Slashdot Mirror
Swiss Bank Secrecy Under Renewed Attack
Stanislav_J writes "All you wealthy Slashdotters better start making alternate arrangements for stashing your millions. Switzerland's storied role as discreet banker to the world's tax-avoiding wealthy is under threat like never before, and this time the country ultimately may not be able to stop the rest of the world from prying into those legendary 'secret' accounts, said to contain between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. A massive German tax-evasion scandal is putting pressure on the Swiss to cooperate, and the rest of Europe is also hardening their resolve to force change upon them. Per the article, 'The official Swiss reaction has been self-conscious detachment, which they hope will deflate the issue,' but even their own citizens are not too concerned about those outside their borders: 80% of Swiss support the banking confidentiality law, but that number drops into the 40s when it is applied to foreigners. Pressure is also coming from US pols — not the 'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans, but the 'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats, including Illinois Senator (and presidential candidate) Barack Obama."
But downright wrong when it enables someone to evade taxation like the rest of us. Striking a balance will be a difficult task.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I've stashed my millions in virtual banks and real estate in Second Life. There's no way that can turn out badly.
It's not so much about the banking laws n Switzerland proper, it's more about Lichtenstein and their completely anonymous foundations. Plus the fact that Lichtenstein (not Switzerland) does not consider tax evasion even a crime, so good luck to get them to tell you anything.
Worse or better, the scandal is already slowly declining. (Basically it has dropped from the news, or at least the front page of newspapers. E.g. the issue of getting rid of Mr. Beck, the party leader of the SPD seems to be way more interesting currently)
yacc
To offer the slashdotters to hand over the money to me and just forget it.
hilarious
heh. you must be new here....
I fully support the First Interplanetary Bank of Phobos.
Get the regulations in their own nations properly attuned first.
Especially in the US, where businesses, media outlets, and telecoms have been increasingly 'freed' of regulations necessary for the maintenance of the public good since reagan took office back in the late 80's.
This includes but is not limited to finances.
(my first priority would be the media ownership regulations, the removal of which has resulted in the formation of the largest political propaganda machine since hitler's information ministry)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Just declare each "tax haven" a terrorist country and get on with it. While you can't just raid enough banks and stock exchanges here in the US without someone noticing, that would come close.
They may have gotten Spitzer, but Wall Streeters (no, that doesnt include pension/mutual funds) need to know about the rules. When they violate said rules, they should feel something large enough not to pass on, and something they must face directly as those of Main Street face.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You can't have it both ways. It's like trying to say "oh, secrecy is great, but not when it allows THE TERRORISTS to run amok!"--just find some reason to point out why secrecy allows some perceived ill to take place and then you can easily get rid of it for everything, because you can't have secrecy only for "good" things and "no secrecy" for "not-good" things. If you have secrecy, then yes, you're going to have people break the law to use that secrecy... and, being shielded by secrecy, people aren't going to know if you're being good or bad. Also, I see no problems people allowing people to evade taxation "like the rest of us". Why shoot yourself in the foot?!
"Maintenance of the public good", I see a socialist right there.
The Swiss economy is basically subsidised by victims from the rest of world.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I'm sure that since this time it's the Democrats wanting to get into people's secrecy, it must be all just a big misunderstanding.
Man. I really hope this succeeds. I always get a warm fuzzy feeling whenever a lot of bankers hit the wall.
In "Earth," by David Brin, there's actually a big campaign to uncover all those secret bank accounts, and the whole situation devolves into a war against Switzerland.
this veiled assertion that conservatives are against the maintenance of the public good seems a bit inaccurate to me.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This statement actually surprised me:
During a meeting of his Rotary Club in Zurich, his fellow members were appalled that Swiss bankers might be managing the money of foreign tax evaders. "We had no idea," Mr. Hummler recalls them saying, "that you did things like that."
I don't pay a hell of a lot of attention to financial news, or banking laws.. but even _I_ know that the Swiss have built a long reputation on providing accounts to foreigners trying to avoid taxes in their home country. Isn't this just common knowledge? I'd think it'd be even more common knowledge in Switzerland.
AccountKiller
There is no question this is unethical. Switzerland is profiting from these investments and other countries are having to pay the bill (both monetary and socially). It is no surprise that criminals and criminal organizations have used this loophole to continue their practices. Switzerland's practice is hurting these other countries in a very real way. If they want to continue granting this right to their citizens, fine. But they do not have some privacy right to extend this practice unethically to foreigners.
One might say secrecy is fine when it protects individual rights, but downright wrong when it enables terrorist. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't have it both ways.
Why not? I don't think the poster said individual privacy rights were inviable. Get a warrant issued by a judge for a valid reason and the government can look at mostly whatever it likes. The only exceptions (I think) are lawyer confidentiality, and doctor/patient confidentiality.
The only difference here is that Switzerland seems to have a banker/client confidentiality, which seems a bit strange to the rest of us to throw it in with doctors and lawyers. Even that may I believe is cracked open for criminal cases, just not for tax evasion in a foreign country (which I believe isn't illegal in Switzerland).
AccountKiller
Yes, Switzerland has a long tradition of bank secrecy. Here it is considered a natural part of one's right for privacy.
But among the many tax havens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#Examples), Switzerland is among the best world-citizens: while it still offers secrecy, it has had for several years agreements with the US and the European Community to tax capital income from foreign citizens. The principle is: we preserve secrecy, but we will tax the funds for you.
For money laundering too, Switzerland offers one of the highest levels of scrutiny from the countries above.
Given the number of alternatives, it is not in the interest of the international community to shut down Switzerland.
In Europe alone, Luxembourg, Austria and Malta offer similar levels of secrecy. And it is not in Europe's interest to shut its internal secret- and law-abiding banks.
So the whole story is overblown. Is it just anti-marketing against Swiss banking?
This said, the current affair relates to Lichtenstein - an independent state attached to Switzerland like Monaco is attached to France. Like Monaco, this "small rock" of a state is known to have more lax practices. It would not hurt to take some balancing action there.
[Disclaimer: I'm a Swiss citizen, but have no vested interest in any Swiss bank - I'm a worker/small entrepreneur in the medical/software industry, not a capitalist nor an investor (I do not even play on the stock market). But like many citizens here, I see bank secrecy as just another facet of privacy, which is not incompatible with fair taxation and a fair social system.]
Wall streeters and corporate types who engage in tax evasion and other financial crimes of this level do their dirty work through corporate subsidiaries.
Corporations should not be entitled to "human" rights.
The myth of corporate personhood needs to be firmly put to rest. Either that, or limited liability should end when you have the power to make major unilateral decisions within that firm.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
That assumes you find all the laws of those countries to be ethical. Someone who is, for example, fighting against oppression in their own country may disagree without on that issue.
Legality and ethics are not equivalent.
I know a few "Offshore Banking Representatives" and none of them deal with Switzerland, they all operate out of island nation areas (Doesn't take a wild imagination to work out which part of the globe I'm talking about)
the fact is this is total bullshit, the top 1% in america pay almost 50% of the tax, and avoiding this is IMPOSSIBLE. and the reason it's impossible to dodge is tax departments around the world have these nice little laws which allow them to investigate you and tax you based on what they THINK you should be paying. so hiding offshore does them fuck all good
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Yes, this is very true. I mean (unless everything tv taught me is wrong) when it comes to the ol' "where to stash yer cash" dilemma, there's never an easy answer, and somebody always ends up unhappy. just look at the never-ending feud between Jed Clampett and Granny. Now, Granny had a much more sophisticated approach than most would give her credit for: her periodic insistence that Jed go to Mr. Drysdale's bank and withdraw all their bubblin'-crude-turned-to-cash-money riches would have allowed the Clampetts to avoid those damn revenuers, all without her ever having to go through the trouble of leaving her posh beverly hills shack and tote all those silver pieces (not any of that funny paper money) to Switzerland. I'd say that a cee-ment pond filled with silver pieces would offer plenty of untraceable, tax-free secrecy.
There you go, attempting to apply natural law to everything.
Just because something is unethical or immoral or makes your stomach churn doesn't mean it is illegal where and when it is happening.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
I read an article that claimed that Singapore was trying to position itself as the new bank secrecy country.
Conservatives are often linked with libertarians. Libertarians whole heartedly do not care about the public good. So i don't see why the assertion is so wrong. Also what he said was socialists are for the common good ... seems obvious with a name like SOCIAList. (Also feel free to note CAPITAList has not to do with a big city but capital as in money).
