UGLOBAL. COM 78
Island, Virgin Island, British Virgin Island, Switzerland, Panama, Jersey Island, Hong Kong, Singapore and Macau. These jurisdictions offer discretion for owners of bank accounts and property and maintain low taxes( or no taxation at all) to attract foreign assets.
Estimates of“ offshore wealth” for the period 2005- 2015 fluctuate between 10 to 13 percent of global GDP, though some estimates may be even higher. 8 It is important to consider that a large proportion of offshore wealth tends to be undeclared to the tax authorities of the origin country; this has two main consequences: the loss of tax revenues in countries where wealth was generated( even if there is no direct wealth tax in a country; interests, dividends and rents are often taxed in most economies) and the distortion of the statistical measures of wealth distribution( particularly the degree of wealth concentration at the top) thereby misinforming policy formulation in areas such as tax policy and business regulation. 9
THE CHANGING LOCATIONS OF OFFSHORE WEALTH
Historically, Switzerland was the main supplier of cross – border wealth management services starting in the 1920s. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Swiss took advantage of its neutrality in Second World War to receive large deposits from wealthy Europeans in belligerent countries.
In 2005 Switzerland held 46 percent of global offshore wealth but this share declined to around 26 percent in 2015. 10 The decline in the importance of Switzerland( and other European tax havens) has been matched by an increase in the relative share of American and Asian tax havens between 2005 and 2015.
In 2015, the Cayman island was the most important recipient of offshore wealth in the American havens( accounting for 7.9 percent of world ' s offshore wealth), followed by the US( 7.5 percent) and Panama( 1.6 percent). The main recipient of world offshore wealth is an Asian tax haven: Hong Kong, representing 16.5 percent of the world total( mostly coming from mainland China) followed by Singapore( 10 percent). Among the European tax havens, the most important center is the UK( 8.9 percent) followed, closely, by Luxembourg( 8.3 percent). 11
差异巨大 。 实际上, 韩国 、 瑞典 、 挪威 、 丹麦 、 日 本和中国的离岸资产仅占全国 GDP 的 2 % 至 4 %, 希 腊和阿根廷的这个比例达到了 35 %, 在俄罗斯
12
、 沙特阿拉伯 、 委内瑞拉和阿联酋, 离岸资产更是高 达 GDP 的 40 % 至 70 % 。
那些历史上受经济动荡和财政波动影响明显 、 社会 不平等性逐渐提升的国家, 如阿根廷 、 希腊 、 俄罗 斯和委内瑞拉, 其离岸资产在总 GDP 中所占比重要 高于那些更加稳定 、 平等性较高的国家 。
此外, 高净值个人在避税国的选择上似乎存在明显 的“ 区域偏见” 。 美洲范围内的避税区, 如维京群 岛和巴拿马, 吸引了大量来自美洲高净值个人的财 富 。 相对地, 来自法国 、 比利时和葡萄牙的财富多 集中于瑞士和卢森堡, 富有的俄罗斯人则喜欢将财 富存放在瑞士和塞浦路斯 。 而来自中国的财富所有 人更青睐新加坡 、 香港 、 澳门和英属泽西群岛 。
高净值个人财富的主要趋势
地理位置和财富分部的三个全球经济趋势为: 全球 大量个人财富集中在极少数人手中, 高净值个人的 全球移动性不断增加; 个人财富离境保存的重要性 逐渐凸显, 将财富存放在产生国之外的地区成为稳 定度和平等性较差国家富裕人口中的一种明显趋 势 。 富裕的精英阶层辗转全世界各个国家和地区, 为他们的家庭寻找高质量生活, 为他们的财富寻求 更安全的避风港 。
通过资金投入换取签证和公民权益, 投资移民项目 使得高净值个人全球移动性的实现成为了可能 。 这 种移民方式不同于来自欠发达经济体 、 财富较少的 个人所必须经历的繁复冗长的移民流程, 此种情况 不容忽视 。 财富的发展程度 、 不平等性和物理移动 性之间的关系相当微妙, 经常受特定环境中特殊情 况的影响 。
法国和英国这两个发达的资本主义国家近年来面临 着高净值个人的外流, 这样的趋势似乎同税收政策 和社会的不安定性相关; 相对地, 来自俄罗斯 、 阿联 酋和委内瑞拉等高度不平等国家的高净值个人将大 量资金离岸保存, 表明了社会不平等性与离岸财富 有着直接关联 。 最后, 高税率北欧国家的离岸财富 所占比重不大, 表明本国税收水平与离岸财富之间 的关联可能比较薄弱 。
MAIN DIFFERENCES IN OFFSHORE WEALTH ACROSS COUNTRIES
As already mentioned an estimate of the world average ratio of offshore wealth is around 10 percent of GDP. Nevertheless, this masks very considerable variations across countries in the degree to which nationals hold their assets abroad. In fact, the ratio of