| Author |
Message |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 02:23 pm: |   |
I AM one of the people affected by the recent tax change.
My wife and I have a holiday home in the island. For many years now, we have spent a few months a year here and let it in our absence. Our time here used to take us over the 91-day period. If we were here for more than 90 days and less than 180 days, we had to pay tax on income arising in the Bailiwick and income remitted to the Bailiwick. We did not mind this. We were pleased to contribute to the islands who were net beneficiaries from this arrangement as, of course, we never expected or received anything back in the form of medical care or other social security benefits.
I have learned that from this year, if we stay more than 90 days, we will be taxed by Guernsey on our worldwide income. Clearly, this is a nonsense and I will not allow it to happen.
This means that from now on, we have to limit our stay to less than 91 days. This is a bit inconvenient to us as we had planned to spend more, rather than less, of our retirement time here. However, the effect on the islands is that a reduction in our time here will mean a reduction in the amount of money we spend in the island.
It also means we will not be contributing anything to the Guernsey exchequer, as we have in the past. We will no longer have to pay tax on some income arising in the Bailiwick or remitted to the Bailiwick.
People like us are a form of super tourists. We stay much longer than people who are just on their annual holiday and cost the islands nothing. I thought the islands wanted more tourist pounds, but clearly not.
I suspect this change in taxation is not the choice of the States. I smell the influence of the tyranny of the EU. If that is so, it should have been ignored. If not, the States seem to have shot themselves in the foot.
Name and address withheld. |
Alec Forty
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 02:05 pm: | |
MOST people have some idea of the Alice in Wonderland story, so let me offer you an updated version - let's call it 'Alec in Blunderland'.
Everyone was sitting peacefully when a white rabbit carrying a watch scurried past shouting, 'Everyone follow me quickly into zero-10, or the Isle of Man and Jersey will steal all our business' and he led us into a big black hole. Many of us disliked the idea of zero-10 so much that we were swimming in tears so the Dodo suggested we could get dry by having a Caucus Race in which everyone runs around in circles.
However, the Cheshire Cat gave a big grin and said: 'Don't worry, we're all mad here' and pointed the way to a house where there was some sort of party being held, then he faded away until only his grin was left.
Many of us thought that those we then met were a funny sort of bunch because they said they'd make economies to fill the big black hole, but we knew it was a Mad Tea Party and that they'd actually go on overspending as if money grew on trees.
Then someone from the Wales Audit Office shouted: 'Off with their heads' but the party-goers didn't care because they believed they were bordering on genius, even though some had no idea what was happening, especially the Dormouse, who was asleep all the time.
In any case, they knew that if they vastly overspent taxpayers' money because of inadequate preparation and insufficient supervision, the worst they'd get was a slap on the wrist and being told not to do it again.
They then acted even more strangely, because the next thing they did was to abandon their wonderful zero-10, together with their promise to work very closely with the Isle of Man and Jersey, which left us being taxed to fill a non-existent zero-10 black hole without being given any of our money back.
Just like Alice, we ended up in a house of cards with the Mad Hatter frustrating everyone by giving irrelevant answers to all the questions, so let's finish with some words from the story's 'Father William' poem.
Question: 'You invariably stand on your head. Do you think at your age it is right?'
Answer: 'I feared it might injure my brain, but now I'm perfectly sure I have none. Why, I do it again and again.'
Alice awoke to find it had all been a dream, but how long will it be before we wake up from ours?
ALEC FORTY. |
Peter Roffey
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 07, 2009 - 02:36 pm: | |
I WAS interested in Deputy Janine Le Sauvage's suggestion, during the 'obesity strategy' debate, that Guernsey should introduce a tax on sugar. In the past, a significant niche industry grew up in the island because we didn't have a sugar tax, whereas the UK did.
I refer of course to the Guernsey marmalade bubble. With the UK taxing sugar - as a luxury item rather than for health reasons - Keelers, the Scottish marmalade manufacturers, set up two factories in Guernsey to avoid paying the duty. Oranges would be imported directly to Guernsey from Seville and sugar from the West Indies. The finished product was then exported to the UK and, as manufactured marmalade didn't attract the tax, which was only on raw sugar, the product was effectively tax free.
