3 ms·
If corrupt there is no benefit to argue in favor of, if not corrupt then access to the international markets obviously Like I said, its actually strange to foc
by vmception 6y ago
If corrupt there is no benefit to argue in favor of, if not corrupt then access to the international markets obviously
Like I said, its actually strange to focus on corrupt behavior of public officials to say another country is the problem and not the corrupt official. A reason this is strange that you might not have considered is that more universally respected countries such as the US and the UK offer the same opaque tax evading capabilities to non-citizens as the smaller countries they complain about. As well as access to international markets. So focus on the corrupt person, or educate on how to use more competitive jurisdictions instead of being manipulated into the small country tax haven meme. Its just larger economic unions exempting themselves from scrutiny and saying other countries are the problem.
- jollybean 6y ago"if not corrupt then access to the international markets obviously" ? That is not a 'benefit' of hidden bank accounts. "US and the UK offer the same opaque tax evading capabilities to non-citizens" They don't really. Nations have tax treaties to avoid this kind of stuff. While there are loopholes etc. it's not going to be a good idea to keep stolen money in London, it will get frozen. "So focus on the corrupt person" - the corruption is enabled by banking secrecy. A big focus on corruption is going after hidden networks.
- vmception 6y agoAll the “tax haven” countries have treaties and information sharing agreements that can result in freezing assets You are conflating several concepts: If you don’t want assets frozen then don’t use banks, they haven't been necessary for an entire decade. Bearer-everything is back in vogue.