4 ms·

This is sad. One of the few places where banks still acted in their clients' interest rather than their own or the government's. All interaction between your l

by katz 18y ago

This is sad. One of the few places where banks still acted in their clients' interest rather than their own or the government's. All interaction between your lawyer and you or your doctor and you is private? Why not the same for you and your banker?

sethg 18y ago
If you conspire with your doctor or your lawyer to commit a crime, then your discussions in furtherance of that conspiracy are not privileged.
- katz 18y ago
  Most (good) lawyers will keep their mouth shut even if they knew the details of a crime that you committed. They will happily burn any documentation before they hand any over to the government. Every conversation between you and your lawyer, doctor or priest is confidential – and none of them will rat you out. Banks (in my country at least) will hand over details of your bank statements without your knowledge to the government. --- It is only one part of my problem with banks. Banks generally act in their own interest. When you discuss a contract with a lawyer he will act in your interest. Your doctor will also act in your interest when he prescribes you medicine. A banker is the only entity that will give you "advice" that is more in his interest than yours. A good example is contracts with banks - their "standard" contract is extremely one sided.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    I see no reason for secret banking other to subvert laws. Secret banking is an enormous global problem which at its worst enables terrorism and drug trade. At "best" it enables the very wealthy to not pay their fair share. I hope these new changes are the tipping point and within 10 years, there will be no tax havens. If you have a problem with being overtaxed, the only respectful approach is to be active in managing how your government works. Subverting the process only makes things worse. And a "good" lawyer should never cover for crimes. It truly is not their purpose and perverts their privilege.
    - katz 18y ago
      > I see no reason for secret banking other to subvert laws. Replace the word “secrecy” with “privacy”. I think there are a lot of good reasons to keep your personal banking details private. For example – in my country there is a law that the bank have to inform a government department if there is any deposit above about $1000. Thinking of donating to a political party? You must show proof of fixed residence to open an account (even if you always have a positive balance). How would a poor person without a fixed address (as defined by government) open an account? > and drug trade. Because people voluntary give money to buy drugs and people voluntary sells drugs. What is the problem? > at its worst enables terrorism It is a stretch to blame private banking for terrorism. Terrorism will occur regardless of banking laws. > At "best" it enables the very wealthy to not pay their fair share. If there was a flat tax regime you can (maybe) try to make that believable. Why is it that rich people pay a higher percentage of their income in tax? It is simple – ten wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner. The whole idea of progressive taxation is the mob taking what it wants because of its majority – there is no inherit “fairness” in it. A politician buys the vote of the poor with the money from the rich (coerced through taxation). > If you have a problem with being overtaxed, the only respectful approach is to be active in managing how your government works. In my country there are 4 million tax payers and about 14 million people receiving government “grants” (this will probably quadruple in a year's time in a plan to give everyone a “basic income grant” (BIG)). Is it fair that 4 million productive people subsidise 14 million unproductive people? Is it fair that a young tax-paying couple puts off having a child – yet their tax dollars is used for other peoples' child grants? > And a "good" lawyer should never cover for crimes. A “good lawyer should always act in their clients' best interest – whatever it may be. In summary my argument is as follows: 1.There are plenty of reasons why banking should be private. 2.IMHO tax evasion by overtaxed people (i.e. when the tax percentage is progressive) is not morally wrong. EDIT: Downmod all you want.
      - jhancock 18y ago
        katz, I hear you. Perhaps some of your rational applies to people living in countries that do not have the same government infrastructure as we have in the U.S. Your perspective may be different for that reason. But for the U.S., secret banking only serves to do illegal things. I'm not talking about privacy. I am talking about secrecy. Governments do have a right to tax. Secrecy from governments only allows the process to subverted.

by katz 18y ago

sethg 18y ago

If you conspire with your doctor or your lawyer to commit a crime, then your discussions in furtherance of that conspiracy are not privileged.

katz 18y ago
Most (good) lawyers will keep their mouth shut even if they knew the details of a crime that you committed. They will happily burn any documentation before they hand any over to the government. Every conversation between you and your lawyer, doctor or priest is confidential – and none of them will rat you out. Banks (in my country at least) will hand over details of your bank statements without your knowledge to the government. --- It is only one part of my problem with banks. Banks generally act in their own interest. When you discuss a contract with a lawyer he will act in your interest. Your doctor will also act in your interest when he prescribes you medicine. A banker is the only entity that will give you "advice" that is more in his interest than yours. A good example is contracts with banks - their "standard" contract is extremely one sided.
- jhancock 18y ago
  I see no reason for secret banking other to subvert laws. Secret banking is an enormous global problem which at its worst enables terrorism and drug trade. At "best" it enables the very wealthy to not pay their fair share. I hope these new changes are the tipping point and within 10 years, there will be no tax havens. If you have a problem with being overtaxed, the only respectful approach is to be active in managing how your government works. Subverting the process only makes things worse. And a "good" lawyer should never cover for crimes. It truly is not their purpose and perverts their privilege.
  - katz 18y ago
    > I see no reason for secret banking other to subvert laws. Replace the word “secrecy” with “privacy”. I think there are a lot of good reasons to keep your personal banking details private. For example – in my country there is a law that the bank have to inform a government department if there is any deposit above about $1000. Thinking of donating to a political party? You must show proof of fixed residence to open an account (even if you always have a positive balance). How would a poor person without a fixed address (as defined by government) open an account? > and drug trade. Because people voluntary give money to buy drugs and people voluntary sells drugs. What is the problem? > at its worst enables terrorism It is a stretch to blame private banking for terrorism. Terrorism will occur regardless of banking laws. > At "best" it enables the very wealthy to not pay their fair share. If there was a flat tax regime you can (maybe) try to make that believable. Why is it that rich people pay a higher percentage of their income in tax? It is simple – ten wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner. The whole idea of progressive taxation is the mob taking what it wants because of its majority – there is no inherit “fairness” in it. A politician buys the vote of the poor with the money from the rich (coerced through taxation). > If you have a problem with being overtaxed, the only respectful approach is to be active in managing how your government works. In my country there are 4 million tax payers and about 14 million people receiving government “grants” (this will probably quadruple in a year's time in a plan to give everyone a “basic income grant” (BIG)). Is it fair that 4 million productive people subsidise 14 million unproductive people? Is it fair that a young tax-paying couple puts off having a child – yet their tax dollars is used for other peoples' child grants? > And a "good" lawyer should never cover for crimes. A “good lawyer should always act in their clients' best interest – whatever it may be. In summary my argument is as follows: 1.There are plenty of reasons why banking should be private. 2.IMHO tax evasion by overtaxed people (i.e. when the tax percentage is progressive) is not morally wrong. EDIT: Downmod all you want.
    - jhancock 18y ago
      katz, I hear you. Perhaps some of your rational applies to people living in countries that do not have the same government infrastructure as we have in the U.S. Your perspective may be different for that reason. But for the U.S., secret banking only serves to do illegal things. I'm not talking about privacy. I am talking about secrecy. Governments do have a right to tax. Secrecy from governments only allows the process to subverted.