Swiss Banking
- Thread starter Amra
- Start date
Re: Swiss Banking
Odds are, these rich people? They pay taxes. They might stash some, but they also pay some, and guess how many food stamps these millionaires are stealing from the people every year?
Keep in mind, this is clearly not the case with every tax evader, maybe even most. But the point is that even if this is the case, I can come up with a pretty legit reason for hiding taxes even if you are in the United States. It’s illegal, yes. But I think we already established that.
And keep in mind, I’m not informed about the intricacies of the IRS. What if you’re overseas but your corporation is in country? How do taxes work there? It may turn out that you get taxed even though you’ve moved out.
Actually, I was kind of serious. Basically, that only works if you happen to be in one of the participating states, no? That doesn’t exactly cover US citizens…WB said:
Ladies spa? Not in any hotel I’ve been in. Though I’m sure such a thing exists, the fact is you still get to use the “men’s spa.†Medicare vs Medicaid. Whatever.PFSS said:
Of course, collecting the taxes is the issue for the government. But remember, if the money is flowing into Switzerland, it can’t be used in the United States, whereas if it were in US banks, it could be used in the form of loans and other goodies. So, if the government cares about what we call “GDP†today, even if it doesn’t get the taxes, it’s better for the money to stay in the US.
I don’t think Bill Gates would get away with paying taxes completely even if he wanted to, legally. I think the government would go, “Huh. I wonder why these multimillionaires and billionaires are paying zero taxes a year.†But the government is incompetent, so I could be wrong.
Odds are, these rich people? They pay taxes. They might stash some, but they also pay some, and guess how many food stamps these millionaires are stealing from the people every year?
Actually, my point illustrates a legitimate, if illegal, reason for hiding ones taxes. Since it takes time to move to another country, and you’ve already made that choice, why continue to be taxed when you want to, and actually will, move? Why not cut down on your taxes in the down time between the time you decide to move, and the time you actually move because of bureaucratic delays?
Keep in mind, this is clearly not the case with every tax evader, maybe even most. But the point is that even if this is the case, I can come up with a pretty legit reason for hiding taxes even if you are in the United States. It’s illegal, yes. But I think we already established that.
What, PFFS? Are you going to freeload off of the services US Embassies and Consulates while not paying US taxes while you’re overseas? Are you not going to utilize other government services overseas in some way, even if indirectly? Are you going to keep voting for representatives that affect US policy even if you aren’t in the country and aren’t paying taxes? You lousy freeloader.
And keep in mind, I’m not informed about the intricacies of the IRS. What if you’re overseas but your corporation is in country? How do taxes work there? It may turn out that you get taxed even though you’ve moved out.
In addition to the point I mentioned above, moving is not instantaneous. What should a person who intends to move, and is in the process of moving, do during the down time? Yes, I know the legal answer is to keep paying your taxes. We can kind of ignore that in our hypothetical discussion here.
Yes. You can.
Suppose I did want to move to Switzerland. Suppose I considered it the most competitive overall. Not so easy, then. Now what?
Again, when you moved to, what, the UAE or something, did you just toss your bags on a plane and fly over there that day? Of course not. In the real world, there’s a bureaucracy that can create a lot of down time even if you want to move. Again, what then?
Yeah… that’s what I just said.
At least PFSS recognized the difference between the American tax system and the Swiss banking system. Better luck next time, dondrei, but I’m not comparing anything directly comparable.dondrei said:
WildBerry
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
You're right, it does not cover foreigners. On the other hand, it does cover 24 other countries for people in 25 countries with some 450 million people in them, with about 2 million people lawfully immigrating every year (so it could actually cover you as well, should you try). It's not exactly insignificant, either.
The point PFSS was trying to make there are a lot of countries to which your assumption of working permit just does not apply, and working under such circumstances - little pressure to think about working permits - are mundane for millions of people. The fact you can't waltz across thy neighbours border does not mean everyone is similiarly universally unable to do so.
Re: Swiss Banking
But it excludes the 300 million Americans who could be in question.
Sure. Not all laws are uniform. But since the discussion is about Americans putting money in Swiss banks, none of this applies.
