From today's Jersey Evening Post:
DOZENS of super-rich immigrants are to be lured to Jersey with the promise of lower taxes under plans being drawn up by the Treasury.
Senator Philip Ozouf [the Finance Minister] is hoping to attract 15 tax exiles to Island shores a year by lowering the amount they have to pay on their worldwide income.
However, in return for the more generous tax rates, they would be required to pay at least £125,000 in income tax a year and 20 per cent on their Jersey income.
It is hoped that the lower rates will increase the cash coming into Island coffers, because more 1(1)ks would be bringing more of their money to be managed in Jersey — thus creating jobs and other indirect sources of income.
And despite that Jersey still has the nerve to say it is not a tax haven, which pushes the bounds of credibility to their limit.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
`It’s very good jam,’ said the Queen.
`Well, I don’t want any to-day, at any rate.’ said Alice.
`You couldn’t have it if you did want it,’ the Queen said. `The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday — but never jam to-day.’
`It must come sometimes to “jam do-day,”‘ Alice objected.
`No, it can’t,’ said the Queen. `It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know.’
`I don’t understand you,’ said Alice. `It’s dreadfully confusing!’
————————————————
Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll
The last sentence is an insult to the ~1,300 people currently unemployed, and seeking work in Jersey.
I can guarantee you, if 15 rich people moved here tomorrow, there would still be 1,300 people seeking work.
@Dan
But then the Jersey government is in the habit of insulting people — and living in a dream world far removed from reality.
That’s what it does.
Along with the governments of the Isle of Man and Gurnsey.
@PSG
And along with the UK government it seems; ‘Cuts are progressive, as are rises in VAT’, ‘there is no alternative to NHS reform’, ‘we are, yes, we really, really are, going to do something….errrrr, yes, well, something about the bankers’ etc, etc.
@ sickoftaxdodgers
Without wishing to be responsible for inciting riot …
Perhaps the youth of these wretched islands should follow the pattern set by the Tunisian protestors?
Taking care to ensure that their governments do not follow the example of the Tunisian former president’s wife, Leila Trabelsi, who(allegedly) spirited 1.5 tonnes of the central bank’s gold onto the aircraft that flew her and her family to safety in Dubai.
The wind of change is heading towards these islands …
Mercifully.
@ Dan
The IoM is touting the same idea – to the same result that you describe. These people don’t spend and contribute much to the local economy – they come so they can spend LESS. All it does is drive up property prices. And generally the more money they’ve got, the tighter they are with it!
Possibly true. Although the island would be taking in a minimum extra £1.875mio in income tax at a time when Jersey needs the cash! Plus I imagine these new residents would spend some of their wealth in Jersey, and now that you have GST this would also be a benefit to the island’s coffers.
I’m sure that the governments overstate the benefits of rich tax exiles, but there clearly are benefits. I also think that there are not too many downsides; house prices for the average person are not distorted by the super-rich and they are unlikely to be a drain on public resources.
But it is wrong to suggest they will reduce the unemployed.
@Greg
Its not the megre benefits to Jersey that people object to, it’s the disproportionate damage to the tax takes of other countries.
‘Tax competition’ is a race to the bottom.
@Alex S
That is fair enough, however I was responding to Dan’s particular point.
Broadly speaking though, we live in a free world where people are free to live where they like. If I wish to move to a lower tax jurisdiction, why shouldn’t I be able to? I’ve paid my taxes correctly where I currently live, so what is wrong with me moving to Jersey?
What a load of nonsense! I think you’ll find that the vast majority of the population of the “wretched islands” are pretty happy with their lives.
Greg
What the islands should be doing is offering specific tax breaks to wealthy immigrants to set up non-financial services businesses as a pro-active way to diversify the economy.
Specsavers in Guernsey is a prime example of how this can work. Two emigrees from the UK (husband and wife) sell up their regional chain of opticians in the UK to retire here, get bored, start from scratch with their own money and within around 15 years become a massive global player, employing around 400 staff on the island. Each and every Specsavers store in the UK is a joint venture with the Guernsey business, which adds massive value through marketing, branding, accounting services, VAT services, banking, stock monitoring/ordering/replacement etc. The Perkins family made some wealth in the UK, but made massive wealth AFTER moving to Guernsey. The Crown Dependencies would all benefit from 3 or 4 such companies, but I’m not talking about shifting existing UK businesses offshore – I’m talking about entrepreneurs setting up brand new businesses from their new offshore home. Their tax break could be linked to every new job created – with the proviso that the financial services element of the jobs are merely incidental to the new business. That provides extra career options to locals in media, advertising, sales, branding, IT, accounting, administration, HR – you name it. From somebody who works in finance – to me that process should have started 10 years ago but it didn’t.
