On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:06:14 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 29/04/2016 10:57 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:58:28 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

george152 wrote:

On 4/28/2016 8:44 PM, Tony wrote:

Being increasingly seen as a tax haven is not the same as being a tax >>>>> haven. We are not a tax haven even if some controls need tightening >>>>> (business as usual). It is an incompetent opposition trying to make >>>>> political points without an iota of care for the hard working people of >>>>> this country (the people they pretend to support)!.
Tony

I'm getting sick of the 'Get John Key' Liebor plan.
It's all they have and its not working.
And rather than actually come up with some policy that will make them >>>> look like a government in waiting they persist with a badmouthing of the >>>> most popular PM as their only asset

It's one of their biggest liabilities. Nobody wants a bunch on whiners

attackers in charge.

You are almost certainly paying more tax than would be needed if our
tax system didn;t have holes that allow the wealthy to hide income,
and pay tax at lower overall rates than the poor and middl earners.
How do you feel about a government refusing to fix our system so that
they could reduce tax rates, Allistar? Perhaps you should stop whining
about paying taxes and start being positive about the need for
fairness in the system?

Yes. There's quite a few of us who would like a fairer tax system like a >flat tax, or better still in the interests of fairness a regressive tax.

Well we are moving towards that at the very top end at least - an

industry supported by the prime minister is setting out to use
deficincies in our tax system to enable the very ewealthy to reduce
their taxable income through legitimate tax avoidance measures . . .

Try reading: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven,
but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy.

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth
families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate "orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax investment income is looking for!

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar
zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the position of all commentators is here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than any

country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve

idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty politicing

the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries >>providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is >>particularly galling is that our government appears to have been
advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them - >>indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:20:57 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:06:14 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 29/04/2016 10:57 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:58:28 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

george152 wrote:

On 4/28/2016 8:44 PM, Tony wrote:

Being increasingly seen as a tax haven is not the same as being a tax >> >>>>> haven. We are not a tax haven even if some controls need tightening
(business as usual). It is an incompetent opposition trying to make
political points without an iota of care for the hard working people of
this country (the people they pretend to support)!.
Tony

I'm getting sick of the 'Get John Key' Liebor plan.
It's all they have and its not working.
And rather than actually come up with some policy that will make them >> >>>> look like a government in waiting they persist with a badmouthing of the
most popular PM as their only asset

It's one of their biggest liabilities. Nobody wants a bunch on whiners and
attackers in charge.

You are almost certainly paying more tax than would be needed if our
tax system didn;t have holes that allow the wealthy to hide income,
and pay tax at lower overall rates than the poor and middl earners.
How do you feel about a government refusing to fix our system so that
they could reduce tax rates, Allistar? Perhaps you should stop whining
about paying taxes and start being positive about the need for
fairness in the system?

Yes. There's quite a few of us who would like a fairer tax system like a
flat tax, or better still in the interests of fairness a regressive tax.

Well we are moving towards that at the very top end at least - an

No we are not.

industry supported by the prime minister is setting out to use
deficincies in our tax system to enable the very ewealthy to reduce
their taxable income through legitimate tax avoidance measures . . .

Fred was talking about New Zealanders. This foreign trust stuff is not applicable. You are an idiot with no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:25:30 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 21:53:36 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>

From the Herald article:
"Inland Revenue briefing papers on the industry prepared on the >>>>>>>industry just before Mr Whitney and the trust industry's meeting with >>>>>>>Mr McClay noted benefits to government were modest and the scale of >>>>>>>the industry unknown.

Roughly 8000 active foreign trusts were known to exists, the report >>>>>>>said, "but we understand that this figure may be a significant >>>>>>>underestimate because of the existence of structures whose purpose is >>>>>>>to defeat the statutory disclosure requirements."

