“UBS paid a $780 million penalty earlier this year and turned over names of about 300 American clients in a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department. In that case, UBS admitted helping U.S. citizens evade taxes, which experts say is not a violation of Swiss bank secrecy laws.
So far, three UBS customers whose names were divulged under the prior agreement have pleaded guilty to tax charges in federal court. Hundreds of others holders of secret accounts at UBS and other Swiss banks have voluntarily come forward to the IRS under an amnesty program that requires payment of taxes and penalties but generally does not include the threat of prison.”
My Comment:
I have mixed feelings about all this. On the one hand it bothers me that people who entered into a commercial agreement in which secrecy was part of the explicit deal are being “outed.”
On the other hand, I don’t think you should evade tax (avoidance is different from evasion) in ways that seem less principled than self-interested.
OK, OK, self-interest is a good thing and our taxes do go to fund war, mayhem, and looting…..
But then you shouldn’t accept anything the government’s involved in – not housing loans, not subsidies to business, not policing, not roads….none of them. In that case, I’d say your stand was principled.
Otherwise, it doesn’t look quite so heroic.
The Swiss deal is not a good thing, overstretch, imho.
You did read The Creeping Financial Lock-Up
by Jeff Snyder on Tuesdays LRC didn’t you?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder19.1.html
This last line was good:
“Slowly and methodically, we are being locked in.”
Yes – it’s part of a general move toward destroying banking secrecy..
But on the other hand, fraud can’t be allowed to go on without any check..
fraud CAN be allowed to go on without any check..
Just as in criminal cases, some guilty go free so that the innocent do not go to jail unjustly. That’s why it’s been allowed so far and why it should continue. It’s not any different than having state cameras installed in your house to detect inappropriate parenting or other crimes, or having to get naked x-rayed at the airports, or suffering the occasional, or even regular, speeding car on the hyways. The focus needs to be in other areas that are lacking. I suspect there are many anti-money laundering and tax avoidance regulations that are not being enforced which allow things to be a bigger problem than they otherwise should be. Just as with gun crimes, there are enough laws on the books, they just are not being enforced.
Plus, taxes are too high. And, taxes should be voluntary or collected at the point of sale or entry. Then this whole deal of invading peoples bank accounts would be moot. Eh?
Hi Clark –
Hmmm I sort of agree with you.
Not in allowing scams to go on but because I think if you had a flat low tax – say 20% which was clearly allocated to things people could see and check off – you’d instantly get rid of tax evasion..
It wouldn’t be profitable anymore
Re – the irs worries me – I wrote a piece a couple of years ago about how they were outsourcing tax collection to private companies that were far more expensive than the government…
That’s why confusing “the state” and “the government” in libertarian rhetoric is a bad idea..
The state isn’t the way to go
But sometimes the government is.
(ie – the govt is sometimes right or on the side of liberty)
I know libertarians find that hard to get their heads around but it’s a question of not being fundamentalist or literal minded about language…
if you put “liberty” at the center rather than “private” – then the problem sorts itself out.