5 ms·

The US govt doesn't take kindly to anyone hiding money to avoid taxes, whether that's setting up a chain of shell companies in the Caribbean or hiding money in

The US govt doesn't take kindly to anyone hiding money to avoid taxes, whether that's setting up a chain of shell companies in the Caribbean or hiding money in the matress. I disagree with your premise only because any kind of financial secrecy leads to tax evasion, and taxes are how the government exists. It sucks making money over seas and that's because all the fat cats try to stuff their money over there. Nothing against you but a fair law treats everyone the same. Your argument rings of the "sovereign citizen" movement in the US which is basically a bunch of idiots that chant hail the USA while they simultaneously dodge the IRS.

yardie 10y ago
I disagree with you equivocating those that disagree with US finance laws to sovereign citizens. The fact is we are the only nation that have such far reaching laws that cross borders. It's completely ridiculous to think that what I earn and am taxed for in another country is also taxed in a country I don't physically have a presence.
- nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
  The US government also historically goes to great lengths to protect its citizens abroad. For the most part, a US citizen sucked into a civil war or other terrible situation can show up at the embassy and everything will be okay. Might not be worth the amount of tax you pay but it's like expensive insurance in a way
  - yardie 10y ago
    Historically is correct. They would do that in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. They don't do that anymore. When the civil war in Yemen turned really bad UK, French, and other western countries evacuated their citizens. The US sent a reminder that US citizens should leave. Outside of military the US does very little for its international citizens.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
As far as I can tell, your argument seems equivalent to "private communication makes it easier for criminals to communicate, so let's make all communication non-private to make it easier to catch criminals". Yes, private banking makes it harder to catch tax evasion, and private communication makes it harder to catch criminals. Not impossible, just harder. Neither of those justifies removing that privacy.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  What is the sensitive data here, i.e. what privacy is invaded? There are aggregates and there are transactions. I see zero privacy issues with the state knowing my aggregates (income, wealth, earned interest, ...) but I certainly do see privacy issues with disclosed transactions (what I bought, where I traveled). Where I live my income is public information (that is - both my wealth and income, is public to everyone). Obviously, with that experience, I don't think it's odd that the authorities know my total account balance - my neighbor knows it.
m_mueller 10y ago
Here's my point of view as a Swiss citizen: Many of us tend to see banking secrecy as just another check and balance. The Swiss government is supposed to be the employee of its people, not the other way round. Banking secrecy gives a tool into people's hands against overly aggressive taxation. For Swiss this has worked well, in general the tax revenue is just fine and taxes are kept reasonable. I'm fine if it gets cut for foreigners though - Switzerland isn't responsible for the checks and balances of foreign citizens towards their nation.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  But historically you have made a lot of money off these foreigners. Will that matter to lose the business?
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    somewhat, but (a) I think this transition is mostly complete already and the Swiss economy has survived it so far, (b) banking in Switzerland is about 8% of GDP, not significantly more than in many other developed countries and (c) a big chunk Swiss banking revenue is AFAIK still in the domestic market. Will it show up somewhere in a spreadsheet? Certainly. Will it destroy Swiss banking or Switzerland as we know it? Most probably not. [1] That being said, if 2008 has taught us anything, it's not to underestimate greedy bankers and their favourite puppy 'leverage'. [1] Some small private banks specialised on this sort of business may go under though.

yardie 10y ago

I disagree with you equivocating those that disagree with US finance laws to sovereign citizens. The fact is we are the only nation that have such far reaching laws that cross borders. It's completely ridiculous to think that what I earn and am taxed for in another country is also taxed in a country I don't physically have a presence.

nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
The US government also historically goes to great lengths to protect its citizens abroad. For the most part, a US citizen sucked into a civil war or other terrible situation can show up at the embassy and everything will be okay. Might not be worth the amount of tax you pay but it's like expensive insurance in a way
- yardie 10y ago
  Historically is correct. They would do that in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. They don't do that anymore. When the civil war in Yemen turned really bad UK, French, and other western countries evacuated their citizens. The US sent a reminder that US citizens should leave. Outside of military the US does very little for its international citizens.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

As far as I can tell, your argument seems equivalent to "private communication makes it easier for criminals to communicate, so let's make all communication non-private to make it easier to catch criminals". Yes, private banking makes it harder to catch tax evasion, and private communication makes it harder to catch criminals. Not impossible, just harder. Neither of those justifies removing that privacy.

alkonaut 10y ago
What is the sensitive data here, i.e. what privacy is invaded? There are aggregates and there are transactions. I see zero privacy issues with the state knowing my aggregates (income, wealth, earned interest, ...) but I certainly do see privacy issues with disclosed transactions (what I bought, where I traveled). Where I live my income is public information (that is - both my wealth and income, is public to everyone). Obviously, with that experience, I don't think it's odd that the authorities know my total account balance - my neighbor knows it.

m_mueller 10y ago

Here's my point of view as a Swiss citizen: Many of us tend to see banking secrecy as just another check and balance. The Swiss government is supposed to be the employee of its people, not the other way round. Banking secrecy gives a tool into people's hands against overly aggressive taxation. For Swiss this has worked well, in general the tax revenue is just fine and taxes are kept reasonable. I'm fine if it gets cut for foreigners though - Switzerland isn't responsible for the checks and balances of foreign citizens towards their nation.

brianwawok 10y ago
But historically you have made a lot of money off these foreigners. Will that matter to lose the business?
- m_mueller 10y ago
  somewhat, but (a) I think this transition is mostly complete already and the Swiss economy has survived it so far, (b) banking in Switzerland is about 8% of GDP, not significantly more than in many other developed countries and (c) a big chunk Swiss banking revenue is AFAIK still in the domestic market. Will it show up somewhere in a spreadsheet? Certainly. Will it destroy Swiss banking or Switzerland as we know it? Most probably not. [1] That being said, if 2008 has taught us anything, it's not to underestimate greedy bankers and their favourite puppy 'leverage'. [1] Some small private banks specialised on this sort of business may go under though.