I have to admit I sometimes think about moving. I guess we all do. It's not news. Until, that is, you're a millionaire who is thinking of moving to Jersey. Then apparently, it is, even for the Guardian, who report this morning:
Jersey — you're sooo moneysupermarket.com. The island of Jersey is expected to be the new home of Simon Nixon, the multimillionaire founder of the price comparison site, which would allow him to shelter his £400m fortune from HM Revenue & Customs.
A move by Nixon, who owns just under 50% of the company and who — only two months ago — cashed in some shares to benefit from entrepreneur's tax relief, is likely to spark fresh concern about tax avoidance by British businesspeople and major multinational firms.
Note the "expected". So. it's not actually true. It's just a rumour, no doubt spread to secure a political point, and which will not lead to anything , just as for example, Tracey Emin never left and hoards of others who have said they will do so never depart these shores.
One trip to Jersey is probably enough to persuade many of the folly of the idea of actually living there.
But it's more than the isolation that will persuade most to stay here: it's the reality that you can't make money from Jersey that will persuade most that a move to St Helier is a bad idea. You see, if you really want to be in the centre of the action Jersey is not the place to be. And entrepreneurs can't play from the wings. So if Simon Nixon does leave what he's actually saying is his wealth creation days are over and he's into wealth protection instead. That's because tax havens and entrepreneurs don't mix, at all. Tax havens and agreed do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
On entrepreneurship, there is an interesting discussion in today’s Observer. Jeff Jarvis argues companies being forced to pay the intended current corporate tax rate risks….
“disadvantaging the UK by making it a hostile environment for investment by both startups and innovative international companies.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/17/should-boycott-google-starbucks-amazon
However the point Jeff makes misses a bigger issue. Multinational companies such as GE used to invest in early stage technology companies. This would help the start up travel through the ‘Valley of Death’, a phase where the capital could run out before the maturation of the technology / the generation of value.
However, in the last few years, it has been more profitable for multinational companies to buy local companies that are already successful and to make them ‘tax efficient’ than it is to take risks with early-stage investments. Perversely, this has resulted in a drop in early-stage investment and forces companies to rely instead on government development funds (eg the Technology Strategy Board). It would not surprise me if the indirect loss of industrial investment due to tax trickery were far greater than the sum of all government grants. Perhaps someone has figures on this?