These days the States hate the term 'tax haven' but as far as the sugar tax was concerned, it certainly was.
PETER ROFFEY. |
David Evans
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 04, 2009 - 02:11 pm: | |
NOBODY likes new taxes or increases in existing taxes. However, Guernsey has to find enough in savings and taxation to cover what is forecast to be a £40m. deficit.
I would ask the question as to why have the Treasury not put in place a general sales tax?
In Jersey, the 3% sales tax raised approximately £33m. and as Guernsey's population is very roughly two thirds that of Jersey, a similar tax should find us about £21m. I know this would not be to the liking of many deputies as they would cite the supposition that it would impinge more heavily on the poorer members of the community.
A general sales tax at this level should achieve 50% of the amount needed in one hit.
There should be some areas where this tax should not be applied, and I give three examples:
1. Baby foods.
2. Children's clothing and school uniforms, with perhaps an age limit.
3. Visits to and from medical practitioners and medication when prescribed.
I would add that there should be an increase in tax on fuel for boats, although care must be taken to ensure that the resulting price is competitive with other jurisdictions. Any favourable differential should be maintained in order to encourage those not living in the island to bring their vessels to Guernsey to refuel.
I fully understand that we have been informed there is to be an investigation into the taxation structure as a whole but would respectfully point out that we need the money now and therefore the introduction of a sales tax should not be put off any longer.
I would also suggest that Treasury and Resources, through the Policy Council, have complete control of the States' finances and that monies should be spent only on those items agreed by the States and contained in the Business Plan. During difficult times, one body controlling expenditure is required and that body must have the complete confidence and backing of the States.
We must now consider and fund what is vitally necessary and not what is just desirable.
I would suggest all islanders will want to contribute to assisting their island if they wish to maintain the services to which they have become accustomed. We have all benefited in the good times, might it not be sensible for everyone to contribute when things are not so good?
The tax I am suggesting is a general sales tax and must not be labelled as VAT, which is imposed at a minimum level of 15% elsewhere. (In the UK this level is presently 17.5% and might well increase.)
I am sure if the population can be assured that increases can and may be reduced when the financial climate is better, there will be an easier acceptance of stringent measures.
DAVID EVANS |
Policy Council spokesman
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 03:38 pm: | |
Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man have all made similar changes to our corporate tax regimes in recent years.
Now all three Crown Dependencies recognise that the recent and unprecedented changes in the world economy have led to shifts in perceptions and attitudes across the globe. These changing attitudes require the Crown Dependencies to change our tax systems.
A second-stage review of the corporate tax strategy was already due to be carried out. Now the terms of the review and full consultation are broader than we originally envisaged.
Our main aim is to protect access to international markets for our financial services sector by ensuring that our fiscal regime remains competitive and within international standards.
There has been a broadly positive response to the stance we have outlined, both in terms of our global competitiveness as an international finance centre and domestically with the finances of the States.
Policy Council spokesman |
Jeremy Mercer
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 03:37 pm: | |
TEN per cent corporation tax on the back of a side-swipe from the Europeans? Has Guernsey, no, has Lyndon Trott lost his way completely?
We need a competitive tax regime and zero-10, for all its faults, suited this and brought in a lot of good business for Guernsey. Why we should be rushed into raising our basic CT rate to 10% makes no sense.
If we have to raise our rate then surely a rate less than that of any other European countries is more sensible and it will keep us ahead of the game and we could introduce it in stages. That is unless Europe will compensate us for all the business we will lose by raising CT to 10%?
At the heart of this latest attack is an attempt by the Brussels boot boys to undermine the economies of the Crown dependencies.
Confidence is at the core of any modern western economy and what message does it give to the wider business world when our chief minister races back from Brussels demanding we change our CT rate as if it's a foregone conclusion and in the best interest of the islands, and maintains the pressure to push through meetings and States decisions seemingly in the hope that he may curry favour with Europe?
Sadly, all it does is help destabilise our economies by creating a panacea of uncertainty, and conveys and confirms the message of the WAO - Guernsey States are not fit for purpose, certainly not with a chief minister who cannot fight our corner and a bunch of blinkered States members willing to support him.