PSG
Your post#5 is an utter disgrace. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. According to you, the islands are 100% corrupt. Even Richard wouldn’t dare make that claim. Every one of your postings reeks of bitterness yet you can’t be bothered to follow the proper legal process to seek redress for a commercial dispute which you might well win. Richard – I’m astonished that you allowed it to be posted.
@Rupert
I agree – (yes I mean that) – the islands do need new genuine business
I cannot argue with that, at all
And i assure you – the PSG do suffer the delete button – more often than you might think
But the truth is not as yo and Greg suggest – I think there is massive resentment of finance and you choose to ignore it
Much of it, of course, comes from those you force to leave
@Greg
If you move that’s OK
But it does not stop you being a tax haven – because that’s the only reason why someone would move in that way
SAo admit what you are
You can’t have it both ways
@Richard Murphy
Richard, I guess it boils down to your definition of tax haven. I think I prefer “low tax jurisdiction” but if that means tax haven in other peoples eyes then i’m not going to lose sleep over it.
You are correct that there is resentment in some quarters to the finance industry (in Guernsey anyway, I can’t speak for the other islands). However I am pretty sure that the majority are content with pretty full employment, low taxes, low crime rate and generally a high standard of life. Rupert is very right to point out that we should be aiming to diversify away from finance, but at present we generally are happy with what we’ve got.
@Greg
“I think you’ll find that the vast majority of the population of the “wretched islands” are pretty happy with their lives.”
As usual Greg you are only interested in expressing your own views which do not always correspond with the experience of others…
To see just how “pretty (un)happy with their lives” the people of Jersey are go to:-
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/12/07/jersey-protested-too/
But don’t let this stop you “posting”. The PSG is very patient.
@Rupert
Thank you for finding the time to provide the PSG with free advice.
The PSG has never claimed that: – “the islands are 100% corrupt”.
Only that the governments are corrupt in the way that financial services are “regulated”.
It is simply not true to write that the PSG has no idea what it is talking (or writing) about and every posting reeks of bitterness.
Have you a vested interest in making demeaning remarks to discredit the PSG?
The PSG is engaged in warning pensioners of the inherent dangers of investing their life savings on Jersey, the Isle of Man and Guernsey.
You may find this offensive —
The PSG considers it be in the public interest.
I would like to suggest 100 people out of a population of 90,000 does not equal a majority.
Getting back on topic for a moment. Isn’t this just more proof that a low-corporate tax/ high personal tax economy is just an advertisment for tax exile?
If the UK taxed corporate profits at 33% rather than 28% (and falling) we could reduce marginal rates of income tax. That would make this sort of action by the channel island futile. Combined with a US style system of allocation of profits based on location of fixed assets, staff and customers – we could shut these parasitic islands up once and for all.
Tax the profit where it’s made, don’t let people sweep it under the proverbial rug!
PSG
Re your post #16 above, I don’t recall ever seeing a post from you which supports your fourth sentence. You repeatedly make the same naive error of treating the three CDs as one and the same. What precisely is your issue with Guernsey?
I have no vested interest whatsoever on your legal case. I just find it unfathomable why your case, if you have a valid one as you claim, isn’t being fought through the legal system. It rather suggests that you have no case at all, and instead are determined to blame everyone else.
@Rupert
For those requiring evidence regarding the PSG allegation that the Premier Fund obtained bank transfers by producing misleading documents and that the Isle of Man government and others have dismissed this matter, the PSG will gladly forward copies of:-
* Premier’s misleading brochures
* Rulings/adjudications published by the UK Financial Services Authority
* Letters from Premier’s bankers, auditors, trustees and “introducers”
* Letters from the IoM Chief Minister, Office of Fair Trading & Financial Supervision Commission
* Copies of Hansard from the IoM House of Keys,
* Letters from members of Manx parliament
* And much more
Apply by emailing:- psa350@orange.es
PSG
Sorry but you just don’t get it, do you? It doesn’t matter how many members of the public see the documents. If the documents are evidence of wrongdoing then why are you not bringing a legal case against those concerned? Either you’ve got a case or you haven’t, and if you haven’t then circulating copies of your “evidence” achieves nothing. Who is going to take you seriously if you can’t manage to build a case?
In other words, put up or shut up.
And I note that you haven’t answered my question in which I asked what is your problem with Guernsey?
@Rupert
Respectfully, it is you who does not get it
I agree the PSG style can be annoying – and as I have advised, I do delete comments on occasion from them
But you utterly miss the point – which is that in a decent system the cnnsumer is protected. The FSA has just taken Barclays to task and fined them for abuse
The PSG point is no one is willing to do that in Jersey Guernsey and the Isle of Man and it is a fundamentally good point
That’s a failure in regulation
They should not need to go to court to make regulators regulate
By your admission that they should you admit that your regulators have failed
Isn’t that the case you must answer?