Do we have the right to unethically extend freedom of speech to foreigners? The right to banking privacy is considered a defense against government tyranny, just as Free Speech.
While I personally think that the cost's of banking privacy do not justify the benefits, that is a discussion for the Swiss. But while they hold these values, they have just as much right to hold the rest of the world to their values as we do to ours.
Between the rambles, the cliches, the sudden topic changes, somewhat fractured grammar, the dubious attempts to apply American political stereotypes to Switzerland, this has got to be the worst summary I've ever seen on slashdot. Even Michael or Zonk on (hypothetically) quaaludes could have done better.
Remain calm! All is well!
Do you honestly think Switzerland is implementing these privacy provisions to protect oppressed foreigners? Or do you think that they are doing it for their own profit?
We have two ethical issues that need to be resolved here. The first is the right to privacy of your income and assets from your government. The second is the motivation of Switzerland's bank privacy provisions.
In the first case you will need to argue that a person has a right to protect income and assets from their government. In my opinion, it is ethical for the government to be able to examine income and assets for taxation purposes. I base this on an argument of comparable moral values. However immoral it is to tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor is balanced out by two factors: (1) the rich created their wealth through a society that has good health, education, and infrastructure, and (2) the overtaxing of the rich causes a lower personal burden for them than equal taxing of much larger numbers of the poor and middle class. I'm not arguing for a massive redistribution of wealth, only that the poor and middle class have a chance at a decent quality of living and that there is a decent chance for an individual to change his or her social class.
Even if you don't agree with my argument for the first case, you will still have to sustain the morality of the second case. I would argue that their inflated GDP per capita (about 30% higher than their neighbors) is not based on superior government or natural resources but on their financial institutions which have gained an incredible competitive advantage due to their laws. I would also note that Switzerland taxes its rich much higher than they tax their middle class or poor which would undermine a Swiss moral argument against the first case.
This is not really about the Swiss as much as it is about Privacy and Tax Evasion. The fact it occurs in Switzerland is incidental. If the ability for foreigners to maintain private bank accounts was eliminated in Switzerland tomorrow, it would just move some place else.
Everybody has always known that Switzerland is used for tax evasion. From the very very beginning, since we started doing income taxes in the US. I am not sure about cultures in other parts of the world, but in the US it became "public knowledge" a long time ago. Just recently I was watching an episode of MASH on TV, which was filmed in the 70's and set in the 50's where Switzerland and Tax Evasion was mentioned. So it is not new, and it is not shocking.
What I find strange is that anybody is trying to do something about it. I wholeheartedly believe that the political systems in most western countries are irreparably broken and absolutely corrupt. The only logical conclusion is that position of those in power have shifted their ideology and wish to trade the value of secrecy for the value of intelligence (data).
Privacy takes power away from governments. Tax Evasion does not always require privacy. It certainly helps, but it is not required. So I view this as mostly an attack on Privacy with the "cover" of going after Tax Evasion.
Taxes are a controversial subject, but I really see it as a choice between 2 systems.
An active system which grants authority to take away privacy through auditing and information policies and the legal foundation to seize property. This is what we have now. A system that grants a large amount of control to certain people that through a perverted legal authority can destroy lives with a guilty-first, innocence-proven-later approach. Additionally, the value of the data, and the ability to gain said data, is way to attractive to other governmental agencies that wish to use it as leverage or in some other "intelligence" related manner. What I have always found so despicable about this approach is that once you "kill" somebody and realize it was a mistake later, you cannot raise them from the dead. Also, a dead person cannot defend himself. Many Americans have been destroyed by the IRS only to prove themselves correct later. This was of course after all their property was confiscated and sold. I am not saying there are true tax evaders, but for every 10 of those I would speculate at least 1 person is truly innocent.
The other system would be a passive system. One in which Privacy can co-exist harmoniously. Instead of taxing personal income, just tax purchases. A consumption tax, which is not unheard of in the US, and did in fact exist in its past. There are alternatives to a consumption tax and the basic idea is to not tax income, but to tax expenses. The government would have no business in the private financial affairs of its citizens anymore. Banking data would become intensly private, as it should be. Why care if somebody has 100 million dollars in the bank? The moment they try to live their lives in a higher standard of living than the average person, they must start paying higher than average taxes. The taxes on those private jets and the gasoline alone would represent the yearly taxes for whole neighborhoods and communities of people. What happens when they die? They leave 100% of it to their children with none of going to the state in the form of death taxes. Same situation all over again. The kids would have to pay taxes on any "big ticket" items they purchase as well. Flat taxes, consumption taxes, etc. WORK. They just don't work for the real interests of the government.
In any case, the tax environment in the US and many countries was setup from the very beginning to favor the tax evader. It was meant to tax the poor and the middle class while providing methods for the rich and the elite to hide their wealth.
If you think I am too cynical... pick up any copy of "Millionaire" or "Billionaire" magazine or any similar publication and look at the full page advertisements for "Asset Protection", "Tax Deferment", or "Zero Tax Liability".
I really wonder why people make so many assumptions about posts. I mean is the world that black and white to you, is it impossible to question something unless you rabidly hate it, must everyone hold the party line unwaveringly? I simply said that there is an ethical dilemma thus a trade off involved. I didn't say which side I support, I didn't say which way the tradeoff goes in my opinion but simply that there is one involved.
I simply think that anytime you lose any privacy such a tradeoff exists and should be considered. It's not about the government now in a country covered with rights and freedom. It's the government in the future, when it finally collapses into a power hungry corrupt mess, or in an existing country that makes feudal Europe look freedom filled.
Yes there is some special law which applies for bankers, but it's mainly to protect the privacy. So they are not allowed to talk about their customers or things like that. But there is little protection from legal persecution in that.
And I find it quite funny that some people think tax evasion is not a crime.
In addition it should be mentioned, that just the system, to prevent tax evasion is different from most other countries, which makes so many people think there is none. There is a Tax of 35% on the interests you receive. This Money goes anonymously to the government and you get it back with the taxes, if you fill out to have this account.
How will James Bond villains get paid now?
Britain turned down the chance to recoup £100m (133m) in unpaid taxes from UK residents with bank accounts in Liechtenstein at least two years ago because revenue officials refused to pay a whistleblower a tiny fraction of that sum. The informant turned instead to Germany's secret service, selling a list of at least 750 wealthy Germans with money stashed away in Liechtenstein. This has sparked Berlin's biggest crackdown on tax evaders and triggered a diplomatic row with the principality. . . Read more via the FT. http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=lichtenstine+secret+service+tax&y=0&aje=true&x=0&id=080225000064&ct=0&nclick_check=1
Dude, the poster is correct. Google "swiss bank nazi gold", "swiss bank terrorism" etc. The Swiss bank system has a very long history of privately holding large sums of money for scumbags.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
>And I find it quite funny that some people think tax evasion is not a crime.
I'm not sure where you're from, but Tax Evasion is a founding principle of the USA
(cf Boston Tea Party, Stamp Act). It not only isn't really a crime, but it generally
respected as a virtue, at least until you get caught. Which is usually only when the
government gives up trying to catch at something that's really a crime (cf Al Capone).
<script>alert("I never liked JavaScript, really; it just seemed a bad idea.");</script>
Let me fix that for you:
sed -i s/scumbags/politically disadvantaged minorities/ $GP
There, that's better.
Either privacy of commerce is a right or it isn't. If you really want to give that right up, I'm sure there are plenty of governments that would appreciate it and might even give you a sticker or a stamp to replace that pesky liberty you relieved yourself of.
<script>alert("I never liked JavaScript, really; it just seemed a bad idea.");</script>
Tax evasion is not Liberty - it's criminal activity. Responsibility and accountability comes with this thing "Liberty" you toss around so haphazardly.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
"The only difference here is that Switzerland seems to have a banker/client confidentiality, which seems a bit strange to the rest of us to throw it in with doctors and lawyers. Even that may I believe is cracked open for criminal cases, just not for tax evasion in a foreign country (which I believe isn't illegal in Switzerland)."
I am swiss. Tax evasion is illegal in switzerland by law but the banking secret usually makes it impossible to track it down. Most swiss people have not much of a benefit about this banking secret. It's the foreigners with shitloads of money which profit (we won't see tax for their illegally stored money neither) but we get into loads of troubles in foreign affairs (politics).