Re: Swiss Banking
The money is also not 'flowing into Switzerland' - it is 'flowing into Swiss banks'. There is a very big difference.
So what you are saying is that the US government should make it easier for people to break the law in the US to improve the GDP of America?
The money is also not 'flowing into Switzerland' - it is 'flowing into Swiss banks'. There is a very big difference.
I doubt that the people with money in Swiss bank accounts spend several years going through bureaucratic hoops to move countries. We're not talking about Joe the Plumber or Bob the Builder here.
I'm not sure 'legit' and 'legal' are too terms that go together well. Bear in mind that with many countries you get to claim back taxes paid if you spend less than 6 months of the year in that country - chances are you'll get all that lovely tax money from the year you moved back at the end. After that you still get a fair bit back as you often pay taxes pro-rata for the year if you move after the 6 month point, depending on how you pay your taxes.
I'm not American, but I'm guessing you don't know much about US tax policy for US citizens.
I am not entitled to use my countries health system if I am not a resident, nor am I able to vote. With regards to other government services - I note that I am within the laws of both my countries of citizenship and my country of residence. Which is more than can be said for the tax evaders you're so concerned about.
If you are a company owner and you base your company in the US then it's pretty ****ing ridiculous to claim that you don't want to pay US taxes due on the companies earnings because the US tax code is not competitive. If it was that uncompetitive then you would not be operating your company there.
So far the longest moving countries has taken me is 1 month, my next move is either to Saudi, Bahrain or Qatar where it will take about 2-3 weeks to sort out a visa or to the US where it will take about 8 weeks.
If you are not competitive enough for the Swiss to take you then surely you should make yourself more competitive?
You're quite correct - IIRC I flew three days after I decided, then claimed back the tax from the three months of that tax year I worked in the UK - as permitted by UK law.
So why ***** about these barriers? They are almost non-existant to the poor tax evaders you're talking about?
His analogy was not that bad - the Swiss Banks are only more competitive than the American Banks because they allow you to break the law. If they didn't then they would be a hell of a lot less competitive. Just like ThePirateBay.
Well that's true, you are failing to compare comparable things with each other.
Re: Swiss Banking
"I can come up with a pretty legit reason for hiding taxes even if you are in the United States. It’s illegal, yes."
And what’s your last statement supposed to mean? I think tax evaders should be punished by the applicable laws. And how is that relevant? You aren’t a resident, you aren’t paying taxes, yet you’re still a citizen under your proposal. Freeloader.
Do you disagree with that?
If you have something interesting to argue about with respect to that point, let’s see it. If you just want to argue for the sake of it, or because you’re reading things that aren’t there, I have better things to do.
No. I'm just saying that's a byproduct of what would happen if the case were the same for US banks. I'm not making policy arguments, here.
Swiss banks are in Switzerland. Unless you have a point to make, the peculiarities aren't important here, ignoring the fact mentioned above- that money in banks translates into GDP in some respect. If you do, make it.
Even a single year will do it. Permanent immigration is not so easy.
.....
"I can come up with a pretty legit reason for hiding taxes even if you are in the United States. It’s illegal, yes."
Anybody who claims they do is a liar, my friend.
Absentee ballot, if you are a US citizen but out of country. So yes, you could vote if you retained your US citizenship, which is the situation you're proposing.
And what’s your last statement supposed to mean? I think tax evaders should be punished by the applicable laws. And how is that relevant? You aren’t a resident, you aren’t paying taxes, yet you’re still a citizen under your proposal. Freeloader.
The fact is, you can be overseas and potentially still be taxed. I don’t see where you’re going with any of this. More on that later.
Visa. That’s not permanent, no? So how is that relevant when we’re talking about a permanent move to another country? In fact, how is your entire string of statements relevant to your supposed objection of my original statement? I still don’t know what about my original statement you actually have a grievance with. You should clarify that.
I know of NO country in the world that accepts you as a permanent resident/citizen with zero down time. I don’t care how competitive you are.
And again, is that a permanent stay?