The report said of the $24m in fees estimated to be earned by local >>>>>>>firms providing trust services, only $3m made its way back into >>>>>>>government coffers through tax payments. "


Do you feel confortable with a Minister telling his department not to >>>>>>>raise a matter of concern to them in a report to him? National knew >>>>>>>that controls needed tightening over a year ago, but did nothing and >>>>>>>denied there was a problem - in fact Key saw helping foreign investors >>>>>>>as worthwhile for New Zealand - even though the number of jobs was >>>>>>>small and tax paid minimal.

Can you think just why clients of that industry would want to >>>>>>>construct "structures whose purpose is to defeat the statutory >>>>>>>disclosure requirements."? Antipodes makes it clear that there are >>>>>>>financial advantages to using their services . . . .

You can bleat as much as you like and you can change the subject as much >>>>>>as
you
like.
There is no such thing as a National tax haven policy and NZ is not a tax >>>>>>haven
- you need to look at the real tax havens in the world and you will see no
similarity!


New Zealand is indeed a relative tax haven for property, but it is >>>>>>also a facilitator of complex arrangements designed to minimise the >>>>>>impact of taxation.

No more so than 90% of the world.

Cite?

Don't be silly, there are only about five havens in the world and we are not >>>listed.

You are so used to our distorted taxation system
that you do not recognise the loopholes available to the wealthy to >>>>>>manage their investmetns in such a way as to "defer"(indefinitely) >>>>>>most income tax in New Zealand, but the Auckland property boom is >>>>>>bringing to to the attention of many.

Don't you dare to presume what I am used to or what I know and what I don't
-
there you go again attacking the man, especially (but not exclusively) when
they disagree with you.

Your comments indicated that you did not know. All posters know about >>>>another poster is from their posts. If I misunderstood that comes from >>>>your posts. I take it that you do understand then the distortions in >>>>our tax system that I referred to.

If you misunderstood me it comes from your inability to tell truth from >>>fiction
- you are making things up - again!
You can take it any way you wish and you will always do that will you not? >>>You
are still wrong.

You don't know me or what knowledge I have.

Fairness and honesty are valued
by New Zealanders,

Except in your case you appear to not value honesty

Now you are taking your turn to accuse me of disonesty. There is >>>>nothing dishonest in my claim that fairnessand honesty are valued by >>>>New Zealanders - in general I believe that is a true satement, and
does not deserve your personal attack.

You get personally attacked because you use innuendo and sarcasm to attempt >>>something approaching argument - you are a deliberately rude man when people >>>dare to disagree with you. If I could be bothered I could easily provide >>>chapter and verse on that but you are simply not worth it.

who are getting upset at the extent of crony
capitalism that provides easy access to "friends"while ignoring >>>>>>problems of the majority of New Zealand's small business owners and >>>>>>wage and salary earners.

No they are not, just look at the poll results

Which poll results are those, Tony?
And why do you think the poll results you are relying on are
relevant?

Another article to assist you - they do keep coming!: >>>>>>http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/a-problem-of-trusts.html >>>>>What a lot of drivel and I do not need assistance, especially from someone >>>>>like

you who cannot see that his precious party is incompetent and can only >>>>>criticise others.

The article does not refer to other parties, or other issues. Why are >>>>you introducing irrelevancies?

Get a life Rich, you are truly pathetic. And once more you have to resort >>>>>to
discourtesy and still fail to make a cogent point.

Again you are incapable of complying yourself with the requests you >>>>make of others. Your personal attacks do not change the article I >>>>referred to - others use personal attacks to avoid substance; I
thought you were better than that.

There is zero evidence that NZ is a tax haven - you have provided no evidence
wahtsoever except in your own limited and single mindedly obtuse reality.

Repeating an opinion doesn't get anyone very far. You are just
indulging in slippery semantics.

Try reading: >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven,
but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) , and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy.
Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth >>families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political >>stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the >>looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate >>"orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax >>investment income is looking for!

