Panama Papers
-
<p>Good on him for not apologising. So sick of 'demands for apologies'. You should never apologise unless you are actually... sorry.</p>
-
<p>or wrong....Greens/Labour cant have it both ways, they want to drag peoples names out all over, but someone on their side of the fence will get caught up too.</p>
-
<p>And I feel easier about a faceless corporate getting named than small businessman and families.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But I dont like the naming of people or companies that are doing nothing wrong at all.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="578772" data-time="1462944610">
<div>
<p>Apparently Mojo Mathers was outed by John Key as having a foreign trust and her response was that it's not true, she has a UK trust, which aren't foreign.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not sure that's exactly what she said.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://blog.greens.org.nz/2016/05/11/q-when-is-a-trust-not-a-foreign-trust-a-lamledra-a-family-home-in-cornwall/'>https://blog.greens.org.nz/2016/05/11/q-when-is-a-trust-not-a-foreign-trust-a-lamledra-a-family-home-in-cornwall/</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="578782" data-time="1462945952">
<div>
<p>Not sure that's exactly what she said.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://blog.greens.org.nz/2016/05/11/q-when-is-a-trust-not-a-foreign-trust-a-lamledra-a-family-home-in-cornwall/'>https://blog.greens.org.nz/2016/05/11/q-when-is-a-trust-not-a-foreign-trust-a-lamledra-a-family-home-in-cornwall/</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It pretty much is what she said.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>On top of the Greenpeace allegations Key also took a swipe at Green Party MP Mojo Mathers, who along with National MP Paul Foster-Bell, has been linked to a foreign trust.</em></p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>During Question Time Key told Shaw to “just turn around and ask his colleague, Mojo Mathers, (who) has a foreign trustâ€.</em></p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>Mathers sought leave in the House to dispute Key’s claims and clarified she was a “beneficiary of a UK-based family trustâ€.</em></p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"> </p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><strong><em>“It is not a trust that I own, and it is not a foreign trust,†she told the House.</em></strong></p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"> </p>
<p>I think its time we ran a pool on how much longer Andrew Little has before he gets rolled. The man is such a colossal fuckwit, I see his press secretary resigned today. What a thankless task that would have been.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>Labour leader Andrew Little later defended Mathers and said Key’s comments were “dumb†and “totally tastelessâ€.</em></p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>“If he was a man he would stand up and apologise, he didn’t do that.â€</em></p>
<p style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>“She should never have been put in that position. She’s the only deaf member in the House and this is New Zealand sign language week. It was just totally tasteless,†he said.</em></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="578787" data-time="1462946713">
<div>
<p>It pretty much is what she said.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>On top of the Greenpeace allegations Key also took a swipe at Green Party MP Mojo Mathers, who along with National MP Paul Foster-Bell, has been linked to a foreign trust.</em></p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>During Question Time Key told Shaw to “just turn around and ask his colleague, Mojo Mathers, (who) has a foreign trustâ€.</em></p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>Mathers sought leave in the House to dispute Key’s claims and clarified she was a “beneficiary of a UK-based family trustâ€.</em></p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><strong><em>“It is not a trust that I own, and it is not a foreign trust,†she told the House.</em></strong></p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"> </p>
<p>I think its time we ran a pool on how much longer Andrew Little has before he gets rolled. The man is such a colossal fuckwit, I see his press secretary resigned today. What a thankless task that would have been.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>Labour leader Andrew Little later defended Mathers and said Key’s comments were “dumb†and “totally tastelessâ€.</em></p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>“If he was a man he would stand up and apologise, he didn’t do that.â€</em></p>
<p style="color:rgb(119,119,119);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;text-align:justify;"><em>“She should never have been put in that position. She’s the only deaf member in the House and this is New Zealand sign language week. It was just totally tasteless,†he said.</em></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Ok, I'd only read that blog post as her response and not what she said in Parliament, but, don't you think this just getting into semantics? The type of foreign trust that's being discussed here (whether true or not) are markedly different than being a beneficiary of an historical family trust (set up in the country that the family was based in at the time and presumably most of the beneficiaries still are).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="578798" data-time="1462947721">
<div>
<p>Ok, I'd only read that blog post as her response and not what she said in Parliament, but, don't you think this just getting into semantics? The type of foreign trust that's being discussed here (whether true or not) are markedly different than being a beneficiary of an historical family trust (set up in the country that the family was based in at the time and presumably most of the beneficiaries still are).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The majority of trusts are pretty benign I'd say but leftards have gone all out smearing pretty much every trust, so fuck her. They have made so much out of NZ being mentioned 61000 times in 11 million , 61000 times in 11 fucking million ffs documents, if they had any perspective at all they'd see how pathetic it is to be making so much out of something like that. Its time leftards realised that the majority of NZ see Nicky Hagar as a creep and as credible as Ian Wishart and Cameron Slater and should stop fapping themselves dry every time he goes public with some allegations he's twisted out of proportion and made to look as awful as possible . I saw Patrick Gower on tv trying to pretend this is actually as bigger deal as he desperately wants it to be and I felt embarrassed for him.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This was a pretty interesting perspective <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/the-number-of-beast-new-zealand-lefts.html'>http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/the-number-of-beast-new-zealand-lefts.html</a></p> -