It's still not understandable to me why a country has to protect a private industry by law to make breaking the law possible. the only ones which benefit from this are the banks. The ones which loose because of it are the people.
About damn time to get rid of this law.
kind regards,
-S
OK, so the parent is a troll because he called Democrats hypocrites. But that doesn't invalidate the issue he highlighted:
Personal privacy is an Inviolable Fundamental Right when it protects things, people, and interests that you like. Also, personal privacy is an insignificant, trifling, legally dissoluble inconvenience when it doesn't.
So, what's the middle ground?
If you work very hard in Germany and earn say $150k a year, you pay 50% tax. If you choose to consume the rest of the money around 20% VAT is due on all goods. That means you pay around 70% taxes on your income (not putting into account 70+% taxes on fuel and some other niceties). Lets say you choose to save some of the remaining money (which has been taxed at least twice by now) in a bankaccount - the resulting interest has to be taxed AGAIN!
So why do you think people would like to export their funds to some safer places, where the real criminals have no or limited access to it??
It is the tax system of massively oversocialzied countries like Germany that's wrong NOT sovereign states like Switzerland or Liechtenstein.
The problem is money creation itself, of the very nature of banking.
Deleted
I simply think that anytime you lose any privacy such a tradeoff exists and should be considered. It's not about the government now in a country covered with rights and freedom. It's the government in the future, when it finally collapses into a power hungry corrupt mess, or in an existing country that makes feudal Europe look freedom filled. How ironic. You are making the same assumptions about my post that you claim I am making about yours. Read my post again. I didn't express rabid hate nor did I assume you supported a single side. Any assertions that you took were open ended questions marked by question marks such as "Do you honestly think Switzerland is implementing these privacy provisions to protect oppressed foreigners?" Afterwards I discussed the ethical issues involved like you wanted in this post. The question I need to ask you now is have you read the post or have you mistakenly responded to another post?
If you responded to the correct post it is absolutely essential that you cite how I think that it is "impossible to question something unless you rabidly hate it" or how I think that "everyone [must] hold the party line unwaveringly".
Privacy need not include how much money you have in the bank, how much money you earn, how much money you inherit, and/or how much money you spend. Personally, I think all those pieces of information should not just be available to the government, but to the public, by name. An efficient, free market really requires that information to be public anyway.
I'm completely in favor of hiding the identity of those who have money in Swiss accounts. I am now in the rich demographic since I just got an email informing me of an inheritance for 400K from a long lost Swiss cousin of mine. All I had to do was give them my social security number (they didn't tell me his name. Most likely to keep him anonymous).
Help fight spam
A system like that was already proposed once in Germany ("Quellensteuer") unfortunately the government at the time was too weak to actually implement it. There were attacks from the right ("people will move their money abroad" - so what, they are not paying taxes now) and from the left ("little old ladies will have to pay tax on their savings" - they could claim it back, and if the amount is significant then they _can_ pay tax).
While they are out extracting taxes from the rich: it is about time that they tax those in the black (cash) economy who don't pay tax at all.
Here are some good reasons why slashdotters would want to put their money into a foreign bank account, even if they can't evade paying capital gains tax in their own country, and even if they can't use their account for money laundering:
the problem with this reasoning is of course : the rich get to evade taxes, and the working middle class gets to pay the taxes(which are higher for them because someone needs to pay for roads, education, police, military, ...).
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You don't fuck with WikiLinks without raising a few eyebrows.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
There's no balance to strike: either we're entitled to privacy, including privacy of our financial matters, or government power is total. I know which I'd prefer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
the rich get to evade taxes
Rich people don't have to evade taxes, they can afford to buy politicians to manipulate the tax code for their benefit.
The reason for the Byzantine complexity of the US tax code is that it is the result of nearly a century of politicians selling favors to contributors.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Libertarians whole heartedly do not care about the public good
That's a rather vicious smear, not to mention being a baldfaced lie. Libertarians care far more about the public good, particularly about our freedom, than those on the right or left who constantly seek to increase the power of the government. We've noticed that the freer we are, the better off we are.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Evasion of Swiss taxes is illegal in Switzerland, but not evasion of foreign taxes. And that is all well with me. The countries that cry foul should go after their own citizens, based on the books in their coutries (there has to be a trace that the money is paid) and not rely on other governments to do the work for them. How deep should the bank go while checking if the taxes have been paid?
Switzerland goes so far as to collect the taxes for USA and EU on further profits on the money in the banks (taxes calculated on the interest rate gains), I don't think that any other "tax haven" goes that far. The banks just don't ask if the foreign taxes have been applied to the money coming in. Does it stink?
And Swiss are profiting from these accounts - the Swiss taxes are applied to profits made by the banks while re-investing the money.
So the only ones losing are the foreign governments that have all the right to go after their citizens' money, but that doesn't give them any special rights in my bank.
[disclaimer: I live and work in Switzerland, have an account in a Swiss bank, and while living and working in Switzerland I think it stupid to pay taxes to any other country]
Apparently you prefer false dichotomies.
Well, I'm not Swiss, but I worked at all the major banks in Switzerland (and work in one presently).
The bank secrecy has been a boon to the Swiss banking industry. Make no mistake, not only has this created jobs, but it also works as a "Sozialamt", because a bank will employ up to five people (mostly Swiss, of course) to do the job of one single person, all the while the five will whine how "overloaded" they are.
If the Swiss banks didn't have the banking secrecy laws, at miserable (and laughable) 1.85% interest, it wouldn't be interesting to siphon money into Switzerland, so about four in five of your countrymen wouldn't have a job, and couldn't take their expensive vacations two to three times a year!
As expensive and as inefficient and as bureaucratic as things are in Switzerland, what do you think, where did the money come to pay for this huge, inefficient system come? From foreigners siphoning money into Swiss banks because of the secrecy laws!
So if Confederatio Helvetica abolishes bank secrecy laws, Switzerland will be severely busted.
How then are you guys going to pay for those 2-5 expensive vacations per year? And where are the other four guys going to go? Let me remind you, your conuntrymen consider themselves above menial jobs, like the Baustelle, or Kellner...
Actually you will see a tax. I'm pretty sure the Swiss. gov. charges 35% tax on all interest earned in Switzerland banks to foreigner. But they can recover 30%/35% they pay if they claim it and basically give up their identity.
Right. All of the evils in the world will be alleviated if we simply do away with currency and operate as a barter economy.
Don't you get it? People aren't greedy for money, they're greedy for the material possessions they can acquire with money, and getting rid of money won't get rid of that greed. You'll have the same problems you had before, along with some new ones, because you acted like an idiot and dismantled the system that allows us to specialize. You know, so some of us can have jobs besides just rustlin' steers and tillin' fields?
To bad we don't have a Flat Sales Tax instead of the Income tax here in the US. They this wouldn't really matter as we would not be taxed unless we actually bought something! It would make things a heck of a lot simpler. Maybe I could actually be in control of my own life and decide what I spent my money on.
Oh, won't someone PLEASE THINK OF THE TERRORISTS!
geeze. i can't believe how blind some people are. as has obviously been pointed out before, the Swiss provide a financial anonymization service. they have removed their own imperfect judgement of what constitutes right and wrong and simply act in good faith for their clients. yes, sometimes this system is abused (nazi gold and various tax evasion schemes, etc), but the principles of the system are no different than you wanting privacy for all users of the internet, for wanting secrecy in your instant messaging systems, deniability, the rights to use the Internet for whatever purpose you choose. the issues here are all the same. some people will use the system for the benefit of the public good while others will use it for their own selfish purposes at the expense of the public good.
if the "good guys" haven't caught on to the fact that they can exploit the system the same way as the "bad guys" then it's only their fault for missing the opportunity.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
Well, I personally think the wealth in our country can be attributed to many things, one of them are banks which made some people super rich, this inflates the statistics. There are huge tax cuts for rich people, this is why some many foreigners officially live here, that's another reason statistics are inflated.
IMHO the wealth mainly comes from my parent's generation. the after WWII generation(s) has been working hard, this has changed.
I hear the argument "if we give up banking secret we will loose many jobs" for a long time. this is the main argument of the supporters. Problem is; although the banking industry is large (compared to other conuntries) it is still very small compared to other industries. Because they are multinational companies, only a (small?) part of their employees works in switzerland. There are companies which actually produce something, these companies employ the majority of people.