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar >>zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry >>expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a >>group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the >>position of all commentators is here: >>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511 >>

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than any >>>>>other
country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve the
idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty politicing of
the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries >>>>providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is >>>>particularly galling is that our government appears to have been >>>>advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them - >>>>indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

All of the articles are supposition in terms of the assumptions they make or >the innuendo they use. There is no evidence that NZ is a tax haven. There are 5
that I know about in the World ans we are not one of them.
It is your responsibility to provide evidence and until then you are just >making political verbage.
Tony

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven,
but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the lines that NZ is a tax haven in this respect".

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy.

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you tell such a facile lie earlier, Dickbot?

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth
families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political
stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the
looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate
"orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax
investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the data away

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar
zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry
expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have said this. End of fucking story.

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the
position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511 >>

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than any other
country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve the
idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty politicing of
the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries
providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is
particularly galling is that our government appears to have been
advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them -
indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

Of course foreign trusts in other countries are applicable, and that
process may well be assisted by using New Zealand trusts that do not
hold any assets in New Zealand. But there are other issues that lead
to the move towards a less progressive tax system - the lowering of
top tax rates by a greater extent than lower rates, accompanies by the >regressive increase in GST, plus a lack of a tax on all incomes
(property in particular is favoured compared with other investments),
and also moves to encourage low wage and salary increases through
reducing the effectiveness of unions. You must know that the effective
tax rate paid by many of our wealthiest taxpayers is lower than that
paid by low and middle income earners, and also that the share of GDP >increases going to wage and salary earners has dropped over the last 8
years.

Slippery, slippery, slippery is the spin put on these issues -
meanwhile we see the Salvation army talking about a big increase in
people in need of substantial assistance, while sales of luxury
vehicles and the number of people with multiple properties rises . . .

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven,
but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the lines

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy.

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you tell

Yes I said that - "and then go on to deny it". No problem there; the
IRD must reflectthe official position which with National is that
there are no problems . . .

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth
families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political
stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the
looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate
"orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax
investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the data

The way in which New Zealand has "respect for privacy" is in not
collecting data!

Knowing the NZ resident trustee is not very helpful
in discovering which trust a particular individual has set up to avoid
tax from another jurisdiction . . .

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar
zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry
expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have said

The official position is that NZ is not a tax haven - butthey point
out that NZ does have a growing reutation as a tax haven,

and that in
one respect at least it acts exactly like a tax haven. No poster to nz.general is an idiot,

but you know intmately at least one poster
that posts idiocy at times . . .

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the
position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than any

country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve

idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty

the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries
providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is
particularly galling is that our government appears to have been
advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them -
indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

The perception is certainly there that New Zealand is. See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068

You will note the following:
"Inland Revenue officials prepared a Q&A for McClay for this meeting.
The entirety of this document is blacked out in order to "protect the confidentiality of advice". "

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to
be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:39:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:20:57 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:06:14 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 29/04/2016 10:57 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:58:28 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

george152 wrote:

On 4/28/2016 8:44 PM, Tony wrote:

Being increasingly seen as a tax haven is not the same as being a

haven. We are not a tax haven even if some controls need tightening >> >>>>> (business as usual). It is an incompetent opposition trying to make >> >>>>> political points without an iota of care for the hard working people

this country (the people they pretend to support)!.
Tony

I'm getting sick of the 'Get John Key' Liebor plan.
It's all they have and its not working.
And rather than actually come up with some policy that will make them >> >>>> look like a government in waiting they persist with a badmouthing of

most popular PM as their only asset

It's one of their biggest liabilities. Nobody wants a bunch on whiners

attackers in charge.

You are almost certainly paying more tax than would be needed if our
tax system didn;t have holes that allow the wealthy to hide income,
and pay tax at lower overall rates than the poor and middl earners.
How do you feel about a government refusing to fix our system so that >> >> they could reduce tax rates, Allistar? Perhaps you should stop whining >> >> about paying taxes and start being positive about the need for
fairness in the system?

