be taxed once, albeit that if that takes place in several stages that is still once only, and let me also say that the world tax system is by and large set up to ensure that is the case.

But, I do think there are exceptions to this rule, and I recognise that to be the case. So, there may be a valid reason why Jersey might on occasion need to record transactions on behalf of multinational corporations to ensure that they are taxed once, and once only, albeit eventually at the proper rate in the location where they actually arise, and not at 0% here in Jersey alone.

But if that is true then it seems very obvious that secrecy need not be part of these deals. In fact, it seems to
be glaringly obvious that the multinational companies in question would want to draw attention to the problem of double taxation, which forces them to incur the extra cost of recording transactions in Jersey. And it also seems glaringly obvious that they would want the minimum amount of hassle from these transactions, which would mean that they would like them to take place under the glare of public scrutiny so that people can see that they’ve acted fairly, openly and honestly to make sure they pay tax once, and once only.

In that case there seems to be an important and entirely new market that Jersey could exploit. This is the market for a well regulated no tax location where international transactions can be recorded for the precise purpose of ensuring they are not double taxed. But that would require absolutely no secrecy whatsoever and everything to be on public record. In other words, far from Jersey being a secrecy jurisdiction, it would become the ultimate transparency jurisdiction for those companies around the world who want to highlight the problems in the world tax system, want to draw attention to them, want to avoid double taxation which is unfair, but who want to be open, honest and accountable when doing so when tackling this impediment to international trade.

If, as Jersey Finance says, Jersey wants nothing to do with tax avoidance and tax evasion but only to have the opportunity to undertake completely fair and appropriate transactions to avoid double tax then this surely is the way in which Jersey should make progress. And this would still, as Jersey Finance claims, allow money to float on to the City of London, but with the City then knowing that the funds in question were clean, honestly handled, and subject to appropriate tax in their eventual destination, without fear of a money-laundering or tax evasion inquiry arising. Which would of course make that money all the more welcome in the UK.

Again, this would give Jersey the most extraordinary competitive advantage in the world marketplace of financial services, because it would then be the one place in the world where you could undertake this sort of transaction without anybody having any doubt about your intention. Because everything will be on record and nobody would doubt that you were being anything but honest. That’s an advantage people would pay for.

I believe there must be a market for such a financial centre but there isn’t one anywhere in the world. That’s why I’m recommending it to Jersey. That’s why I think finance has a future in Jersey. That’s why I believe you can carve a niche for yourselves which is unique, and of which you could be proud. That’s how you could innovate in a way that nobody else has.

And that is why I am so disappointed that the reaction from the finance industry in Jersey was “we still need secrecy”.

Well tell me why in that case because if you do it must be because you’re doing something of which you, or your clients, are ashamed.

And that’s why the world’s press continues to believe you have a problem. And that’s why you will have a problem in gaining international credibility, and in making your books balance, and in your relationships with the European Union and the UK, and with the rest of the world until you come out of the world of secrecy in which you live and embrace the world of transparency, openness, honesty and accountability that the world demands of you and that you should deliver.

I’m convinced you could do that and hold your head high and have the finance industry here. I have offered plan B to Jersey. I think it could work. What are you frightened of? Because I’ll tell you, you have nothing to lose. Your existing finance industry is offering you a road to ruin. At least I have tried to put some hope on the table. It’s the least I could do.

And thank you for listening.

2011-01-27T10:03:00.003Z

from Tax Research UK, by Richard Murphy

JERSEY, opening a debate on finance

Jan 27th. 2011

The Jersey Evening Post has published the following article, and since it is an invitation to debate based on an interview I had with Andrew Sibcy on Tuesday I think it fair to repost it here:

The founder of the Tax Justice Network, Richard Murphy, is one of this Island’s harshest critics - or, to be more accurate, a regular, vociferous and dogged critic of the Island’s principal economic activity of offshore finance services.
Earlier this week he addressed Islanders at a meeting organised by the Jersey Democratic Alliance and the pressure group Time4Change. He did not, however, come here to harangue anyone or to launch a tirade of abuse. Unlike some who attack Jersey, he appears to be interested in genuine debate about the nature of offshore centres, though it is clear that the starting point of his argument is that such centres exercise a malign influence.
As a figure fuelling debate, Mr Murphy can, in fact, be seen as a counterweight to those who brook absolutely no criticism of the financial services sector. If the idea that all is rotten in the state of Jersey fails to stand up to scrutiny, the same can be said of the idea that every facet of finance activity is utterly beyond reproach.
To his credit, Mr Murphy came here with a template for change which he believes would not only remedy the deficiencies that he detects in our finance industry, but would also secure our economic future. In short, he has a ‘Plan B’ for Jersey.
The trouble is – at least from the point of view of those who insist that the Island is playing a tainted game – that there is a great deal of common ground between Mr Murphy’s Plan B and the Plan A that our industry and its regulators are already following.
The Murphy line is that Jersey can become a beacon of probity by encouraging honesty, accountability and transparency. On the understanding that reputation is everything, the political and regulatory drive of recent years has been in the direction of openness and the exchange of tax information with other jurisdictions.
The Tax Justice Network still judges the Island harshly, but time and again external authorities have examined what our industry and its regulators do and how they do it, only to conclude that we are, to use an expression much loved by finance specialists, ‘best of breed’.
Mr Murphy might argue that best is still not good enough and that the very basics of offshore business are fatally flawed, but does he really believe that the ideal, pristine conditions that he envisages will ever be a practical possibility in this imperfect world?

There are some minor issues in the article: I am, for example, one of the founders of the Tax Justice Network; there is collective responsibility for that shared amongst a small group of us.

