as far as I can tell, the following three things are true

1. You don’t know much about the tax have/SJ issue. If you did, you would know that whislt there is no accepted definition of a tax haven/SJ, this is recognised by tax fairness campaigners, who none the less have done extensive work to offer a definition, and explain why no definition is complete.

2. You have not bothered to try and educate yourself about this issue before coming on my blog and telling me I’m being long winded, when this is an issue I work on several days a week and you, frankly, don’t know much by comparison. You could have gone and read the Tax Justice Network website and blog, or the Tax Research UK blog, and searched for what they say about tax have/SJ definitions – but you haven’t. Hence you reveal yourself as fairly ignorant on this matter. If you knew the background debate, you’d see why my post is quite a good rhetorical attack on SJs. Oh, and don’t just quote the OECD. Everyone involved in this issue – on both sides – knows that the OECD is a joke when it comes to Secrecy Jurisdictions. Thus again proving that you don’t know much about this debate.

3. You are completely inconsistent. If you were a genuine freemarketer, you would *oppose secrecy jurisdictions*. Mr Libertarian, are you unable to realise that secrecy jurisdictions are *states* (or arms of states), and by regulating for *secrecy* they are interfering with the free flow of information which is essential if your precious free markey system is to run properly. Secrecy jurisdictions are the most obnoxious forms of state – they legislate to consciously subert the free market to arrogate wealth to themselves, distorting information and encouraging practises like false transfer pricing and encouraging capital flight – thus depriving third world countries of the benefits of the free market you claim will be so good for them. You are so unbelievalby hypocritical on this issue: on other threads you’re Mr-opposed-to-state-intervention…but when it comes to secrecy jurisdictions, suddenly you’re all for defending the actions of states. If your precious unregulated free market is to deliver the promised land you claim, then you have to oppose secrecy jurisdictions as much as you oppose the UK state, or any other.

I would recommend you read a book. Try “Capitalism’s Achilles Heel” by Raymond Baker.

Baker worked as in business for over 40 years, much of it in Nigeria. He is a pro-free marketeer. And he opposes secrecy jurisdictions because they are intensley bad for capitalism. I’d say ignore Baker’s part 3 (his foray into intellectual history is poor; he’s way out of his depth), and you won’t like his call that the free market has to be partly regulated…but none the less I think a (supposed) free-marketeer like you should read his book. Never know, you might have to change your mind about stuff.

Having said that, and looking into the matter, it really does seem as though there just isn’t any good way to characterize tax havens apart from “places where the tax rate is lower than lefties/officials would like it to be.” According to the OECD, “some tax practices are anti-competitive and undermine fair competition and public confidence in tax systems” – which, note, leaves us exactly no clearer to understanding what qualifies as one.