Yes. There's quite a few of us who would like a fairer tax system like a >> >flat tax, or better still in the interests of fairness a regressive tax. >>

Well we are moving towards that at the very top end at least - an

No we are not.

industry supported by the prime minister is setting out to use
deficincies in our tax system to enable the very ewealthy to reduce
their taxable income through legitimate tax avoidance measures . . .

Fred was talking about New Zealanders. This foreign trust stuff is not

Of course foreign trusts in other countries are applicable,

and that
process may well be assisted by using New Zealand trusts that do not
hold any assets in New Zealand.

But there are other issues that lead
to the move towards a less progressive tax system - the lowering of
top tax rates by a greater extent than lower rates,

accompanies by the
regressive increase in GST, plus a lack of a tax on all incomes
(property in particular is favoured compared with other investments),
and also moves to encourage low wage and salary increases through
reducing the effectiveness of unions. You must know that the effective
tax rate paid by many of our wealthiest taxpayers is lower than that
paid by low and middle income earners, and also that the share of GDP increases going to wage and salary earners has dropped over the last 8
years.

Slippery, slippery, slippery is the spin put on these issues -
meanwhile we see the Salvation army talking about a big increase in
people in need of substantial assistance, while sales of luxury
vehicles and the number of people with multiple properties rises . . .

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 19:54:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven,
but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the lines that NZ is a tax haven in this respect".

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy.

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you tell such a facile lie earlier, Dickbot?

Yes I said that - "and then go on to deny it". No problem there; the
IRD must reflectthe official position which with National is that
there are no problems . . .

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth
families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political
stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the
looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate
"orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax
investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the data away to anyone other than as the law allows, to foreign tax authorities. You have been told this many times, Dickbot, but just keep lying like the despicable little Goebbels

The way in which New Zealand has "respect for privacy" is in not
collecting data!

Nonsensical drivel. It is quite clear that foreign trusts must maintain full financial details and supply these to IRD on demand. You have been told this many times.

Knowing the NZ resident trustee is not very helpful
in discovering which trust a particular individual has set up to avoid
tax from another jurisdiction . . .

Incoherent babble.

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar
zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry
expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have said

The official position is that NZ is not a tax haven - butthey point
out that NZ does have a growing reutation as a tax haven,

No the did not. Yet another lie in the unending stream from Dickbot.

and that in
one respect at least it acts exactly like a tax haven. No poster to
nz.general is an idiot,

Untrue.

but you know intmately at least one poster
that posts idiocy at times . . .

Not one, several.

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the
position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than any other
country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve the
idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty politicing of
the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries
providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is
particularly galling is that our government appears to have been
advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them -
indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

The perception is certainly there that New Zealand is. See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068

You will note the following:
"Inland Revenue officials prepared a Q&A for McClay for this meeting.
The entirety of this document is blacked out in order to "protect the
confidentiality of advice". "

So?

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to
be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:04:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 19:54:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven, >> >> but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy. >> >

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you

Yes I said that - "and then go on to deny it". No problem there; the
IRD must reflectthe official position which with National is that
there are no problems . . .

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth
families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political
stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the >> >> looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate >> >> "orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax >> >> investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the data

The way in which New Zealand has "respect for privacy" is in not
collecting data!

Nonsensical drivel. It is quite clear that foreign trusts must maintain full

Knowing the NZ resident trustee is not very helpful
in discovering which trust a particular individual has set up to avoid
tax from another jurisdiction . . .

Incoherent babble.

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar
zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry >> >> expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a >> >

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have

The official position is that NZ is not a tax haven - butthey point
out that NZ does have a growing reutation as a tax haven,

No the did not. Yet another lie in the unending stream from Dickbot.

and that in
one respect at least it acts exactly like a tax haven. No poster to
nz.general is an idiot,

Untrue.

but you know intmately at least one poster
that posts idiocy at times . . .

Not one, several.

