Tuesday, August 30, 2011

NO MORAL CASE FOR TAX HAVENS

A BBC economics expert remarked only last week that "the world is closing down for tax evaders.   Soon there will be no place for them to hide their secret wealth"

He was commenting on the recent decision of the Swiss authorities that will allow UK tax inspectors access to secret bank accounts held in Switzerland and will enable them to recoup up to £6 billion a year

I have been warning about how vulnerable the Jersey economy is for some years now.  I have argued that our whole economy is built on a foundation of sand which is shifting and eroding and we are very vulnerable to any change in tax laws in various countries who find themselves adversely affected by our activities

Countries are now no longer prepared to stand by and watch their tax laws evaded and slowly but surely the noose is tightening around tax havens like Jersey.   Nicholas Shaxson, the author, has written a devastating book "Treasure Island" in which he lays bare the whole disgraceful industry of tax evasion and tax avoidance which has become an international best seller

It has also opened the eyes of serious financial journalists and politicians and more and more newspaper articles are appearing in the international media about dubious and dodgy practices of "international finance centres"   The latest appeared in yesterday's Sunday Independent which I am happy to reprint in full

Headed "THERE IS NO MORAL CASE FOR TAX HAVENS and a sub-heading of "They are the epitome of unfairness and injustice, leaving ordinary citizens to foot the bill for multi-national corporations". .

Independent Sunday, 28 August 2011

There is a building in the Cayman Islands that is home to 12,000 corporations. It must be a very big building. Or a very big tax scam. Tax havens are in the spotlight since the Chancellor, George Osborne, did a deal the other day with the Swiss authorities to slap a levy on secret bank accounts held there by British citizens. Opinions are divided on the move, which could net the Treasury £5bn, but which tacitly legitimises bank accounts kept secret from the Inland Revenue. It is a de facto amnesty for those guilty of tax evasion crimes. And they will pay less than they would if they declared their income to the British taxman.
Are there any legitimate reasons why anyone would want to have a secret bank account – and pay a premium to maintain their anonymity – or move their money to one of the pink dots on the map which are the final remnants of the British empire: the Caymans, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands?
The moral case against is clear enough. Tax havens epitomise unfairness, cheating and injustice. They replace the old morality embodied in the Golden Rule of reciprocity – that we should do as we would be done by – with a new version that insists that those who have the gold make the rules.
The old view, the neocon American Christopher Caldwell wrote recently, subscribes to a religious understanding of money that was universal in the Christian world before the rise of Protestantism, which acknowledges that people are alive but money is not, making it wrong for the latter to take precedence over the former – a notion as outdated as usury, he suggested tartly.
But what is the moral case for tax havens? We can dispense with the argument advanced by their administrators that if they didn't take the money it would simply move to more distant locations; that is the self-serving logic of a man who sells torture equipment to an oppressive regime. Apologists insist that tax havens protect individual liberty. They promote the accumulation of capital, fair competition between nations and better tax law elsewhere in the world. They also foster economic growth. So much so, the Institute of Directors has said, that Britain should not curb tax havens but emulate them, promoting the growth of more hedge funds in the UK.
Yet even if all that were true – and it is not – does it outweigh the ethical harm they do? The numbered bank accounts of tax havens are notoriously sanctuaries for the spoils of theft, fraud, bribery, terrorism, drug-dealing, illegal betting, money-laundering and plunder by Arab despots such as Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali, all of whom had Swiss accounts frozen.
The corruption spreads contagion, as the financial writer Nicholas Shaxson showed in Treasure Islands, his book about offshore finance which exposed secrecy, corruption and intimidation in places as seemingly innocent as that land of milk and money, such as Jersey in the Channel Islands.
But the moral bankruptcy of the tax haven runs deeper. Indeed it is intrinsic to its purpose. The British Virgin Islands is the global capital for the incorporation of offshore companies. Though it has a population of just 22,000, it has 823,502 registered companies which make vast amounts of money through the wonder of transfer pricing. It works like this. Suppose I manufacture a product in Africa and sell it in the UK. If I am a canny businessman I set up an intermediate company in a tax haven. It need do nothing except exist on paper. But through it I can buy all the products I make in Africa, dirt cheap, and then sell them, at a much higher cost, to my UK subsidiary. The African and British companies do not, thus, make much profit, so I have little or no tax to pay. All the money stays offshore, where taxes are low or non-existent. This is perfectly legal. But it distorts the world economy and means I pay no tax. I can also borrow where rates are lowest and keep my costs where they are most tax deductible.
That is why General Electric paid no taxes in 2010, despite $14.2bn profits. It's why Barclays, with 181 subsidiaries registered in the Caymans, paid relatively little UK tax on its worldwide profits. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, with 152 subsidiaries in tax havens according to the US government, paid no net UK corporation tax between 1988 and 1999.
Half the world's trade flows through tax havens. Every multinational uses them routinely. So do banks. Almost 70 per cent of international trade now happens within, rather than between, multinationals. Christian Aid reckons that tax dodging costs developing countries at least $160bn a year – far more than they receive in aid. The US research centre Integrity estimated that more than $1.2trn drained out of poor countries illicitly in 2008 alone.
Tax injustice is systemic to the tax haven. Barack Obama once understood that. During his election campaign he promised to crack down on corporate loopholes and tax havens. But he and other world leaders have not delivered on bursting open the seedy secret underworld of tax havens that nurtured the hedge funds, derivative trading and off-balance sheet lending that fuelled the 2008 global financial crash.
Their malign influence continues, with hedge funds accounting for at least 30 per cent, and perhaps as much as 60 per cent, of current trading on the London and New York exchanges. There, they have quintupled short-selling. They have turned credit default swaps, designed as a protective insurance, into a way of betting on the failure of a company. The Caymans (population 50,000) is home to 70 per cent of hedge-fund registrations worldwide.
And, as rich people waive their taxes, poor people wave goodbye to their jobs. "The rich are different from you and me," Scott Fitzgerald famously said. "Yes," wisecracked Ernest Hemingway in response, "they have more money." Today the difference is that they pay less in taxes.
The real shame of Osborne's half-baked deal with Switzerland is that it has undermined the revised EU savings tax directive. That would have required an automatic exchange of information on income in bank accounts throughout the EU and in Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Britain's tax havens. All the EU member states, but two, had approved it. It would have dealt not just with individuals but also with companies, trusts, foundations and other complex structures.
Some say an attack on tax havens is an attack on wealth creation. It is no such thing. It is a demand for the good functioning of capitalism, balancing the demands of efficiency and of justice, and placing a value on social harmony.
The billionaire investor Warren Buffett recognised that in The New York Times when he scathingly asserted the US Congress is in thrall to the super-rich. Thanks to his clever investment managers he pays only 17.4 per cent in tax – half what his office workers pay. That does not just boost inequality. It undermines faith in the fairness and integrity of the international financial system. And that is a political time bomb.

