Thank Heaven for little tax havens?.
Good to see those wholly unconnected with Tax Justice Network find the argument that tax havens help keep tax rates down absolutely absurd.
Tax havens / secrecy jurisdictions promote criminal activity. If they did not they would not need the secrecy.
That's about the beginning and the end of it.
If they mean, as they say, that they do not want to encourage tax evasion then remove the secrecy. If they won't the conclusion is obvious: they're not telling the truth.
but the UK is also supporting criminal activity. take for example chechen rebels who found political refuge in the UK while being legally condemned in Russia. Or oligarchs fleeing the country with billions of dollars to find a quiet haven in the Great Britain. and they do that openly because the system can afford that.
the secrecy of tax havens is just a tool for protection of its interests. nothing more.
Two wrongs make a right do they?
And at least the UK is not set up to do this: secrecy jurisdictions are
I draw the curtains at night, because there are some parts of my life that I like to be private, not because I’m about to commit an offence
Tugfiend
That is a wholly spurious argument
You are quite happy for your privacy to be invaded when needed – for health reasons for example
Society expects the same of finances. No one is asking that all bank account details be available on line for all to see
But providing secrecy to abuse society is something quite different from providing curtains to protect modesty
And I suspect you know it
Richard
but these secrecy jurisdictions also provide healthcare, education and other social services to their residents. so its hard to say that the sole purpose of their existence is to facilitate tax evasion and criminal activity.
Billy
Stop being fatuous
Murderers feed their children
Despots care for their families
So what? They remain murderers and despots
If this is the best you can do, please don’t bother to comment
Richard
@Richard Murphy
That’s balderdash I’m afraid. It is one thing for me to voluntarily surrender my privacy (I can always choose not to do so, after all), and quite another for someone else to surrender it on my behalf, especially to a government/civil service that has shown its lack of regard for keeping such details private.
Frankly, I want the British government to have as little information about my physical health as possible too. They are irresponsible with information.
As for providing secrecy to abuse society, you would use that as an argument for opening my curtains as well – “just in case”. You’re really rather disingenuous
Tugfiend
Now we get to the core of it: you want to take, and not give
Your argument on data security is spurious: the private sector has a worse record
And what you’re really saying is ‘I want to be dishonest’
That’s OK. Candour is fine.
Even if deeply unattractive
Keep pulling the curtains
Richard
Unfortunately, tugfiend, most of us in this country like to have quite o lot of the essential services organised centrally. This costs money and most of us expect this to be funded through taxation. And we don’t like freeloaders. You want a licence to freeload? You don’t want to be part of this society? Of course you have choices – you might wish not to avail yourself of our tax funded society in which case you can opt to live in Barbados or somewhere else of that kind. There’s no compulsion here.
yes, but a person is not a state. you can judge a person from moral and legal standpoints. but a state you cannot judge at all.
No, the core of it is this: it is possible to desire secrecy for no other reason than a desire for one’s privacy. You clearly believe that the right to privacy should be overridden when it relates to people’s financial affairs. Fair enough. But it is nonsense (and, frankly, dishonest) to state that one can only desire secrecy for nefarious purposes. It’s just a nice soundbite that you like to repeat to keep it nice and simple for your audience (mostly the already-converted) and yourself. Also, fair enough – it’s your blog, after all – but I am afraid it is a lie.
Billy
Of course you can judge a collective
Companies can, for example, be guilty of crimes
Richard
Tugfiend
Lie is a strong word
It’s also inappropriate
Your privacy is designed (as you define it) to make sure you can not participate in the collective of living from which you benefit
your right to privacy has to be curtailed to ensure the right of others not be abused has to be curtailed
It’s always a compromise
But to deny the need for the compromise is a lie
Richard
in order to judge somebody you have to have an independent superior force, which is usually a judge on behalf of a state. and there is no such force for a state.
Billy
That is a patently absurd argument
A judge is a person we respect, no more
Do I need to be a judge to appraise Zimbabwe, or Hitler’s Germany?
No of course not
Please stop being pedantic – or I will delete further comments
Richard
Again, however, we are back to your soundbite, which states, baldly that the only reason for desiring privacy is to conceal nefarious activity.
That is simply not true. I like privacy for its own sake, thanks (this applies to non-financial information as much as anything). It might be true that YOU only require privacy to conceal unlawful activities, but it’s a falsehood (better?) to state that this is the only reason anyone might.
I can see how you like the soundbite, but it is simply not true to infer dishonesty from a desire for privacy.
Tugfiend
You can desire privacy for whatever reason you wish
When granted it is used nefariously
So I think your wish inferior to the right of the collective
Since we agree to live in states most agree with me and can only do so by voluntarily giving up our privacy e.g. by submitting tax returns that can then be verified
Richard
Billy
Whatever your religious beliefs, the basis of the moral structure of our society lies in Judeo-Christianity. The old testament is littered with judgements on cities and nations. There are such things as collective responsibilities even if this concept is unattractive to strict individualists.