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the >> >> position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than

country in the western world - you have provided none and neither

idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty

the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries
providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is
particularly galling is that our government appears to have been
advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them - >> >> >>indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

The perception is certainly there that New Zealand is. See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068

You will note the following:
"Inland Revenue officials prepared a Q&A for McClay for this meeting.
The entirety of this document is blacked out in order to "protect the
confidentiality of advice". "

So?

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to
be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

Just a concern for New Zealand's reputation: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/302488/kiwis'-concern-over-tax-haven-claims-revealed

On Sun, 1 May 2016 17:22:07 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2016 08:51:17 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:04:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 19:54:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax

but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that >> >> >> in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you

Yes I said that - "and then go on to deny it". No problem there; the
IRD must reflectthe official position which with National is that
there are no problems . . .

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth >> >> >> families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political >> >> >> stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect >> >> >> for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what

looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to

"orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero

investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the

The way in which New Zealand has "respect for privacy" is in not
collecting data!

Nonsensical drivel. It is quite clear that foreign trusts must maintain

Knowing the NZ resident trustee is not very helpful
in discovering which trust a particular individual has set up to avoid >> >> tax from another jurisdiction . . .

Incoherent babble.

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar >> >> >> zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the

expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for >> >> >> the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have

The official position is that NZ is not a tax haven - butthey point
out that NZ does have a growing reutation as a tax haven,

No the did not. Yet another lie in the unending stream from Dickbot.

and that in
one respect at least it acts exactly like a tax haven. No poster to
nz.general is an idiot,

Untrue.

but you know intmately at least one poster
that posts idiocy at times . . .

Not one, several.

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of

position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more

country in the western world - you have provided none and neither

idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty

the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries >> >> >> >>providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is >> >> >> >>particularly galling is that our government appears to have been >> >> >> >>advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them

indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery, >> >> >> slippery . . .

The perception is certainly there that New Zealand is. See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068

You will note the following:
"Inland Revenue officials prepared a Q&A for McClay for this meeting. >> >> The entirety of this document is blacked out in order to "protect the >> >> confidentiality of advice". "

So?

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to >> >> be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

Just a concern for New Zealand's reputation:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/302488/kiwis'-concern-over-tax-haven-claims-revealed

Don't worry, most of them will be bright enough to eventually work out that

Whatever that means.

Try reading these - and look at the dates . . . http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/7521775/NZ-foreign-trusts-among-global-tax-havens

and http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6938888/New-Zealand-removed-from-EU-white-list

But of course "officially", New Zealand is not a tax haven - we know

that because our prime minister, who just happens to have a deposit
with his close friend and "lawyer",

who ceased to be a lawyer over 2

years ago, and who "moved firms," (but we are independently told is
working for Antipodes which he has been invovled in for 20 years),
with the "deposit"actually held in a bank account - managed by that
company which specialises in "foreign trusts." What has not been
explained is just why John Key needs a large deposit with that firm -

if it was previously held by his lawyer, why is it now with the trust
company two years after his lawyer gave up practising law?

We also have Peter Dunne saying he knew nothing about any problems
because he was not the Minster of Inland Revenue, but when the
articles above were written referred to the industry as "legal tax avoidance". Some beleive that makes it all OK, no questions needed - "right," JohnO?

So lets all say together "Nothing to hide, nothing
to fear"- "right"again, JohnO?

On Monday, 2 May 2016 08:51:17 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:04:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 19:54:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven, >> >> >> but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that >> >> >> in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the lines that NZ is a tax haven in this respect".

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy. >> >> >

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you tell such a facile lie earlier, Dickbot?

Yes I said that - "and then go on to deny it". No problem there; the
IRD must reflectthe official position which with National is that
there are no problems . . .

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth
families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political
stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect
for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the >> >> >> looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate >> >> >> "orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax >> >> >> investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the data away to anyone other than as the law allows, to foreign tax authorities. You have been told this many times, Dickbot, but just keep lying like the despicable little Goebbels

The way in which New Zealand has "respect for privacy" is in not
collecting data!

