Panama Papers
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="578232" data-time="1462762336">
<div>
<p>It's actually the opposite. If you are a NZ tax resident the IRD require you to pay tax on your "worldwide income" unless there is a double tax agreement in place with the source country that grants it precedence to tax you on certain types or amounts of income. In effect the IRD gives you "credit" for having paid tax in these other countries so you don't get taxed twice.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But you're right, NZ is not a tax haven. The people calling it such are either too lazy to look up a definition or are purposely misusing a term they know is incorrect because they think the public will relate to it better. But I guess it's not as sexy to say NZ is a "country with robust rule of law around access to private information".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Everything I've heard about the NZ foreign trusts as talked about in the Panama Papers suggests the problem the journalists and Labour/Green parties have is with people having secrets (unless it's them, because their privacy is more important than others'). It seems like if the ownership and beneficiaries of a trust are not public record they are by definition a front for something illegal. It doesn't seem to be good enough for them that the IRD can peek through into all these details at will, and can and do share what they find with overseas tax authorities. If it's not available to any Nicky Hagar then clearly there is a problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The fact is NZ is an insignificant player in the trust industry, and we aren't secretive. We are a signatory to the the OECD CRS MCAA which binds us to agreeing to share financial account and tax information with other signatories. Interestingly the USA will not sign although it requires others to share info with it through their FATCA legislation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/MCAA-Signatories.pdf'>https://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/MCAA-Signatories.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This has turned the USA in no time flat into exactly what Hagar is accusing NZ of - a reporting "blank wall" for overseas tax authorities - but they're not being targetted. Of course John Key isn't their PM. I wonder if the two are related.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks for the correction, good to know.</p> -
<p>One News tonight was rancid</p>
-
<p>is rather disturbing how shite our media is, seems that the story is more important than the facts, oh and more often than not, just have a pretty reporter to paper the cracks</p>
-
<p>Being legal doesn't make it ethical, moral or right. There are good reasons to set up foreign trusts, but I doubt that many of these NZ-based trusts with foreign settlors, beneficiaries and assets were set up solely for those good reasons. Also, it's a real risk to NZ's reputation, even if that risk is based on mistaken belief - sometimes, that matters more.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, theoretically IRD can look further into them, but as they are not required to register as taxpayers, IRD has little way of knowing much about them without tip-offs, unless IRD are going to start looking at thousands of trust deeds and financial documents for trusts which are not required to pay tax anyway, assuming IRD even knows of the existence of all of them.</p> -
<p>If NZ trust law is anything like the UK trust law, which I would assume to be the case, each trust is obliged to declare income and gains to the tax authorities whether they be UK based trusts or foreign based trusts and then pay the relevant tax on said income or gains. Once the funds are then re-patriated into the relevant country in the beneficiaries hands they then become a matter for the relevant tax authorities there.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As Godder said there are many good reasons to set up (foreign) trusts and minimising of tax is certainly one of them. When it comes down to taxation I really don't buy the argument of 'well it may be legal but it's not moral or ethical'. Legal is legal. Morals and ethics are different to each person and no, the argument of 'well most people would find that not ethical/moral/whatever' does not wash either. If it is that bad that it is obviously immoral or unethical then change the bloody law.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I find it more morally repugnant that a Government can fritter away so much of my (and your) hard earned money on total bureaucratic crap, than someone or some corporate entity might avoid paying some of that tax legally. Stop wasting all my bloody money and then come and talk to me about avoiding tax.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="578362" data-time="1462783352"><p>One News tonight was rancid</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yeah it was pisspoor. They actually used the term"tax haven industry" as if that's an actual thing. The big deal they made of NZ being mentioned 61,000 times in the 11.5 million documents is a joke. The concept of trusts is really only something that exists in countries whose legal systems derive from the English one, so that's the UK, it's ex- colonies and the US.<br><br>