And I would argue that there is less common ground at present than the artucle implies.

But it is quite true I cam to offer the chance of debate. And of evolution, and not revolution, becasue the latter is noit and will never be ny style.

And yes, I am offering debate. I do so having a vision of where I think a market opportunity exists, when I think there is little real prospect for much longer for what Jersey has to offer - at least when sold from Jersey.

I made clear, this is a plan. Plans take time to implement. Reform will be in stages. But it can only begin when there is recognition of an issue needing to be addressed.

I am quite sure that this exists. How about taking that as the starting point for discussion?

What’s the agenda:

a) How will Jersey raise revenue?

b) How will it tax corporations?

c) Why is it holding out on zero / ten?

d) When will Jersey cooperate on the European Union Savings Tax Directive as the Isle of Man and Guernsey are? And when will Jersey endorse the new European Union Savings Tax Directive - which is solely designed to keep away the tax evaded funds it says it does not want but for which, by refusing to endorse the Directive, it provides facility?

e) The Foot review demanded greater transparency on corporations and trusts from the British territories. When is that going to happen? When will, for example, accounts be on public record?

Lets start there, shall we?

CLICK ON FOLLOWING FOR LINK:

ShareThis

2011-01-25T21:49:00.000Z

Please scroll down for Richard's account of his visit to Jersey
The link is www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/25/jersey-yesterday-and-today

Jersey, yesterday and today

January 25th, 2011

Jersey really is a great place. It’s been a pleasure to be here – and I’m not expecting to change my mind after a meeting with local politicians this morning.

Last evening I spoke at a meeting in St Helier, talking, seemingly to the audience’s pleasure for 30 minutes and taking questions for more than 75 minutes after that, the while thing only slightly delayed by local television interviews.

I was honest – as I predicted I said Jersey is in a mess. I’ll publish the text of my talk later – simply because I forgot to bring the final electronic version with me. But what was interesting to me were the questions; questions that revealed deep concerns for this island, its people, its future and for social justice here and elsewhere.

Much of what I said has been published before, and I won’t repeat it. But I also dealt with independence – which I think would be a disaster for this island which is going to need all the friends it can get over the years to come: the problems that finance leaving here will cause – as will happen, and how the States needs to ensure that people are protected from the negative equity in housing that will follow, forcing banks to take this risk: and the fact that replacing zero / ten is going to be harder than local politicians in the ruling party seem to think or at least say.

This last point is crucial. This time, as I pointed out, they need to have the courage to not adopt a solution “Made in Douglas, Isle of Man”, not least because the VAT sharing agreement that let the Isle of Man propose zero /ten in 2000 has now been holed below the waterline.

And they can’t easily adopt territorial taxation because they know this will require their tax authority to ask where a Jersey company actually is – and prove it. This is something they have always refused to do to date – simply saying ‘”it’s not here – it’s elsewhere” and so have turned a blind eye to its activity and the possibility it might not be “elsewhere” but actually “nowhere”. Under territorial tax this deliberate turning of the blind eye could not happen. In that case the local tax authority here would have data to say where Jersey companies really were – data they could then be required to information exchange, and that would, of course, open up all sorts of unattractive possibilities for those using Jersey.

But those risks already exist. As I also pointed out, the one thing people in tax say they want is certainty. But Jersey’s politicians have made it clear that they will hang on to zero / ten like dying people clinging to the ropes of the lifeboat. Or in this case, they will hope against hope that the EU might decide that tax haven abuse in personal tax law is still abuse but legal when the identical abuse is unacceptable in business tax law. In the meantime though they will be in constant battle with the UK, who is duty bound to demand reform, and this will for some time to come remove all certainty from the Jersey tax system – which will hang in limbo for years potentially whilst a decision is made at the extraordinarily slow pace that typifies Brussels. And throughout that time no one will bring business to Jersey when thy have no idea what the future holds. The indecision on tax of local politicians will kill finance whatever the outcome in other words.

Or as I put it, in that case what have they got to lose by looking at my Plan B?

2011-01-18T14:42:00.000Z

IS JERSEY’S FINANCIAL FUTURE
IN DANGER FROM THE
ZERO- TEN TAX STRUCTURE?
IS BEING A TAX AVOIDANCE
CENTRE THE ONLY WAY?

COME AND HEAR ONE OF THE UK’S LEADING
EXPERTS ON TAX AND THE E.E.C

RICHARD MURPHY

At Hautlieu School Assembly Hall
Monday 24 January at 7pm
“JERSEY—MAKING FINANCE WORK FOR THE FUTURE”

Are you a concerned member of the public who wants to know why prices and taxes
are going up? If so come and listen to Richard and ask him any questions you like.
If you work in the finance industry, or the legal or accountancy professions, this is
your chance to listen to an authority on tax and to consider the suggestions being
made. Everyone welcome and there is no charge. Plenty of parking.

Event sponsored by the Jersey Democratic Alliance(JDA), the Tax Justice Network(TJN)
and Time 4 Change. Visit www.jdajersey.co.uk for more information.


Year	Total general revenue income £m*	Company Tax £m	%	Personal tax (IT + impots + GST)	%
2000	398	208	52%	166	42%
2001	415	227	55%	181	44%
2002	436	215	49%	198	45%
2003	444	216	49%	218	49%
2004	445	212	48%	212	48%
2005	467	202	43%	242	52%
2006	524	217	41%	257	49%
2007	559	238	42%	290	52%
2008	660	233	35%	352	53%
2009	674	214	32%	391	58%
2010	496 (E)	79 (E)	15%	362 (E)	73%
2011	521 (E)	65 (E)	12%	436 (E)	84%