<p>I hope nobody is surprised that the wrong end of the stick is being portrayed in the NZ media. This is exactly the sort of thing which should create a huge outcry when looked at on the surface. But if you scratch that surface, then all of a sudden a dose of reality hits you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was trying to explain this whole thing to my parents in my simple terms, and the best I could come up with was this. Without global tax structure, everything would be much more expensive, and certain governments would be much more wealthy. On the face of it, it seems like tax evasion. But do you think your fuel, drilled in saudi arabia, refined in khazakstahn, sold wholesale in Chicago, then shipped via a panama registered ship through dubai, singapore, sydney before hitting NZ soil would cost $1.xx a litre without them? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or what about your superfund which returned 8% last year. Happy for this to return only 5% once all taxes are applied relative to all countries where paper profit was made? Even though you've already paid your tax on this?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it's amazing the amount of tax treaties / avoidance schemes which are setup to actually benefit everybody, not just the rich.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="578798" data-time="1462947721">
<div>
<p>Ok, I'd only read that blog post as her response and not what she said in Parliament, but, don't you think this just getting into semantics? The type of foreign trust that's being discussed here (whether true or not) are markedly different than being a beneficiary of an historical family trust (set up in the country that the family was based in at the time and presumably most of the beneficiaries still are).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Semantics?? No. Factually correct, it is however smear and insinuation. Painting a picture of wrong doing with a stupidly broad brush at the innocent. WHich sums up the entire panama papers fiasco by Opposition parties, Hager and the main stream media in NZ...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>which was Keys point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And he made it well.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="578798" data-time="1462947721"><p>Ok, I'd only read that blog post as her response and not what she said in Parliament, but, don't you think this just getting into semantics? The type of foreign trust that's being discussed here (whether true or not) are markedly different than being a beneficiary of an historical family trust (set up in the country that the family was based in at the time and presumably most of the beneficiaries still are).</p></blockquote>
<br>
The point is that everywhere is foreign if you're somewhere else. There are choices as to where trusts reside and just as Mojo's family chose to have theirs reside in the UK some people in the UK (and elsewhere) choose to have theirs in NZ. I don't have a problem with her choice, just with her party's selectivity in what constitutes a dodgy trust vs a legitimate one. -
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4it0om/new_zealand_prime_minister_john_key_thrown_out_of/'>https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4it0om/new_zealand_prime_minister_john_key_thrown_out_of/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Got us onto the front page of Reddit... tho the US hasn't woken up yet. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The converstation is right on the money tho -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Besides his fucked up and rude hair pulling BS, the first gif isn't endearing, it<strong><em>'s quite sad that a grown ass family man can't hammer a rucking nail.</em></strong> Really distances him from the blue collar crowd, makes it seem like he might simply pay for someone to do simple tasks for him."</p>
<p>"Its a bloody embarrassment to all Kiwi blokes."</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"><p>Interestingly, even former National Party and Act Party leader, Don Brash, who was of course also a long serving Governor of the Reserve Bank, has come out strongly against the foreign tax regime.<br><br>
“If we were setting up a system that allows people to evade tax, that would be wrong,†he said.<br><br>
“The Panama Papers issue is either illegal, or verging on illegal; it’s tax evasion, rather than tax avoidance,†Brash said.<br><br>
“It seems to me that people involved in Panama structures are almost certainly trying to evade tax and I think that’s entirely reprehensible.â€<br><br>
“If we do have a tax haven here, I’d be very unhappy. What’s going on in Panama seems entirely inappropriate, if not criminal. If that’s what’s happening, and New Zealanders are playing a substantive part in that, then that’s reprehensible. “<br><br>
He said the $25 million or so of fees collected by lawyers and accountants for doing this dirty business is not worth the damage it is doing to sully New Zealand’s previously clean reputation for transparency and low level of corruption.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem... <br><br>
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578856" data-time="1462972796">
<div>
<p>Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem...<br><br>
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Trust have many and varied uses. They are more often used to ensure that assets are passed down to the people intended without any unwanted consequences. They can protect assets against voracious creditors, serial divorcees, protect vulnerable or financially irresponsible people, protect disabled or injured people's benefits rights - oh and strategic tax planning.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Very useful tool for all these things and nothing dodgy about any of them.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578856" data-time="1462972796">
