More Panama papers and other dirty money

Written By: - Date published: 6:38 am, May 30th, 2016 - 143 comments
Categories: capitalism, corruption, crime, national - Tags: , , ,

One News has a scoop this morning:

Panama Papers: Kiwi trust rules help exiled Kazakh leader keep luxury London mansion

The details are complex and not likely to attract much excitement in NZ, but once again we have been shown to be involved in dirty money laundering. The conclusion:

London based anti-corruption agency Global Witness has found London’s high-end property market is a go-to destination to give questionable funds from the oil-rich nation a veneer of respectability – including large tracts of the capital’s famous Baker Street.

New Zealand’s loose disclosure rules means foreigners behind trusts and companies can stay secret, because they don’t have to be declared. But Global Witness campaigner Eleanor Nicol says it’s a risk to the country’s reputation.

“We have certainly come across cases of New Zealand registered companies being used for sanctions busting and money laundering.”…

Mind you, there are plenty of NZ venues for this sort of thing that don’t involve Mossack Fonseca. Jared Savage this morning in The Herald:

Kim Dotcom, China’s 5th most wanted man and the wealthy Nat donors

A wealthy National Party donor described one of China’s most wanted fugitives as his “best friend” and deals where millions of dollars’ worth of shares in Kim Dotcom’s Mega changed hands are being investigated by police, court documents reveal.
…
He allegedly stole $129 million in his homeland and concealed the fortune in New Zealand through complex money laundering transactions, according to police, while forging political links to support his controversial citizenship bid.

One transaction is alleged to have been a $2.3 million sum “filtered” through Auckland’s SkyCity casino to buy an apartment in the Metropolis tower with cash, while large shareholdings in Kim Dotcom’s Mega were held by trusts and companies in other people’s names. …

Filtered through Key’s good buddies the SkyCity casino – what a shocker.

Expect NZ to fall in the next corruption index.

Update: for more along the same lines see Nelson’s stock exchange, ‘a big Ponzi scheme,’ and other tales from John Key’s offshore financial services centre – ht Karen in comments.

143 comments on “More Panama papers and other dirty money ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    30 May 2016 at 6:44 am

    Banana republic.
    All we now need is Uncle Sam turning up in his nuclear boats.

    • save nz 1.1
      30 May 2016 at 10:22 am

      He’s on his way apparently. Some bogus poll from TV3 said that 65% of Green and Labour supporters were ok with that – highly unlikely in my view!!! (Did not mention in the question that they might be carrying nukes of course!)

  2. Stunned mullet 2
    30 May 2016 at 7:28 am

    Hmmm I wonder who’s behind the release of the Panama papers

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    30 May 2016 at 7:30 am

    The US government set up the Panama tax haven 80 years ago for oil and mining corporations.

    • AmaKiwi 3.1
      30 May 2016 at 8:57 am

      Panama is the conduit for laundering dirty CIA operations, weapons money, and support for dictators.

      That’s why when the USA attacked tax havens they never ever included Panama on the list.

  4. ge 4
    30 May 2016 at 7:32 am

    Malaysian Prime ministers daughter is married to Kazakhstan rulers son

  5. weka 5
    30 May 2016 at 7:35 am

    It’s all Labour’s fault! Labour did it too!!! Time for some bingo, drop your links here.

    • Sam C 5.1
      30 May 2016 at 8:19 am

      Well, it is a bit disingenuous to refer to a wealthy National Party donor as saying he was “best friends” with the 5th most wanted man in China, when that 5th most wanted man is Bill Liu, good friend and donor to the Labour Party. Isn’t it?

      • framu 5.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 9:32 am

        was he ever a donator to labor – or was that revealed as nothing of the sort when they did the hit on cunliffe?

        • maninthemiddle 5.1.1.1
          30 May 2016 at 10:34 am

          Not sure about Shen, but from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11639504:

          “That donor is Zhao Wu Shen and his comments were in support of former Labour Party donor William Yan, the businessman whose New Zealand citizenship and political connections have been at the centre of years of controversy.”

          And ex Labour Ministers Shane Jones, Dover Samuels and Ric Barker are all mentioned.

          • Akldnut 5.1.1.1.1
            30 May 2016 at 5:47 pm

            Yep nice that you mention Jones etc… Nats incognito lol
            Not really true labour IMO.

        • Anne 5.1.1.2
          30 May 2016 at 6:01 pm

          Not as far as I’m aware framu, but he certainly hoodwinked Shane Jones, Dover Samuals et al into believing he was a good upstanding citizen who had earned his money by honest means. Bear in mind it that was some 8-10 years ago – well before the revelations about him began to surface.

          However, those rich Chinese have a habit of donating to the party in power – usually for some sort of personal gain – so, he may have given Shane Jones something.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2
        30 May 2016 at 9:50 am

        Labour did it too, so the Prime Minister should prevent the IRD from investigating when his mate Ken says so. Your gutter ethics are on display, Sam.

      • WILD KATIPO 5.1.3
        31 May 2016 at 1:09 am

        Keys bollocks- know what I mean ? – ere let Jerzei Baloswki tell it to you straight OI!!!

    • Xanthe 5.2
      30 May 2016 at 8:22 am

      it is all labours fault actually
      The brilliant idea of supporting structures for corporate tax avoidence was put in place by the rodger douglas government
      Nationals part in this along with sucessive governments both labour and national has been to uphold those structures

      • dukeofurl 5.2.1
        30 May 2016 at 9:37 am

        Tax acts are amended constantly over the years, you would have to look at particular clauses and the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Act 2012

      • Paul 5.2.2
        30 May 2016 at 5:33 pm

        Roger Douglas is not Labour.
        He was the figurehead of a coup d’état in 1984.

