

Swiss to end secret bank accounts - eisokant
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/03/14/Swiss_to_end_secret_bank_accounts/UPI-61721237062256/

======
nickh
Switzerland has NOT decided to "end secret bank accounts".

From a BBC News article:

"while it will now abide by international rules on bank data sharing, it said
it would only respond to "concrete and justified" requests."
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7941717.stm>

~~~
jwilliams
Plus - This isn't really huge news, and the reputation of Swiss bank secrecy
is a little outdated - e.g. The US and Swiss authorities have been co-
operating around Tax information for some time. Similarly, it's still
incumbent on the Swiss to track and act on illegal flows of money (and they
do).... It's still far from transparent, but it's not the citadel that some
people think.

~~~
admoin
The main reason for this major change is that even in the presence of
information-sharing provisions of treaties, Switzerland refused to provide any
information on most account holders that were evading US (or other countries')
taxes, on the rationale that evading non-Swiss tax was not a criminal offense
in Switzerland. Cooperation was virtually nil, especially in the tax arena.

Depending on the scope of the changes, this could be huge news.

------
katz
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
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
Chronos
I generally agree or fail to disagree with most of your post, but on the
particular topic of progressive taxation, it's not fair to simply dismiss it
as "10 wolves and a sheep": marginal utility is at play.

With all goods, the more of it you have, the less valuable it is. Individuals
allocate goods to satisfy their most critical needs first. Ipso facto, the
first unit of the good is worth the most, the second unit less so, and so on
until the final unit is worth the least.

And money is simply a good, more fungible but otherwise no different than any
other. The greatest utility of money is achieved by providing the necessities
of life: food, drinking water, shelter. The next greatest utility is achieved
by providing the basic comforts of life: showering water, clean laundry,
furniture. After that comes longer-term goals, and so on (roughly mirroring
Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

Now imagine two people, A and B, who earn $20,000/year and $80,000/year
respectively. It's more unethical to take $200 from A than it is to take $800
from B. Why? While taking money from either one should be minimized (or
preferably eliminated), in all likelihood A's $200 was going to meet a more
critical need than B's $800.

As an argument ad absurdum, imagine that instead of taking away a flat
percentage (1% of annual income for both), a flat absolute amount were taken
instead ($500). The total amount taken would be the same, but now it would be
evenly divided among both A and B, regardless of income. This would be the
most fair arrangement of all, would it not? If a progressive tax is less fair
than a flat percentage tax, then surely a flat percentage tax is less fair
than a flat absolute tax. The flat percentage tax is still "punishing" B for
making more money than A, when instead it "should" treat them equally and not
care what their incomes are.

Clearly, though, this line of thinking is absurd, because A will be harmed
disproportionately. Whereas taking $200 from A might prevent A from paying the
electric bill, taking $500 from A might instead prevent A from paying the
rent. The result is that, relative to the flat percentage tax, A has lost the
fulfillment of a more critical need, while B has gained the fulfillment of a
more minor need.

~~~
katz
> Now imagine two people, A and B, who earn $20,000/year and $80,000/year
> respectively. It's more unethical to take $200 from A than it is to take
> $800 from B. Why?

Just taking money is wrong. The usual argument is that the government takes
money from people to provide a service. If the government takes more money
from you and provides less of a service (i.e. it is busy with wealth
redistribution) it is wrong - it is simple theft by the masses.

> As an argument ad absurdum, imagine that instead of taking away a flat
> percentage (1% of annual income for both), a flat absolute amount were taken
> instead ($500).

The argument for flat tax is usually that in order to make money a person uses
the infrastructure (roads, ect...). If he makes more money the argument is
that he used the public services more. While this is not correct (lower income
groups disproportionately use public services) it can be argued as such. There
is however no defence for progressive taxation - other than wealth
redistribution.

------
idont
Intersting fact: Many US customers want to get a "local" nationality to be no
more American so that they can escape from all the US regulation.

------
steveplace
Off to Singapore, I suppose.

~~~
numair
You obviously didn't get the memo last week.

------
vinutheraj
Whoa ... this means I need to change my account as soon as possible! Where
else do they have secret accounts ?!

~~~
nicara
I hear Nigeria is quite the place...

No, on a more serious note, if you need a secret account, something about your
attitude towards finances is wrong in the first place.

~~~
idont
If in some countries you work 6 month (per year) only for taxes, there is
something wronger...

If you work 1-2 month (per year) for taxes, the need for a secret account will
be null...

~~~
nicara
I don't get it - taxes are a percentage of your overall income... so how can
you have to work 6 months for taxes?

I do realize that you have to work more to be able to make a living, but keep
in mind that:

\- By working in any state, you are also subject to their rules/laws/customs.
That means you have to pay taxes, and you don't pay them for nothing, but you
get something in return.

\- If you disagree with the tax system in your country of choice, feel free to
move somewhere else. But don't be a jerk and take the advantages (health care,
free education up to a certain degree, ... the list goes on) without the
disadvantages (giving a (admittedly quite considerable) part of your income to
the state in the form of taxes).

So, I rest my case. If you need a secret account, something with your attitude
towards finances is wrong. Period.

And on a more anecdotal level, let me say that I am by all means not someone
who encourages a very restrictive government in terms of economy. E.g. I'm
going to university in Sweden (though not from Sweden), but I'll never work
here, simply because, while living here is great, taxes get ridiculously high
when you earn more than the average. But tell you what, I'm not going to open
a secret bank account, cheat the government and deceive the Swedish people.

~~~
randallsquared
"I don't get it - taxes are a percentage of your overall income... so how can
you have to work 6 months for taxes?"

Well, if the percentage is 50%, then...

More concretely, in Maryland, my last paycheck had about 31% taken from it
before I got it, and there are many places with higher tax burdens on the
state and local levels, even in the US. Add sales taxes, property taxes if you
own a house, and you could easily get to 40% in the US. We're constantly
hearing about how much higher taxes are in many other parts of the world, so
50% doesn't seem unlikely for some countries.

The only reason that we can afford this much government, of course, is that
we're all so incredibly rich by the standards of yesteryear that the losses
have been sustainable so far. We'll see if that continues to be the case (my
bet is that it will).

------
HSO
I don't get it, how is this relevant to HN audience?

~~~
lethain
It's important to keep in mind that--in the absence of downvotes--scores only
mean that content is relatively more relevant than other content surrounding
it, not that it is absolutely relevant to our audience. The current voting
system encourages diversity, and it's diversity we get.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Weekends, in particular, are a whimsical time on HN.

------
known
Will it help in reviving the economy?