As has been said in the letter by Ric Wharton, why don't we bide our time until the next election when David Cameron and William Hague should be in power, and see the support forthcoming then?
By taking a little time to reflect and ponder, we can seek the advice and information needed in this situation and not take decisions in haste and play into the hands of those who would seek to sink us.
The only reason that Europe has gone for gold this time is because Brown's government has shown its true colours with its treatment of the IOM and thus could be deemed to be at its most compliant (weakest).
That said, doesn't this withdrawal of support for IOM regarding the VAT rebate mean they are operating on a more level playing field with the Channel Islands?
Also, States members, don't forget that the one bright light in this grim scenario was the possibility to work with our other island counterparts and present a stronger united front. Yet here we are, rallying to the cause and making a first move in isolation. Ever heard of 'divided we fall'?
Finally, to present this as an opportunity for the good is totally false, as the only opportunity this represents is one to destroy the Guernsey economy along with that of the other islands and thus declare in bright lights that Guernsey and its neighbours are closed for business.
The Europeans and other jurisdictions are already making changes to their tax systems and part of their reasoning will be that there are large slices of business up for grabs as the Crown Dependencies are brought to their knees. And, Matt, raising the CT rate will not fill the black hole because you cannot tax a business that has moved elsewhere.
Appeasement never works when you are dealing with dictatorships answerable to no one, and those whose intent is wiping you off the face of the global economy.
'Peace in our time'? I doubt it very much.
JEREMY MERCER. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 03:37 pm: | |
FOLLOWING from Jack Irvine's letter of 23 November. With no due respect, someone who runs a PR firm and consorts with Cayman is in no situation to offer unbiased opinion on international tax issues. He cannot even get his basic facts right.
The Tax Justice Network is not a 'one-man band' but an international co-operation of academics and researchers. It has offices in many countries and wide affiliations in many others. It is not run out of a 'nondescript house in the English countryside' and it does not have a 'hard-left agenda'. It believes in social democracy. Frankly, his points are ill-informed and hysterical.
For a start there has never been any call from anyone about imposing tax rates on any jurisdiction. All throughout the research the TJN is totally transparent about this.
But get this. Low tax and secrecy jurisdictions believe that their benefit to the world is a given. They believe that their existence is a holy mission. They are very wrong. Guernsey, and the rest, promotes criminality by hiding the source of capital from rightful tax investigators. The hoarding of illicit funds is rife in all of these jurisdictions.
Their research highlights that London and Delaware, in particular, are massively complicit in this. These facts have been known since the dawn of mercantilism. Rich people like to hide because they think they are superior. Criminals piggy-back this trade.
How else is terrorism being funded?
There are hundreds of millions of dollars booked in the Channel Islands that cannot be traced back to source, possibly including ill-gotten and embezzled, despotic proceeds of dictators, drug barons, arms dealers and frauds. If the islands do know the source then they, too, are complicit in funding crime and allowing countries that need tax revenue the most to remain in abject poverty.
Jack Irvine needs to stop being so completely naive and actually read the research. Perhaps one of the Guernsey Press's finance commentators such as Graham Parrott or David Piesing could repudiate the TJN's claims on a point-by-point basis, explaining exactly how and why their facts are incorrect. No one has been able to do it so far.
In criticising Christian Aid, Oxfam, War on Want and many other anti-poverty and aid organisations, Jack Irvine exposes his true intent.
He wishes to subjugate the global majority using poverty, corruption and war while gadding about in a fancy boat, most likely, making insulting comments about people he doesn't know, who genuinely believe in making the world a fairer place to live.
I notice that the church of Guernsey remains tight lipped on this immoral behaviour. Do the high-ranking ecclesiasts have vested interests and wealth that they wish to remain secret? What would Jesus think, hmm?
Lawrence@ cwgsy.net. |
David Harry
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 07, 2009 - 11:47 am: | |
THE need to review zero-10, although annoying, may not ultimately be a bad thing as it has the potential for Treasury and Resources to balance the books. However, the presumption that corporation tax will be 10% is, I believe, flawed. A government raises taxes to pay for the services it provides - health, education, transport, housing, pensions and the like. We should base our corporate taxation at a rate that we need to provide for those services, bearing in mind the income that will be raised by income tax and indirect taxation.
