On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that >> is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real >knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they don't
accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that >> >> is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients
What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in >> >>> the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage >> >>> to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles >> >>> away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective >> >>> stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow

that

is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real >> >knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they

don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25 to $50
million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results >> >>>
NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers

in

the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation >> >>> will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than >> >>> secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage >> >>> to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being

miles

away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland, >> >>> USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using

selective

stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow

that

is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of >> >> Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities.

Real

knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is >> to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they

don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot

everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to find

a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25 to

$50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 8 May 2016 20:36:03 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in >> >> >>> the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation >> >> >>> will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than >> >> >>> secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage >> >> >>> to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles >> >> >>> away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective >> >> >>> stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of >> >> >> Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real >> >> >knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to find a

couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25 to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Here's an interesting historic interview about it all - perhaps there
is one more that regards New Zealand as a tax haven - or at least has
a lot of potential problems, sufficient to question whether we should
do away with all of them . . . http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=159533
But you will claim they are just lefties . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Sun, 8 May 2016 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results >> > >> >>>
NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan, >> > >> >>> Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation >> > >> >>> will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than >> > >> >>> secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland, >> > >> >>> USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of >> > >> >> Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that >> > >> they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is >> > >> to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they

don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to find

a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25 to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

I don't think Key is getting hysterical yet - or at least not in
public. But think of poor Mossack Fonseca - only the third largest
company in the world and they must be getting hit badly, all around
the world. Denial may keep dimbulbs happy for a while, but retaining
existing busines and gaining new business must be very hard . . .

Then there is other evidence like this: http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/

New Zealand is located in the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast of Australia. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million
people. Over the years New Zealand has developed into a country which
helps clients tax advantage of international tax planning. New Zealand
has a very well developed economy. The country depends mainly on free
trade with its main export industries being agriculture, forestry and
fishing. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to ht economy
of the island nation.

Although New Zealand is said not to be a tax haven there are certain
features which make people associate the jurisdiction with tax havens.
The fact that the country has offshore services which includes
offshore business entities and offshore trust formation tend to
qualify New Zealand as a tax haven.

As a tax haven New Zealand has a business structure in place which
allows clients to save on corporate and income taxes which are levied
on corporations. The New Zealand limited partnership company can be
structured to operate as an offshore business entity. An offshore
corporation incorporated in New Zealand pays no local taxes if all its
earnings are accumulated outside of the country. A New Zealand need
not have partners who are citizens of the country.

New Zealand as a tax haven has certain laws which in common with some
of the world top tax havens. For example the names and information of
the limited partners in a limited partnership is not made public hence providing privacy for these individuals. Privacy is one of the basic characteristics of every tax haven. The Limited Partnership act of New
Zealand does not obligate limited partnership companies to file annual
audits with the tax authority in the tax haven. The laws obligate the
limited partnership top prepare its audits but they do not have to be
made public information.

In the jurisdiction of New Zealand a Special Purpose Company can be
formed which can be structured to operate as an offshore company. A
New Zealand is a company which acts as a trustee for a non resident
New Zealand Company. This type of company will pay no taxes on income
gained outside of the jurisdiction. A New Zealand Company is free to
operate bank accounts and do business anywhere in the world.

Another entity commonly found in tax haven and also available in New
Zealand is a New Zealand offshore trust company. The jurisdiction of
New Zealand has a very good reputation for having a very good economy
and political stability. This makes the country one of the best
offshore jurisdictions to own an offshore trust in. The New Zealand
offshore trust was first introduced in 1988 and is widely used as
offshore vehicles. There are many benefits to opening an offshore
trust in New Zealand. Offshore trusts are not taxed on income earned
outside of the country.

To the residents of many of the worlds more developed countries New
Zealand may seem to be a tax haven for the simple reason that the
jurisdiction has very low tax rate compared to other countries of the
world. The government authorities in the jurisdiction have lowered the corporate tax rate from 33% to 30% increasing the country’s ability to competitive with other countries. The low corporate tax rate in New
Zealand makes the country very attractive to business investors. Non
residents of New Zealand mat find their taxation system very
appealing. Non residents to the country pay no taxes on foreign
sourced income. These persons will only pay taxes on income earned in
New Zealand.

