Panama Papers

Catogrande

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578856" data-time="1462972796">
<div>
Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem... 
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts.
</div>
</blockquote>
Trust have many and varied uses. They are more often used to ensure that assets are passed down to the people intended without any unwanted consequences. They can protect assets against voracious creditors, serial divorcees, protect vulnerable or financially irresponsible people, protect disabled or injured people's benefits rights - oh and strategic tax planning.
 
Very useful tool for all these things and nothing dodgy about any of them.

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578856" data-time="1462972796">
<div>
Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem... 
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Like the ones run by Wycliffe for Haiti? Or Tony Blair? Or any number of other ones? Charitable trusts are literally the definition of shadey as fuck tax dodges

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578856" data-time="1462972796">
<div>
Noted leftard, Don Brash, seems to think there's a problem... 
Here's my revolutionary theory: only charitable trusts have any reason to exist, and all other trusts are created to circumvent something, usually legislation, so eliminate all trusts other than charitable trusts.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Don Brash whos been turfed out of national and act and loves to shit stir?

taniwharugby

Well the rules about what qualifies as a charitable trust are probably a bigger issue and genuinely tax evasion!

JC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="578861" data-time="1462977322">
<div>
Trust have many and varied uses. They are more often used to ensure that assets are passed down to the people intended without any unwanted consequences. They can protect assets against voracious creditors, serial divorcees, protect vulnerable or financially irresponsible people, protect disabled or injured people's benefits rights - oh and strategic tax planning.
 
Very useful tool for all these things and nothing dodgy about any of them.
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, that's my experience too Cato. Trusts are generally about protecting ownership of assets.
 
Kinds I've seen include:
 
Zimbabwean farmers using foreign trusts to prevent Mugabe's lawyers from stealing what was left of their assets after his henchmen grabbed their farms.
Wealthy families using trusts to provide a regular income for useless kids who would otherwise spend their entire inheritance on trying to live the Kardashian lifestyle. Or they might set up incentive trusts to encourage those same kids to do something useful otherwise they get nothing.
People living in countries with heirship laws who don't want their kids to put their stepmum on the street when they die.
Hundreds of varieties of unit trusts that enable collective investments or cooperative ownership. This can minimise fees and costs a lot.
Ones used to keep inheritances private as they remain privileged legal documents, unlike wills that become public after probate.
Ones set up to ring fence premarital assets
Putting a house in trust so that several people who can't individually afford one can purchase one together. Or buying it together with parents without falling foul of gift duties.
Many used to ensure that when the grantor dies their greedy kids can't challenge a will by claiming incompetence or coercion.
I've seen gay people use it to ensure a fuss-free handover of their assets to their partner when they die.
 
Sometimes circumventing something is a good idea. In a lot of countries there is just no recognised trust structure available locally so people look to countries like NZ.
 
I'm sure some people use them for tax avoidance, but if you set up a trust here and the only purpose is to avoid tax the IRD can seize 100% of the assets over and above any fines or penalties, (also true in most other jurisdictions too I think) so it's done less than you might think.

jegga

Getting back to Andrew Little he's been given a week to publicly apologise or face a defamation suit, <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79899206/andrew-little-faces-legal-challenge-unless-he-apologises-to-scenic-hotel-group'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79899206/andrew-little-faces-legal-challenge-unless-he-apologises-to-scenic-hotel-group</a>

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="578892" data-time="1463005743">
<div>
Yeah, that's my experience too Cato. Trusts are generally about protecting ownership of assets.
 
Kinds I've seen include:
 
Zimbabwean farmers using foreign trusts to prevent Mugabe's lawyers from stealing what was left of their assets after his henchmen grabbed their farms.
Wealthy families using trusts to provide a regular income for useless kids who would otherwise spend their entire inheritance on trying to live the Kardashian lifestyle. Or they might set up incentive trusts to encourage those same kids to do something useful otherwise they get nothing.
People living in countries with heirship laws who don't want their kids to put their stepmum on the street when they die.
Hundreds of varieties of unit trusts that enable collective investments or cooperative ownership. This can minimise fees and costs a lot.
Ones used to keep inheritances private as they remain privileged legal documents, unlike wills that become public after probate.
Ones set up to ring fence premarital assets
Putting a house in trust so that several people who can't individually afford one can purchase one together. Or buying it together with parents without falling foul of gift duties.
Many used to ensure that when the grantor dies their greedy kids can't challenge a will by claiming incompetence or coercion.
I've seen gay people use it to ensure a fuss-free handover of their assets to their partner when they die.
 
Sometimes circumventing something is a good idea. In a lot of countries there is just no recognised trust structure available locally so people look to countries like NZ.
 
I'm sure some people use them for tax avoidance, but if you set up a trust here and the only purpose is to avoid tax the IRD can seize 100% of the assets over and above any fines or penalties, (also true in most other jurisdictions too I think) so it's done less than you might think.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
wrong, you only set up trusts for dodgy reasons!

Mokey

Are we taking bets on how long before some Labour person stages yet another coup?
 
Little is such a clusterfuck, he has no business whatsoever being anywhere near party leadership. Does he even have a shred of evidence other than timing of a rather small in the scheme of things donation?
 
"Calling the government to account" is not defaming businessmen based on one loosely circumstantial thing, you fucking tool.

jegga

I asked yesterday if it's time for a pool on when he goes . I hope he's dumb enough not to apologise .

taniwharugby

yeah seems he thinks if he flicks enough mud at Key it will pave his way to PM, fortunately the majority of NZers are not that stupid to believe his shite.

