There’s a fascinating comment on this blog this morning from someone from Guernsey called Doug. It’s thoughtful and considered and concludes:
I agree that [Low Value Consignment Relief VAT abuse] needs to be examined and the government should stop it because it damages the economy in this country and reduces the chances of a fair market in this country, but are we going to evacuate the people who live there like St Kilda, because I’m not sure there would be much left to do for Guernsey people without tax exploitation.
It’s an extraordinary argument — the so called entrepreneurial hub of the Channel Islands can think of nothing to do to make money bar tax exploitation.
First this gives lie to the claim that this facilitates enterprise. It doesn’t. It harms it.
Second, it blows apart the claim that it is entrepreneurial. It isn’t. It is manipulative.
Third, it shows the poverty of thinking in the governments and amongst the so called business leaders of these islands that they can come up with nothing else.
I have, of course. It’s called Plan B. It’s yours to have. But it would require real entrepreneurial belief and moral leadership to do it. Maybe that’s what’s missing. But don’t ever say I didn’t deliver an alternative. Because almost uniquely I have.
And finally — quietly note that just because there might be nothing else for burglars to do does not mean we don’t want to stop the crime. The analogy with tax exploitation is, of course, remarkably close. I put it to you that your argument is morally bankrupt — as morally bankrupt as tax exploitation.
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:
Inverted logic; How is taking less of people’s money exploiting them? Interesting burglar analogy, an attempt to equate not taking people’s money with the theft of plasma tv’s. Good examples of how the control of language is vital in convincing someone that black is white, to exploit is to take less of someone else’s property. I’m off to call the Inland Revenue ‘I love being taxed, it’s not fair that the Belgians get to pay more tax, stop exploiting me, tax me more!!!!’.
@Rick
You do not own the money – government does
the property right is conditional on paying the tax associated with it
Your logic is perverted at best – and is a denial of the legitimacy f all property rights created by government. You’ll find that without cudgels that’s who does make them.
So you’re just plain wrong
@Richard Murphy
What law gives government the right to all property? We are sovereign. You have the mind of a tyrant.
@Rick
Shall we start with the law of property and think who establishes it?
Flattered I’m sure – just as a point of clarity, I’ve not lived in Guernsey for a decade, but I did grow up there and I do still have many friends and one side of my family lives/is from there, and I try to keep abreast of developments. I’m a trade union activist and have actively taken part in recent UKUncut actions – my position isn’t a defence of the exploitation, but a consideration for the thousands of normal people that live on the islands – and only benefit from it in so much as it keeps them in work, they don’t actually avoid taxation themselves.
Your plan B – which is specifically for Jersey, looks like a really interesting document and I will take the time to read it all. The basic idea serves well for both Guernsey and Jersey, and the infrastructure which exists there would without a doubt be able to handle and nurture a seismic systematic shift like that.
Your plan B is still exploiting the islands geo-political situation, so to a certain extent my underlying point still stands, that there isn’t much for them to do but exploit their geo-political situation (which currently manifests itself as tax exploitation – but as you note, it doesn’t need to). Your plan does push them in a direction of doing that in such a way that is not detrimental to other countries, and I like it.
In my personal opinion, your third point that they lack the thinking to develop a sustainable alternative is correct. Guernsey is a naturally conservative place — one only has to look back historically at the length of time it took Guernsey to make not wearing a seatbelt in the front seat of a car illegal, it’s still not law to wear one in the back seat if you are over 14. Some of the debates which took place round the original law for the front seat beggar belief. Guernsey doesn’t do change very well, and never has done.
It is also worth noting that the Jersey situation is different to Guernsey – Guernsey has nothing like the deficit as a % of GDP that Jersey (or the UK) has, it’s been genuinely fiscally prudent for a number of years and is not, as far as I’m aware, in the same place economically as Jersey. This means that the likely hood of Guernsey changing its ways seems unlikely in the near future — although the reality is that they are in a stronger position to take that risk.
Oh, Richard, stop taking the Rick bait. You know it makes sense:o)
@Richard Murphy
That depends who you ask – God, Parliament, one’s self. The point is we decide for ourselves, individually, who to submit to if at all.
@Rick I’d say a better analogy is opium poppy farmers…. They need a new less toxic crop
I don’t think that analogy is correct. Why do opium poppy farmers need a new crop?
I don’t agree with Doug’s comments re the VAT “abuse”. There are not that many people employed by the fulfillment industry in Guernsey, and the majority are non-local who would probably just return to their homeland should they lose their jobs.
The entrepreneurial culture in Jersey is being strangled by the existence of housing/business laws and the way they are applied to the benefit of financial services companies and the detriment of everyone else. I am not sure that the same is true in Guernsey (where they have work permits), but I suspect it is no better and might actually be worse.
@Greg Opium Farmers grow opium because it gives them an income not because they want to promote drug use. If they can be encouraged to grow other crops and the demand and trade in opium can be diminished then they don’t have to be involved in a harmful activity. Tax abuse appears to be similar in that you say those involved in the workings of the business are not involved in tax avoidance but merely derive an income from the industry. There must be other less detrimental industries that could thrive in Guernsey .
@Richard Allen
I’m sorry but your opium analagy makes zero sense. Do you really think we should force farmers to change their way of life because of our habits?
You clearly don’t get this. I can’t even understand your response….