I’m not. I’m simply responding to your points which aren’t going anywhere with respect to the original point I made. It seems like you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, adding topics to argue about because you don’t have anything else to do it. Again, what is your big objection to my statement? I asked for questions after I clarified, and instead I got all this.
And if US banks had a similar tax exemption, they would be competitive. What’s your point? All my statement was was that, if US banks were more competitive, money would go there instead of Swiss banks. If US tax policy were lighter and/or more competitive, you’d probably get less people going through so much trouble to avoid taxes.
Do you disagree with that?
I can’t fail at something I’m not trying to do. My statement was, I thought, pretty simple. I’m not trying to compare US banks to Swiss banks. I’m not trying to compare US policy to Swiss policy. I’m not trying to compare US policy to Swiss banks or vice versa. All I’m doing is simply pointing out the fact that people run from US policy and hide at Swiss banks because US policy is, in their eyes, unfair, and Swiss banks are the answer to that because of Switzerland’s relatively unique banking policy.
If you have something interesting to argue about with respect to that point, let’s see it. If you just want to argue for the sake of it, or because you’re reading things that aren’t there, I have better things to do.
Re: Swiss Banking
I didn’t say, argue, or imply someone should be more able to carry out illegal activity. In fact, I clearly stated that those breaking the law should be punished for it. In fact, I didn’t even give an example of competition as your first line accuses me of. Furthermore, I never argued in this thread that any particular illegal activity should be made legal because people who break the law are more profitable. All I did was pretty much call it how it is. People avoid paying taxes because they feel they are too high. They hide them in Swiss banks because they offer privacy and protection. If you want fewer people to evade taxes, lower them. Do you disagree with any of that?
Finally, you could conceivably argue that I implied that the law should be changed. But if you have a guess as to what my political positions are, you’d probably guess that the policy I’d suggest (but didn’t actually suggest) is that the government should lower taxes (and spending). SURPRISE! But keep in mind- I didn’t actually suggest this. It’s just what you should probably guess I would have suggested if ask.
Problem with your problem is that I didn’t make any suggestion at all to begin with. Every problem you have with my statement is some fabricated position that you’re asserting I made when clearly, that’s not the case. Unless you call me saying that people should be punished for breaking the law is really arguing for breaking the law and expanding illegal activity, and so on. Now we can speculate as to why you took such offense to it and decided to throw things around randomly with the hope that something would come through, but I don’t care enough. Next time, please don’t waste my time and just say what you mean to say. And try reading what I actually do say, too. That will help you determine what I didn’t say.
I’m not informed enough about tax policy to know whether someone overseas would be paying taxes in both countries. If that’s the case, then that person is still paying taxes to the United States, despite not being there, huh? So renouncing your citizenship would really be the hypothetical situation we’re talking about, not the one you proposed.PFSS said:
I don’t have a problem with people obeying the law. In fact, I think I’ve said on MORE than one occasion that people who evade taxes and are caught should be punished by applicable laws (and it’s kind of hard to punish you legally if you’re never caught, so that’s kind of redundant as is). Furthermore, I’ve never argued for or against providing “as much means as possible for people to not be law abiding citizens†beyond arguing that one nation should not be able to impose its laws and customs on another. In fact, I never mentioned that at all in this thread, and I certainly don’t remember mentioning anything about it anywhere else. So it seems like the problem you have is pretty much all in your head.PFSS said:
I’m 20, attend, and have only attended, public school, but I’m not so keen on releasing tax information, other than the fact that I have paid taxes and have followed the law when it comes to taxes (at least as far as I know).
Right. I was discussing the case where YOU were out of country and your company is not. In that case you would be taxed appropriately.
I’ll agree with everything except that italicized part. If some Italian wants to buy some land, open up a shop, and hire local workers, I’m not convinced he shouldn’t be able to do that.
I’m not comparing any activity with any activity. In fact, I’m not even convinced I’m comparing anything to anything. All I said was that, in essence, if the US wanted to see fewer taxes evaded, it should be more competitive in that respect (ie. Have lower taxes). Swiss banks happen to be the place that tax evaders hide their money because it’s advantageous to do so because of their banking policies. That’s it.
