There are at least five articles on the TJN blog in the last day I’d like to copy and paste here.
The Swiss have conceded the need for automatic information exchange.
Belize may suffer sanctions.
Mark Thomas is saying let’s invade Jersey.
The sadness of Guy Hands is revealed — a man who won’t see his own children so save tax.
And more. Go read, or you’re missing out.
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:
Richard,
“The Swiss have conceded the need for automatic information exchange”.
Sorry, but decision-making in Switzerland is not done by a particular Minister (Mr Merz in this case), but by the Swiss parliament, and ultimately validated by the Swiss people.
Would you say “the Americans favor universal health insurance”, because Mr Obama wishes so ?
More nuances would serve your analyses.
Best
Bernard
@Bernard
I know you have contempt for government
I haven’t
Richard:
the point is that under the Swiss consitutional system, especially the mandatory referendum, the “government” is the Swiss people.
And as you well know the Swiss are freedom-loving people who are unlikely to ever give up on the fundamental right to privacy.
so I am happy that to read that you have resepct for “government”.
btw, Herr merz is getting crucified for opening his month on this topic. The odds are quite long that he will make the winter.
TGB
Richard
“I know you have contempt for government”
Not sure how you could come to that conclusion from Bernard’s post. Please explain.
Is there any chance of a reply to a poster who disagrees with you that doesn’t involve petty insults? If you really don’t want commenters to disagree with you, please say so clearly on your site.
Juliet
If you can’t take a little rough and tumble please don’t play
Richard
Richard
I can take rough and tumble with the best of them. But it does seem a bit of a double standard on your part to dish out but not take. You have told us you ban rude comments, and indeed, item 2 of your Comments policy seems to require politeness. Is there any reason you can’t stick by your own Comments policy?
Or if we are going to have a free-for-all, then fine, but remove your silly and rather pompous Comments policy.
Any chance for a reply on Bernard’s rather good post? Or will you dodge it as you usually do?
Bernard’s comment was not worth replying to beyond the attention I gave it
A bit like yours
Bernard made a crass comment – that Swiss ministers should in effect be ignored – but why have them in that case? he’s clearly wrong. And as a matter of fact they will make decisions which are not referred in the way he suggests
That’s not rude
That’s fact
I can be robust with those I think are talking rubbish. But for rudeness look to your friends on the right. I will not tolerate their sort of abuse. This blog is a model of correctness
But if you don’t like it – feel free not to come
As I’ve said before
Thank you Juliet for your support.
I don’t mind begin roughened up by Richard, as long as he sticks to a fair intellectual exchange, based on reasoned arguments and facts.
I regret that Richard often (regularly) limits his exchanges by slanting his opponents with wild accusations.
In my case, on what basis can he say I have contempt for government ? (see above). He knows plain nothing about my views on politics (and could be surprised).
Richard, I suggested you use nuances in your analyses, I would also add a sprinkle of humility.
Your arguments are strong (not necessarily right), so you can accept contradiction without behaving like a People’s court prosecutor.
Best
Bernard
@Bernard
Keep your hat on
In your opinion any comment which is anti libertarian, anti tax haven, and which suggests limitations on market power is wild
Far from it. It’s just reasoned comment
As for the humility – those who know me would suggest my humour is almost entirely self deprecating
And I always ask myself the question “Consider the possibility you might be wrong”
When faced with 99% of the comment on this blog the answer comes back that I’m not
But let me assure you, I consider it
Richard
For me its the one aspect which spoils an otherwise excellent blog. The subject matter is bang up to date and well-presented, but is it meant to be a blog ib the subject of taxation or is meant to be a blog which attacks everybody who doesn’t share your political or socialist views ? It seems to have become the latter, and that you really only want comments from contributors who say “Richard I agree with you”. Anyone with a different view is accused of being an apologist for all kinds of things and if such contributors are really not wanted by you then you would be better off renaming it as “Tax Research Blog for Socialists-Only”.
If you look back at many of your topics, the contributions from those with differing views add a lot to the debate, helping to show balanced views which you then counter, which is fine, but you do in such a way as to completely alienate most of those contributors. I would ask whether that approach (a) detracts from an otherwise excellent blog by deterring contributions from many, without whom you wouldn’t even get a chance to attack their arguments, and (b) seems to be against your own “Code of Conduct”. I don’t think its your views themselves which are the problem, merely the very aggressive manner in which you deal with opposing views. Some of us are more thick-skinned than others and shrug it off, while others just disappear. But does the absence of those who don’t come back detract from your blog ? I would say most definitely yes !