New Zealand as a tax haven has no capital gains tax for both
individual and corporations. In addition the country has signed double
tax treaties with many countries including Australia, the United
States of America, Canada, Singapore, Austria, South Africa, China,
France and many other nations. What this does is remove many tax
impediments and prevents investors from paying double tax.

As a tax haven New Zealand also offers offshore banking for
corporations and individuals. Though not very popular New Zealand
offshore banking has banking secrecy laws in place to protect the
information which is regarded as private in offshore bank accounts in
the tax haven.

New Zealand is one of the safest places to consider when investing
abroad. The country has stable political and economical systems. The jurisdiction although it offers offshore services and advantages has
not been targeted or black listed as a harmful tax haven. The laws
which govern offshore entities in New Zealand are very modern and are
up to par with its more developed offshore counterparts. The assets
placed in New Zealand offshore entities are well protect by New
Zealand laws. The tax haven of New Zealand is very helpful for persons
who are considering reducing their tax liabilities.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/9/2016 5:04 PM, JohnO wrote:

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation

has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of

Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing Mossack

Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit their

narrative.



Time to stop the nice guy BS and have these creeps in court to make
their claims with the understanding that they are going to lose everything.. There is nothing illegal.
Even ratface had to admit that

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 10 May 2016 07:48:50 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 5/9/2016 5:04 PM, JohnO wrote:

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation

has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time

there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

Time to stop the nice guy BS and have these creeps in court to make
their claims with the understanding that they are going to lose everything.. >There is nothing illegal.
Even ratface had to admit that

John Key has asserted that there is nothing illegal happening, but he
never admits anything if he can help it. The point of a tax haven is
to create opportunities for tax reduction that are legal in respect of
New Zealand at least - but may be used in a way that is not
necessarily legal for another jurisdiction. Facilitation is such a
lovely word, isn;t it george . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 9 May 2016 13:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 23:39:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >>

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously >> >> > >> >>> beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds >> >> > >> >> alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes

of

Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities.

Real

knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25 to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time

there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

I don't think Key is getting hysterical yet -

Why would he. I was talking about lefty dimbulbs getting hysterical. Something

that would be obvious to all but the dimmest of intellects, i.e. you.

or at least not in
public. But think of poor Mossack Fonseca - only the third largest
company in the world and they must be getting hit badly, all around

You think Mossack Fonseca is the third largest company in the world? I've seen

some simply astounding stupidity from you, Dickbot, but you've set a new standard there.

the world. Denial may keep dimbulbs happy for a while, but retaining
existing busines and gaining new business must be very hard . . .

Then there is other evidence like this:
http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/

New Zealand is located in the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast of
Australia. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million
people. Over the years New Zealand has developed into a country which
helps clients tax advantage of international tax planning. New Zealand
has a very well developed economy. The country depends mainly on free
trade with its main export industries being agriculture, forestry and
fishing. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to ht economy
of the island nation.

Although New Zealand is said not to be a tax haven there are certain

Yep. Said by more authoritative sources than these no-names, such as the OECD and NZ IRD.

features which make people associate the jurisdiction with tax havens.

Oooh, associate with tax havens.

The fact that the country has offshore services which includes
offshore business entities and offshore trust formation tend to
qualify New Zealand as a tax haven.

"Tend" to?

As a tax haven New Zealand has a business structure in place which
allows clients to save on corporate and income taxes which are levied
on corporations. The New Zealand limited partnership company can be
structured to operate as an offshore business entity. An offshore
corporation incorporated in New Zealand pays no local taxes if all its
earnings are accumulated outside of the country. A New Zealand need
not have partners who are citizens of the country.

So?

<snip rest of inconsequential fluff>

The fact is, Dickbot, that even in your obscure and anonymous source, NZ barely rates a mention, buried under all the real tax havens. Is this crumb the

best you can find? It really doesn't do to well against the likes of named, authoritative sources
such as the OECD, does it?

Try again, Dickbot.

OECD? Cite?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Monday, 9 May 2016 23:39:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >>

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan, >> > >> >>> Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or

peers in

the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our

reputation

will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather

than

secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent

damage

to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being

miles

away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as

Switzerland,

USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously >> > >> >>> beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using

selective

stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed

tomorrow that

is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds >> > >> >> alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes

of

Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities.

