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
heh. you must be new here....
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?!
The Swiss economy is basically subsidised by victims from the rest of world.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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 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
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.]
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.
One myth that people keep repeating is that the wealthy don't pay tax.
And it would be a myth if it weren't true...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/business/03tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"About one in every 436 high-income Americans paid no taxes in 2002, up from one in 531 in 2001 and one in 1,010 in 2000."
the fact is this is total bullshit, the top 1% in america pay almost 50% of the tax
Actually, its the two 2% paying 53% (which is also in the cite I provided). But close enough.
The trouble however, is that a middle class american pays 30-35% in taxes, while a high-income american pays, on average only 18%.
So sure, if you make 146M bucks, yeah, your paying $26M in taxes. But if you take 1460 families that each make $100,000, that's the same 146 million in aggregate, but they each pay ~33k in taxes on average,... or 48M in aggregate.
Why do they pay 48M when you only pay 26M?
The high-income earners have considerable income from 'investments' not just 'wage/salary' which is taxed differently and wage income has far fewer loopholes and options than investment income, and there are countless more ways to leverage your money too the more you've got to shuffle around to maximize tax savings.
They're more likely to be 'self employed' at least with respect to some investment or other and suddenly that trip to the bahamas is a tax deductible 'annual meeting' instead of a 'vacation', and the twice yearly jaunts to Mexico? Tax deductable trips to inspect their investment rental properties....
Their car? Tax deductible lease payments, maintenance, and fuel... Their mortgage? Bah, who are we kidding they don't have a mortgage, but they do have a HELOC to buy even more investments, and the interest on the HELOC? Because its being used to buy goverment approved investments...you guessed it... tax deductible. The tax savings more than offset the interest, meanwhile the investments themselves can make money too.
The wealthy pay more taxes than the middle in total, but its the ones in the middle who see the largest chunk of each dollar bitten off by the IRS never to be seen again.
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
Flat taxes and consumption taxes most certainly *DO NOT* work. THey're highly regressive, effecting the poor far more than the rich.
Take a rich man who makes 1 million a year, and a middle class man who makes 40K. Lets say the tax rate is 20%. With a consumption tax, the guy with 40K will likely need to spend 33K on food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc. He'll pay 20% taxes on that, adding up to 6,600 dollars. He basicly breaks even. The rich man may spend lavishly, and spend 300K. He'll pay 60K in taxes. The rest he saves. He only paid 60K taxes, a mere 10x the poor man despite earning 25x. This shifts the tax burden onto the poor. This is not acceptable.
Now take a flat tax. There's two types of flat tax- flat by rate, and flat by dollar amount. If you have flat by dollar amount, you have the same problem as above, but magnified- it will likely be 50% or more of the poor man's salary. If you do a flat rate, you haven't solved any of the problems of the current system- you still need to figure out how much he actually made, and he still has incentive to hide it.
Flat taxes just don't work. Consumption taxes, while they are technically possible, don't work socially- far too regressive. The only people who really think either of these are a good idea are those who are already rich and have the "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude, and those who don't understand math.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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."
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...
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
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.
One reason the rich get a lot of these tax breaks, is that they assume higher risks
Yes, if you got $100M in the bank, it's pretty easy to assume risk on new investments. Nonetheless, the risk is what is being rewarded.
Uh-Huh. So the risk is really about going from SUPER-DUPER-DUPER rich, to just SUPER-DUPER rich for a few years. Somehow I don't see that as much of a "risk", especially one worth rewarding with lower tax rates.
If you take a 100% safe job earning a specific salary,
Where are these 100% safe jobs you're referring too? Because I'll take one of those, thanks. The truth is that economies bust, people get sick, and people screw up. No job is "100% safe". The only thing that's even close to "100% safe" is having 100 million dollars sitting in the bank.
but you're not assuming much risk either
Uh-huh. Tell that to the people who've just lost thousands of dollars in equity on their major investment, their home do to the credit crisis. Tell that to the people who've been laid off over the various recessions the country has experienced. If you think being middle class (and to a much larger extent lower class) isn't taking a lot more risks than some guy who's super-rich, then I guess you don't know the true meaning of the word risk.
AccountKiller
It may come as a surprise to you that not everybody grows up in a blue-blood family, and that social mobility is not perfect in the US. Redistributive tax systems allow for the strengthening of social mobility by ensuring that the lower class isn't always subject to abject poverty- that even if they are searching for a job or lose a job they do not lose their home and their entire life in the process.
Your comparison to slavery is disgusting and horribly elitist. No rich person would be where they are without the society around them, the infrastructure created by the government, the military that defends them (made up disproportionally, of course, with the lower and middle class), and the people who work for them. The redistribution of wealth acknowledges that people owe society for what it has given them, and must support it so that future generations can benefit from it as well.
- Tax Break Prompts Millionaires To Create Private Foundations: Many of these same "feel-good" workers, though, have their own opinion about private foundations. And it isn't pretty. In the best of all worlds, they say, private foundations, like their public counterparts, would help address problems like hunger or illiteracy; in truth, they charge, such charities tend to address the whims and agendas of their benefactors, whose motivations don't always fit the notion of "charity."
- The trustees' perk that keeps on giving: The foundation's accountant, Martin Logies of Sunnyvale, Calif., defended the benefits, saying they had been approved by the foundation's board of directors. But he acknowledged that Sara and Anders Kierulf are the board's only members, and that they approved the benefits for themselves. As to the work the Kierulfs perform for their pay, Logies demurred. "I couldn't give you that information," he said.
- Deduction Ad Absurdum: CEOs Donating Their Own Stock to Their Own Family Foundations: Consistent with their exemption from insider trading law, I find that CEOs' stock gifts occur just prior to significant drops in their firms' stock prices, a pattern that enables the donors to obtain increased personal income tax benefits. This timing is more pronounced when executives donate their own shares to their own family foundations
- Tax Me If You Can: FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith investigates the rampant abuse of tax shelters since the late 1990s. Through interviews with government officials, tax experts, and industry insiders, Smith uncovers an avalanche of bogus transactions -- created by some of America's biggest and most-respected accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks -- that were then aggressively marketed to big corporations and wealthy individuals.
- How Tax Shelters Brought Trouble to Billionaire Clan: The panel's senior Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, has been probing offshore tax evasion and money laundering for several years. The panel is also looking into how the elite New York law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP provided legal advice on offshore tax shelters to wealthy individuals, people familiar with the probe say.
What pray tell is the loophole your multi-millionaire employer used? Something to do with classifying personal property as a farm. Sorry, I don't know the exact details, but he was very clear that it was purely a loophole and that it saved him a lot of money. This wasn't some imaginary conversation or something I heard from somebody else. It was straight from the horse's mouth.