  6. Sam C 6
    30 May 2016 at 7:52 am

    I listened to the piece on Radio NZ this morning. They still can’t seem to land a hit in spite of all the digging through these papers. To be clear, the Kazakh case, there is no allegation of avoiding tax in NZ, there are no remotely NZ linked transactions which would attract tax payments here – what exactly should we be “tightening up” on?

    • Keith 6.1
      30 May 2016 at 8:16 am

      Its just that we have set up a no questions asked, see no evil, hear no evil conduit using our once spotless corrupt free reputation as a convenient mask to allow criminals from across the globe to hide their ill gotten gains.

      Everytime this shit comes up, especially internationally, NZ’s reputation gets a little dirtier.

      Some in this government may have the morals and ethics of a sewer rat where the colour of your money is the only thing that matters but for plenty of us non Nat voters this kind of corruption is unacceptable!

      • Johan 6.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 3:00 pm

        Sam C and his fellow Tory Trolls have no ethics or moral standards for they swim in that same sewer on a daily basis.

    • Lanthanide 6.2
      30 May 2016 at 8:20 am

      Yeah, nothing to see here, let’s keep letting international crims exploit our laws for their own gain.

    • Psycho Milt 6.3
      30 May 2016 at 8:35 am

      …what exactly should we be “tightening up” on?

      Uh, duh-uh, maybe the foreign trust provisions that enable NZ to be used as a tax haven and money-laundering facility?

    • Psycho Milt 6.4
      30 May 2016 at 8:40 am

      In all seriousness though, much as it’s entertaining to make fun of comments like Sam C’s one because they appear so stupid, they’re actually classic deflection and reflect the government’s response to this. If it’s revealed that the country’s running a foreign trust system that allows tax evasion and money-laundering, frame your response solely in terms of whether New Zealanders can use our foreign trust system for tax evasion and money-laundering (which, of course, not being foreigners, they can’t). Voila! Nothing to see here, folks! Can’t land a hit! As though this were about “landing hits” on people or something.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.5
      30 May 2016 at 8:40 am

      Where “exactly” did you form the witless drivelling notion that it is RNZ’s responsibility to land “hits”? Are you doing your best to appear stupid or are stupid loaded questions the limit of your wingnut cunning?

      • Sam C 6.5.1
        30 May 2016 at 9:26 am

        That’s just it. It isn’t their responsibility. But the undisguised glee in their voices and the breathlessness with which they report that “this will be a bad look for the Government” suggests they see it as their responsibility. You’re the one who appears stupid with your presumptive labelling of me.

        • Lanthanide 6.5.1.1
          30 May 2016 at 9:28 am

          “But the undisguised glee in their voices and the breathlessness with which they report”

          I think you’re projecting, actually.

          • Sam C 6.5.1.1.1
            30 May 2016 at 9:59 am

            If you think that, then I’d suggest you listen to Morning Report this morning. Talk about trying to make something out of nothing.

            • framu 6.5.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2016 at 10:18 am

              no – i heard it as well

              1) your projecting

              and

              2) you dont actually understand the issue (eg: its got nothing to do with tax paid in NZ by NZers)

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.5.1.2
          30 May 2016 at 9:48 am

          Ah, so it’s genuine. Plus what Lanth said.

    • ianmac 6.6
      30 May 2016 at 9:05 am

      “what exactly should we be “tightening up” on”
      If it is not known who or what is hidden how can the experts know what if anything there is to fix?
      Could a blind man decide on the merits of a gymnastic performance?

    • Anno1701 6.7
      30 May 2016 at 9:41 am

      ” what exactly should we be “tightening up” on?”

      our offshore trust tax structures that enable the laundering of wealth from dubious sources

      its pretty obvious really

    • save nz 6.8
      30 May 2016 at 10:32 am

      We have climate change deniers, now we have the tax haven deniers…

      Hello, the very nature of their secret trustees and beneficiaries are the problem in solving whether the NZ tax haven trusts are acting legally or not! Typical Key logic we can’t prove that they are illegal due to his own protection and masking and refusing to allow IRD to tighten up, so therefore they must be legal!!

      The National government don’t seem to have a problem spending NZ taxpayer millions on behalf of Warners and Disney to try to prove Dotcom is acting illegally…. should have been a civil case, but under ‘friends with benefits’ cronyism John Key has already found him guilty and led the witch hunt with his trusty GSCB and SIS buddies. No wonder they get some bonuses in the budget!

      • Nessalt 6.8.1
        30 May 2016 at 12:27 pm

        this is just getting desperate from the left

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.8.1.1
          30 May 2016 at 12:46 pm

          Meanwhile, on Earth, this is being reported by TVNZ and The New Zealand Herald.

          Why are you cuddling up to crims?

          • Anno1701 6.8.1.1.1
            30 May 2016 at 1:11 pm

            “Why are you cuddling up to crims?”

            classic ….

          • Nessalt 6.8.1.1.2
            30 May 2016 at 5:12 pm

            the crims you are referring to are imaginary crims. They haven’t committed a crime, as much as you wish it would be a crime to be successful and wealthy because you worked hard and didn’t bludge.