I didn’t say, argue, or imply someone should be more able to carry out illegal activity. In fact, I clearly stated that those breaking the law should be punished for it. In fact, I didn’t even give an example of competition as your first line accuses me of. Furthermore, I never argued in this thread that any particular illegal activity should be made legal because people who break the law are more profitable. All I did was pretty much call it how it is. People avoid paying taxes because they feel they are too high. They hide them in Swiss banks because they offer privacy and protection. If you want fewer people to evade taxes, lower them. Do you disagree with any of that?
Finally, you could conceivably argue that I implied that the law should be changed. But if you have a guess as to what my political positions are, you’d probably guess that the policy I’d suggest (but didn’t actually suggest) is that the government should lower taxes (and spending). SURPRISE! But keep in mind- I didn’t actually suggest this. It’s just what you should probably guess I would have suggested if ask.
Problem with your problem is that I didn’t make any suggestion at all to begin with. Every problem you have with my statement is some fabricated position that you’re asserting I made when clearly, that’s not the case. Unless you call me saying that people should be punished for breaking the law is really arguing for breaking the law and expanding illegal activity, and so on. Now we can speculate as to why you took such offense to it and decided to throw things around randomly with the hope that something would come through, but I don’t care enough. Next time, please don’t waste my time and just say what you mean to say. And try reading what I actually do say, too. That will help you determine what I didn’t say.
Dondrei
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
I always used to get in these arguments with you, I was always kind of astounded at how dense you are, but see I was forgetting that you're like 12. It's funny how the internet removes that layer of filter you normally have.
Well, that and you're a weird obsessive delusional aberration who believes in zombies, dreads bras and has zero human contact. Outside of selling knives door to door anyway.
I always used to get in these arguments with you, I was always kind of astounded at how dense you are, but see I was forgetting that you're like 12. It's funny how the internet removes that layer of filter you normally have.
Well, that and you're a weird obsessive delusional aberration who believes in zombies, dreads bras and has zero human contact. Outside of selling knives door to door anyway.
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
Just replace "Switzerland" with "Vermont or Texas." Businesses always shop for favorable laws, taxes, and infrastructure. The fact that Vermont intentionally makes itself favorable so people incorporate there is good business (and good government, because it puts pressure on the New Yorks to not let taxes and antibusiness law get out of hand, or else they will lose business).
The only problem I have is a lack of disclosure if a warrant is presented. Competition is fine, tax evasion/concealment of crime is not.
Just replace "Switzerland" with "Vermont or Texas." Businesses always shop for favorable laws, taxes, and infrastructure. The fact that Vermont intentionally makes itself favorable so people incorporate there is good business (and good government, because it puts pressure on the New Yorks to not let taxes and antibusiness law get out of hand, or else they will lose business).
The only problem I have is a lack of disclosure if a warrant is presented. Competition is fine, tax evasion/concealment of crime is not.
KillerAim
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
A few things must be noted:
1). The earliest tax havens (Switzerland in particular) were established long before other Countries were concerned about their citizens moving assets out of country to avoid paying taxes. They were established in order to protect people’s assets from unstable or oppressive Governments. In addition, they also helped political refugees or victims of political or racist persecution to protect their property.
Look at the history of Switzerland’s Banking Laws.
3). Unless it’s happened fairly recently, New York banks do not release information about foreign held deposits to foreign governments without cause. Isn’t it more than a little hypocritical of the Government to demand such information from banks in other countries?
A few things must be noted:
1). The earliest tax havens (Switzerland in particular) were established long before other Countries were concerned about their citizens moving assets out of country to avoid paying taxes. They were established in order to protect people’s assets from unstable or oppressive Governments. In addition, they also helped political refugees or victims of political or racist persecution to protect their property.
Look at the history of Switzerland’s Banking Laws.
2). No country is under any obligation to enforce the rules and regulations of other countries, ESPECIALLY when those rules and regulation do not exist in that country. (It's called sovereignty, people!) A common legal term used in extradition cases is “dual criminality” -- a person can be extradited only if the offence he’s accused or convicted of is a crime in both countries. Why should tax havens violate their own policy of privacy just because another country demands they do so?