However, you are right. Abandoning the banking secret will have an impact, banks would move on and some people will loose their job or would move with the company.
The problem is, on the other hand, we get constantly in trouble about the banking secret, paying punishment tax which are not necessary. Instead of paying these tax to foreign countries, we could pay the unemployed instead.
After all, I believe it when I see it. Banking secret will not be given up so quickly (it is beeing debated in the media every 5 years or so since i am alive). It has been a "problem" for decades, banks make a lot of money, have a strong lobby. I highly doubt this will happen now.
Kind regards,
-S
> About damn time to get rid of this law.
... I can just put my money in Delaware, USA - one of the least regulated tax havens in the world.
Interesting.. you want to commit financial seppuku just because the Germans think that its morally objectionable to protect the individual against the greed and huge capital expenditure requirements of the nanny state?
I would say that you have grown fat, spoiled and lazy. Do things your way and the 1/3rd of the global capital will move instantly from Switzerland, to one of the other states that have chosen to side with the individual against the state.
Luckily not many swiss will agree with you.. which is why I still live in Switzerland.
Give up your banking secrecy and I will be gone in 5 seconds flat.. might just jump across the border to Austria.. or Luxembourg, or Monaco, or Liechtenstein, or Dubai, or Singapore, or Panama, or
Choosing not to compete in the global marketplace does not insulate you from failure - only from success, and your children will be the ones paying the price.
"Most swiss people have not much of a benefit about this banking secret. It's the foreigners with shitloads of money which profit (we won't see tax for their illegally stored money neither) but we get into loads of troubles in foreign affairs (politics)."
This is actually in correct.. To open a Swiss bank account, you either have to declare you are not Swiss and thus lose the privacy protection, or not declare anything and maintain your protection. It is then assumed you are Swiss, at which point you have to pay Swiss taxes on interest. For myself, money going into a swiss account is after my taxes are already deducted from my pay. Not every foreigner with a Swiss account is evading taxes, but trying to protect their assets from the sue happy losers in the US (thanks to scumbag lawyers for encouraging this practice).
Rich people don't have to evade taxes, they can afford to buy politicians to manipulate the tax code for their benefit.
The reason for the Byzantine complexity of the US tax code is that it is the result of nearly a century of politicians selling favors to contributors.
Well, not necessarily. There are some hair brained ideas for advancing "a better society". As much as Democrats stand in favor of supposedly progressive taxation, payroll taxes for social security where their idea, along with taxes on gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes in most northeastern states.
This is my sig.
I have a lot of trouble believing that this has anything to do with banking secrecy, money laundering, tax evasion or any other such ill.
I remember in the 1990s when the US government attacked the secrecy of the Swiss banks, because they had accounts containing stolen goods from the Holocaust. The point of the exercise was to put political pressure on the Swiss to be better citizens in the global economy and therefore international community. However, all of this was a political smokescreen intended to remove the Swiss franc's ties to gold. Eventually, the dishonest Swiss government caved in to the pressure, convincing the Swiss that the country should join the IMF as a token gesture, a move that required the removal of constitutional protections from the franc and therefore also required a national referendum.
I wonder what the goal is this time. Will the Swiss be forced to join the EU? Will they be forced to give up the franc entirely? Who knows? Personally, I have great difficulty trusting anyone who meddles in the affairs of another country's economy, let alone so brazenly and so directly. Besides, if the justification for the outcry is tax evasion, there are stacks of countries to talk about, not just Switzerland. Why not attack the Cayman Islands? I smell a rat.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
A number of modern "Terrorists" once used swiss accounts, the two that come to mind are Fidel Castro and Yassir Arafat, having these accounts did allow them to foster their own anti-American agenda, however calling every foreign revolutionary a Terrorist and going after them is not a good idea from a foreign relations perspective Washington was considered a Terrorist by the British; imagine if they had frozen the money France lent him to fund the revolution?
However for real tax evasion the U.S. should really look closer to home, the IRS has agents in the following countries to track investment from American citizens. Belize, Bermuda, Caymen Islands, St. Kitts & Nevis and Panama are just a few British protectorates that offer limited partnerships (LLP's), Incorporations, And cooperations that have Legal recourse under the British privy council but have no reporting requirements with regards to profit on foreign investment, for the small to medium sized account (10,000 to 500,000) these are the ideal places that Shell companies are setup by American's for Insurance (Bermuda), Registration of Offshore investment firms is a multi-trillion dollar business, since investment Vehicles within in these places do not have to pay capitol gains or income taxes. Countries looking to foster a good banking industry usually modify their tax laws to become a "Tax Haven", since U.S. Tax law only applies to the individual with regards to Global income, foreign trusts, incorporations and limited partnerships have always been methods to avoid these taxes legally, the price to profit ratio for each varies but lies around $20,000USD.
The founding fathers meant "land of the free" as in free from British Taxation, however since central planning was implemented and a number of wars were financed taxes have become a national requirement, thus making the United States a less competitive country to invest from.
I believe the Swiss bank secrecy laws were passed in 1934 in response to Nazi efforts to confiscate Jewish assets. Of course, situations morph over time. Ludwixx
You just changed my opinion on this topic. Make them run backwards and naked through a cornfield in the morning... that or raiding the banks and passing these laws. Either way.
The thing is that tax evasion is something practiced exclusively by the dishonest and predominantly by the better off. Which produces an inequality with those who are unwilling to lie and usually poorer. The dislike is probably more attributable to these inequalities than to any great love of the government and its predilection for taking your money off you.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
One major issue has not been brought up yet, and this is the main reason the Germans pressure us.
In Switzerland, we have two degrees of tax evasion. One, which is a criminal offense, involves forging documents etc. The other one, which is basically only treated with a slap on the wrist (and a large fine), involves "forgetting" to include part of your wealth, e.g. "black money".
Now, the thing is that Switzerland only provides criminal assistance to other countries seeking to prosecute tax evaders for the more serious tax evasion, not the other one. What Germany now wants is that Switzerland changes it's tax laws to be more like Germany, or other countries. And here we have, for obvious reasons, a problem. Suppose Saudi Arabia wants your help in prosecuting a woman who cheats on her husband, or any other situation like that.
In short, Germany's making a lot of noise, but nothing will come of it
You're totally right. The ones that don't care about the public good are in fact us, the Objectivists. "Public good" is just another euphemism for sacrificing the individual to the collective.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
It also enables the corrupt rulers of countries like Angola to anonymously move public funds out of their countries, and terrorist organisations to easily move money around.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/nov/04/world.oil
Is a little secrecy worth the damage done to millions of lives? Is there a problem allowing the tax department to look at banking records so that they can actually effectively collect taxes? Why should wealthy companies and individuals be able to get away with avoiding taxes?
Disclaimer: I live and work in Switzerland.
What blows me away is that it seems as if the US , currently in a recession, and the EU (but especially Germany, with mind boggling high taxes) are looknig for someone to lay the blame on for their own problems again. Yawn.
It's a lovely day, I think I'll go outside and wait for kdawson to find some other flaimbait article.
1. No income taxes.
2. Socialist politician to the poor: "Lets tax the rich to pay for stuff for you"
3. Poor: Yay! [vote for socialist politician]
4. Rich use lawyers, loopholes, lobbying to avoid tax.
5. Poor pay most of the tax - karma.
6. ??????
7. Profit.
Hint: it's something about voting for people who will reduce taxes, and accepting that this means reduction in government services. You are paying for those things anyway, but usually at inflated prices when the government spends your money for you.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
According to the Swiss Bankers Association, "200,000 employees work in the financial sector. That represents 5.3% of the total workforce. Broken down, 3.2% of the total workforce work for banks, 1.4% for insurance companies and 0.6% for other financial services providers."
Which is just a little bit short of "four in five" Swiss citizens.
Oh, sorry. Source.
IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The protection of Liberty makes prosecuting criminal activity more difficult. Some of us believe, with good historical evidence I think, that criminal activity is rarely as dangerous to the citizenry as an unchecked government.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
there is a swiss banking secret, but this doesn't apply when someone is being investigated. swiss banks cooperate with justice. what they can not do, is give unlimited access to this information to law enforcement without any evidence, that's it: allow them to sniff around for tax-evader fishing. i see it correct: if you have evidence that supports your claims, accounts are investigated. if not, privacy prevails. i would be happy if this system would be used in all countries, and not only in switzerland. you say the ones that loose are the people, but what are they loosing exactly if they have a privacy right other countries don't have? and seeing that you want to get rid of this law, i understand you don't have anything to hide right? could you please tell me how much money you have on each bank account and numbers and address of the bank you have the accounts on? you can surely tell me, as the privacy right swiss have has no value for you
Free speech and banking privacy are not the same. Bringing up free speech is nothing but a straw man argument. Yes, free speech is necessary to protect against government tyranny. But no, free speech is not equally as important as banking privacy.
