It would seem I upset one of two people who thought they might be my friends in comments on the UK - Swiss tax deal. I'm not going to apologise. This was a 'Marmite' issue - you're either for or against it.
You either think letting tax criminals off whilst only paying a small part of the tax they owe is right, or wrong. You can't be pragmatic about it. This is an issue of justice.
You either think it is right to endorse banking secrecy so that criminality may flourish, or you don't. This is about ethics.
You either think it right that the rich who coldly plan and execute their tax crimes in organised fashion should be allowed anonymity and no day in court when poor kids who acted on the spur of the moment are rushed through all night courts and get long prison sentences, or you don't. It's a matter of believing in class prejudice, or not.
You either think that encouraging an unlevel playing field for business so that the cheats get an unfair competitive advantage by not paying tax is fair, or you don't. It's a matter of believing in business or believing in fraudulent activity.
You either believe that H M Revenue & Customs has to uphold the law, or you don't. It's a matter of belief in the duty of government to uphold the law, or not.
You are either willing to let those banks and bankers who organised the handling of stolen property (for that is what tax evaded funds are) off the hook by granting them immunity from prosecution, or not. It's a matter of whether you want to know bankers arrange crime, or not.
You either, at the end of the day, believe that there is a difference between right and wrong. Or you don't.
And you either have the courage to say that doing the right thing is the only course of acceptable conduct even if there is a cost to doing it, or you don't.
It's about having ethics.
It's about standing up and being counted.
It's about saying the Emporor isn't wearing any clothes.
None of those things are personal. But people like to take criticism for being on the wrong side of all these issues personally.
Feel free to do so: that's your guilt speaking.
But it isn't intended that way. You have the option to do the right thing. It's your choice. I respect that.
But don't for a moment expect me to respect the wrong choice. That's the only requirement for evil to happen. And that's what has gone on in Switzerland.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks Richard.
I’ve read various articles in the press for and against the proposals and I admit to having been undecided about whether they were good or bad. But you’ve crystallised the argument brilliantly. Best regards
I agree that HMRC should not be letting evaders off the hook.
However, I can’t see that they have said that they will. In receiving the cash from Switzerland, they will be able to form a clear view of how much evasion is taking place through that country. They haven’t said anywhere that that will then be the end of the matter, and indeed their press release states that an enhanced information sharing agreement will be in place.
Isn’t that progress?
The new deal gives them no more chance of finding out what is going on or catching anyone
And if they did get a list of say 5,000 names they’re now restricted to only ask about 500 a year
I suspect that is an illegal act by HMRC anyway – how can they agree to not investigate crime in the UK?
“The new deal gives them no more chance of finding out what is going on or catching anyone”
So how can it be worse than what we’ve got already? We’re going to receive tax in future that we had no idea was owed to us. That’s got to be an improvement.
“I suspect that is an illegal act by HMRC anyway — how can they agree to not investigate crime in the UK?”
They haven’t.
1. HMRC are entitled to prosecute anyone who it believes to be evading tax. 2. UK residents are liable to tax on their worldwide income.
These two facts existed before the tax deal was signed and it is still the case after it has been signed. Everything is the same as before except the UK gets extra tax.
Not true
HMRC have agreed to make enqury in only 500 cases a year with switzerland
And I strongly suspect that is an illegal act on its part
A bit like saying the Met agrees to only investigate 500 gbh cases a year
Now you get it?
I haven’t read the previous comments on the “UK-Swiss tax deal”. I agree with much of what you say.
So here’s my tupennies worth. I doubt politicians understand the deal. I certainly don’t. It may be a step forward when there has been insufficient action by previous governments.
In the end, senior “moral vacuum” civil servants will have negotiated it on our behave and told their political masters that it is the best solution they could have achieved. There will have been a lot of lobbying from representatives of rich and important people and businesses. The lobbyists, representatives, advisors etc will be the best that money can buy and probably include ex bosses and colleagues of the civil servants. Some of the UK’s representatives and advisors will probably be influenced by their own best interests, and some will be influenced by the clever people on the other side that they meet and speak to on a regular basis. There will be no balance in the lobbying and influence exerted. People and organisation that would argue for a fairer deal will not be part of the negotiations and will not have access to the negotiators.
It isn’t moral, there will be a lot of secrecy, and the agreement will not be “fair”. It is the way things work. I don’t know how you fix things, but more transparency can only help. Some balance in lobbying is essential, but it costs money so it is a one sided battle in favour of the rich.
Wise words
We’ll keep trying on the lobby front
It’s amazing what a few people can do with not a lot!
Hold fast. The adverse views in long burst of commentary that your main post of yesterday provoked (73! You’ve really rattled the cots), frequently deployed the “we have to be pragmatic” defence, He who makes pragmatism a principle can usually be supposed to be unprincipled. Failure to recognise principle as the only safe foundation for judgment and action is behind much of what ails our polity. Advocacy of pragmatism is usually a sure sign of an interest at work. Principle is what the courageous state pursues.
Spot on, James.
But “principles” don’t pay the bills which collected tax does.
Let’s face it, in better economic times there would be far less need to adopt the pragmatic approach.
Neoliberal pragmatism got us into this mess – it will not get us out of it
Only principles will
I don’t follow. How was that tax otherwise going to get collected when the Swiss clearly weren’t going to play ball?
As I have said repeatedly the Swiss were being forced to play ball
And would have done as in 2005
[…] […]
Richard, may I take this opportunity to ask how your insistence that the UK would have been able to obtain disclosure of the details of UK residents’ accounts in Switzerland through the EUSD revision reconciles (from a logical point of view) with your recent advice that the UK should leave the EU.
That really, truly lost me.
You really are ludicrous – wishing to reform does not make the objectives inconsistent
But even at your level of comprehension – you may have noticed being a member of EU is not needed for EUSTD
Ouch, so much for not making it personal…
I may be ludicrous, and my level of comprehension may be low, but your understanding of the EUSD is wholly incorrect.
The EUSD is a piece of EU legislation that only applies to member states. Non-EU members like Switzerland have bilateral agreements with the EU that replicate some, but most definitely not all provisions of the EUSD (for instance the EU-Swiss agreement does not replicate Art. 18 of the EUSD that deals with future revisons, amongst others). These agreements are strictly between one country and the EU, but not between the non-member countries. There exists no agreement between, say, Switzerland and Monaco, or Liechtenstein and Andorra.
This is important because if the UK were to leave the EU, then the terms of the agreement between the EU and Switzerland would no longer apply to the relationship between the UK and Switzerland, who as two non-member states would have to negotiate with each other on a bilateral basis, how they wish to deal with each other. This means that the UK would the benefit of any (highly speculative) leverage it may have had over Switzerland by negotiating through the EU. The UK, being a relatively small economy and much poorer than Switzerland on a per capita basis, would actually be at a disadvantage.
In short you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either you are in the EU and able to drive some of the terms of the EUSD and negotiate the mirror agreements with non-member countries, or you are out of the EU and must negotiate bilateral treaties, in which case the UK would be in a distinctly feeble position.
I think this your last post
I am bored publishing the opinion of a paid for swiss bank troll
Which pr agency do you work for?
If you are not in the EU then your citizens are outside the remit of the EUSD. Your banks would still have to apply the conditions for residents of EU countries banking in your country, but your own people are exermpt. For example, in Guernsey the EUSD applies for bank accounts operated for French nationals, but not for Guernsey nationals having an account in France.