Real

knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that >> > >> they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there

is

to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because

they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot

everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to

find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25

to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation

has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of

Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing

Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time
there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit

their narrative.

I don't think Key is getting hysterical yet -

Why would he. I was talking about lefty dimbulbs getting hysterical. Something that would be obvious to all but the dimmest of intellects, i.e. you.

or at least not in
public. But think of poor Mossack Fonseca - only the third largest
company in the world and they must be getting hit badly, all around

You think Mossack Fonseca is the third largest company in the world? I've seen some simply astounding stupidity from you, Dickbot, but you've set a new standard there.

the world. Denial may keep dimbulbs happy for a while, but retaining
existing busines and gaining new business must be very hard . . .

Then there is other evidence like this: http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/

New Zealand is located in the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast of Australia. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million
people. Over the years New Zealand has developed into a country which
helps clients tax advantage of international tax planning. New Zealand
has a very well developed economy. The country depends mainly on free
trade with its main export industries being agriculture, forestry and fishing. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to ht economy
of the island nation.

Although New Zealand is said not to be a tax haven there are certain

Yep. Said by more authoritative sources than these no-names, such as the OECD and NZ IRD.

features which make people associate the jurisdiction with tax havens.

Oooh, associate with tax havens.

The fact that the country has offshore services which includes
offshore business entities and offshore trust formation tend to
qualify New Zealand as a tax haven.

"Tend" to?

As a tax haven New Zealand has a business structure in place which
allows clients to save on corporate and income taxes which are levied
on corporations. The New Zealand limited partnership company can be structured to operate as an offshore business entity. An offshore
corporation incorporated in New Zealand pays no local taxes if all its earnings are accumulated outside of the country. A New Zealand need
not have partners who are citizens of the country.

So?

<snip rest of inconsequential fluff>

The fact is, Dickbot, that even in your obscure and anonymous source, NZ barely
rates a mention, buried under all the real tax havens. Is this crumb the best you can find? It really doesn't do to well against the likes of named, authoritative sources
such as the OECD, does it?

Try again, Dickbot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

JohnO wrote:

Not these guys: http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in the list
below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx

Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation will
be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage to
NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles away
from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland, USA,
Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective stolen data.

'Nuff said.

People should do all they can to stop a third party from using extortion and threats of violence to take their property from them. It doesn't mater
whether that third party is a national state or not.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 10 May 2016 09:22:50 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan, Canada,
France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in the list
below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx

Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation will
be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage to
NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles away
from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland, USA,
Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously beating it >> up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective stolen data.

'Nuff said.

People should do all they can to stop a third party from using extortion and >threats of violence to take their property from them. It doesn't mater >whether that third party is a national state or not.

What property?
Tax havens are all about reducing the tax people pay in other
countries.
Listen to this:
https://youtu.be/yw4Cf6augwk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 09:22:50 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx

Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation will >>> be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage to
NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles away
from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland, USA,
Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously beating
it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective stolen
data.

'Nuff said.

People should do all they can to stop a third party from using extortion >>and threats of violence to take their property from them. It doesn't mater >>whether that third party is a national state or not.

What property?

Money, in this case.

Tax havens are all about reducing the tax people pay in other
countries.

I.e reducing the extortion. Sounds like a good thing to me. Just as freeing
one man from slavery is a good thing.

Listen to this:
https://youtu.be/yw4Cf6augwk

No thanks.
--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 09:19:35 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 13:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 23:39:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com>

wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany,

Japan,

Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or

peers in

the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our

reputation

will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather

than

secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent

damage

to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status

being miles

away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as

Switzerland,

USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's

furiously

beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using

selective

stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed

tomorrow that

is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that

sounds

alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the

likes of

Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore

entities. Real

knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine

that

they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think

there is

to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because

they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax >> >> > haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot

everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to

find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from

$25 to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's

reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes

of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing

Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time
there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit

their narrative.

I don't think Key is getting hysterical yet -

Why would he. I was talking about lefty dimbulbs getting hysterical.

