There’s nothing like a road map to see what lies ahead here at home and abroad. But I begin with a disclaimer, Mr Editor: I have no crystal ball. First, our Finance Minister got me to thinking with his frank admission fresh from his promotional reconnaissance in France. We don’t see eye to eye, he reported on his return, and nothing he had to say to the French caused them to change their minds. We have some “philosophical” (ahem) “differences” when it comes to taxation and they continue to regard us as a “paradis fiscal”, the French term for tax haven. While that may sound positively exotic, it isn’t meant to be. We remain in their cross hairs.

We should not be surprised. There is this tide to the affairs of men, including affaires financial I suspect, which when taken at the flood etc etc ( I am cribbing from that man Shakespeare again, this time from Brutus in Julius Caesar), and on such a sea are we now afloat.

This brings me to my second point: the tide. I recently finished reading that weighty tome everyone who is anyone in economics has been talking about: Capital in the Twenty First Century by Thomas Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics.

Believe me it is no easy read, some 600 plus pages, replete with graphs, charts and mathematical formulae that are a challenge to a layman like me. But I persevered. I do understand English.

While Bermuda is not mentioned, not even once as far as I could see, tax havens are and the book provides insight into why we will continue to come under mounting scrutiny and increased pressure from those in the European community, and elsewhere.

Here are some of the more relevant highlights in summary form:

• Prof Piketty debunks the benevolence of advanced capitalism and forecasts instead an ever increasing gap between rich and poor which, in turn, he argues, will undermine our democratic values of justice and fairness.

• He lays out the case as to why inequality surges when populations and their economies grow slowly, which, he foresees, will be the case for some years to come.

• The rate of return on capital (profits, dividends, interest, rents and other income from capital, including inheritances) will as a result remain significantly above the rate of growth for the economy.

• Put simply: if unchecked the rich will get richer, in his view, and the poor, and pretty well everyone else too, will get poorer.

• The professor does not believe in trickle-down economics or that a rising tide really does lift all yachts: that it could have been true but “it just happened to be wrong”.

• Instead, and here’s the rub so far as Bermuda is concerned, money that was meant to trickle down or could have trickled down has instead found a home in the so-called tax havens. He cites sources who contend that unreported financial assets amount to about 10 percent of the global GDP ie lot of money, billions in fact, hundreds of them by his reckoning.

• Whether legal tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion doesn’t matter as far as he is concerned.

• While he mentions no names he writes that it is not right for individuals to grow wealthy from free trade and economic integration only to rake off the profits at the expense of their neighbours: “that is outright theft”. Strong stuff.

• These strong views lead the economist to conclude that what is needed is a permanent, progressive tax on capital “at a fairly moderate rate”, “not heavy handed” which, in his books, could bring in significant revenue, enough for instance to help pay down the huge public debt so many countries are carrying.

• But for this to work, he concedes, and here’s the rub again, Bermuda, there needs to be an automatic sharing of bank information both inside and outside the EU. Tax authorities must be given the means by which to obtain reliable information about the net assets of all taxpayers “no matter where those assets are located”.

• And he concludes: without real accounting and financial transparency of information there can be no economic democracy.

Grant it, I have simplified the message. But you get the gist. Others do. Piketty’s arguments have a certain appeal and for obvious reason.

He contends that the problem of inequality is not just one of economics but one of practical politics and he offers up his solutions as an alternative to a prolonged dose of austerity, the worst solution as far as he is concerned, both in terms of justice and efficiency.

But it won’t be easy to achieve. Professor Piketty himself recognises the challenges to what he proposes: a high degree of international cooperation and regional political integration is required.

The crowning irony? In his own words: “it is almost impossible to sustain without a colonial type of political domination.”

He remains optimistic. Back here at home we know what Plan A appears to be: hold on and press on with what we’ve got.

Still, in the face of what’s out there, it doesn’t hurt to be working on a Plan B.

You might think this sufficiently worthy of debate and study on and off the Hill, no less so than, say, the cannabis reform initiative.

Paradis fiscal: The end of but one chapter and the beginning of another?

* Your views are welcome on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ilb.bm.