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mokey" data-cid="578899" data-time="1463007106">
<div>
Are we taking bets on how long before some Labour person stages yet another coup?
 
Little is such a clusterfuck, he has no business whatsoever being anywhere near party leadership. Does he even have a shred of evidence other than timing of a rather small in the scheme of things donation?
 
"Calling the government to account" is not defaming businessmen based on one loosely circumstantial thing, you fucking tool.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Apparently the drums are beating for Jacinda Ardern. TVNZ will fawn over her, and the rest of NZ will find her as unimpressive as the previous lot.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="578902" data-time="1463007903">
<div>
Apparently the drums are beating for Jacinda Ardern. TVNZ will fawn over her, and the rest of NZ will find her as unimpressive as the previous lot.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't mind her, but for me the issue is Labour seem to be so focused on trying to tear National down all the time, rather than focusing on sorting out their own shit and building up their supporter base.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="578861" data-time="1462977322">
<div>
They can protect assets against voracious creditors, 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
And just ordinary creditors, as well.
 
See occasional references to assholes who've (almost) totally mismanaged their businesses, gone broke leaving dozens of "little guys" badly out of pocket - and they're holed up in their $10 million "trust-owned" mansion with their own assets neatly protected.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="578906" data-time="1463008387">
And just ordinary creditors, as well. 
See occasional references to assholes who've (almost) totally mismanaged their businesses, gone broke leaving dozens of "little guys" badly out of pocket - and they're holed up in their $10 million "trust-owned" mansion with their own assets neatly protected.</blockquote>
 
Building industry is full of these mobile organ banks . I remember seeing one on pleading poverty on tv and he was pretty convincing , a few weeks later he was back on tv trying to shield his face as he backed out of the driveway of his palatial house in a seven series Bmw after it turned out he'd hidden plenty of coin away .

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="578902" data-time="1463007903">
Apparently the drums are beating for Jacinda Ardern. TVNZ will fawn over her, and the rest of NZ will find her as unimpressive as the previous lot.</blockquote>
 
I would. 
I wouldn't vote for her though.

Mokey

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="578903" data-time="1463007996">
<div>
I don't mind her, but for me the issue is Labour seem to be so focused on trying to tear National down all the time, rather than focusing on sorting out their own shit and building up their supporter base.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's the thing. When did the opposition last do something of their own bat, to bring about positive change for NZers? Louisa Wall and the marriage equality bill? That showed gumption and leadership, and showed how parties could work together to achieve better outcomes for a whole bunch of people regardless of location, age, income, voter pref etc.
 
The constant muck raking and attacks and 'that sucks cos John Key said it/suggested it' is so fucking tiresome, and only demonstrates further than that is all Labour and the Greens have. THAT is why people won't vote for them. Cos they know if they were in power, they'd be all holy fuck, what do we do now, we can't just heckle the other side!

Tim

At the end of the day I'm mostly looking for the following from a political party:
 
(i) What will you do to reduce my expenses?
 
(ii) What will you do to increase my career opportunities?
 
Labour isn't selling me anything as far as I can tell.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="578925" data-time="1463011979">
<div>
At the end of the day I'm mostly looking for the following from a political party:
 
(i) What will you do to reduce my expenses?
 
(ii) What will you do to increase my career opportunities?
 
Labour isn't selling me anything as far as I can tell.
</div>
</blockquote>
All Labour is trying to sell is that John Key is bad for NZ.

Baron Silas Greenback

I don't really agree with the criticism over lack of policy fro labour. Less is mroe in som,e cases. They should not be expected to have lots of policy at this stage in the election cycle. Unfortunately for them.. they not only lack proper policy, the policy they do have is all destructive and 'attack'.
 
They are continually being disagreeable for the sake of it. If National say Black is Black.. Labour will claim Black is White. Just total kneejerk bullshit. The reason National beat labour was that the electorate got sick of govt..... not because national had piles of great new policy. Labour on the other hand.. just have to bleat about everything, so when they do have a good point.. nobody cares.
 
Labour Education spokesman criticises charter schools.. yet has NEVER stepped foot in a single one... he has had 5 years.
 
Add to the facts that they are just sliding further and further left under the leadership of union twats.. and Labour could be in opposition for a VERY long time. If Winston wasnt so old, I could actually see a party like NZF becoming the main opposition party,

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="578930" data-time="1463012588">
<div>
I don't really agree with the criticism over lack of policy fro labour. Less is mroe in som,e cases. They should not be expected to have lots of policy at this stage in the election cycle. Unfortunately for them.. they not only lack proper policy, the policy they do have is all destructive and 'attack'.
 
They are continually being disagreeable for the sake of it. If National say Black is Black.. Labour will claim Black is White. Just total kneejerk bullshit. The reason National beat labour was that the electorate got sick of govt..... not because national had piles of great new policy. Labour on the other hand.. just have to bleat about everything, so when they do have a good point.. nobody cares.
 
Labour Education spokesman criticises charter schools.. yet has NEVER stepped foot in a single one... he has had 5 years.
 
Add to the facts that they are just sliding further and further left under the leadership of union twats.. and Labour could be in opposition for a VERY long time. If Winston wasnt so old, I could actually see a party like NZF becoming the main opposition party,
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Hence my point about selling me something. They might have some good policies, but it would be hard to know, as they seem to spend all their time attacking the government on generally trivial points.

The Silver Fern

Panama Papers