Something that would be obvious to all but the dimmest of intellects, i.e. you.

or at least not in
public. But think of poor Mossack Fonseca - only the third largest
company in the world and they must be getting hit badly, all around

You think Mossack Fonseca is the third largest company in the world? I've

seen some simply astounding stupidity from you, Dickbot, but you've set a new standard there.

the world. Denial may keep dimbulbs happy for a while, but retaining
existing busines and gaining new business must be very hard . . .

Then there is other evidence like this:
http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/

New Zealand is located in the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast of
Australia. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million
people. Over the years New Zealand has developed into a country which
helps clients tax advantage of international tax planning. New Zealand
has a very well developed economy. The country depends mainly on free
trade with its main export industries being agriculture, forestry and
fishing. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to ht economy
of the island nation.

Although New Zealand is said not to be a tax haven there are certain

Yep. Said by more authoritative sources than these no-names, such as the

OECD and NZ IRD.

features which make people associate the jurisdiction with tax havens.

Oooh, associate with tax havens.

The fact that the country has offshore services which includes
offshore business entities and offshore trust formation tend to
qualify New Zealand as a tax haven.

"Tend" to?

As a tax haven New Zealand has a business structure in place which
allows clients to save on corporate and income taxes which are levied
on corporations. The New Zealand limited partnership company can be
structured to operate as an offshore business entity. An offshore
corporation incorporated in New Zealand pays no local taxes if all its
earnings are accumulated outside of the country. A New Zealand need
not have partners who are citizens of the country.

So?

<snip rest of inconsequential fluff>

The fact is, Dickbot, that even in your obscure and anonymous source, NZ

barely rates a mention, buried under all the real tax havens. Is this crumb the
best you can find? It really doesn't do to well against the likes of named, authoritative sources
such as the OECD, does it?

Try again, Dickbot.

OECD? Cite?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in

media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New

Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.


Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in

media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New

Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to Australia
by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf >>>
If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to

Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times

in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf >>>
If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see

New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to

Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread: http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers
http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many

times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see

New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or >> >> reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to

Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread: http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that "at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain the same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 9 May 2016 16:15:48 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 09:19:35 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 13:42:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 23:39:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent

damage

to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax >> >> >> > haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot

everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25 to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask. >> >> >

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a short time

there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

I don't think Key is getting hysterical yet -

Why would he. I was talking about lefty dimbulbs getting hysterical. Something that would be obvious to all but the dimmest of intellects, i.e. you. >> >

or at least not in
public. But think of poor Mossack Fonseca - only the third largest
company in the world and they must be getting hit badly, all around

You think Mossack Fonseca is the third largest company in the world? I've seen some simply astounding stupidity from you, Dickbot, but you've set a new standard there.

the world. Denial may keep dimbulbs happy for a while, but retaining
existing busines and gaining new business must be very hard . . .

Then there is other evidence like this:
http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/

New Zealand is located in the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast of
Australia. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million
people. Over the years New Zealand has developed into a country which
helps clients tax advantage of international tax planning. New Zealand
has a very well developed economy. The country depends mainly on free
trade with its main export industries being agriculture, forestry and
fishing. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to ht economy
of the island nation.

Although New Zealand is said not to be a tax haven there are certain

Yep. Said by more authoritative sources than these no-names, such as the OECD and NZ IRD.

features which make people associate the jurisdiction with tax havens.

Oooh, associate with tax havens.

The fact that the country has offshore services which includes
offshore business entities and offshore trust formation tend to
qualify New Zealand as a tax haven.

"Tend" to?

As a tax haven New Zealand has a business structure in place which
allows clients to save on corporate and income taxes which are levied
on corporations. The New Zealand limited partnership company can be
structured to operate as an offshore business entity. An offshore
corporation incorporated in New Zealand pays no local taxes if all its
earnings are accumulated outside of the country. A New Zealand need
not have partners who are citizens of the country.

So?

<snip rest of inconsequential fluff>

The fact is, Dickbot, that even in your obscure and anonymous source, NZ barely rates a mention, buried under all the real tax havens. Is this crumb the

best you can find? It really doesn't do to well against the likes of named, authoritative sources
such as the OECD, does it?

Try again, Dickbot.

OECD? Cite?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Thanks for the link - no I hadn't seen it before.

