Mangrove Roots Twist Themselves
Stuart "Mangrove" Nash is not the best spokesperson from Labour to blog on "Exploding Tax Myths". Come to think of it he may not be the best Spokesperson on Revenue for a centre-left party.
I thought it would take three posts and comments on the topic for him to step in doggy doo as a virgin MP.
It took one.
Mangrove boldly posts in the comments to his myth 1 -
The fundamental principle that I think most kiwis agree with is that one should pay their fair share – no more, no less. People who structure their affairs to avoid tax are only shifting the burden to those who haven’t then means or the wealth to undertake such operations.
This is a bold statement not about the tax rate (as Trevor Mallard is making) but the entire structuring of affairs which in the context of the Labour party statements taking the moral high grounds somewhat on the TWG is a clanger.
Fran O'Sullivan gave self-interested MP's a good kicking in her column this week about the TWG's report on the grounds plenty of MP's themselves are indulging in the very behaviour the TWG has recommended is, well we will euphemistically call it "adjusted". Clearly the Labour caucus blogging team again hazed Mangrove by not giving him the heads-up.
Mangrove has always had the sniff of a trust boy about him so I looked up the 2009 Pecuniary Interest Register:
Stuart NASH (Labour. List)
1. Company directorships and controlling interests
Agincourt Investments Limited - investments and consultancy
4. Beneficial Interests in trusts
Nash Family Trust
Live by the sword die by the sword Mangrove - you have a family trust to pay 33 cents instead of 38 cents in the dollar and by the looks of it a vehicle to pay company tax at 30 cents on investments and consultancy instead of the top 38 cents in the dollar rate. Nothing wrong with that or illegal. But when you deride me for working in an industry that apparently is dedicated to "exploiting loopholes" you cannot take the moral high-ground making grandoise statements about those:
structuring their affairs to avoid tax are only shifting the burden to those who haven’t then means or the wealth to undertake such operations.
When that is precisely what you are doing in your own view to the detriment of "hard working Kiwis" who cannot "undertake such operations".
posted by Cactus Kate at 3:27 AM
14 Comments:
That's right. Not even the poorest can set up a little "Trademe business" and start claiming a percentage of rent, electricity, write off the computer and cell phone, etc...
And then, of course, if only one of them brings in income, they can income split...
Only the wealthy can do these things, surely?
BAH!
Good spotting. What a plonker.
Well harpooned! What a tosser he must be.
So Stuart Nash is a beneficiary of a family trust....Hardly a smoking gun. Now if he was the trustee, settlor and beneficiary, that may actually merit some more investigation.
I have beneficiary interest in 3 trusts, doesn't mean i am suddenly a tax dodger. Also, tax evasion is actually illegal, may want to sell yourself in a slightly different way!
Once again...
Touche !!
adam2314
Why is he called mangrove?
6.49pm - yeah and I am sure Mrs Nash bought the family home (real property listed as owned by the trust) and is generating all the income via the company he is director and shareholder of.
If he's a beneficiary it means he can receive distributions of tax paid income in the trust for nix as the trustee of the trust pays the tax at 30 cent rather than 39 cents to him.
Pecuniary interest register does not require disclosure of the other elements of a trust.
Where have I even used the precise words "tax evasion" in this post? Avoidance and evasion are two different things and Nash has defined "avoidance" as taxpayers who structure their affairs precisely like his.
Get your facts right before you even start to comment. Laughable. Lucky you are a trust fund baby as a beneficiary of 3 trusts. One imagines you would never be a settlor.
Wrong, Beneficiary of two, trustee of one for my daughter.
I was merely basing my comments on your statement,
Ok, avoidance and evasion start with different letters, but come on be realistic...that where the difference finishes.
As you would know, there are many different types of trusts, and the trustee's, settlors etc of those trusts set them up for many different reason...security, organisation, future planning and some just to say they have a trust (even if it does only have the 3brm family home).
My point being, is until you actually know Nash is "avoiding" tax, your point is flawed!
So none of it was your money to begin with?
Evasion is a criminal offence, avoidance is civil.
If you don't know the differences between the two you aren't really qualified to be a trustee of a trust are you?
The left, now realising their argument is stuffed are wheeling out all the various reasons OTHER than tax that people set up trusts.
Funny that as I have been stating these for years.
Labour have redefined avoidance in the speech "the many not the few" to mean New Zealanders on "good incomes" (Goff's words) who are structuring to pay less than the top tax rate. Nash falls into this with not just a trust but a company.
Regardless of whether it is a civil or criminal offense, it is still morally wrong.
I have a successful career, and pay my fair share of tax. I also pay a rather large amount of Child support.
Now if we use the C/S as a example, i could structure my affairs to allow myself to be assessed on less income. However, that would only be cheating my daughter.
Same with the income tax, however obviously it is cheating the rest of NZ.
The fact is i can be successful and pay tax....unfortunatly tax is a necessary evil.
Isnt structuring your affairs to pay less tax just cheating yourself?
I mean, you didnt make all that money the proper and correct way did you
I think we both agree the rates are too high, but why not lobby for lower rates rather than cheat the system
Oh for goodness sake, resorting to "morals" when talking abut taxation means you've lost your argument.
There is nothing moral about stealing people's money in the first place.
The law is the law, you don't have to pay more tax than the law allows. In order to follow the law you must understand it and apply it correctly.
That is all structuring is.
It is always Parliaments intent to collect as much tax as possible which is why this morality is a nonsense.
Man, there is one eyed, and then there is cactus!
Its not just a matter of resorting to morals. My understanding of the IRD is that its mission statement includes improving the social wellbeing of NZ through the collection of revenue.
The law is the law, you don't have to pay more tax than the law allows. In order to follow the law you must understand it and apply it correctly .
Wouldn't applying it correctly mean paying the correct amount of tax, and not "avoiding" it? call me naive i guess.
And you know what, ive never voted greens, labour or Alliance in my life...so the "lefty pinko" tag doesnt really apply! .:)
You seem like a bright girl, so lets agree to agree on this one aye!
couldn't have said it better myself cactus.
We as taxpayers have a duty to minimise the amount of tax we pay, because the money is better spent by those who earned it, rather than frittered away by miscreants sho spend it on their perception of the greater good (hip hop tour, AGW research, lifelong welfare dependency for the able bodied etc......).
You pay too much tax, and for that I LOL at you. Structure your affairs according to the rule of law and stop pissing it down the toilet of bureaucratic nonsense
If an entity has the power to take the fruits of your labour, then regardless of how much it actually exercises that power, regardless of how much it allows you to retain, it owns you. You are its asset. Is slavery moral?
LGM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home