We were forced into zero-10 due to the unilateral action of the Isle of Man and our concern that we should not be seen as being out of step with our direct competitors. We should not fall into that trap again but calculate what we need so that we can put a reasoned and sensible argument to the EU (if we ever get the chance).
Why do we have to accept that we have to have a rate equal to Cyprus and Portugal? They are much bigger countries with much higher infrastructure costs. Why can we not think for ourselves?
The fear is that if we just slavishly fall into line, then how long will it be before we are told that we must have VAT, inheritance tax, capital gains tax etc, because that is what the other countries in Europe have? The Foot Review is already paving the way for this. What right does the EU, or for that matter the British Government, have to tell a country what internal taxes it should levy against its population? It is not Guernsey that is racked by recession. We have not had to pay countless billions of pounds to shore up our economy.
Our larger neighbours should put their own houses in order before telling us what to do. I realise that in the scheme of things we must remain competitive and that the economic strength of those that we do business with forces us to act responsibly, however, there is a world of difference between complying and surrendering. Guernsey has no history of surrendering. We should not start now.
DAVID HARRY. |
Treasury & Resources spokesman
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 03:51 pm: | |
Revisions to the existing Double Taxation Arrangement with the UK were agreed in January this year. One of the effects is to make pensions and annuities taxable only in the recipient's country of residence, so the pension received by a Guernsey resident from a UK source would be taxable only in Guernsey.
Before it can come into force, however, the governments of each territory must complete a formal, political ratification process. Guernsey completed their process in March and it is understood that the UK Government will do so before the end of the year.
If that happens in time, the result will be that pensions from the UK will, from 6 April 2010, be taxable only in Guernsey.
The public will be advised of changes in taxation of UK pensions by the Treasury and Resources Department once the starting date is known.
Treasury and Resources Dept spokesman |
Caroline Ely
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 03:49 pm: | |
IN JANUARY, some nine months ago, it was announced that an agreement had been signed that income tax on UK pensions for residents in Guernsey would cease and the income tax be paid here in Guernsey. Since then, nothing has been heard of this.
Since Guernsey is apparently so short of money, perhaps this UK income tax would come in handy. When will all those people affected by this hear anything?
CAROLINE ELY |
Dep's Charles Parkinson & Mark Dorey
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 04:19 pm: | |
Since 1 January 2008, under zero-10, most companies have paid tax at 0%. Tax on company income is collected when it is distributed or otherwise made available to the people who ultimately own the company.
There is no reason, under zero-10, why a self-employed person should not form a company to run his business in order to take advantage of the benefits of zero-10.
In the example cited by your correspondent, it appears that the father may be the person who is ultimately the beneficial member of the company for income tax purposes. If this is the case, the father would be liable to pay tax on all money that he receives from the company, not just on his salary of £200 per week. For social security purposes, where a relative is nominated to hold the shares in a limited company on behalf of the person who really owns and runs the company, there are provisions in law that allows the Social Security Department to 'see through' the arrangement and they would continue to be classified as self-employed.
As a self-employed person, social security contributions are also payable on all money received from the company.
With regards to the amount of rent paid by self-employed tenants in social housing, there are provisions in law that allow the Housing Department to base its calculations on the assessment of income carried out by the Social Security Department.
Both the Treasury and Resources Department and the Social Security Department would be interested to receive further information about this case from your correspondent, so the matter can be fully investigated.
Deputy Charles Parkinson,
Minister of Treasury and Resources,
Deputy Mark Dorey,
Minister of Social Security |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 04:16 pm: | |
IT'S not often that I put pen to paper but with all the recent mutterings of Social Security and Income Tax having to generate more income and housing, repeating over and over again that States houses are for the lower earners in our society, I feel I must.
I write in order to enlighten these various departments once again of a case well known to everybody in our industry which astounds us all. I say once again because each department has been made well aware of its existence.
A self-employed person earning approximately £75,000 a year gets his son to form a company.