@Rupert
The PSG will gladly discuss the matter of “building a case” and Guernsey – but discussing it further is off-topic on this blog.
You are obviously very interested in this affair — and the PSG has nothing to hide — so forward an email contact address to Mr. Murphy and the matter can/will be fully explained.
@Richard Murphy
If the regulators are at fault, then the issue needs to be made public. The Guernsey Press would happily take up the case (for example). Even the Daily Mail would probably get involved, given that a great percentage of their readership are retired.
Unfortunately the PSG won’t publish the information. They will send hard copies, but I am not keen to give out a physical address to someone who i do not know.
Richard
If the regulators had power to be judge and jury, what’s the point of the courts? Does the UK’s FSA hear fraud cases? Of course not – they are heard in the Crown Court. The regulators then deal later with banning those found guilty. If the regulators act to find somebody guilty without being tried, then the regulators will be sued. Imagine the regulator taking away somebody’s livelihood, only for the person to be found not guilty of the “offence” in court? Regulators are not there to replace the courts, and do not take sides in commercial disputes where its often a case of “who said what to whom”, all based on evidence. Surely the right away round is for the courts to hear the case, at which time all evidence comes to light, and for the regulators to then act on the facts which emerge. Otherwise, how can the regulator access the full facts? Not all parties to a case would be under oath or or be under any obligation to provide all relevant documents to the regulator, so how can the regulator safely convict or acquit somebody? I remain convinced that the proper legal process hasn’t been followed here, and am far from convinced that there is a regulatory failure. Until all the evidence is known, how can anybody possibly opine on that? The courtroom is the place for the evidence.
Greg
I agree with you entirely.
PSG
I’m interested in any claim of this nature – but with no personal interest other than curiosity or, in this case, astonishment that you are not pursuing this through the courts.
PSG
Our rich tax exiles are a mixed bunch. There are those who do no more than take up one upmarket unit of our limited housing stock and pay just enough tax to keep two or three of the 1,300 in benefits. But, in fairness, there are also some who have thrown themselves whole-heartedly into the commercial and social life of the island and pull their weight better than most with a birthright to be here. If we can find more of the latter, it would be a good thing for us.
Although, as the topic’s headline points out, it is a false step in living down the tax haven reputation.
@Rupert
As ever you are wrong – regulators are judges and juries
But that does not suit you in the CI as you do not want to regulate – you just want to look like you could
Barclays were not fined in court
Richard
As ever – you are missing the point. And I still say that you are wrong – the regulator does not decide commercial disputes between parties – it merely deals with complaints against financial services companies.
Of course a financial services organisation can be charged and fined by a regulator. It happens in the UK and, believe it or not, it happens in the Channel Islands (and I assume the IoM). Please check your facts. There are examples out there.
But that of course doesn’t help the plaintiff in a civil claim to recoup their losses. The only way to do that is to win a civil action in a court of law. So if the IoM regulator agreed with PSG’s complaints and fined the financial services companies concerned, the PSG investors would still get nothing until they were to win in court, at which point evidence might well come to light which shows the regulator to have acted wrongly, at which point the regulator gets sued.
If I’m wrong, please tell me where.
@Rupert
Sometimes your rambling lack of logic is difficult to decipher …
This is FACT…
* Barclays were fined a record £7.7million for flogging wrong investment policies to pensioners.
* The bank was also ordered to pay £60 million in compensation to the pensioners.
These penalties were imposed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) who serverly reprimanded Barclays for selling two supposed “low-risk” investments to 12,331 people who had “invested” a total of £692 million.
The FSA picked up the Barclays’ “mistakes” through its own supervisory team and FSA enforcement chief Margaret Cole said: – “The FSA requires firms to have robust procedures in place to ensure any advice given to customers is suitable. On this occasion Barclays failed to do this”.
Barclays also failed to: – properly train sales staff, put “inadequate” information in sales brochures and take action when it became aware of the mistakes.
This fine is the highest “neglect of care” penalty ever issued by the FSA.
The similarities between the Barclays’ case and the allegations made by the PSG regarding the Premier Low Risk Fund plc are remarkably similar.
Contact psa350@orange.es for evidence to support this claim:-
To borrow your own delicate turn of phrase — “put up or shut up”.
Or contact the PSG. See @Greg below
@Greg
“Unfortunately the PSG won’t publish the information. They will send hard copies, but I am not keen to give out a physical address to someone who i do not know.”
Posting hard copies of prima facie evidence to members of the public is generally accepted as “publishing information”.
As the self appointed “knight in shining armour” protecting the reputation of Guernsey you seem to be prepared to take rather less risks than most knights
Knights were/are soldiers who rode on horses and helped women in difficult or dangerous situations as in:-
“She looked around the bar to see if there was a knight in shining armour who might come and save her from this awful man.”
Would you prefer to give your address to the lady rather than the awful man?
Or neither?