With hindsight, we can see that technically, New Zealand did indeed
comply with the fairly minimal requirements that report was based on.
For example Exchange of information on request - I have no doubt we
complied imeccably - but we now discover that we don't collect
information to enable other countries to know whether they should ask,
or een if they suspect, to have enough information to know which
entity to ask about.

We also see that requirements increase from 2016 - something that the government must have known, and undoubtedly why the public service
were keen on a review (as well as because of the evident increase in
the number of trusts following the drop in the tax rate from 28% to 0%
pushed through by National in 2011).

The governing framework for these reviews
includes:
* new terms of reference, which raise the standards by which
jurisdictions are assessed. From 2016, the terms of reference include
a requirement that beneficial ownership information be available and
that EOIR exchanges be assessed for their quality as well as
addressing the issue of group requests;
* a new methodology, which sets out the process by which the peer
reviews will be conducted, taking into account the principles of
effectiveness, fairness, transparency, objectivity, cost-efficiency;
and coordination with other organisations;
* a new assessment criteria, which provide guidance on the factors to
be taken into account when evaluating a jurisdiction’s legal and
practical frameworks; and
* a new schedule of reviews, which stipulates the timing under which jurisdictions will be reviewed, taking into account the need to
achieve regional balance and a level playing field, ensuring that a
full period of three years since the last review has passed, and
practical considerations.

It is hard to see New Zealand complyng with the new standards,
particularly after the recent revelations. Already we are behind, with
other countries moving to public notification of some information that
we do not currently collect . . .

2016 TERMS OF REFERENCE
A.1 Jurisdictions should ensure that ownership and identity
information, including information on legal and beneficial owners, for
all relevant entities and arrangements is available to their competent authorities.
A.2 Jurisdictions should ensure that reliable accounting records are
kept for all relevant entities and arrangements.
A.3 Banking information should be available for all account-holders.
B.1 Competent authorities should have the power to obtain and provide information that is the subject of a request under an exchange of
information arrangement from any person within their territorial
jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information
(irrespective of any legal obligation on such person to maintain the
secrecy of the information).
B.2 The rights and safeguards (e.g. notification, appeal rights) that
apply to persons in the requested jurisdiction should be compatible
with effective exchange of information.
C.1 Exchange of information mechanisms should provide for effective
exchange of information.
C.2 The jurisdictions’ network of information exchange mechanisms
should cover all relevant partners.

Change is needed, but it appears that National want to delay as long
as possible . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Fred" <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ngofba$6vm$1@dont-email.me...

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities. Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

Great little man is Richies angry Andy. Keeps on about people paying their 'fair share' of taxes while paying non himself. Priceless :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"JohnO" <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote in message news:634a7675-628b-4669-9a8e-3454b06c34ea@googlegroups.com...

Not these guys: http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or peers in the list
below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx

Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our reputation will
be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather than secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent damage to
NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being miles away
from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as Switzerland, USA,
Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using selective stolen data.

'Nuff said.

What's giving me a good belly laugh is after all the bullshit from Labour, Hager and the msm what do we get today? Another view of Labour/Green, Hager
and the msm standing there with shit all over them. When will these twits
learn that if your going to fling shit they should check the wind direstion before flinging!

Luckily I've got a ton of pop corn ready for the continuing saga of Labour trying to keep in the twentys in the polls and not drop down to the Greens
and WinstonFirsts level :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"JohnO" <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote in message news:087033ce-7068-4188-8613-8d8a83d62954@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many
times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will
see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose
or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip
to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come
up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that
"at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain
the same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a
tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

Probably explains why Rich is having trouble with them JohnO. After all the only facts he ever considers as holy writ are those which come from such
fine and upstanding sources as theStranded, Polity, norightturn, Red Flag
and Nicky Hager.... :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:rev1jbt7lg8fsmgbn0ap58ubvn3udaqgel@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 May 2016 07:48:50 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 5/9/2016 5:04 PM, JohnO wrote:

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's
reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes
of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing
Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a
short time there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit
their narrative.

Time to stop the nice guy BS and have these creeps in court to make
their claims with the understanding that they are going to lose >>everything..
There is nothing illegal.
Even ratface had to admit that

John Key has asserted that there is nothing illegal happening, but he
never admits anything if he can help it. The point of a tax haven is
to create opportunities for tax reduction that are legal in respect of
New Zealand at least - but may be used in a way that is not
necessarily legal for another jurisdiction. Facilitation is such a
lovely word, isn;t it george . . .

