David Cameron's demand to tax havens that they open themselves up to transparency, issued yesterday, is not all it seems. The demand that campaiganers have made is for public registries of companies and trusts that reveal acccounts and beneficial owners. Nothing less will ensure transparency, accountability and the commercial level playing field that is essential for business to prosper.
But note what Cameron offers:
Some of you have already led the way with public commitments to produce Action Plans on beneficial ownership — and I hope those who have yet to can do so as quickly as possible. Getting the right content in these plans will now be critical. These will need to provide for fully resourced and properly managed centralised registries, that are freely available to law enforcement and tax collectors, and contain full and accurate details on the true ownership and control of every company.
This is a closed, secret registry. That's nothing like what is needed.
Trust David Cameron to be the true friend of tax haven secrecy.
After all, it was by working in the offshore industry that Cameron's father financed David's path through Eton to power. On this one I think it safe to assume Cameron knows exactly what he's doing.
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!
Why is this a problem? The very people who should know who owns an offshore company will know. Why does snooping Joe Public or the media need to know? Its absolutely none of their business.
If its an offshore company which somebidy wishes to enter into a trading transaction with, then its very simple. The other party will demand to know that same information before trading with them. That achieves exactly the same objective. For a private wealth holding company there is no need to anyone else to know.
The objectives are to end tax abuse (hence the tax authorities will know), and to end other abuses (hence the law enforcement agencies will know). Those objectives will therefore be met in full. Nobody else has any need to know, other than nosiness.
The destruction of democracy by global capital hidden behind a veil of se recy is, I think a problem
You may not
But that would tell us a lot
Richard
It wouldn’t be “hidden” though, would it? The tax authorities and law enforcement agencies would have full access to it. The “veil of secrecy” only exists for those who have no need to access that information.
It has nothing to do with “democracy”. I don’t know how much money you have in your bank account. Why would I want to know? It’s none of ny business.
Howver Peter if the governments are captured by vested interests……..
Peter, so hiding cash in an offshore private wealth company is OK? Even if the cash has been “spirited away” without scrutiny by the country from which the cash came? You surely realise that the point about transparency is that, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Perhaps Mr Murphy can disclose his financial statements on line, to set an example.
But I do
My full accounts – not required by law – are on public record
Why assume that privacy has no democratic value? Where did that idea come from, the Stasi?
You can have privacy
Don’t incorporate
Incorporation has privileges. The responsibility is accountability
Incorporation is not a right
The responsibility is a choice that comes from the privilege
Nick James
What you suggest is criminal activity (spiriting away without scrutiny). There is no place for that and such activity would of course be caught if tax authorities and law enforcement agencies have access to beneficial ownership records so that they can ask the right questions.
But contrast that with somebody who has sold their business or inherited wealth and paid all taxes due, and who then wants privacy going forward re their personal wealth, undertaking fully legitimate estate planning and being fully tax compliant. They have nothing to fear from the tax authorities or from law enforcement agencies, but if every Tom, Dick or Harry or newspaper is able to know about their structures, then they have lost their privacy and are not abusing anything. A vast amount of offshore wealth fits that description.
Abusive? Definitely not.
The desire to mitigate tax via a company is a privilege conditional on disclosure – it is not a right
Richard
Wrong. What you describe is your belief, your wish. Nothing more.
Where does it state that “incorporation is not a right”?
It is granted by the state to those deemed fit to use it
That is not a right
It is a privilege
Wrong.
It’s granted to absolutely anyone, with no strings attached.
Not at all
Not in legitimate states
Even if you accept the argument that full access should only be available to those who need it, that would surely presuppose that those with access are fully independent of the very people they would then have information on.
In a period where the lines between Government and Big Business have been blurred by corporate capture, there is even more reason why a fully open register is required.
Those outside of the closed world Peter suggests is acceptable, need to have both trust in those doing the policing and the ability to hold them to account. That can only truly be achieved through a register open to all.
Peter
But what if the governments and hence the tax authorities and the law enforcement agencies are captured by vested interests….
theremustbeanotherwaay
In the most unikely event that was the case, what possible impact could Joe Bloggs have? Take over the law enforcement agencies?