            The crims that you and the left hug are actual crims, who have done actual crimes, that actually have victims, that actually exist in the real world, not just in your imagination. The same crims who don’t work hard, who only succeed at spreading misery and fear. you’ll apologise for them as their poor so you believe it can’t be their fault, so your basically cuddling them patronizingly with the tyranny of low expectations.

            • Tom 6.8.1.1.2.1
              30 May 2016 at 5:17 pm

              Yes Tom, but you are worse, you are a criminal who does appalling things because you want to ‘fit in’ – you can’t go against the grain because you are scared.

              You are the ONE who has to live with the outcome, in the end, cause it is you who is in-charge (of everything).

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.8.1.1.2.2
              30 May 2016 at 5:17 pm

              Money laundering is a crime. Stop making excuses for it, stop shooting the messenger, and own it.

              Tax evasion steals from everyone: a crime against the whole population. Personally I think you excuse it because you’re trash.

              • Tom …
                30 May 2016 at 5:22 pm

                I ain’t done nuffin – I am not taking responsibility for a dead sister who did bad sh4t?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  30 May 2016 at 5:35 pm

                  This is a reply to you. That was a reply to crim-cuddler Nessalt.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.8.1.1.2.3
              30 May 2016 at 5:32 pm

              Furthermore, crim-cuddler Nessalt, since your pathetic vengeance fantasies distort penal policy and increase the recidivism rate, they create more crime too.

          • Nessalt 6.8.1.1.3
            31 May 2016 at 2:16 pm

            Oh this is a massive fucking lol. you are hugging a dictator who uses spurious law suits against political opponents. just to make your case against your imaginary injustices of the wealthy. once again, a left champions caught in a contradiction of their own creation.

            i’m against dictators, but for tax avoidance, but not evasion as that’s illegal. i’m also for trusts as they serve a legitimate purpose, i accept that they can be used for nefarious purposes and we must be vigilant in stopping that. So nothing I believe in can be classified as hugging a crim. or immoral. or anything really as it’s perfectly normal.

            YOU on the other hand, will claim to be against dictators. but only as long as they aren’t vilifying opponents with spurious corruption and tax charges, in which case you’ll change your position on a single issue so that you can try and make political capital. so you’ll excuse all the crimes against democracy as long as the dictator aligns with your views on your opponents at some point.

            as a side note, you’ll bemoan the weakness of the msm journalists and cry that they are tory shills. until one tries to beat up on national, in which case their a hero. despite them showing even less journalistic skill than normal. which is why you cry that they are weak and tory shills. and the cycle continues.

            LOL, you probably wear velcro to avoid having to make a binding decision on whether to tie your left shoe before your right in case it comprimises your political morals

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.8.1.1.3.1
              31 May 2016 at 2:42 pm

              I have not the first idea what you’re dribbling about, so I’ll try and hazard a guess.

              You wingnuts all parrot the same crap, so my pick is you think you can somehow twist my statements into a reflection of support for someone in Venezuela.

              Is that really the best deflection strategy you can think of to avoid the fact that TVNZ et al are pointing at our tax haven status, the money launderers who profit from it, and the fact that your Prime Minister prevented the IRD from investigating the whole mess ‘cos his highly ethical mate asked him to?

              I have nothing invested in Venezuelan politics, you dribbling clown. I have something invested in not living in a corrupt right wing money-grubbers pit.

              Edit: no, I get it: you think the allegations against Kazhegeldin are bogus. Too funny, since Mossack Fonseca certainly didn’t seem to. It mentions that in the report. Why am I having to get you up to speed?

        • save nz 6.8.1.2
          30 May 2016 at 3:20 pm

          I know expecting the super rich to pay taxes!! Loonie left strikes again! sarc.

          And it is public knowledge the GCSB has had to apologise repeatedly for illegal spying on Dotcom – I wonder who authorised that? Pretty desperate actions from the right!

          • Nessalt 6.8.1.2.1
            30 May 2016 at 5:14 pm

            Where is the proof of tax avoidance? or evasion? how is NZ going to prosecute any one when they aren’t in their jurisdiction?

            Now KDC is being paid by donors to the labour party. no wonder the moment of truth was more like masticated hamburger in a 2 year olds mouth. only of interest to the 2 year old and only the truth to his 2 year old friends.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.8.1.2.1.1
              30 May 2016 at 5:33 pm

              How can we have proof – your Prime Minister protected his mate Ken, and all his mates, from the IRD investigation.

              That’s because he’s corrupt, and you agree with everything he says and does like a sock puppet.

  7. Keith 7
    30 May 2016 at 8:02 am

    You’ve got to feel for National, they’re are own home grown Mossack Fonseca, lubricating the way for money no one in National seems to know anything about to end up in Nationals bank accounts. So many conflicts of interest, so little time.

    Chinas fifth most wanted criminal and or one of his “companies” donates neigh on $400k, that we know of to National, Earl Haggaman donates $101k that we know of making a grand total of nearly $500,000 “donated” between just two individuals, that we have learned, in the past two months to the Nats.

    Now its either that Nationals very wealthy donors of which there are many, love the colour blue or these very astute businessmen know how to play the game, nudge nudge, wink, wink, when it comes to doing business.

    One way to make all this go away is to custom make an enquiry using a mate of the Nats who is a donor, set the parameters of the enquiry narrowly and end up with a forgone conclusion that there is “nothing to see here”. Oh wait, they’re already doing that with our tax haven enquiry!