So, if I gun your family down, but then buy an airplane ticket to somewhere, you think the government would have no right to inquire where I went to from the airline, in order to protect the privacy of airline ticket buyers?
I think you're insane.
Is there a problem allowing the tax department to look at banking records so that they can actually effectively collect taxes?
Yes.
Why should wealthy companies and individuals be able to get away with avoiding taxes?
For the same reasons that poor individuals should be able to get away with avoiding taxes.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Tax evasion is illegal in switzerland by law but the banking secret usually makes it impossible to track it down.
What I've been told, but don't have a hard source for, is that the Swiss court system will crack-open the privacy for cases where a crime is likely to have occurred (like say you're a Columbian drug lord, or a Terrorist). But it won't crack open the privacy where tax-evasion in a foreign country has occurred. The explanation in this difference (both being a crime in the foreign country) was that tax-evasion in Switzerland is a crime, but tax-evasion from foreign taxes is not a crime in Switzerland. As evidence to this, wikipedia has the following to say about tax evasion in Switzerland:
AccountKiller
I see all the little Eichmanns are out in force on /. today. I looked up liberty in a dictionary, there were several definitions:
- The condition of being free from restriction or control.
- The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
- Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
- A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
There were others, sure, but as I see it -- keeping your money in a secret account can be liberty for some people, and even tax evasion can go towards liberty..... the tax rate in this country used to be as high as 80% (during peacetime, in the 70s). This would especially ring true to those against the 16th Amendment which they view as continual servitude to the state. (I don't agree with tax evasion but since I work 1/3-1/2 of the year just to pay off my various taxes, I can sympathize with the servitude to the state idea.)
Just because something is a criminal activity doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes it's just called civil disobedience for the aim of civil rights. Or whatever.
As a matter of fact tax evasion is illegal in Switzerland. It is however, as opposed to tax fraud, which is a crime, treated as a misdemeanor. If you are caught to have "forgotten" those 7500 francs income on your tax declaration you will be taxed on those and you pay a fine. It's certainly not legal.
Switzerland does however (and that's where other countries yell foul, because they don't make this distinction) distinguish between tax evasion ("forgetting" to declare income) and tax fraud (which in any case involve fraudulent or fake documentation, or, for example, not booking income as a corporate entity).
What pisses other countries off is that bank secrecy is not punctured in the first case (theoretically), while it always is when fraud is involoved. This goes also for inquiries by foreign government entities. Since tax evasion is not treated as a criminal act, such inquiries usually go unanswered in tax evasion cases.
That's more or less the gist of it, slightly simplified.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
It should be remember that Switzerland is a direct democracy. If the swiss government were to change the laws, it is very likely that the SVP, a swiss right-wing party, would force a public vote on the issue. Personally, I think there's a good chance that the swiss people would vote against their own government and keep the law as-is, international treaties be damned. There is jack shit any other country can do to influence the outcome of this; in fact, pressure from governments like the US government would have the opposite effect and help keep the current law.
I suspect the GP isn't saying that we should have no currency but criticizing "fractional-reserve lending", the process banks use to create money at interest that is not government issued currency.
I think it's offtopic to the issue of privacy and swiss banks, but it is a worthwhile topic to check out. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/hannigan092099.html is a simple story that illustrates the problem well, someone posted it a few days ago.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
The problem the Swiss law seems to cause in Germany is not a Swiss problem per se, but a German problem. There are not only trucksloads of German money in Switzerland, but also truck loads of Germans. Drive through Zurich during the weekend, and see how many Germans come in with a professional mover to take residence.
/.ers won't believe it) robs them of more than half of their income, and then it's just fair to run, or, alternatively, exert the only means of direct democracy in Germany - vote with their feet.
They don't do it for fun. They do it because they're sick and tired of their own government, that robs them 60-70% of their income through various taxes, fees and so on, and they're looking for jobs.
Their completely inept government (Bush, against the Merkel crew is highly capable, although
Furthermore, that money in Switzerland secures jobs in Switzerland, something the parent tries to neglect. Maybe his job, as he might be working in banking IT.
No, the Swiss government just has to tell the Germans to shove it where the sun never shines, stop spending money like there was no tomorrow, and consolidate.
And make sure that this time, there won't be a Berlin wall to keep out the qualified people from emigrating to Switzerland, the US, Singapore or other places that do not have as a prime requisite the obligation to relinquish 70% or more of your income for the 'greater good'.
The sooner the German government goes completely bankrupt, the better. A quick and painful end is better than a long and protracted one, unless Germany decides never to repay it's debts.
Even worse when it is not simple tax evasion but the proceeds of crime.
Everything I've heard and read says this is simply not true. Swiss law allows the courts to crack open the banking privacy when a crime has been committed. I don't think that's any different from most other countries banking laws. What's different is that tax evasion isn't a crime (a misdemeanor) in Switzerland.
So while you can't really accuse the Swiss of profiting any more off criminals than anyone else, you can, and you'd be entirely accurate in doing so to accuse them of profiting from hiding assets from other countries Tax Man.
There's other countries in the world that have aided criminals in hiding assets at different times. I'm not sure which ones those currently are, but Switzerland isn't among them from everything I've read.
AccountKiller
Good luck with your privacy after you get government paying for your health care. Medically, certain vices are more expensive than others. Brain tumors, for example.
At least there won't be anymore chemo for kitten!
What's with the little dig against Republicans in the last sentence. The bill (S-681) is co-sponsored by a Republican.
> but the principles of the system are no different than you wanting privacy for all users of the internet
That is the stupidest dumbest fucking analogy I have EVER heard.
A vastly more accurate analogy would be if there were laws in all other western countries GUARANTEEING anonymity of internet traffic above all other laws - such that even if the police had records that a certain IP Address was used for grossly criminal purposes they would NOT be allowed to obtain warrants for the people holding and using those IP Addresses.
The "privacy" you have in your internet communications currently matches your "privacy" in your banking in all western countries(*), EXCEPT Switzerland - where you can commit ANY crime you want using their financial system and ALL other countries have no legal recourse what so ever.
I have not heard ANYONE arguing that one should be able to commit crime via the internet WITHOUT LEGAL RECOURSE by the authorities. Only that by DEFAULT without court orders, your communications should be privileged and private. IE: Facebook and Google have no right to divulge your private data without your permission - same as your bank.
I hereby declare that "atomic brainslide" is OUTRIGHT STUPID, if we ever establish a meritocracy he should not be allowed to hold office or vote.
(*) Your data is private, unless someone who is involved determines that you've committed a crime and forwards the information to police - aka Facebook notes that your private data is kiddy porn, or your bank has reason to suspect that you are laundering money. They tell the police, the police get court warrants, etc etc.
This certainly is a terrible summary. I especially liked the "not the 'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans, but the 'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats". Could be recast as "not the 'lets make sure terrorists aren't exploiting bank secrecy' Republicans, but the 'soak the rich' Democrats".
Either way a U.S. partisan rant is really a non-sequitur.
I really wonder why people make so many assumptions about posts.
Nothing has any meaning without context. My guess is when people provide very short posts, with little to no context and background, the reader is forced to make up a background and context to understand it. Often times the wrong assumptions are made.
If you'd like to avoid this, try to provide some more information about the general point you're trying to argue and how it fits into the discussion.
In short, don't assume everyone knows who you are, where you're coming from, and exactly what you're trying to say. We're all mostly strangers here, so the normal rules of face-face communication with someone you kind of know go out the window.
AccountKiller
Actually, what's really interesting is that in the past week or so, we've seen the following stories on Slashdot:
Full-on public surveillance, and should the resulting "footage" be available to everyone in the public (to be fair, this is a weekly discussion here).
Man-made black holes, and the consequences thereof.
And now, Swiss banking and investigating into what TRULY is going on.
Basically, the 3 major plot points or predictions in the novel. Now, Brin didn't write this in 1950 or anything (I believe 1990 or thereabouts), but still - the core topics in that book are coming together just nicely here in 2008. A lot sooner than his book predicted.