So if you were in a foreign country and wanted to utilise a trust structure you'd have to choose from them or Ireland or Luxembourg. If you wanted it in a place with stable political, financial and legal systems you're looking at the UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Ireland or Luxembourg. So given that apparently the USA isn't really implicated at all in the papers you'd expect NZ to appear a heck of a lot wouldn't you?<br><br>
But what do we actually have? If each document only mentions one country, we are in half of one per cent of them. Fuck all!<br><br>
BTW I love the slight of hand used to say 11.5 million documents but 61,000 mentions of NZ, as if that is the same thing. We could, for example, be listed in 10,000 preprinted docs that say â€your options include [long list of countries with NZ somewhere in it]". Who knows?<br><br>
But worst of all was them quoting a whole lot of positive things about NZ (safe, stable, honest etc) and NZ is a great place to do business and somehow representing that as a shitty thing to be saying.<br><br>
A new low for NZ news media IMO. Shitbags, all of them. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578383" data-time="1462790185">
<div>
<p>Being legal doesn't make it ethical, moral or right. There are good reasons to set up foreign trusts, but I doubt that many of these NZ-based trusts with foreign settlors, beneficiaries and assets were set up solely for those good reasons. Also, it's a real risk to NZ's reputation, even if that risk is based on mistaken belief - sometimes, that matters more.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't buy the idea that companies & people have a moral duty to pay more tax than they need to. People have a moral duty not to torrent, shoplift, speed, double park, let their dog shit on the beach, drop their cigarette butts etc do they? do they fuck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The global taxation system is abysmally broken, 99% of the people & companies people bitch about are 100% compliant with legislation, and most of the legislation is drawn up not to efficently collect tax, but because its written by lobbying groups, and our polititians are too incompetent or fiscally incentivised to care. Nothing pisses me off more than some life long polititian bleating about a company that is paying 100% of the tax the law requires them to. When is the last time one of them went "Well, Google don't pay much tax, but that becuae the tax laws that we drafted are terrible & I was swayed by a tax lawyer hired by the XXXX lobby who took me out for dinner & helped get my kid into an exclusive golf club, and frankly I'm too fucking stupid to understand it anyway."</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="578390" data-time="1462791647">
<div>
<p>I don't buy the idea that companies & people have a moral duty to pay more tax than they need to. People have a moral duty not to torrent, shoplift, speed, double park, let their dog shit on the beach, drop their cigarette butts etc do they? do they fuck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The global taxation system is abysmally broken, 99% of the people & companies people bitch about are 100% compliant with legislation, and most of the legislation is drawn up not to efficently collect tax, but because its written by lobbying groups, and our polititians are too incompetent or fiscally incentivised to care. Nothing pisses me off more than some life long polititian bleating about a company that is paying 100% of the tax the law requires them to. When is the last time one of them went "Well, Google don't pay much tax, but that becuae the tax laws that we drafted are terrible & I was swayed by a tax lawyer hired by the XXXX lobby who took me out for dinner & helped get my kid into an exclusive golf club, and frankly I'm too fucking stupid to understand it anyway."</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Also who decides if they are ethical moral or right?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="578397" data-time="1462792622">
<div>
<p>Also who decides if they are ethical moral or right?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Parliament, as directed by voters - rightly or wrongly. And, I agree that Parliament is at fault for the legislation - we wouldn't get the tax either way from the income from the trusts as they simply wouldn't be domiciled here.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578401" data-time="1462793794">
<div>
<p>Parliament, as directed by voters - rightly or wrongly. And, I agree that Parliament is at fault for the legislation - we wouldn't get the tax either way from the income from the trusts as they simply wouldn't be domiciled here.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Nope. Parliament , as directed by the voters, will determine the law.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="578403" data-time="1462794442"><p>
Nope. Parliament , as directed by the voters, will determine the law.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yep, good luck getting them to decide what's moral, ethical or right. -
Andrew Little is a twat..his typical MO is to have a cry about what John Key does and talk shit...how is this guy the best Labour have?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="578417" data-time="1462820471"><p>