    • Sam C 7.1
      30 May 2016 at 9:28 am

      I think you’ll find Bill Liu is “China’s 5th most wanted man” and he is a donor to the Labour Party, not the National Party. He’s also a good mate of Dover Samuels.

      • Lanthanide 7.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 9:30 am

        I assume you mean Donghua Liu, in which case you’re either lying or deeply misinformed:

        Electoral returns out next week will confirm that a National Party MP received $25,000 from a controversial businessman after Prime Minister John Key had a private dinner with him – at the man’s home.
        …
        Afterwards, Mr Liu donated $25,000 that same month to Mr Ross’ election campaign. But the following year, Mr Liu became a political embarrassment for the Government after a Herald investigation revealed the impact of the property developer’s links to the National Party.

        Maurice Williamson was forced to resign as a minister when the Herald revealed he had called police after Mr Liu was arrested on domestic violence charges and told them Mr Liu was a big investor in New Zealand.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11405494

      • Keith 7.1.2
        30 May 2016 at 9:39 am

        Who is the government today? National, thats who. Who receives more donations than all partys in parliament and then by a huge margin, National! Bill or whatever name he uses on a Monday is a very generous repeat donor to National and not one Labour has heard from in years. And not good for Labour either back in the day but what excuse can National possibly use for STILL receiving money from Bill now, with all those years of hindsight ? None because they are bent!

        • Words 7.1.2.1
          30 May 2016 at 12:54 pm

          You can bet all of the China’s most wanted residing in tax haven NZ are big National party donors.

      • Words 7.1.3
        30 May 2016 at 1:20 pm

        Where’s the proof that he’s a donor to the Labour party and not the National Party Sam?

  8. Tory 8
    30 May 2016 at 8:05 am

    Hmm, “dealings instigated in 2003”, perhaps the ex NOTW gutter journalist from ONe News could have a quiet word with the PM of the day, I believe she can be found in NY
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/kiwi-trust-rules-help-exiled-kazakh-leader-keep-luxury-london-mansion

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      30 May 2016 at 8:42 am

      Hmm, Labour did it too, so therefore the current Prime Minister should prevent the IRD from investigating. That’s a sound and principled stance you have there Tory, so shiny and glittering, no wait, it’s a dog turd.

    • r0b 8.2
      30 May 2016 at 10:46 am

      The linked piece does not contain the text “dealings instigated in 2003”, or any significant reference to 2003.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1
        30 May 2016 at 12:23 pm

        The literacy-challenged Tory is referring to the following passage.

        In 2003, Battaglia paid more than £3m for the 19th-century property. The title deeds were immediately transferred to Zarek Investments Limited. At the time, Zarek was administered through a trust and a wealth management company based in Jersey.

        …thus missing the fact that Cone Marshall (and therefore NZ) didn’t become involved until 2011.

        Reading is a skill. Tory doesn’t need to be able to read in order to agree with the Prime Minister.

  9. Colonial Viper 9
    30 May 2016 at 8:52 am

    Implement a 2% duty on the holdings of all trusts over NZ$100,000.

    But the big thing for NZ is sorting our corporation tax and transfer charges to catch outfits like Compass, Apple, Google and Facebook.

    • Richard@Down South 9.1
      30 May 2016 at 9:57 am

      I say tax trusts @35%… make it more expensive to use than business tax pays… and individuals… we lose a few million in legal business as a country? too bad…

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 10:41 am

        I meant a 2% tax on the value of the trust, not its income.

        So a trust which holds a $1M house = $900K over the limit gets taxed at 2% of that = $1800 duty annually.

        This duty would gather a few hundred million a year for the government.

        NB it would also affect the trust arrangements of NZ residents. Level playing field.

        • Jackal 9.1.1.1
          30 May 2016 at 11:26 am

          I don’t think taxing trusts further will work because as we’ve seen the criminals who are using New Zealands weak trust laws to launder their money don’t mind spreading it around. They certainly won’t mind paying a few taxes to keep the status quo. In fact taxing trusts more will simply penalise legitimate trusts. You would get people bypassing trusts to invest directly into lets say housing, which isn’t what we want to happen.

          It would be better to have a transparent trust system and a government initiative to investigate various institutions, especially those involved in the Panama papers. If trust administrators aren’t forthcoming with their benefactors, assets and finances then their accounts should be frozen. That would provide the government with an alternative income stream to what amounts to them receiving bribes.

          I don’t see National under John Key making any moves that might clean things up, especially considering the fact that Key has a secret trust himself and his so-called lawyer has been involved in setting up a dodgy trust that has defrauded investors of over $16 million.

        • Lanthanide 9.1.1.2
          30 May 2016 at 4:15 pm

          No one else gets taxed for owning an asset.

  10. AmaKiwi 10
    30 May 2016 at 9:05 am

    Grant Robertson tells Andrew Little to drink from the poisoned chalice (higher taxes on New Zealanders) so Little can lose the 2017 election and give Grant another crack at the leadership.

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      30 May 2016 at 9:32 am

      Helen Clark won in 1999 while proposing to increase taxes.

      • Enough is Enough 10.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 10:15 am

        That was against the deeply unpopular Ship though.

        I think the win was more a reflection of the useless Jen

      • AmaKiwi 10.1.2
        30 May 2016 at 10:16 am

        “Helen Clark won in 1999 while proposing to increase taxes.”

        I am interested in links about precisely what she proposed and how she presented it. That is the critical issue.

