NOTE the word "harmful" below, used three times, mainly meaning "harmful competition by offering lower tax rates". Now, this is very interesting, if unsurprising. Theoretically, there is no particular reason why competition in tax rates, i.e. essentially in the provision of government services at a lower price, should be "harmful" in any sense differing from competition in supplying any other service. Naturally, the supplier of a particular service (or product) tends to think of competition in his own arena as "harmful", whereas competition in any other is generally a "public good". This is obviously nothing but self- serving; the putative robber barons of the last century presumably thought of competiton in petroleum, rail transportation and whatnot as "harmful", as did United and American when airline service opened to competition some 20 years ago. What makes the assertions of the British and other G7 governments particularly irksome is that they simultanaeously advocate competition in most areas, except their own, and at the same time make a - usually implicit - claim to represent some kind of public good, and a claim to holding the moral high ground. Regards Nils Andersson In a message dated 1998-11-16 12:34 Pacific Standard Time, jf_avon@citenet.net writes:

From Caribbean Week, business section, updated Nov. 15 1998 (?)

================================================= Global initiatives present challenges to BVI

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS - Proposed initiatives created for "combating harmful preferential tax regimes" could present special challenges to offshore financial centres such as the BVI, Chief Minister, Ralph O'Neal has told

the

Legislative Council. ............. the UK Government's resolve to tackle harmful tax competition.........

Of the concerns noted by the Chief Minister were OCED initiatives to counter the spread to tax havens and harmful preferential regimes............