3). Unless it’s happened fairly recently, New York banks do not release information about foreign held deposits to foreign governments without cause. Isn’t it more than a little hypocritical of the Government to demand such information from banks in other countries?
Yea, Module88, how dare you actually try to support your positions! Why don't you take the adult approach like Dondrei; never back up anything you say -- just call someone you disagree with a name like "poo-poo head"?Dondrei said:
Re: Swiss Banking
"Arguments." :whistling: Well if THAT isn't stretching it...
He seriously called you a, "poo-poo head"? :scratchchin:KA said:
Dondrei
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
And "should" and "sovereignty" don't enter into it you raving ideologue, those countries have chosen to submit records to foreign audit of their own free will. Which of course is actually due to the US showing the Swiss which side of their bread is buttered. And in your kooky little philosophy that's the backbone of the free market, the US and Switzerland both stand to benefit from this agreement so that's what they do.
So what?
So what?
And "should" and "sovereignty" don't enter into it you raving ideologue, those countries have chosen to submit records to foreign audit of their own free will. Which of course is actually due to the US showing the Swiss which side of their bread is buttered. And in your kooky little philosophy that's the backbone of the free market, the US and Switzerland both stand to benefit from this agreement so that's what they do.
So what?
BobCox2
Diabloii.Net Member
Dondrei
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
P.S. I don't see any rational counterpoints to the point where I actually bothered to spell it out for you. But please, don't let me interrupt you, back to your lame attempt at ideological point-scoring on a topic that's unrelated to any of your tangents.
Personal remark? Because I called you an ideologue? Boy, you get sissier by the day. Toughen the **** up and get over yourself.
P.S. I don't see any rational counterpoints to the point where I actually bothered to spell it out for you. But please, don't let me interrupt you, back to your lame attempt at ideological point-scoring on a topic that's unrelated to any of your tangents.
Amra
Diabloii.Net Member
KillerAim
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
Dondrei:
I'll tell you what. Demonstrate how name calling adds to any discussion we have on this forum, especially when you rarely justify the name you used. (As I asked before, if you said that "Y always follows X", and I responded, "That's the dumbest thing I ever heard", how does my reply in any way demonstrate that your opinion is wrong?) If you can do so, I'll back off. If not, then I feel justified in considering you to be nothing more than an infantile intellectual lightweight when you resort to such tactics.
Dondrei:
So you don't consider calling someone an ideologue a derogatory personal comment? That is especially interesting since you obviously have little knowledge about libertarianism as evidenced by your linking it to a belief in the Laffer Curve or; better yet, your amusing attempt to support your boast that you could create a negative right that would protect the same things covered by a positive right. A double-negative!!! I’m still laughing about that one.
Said the little boy who uses the safety of the internet to say things that he'd never dare say in public.
I'll tell you what. Demonstrate how name calling adds to any discussion we have on this forum, especially when you rarely justify the name you used. (As I asked before, if you said that "Y always follows X", and I responded, "That's the dumbest thing I ever heard", how does my reply in any way demonstrate that your opinion is wrong?) If you can do so, I'll back off. If not, then I feel justified in considering you to be nothing more than an infantile intellectual lightweight when you resort to such tactics.
You mind repeating exactly which counterpoints you're talking about? I've been around long enough to be wary of your bait-and-switch tactics. I respond to one thing; you'll say it was something else.
The Sandcat
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
The US (incl. lapdog Britain) and China are the most meddlesome countries around.Period.
Free will??? MY FOOT! The US put tons of pressure on them.Like they do all the time when interfering in in other countries' affairs.
The US (incl. lapdog Britain) and China are the most meddlesome countries around.Period.
Dondrei
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Swiss Banking
I dunno, maybe by indicating how what they said had any relevance to the thread.
Ah yes, but he's a Libertarian and so to him it's not blackmail, it's a perfectly free transaction by which both parties benefit.
Well if that's a personal attack then my god are you poorly armoured.