        Phrases such as “increasing taxes” are poison. Softer, vaguer terms are less suicidal.

        The Elizabeth Warren quote seen on TS frequently is a dog whistle. The Left hears “we’re going to get those rich bastards.” The Center hears “everyone needs to pay for infrastructure but it won’t raise my taxes.”

        There was no confusion about Labour’s capital gains tax. It said, “If you own a second property we’ll make you pay.” That was electoral poison.

        • Sabine 10.1.2.1
          30 May 2016 at 10:45 am

          This might have changed.

          the last election for many a thing of was not to change the course.

          I think, especially in AKL, that some might now hope to have changed the course.

          Unemployment – nothing is done about that
          Housing crisis – not only a thing in AKL anymore, but its now making its way around the country
          People running out of money a day after payday – not only for those that drink/smoke/have children
          Rates – the gift that keeps on giving, and going up up up with rising house prices
          School Donations – soon to be a monthly thing?

          I think that last election around people were genuinly hoping to have got CHCH behind them, relieved that as a country we managed to get out of the GFC relatively unhurt, and that things might be looking up.

          I don’t think that this is the prevalent thougth now.
          In AKL people that start at 9 am now leave at 6:30 just to make it to the motorway at 7:30. Two to four hours commute has become standard. The houses that are ‘affordable’ are now somewhere, but not where the jobs are. And it is hitting across the board, and across a large income group.

          Question, what is cheaper, a tax increase or a monthly donation of a 100 bucks to keep the schools of your kids going?
          What is cheaper, a tax increase or an extra hour per day of commute to the already 2 – 4 hours your doing?
          and this game we could play endlessly. Maybe we should.

          The thing about Elisabeth Warren is not to get the rich, it is to make the rich pay their way.
          As she so eloquantly said, you may have created a factory, but the country provides the roads for your trucks to ship your merchandise, the country provides the educated workforce, the country provides even the medical services your injured workers may need. No one who lives in society has truly ever achieved anything on their own. The should give thanks to their parents, their teachers, their mentors and the state for providing them with a safe hospital for their mother to give birth in, for education young people to be teachers, for building roads and other infrastructure that make our life so pleasant, for clean trinking water and so on and so on.

          If people don’t want to pay taxes, they should have a look what happens to places where literally no one pays taxes anymore. Kansas comes to mind.

          • maninthemiddle 10.1.2.1.1
            30 May 2016 at 1:51 pm

            For me this is not about paying taxes or not. We have an obligation to support a functioning society. The issue is how much tax is reasonable, and what the Govt spend it on.

            Take you concerns about congestion in Auckland. Most Aucklander’s know that the government is spending billions on alleviating traffic congestion, however we also know that as long as our Council remain committed to a high density city in order to artificially promote their public transport ideologies, infrastructure will never keep up, and that isn’t just roading.

            Finally on Elizabeth Warren. The highest income earners (you know, those who build the factories and businesses) pay the most tax, by some distance. Warren knows that, but it doesn’t suit the narrative that earns her her living.

            • Sabine 10.1.2.1.1.1
              30 May 2016 at 2:13 pm

              the highest income earners
              like our own Gareth Morgan
              are on record of not paying tax at all, https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

              or like Buffet are on record of paying less tax then his secretary
              or are hiding their taxes via subsidiaries and overseas business arraingment like google, facebook, apple and so on and so on.

              And then there is corporate welfare, and even disguised corporate welfare by subsidizing poverty wages with food grants, emergency grants, accomodation benefits, top ups and so on and so on.

              also businesses that do good accounting don’t pay GST, but the end consumer does.

              And no, while the government is wasting precious resources on roads in akl all it has done is create even more congestion as we had a few years ago.
              Getting 40.000 people crammed into a city without a care does that.

              But no investment into rail, tramways, trains. Well at least not where it would matter.

              edit: link added

              • maninthemiddle …
                30 May 2016 at 5:08 pm

                Nice anecdotes, but your link refers to wealthy NZ’ers, not the highest income earners. There is a difference.

                And the evidence is clear about high income earners, and has been for a long time.

                In the UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

                In the US
                http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

                The left wing rhetoric around this is dishonest.

                “also businesses that do good accounting don’t pay GST, but the end consumer does.”

                I could dismiss you as a moron, but I’ll be polite and explain. Businesses are not the target of GST, consumers are. Businesses are simply unpaid tax collectors, who pay to the government the difference between what they collect from their customers and what they pay to their suppliers. GST is not corporate welfare; it is a tax collecting structure that is amongst the best in the world.

                • Tom …
                  30 May 2016 at 5:11 pm

                  Tom, I like NIcky, I can’t be with him, but I can hassle and flirt, right?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  31 May 2016 at 12:58 am

                  maninthemiddle, fuck you mate, stop shilling for the 0.01% against the relatively poor 1%.

                  The issue is how the oligarchs get away scott free.

                  If you want the poor to pay more income tax, then the oligarchs can start initiating economic arrangements which give the poor more income.

                  But don’t ask us to cry for the very well paid 1% on $250K pa.

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    31 May 2016 at 10:28 am

                    You haven’t even come close to understanding my point. I’m not advocating for anyone to pay more tax, I’m simply saying the meme that high income earners don’t pay their fair share is a nonsense, and the evidence proves that.

                  • Bob …
                    31 May 2016 at 12:30 pm

                    The 1% on $250k pa. aren’t the issue though, they are getting paid by company owners who in many cases are earning magnitudes higher than that. The issue is continuing to focus on the workers and ignoring the often extremely high earning business owners.