Nonsensical drivel. It is quite clear that foreign trusts must maintain full financial details and supply these to IRD on demand. You have been told this many times.

Knowing the NZ resident trustee is not very helpful
in discovering which trust a particular individual has set up to avoid
tax from another jurisdiction . . .

Incoherent babble.

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar >> >> >> zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry >> >> >> expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for >> >> >> the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a >> >> >

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have said this. End of fucking story.

The official position is that NZ is not a tax haven - butthey point
out that NZ does have a growing reutation as a tax haven,

No the did not. Yet another lie in the unending stream from Dickbot.

and that in
one respect at least it acts exactly like a tax haven. No poster to
nz.general is an idiot,

Untrue.

but you know intmately at least one poster
that posts idiocy at times . . .

Not one, several.

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the >> >> >> position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than

country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve the
idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty politicing of
the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries
providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is >> >> >> >>particularly galling is that our government appears to have been
advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them - >> >> >> >>indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were
obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery,
slippery . . .

The perception is certainly there that New Zealand is. See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068

You will note the following:
"Inland Revenue officials prepared a Q&A for McClay for this meeting.
The entirety of this document is blacked out in order to "protect the
confidentiality of advice". "

So?

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to
be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

Just a concern for New Zealand's reputation:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/302488/kiwis'-concern-over-tax-haven-claims-revealed

Don't worry, most of them will be bright enough to eventually work out that the likes of you and Angry little Andy are just spreading FUD.

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to
be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

Just a concern for New Zealand's reputation: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/302488/kiwis'-concern-over-tax-haven-claims-revealed

On Mon, 02 May 2016 08:51:27 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to
be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has
become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

Just a concern for New Zealand's reputation: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/302488/kiwis'-concern-over-tax-haven-claims-revealed

Some Pinko organisation holds a poll and sucks up to RN.

On Monday, 2 May 2016 14:21:27 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2016 17:22:07 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 2 May 2016 08:51:17 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2016 13:04:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 19:54:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:37:40 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 14:19:25 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>

Try reading:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068
and in particular the report from the IRD.

The IRD are careful about the wording regarding NZ being a tax haven,
but make it clear in clause 5 why the NZ industry exists; admit that
in one respect NZ is a tax haven (para 6) ,

That is a flat out lie. The IRD said NZ "attracted criticism along the lines that NZ is a tax haven in this respect".

At no point did the IRD admit that NZ is a tax haven.

Dickbot has no shame when it comes to telling barefaced lies.

and then go on to deny it
more generally (paragraph 8) because tax havens are all about secrecy.

Yes, the IRD explicitly state that NZ is NOT A TAX HAVEN. Why did you

Yes I said that - "and then go on to deny it". No problem there; the >> >> >> IRD must reflectthe official position which with National is that
there are no problems . . .

Then the article itself says:
"The briefing note explained how the sector attracted "high wealth >> >> >> >> families" as clients, who were attracted by New Zealand's political >> >> >> >> stability, incorrupt public service and, particularly, our "respect >> >> >> >> for privacy and commercial confidentiality".

Gosh, "respect for privacy, and commercial sensitivity"- just what the
looholes in various tax laws, and a pm-promoted industry to facilitate
"orderly transfer of assets" and just as an aside facilitate zero tax
investment income is looking for!

You are an idiot. That respect means the government doesn't give the data away to anyone other than as the law allows, to foreign tax authorities. You have been told this many times, Dickbot, but just keep lying like the despicable little

The way in which New Zealand has "respect for privacy" is in not
collecting data!

Nonsensical drivel. It is quite clear that foreign trusts must maintain full financial details and supply these to IRD on demand. You have been told this many times.

Knowing the NZ resident trustee is not very helpful
in discovering which trust a particular individual has set up to avoid >> >> >> tax from another jurisdiction . . .