It's a book I re-read at least every 3-4 years, because with every read I notice something ELSE that's "come true". But it's just now that the real meat of the book is taking shape.
Spooky.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
The only scandalous thing about the german tax evasion scandal is that germany paid a friggin bunch of corporate spies and thieves 4 millions to fuck over a bank and hand them a bunch of lists. and than has the tough to admit forced proof to court. next thing, they probably allow evidence by use of force, like the waterboarders in the US of A.
*cough*
I'd give everyone worth over a billion dollars lifetime tax amnesty, just out of spite!
</quote>
And they built those Mega empires on nothing? No infrastructure, no interstates, no railroads, no canals?
Many of which were paid for by government sponsorship, either federal, local or state.
All of whom would have nothing if not for ALL of those bloodsuckers.
I am a citizen of both Switzerland and the U.S.
1. It is ridiculous that a government should know about your bank accounts. I fully support the Swiss system where privacy is valued. I wish every country would introduce that. There is no excuse for a so-called democratic government not to respect the privacy of its citizens.
2. I don't care if that helps criminals/terrorists. There are appropriate safeguards in place. This is just a lame excuse from lazy governments to justify their illegal actions.
3. Tax evasion is not related to bank secrecy. As others have pointed out, fair taxation and bank secrecy are not incompatible.
4. Other countries, especially the U.S., have no business interfering with internal laws of Switzerland (or any other place). Let's see the Europeans change the banking laws of Andorra, Luxembourg, Austria before they demand the same from Switzerland.
Yes. Why can't we all follow the glorious example of government free Somalia?
Old story, everyone knows that there is no more secrecy in Switzerland but there are many other places in the world that still do private banking ...
The key words in that passage are "unreasonable" and "probable cause." You seem to be arguing that government should never have the ability to access banking records, under any circumstances. But even the Fourth Amendment itself permits the government to invade your Fourth Amendment rights when there is a good reason for doing so and they have a warrant.
Governments are like any organism. They want to survive and grow. Taxes make governments grow.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
*Generally in the form of taxes, anti-money laundering laws, etc.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Oh, sorry, I'm from the hippieville known as the north side of Chicago, where Obama is considered the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
A lot of us particle physicists have Swiss bank accounts simply because a major particle physics research centre, CERN, is located in Switzerland. Of course the secrecy will be a great way for us to stash the ransom when we hold up the world by threatening to destroy it.
Every political school of thought, including the libertarians, is concerned almost exclusively with the public good. The disagreement is in how best to achieve it. Socialism would be a tad less laughable if central planning wasn't such an abysmal failure everywhere it's been tried.
The economic philosophies boil down to:
Socialism: The greatest quality of life for the most people can be achieved by spreading all of the existing wealth around more equitably.
Libertarianism, Laissez Faire Capitalism: The greatest quality of life for the most people can be achieved by producing wealth as efficiently as possible.
Libertarians aren't concerned with the specific equity of wealth, under the assumption that the economic system which generates the most wealth will, despite being inequitable, still result in the people at the bottom having the greatest possible quality of life (as compared to other systems).
That the free-market plan has had more practical success is important to note, especially for people believe quality of life is more important than social justice.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"And I find it quite funny that some people think tax evasion is not a crime."
Aside from the feeling of getting one over on "the man" by not giving away some of our money, many people quite rightfully cynical about how it will be spent.
A fraction of our tax is used on us, while the majority goes to the whims of the Bilderberg group and the military industrial complex they maintain to control us. They create the problems so they can give us their solution.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Socialism is about providing free (to the recipient, paid by tax money) education, healthcare, and economic safety nets for everyone. It has been a huge success everywhere it has been tried; as a specific example, it transformed Finland from an economically abused, agricultural society which had just gone trough a civil war into one of the most prosperous countries in the world in half a century.
Communism is about the state owning everything and centrally planning the whole economy, and has been a failure everywhere. However, it is impossible to conclude at this time whether these failures habe been caused by any inherent defect in the ideology itself or the personality flaws - such as psychopathy - of the people who implemented most communist economies, as well as continued interference from the United State in its effort to oppose communism.
Neither Libertarianism nor Laissez-Faire Capitalism are interested in efficiency. Libertarianism is an ideology that freedom takes priority over everything else, and usually also includes a strong anti-government theme. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a believe that market forces will find the best solution to any problem, if there is no government intervention or regulation.
It should be noted that there are ideologies which combine personal freedom with socialistic economy; see Left-libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism. These ideologies generally consider private ownership of means of production and the resulting power structures no different than those of the state, and thus an anathema to freedom; there is no difference between coercing someone with threat of a bullet to the head and threat of starvation. I'm inclined to agree, altought I don't see how you could possibly keep the accumulation of wealth - and thus power - to a few individuals under control except through force, which in turn results in whoever wields that force to become the dictator instead.
It is a mistake to think that all libertarians only oppose oppression by the state; apparently some also oppose oppression by the plutocrats. It's simply that the anarcho-capitalists happen to be more vocal on Slashdot.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No, libertarians support separation of people from everyone else. Essentially they purport an "Everyone for themselves" system. This, amazingly shows little concern for the PUBLIC good. Libertarianism works in some situations, but the everyone for themselves system does NOT work. When it comes to issues like scarcity of resources, a laissez-faire system will all rush to get as much as they can accelerating the problem. It works even less in health-care and insurance systems, 'why should i pay for other peoples problems, you are trying to take away my freedom'. I would agree with a more libertarian system as it encourages people and nations to grow but it is too unhindered to be kept fair.
I am swiss. Tax evasion is illegal in switzerland by law but the banking secret usually makes it impossible to track it down.
Not quite. Tax evasion is illegal in Switzerland, but it is a minor offense, similar to a misdemeanor in the USA.
Swiss banks will cooperate when investigating serious crime (murder, money laundering, drug smuggling...), but since the Swiss gov't doesn't consider tax evasion a serious crime, tough luck. The fact that tax evasion is a serious crime in the USA or Germany is their problem.
Most swiss people have not much of a benefit about this banking secret. It's the foreigners with shitloads of money which profit (we won't see tax for their illegally stored money neither) but we get into loads of troubles in foreign affairs (politics).
There wouldn't be much of a Swiss banking industry without bank secrecy, and financial services are a big portion of your economy.
Foreign affairs? You really don't have foreign affairs - the Swiss have a policy of neutrality.
Depending on the numbers, the contribution of the finance sector to the BIP of Switzerland is around 10%. While this is important, it is not the backbone of the Swiss economy.
Over the years, the interest became less and less a factor in the income of banks. These days, banks earn money by charging fees for their service. The fact that foreign investors pick Swiss banks has nothing to do with the "interest rate".
I assume you work in IT and banking is not really your thing... However, I am glad that the 80% of fat you describe to be inside of Swiss banks also allowed you finding a job.
In reality, the Swiss bank secrecy is neutral, pretty much like the rest of the country.
Yes, this can be abused to evade taxes. It can also be used to evade your fortune being confiscated by some tyrant which suppresses you. A lot of the arguments against Swiss banks we hear these days were already brought up by the Nazis. There was a reason why so many Jewish families were hiding their money in Switzerland.
In several areas, Swiss legislation is much more strict for example when it comes to preventing money laundry. And yes, the Swiss laws force banks to comply in criminal investigation, --- even from abroad when officially requested. Claiming that the Swiss profit from "victims from the rest of the world" sounds corny and is ridiculous.
To me, it looks more like trying to smear competition. We do banking and we are good at.
Disclaimer: I am Swiss and I work for a Swiss bank.
There are estimates that over $400 B of African wealth has been stashed away in Switzerland.
To do some crude calculations let us assume that this money is invested at the growth rate of the country. Swiss GDP grows at 2.85% while the interest rates paid on the deposit is 1.85%. This would indicate that Switzerland makes $400 Million in profit every year just on money from Africa. Thats about the GDP of Pakistan!
Africa is extremely corrupt, but also very poor. The rest of the world should contribute atleast thrice that (think Russia , South America, India and South East Asia)..
So I think you underestimate how much money swiss make by hiding the "corrupt money" and how important it is for the economy
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Taxation is essentially the use of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. (If you don't believe that, try refusing to pay taxes and tell me if men with guns eventually show up to put you in jail) This is pretty much the opposite of the meaning and spirit of liberty.
