Myers should know better than to make such silly comments because he is or should be well aware that the decrease in spending was not discretionary but due to the completion of certain infrastructure projects. Further, because successive governments have used the Treasury as an election campaign slush fund, government spending in the 12 months leading up to an election is always expansionary as they attempt to increase aggregate demand in the economy. Therefore, it will be fully expected that after the election there would be a spending decrease compared to the prior period.

Wow! I am convinced these guys just talk to hear themselves without a deep understanding of what they are uttering. We can create meaningful and sustainable FDI without trying to leverage tax avoidance schemes. As I have previously stated, the reasons given above is exactly why the Enterprise Bill is the wrong legislation for this environment.

Nonsense!

You do realize that there is a difference between a natural person and a legal personality and between personal income taxes and corporate taxes.

Agree. In 2017 for persons to openly say that this Bill will produce jobs for Bahamian cleaners, maids and secretaries and think that is ok as a government policy is beyond an abomination.

The structure Mr. Raine notes above is quite common as it relates to Intellect Property domicile, the ownership of work product rights and its licencing arrangements. Therefore, this Bill in question in its current form as a vehicle to attract software developers in any meaningful way is almost laughable if the situation were not so serious. Software Developers, who are actually developing work product and earning money now will likely already have a similar structure in place because they can actually develop the work product any where in the world, however, the Intellectual property ownership and work product and licensing rights can be domiciled somewhere else. Therefore, they can accomplish the very same benefits through the structuring of corporate legal entities with no need to move a single natural person or require a single work permit. Their decision to move to and or work from the Bahamas is usually based on other considerations which is where our competitiveness, the quality and cost of living and ease of doing business issues are important.

Having said all of that, the larger strategic issue with this approach is that it is just not a sustainable value proposition or business model in the current international regulatory and compliance environment. The focus of de-risking and harmful tax practices on independent Caribbean OFCs is not coincidental and will not abate until either there is complete transparency of the financial activities of the citizens the G7 nations or the OFC in question is pronounced dead and not dying as the PM stated. Further, the field will never be level and the goal post will continue to be moved such that the OFC will never really be in full compliance no matter how much they co-operate.

This Bill was touted as a jobs and investment Bill, except that by your own words it would provide employment only for "maids, cleaners and secretaries", it includes no provisions or commitments to actually hire or train Bahamians, it includes no provisions to incentivize domestic spending beyond the $250K capital, it throws into further disarray our ambiguous and administratively unworkable immigration policy whereby we are saying to some foreigners no matter your contribution to our country leave by December 31 but to other foreigners please come and we will welcome you and your friends for a mere $250K.

The intent may be in the right place but this Bill is simply inadequate and the approach must be more comprehensive to deal with more aspects of ease of doing business and our relative competitiveness.

You say I do not understand and maybe this is too complex for me but what I do understand is that there is no legal requirement for other spending in this particular Bill and also there is no requirement to hire a single Bahamian for that matter. The question should not be whether or not there is some law that prevents these foreigners from hiring Bahamians the question is and should rightly be whether this proposed Bill (Law) requires and mandates them to hire Bahamians. We are not evaluating some law we are evaluating this Bill.

You forgot to mention that it is now dis-allowed in Ireland.

Trust me I get it my friend, but is doubling down on our tax haven status or promoting tax avoidance schemes really a viable business model for our financial services sector? That approach is why the industry is now being choked by these onshore jurisdictions. Further, based on your example the net local jobs are maids and cleaners. Are you serious? Is that our strategy! Stop joking, how does that produce sustainable job creation or economic development. A fella with $250K ain't buying no $3 million house.