Andrew Little is a twat..his typical MO is to have a cry about what John Key does and talk shit...how is this guy the best Labour have?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yes he is. Twat can't even win his own seat. Yesterday he was trying to explain how pink batts work, he made s cock of himself as it was obvious he didn't really understand it. -
This is weak stuff, it makes a change from tossing the Green party's salad as the dompost editor is very prone to doing.<br><br>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/79801447/Editorial-Fiddling-as-we-lose-our-good-name-over-Panama-Papers'>http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/79801447/Editorial-Fiddling-as-we-lose-our-good-name-over-Panama-Papers</a> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="578419" data-time="1462823462"><p>
This is weak stuff, it makes a change from tossing the Green party's salad as the dompost editor is very prone to doing.<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/79801447/Editorial-Fiddling-as-we-lose-our-good-name-over-Panama-Papers">http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/79801447/Editorial-Fiddling-as-we-lose-our-good-name-over-Panama-Papers</a></p></blockquote>
<br>
"Do we really want to be mentioned in the same breath as Luxembourg, Monaco and Switzerland..."<br><br>
Wouldn't have thought that's a bad thing myself. -
<p>Since when did Labour, Greens , Hager and tame leftie journalists like Vance care about NZ businesses trying to do business overseas?</p>
<p>if they care sooooo much about helping NZ business do business overseas... why are they trying to squash the TPPA?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All this bullshit about our reputation being damaged over this is just a lie, I would like to see one single example of that being quantifiably the case.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578383" data-time="1462790185">
<div>
<p> Also, it's a real risk to NZ's reputation, even if that risk is based on mistaken belief - sometimes, that matters more.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>What reputation, Godder? The financial world considers NZ to be an open, honest, transparent and stable country which offers little to no systemic risk to investments made there. That's about where it ends I'm afraid.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The commentators would have us believe that our good reputation as a financial centre is at risk, when we don't really have one, good or bad. We're apparently supposed to believe that important people all over the world are thinking about us constantly. They don't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Vance and Hager want us to believe that the revelations that they have uncovered through the Panama Papers is causing everyone else to look at us in a new light, when they don't actually look at us in much of a light at all. We're minnows - nice ones, but hardly important.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Investors will continue to invest where they think it makes most sense. In the past NZ's combination of relatively high interest rates and political and economic stability made it an attractive place to park idle cash, or for carry trading, but not any more. We have little significance in the financial world except for what we can provide in the way of services. Our timezone is very awkward for supporting any actual trading or anything volatile, but we can support things like trusts which once created need little or no real time maintenance. Or we can throw the baby out with the bathwater.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Once again we have a crowd of people who's instinct is to ban stuff, not make stuff or do stuff. They say they want to fix the trust industry, but their version of fixing is to change it in such a way that it is no longer fit for purpose. Which of course is the real goal, because capitalism is the enemy.</p> -
Apart from the mildly amusing story about the elvis impersonator this is looking like a bit of a damp squib . Hagars smears only seem to work if you want to believe them , leftards like the loseratti on the standard lap this shit up. Even Chris Trotter and Julie Ann Genter admitted this is a storm in s teacup.<br><br>
Our media really are in a sad way and there were stories last night about the herald and stuff merging which isn't going to help. On the plus side they probably only need one of either Ratturd and Reason . -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="578421" data-time="1462824276"><p>
"Do we really want to be mentioned in the same breath as Luxembourg, Monaco and Switzerland..."<br><br>
Wouldn't have thought that's a bad thing myself.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Which countries do leftards want us to be mentioned in the same breath as ? Greece and Venezuala? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="578440" data-time="1462833185">
<div>
<p>Apart from the mildly amusing story about the elvis impersonator this is looking like a bit of a damp squib . Hagars smears only seem to work if you want to believe them , leftards like the loseratti on the standard lap this shit up. Even Chris Trotter and Julie Ann Genter admitted this is a storm in s teacup.<br><br>
Our media really are in a sad way and there were stories last night about the herald and stuff merging which isn't going to help. On the plus side they probably only <em><strong>need</strong></em> one of either Ratturd and Reason .</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>?</p>