What the real story is Rich is yet another example of just how filthy the politics of Labour/Gree/WinstonFirst and Nicky Hager are Rich. You must be
up to your chin in shit at the moment looking at your posts over the last couple of days :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"Rich80105" <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7mu0jbtl5m175eqitem8ennvmq9h5svpv1@4ax.com...

On Sun, 8 May 2016 20:36:03 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results >>> >> >>>
NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany, Japan, >>> >> >>> Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or
peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our
reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather
than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent
damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status being
miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as
Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using
selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed
tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the likes
of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore entities.
Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine that >>> >> they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think there
is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because
they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot >>everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to >>find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my point >>that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from $25
to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who you ask.

Here's an interesting historic interview about it all - perhaps there
is one more that regards New Zealand as a tax haven - or at least has
a lot of potential problems, sufficient to question whether we should
do away with all of them . . . http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=159533
But you will claim they are just lefties . . .

Sounds like yet another comprehension fail caused by desperation from Rich.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

"JohnO" <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fb8a9d14-37ae-4b84-aa17-ec33424612da@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, 9 May 2016 23:39:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 22:04:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:36:05 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 15:16:14 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2016 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, 9 May 2016 13:24:51 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 10:44:46 +1200, Fred <dryrot@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:42 a.m., Fred wrote:

On 9/05/2016 10:33 a.m., JohnO wrote:

Not these guys:
http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/introduction/fsi-2015-results

NZ less secretive than USA, UK, Australia, China, Germany,
Japan,
Canada, France etc etc. In fact the only trading partners or
peers in
the list below NZ I could see were Sweden and Taiwan.

Looking for any other rankings:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/taxjusticecampaign/taxhavenlist.aspx


Poor old NZ doesn't even get mentioned!at this reate our
reputation
will be damaged for being all too free with tax details rather
than
secretive!

But the lefty dimbulbs are going full retard on some apparent
damage
to NZ's worldwide integrity, despite our tax haven status
being miles
away from the likes of such despotic tax madhouses as
Switzerland,
USA, Germany, Japan, UK etc all in the top 15.

IOW a joke and a beat-up. And now we are seeing who's
furiously
beating it up: none other than Nicky Hager once again using
selective
stolen data.

'Nuff said.

Yes. I'm really fascinated by this. What will be disclosed
tomorrow that
is going to expose all? So far it's only been foddder that
sounds
alarming to those who know nothing of these things. And the
likes of
Winston First who will twist it anyway he can.

And Andrew Little who is going to ban trusts to off shore
entities. Real
knee jerk stuff. Little is his name. Little does he know.

He has said that they will be banned only if he cannot determine
that
they have some value to New Zealand - what value do you think
there is
to New Zealand, Fred?

How typical of Labour that something should be "banned" just because
they don't accrue some perceived benefit to NZ.

Here's some sobering stuff for the excitable dimits on the left:

http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/panama-papers-reveal-not-a-critical-blow---trotter-2016050908#axzz4867h6Rij

For a leftie, Trotter talks a lot of sense.

Here is a list of people who it appears regard New Zealand as a tax
haven:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/panama-papers-nz-central-and-south-american-clients

A list of *two people* !! A slow hand-clap for the slow witted Dickbot
everybody!

What benefit are they bringing to New Zealand, JohnO?

So... looking through *tens of thousands* of documents, they managed to
find a couple of dodgy Mexicans in there. Thanks for reinforcing my
point that this whole story is a total beat-up Dickbot. Well done.

As to the benefit of all the other business activity - anywhere from
$25 to $50 million economic activity and employment depending on who
you ask.

Come on Dimbulbs - look at the data and tell us how New Zealand's >reputation has been damaged?

Even finding New Zealand in there would be a task well beyond the likes
of Dickbot and his famous "advanced technical skills".

As to the shocking revelation that some local tax lawyer representing >Mossack Fonseca had worked for the IRD... gasp! Turns out he spend a
short time there after graduating, several decades ago.

The guy spells out some home truths here: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/panama-papers/303358/mossack-fonseca-nz's-registered-office-responds

But the hysterical dimbulbs will ignore or dismiss it as it doesn't fit >their narrative.

