If it be your will wrote:Hah. Found it at last. And it's an absolute joke.
In a paper commissioned by
BVI Finance, in a farcical attempt to justify its tax status, released the following report:
http://releasd.com/51cd/creating-value- ... ntribution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And on page 126 it states:
The scale of the BVI’s global contribution to investment and jobs sheds a new light on the debate around its impact on the tax receipts of other nations. The economic activity and incomes generated by 2.2 million jobs worldwide will likely contribute over US$15 billion annually to government coffers worldwide. Even taking into account the maximum tax leakage theoretically achievable through the use of its corporate vehicles, the BVI is a substantial net benefit to governments worldwide. (followed by a table on page 130)
So basically, companies based in the BVI, by employing people in the UK, result in the UK gaining 3.9 billion in income tax (itself a figure essentially plucked out of the air). Even though these UK workers would have to pay that tax whoever they worked for. And let's forget all the other taxes these companies have avoided and be grateful, right? Because then we might 'jeopardize this 3.9 billion' when the BVI pull their companies out of the UK?
You're on a different planet, CaymanClaret. I'll never believe a word you say again.
I'm not on a different planet, I'm afraid that the one you're on is a lot more capitalist than gives you comfort. The BVI don't have companies in the UK (for the most part), the UK have companies in the BVI and so the burden of responsibility isn't really on the people in the BVI.
We could continue to talk about the validity of the information, our views on offshoring, or how BVI might fund it's own recovery. It's a great suggestion that BVI slap a$100 charge onto each registration - but the fact of the matter is, that will affect many more people in the UK than in BVI. After all, the beneficiaries of the companies registered in offshore countries, are often not in the actual country in question. Manchester United for instance are owned by a Cayman based company - there are no Man Utd employees here and no Caymanian is getting rich off that, the holding company pays a management fee which comparative to their revenue is a laughable amount. If you'd like to campaign against this behaviour then go for it - I'd suggest that, there are lobbyists, party donators, prominent political figures and even politicians themselves who either knowingly or not have some financial tie to an offshore center and so I'm not sure how far you'll get. You could boycott the companies who utilise the status of offshore jurisdictions, but again good luck - if you're posting on a laptop or desktop, I'm sure it has an Intel processor - you'll have to stop using Facebook and Google - get rid of your iPhone, stop shopping at Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury's, oh and stop using the National Grid. All of these companies have been mentioned in the press among a crazy amount more.
However, the point is, regardless of whether BVI people pay income tax or not, they are still a British Overseas Territory and so it's reasonable to expect that they'd ask for aid in the time of what is a absolute disaster. To take your argument to the absurd, are you suggesting that whenever a disaster occurs in the UK, the emergency services should check to see who has paid their income tax before you'd agree that they assisted?
This is a humanitarian issue, not about whether you agree with how the BVI operates, there are people who have lost everything, including their lives to a natural disaster. Not that it should make any difference, but specifically in the case of BVI, Barbuda and Anguilla - these are British people.
I've not seen it that's all. If you say its so, that's not good obviously.