They are.
See Jersey.
James
Not true. Its a democracy. Anybody can stand for election. Funny how the electorate keep voting in the same people. Speaks volumes.
In a one party state captured by finance that’s what happens
There is no party! Every stands as an individual candidate. Anybody can stand. Its impossible to be more democratic! Are you seriously suggesting that every independent candidate is “captured by finance”?
Complete nonsense. The voting public of Jersey vote for individuals, not parties.
There is no party as there is one party
“There is no party as there is one party”. What on earth does that mean?
Are you seriously suggesting that every candidate who stands for election in Jersey is hand picked by “them”? Really? Syvret, Tadier, the Pitmans – all chosen by “them”?
Sorry but that’s just not true. Everybody is free to stand. All they need is a proposer and seconder. They all have a limit on their campaign spending. Its a free vote, with a higher electoral turnout than in the UK. The public vote for whoever they want, or are you alleging vote rigging?
It could not be more democratic.
You seem to be of the impression that a true democracy cannot exist without political parties. Well, no thank you. One only needs to look at the prime examples of the UK and Continental Europe to see that political parties breeds corruption. Are you saying that’s a good thing? Surely not.
Every review of Jersey has shown that there is no effective democracy – there has never yet even been a general election or a chant of government
Some democracy
What do you mean?
There’s a full election every 4 years. Open to everyone.
Not sure what you mean by “no chant of government”. If you mean “no change of government” then that’s because the voting electorate haven’t voted for change. And there is nothing stopping them from doing so. They get the government that they vote for. Surely that’s true democracy?
What you really mean is that people who you would like to see with more power in Jersey don’t get elected. The reason for that is because the voting electorate haven’t voted for them. That’s democracy for you.
Or am I missing something about democracy? Political parties are NOT a pre-requisite for a democracy.
Or, for all your protestations, there is actually a one party state
It’s called finance
Richard
Sorry but that is unequivocally not true.
If the public of Jersey wanted to be run differently, then they would do something about it by standing for election and by voting accordingly. The harsh truth is that they don’t. They are getting what the majority actually in effect vote for – which is a finance-dominated economy.
Yes, there are of course Jersey resident voters who don’t want a finance-dominated economy. I don’t deny that its a growing number. But its not a majority, indeed not anything close to a majority, and so the electorate, as the staying goes, get the government that they deserve.
The turnout is high, indeed higher than the UK, so its not apathy.
There are absolutely no obstacles to enough people standing on an anti-finance industry ticket and lobbying for votes from the electorate. It doesn’t happen, which speaks volumes.
Sorry Richard, but the people that you know in Jersey who are anti-finance industry just do not have the support of the electorate in enough volume to make a difference, so the majority view prevails, by a big margin. Maybe the individuals concerned are people with no charisma who cannot carry enough voters with them.
There is no ban whatsoever on political parties. There is no ban either on groups of candidates standing as a “bloc”. But it doesn’t happen. You can’t force it to happen if there is no appetite for it to happen. A political party by definition can only exist if there are sufficient like-minded individuals to come together. There isn’t.
A finance industry-influenced government is the result of the democratic elections. Is is NOT the cause of that outcome. The people can only choose from those who choose to stand! Those who are anti-finance need to stand for election and get elected. If they can’t do that, then they are clearly not really that bothered. That’s what the facts clearly indicate.
You are absolutely, factually wrong to say that the finance industry is a “party” in Jersey. There is simply no evidence for you to be able to claim otherwise.
Peter
Do you also spend time trying to persuade people there are fairies at the bottom of your garden?
You might as well
Walker, Le Seuer, Ozouf, et al have all made my case for me over many years
Richard
Capturing an administration and government by vested interests is called a democracy. Companies and trusts don’t vote.
But their money captures states and subverts democracy
Behind veils of secrecy
Ipsos custodes quis custodiet?
I think that the answere is we all do in a democracy!
Openness and transparency are therefore vital to maintain a healthy democracy, as they act as a deterrent to those that would exploit government to their advantage to the detriment of others.