FT.com / UK / Economy & Trade - UK ‘better off with’ tax havens.
Offshore financial centres have a beneficial economic impact on neighbouring industrialised countries, according to a study commissioned in a bid to counter growing political pressure on tax havens.
The study said “a large body of economic research over the last 15 years” contradicted the popular view that offshore centres erode tax collections, divert economic activity and otherwise burden nearby high-tax countries.
The study was commissioned by STEP, a London-based professional body for wealth advisers, who make extensive use of offshore jurisdictions. It was published in advance of this weekend’s G20 meeting in St Andrews, where political leaders are set to discuss how to help developing countries secure the benefits of exchanging tax information.
Let's be clear: the Socoety for Trust and Estate Praxctitioners have been behind many of the abusive developments in tax havens in recent years, including the VISTA trust in BVI and its related forms - a fact that has been boasted about on web sites before now.
This report is about one thing: preserving and enhancing the wealth of the richest in society at cost to everyone else.
If that is a 'benefit' then of course they are entirely right.
If it is not - as I argue - then this report is an exercise in thinly disguised attempt at manipulation of the majority for the benefit of a tiny minority.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
The connection of this study with STEP no more invalidates the research behind it, than your connection with the TUC or TJN invalidates yours. I am not saying I agree with this article, but I would be most interested in your reaction to the specific points it raises.
Vicar
I am beginning to have serious doubts that you are a vicar
Unless you can prove to me you are offline you will not be allowed to abuse the term on this site
Richard
Richard,
I AGREE with what you are saying about this article, so there is no need to reactly so aggressively. I would have thought my more recent remarks would have demonstrated my sympathy with many of the points you are making. I am just looking for information to back up it up what you have said about this FT article. What is wrong with that?
I AM a parish priest, and have been for fouteen years. I am honestly searching for the truth. Discerning the truth in any contentious issue involves balancing the arguments on either side. I want to know why the points raised in the FT article are wrong. I am genuinely sorry if that causes you offense.
Talking of STEPs bias is a bit the pot calling the kettle black no?
And using the old trick of if you can’t disprove the message attck the messenger, lol
Disclaimer: I am a member of STEP, and do not inherently dislike wealthy people due them being wealthy.
I think that is a legitimate question, Manx Vicar.
It is quite easily answered. STEP speak for a teeny weeny minority, but like Scientology, big bucks buys brethren. This type of elitist rhetoric has been accepted as wisdom through the sheer power of lobbying, which we all know has ceased to be a proposition of an alternative but rather threats through wealth manipulation. “Mess with us and we’ll leave/take you down/expose hypocrisy”. The media don’t need to get new responses to questions of their integrity, they just copy/paste.
What is the TUC? What is the TJN? What is their common motive?
Do you really believe the rabid detractors accusing Richard Murphy/TJN of some communist/envious/EU/Anti-Islandist terrorism? Or are the questions of human dignity, social progression and sustainable futures not pertinent against the backdrop of excessive and wasteful resource distribution, capital theft and blatant corporatist exploitation of innocents?
The observable truth is obscured by idolatory. Just look at the numerous studies proving that inequality erodes society.
The way these guys argue for secrecy and self regulation is parallel to the Mafia arguing that the neighbourhood is a better place for their benevolence. It’s not to say that that kind of braggadocio doesn’t have a role to play in furthering human ambition, but the bully needs channeling, and that requires moral conviction.
And that’s where we need trained abstract thinkers. RM et al have enabled the technical and academic argument to directly compliment a wide spectrum moral argument for Human justice. In my opinion, it is a duty of the organised religions, as leaders of men, to apply the universal understanding of existence that is earned through dedicated service, to question groups like STEP and their REAL contribution to life on Earth.
As it is supposed to be in Heaven.
Arnald,
Thank you for a courteous, well reasoned, and articulate response.
[…] have already commented briefly on the STEP report on international finance centres — otherwise called tax havens / […]
[…] have already commented briefly on the STEP report on international finance centres — otherwise called tax havens / […]
[…] is the STEP report on which I commented last week. Amazingly Peter Niven thinks the two support each other, saying: This interestingly […]
[…] is the STEP report on which I commented last week. Amazingly Peter Niven thinks the two support each other, saying: This interestingly […]