<div>
<p>Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem...<br><br>
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, <em><strong>so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts.</strong></em></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Like the ones run by Wycliffe for Haiti? Or Tony Blair? Or any number of other ones? Charitable trusts are literally the definition of shadey as fuck tax dodges</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578856" data-time="1462972796">
<div>
<p>Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem...<br><br>
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Don Brash whos been turfed out of national and act and loves to shit stir?</p> -
<p>Well the rules about what qualifies as a charitable trust are probably a bigger issue and genuinely tax evasion!</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="578861" data-time="1462977322">
<div>
<p>Trust have many and varied uses. They are more often used to ensure that assets are passed down to the people intended without any unwanted consequences. They can protect assets against voracious creditors, serial divorcees, protect vulnerable or financially irresponsible people, protect disabled or injured people's benefits rights - oh and strategic tax planning.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Very useful tool for all these things and nothing dodgy about any of them.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah, that's my experience too Cato. Trusts are generally about protecting ownership of assets.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Kinds I've seen include:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Zimbabwean farmers using foreign trusts to prevent Mugabe's lawyers from stealing what was left of their assets after his henchmen grabbed their farms.</p>
<p>Wealthy families using trusts to provide a regular income for useless kids who would otherwise spend their entire inheritance on trying to live the Kardashian lifestyle. Or they might set up incentive trusts to encourage those same kids to do something useful otherwise they get nothing.</p>
<p>People living in countries with heirship laws who don't want their kids to put their stepmum on the street when they die.</p>
<p>Hundreds of varieties of unit trusts that enable collective investments or cooperative ownership. This can minimise fees and costs a lot.</p>
<p>Ones used to keep inheritances private as they remain privileged legal documents, unlike wills that become public after probate.</p>
<p>Ones set up to ring fence premarital assets</p>
<p>Putting a house in trust so that several people who can't individually afford one can purchase one together. Or buying it together with parents without falling foul of gift duties.</p>
<p>Many used to ensure that when the grantor dies their greedy kids can't challenge a will by claiming incompetence or coercion.</p>
<p>I've seen gay people use it to ensure a fuss-free handover of their assets to their partner when they die.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sometimes circumventing something is a good idea. In a lot of countries there is just no recognised trust structure available locally so people look to countries like NZ.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm sure some people use them for tax avoidance, but if you set up a trust here and the <u>only</u> purpose is to avoid tax the IRD can seize 100% of the assets over and above any fines or penalties, (also true in most other jurisdictions too I think) so it's done less than you might think.</p> -
<p>Getting back to Andrew Little he's been given a week to publicly apologise or face a defamation suit, <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79899206/andrew-little-faces-legal-challenge-unless-he-apologises-to-scenic-hotel-group'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79899206/andrew-little-faces-legal-challenge-unless-he-apologises-to-scenic-hotel-group</a></p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="578892" data-time="1463005743">
<div>
<p>Yeah, that's my experience too Cato. Trusts are generally about protecting ownership of assets.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Kinds I've seen include:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Zimbabwean farmers using foreign trusts to prevent Mugabe's lawyers from stealing what was left of their assets after his henchmen grabbed their farms.</p>
<p>Wealthy families using trusts to provide a regular income for useless kids who would otherwise spend their entire inheritance on trying to live the Kardashian lifestyle. Or they might set up incentive trusts to encourage those same kids to do something useful otherwise they get nothing.</p>
<p>People living in countries with heirship laws who don't want their kids to put their stepmum on the street when they die.</p>
<p>Hundreds of varieties of unit trusts that enable collective investments or cooperative ownership. This can minimise fees and costs a lot.</p>
<p>Ones used to keep inheritances private as they remain privileged legal documents, unlike wills that become public after probate.</p>
<p>Ones set up to ring fence premarital assets</p>
<p>Putting a house in trust so that several people who can't individually afford one can purchase one together. Or buying it together with parents without falling foul of gift duties.</p>
<p>Many used to ensure that when the grantor dies their greedy kids can't challenge a will by claiming incompetence or coercion.</p>
<p>I've seen gay people use it to ensure a fuss-free handover of their assets to their partner when they die.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sometimes circumventing something is a good idea. In a lot of countries there is just no recognised trust structure available locally so people look to countries like NZ.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm sure some people use them for tax avoidance, but if you set up a trust here and the <u>only</u> purpose is to avoid tax the IRD can seize 100% of the assets over and above any fines or penalties, (also true in most other jurisdictions too I think) so it's done less than you might think.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>wrong, you only set up trusts for dodgy reasons!</p>