I don't think Key is getting hysterical yet -

Why would he. I was talking about lefty dimbulbs getting hysterical.
Something that would be obvious to all but the dimmest of intellects, i.e.
you.

or at least not in
public. But think of poor Mossack Fonseca - only the third largest
company in the world and they must be getting hit badly, all around

You think Mossack Fonseca is the third largest company in the world? I've
seen some simply astounding stupidity from you, Dickbot, but you've set a
new standard there.

the world. Denial may keep dimbulbs happy for a while, but retaining
existing busines and gaining new business must be very hard . . .

Then there is other evidence like this: http://www.taxhavens.biz/other_tax_havens/tax_haven_new_zealand/

New Zealand is located in the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast of Australia. The population of New Zealand is approximately 4.3 million
people. Over the years New Zealand has developed into a country which
helps clients tax advantage of international tax planning. New Zealand
has a very well developed economy. The country depends mainly on free
trade with its main export industries being agriculture, forestry and fishing. Tourism also makes a significant contribution to ht economy
of the island nation.

Although New Zealand is said not to be a tax haven there are certain

Yep. Said by more authoritative sources than these no-names, such as the
OECD and NZ IRD.

features which make people associate the jurisdiction with tax havens.

Oooh, associate with tax havens.

The fact that the country has offshore services which includes
offshore business entities and offshore trust formation tend to
qualify New Zealand as a tax haven.

"Tend" to?

As a tax haven New Zealand has a business structure in place which
allows clients to save on corporate and income taxes which are levied
on corporations. The New Zealand limited partnership company can be structured to operate as an offshore business entity. An offshore
corporation incorporated in New Zealand pays no local taxes if all its earnings are accumulated outside of the country. A New Zealand need
not have partners who are citizens of the country.

So?

<snip rest of inconsequential fluff>

The fact is, Dickbot, that even in your obscure and anonymous source, NZ
barely rates a mention, buried under all the real tax havens. Is this crumb
the best you can find? It really doesn't do to well against the likes of
named, authoritative sources such as the OECD, does it?

Try again, Dickbot.

******************************************************************
Can we expect to see the Labour/Green/WinstonFirst mps closing all the
trusts they currently have do you think? Or will they just ignore the act of them like the hypocrites they are? I know where my money on the chances of
this happening. In the same region as expecting honesty and sense from
Dickbot and his buddys :)

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Mon, 9 May 2016 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or >> >> >> reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that "at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain the same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

And here's yet another one: http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/

You'll like this quote:
NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX
HAVEN ON THE INTERNET

There is also a simple solution offered!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 15:52:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many

times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will

see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose

or

reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to

Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the >> >> core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party.. >> >> Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that "at

the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain the

same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

And here's yet another one: http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/

You'll like this quote:
NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX
HAVEN ON THE INTERNET

There is also a simple solution offered!

That's Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 19:21:50 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 15:52:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced

many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you

will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find >> >> >> >> something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick

dose or

reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip

to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the

core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the

party..

Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that

"at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain

the same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

And here's yet another one:
http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/

You'll like this quote:
NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX
HAVEN ON THE INTERNET

There is also a simple solution offered!

That's Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate?

Was there anything incorrect in the article?

Russell's is actually quite a good article. The line you cite "NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX HAVEN ON THE INTERNET" looks like it is not part of the article and is editorial. That part is indeed crap as it implies
if any old person tries to sell it on the internet that makes it a tax haven. So I could advertise North Korea on the internet and make it a tax haven by the
same logic.

So to answer your question - the bit you liked was probably added by the editor
and was crap.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 11 May 2016 00:34:44 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 19:21:50 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 15:52:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find
something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the
core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party..
Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that

"at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869 >> >> >> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain the same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

And here's yet another one:
http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/

You'll like this quote:
NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX
HAVEN ON THE INTERNET

There is also a simple solution offered!

That's Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate?

Was there anything incorrect in the article?

Russell's is actually quite a good article. The line you cite "NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A
TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX HAVEN ON THE INTERNET"
looks like it is not part of the article and is editorial. That part
is indeed crap as it implies if any old person tries to sell it on
the internet that makes it a tax haven. So I could advertise
North Korea on the internet and make it a tax haven by the same logic.