                    If Labour were still the party for the worker, this is where they would be focusing their efforts, not on Joe and Jane Bloggs who are working for ‘the man’ and already paying more tax than the rich prick employing them!

                    Example, I was brought up by a solo mother, we had to fight for me to be able to get a Student Allowance when I went to University even though she wasn’t on a large salary, we had to prove she never received a cent from my father, however her bosses children got the full allowance without issue even though they are worth millions.
                    Tell me, who should a progressive Government be targeting? Because what I am hearing at the moment is my mother should have been taxed more to be able to cover the expense of her bosses kids.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      If she was on $250k pa she sure as hell should have been more. If she was on $25k she should have been paying less if not zero.

                      The issue is the rich leeching off the poor. Whether that’s rich workers or rich owners, at that level there’s not a huge amount of point distinguishing between the two.

            • AmaKiwi 10.1.2.1.1.2
              30 May 2016 at 10:46 pm

              @ maninthemiddle

              “Finally on Elizabeth Warren. The highest income earners . . . pay the most tax, by some distance.”

              Unmitigated b.s.

              The USA is now the largest tax haven in the world according to that pillar of the business community, Bloomberg.

              http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states

              “Man in the middle,” if you don’t know what you are talking about stay off The Standard. Unlike you, people here check facts.

              • maninthemiddle …
                31 May 2016 at 10:30 am

                If you check your facts, then provide a link to support your contention. In the meantime, look at the links I provided with my comment and you will learn something new. The data is incontrovertible, but I accept it doesn’t fit the left wing mantra.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  31 May 2016 at 10:46 am

                  Your links relate to the UK and USA. Both have capital gains taxes.

                  Who pays a greater percentage of their income in tax, in New Zealand? I suspect you want to leave GST out of your calculation.

                  As for Elizabeth Warren and the so-called “Left wing mantra”: nowhere in the passage Sabine quoted did she say anything of the sort. Are you making up smears against her because your opinions are twisted by bile, or are you just wrong and ignorant?

                  Or is it both?

                  • maninthemiddle …
                    31 May 2016 at 1:15 pm

                    “Your links relate to the UK and USA. Both have capital gains taxes.”

                    Yes, but my point is about income, not wealth. Also, those CGT’s will be included in the total tax paid, so what is your point?

                    “Who pays a greater percentage of their income in tax, in New Zealand? I suspect you want to leave GST out of your calculation.”

                    The UK and USA both have value added taxes, as well as state taxes.

                    “As for Elizabeth Warren and the so-called “Left wing mantra””
                    Well I didn’t actually assign the ‘left wing mantra’ to Warren, I spoke of her own ‘mantra’. But for the sake of argument, here’s part of her quote from Sabine’s post:

                    “you may have created a factory, but the country provides the roads for your trucks to ship your merchandise, the country provides the educated workforce, the country provides even the medical services your injured workers may need. ”

                    This is classic mischief. Warren knows those roads, medical services schools etc etc were paid for disproportionately by the same people who created the factories. The ‘state’ is funded by income earners, mostly by high income earners.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 May 2016 at 1:29 pm

                      Society’s biggest beneficiaries pay a smaller percentage of their (mostly unearned – the vast majority of wealth is inherited) income than their less fortunate betters.

                      The less intelligent ones think their luck is a sign of good character.

                      I note your failure to answer the question.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      31 May 2016 at 1:34 pm

                      “Societies biggest beneficiaries pay a smaller percentage of their (mostly unearned – the vast majority of wealth is inherited) income than their less fortunate betters.”

                      No, they don’t. That’s the point. If you want evidence from NZ, I found this, which you will no doubt find informative.

                      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html

                      Your comments about inherited wealth are also ill informed. No, I’ll rephrase, they are ignorant. Wealth is not income. Wealth is accumulated over time, and most likely subject to tax as it is accumulated. Your comments on this issue have the ring of envy, not the benefit of evidence.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 May 2016 at 1:43 pm

                      Meanwhile, on Earth, even Left wingers know that inherited wealth can be made to provide income.

                      Your source is Princess Party Farrar, Bill English’s little parrot. A man who tells lies for the National Party. Do you actually believe that sewer? 😆

                      Just as predicted, they didn’t include GST in their “calculations”. That’s why I mentioned it up front – because I expected you to bring nothing more original to the discussion than some propaganda you gobbled up.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      31 May 2016 at 3:45 pm

                      “Meanwhile, on Earth, even Left wingers know that inherited wealth can be made to provide income….”
                      …on which tax is paid. There FIFY.

                      “A man who tells lies for the National Party.”
                      Can you fault the data in any way?

                      “Just as predicted, they didn’t include GST in their “calculations”.”
                      So? GST is paid by everyone. According to your view of the world It is the wealthy who purchase all the high end goods, and therefore pay the most in GST.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 May 2016 at 6:21 pm

                      “Tax is paid”.

                      The point about the lack of a CGT in NZ is Sam Morgan. Cat, meet bag.

                      Yes, I can fault the way in which the data has been molested. No, wait, I already did that. Are you illiterate or innumerate? Silly question: as a right wing apologist/enabler, you’re both, and neither, and whatever else it takes to articulate the fact that you agree with the Prime Minister no matter what he says, and especially when he contradicts himself.

