Robert FitzRoy served as the Governor of New Zealand from 1843 to 1845. The colonial government (established in 1840) was already insolvent when he arrived, and its finances continued to deteriorate ...during his time in the Colony. In 1844, he broadened the Colony's system of customs duties (the main source of revenue), but the Government continued to operate at a deficit. Later the same year, in desperation, he abolished the customs duties altogether and instituted a tax on property and incomes instead. Given that Britain itself had introduced a peacetime income tax only two years previously, in 1842, that was a bold and innovative move; unsurprisingly it failed. FitzRoy also attempted to cover the deficit by printing money, which proved surprisingly successful. Finally, he tried to establish a system of local government, so as to shift as large a part of the burden as possible onto it; like the property and income tax, however, that proved unsuccessful. Britain wanted the Colony to finance itself, but its economy was too small to sustain a government even remotely resembling the British colonial norm. Rather than accept that simple fact, however, the British Government blamed FitzRoy and recalled him to London., Robert FitzRoy served as the Governor of New Zealand from 1843 to 1845. The colonial government (established in 1840) was already insolvent when he arrived, and its finances continued to deteriorate during his time in the Colony. In 1844, he broadened the Colony’s system of customs duties (the main source of revenue), but the Government continued to operate at a deficit. Later the same year, in desperation, he abolished the customs duties altogether and instituted a tax on property and incomes instead. Given that Britain itself had introduced a peacetime income tax only two years previously, in 1842, that was a bold and innovative move; unsurprisingly it failed. FitzRoy also attempted to cover the deficit by printing money, which proved surprisingly successful. Finally, he tried to establish a system of local government, so as to shift as large a part of the burden as possible onto it; like the property and income tax, however, that proved unsuccessful. Britain wanted the Colony to finance itself, but its economy was too small to sustain a government even remotely resembling the British colonial norm. Rather than accept that simple fact, however, the British Government blamed FitzRoy and recalled him to London.
This book tells an instructive tale of Hong Kong's tax system from 1940 (when taxes on income were first introduced in the territory) until the present day. For Hong Kong's own historians and ...political scientists, it supplies cogent but previously neglected evidence of the influence of the territory's business interests. For students of British imperialism, it provides a compelling case-study of relations between London and a recalcitrant colony. For Hong Kong's own tax profession, it corrects the notion that the territory’s tax system was the product of governmental design. And for tax theorists and taxpayers everywhere, it suggests how it might be possible to structure a combination of very light taxes and very low public spending so as to win broad popular support.
Current state of tax avoidance law in New Zealand - assessment of report recommending amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) - difference between tax avoidance and acceptable tax ...planning - amendments would increase litigation and permit forms of tax avoidance currently prohibited.
In 1967 the U.S. Government produced a plan (the Proposal) designed to ensure the continued operation of the federal tax system in the event of a major nuclear attack. The assumptions on which the ...Proposal was based were horrific: they included that the number of casualties in the United States might number 100 million; that fifty percent of the country s real estate might be destroyed; and that its economy might be even more seriously disrupted than those figures suggest. The Proposal produced in 1967 seems to be the first of its kind. Presumably more recent plans have been formulated, but it seems that almost no information about them has been made public. This article examines the 1967 plan and the thinking behind it. This is worthwhile for three main reasons. First, the formulation of the Proposal is itself a significant event in the twentieth century history of the United States, but almost nothing has been published about it. Secondly, an examination of the Proposal and the relations between the men who devised it provides novel insights into the manner in which the nation was governed in the 1960s, and of the extent to which the Soviet threat lay like a cloud over all aspects of the governments decision making. Thirdly, although the Soviet Union has dissolved, the threat of nuclear attack has not. The 1967plan would seem to be the obvious starting point, therefore, for anyone considering what the government s current plans are - or should be.
Governments cannot persuade or force citizens to save more for retirement than they want to save. They should instead focus on doing things that only governments can do. In this article, the author ...builds the case for a strong role for governments in retirement planning, including assertions that: Only governments can reliably eliminate or reduce poverty in retirement through a livable, universal state pension. Only governments can (and should) level the tax and regulatory playing fields for all financial services. Only governments can obtain high-quality data so that we understand what households are doing, financially and otherwise, about their retirement incomes. Finally, only governments can deliver believable information that helps citizens to understand their retirement saving needs. Both governments and employers should stay away from subsidized or forced saving schemes. There is no international evidence that they work.
In 2001, the government established the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This is intended to partially pre-fund the future costs of New Zealand Superannuation, the universal Tier 1 pension payable to ...all New Zealanders over age 65. The incoming, National-led government suspended contributions in 2009 and has said it intends to resume those when economic conditions allow. An analysis in a 'total accounting context' would probably have precluded the Fund's introduction in 2001 because the Fund is effectively 100% leveraged and taxpayers are unlikely to be compensated for assuming that risk. Over the six years to 30 June 2009, the Fund diminished the net worth of the government by about $2.6 billion and, even if it recovers those losses, is unlikely to make any significant future contribution to the security of payments of New Zealand Superannuation. In fact, it raises financial risks for taxpayers and may increase the long-term cost of New Zealand Superannuation. The Fund should be wound up.
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Orion Caribbean was one of the last Hong Kong appeals to the Privy Council - concerns source principle, upon which Hong Kong's tax system is based, where profits are ...generally taxable but offshore profits are generally not - Orion Caribbean was designed to serve as a vehicle for a tax avoidance scheme.
PDF