2 comments:

  1. Instead of trying to provoke outrage by jumping on the ill informed, statist bandwagon of Richard Murphy and his ilk, perhaps you would like to do actually do a little research on the recent Swiss law changes, and the industry that provides the island with the ability to pay the social benefits and subsidies which you apparently enjoy.

    1) 'He was commenting on the recent decision of the Swiss authorities that will allow UK tax inspectors access to secret bank accounts held in Switzerland'

    No, the witholding tax deal ensures that HMRC WILL NOT have blanket access to UK residents accounts, thus maintaining constitutionally enshrined Swiss Banking secrecy

    2) 'and will enable them to recoup up to £6 billion a year'

    No, it might generate around £ 5 Billion as a result of a one off 19 to 34% charge on accounts in 2013, not 'a year' as you state. The annual charges will relate to a witholding tax on interest and capital gains going forwards, not on the capital sum.

    For a person employed in the industry to knowingly assist a person in evading tax has been illegal for 12 years.

    Our policies and procedures have been analysed, and subsequently praised twice in reports by no lees an organisation than the OECD, a fact which Murphy, Shaxson and their ilk conveniently ignore time and time again.

    If your knowledge of the finance industry extends to imagining that its role is to simply open accounts for non-resident individuals, enabling them to evade tax, then you must have wilfully avoided reading anything about the industry since the 1970's.

    Instead of criticising, do a little research. The industry has spent 40 years developing itself into one of the world's best regulated financial centres. Put a little effort into learning about it, and if you still feel morally opposed to what happens, I'm sure the States would be willing to reduce any social benefits you might receive by the percentage of income the industry generates towards the total welfare spend so you won't feel so sullied by it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have been in the public relations business long enough to recognise spin when I read it and I have no doubt that this message was posted by one of the “spin masters” at Jersey Finance or some pr man working for a bank
    The Jersey finance industry has been spewing out this kind of gibberish for years in an attempt to convince the Jersey public that they are a legitimate and sound industry which will continue to help Jersey enjoy a good standard of living by providing good jobs with above average salaries.
    My concern is that with the world’s economy almost at a standstill and with more and more countries in financial difficulties these countries will not continue to tolerate wealthy people and corporations evading their tax responsibilities in their country by using tax havens like Jersey. Even many people in the finance industry agree that the industry is on borrowed time and we must diversify our economy and change our finance industry into one that relies on selling the expertise that is here in the island and not an industry that depends on tax avoidance.
    Of course, Jersey Finance continues to insist that the Jersey is a leading light in honesty and transparency. And they try and convince us that we are not in the tax avoidance business. That simply insults our intelligence. Why does so much international money flow through Jersey? Why do we have so many banks here (52 of them)? Why are there so many lawyers and accountants working in Jersey? Come on guys, start being honest with the people.
    And as for Jersey being a transparent jurisdiction, this is also an insult to our intelligence. How can Jersey be a transparent finance centre when 50% of all personal bank accounts here are for people not resident in the island and who do not disclose information on income received to their home taxation authorities is done.?
    Whilst it is true that Jersey has signed some tax information agreements the OECD says that the island has no practical experience of exchanging tax information and that many of the agreements do not contain crucial segments.
    It is also also true that Jersey refused automatic information exchange under the European Union’s Savings Tax Directive, which is the only sure way to stop tax evasion on personal accounts.
    How can Jersey claim to be a transparent finance industry when a person still cannot find out who owns a Jersey company or who the nominee directors of those companies are and who they are working for?
    And this isn’t just my view. The head of the UK’s Revenue and Customs Service HAS made it very clear that getting information from Jersey was almost impossible because of the “lack of transparency”
    You make some comments about me not doing my research etc but the fact still remains that no one from your industry has been prepared to publicly debate whether or not the Jersey finance industry has been of benefit to Jersey despite regular challenges from John Christensen and Richard Murphy from the Tax Justice Network. Your spokesman John Boothman even refused to debate it with me, clearly illustrating to me that you are all afraid to be exposed for the lies you have told the Jersey people over the years..

    ReplyDelete