The Swiss have pretty much caved in to foreign pressure years ago. They will open up their books for any law enforcement officials who possess evidence of violations of laws. Anyone who is depending on Swiss (or any other countries) banking secrecy laws is asking for a full body cavity search.
Smart people have figured out how to hide behind corporations years ago.
As a private individual, waving a foreign bank account in front of the IRS is like a red cape to a bull. Wave a corporate charter in front of them and they'll get on their knees and kiss your (*).
Have gnu, will travel.
Far fewer people would have a problem with taxes if they only paid for roads, police, and some military. Many of the complaints about taxes come from all the "..." that they pay for.
Simply owning property relies on the use of force to achieve political and social goals (even if those goals are the preservation of the status quo.) The "men with guns" argument is a fatuous one. If I try to simply walk from where I live to the beach, a lot of people with guns will shoot at me for traversing their property. That's also opposed to the meaning and spirit of liberty, even more than taxation: because taxation can be understood as being based on an implicit agreement you made with the state the produces and backs money in a monetary economy, and the by using dollars as legal tender, you have agreed to play with dollars' rules.
This article is a little miss leading. Having looked into Swiss accounts a few years ago I did learn that if numbered (secret) accounts are believed to be used for tax evasion / fraud then a request can be made to the Swiss government which will review the matter and decide if the account information should be turned over. These rules have existed since these account came into existance. Now tax avoidance, that's a whole new and blury matter.
I think you've been too long in Switzerland, you seem to have forgotten that our currency isn't plagued by inflation so the low interest is justified.
Also, who wastes his mod points on such general accusations about the efficiency of bankers in Switzerland?
AC from Switzerland (not working in banking)
I'm not sure on Swiss law as it stands, but is there any information anywhere that the government cannot get a warrant for? This seems to me to be more about the routine handing over of information, which I am certainly against. On the surface it is about tax, which would require regular reporting of everyones information.
One reason I am against income tax though, is because a massive invasion of privacy is required to be able to collect it. Between the tax system and the banking system there is quite a large amount of our personal affairs known to the government without them ever showing probable cause. I suppose it could be considered reasonable - if you are of the opinion that it is the fruits of your labor rightfully belong to the government. That's not my opinion, but I seem to be in a small minority in the world right now.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I think you're living in the wrong neighborhood if people are going to shoot at you if you walk through their property.
There's nothing about owning property in and of itself that depends on force, assuming the purchase or acquisition of that property was not coerced.
As for that "implicit agreement" I somehow made to pay taxes? If it's a voluntary agreement, show me where I can sign to disregard it, because it is very one-sided. If it is not, then it's a perfect example of something that's the opposite of liberty.
That's one of the many flaws in "social contract" theory. If your "social contract" were a real contract, at least in the U.S., the courts would disregard it for being a contract of adhesion and unconscionable.
No, libertarians support separation of people from everyone else.
Just repeating the same lie doesn't really make your case, sunshine. Insurance works very well when offered in a free market, where both parties are able to make their own decisions as to what kind of coverage they're willing to buy or sell, and under what terms. That's how Lloyds of London and other maritime underwriters made it possible to vastly expand shipping in the 1700's. Voluntary pooling of risk is a brilliant idea, one of the best ones since the invention of the joint-stock corporation.
When it comes to health insurance, the fact is that we have had a ridiculously over-regulated insurance market for health care, ever since the middle of the last century, when the federal government first decided to meddle in our financial arrangements for health care.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Just try for a moment to grasp the difference between obtaining information pursuant to a warrant, when a crime has been committed, and routinely gathering dossiers on everybody's finances.
Maybe we should just preemptively incarcerate everyone to get crime under control!
I think you're insane.
Gee, that would really hurt if I had any reason at all to value your judgement.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That the free-market plan has had more practical success is important to note, especially for people believe quality of life is more important than social justice.
Huh? The quality of life was terrible when the free-market and Laissez Faire Capitalism was the norm. The only saving grace was that so much of the population still had a rural existence and could mostly get by without money.
This was why most of the advanced countries rejected pure Laissez Faire Capitalism in the first part of the 20th century though as so often happens the pendulum swung to far in the other direction and was just as bad if not worse.
Now it seems that the countries where the majority of people have good quality of life and quite a few freedoms are a cross between capitalism and socialism. Even the USA is quite socialist though they do it in a weird way, take from the middle, give to the rich and count on it trickling down to the poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yes, without sufficient grounds to investigate, rummaging through dossiers is a violation of privacy. But you allowed for no such gray area, did you?
Currently, Swiss law does not provide for obtaining information pursuant to a warrant for those suspected of tax evasion, graft etc. from elsewhere. Soon, they might.
Why couldn't the US be more like that?
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
I'd suggest investigating how life was for the average person between 300 yrs and a 100 yrs ago when the libertarians were in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
What's 35%+19%?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Why should the federal (US) govt have the right to break my financial privacy? What I do with my business and how much I make should be no business of theirs.
I mean, that federal income tax IS supposed to be a temporary measure...right?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That, and the taxes should pretty much ALL be local rather than federal. Ok, the military and taxes for the highway system...ok....but, other than that, the only taxes should be state taxes as that we in the US have more say in State and local govt....it will serve our wills and needs much better.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We have plenty of gas, booze and smoke taxes in the south, southeast, and pretty much every other state I've visited...it isn't just in the NE.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Finland -along with the rest of the Nordic countries- seems to be a prime example of the opposite of libertarianism.
No, Cuba and North Korea are the prime examples. The Nordic countries don't completely strangle private enterprise.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Perhaps it would be better to tax consumption (sales tax) and not income under the basic principle that taxation puts a break on whatever is taxed. Of course, there is no perfect system and a sales tax makes things expensive so, in the end, you still pay your taxes. But, it is also a very fair taxation because, when food, clothing and housing (basic needs) are not taxed, it is slightly progressive and hard to evade.
This way, the government has no need to know or even care about interest income or wealth. They only need to tax what it sold.
I stand corrected on 'voluntary' insurance if it is voluntary it is acceptable ty. However you didn't mention my other points, libertarians are anti-public services. That includes healthcare, post-office, public schools, police, military, food-aid, post office, fire-fighting, water treatment. Of course while libertarians wouldn't want to get rid of all of these, they do want to decrease or get rid of some. Explain to me why 'every-one-for-himself' does not describe libertarianism please.
Oh and about the government and health care... Life-expectancy in sweden is 3yrs more, Infant mortality rate is 1/2, gov pays for 88.5% vs 44% of costs AND they spend less! $3,149 per capita vs $5,711 in the US (9.4% vs 15.2%). The US is the worst 1st world country in the world for health-care, precisely BECAUSE of the everyone for themselves sentiment.
Little known fact: Most of America's large banks, including the Bank of New York, the Federal Reserves Main bank, are owned by "Holding Companies" in Luxembourg. Look it up!
The following link details the changes going on in the Luxembourg Banking Industry where laws favoring tax evasion have been the rule since 1929. In 2009, the rules are changing again. Forced by the EU, Luxembourg "Holding Companies" will be subject to income taxes far greater than ever before. Luxembourg is being forced to comply with the EU's Code of Conduct Committee's campaign against 'harmful tax practices' by modifying the dividend taxation regime for 1929 holding companies. Currently, 1929 holding companies are exempt from all Luxembourg taxes.
LINK: http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jlxdctx.html#withholding
Co-incidentally, Abu-Dubai has been enjoying a great resort and housing building boom. They are building several huge sand islands in the sea, one in the shape of a palm tree, the other is the world completes with man made islands in the shapes of all the countries in the world. Buy an island, own a country? All to house and entertain the super rich.
LINK: http//www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/07/sinister_paradise.html
So take a guess where the those Holding Companies the super rich will be moving their secret cash. Again, don't take my word for it. Look it up!
There's nothing about owning property in and of itself that depends on force, assuming the purchase or acquisition of that property was not coerced.
I am coerced to recognize the right of the seller to sell, their claim to the land, and the right of the buyer to buy. I am coerced to recognize the possibility of even owning land at all. It is violence and the possibility of violence that creates the cadastral institutions which facilitate the entire process of land ownership and transfer. If there is food on land you own, even if you didn't grow the food, I am forfended from pursuing it. If I do not own land, I must pay for the right to sleep anywhere.