You are of course welcome to spend your money and try it - the people advertising their services were expecting to be sufficiently credible
that people would pay them to arrange a New Zealand Trust. The NZ
industry claims that gross income is around $50 million a yewar - IRD
gives taxable income as $24m, with tax around $3 million. Are you
trying to claim that they are stupid to be advertising New Zealand as
a tax haven in that way?

So to answer your question - the bit you liked was probably added by the editor and was crap.

Why do you think it was crap, JohnO?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 15:52:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you will

see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to find >> >> >> >> something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick dose or
reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee trip to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave the >> >> >> core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the party.. >> >> >> Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call that "at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts remain the

same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

And here's yet another one:
http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/

You'll like this quote:
NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX
HAVEN ON THE INTERNET

There is also a simple solution offered!

That's Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate?

Was there anything incorrect in the article?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 20:12:54 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 00:34:44 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 19:21:50 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 15:52:30 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 16:08:31 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:14:45 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 12:46 PM, JohnO wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:29:14 UTC+12, george wrote:

On 5/10/2016 11:15 AM, JohnO wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has been referenced

many times in media and other discussions.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/global-forum-annual-report-2015.pdf

If it is too hard for you to read, just go to page 14 and you

will see New Zealand in the list of countries that are fully compliant.

Yet another very large fail by Liebor and a compliant MSM to

find

something illegal to tie to Key..
About time these people were pulled into court to get a quick

dose or

reality.
And the fat kraut sent to the US

They've been trying to throw shit at Key since the 2007 H Fee

trip to Australia by Mike Williams. In all that time, they've never come up with anything valid and Labour have steadily sunk in popularity.

Slow learners, eh?

I believe that soon their poll figures will bottom out and leave

the

core diehard Liebor voters to watch the disintegration of the

party..

Their antics in Parliament don't bode well for their future.
I see one got thrown out today for being a pillock

Seems a bit inconsistent - why only one?

Attempts to distract?
Getting back to the subject of the thread:
http://www.reuters.tv/8ay/2016/05/09/new-zealand-named-at-heart-of-panama-papers

Stupid article. NZ mentioned in 0.5% of the documents and they call

that "at the heart" of it?

http://www.businessinsider.com/panama-papers-say-new-zealand-offshore-tax-haven-2016-5?IR=T
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/09/business/new-zealand-prime-place-to-hide-money-panama-papers/#.VzFeLIR96Uk
http://www.livecharts.co.uk/share_prices/Panama-Papers--New-Zealand-revealed-as-a-tax--news24378869.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=24378869 >> >> >> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/09/c_135344930.htm
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/09/tax-havens-have-no-economic-justification-say-top-economists

Dickbot, you can google up NZ and M-F all you like but the facts

remain the same: 0.5% of the documents reference NZ. OECD and IRD state NZ not a tax haven.

Just facts, Dickbot.

And here's yet another one:
http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/

You'll like this quote:
NEW ZEALAND IS NOT A TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX >> >> HAVEN ON THE INTERNET

There is also a simple solution offered!

That's Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate?

Was there anything incorrect in the article?

Russell's is actually quite a good article. The line you cite "NEW ZEALAND

IS NOT A

TAX HAVEN EXCEPT IF YOU’RE SELLING IT AS A TAX HAVEN ON THE INTERNET" >looks like it is not part of the article and is editorial. That part
is indeed crap as it implies if any old person tries to sell it on
the internet that makes it a tax haven. So I could advertise
North Korea on the internet and make it a tax haven by the same logic.

You are of course welcome to spend your money and try it - the people advertising their services were expecting to be sufficiently credible
that people would pay them to arrange a New Zealand Trust. The NZ
industry claims that gross income is around $50 million a yewar - IRD
gives taxable income as $24m, with tax around $3 million. Are you
trying to claim that they are stupid to be advertising New Zealand as
a tax haven in that way?

You are dishonest as ever. That $50 million is not all advertising tax dodges. If you had a clue you'd understand all the perfectly reasonable reasons for trusts other than tax avoidance.

So to answer your question - the bit you liked was probably added by the

editor and was crap.

Why do you think it was crap, JohnO?

Already explained, dimwit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)