Privacy? What privacy? The State knows all about you & you can’t move from your house without a camera following you. A US spy satelite can look through your roof if ‘they’ want to see what you are up to in private. The simple fact is they can’t track down Bin laden but you can be dead certain they can track down any one of us in less than 5 minutes if ‘they’ wanted to! 😯 😛
Richard,
Do you not see some risks here though? Ultimately, for example, you could say that a government has the rights to all of a person’s financial records to verify that they are paying all their tax. They could also ask for all credit card companies to give info about their clients.
Then a government can change, as it did in Iran in 1979. And suddenly a new government is in power, that is hostile to homosexuals, drinkers, gamblers, subscribers to pornography, apostates etc. And the financial records (and internet records no doubt) become known to that government, and there are mass imprisonments.
Ok, you say that is far fetched. But I could very well imagine a time in the near future where a presidential candidate in the US was forced to pull out because it became known that a few times he went to a bar and had an alcoholic drink. (A President that drinks regularly! – can you imagine the adverts?)
The problem is where do you start and where do you stop with secrecy. You say people cannot have financial secrecy because their tax returns need to be verified. But once people lose an absolute right to secrecy (unless they are suspected with reason of dishonesty) then how do you ensure the information that has been released is no used for unintended purposes?
I think this issue is much wider that “tax”. I can see a time very soon when all credit card payments, internet searches and phone calls will be recorded and kept by governments (and maybe not just the state of the person involved). I don’t think it is unreasonable to worry about the implications of that. But ultimately, you believe that all government is good and trustworthy – which is surprising, given that you seem to not approve of or trust either the current government or its opposition.
Foetus
You’re making excuses for tax abuse using arguments that are spurious simply because that data would be available to those governments whether supplied now or not if they got into power
The conditionality of your argument is irrelevant: given that all this data would be available to a government of the sort your describe not supplying it now for the purposes of law enforcement is a wholly irrelevant argument
Richard
Richard,
If privacy and your preferred tax system are so incompatible, I don’t see why privacy should be the thing to be dismissed. I’d rather seek out a more efficient tax system that can’t be used to justify constant state intrusion.
Paul
You might
The electorate does not vote for it
And politicians can’t deliver it
Richard
Richard,
The electorate doesn’t vote for constant and unlimited invasion of privacy either.
Trying to contribute to a debate by saying “the electorate does not vote for it,” is equivalent to saying “I have nothing of my own to offer, so I’ll agree with whatever the majority says.”
Paul
Nonsense
we have had a remarkably consistent share of GDP paid in tax
Would that be the case without electoral support? I don’t think so
I accept that micro issues sich a claim cannot be made
Tax is the centre of all elections
Richard
Richard
That’s irrelevant to the subject being discussed.
The amount collected in tax and the method by which it is collected are two entirely separate issues.
No they are not
They’re all related – as anyone who understands the subject knows
You’re making excuses for not having an argument
People froth at the mouth when it comes to “privacy” and “wealth”.
IMO the wealthier you are the more influence you have when thransacting and so the greater your social responsibility. Privacy should be inversely proportional to wealth.
If you’re such a big go getter, then you should be held up a paragon of what our society can achieve, wealth wise. People can then be judged not on their shadow investments and boys-club tales, but by how useful they really are.
Claiming that financial transactions, especially through democratically approved structures, are in any equal to the privacy and rights of the individual is illogical.
Can I then state that my car should not have to be registered?
Richard
Being silly is not an effective substitute for a meaningful argument.
For any given amount of tax collected, there are an infinite number of ways of collecting that amount. If you could open your mind to that, you might begin to appreciate that there are more options than the ones you have artificially constrained yourself to considering.
RM “Tax is the centre of all elections”
Really, not sure taxing the right to vate was very popular last time round.
And as for keeping secrets being a sign of criminality, don’t make me laugh. If your wife tells you a secret and you a criminal for keeping it?
Is a bank criminal for not giving out your bank details to the public?
Absolute rubbish, it’s called Confidentiality for a reason.
And while you may want to know what your neighbour is doing behind closed curtains, most of us would like some privacy.
You are beginning to sound all 1984 on us Big Brother Richard
It’s all getting a little bit nauseous Richard..what started out as a very informative blog has turned into nothing more than an embarrassing rant.
“Please stop being pedantic – or I will delete further comments”
Need I say more?!
Moana
You’re entitled to your view
Traffic is double a year ago
Seems like you’re in a minority
Up to you whether you stay or not
But either way don’t ask me to suffer fools gladly
Richard
Quantity rather than quality though Richard?
Traffic doubled – I don’t doubt it. Surely no coincidence with the economic woes?
Well if the peasants must revolt…
M
Moana
Since your name is, no doubt, a pseudonym it looks well chosen
Richard
@Moana
Hey! Moana — is THAT your sole profound & enlightened contribution to the discussion? It would have been more constructive if you had pitched in with your own words of wisdom rather than express a negative opinion that added nothing to the debate. 😛
JIm you mean something more like
“Moana
Since your name is, no doubt, a pseudonym it looks well chosen
Richard”
😳
Creg
Maybe a poor attempt at humour
But at least there was a point to it
can you tell me what Moana’s was/
Richard