All land ownership required an original taking, a coercive one. There is not one shred of property on this planet which was not fought over. By men with guns (or swords, or sticks...)
You can have it both ways, or atleast strike a reasonable balance.
For example, you can say it's private, but if the government prevents credible grounds for suspsicion for a judge, the judge can give them a warrant, which again grants access to certain objects or information that they would otherwise not get.
This is what happens to papers in your desk, info from your local bank etc. It's reasonable.
It is however -not- reasonable that swiss banks are exempt from this. There's no particular reason that a warrant against a swiss bank shouldn't be just as effective as one against a non-swiss bank. Except for swiss law, that is.
And that's precisely where the pressure is: A lot of countries put pressure on switzerland to change a set of laws. If they do or not is up to them offcourse.
Oh, Sorry. Forgot where I was.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
If I could tell them something, I would tell the Swiss that they can charge the amount that would have been charged on that money for taxes back home and keep a fair share (40%???) for their efforts, this would take care of companies and individuals trying to escape the arm of the law of their country, and keep the locals using their banks unaffected.
First, you are proceeding from a faulty assumption
"Now why shouldn't those extra dollars be taxed in order to benefit the society it was gained from?"
There are two assumptions here, I will refute the first. Taxing people cannot be said, with any kind of accuracy, to "benefit the society it was gained from". The level of graft, waste, and corruption means that my answer to that question is, it shouldn't when the government cannot be trusted to intelligently dispose of the tax revenue, and they currently can't.
In other words, you get more when you show you actually need it and prove you're not wasting it. If the government is taking a cent more than it needs, and wasting anything, then they need to get that situation in hand first.
Second, those "extra dollars" are capital, and generally, wealthy individuals reinvest their money, thus if they get to keep it, it really does go to benefiting the society it was gained from, instead of being wasted by the government.
So the answer to your question is, "because giving it to the government doesn't benefit the society it was gained from at all, even though you incorrectly think it does".
, libertarians are anti-public services.
You're still way off the mark. What we object to, is the services you mention being monopolized and made compulsory by government.
The US is the worst 1st world country in the world for health-care, precisely BECAUSE of the everyone for themselves sentiment.
Wrong again. The problem here is the enormous degree of interference in health care, and particularly in the insurance market by the federal government.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'd suggest investigating how life was for the average person
I'd suggest that you look into how capitalism raised the productivity of labor, allowing us to enjoy our current standard of living.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yeah, but in the NE they are a lot higher. In many states the taxes on those things are for revenue, in the NE they are for punishment.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
your attacks on my character make me laugh, but i see your point.
Cheers.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
Yes, I'll tell you that. He cannot possibly hire enough people to prevent (other people's) copying without the backing of the courts and copyright law. The BSA wouldn't exist if they couldn't get the sheriff to insist on them being allowed in for an audit. If not for law enforcement, MS would need a full time army of dog crap cleaners just to keep the entrances clean after people express their feelings for them.
For that matter, without laws and their enforcement, IBM would have squashed him and MS like a bug before he even got started.
He has recieved far more value from the government than the vast majority of citizens ever will, it's only right he should pay proportionally.
Consider, nobody steals MY car because nobody really wants it. Nobody steals Bill Gates' car because of law enforcement.
From the luxury of the "threat of starvation" you claim to see no reason to prefer it over the "threat of a bullet to the head". I hope, for your sake as well as mine, that you never experience the actual difference between the two. You might then find reason to prefer "nature's corcion" (which is lawful, predictable, and rationally tractable) from man-made coercion (which is whimsical and inevitably anti-rational).
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Nope. I'm just as dead either way, unless I lick the boots of whoever wields this power over me. "Obey on the pain of death"; how that death is delivered is irrelevant.
Both forms of coercion are both natural (nature is red in tooth and claw) and man-made (someone obtaining all the sources of some needed resource and creating an artificial shortage, for example). Whether an oppressor is rational or "anti-rational" is irrelevant to those under his boots. "Lawful" has no meaning when laws can be bought by the very people the concept is being applied.
Besides, it's not a question of what kind of coercion I prefer; I prefer to be free from both.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Wrong.
Secrecy is the prerogative of the country it's being done in. If you don't support banking secrecy, then don't put your money in a Swiss bank (assuming you're not a Swiss citizen). If you don't want your countrymen doing that, then get a law passed banning it, or even have travel restrictions put in place preventing your citizens from leaving their country.
But telling the Swiss what to do inside their own borders is a violation of sovereignty.
He talks about the "'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" versus the "'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats. Why not the "'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" versus the " 'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats"?
Troll or not, at least "'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" and "'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats actually exist.
"'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" and "'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats" are both about as real as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
this is a tricky statement.
Libertarians care about people because they want a small governemnt that doesn't tax them to death, won't interfere in their rights, and will generally leave them alone.
Democrats care about people because they want to save the american worker from the past of Laize-faire economics back in the days when the rockefellers and whatnot made their fortunes on the backs of their american populace employment-slaves, but had no government programs to help with the lack of basic necessities like healthcare, school, disability, welfare, etc.
Republicans care about people because they want to have lower taxes and a roebust economy for investment and economic growth so that we don't wind up like france or other countries that are so "socialized" that industry is running at a constant loss, taxes are heavy, any real development is done in highly specialized industries, the rest are fairly mediocre, and it's hardly worth the headache of starting a business.
The problem is Americans aren't resourceful enough to try to solve all three at the same time. They assign one of these positions to be right, the others to be dumb, criminal, or even liberal, and go back to their own happy little world.
An honest politician or citizen would take all of these into consideration.
Mark Anthony Collins
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
See, now you are being a troll.
Would you prefer "Sucker the poor into paying for everything" Democrats? If you don't believe they exist, take a look at the rich and famous Democrat supporters, especially those in the entertainment industry and in politics.
Would you prefer "We shouldn't punish people for being successful" Republicans? That is what the tax laws do when one has to pay at a higher rate if one makes more money.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You are obviously a rabid ultra-left Democrat, just like the submitter.
Wow. I must have really misspoken if I left the impression I was an ultra-left Democrat. That is not my position at all. (The jury is still out on the rabid part.)
But let's take a closer look at the generalities of my post. It would be fair to say I was overly broad in my statements, but I don't see where you would get troll.
"'let's pry into everyone's business' Republicans" Yeah, that doesn't really do it. Should be "'let's pry into everyone's business without any oversight' Republicans". The current Republicans in charge insist on the ability to tap everyone's phone lines and read everyone's email without having to get the OK from a judge or face any oversight. How is that a troll? It's just a fact.
"'make the rich pay their fair share' Democrats" That one is open to interpretation, based on what you think is a 'fair share' but again, not really a troll. There really are Democrats who take the position, the rich should pay their fair share. (And again that's double broad based on who you think qualifies as 'rich'.)
"'Financial transparency leads to better accountability' Republicans" Again, I don't see the troll here--such a thing does not exist. There are people who believe in financial transparency, but those people aren't Republicans. Based on the folks in charge and the people who vote for them, Republicans believe in no-bid contracts and policy decisions by secret meetings. (Smoke-filled rooms optional.)
"'Nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' Democrats" I would say my language in this case was imprecise, but not so far as to be a troll. There are Democrats with that stand, but there are many Republicans with the same stand. That is, the feeling 'nobody should be rich enough to create any jobs' is not a defining characteristic of Democrats but rather shared by members of both major parties.
Now let's look at your statements.
"Sucker the poor into paying for everything" Democrats I'd put that in the category of not a characteristic of Democrats, but rather something both parties share.
If you don't believe they exist, take a look at the rich and famous Democrat supporters, especially those in the entertainment industry and in politics. Now who's being the troll? If you look closer, you'll find most rich Democrats support a progressive tax that has them paying as much as they would have rich Republicans paying.
"We shouldn't punish people for being successful" Republicans Now that one I agree with. If only we had more "we shouldn't punish people for not being successful" Republicans. The amount of success a person has is punishment/reward in itself. The government should stay out of the way.
You've been had--just like racism is a way to get poor white folks fighting poor brown folk so they don't realize most of their problems have nothing to do with color. The policies that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor paying the bill transcend the Democratic/Republican divide.
Even if I was the most ultra-left, politically-correct, drug-legalizing, Michael Moore-loving, pinko commie Democrat that ever was, I'm not the one giving away billions of your dollars and destroying the real purchasing power of the pieces of paper in your pocket you believe is money.