                    • maninthemiddle …
                      1 June 2016 at 9:45 am

                      “The point about the lack of a CGT in NZ is ”

                      Sam Morgan didn’t inherit wealth. He earned it via investing in a business, the profits of which were taxable, as were any dividends he received. And before debating whether or not NZ has a CGT, you’d need to define capital gains. Capital gains on houses are taxable if the property is sold inside 2 years, or if the intention was to profit when the property was purchased.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.2.2
          30 May 2016 at 1:02 pm

          If you own a second property that you sell at a profit we’ll make you pay some tax on that profit.

          FIFY.

    • Olwyn 10.2
      30 May 2016 at 11:34 am

      @Amakiwi (10): Under the current circumstances that motivation would be extremely irresponsible from Grant Robertson, and would surely be seen as such. If he thinks higher taxes are needed it is up to him to sell the idea to the public, and not use it to lever out the current leader. Has he not seen what has happened to this country in the seven years that they have spent fluffing around and jockeying for position internally?

      • AmaKiwi 10.2.1
        30 May 2016 at 11:19 pm

        @ Olwyn

        “If he (Robertson) thinks higher taxes are needed it is up to him to sell the idea to the public.”

        Olwyn, this is where you and I fundamentally disagree on two matters:

        1. I think threatening the public with higher taxes is electoral suicide.

        2. I am a not a liberal. I am a radical. I believe leaders should solve the problems the people want solved in the ways the people want them solved. Liberals (the Labour leaders and caucus) think THEY know the answers, which they have to “sell” to the voters.

        Let’s agree to disagree because you haven’t convinced me and I doubt I’ll convince you.

        • Olwyn 10.2.1.1
          31 May 2016 at 9:35 am

          Grant Robertson tells Andrew Little to drink from the poisoned chalice (higher taxes on New Zealanders) so Little can lose the 2017 election and give Grant another crack at the leadership.

          What you are outlining here is a scenario in which internal jockeying trumps public obligation, at a time when people are sleeping in cars, and that is what I am responding to. I am not especially a liberal myself, and I was not touting for liberalism. I don’t think higher taxes are always electoral suicide – prevalent conditions and the population’s evaluation of them determine what is or is not electoral suicide. But I do think it would be the height of decadence to be handing out poisoned chalices to colleagues when your constituency is under fire and your presence at your post is of the utmost importance.

  11. Karen 11
    30 May 2016 at 9:12 am

    Don’t know if anyone has linked to this over the past couple of days but it is another example of state sanctioned money laundering in NZ.

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/81725/nelsons-stock-exchange-big-ponzi-scheme-and-other-tales-john-keys-offshore-financial

    Maybe it could be included in your post Anthony?

  12. maninthemiddle 12
    30 May 2016 at 10:37 am

    Anthony…your link in the body text “One News has a scoop this morning” goes to the NZ Herald article, not the One News link.

  13. Ralf Crown 13
    30 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

    An excellent gossip article. Just few more of them, and all investment and most jobs will be shut down in New Zealand. This is the proverbial “small town bitch behind the laced curtain” always looking for the next piece of juicy gossip to spread around. Investors and “rich people” will certain love it, the further away – the better it looks.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1
      30 May 2016 at 1:04 pm

      Threats now is it? Is this like, a protection racket and you’re a witless thug come to collect?

  14. Words 14
    30 May 2016 at 1:13 pm

    Why are those who should know better, still trying to give John key the benefit of the doubt? In the linked article it says “” Key’s dream of an NZ financial services hub, or a Switzerland of the South Pacific, appears to have morphed into more of an offshore financial centre”” Well no it hasn’t actually, it hasn’t morphed into anything other than what was intended all along, John Key wanted NZ to be a tax haven, that’s his job and what he knows best. Key’s been involved in that throughout his entire adult working life. Did people seriously think that a derivatives trader would change his ways just because he became a NZ politician then Prime Minister?

    • Expat 14.1
      30 May 2016 at 10:28 pm

      Words

      ” Did people seriously think that a derivatives trader would change his ways just because he became a NZ politician then Prime Minister?”

      There are some who recognised that that was his plan, to run the NZ economy as he would one of his clients, but there are many more who don’t know or don’t care or both, and that’s the problem.

  15. The Pink Postman 15
    30 May 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Can anyone believe that %75 of so called labour supporters would welcome a USA warship? where the hell did they get these figures.
    I and all my family are stanch Labour supporters and we certainly were not asked ,Perhaps some of our Standard people will please come forward and tell if they have been asked? .And while we are on the subject are there any guarantees that the proposed ship is not nuclear?.

    • Words 15.1
      30 May 2016 at 1:53 pm

      No, I don’t believe that poll, it is a lie. TV 3 is still actively working for the PM’s benefit.

    • Sabine 15.2
      30 May 2016 at 2:17 pm

      I think that since TV3 axed John Campbell 75% of the no-nuclear crowd has stopped watching TV3. Hence the only ones really left to answer that poll are the national bots from whom this channel as it is now was designed.

      • AmaKiwi 15.2.1
        30 May 2016 at 11:29 pm

        A cornerstone of the American Empire is belief in a bipolar world in which America is the leader of the good guys. Maybe lots of Kiwis are falling for that mythology.

        By the way, did I miss an election someplace? Americans refer to POTUS (President of the United States) as “the leader of the free world.” When was this “free world” election where that got decided?