Incoherent babble.

then the article says:
"New Zealand was said to be competing for this business with similar
zero-tax structures in Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Malta, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom and United States. But the industry
expressed concerns that even a proposal to tinker with tax rules for
the sector could gut the industry as clients lose faith and take
flight."

Good.

You are probably right that NZ is no more a tax haven than the
country's mentioned - but that does not of course mean that New
Zealand is not a tax haven . . . . perhaps just an integral part of a

Cant you read? NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN. The IRD themselves have said this. End of fucking story.

The official position is that NZ is not a tax haven - butthey point
out that NZ does have a growing reutation as a tax haven,

No the did not. Yet another lie in the unending stream from Dickbot.

and that in
one respect at least it acts exactly like a tax haven. No poster to
nz.general is an idiot,

Untrue.

but you know intmately at least one poster
that posts idiocy at times . . .

Not one, several.

group of countries that together make up a tax haven network

The story clearly still has some way to go - but a good summary of the
position of all commentators is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631511

There is no evidence that this country is a tax haven any more than any other
country in the western world - you have provided none and neither havve the
idiots that write your favourite biased blogsite. It is petty politicing of
the
worst kind - suits you pathetic party well.

Of course there is evidence that all of the problems of countries >> >> >> >> >>providing resources for tax avoidace apply to New Zealand. What is
particularly galling is that our government appears to have been >> >> >> >> >>advised of the problems and deliberately refused to deal with them -
indeed McClay attempted to distort the advice that the IRD were >> >> >> >> >>obliged to give him.

You are lying again, where is this evidence?

Tony

Read the articles, Tony - and then think about slippery, slippery, >> >> >> >> slippery . . .

The perception is certainly there that New Zealand is. See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631068

You will note the following:
"Inland Revenue officials prepared a Q&A for McClay for this meeting. >> >> >> The entirety of this document is blacked out in order to "protect the >> >> >> confidentiality of advice". "

So?

We can only speculatte as to why the December 2014 letter was able to >> >> >> be released but this one couldn't - perhaps the volume of enquiries
about New Zealand participating in convenient trust arrangements has >> >> >> become a little more politically sensitive . . .

Sigh. Dickbot continues his circle of lie and smear.

Just a concern for New Zealand's reputation:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/302488/kiwis'-concern-over-tax-haven-claims-revealed

Don't worry, most of them will be bright enough to eventually work out that

Whatever that means.

Try reading these - and look at the dates . . .
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/7521775/NZ-foreign-trusts-among-global-tax-havens

LOL, from your own cite:
"New Zealand is not seen as a 'tax haven' "

and
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6938888/New-Zealand-removed-from-EU-white-list

Unlike Labour, the current government has addressed this: >http://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profession/news-and-opinion/2013/6/28/new-zealand-takes-money-launderers-to-the-cleaners/

But of course "officially", New Zealand is not a tax haven - we know

Nor is it unofficially, and no amount of throwing mud by you or Angry little Andy can change that.

that because our prime minister, who just happens to have a deposit
with his close friend and "lawyer",

Mud slinging. It has been answered that this deposit to pay for simple legal services related to an apartment sale.

who ceased to be a lawyer over 2

Mud slinging. Also debunked.

years ago, and who "moved firms," (but we are independently told is
working for Antipodes which he has been invovled in for 20 years),
with the "deposit"actually held in a bank account - managed by that
company which specialises in "foreign trusts." What has not been
explained is just why John Key needs a large deposit with that firm -

Large deposit? Cite please.

Youy can't because you are making shit up.

if it was previously held by his lawyer, why is it now with the trust
company two years after his lawyer gave up practising law?

We also have Peter Dunne saying he knew nothing about any problems
because he was not the Minster of Inland Revenue, but when the
articles above were written referred to the industry as "legal tax
avoidance". Some beleive that makes it all OK, no questions needed -
"right," JohnO?

The question is incoherent so neither right nor wrong.

So lets all say together "Nothing to hide, nothing
to fear"- "right"again, JohnO?

No Dickbot. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, you disingenuous lying little piece of shit.