Cyprus & Cayman - tax havens under threat

Let's hope that the Cayman Islands can be inched back from the precipice by the FCO, Gordon.

Hello Gordon, 

Congrats for being so loudly vocal on topics of which not every mortal can make sense or use!

Along with your sounding the alarm, let me remind you that tax havens have ALWAYS been under attack for hundreds of years since their inception.
Even the biggest finger pointer which USA became today is in fact the world's biggest offshore haven with its Delaware & Nevada hubs.

John

John C. wrote:

... tax havens have ALWAYS been under attack for hundreds of years since their inception.

Well, under selective and occasional attack, John. Only an all-out and continuous attack would kill them off. Let me say that I can confidently predict exactly when the death-knell will sound for offshore tax-havens. Are you ready? It will be when every community's rulers pass tax laws without one single loophole in any of them.

Of course the rulers of individual states can (in theory...) pass tax laws without loopholes, thereby abolishing the use of tax-havens by their respective citizens and/or residents. And the rulers of industrialised states can and may get together and blackball individual tax-havens that they (the rulers) don't use personally.

But I don't see that happening any time soon. What do you reckon?

Gordon Barlow wrote:

John C. wrote:

... tax havens have ALWAYS been under attack for hundreds of years since their inception.

Let me say that I can confidently predict exactly when the death-knell will sound for offshore tax-havens. Are you ready? It will be when every community's rulers pass tax laws without one single loophole in any of them.
But I don't see that happening any time soon. What do you reckon?

Hello Gordon, 

It will never happen. There are always people with loaded guns in the shadows waiting for rulers to make the wrong move.  History is evidence of that.
Remember: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Also, let's not forget that a ruler is in power for 4-6 years depending on election cycles.  The window of opportunity for him to change rules around always comes only after 1-2 years he is at the helm.  This leaves him with 3-4 years of power to change things around and then there is opposition (or strong opposition) to cool him down.  Look at France's president today; he follows the pattern I just described.
My opinion?  There will be no shooting at the France's president; French people are smarter than shooting and began waiting for him to bow out of the scene.  Just like Cubans do.

My point is that another ruler will come in after the present ruler goes out and he will change one thousand laws with just one stroke of the pen.  What one country president does, the next one can undo.

I am not worried about what will happen.  All I focus on is on practicality: me keeping alive what brought me to success, because I know that if I lose that strength, my success will go away like smoke in the wind.

And one more thing: I let the mega-wealthy take care of [Moderated: Derogatory word] while I mind my business.
Those who are not mega-wealthy should not worry too much, or better said, they should worry how to become filthy rich to begin with before worrying what will happen to their riches.

I like battles of ideas, so let's keep in touch.

John C. wrote:

Also, let's not forget that a ruler is in power for 4-6 years depending on election cycles.  The window of opportunity for him to change rules around always comes only after 1-2 years he is at the helm.  This leaves him with 3-4 years of power to change things around and then there is opposition (or strong opposition) to cool him down. 
My point is that another ruler will come in after the present ruler goes out and he will change one thousand laws with just one stroke of the pen.  What one country president does, the next one can undo.

John. But let's not forget, either, that a ruler is in power until the next election only until there isn't a next election. I know the USA has never yet been ruled by an unelected dictator (President) or unelected dictators plural (Congressmen). However, the omens are not good for that record to last much longer. If we are moving towards a "1984" scenario, that will be the end of meaningful elections throughout the Western World. I for one would not bet against that scenario.

Gordon Barlow wrote:

John. But let's not forget, either, that a ruler is in power until the next election only until there isn't a next election. I know the USA has never yet been ruled by an unelected dictator (President) or unelected dictators plural (Congressmen). However, the omens are not good for that record to last much longer. If we are moving towards a "1984" scenario, that will be the end of meaningful elections throughout the Western World. I for one would not bet against that scenario.

Hello Gordon, 
I would not bet against it either.
I tend not to worry before something happens in order to reduce the number of issues I already worry about.
Now, with communism dead, I only wonder how capitalism is going to evolve, if at all. 

I disagree on one point: A dictator will not be running the US anytime in the foreseeable future. I do predict that Americans' constitutional liberties will continue to be eroded by government. That prediction is hardly going out on a limb though, now is it?

Hi all,

Please note that this thread is a bit old

It should also be noted that topics related to Politics are not permitted on the Forum please

Threads on the subject of politics can produce strong disagreements among Forum members.

Thank you

Maximilien
Expat-blog Team

Well, you're the boss, Max, and I take your point. But it seems a wee bit hyper-sensitive. Why would you disapprove of any and all mention of politics while allowing posts - and whole threads, even - on such potentially controversial topics as racism and mixed marriages?

Maximilien wrote:

Hi all,

Please note that this thread is a bit old

It should also be noted that topics related to Politics are not permitted on the Forum please

Threads on the subject of politics can produce strong disagreements among Forum members.

Thank you

Maximilien
Expat-blog Team

Hi Max, 
1). Forums of all kinds are for battles of ideas and for sharing information.
As an expat forum, forummers are supposed to know that their new trip may land them in a new political environment different than the one they left at home.
Expats have pivotal roles in changing societies in countries which need them and they - the expats - contribute to the well functioning of the country they are in, in many ways, filling gaps which the locals failed to fill.
There is no homeless expat, or is there?

2). Strong disagreement among forummers is not intended anywhere, including here, and if it happens it should work to the benefit of the person who disagrees: he learnt something.
We all learn something, don't we?
I speak on my behalf: if I post something here which somebody finds "offensive", is not because my intentions were to offend anybody.  Offending people does not put any money in anybody's pocket, does it?
I post comments here because I feel it's right for me to do so, just as the "offended" person feels it's right for him to vent his "frustration".
If you know of a forum where insulting people badly pays big, please let me know.

3). Free speech, diversity of opinions of all kinds and displaying/sharing information should be encouraged in any forum or the forum will beat the purpose for which it has been built.

Other that, everything is fine.  Yes, the thread is old like you said, but so is Gordon, so am I and so will be those who lived wisely.  There is no guarantee to anybody that he will reach to grow old.

Thanks for your input.

Hi Gordon...  it's just the fact that you guys are discussing US politics on Cayman Forum 

Oh thank you, humbly, for your suggestions John but we already had a strong thought when making the website's rules 

You have a beautiful year and again thank you for your contribution both of you !

Maximilien
Expat-blog Team