Attac Jersey is a Member of the International Tax Justice Network. We are Members of the Association for the Taxation of financial Transactions for the Benefit of Citizens, (ATTAC) and the Tax Justice Network, (TJN). The aims of both organisations are to research, educate and campaign to further public awareness. We are seeking to alleviate poverty through the creation of just taxation systems to fund social goods.

Friday, January 28, 2011



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

Thursday, January 27, 2011

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


My Speech in Jersey on Monday 24th 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. 


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.

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:

Tuesday, January 25, 2011


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?

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

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.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

afficher les détails 18:28 (Il y a 39 minutes) 
Hello Everyone
 
Good news for those of you who live in Jersey.  An important event not to be missed! 

Richard Murphy will be speaking on:-

  "Jersey - Let finance work for you"

at

7.pm at Hautlieu School Hall on Monday 24th January. 

There will be plenty of time for questions. 

Ample space for parking. 

However, please come a few minutes early if you possibly can so as to begin promptly.



Looking forward to seeing you there.

Pat

Friday, January 14, 2011

Letter to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post.  www.thisisjersey.com 

Slammed for telling an inconvenient truth

January 13, 2011 – 3:00 pm
From Deputy Montfort Tadier.

Dear Editor,



I write to you to correct some inaccuracies in your report (JEP, 12 January) about my recent appearance on Mark Thomas’s BBC radio programme.


The figures relating to the number of Islanders receiving financial support were not ‘botched’, as your political correspondent Ben Quérée claimed in the article and the percentage that the Social Security Minister has given does not tell the full story.


On top of the supposed 17 per cent who receive income support, there are many others in receipt of ‘financial support’ (what I was asked about) in other forms. For example, in 2009 1,732 residents claimed the GST (‘Food Costs’) bonus.


The GST bonus is given to adults who are not in receipt of Income Support, but who do not earn enough to pay income tax. It is deemed that their income is insufficient for them to afford to pay for foodstuffs as well as the associated three per cent (soon to be five per cent) tax, so they are compensated for the latter.


In other words, they receive financial support from the Government to meet the costs of subsistence. This is paid out by the Social Security department, but is not recognised in the 17 per cent figure which Deputy Gorst has quoted. For some technical reason – no doubt to help keep the figures down – it is not considered part of Income Support. Is it financial support? Quite clearly, yes. Is it paid out to low-income households? Again, yes.


We can go on to consider other benefits that are necessary for many residents simply to survive in Jersey’s affluent society.


For example, there are roughly 6,200 social rental homes in Jersey – some owned directly by the States, others by Housing Trusts – yet 30 per cent of States tenants and 70 per cent of those in Housing Trusts are not on income support.


Though their income is above the threshold to qualify for Income Support, they are still not in a position where they can afford to pay the inflated market rates that are required in the private sector. Again, these are not included in Deputy Gorst’s very narrow and conveniently low figures, Yet this, too, the provision of housing at below market rate, is another form of support which is necessary for many Islanders to be able to live in what is becoming an increasingly expensive Island, with acute problems when it come to the supply of affordable accommodation.


Of course, what these Statistics do not take into account are the many hard working Islanders who have lived here for three or four years, who pay social security, who pay income tax, who often pay a premium for non-qualified housing – sometimes of questionable quality – yet who cannot claim Income Support and who will not be compensated by the GST (‘Food Costs’) bonus (something pointed out last month by Mr Ferey of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau).


It is a shame that reporters took the Minister’s ‘lean’ figures at face value, while trying to inculpate me for some kind of ‘high treason’, because I dared, on national radio, to tell an inconvenient truth.


The matters raised in Mark Thomas’ radio show regarding Jersey may not be flattering for those in Jersey’s ruling elite, however, ordinary residents in Jersey, those on marginal incomes and the 8,000 or so who have already signed the GST petition asking for the dismissal of Treasury Minister Senator Ozouf do not need Statistics and, to tell them what they already know: That life in Jersey is a struggle.


That they cannot always be sure to meet the bills at the end of the month; they cannot necessarily afford to send their children to university and that very real choices have to be made – for some – between heating and eating.


Moreover, it is high time that more local journalists take a leaf out of Mr Thomas’ book and start asking inconvenient, but essential questions about how it is that in a supposedly rich Island such as Jersey there is such a large section of society who are struggling daily in a very real way to make ends meet; why Jersey cannot afford to provide school milk for children and why we are having to close key heritage sites, prized by locals and tourists alike, because Jersey is simply too poor to afford these luxuries.


When this starts to happen perhaps public confidence will start to be restored and some politicians will be shamed into working for the working people of Jersey and not against them.


Article posted on 13th January, 2011 - 3.00pm



Treasure Islands -

 second Guardian extract

Following Saturday's long double page spread in the Guardian featuring Nicholas Shaxson's new book Treasure Islands, the second and final serial extract has now run.

It looks at the historical emergence of the offshore system, in overview, and especially at the role of Britain and the Bank of England.
Read, and enjoy. And join the debate here.
POSTED BY TJN AT 12:14 AM

Saturday, January 8, 2011

NEW BOOK PUBLISHED THIS WEEK:


Treasure Islands: the best book on tax havens, ever


on the subject of Nicholas Shaxson's new book "Treasure Islands"  As you'll see below the book has its own dedicated website and is also being serialised in the Guardian.


Treasure Islands available from Amazon for £9.29.
 The link is www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/08/treasure-islands-the-best-book-on-tax-havens-ever

Tuesday, January 4, 2011





Link to Richard Murphy's blog at Tax Research


THE LITTLE RED BOOK THAT SWEPT FRANCE
 by Stephane Hessel 


condense and comment  of an article in the Independent,
Monday, 3 January, 2011


link to:
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/a-message-of-resistance