The self-employed get a salary of £200 per week (thus becoming an employee of the company). Income tax is paid on the £200, then you come to Social Security payments, once again only paid on £200 a week, quite a loss to both Income Tax but also to the Social Security funds.
Probably the real reason for this being done is that the man is therefore able to stay resident in his States house but also pays a vastly reduced rent because of his £200 a week salary.
Now, while I and thousands of others struggle to put a roof over our heads and all the expense that that entails, and pay the monies that tax and social security demands from our earnings in full, it makes one wonder just how many more parasites are out there bending the system, making a bigger burden on the genuine people of this island and also depriving some deserving person of affordable housing.
Come on, States members, get your fingers out instead of pretending it is not happening.
Name and address withheld. |
John Le Couteur
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:13 pm: | |
RE: Guernsey Press, 4 August. Politicians, please read this.
I did say before we sold Guernsey Telecoms, ‘please do not sell the family jewels’.
Now we have three telecommunications providers, all with very little to do with Guernsey (as far as I know), all making profits of some sort (the States Income Tax will know if any of their profits or tax paid benefits the States of Guernsey). So, at present (as I understand it), we have left GElectricity, GWater, GPost, all commercial operations, but with the States of Guernsey owning 100% (the only difference to before is that there are shareholders of these ‘companies’) and receiving fees, which in the main are taxable locally.
If Mr Curran at the OUR has his way, GPost will have competition, which, unless laws are passed, could come from outside the Bailiwick.
If that happens, apart from employees paying tax locally, yet more money (i.e. that company’s profits, less any tax paid locally) will not go to the States of Guernsey.
Unbelievable. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 02:29 pm: | |
I WILL gladly send Gordon Brown a copy of my recent income tax demand to help prove that Guernsey is by no means a tax haven, especially if one has the misfortune to become a single pensioner through bereavement.
From one whose pips are truly squeaking.
Name and address withheld |
Arnald Cooter
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 02:09 pm: | |
FOLLOWING the assertion that Guernsey may see an influx of disaffected, high net-worth individuals: It's a great example to the kids, isn't it?
The UK is in a hole caused by a political devotion to private enterprise promising that since 'the Masters of the Universe' are in control then nothing should be done to interfere.
Well done them, have a sweetie.
Taxes need to be raised so the obvious place to start is with those who can most afford it. But no, these people aren't living to be part of a functioning society. They're not in it to aid progress or to witness a wider dynamism. They're in it for the cash. They're in it to build personal monuments to themselves, to worship their unsustainable delusions.
Do we really want to be attracting such sociopaths into our island?
Do they add value to an already splintering community? And when the hand-rubbing politicians talk about them bringing employment, presumably they understand that these new hedge fund managers (how are they doing?) and PE whizzes will only poach from existing firms because there just isn't enough local talent to fill the tens of jobs they may create (at the expense of others elsewhere).
It is the very notion that these types want to escape their responsibilities and yet demand to be listened to at a political level through over-reaching powerful lobby groups that tips any balance of social justice on its head.
The vitriol poured on the wayward antics of a tiny minority of people on the Bouet is completely disproportionate to the wider social crimes caused by the rich trying to feather their nests, absolve responsibility and bend reality to their whims - while mocking the poor - and the Guernsey Press serves as a propaganda tool for those most complicit in all this, the accountancy and 'tax planning' firms, by giving constant column inches to the most bias vested interests one could possibly find to comment on these issues.
Loyalty to the community, something utterly lacking in both vandal and avarice camps, is worth more than money.
We want to attract people that will muck in in the bad times, not run off when they are needed the most. The difference for the antisocial poor is that they are basically imprisoned by a lack of funds.
The system is a failure at both ends of the spectrum.
We need to tax the rich top percentage more in order to fix the system for the bottom percentage.
We need to lose this cap-doffing tendency towards anyone who earns a lot.
It doesn't mean they are good people, or indeed, any more a hard worker than their neighbour.
It doesn't mean anything.
So while we have a shortage of nurses and difficulties in maintaining continuity in teacher provision, let's clap our hands in glee that we will at least be able to attract individuals that are basically on the make, more likely than not peddling wares to help others avoid paying their dues also.
This is Guernsey.
ARNALD COOTER. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