        • Colonial Viper 15.2.1.1
          31 May 2016 at 1:03 am

          The US model of empire is more of a unipolar world, because the “bad guys” are not considered to have any legitimacy, nor any legitimate claims nor any legitimate interests.

          Only US power, US claims and US interests have any legitimacy. Hence the unipolar model of empire.

  16. silvertuatara 16
    30 May 2016 at 4:13 pm

    BBC Report Panama Papers on 6 April 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35954224

    This is probably just a coincidence but type in Nigel Morrison Resigns into Google…….I have yet to find a media release about his resignation prior to 7 April 2016…..of course Nigel Morrison being the Former CEO of Sky City.

  17. Repateet 17
    30 May 2016 at 5:23 pm

    The defenders of the Prime Minister an this attitude to the dirty situation probably lead blinkered lives.

    They will think it’s okay if P labs are set up the rental houses they own or those places are turned into dens of iniquity. I mean, what would be the problem as long as they keep getting the rent?

  18. Pedant 18
    30 May 2016 at 5:34 pm

    What first world countries are NZ going to fall in this index against? The actual house was in London!

    • Tom 18.1
      30 May 2016 at 5:40 pm

      you forgot the ‘ic’ on the end

      • Sam C 18.1.1
        30 May 2016 at 9:09 pm

        Dead right. But that won’t stop the faux hysteria being stirred up by the “investigative journalists”. Andrea Vance an investigative journalist? Do me a favour.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.1
          30 May 2016 at 10:41 pm

          You’re squealing like a little pig. The fact that the National Party is associated with money laundering and corruption must really hurt, and here’s the thing: it’s old news to anyone who’s been paying attention. Blabbermouth Lusk spilt the beans years ago.

          • Sam C 18.1.1.1.1
            30 May 2016 at 11:05 pm

            It is getting late in the day. OAB, go and take your meds and get some sleep. Come back in the morning, chap.

        • whateva next? 18.1.1.2
          30 May 2016 at 10:41 pm

          why don’t you guys get your own blog site? we could help you with a name as you seem to lack imagination?

          • Sam C 18.1.1.2.1
            30 May 2016 at 11:09 pm

            Oh, I forgot, this site isn’t for political discourse, it is some mutual masturbation chamber for a party managing to garner less than 30% in any poll that is polled?

            • Stuart Munro 18.1.1.2.1.1
              31 May 2016 at 6:06 am

              It is for political discussion – not your pathetic denials and endorsements of far-right corruption.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.2.1.2
              31 May 2016 at 12:08 pm

              “A party”.

              Several, in fact, plus the unaligned. We spend a certain amount of time trying to educate others about a new-fangled thingy called “MMP”. and still they clutch at FPP thinking.

              That gets tiresome. So do right wing parrots who’ve learned all the same lines.

              Polly wanna cracker?

              • Sam C …
                31 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

                And how is MMP working for you, OAB?

                I’d love a cracker, thanks. It is lunchtime after all.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  31 May 2016 at 12:50 pm

                  MMP works fine in my book, although New Zealand would be much better off if the government weren’t corrupt and incompetent.

                  As for your lunch, servile parrots don’t get meal breaks. Those Cabinet Club bribes won’t solicit themselves, y’know.

            • whateva next? 18.1.1.2.1.3
              31 May 2016 at 6:25 pm

              I don’t think I am the wanker in this thread…

  19. reason 19
    31 May 2016 at 8:21 pm

    We’ve learned a lot about tax havens since the Nats have been in power…….. although their association with the people who set them up and run them goes back a lot further .. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8515361/Money-trail-leads-home-to-New-Zealand

    recently we’ve learned how they have not only kept at it …. but they have gotten worse …
    “the database already tells us some more subtle things. For instance, while it lists only 47 Mossack Fonseca-connected offshore entities in New Zealand, there are 547 in the Cook Islands, 9611 in Niue and 13,418 in Samoa. As Jason Brown points out in tonight’s Media Take, the structures of the South Pacific’s secret financial systems have generally been built by New Zealanders.”

    We have learned how John Keys personal lawyer got involved in keeping our Tax haven status …. “that IRD dropped a proposal to review New Zealand’s foreign trust regulations. And that it did so after the then Revenue minister Todd McClay was lobbied by an industry group that included Ken Whitney, who is John Key’s personal legal advisor. We know that Whitney cited a conversation with the Prime Minister in doing so. ” http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/forgetting-what-we-didnt-know/

    We know we have a ex-merchant banker who says he has nothing to hide ….. but will not show his tax records to prove it ….. unlike the leader of the opposition.

    We know that John Shewan, or johns john as I like to call him was involved in a $2.2 Billion dollar bank heist ……. used by profit gouging banks against New Zealanders.

    His ‘financial product’ fraud failed though and the amount recovered in the High Court was equivalent to 100 years worth of what the Welfare benefit fraud unit recovered in 2010 …… Shewans fraud was found guilty in 2009.

    We know Shewan did not go to jail unlike a few solo mothers and other welfare fraudsters.

    Something I do not know though …..

    Is why the Herald seems to have made one of their web pages about Shewans & the aussie banks attempted fraud inaccessible ????

    I attempt to click on “Bernard Hickey:Banks’ tax dodging tantamount to theft”, and it boots me off the herald server ………. ????

    http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/show-me-money/2009/7/25/banks-tax-dodging-tantamount-theft/?c_id=3

    The click through link is at the end of the article on this page http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10601998

    It seems a Herald article linking Shewan with the word ‘Theft’ has been removed.