The UK - Swiss tax deal does not meet with my approval, as some will have noticed. The deal is outlined here. My objections are littered through the blogs preceding this one.
But let's stand back for a moment and consider why the UK have done this deal - uniquely (because it seems unlikely that the supposedly similar German one will get parliamentary approval and so will not happen).
It's important to say this deal was not needed. The revised European Union Savings Tax Directive is on the table. Twenty five EU states support it and it has looked very likely recently that compromise with the other two was possible and that Switzerland could have been pulled on board. So deal that would have ensured there was automatic information exchange on all interest income and gains arising throughout Europe, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the UK's tax havens was on its way, covering not only individuals but companies and trusts as well and with names and addresses being supplied.
That deal would have ensured we'd have got all the information we needed to demand all the tax due by those who have been criminally evading their tax bills by hiding funds in Swiss banks that have been deliberately and knowingly helping them to do so.
And I think the UK- Swiss tax deal has been deliberately engineered to scupper that EU wide deal because it would have applied to Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Cayman and all other British tax havens that comprise the branch offices of the City of London tax haven. And it would also have extended information exchange to companies and trusts - which would have shattered the tax evasion industries in these British tax havens.
So what have Cameron and Osborne done? They've as far as I can see absolutely deliberately signed the deal with Switzerland in an effort to destroy that EU deal. Even the FT says this morning:
We're not experts in this field but we also wonder whether these bilateral deals mark a setback for international efforts, led by the OECD and EU, to force the Swiss into further transparency.
“The UK's willingness to legitimise secret accounts on a ‘no-names' basis is controversial because it treats users of secretive havens more leniently than other taxpayers,” notes the FT.
So how should we really interpret this deal?
What's very obvious it is deliberate move by London. And it's also very obviously deliberately designed to help tax evaders by making sure that the Crown Dependencies and others can remain in that sordid business.
So we have to conclude that this is not a move against tax evaders - all of whom will be laughing themselves silly about how easy it is to get around this Swiss deal.
In that case let's not put too fine a point on this: this is the Treasury and our political leaders going out of their way to support criminality by making sure that a measure - the European Union Savings Tax Directive - that would blow tax evasion in British dependencies apart cannot now be implemented. And all, no doubt, at the behest of the City of London.
There's no other reasonable interpretation for what they have done.
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!
Do you REALLY think HMRC and Treasury would NOT have done the same deal had Labour remained in power?
Oh dear, shouting does not become you Mark. It looks like you’re siding with tax evaders when you do and that dopes neither you or the profession any good
And no, I don’t think they would
It was very clear from my dealings with the treasury then that they believed in the EU processes and were intent on stopping tax haven abuse, not encouraging them
What is your problem in saying that this is a terrible deal and that all tax evaders will be delighted with it – as is undoubtedly the case?
Has no one in the profession any ethical foundation left or the gumption to stand up against criminality?
Does the profession really want looters in all night courts but tax evaders to walk away scot free
Because that sure as heck is what it looks like and shouting at me just reinforces the view
Sorry. Wasn’t shouting, just emphasising a couple of words.
As you well know I am no friend of tax evaders and have almost as much of an issue as you do with abusive tax avoidance.
I’m simply trying to be objective and was seeking to clarify whether you feel that the previous administration would or would not have done the same deal. Now I know I am more cynical about the deal than I was before (assuming you’re right of course).
My first thought was that there is a high degree of pragmatism here. Better to get approx 30% of something rather than 100% of nothing. I agree with your analysis that in the case of undeclared monies which have been deposited in Swiss banks the tax, interest and penalties due in full would wipe out the bulk of the deposits. And yes all such sums should be collected in Utopia. Getting the information from the Swiss to allow such sums to be pursued and then doing so would have taken many many years and may or may not end up generating as much of a net return as the current deal is expected to do.
It’s not ideal but we don’t live in Utopia.
Your reference to the revised EU savings tax directive and that this is/was an ‘alternative’ is not something I know anything about. If what you say is factually correct then I would want to know more about the options faced by Treasury and HMRC and why they chose the one they did. I clearly have more faith in them than you and so I’m not leaping to conclusions or to accuse them or the Government in the way you have done.
Please do not infer my unilateral support for the deal from my questions or comments.
OK Mark – accepted
I know from inside the EU that the European Union Savings Tax Directive was making real progress
I do believe the UK has killed it to support its tax havens – and Labour would not have done that with the likes of Stephen Timms around
And I think we’ll lose massively from this deal as it says cheating pays so evasion will go up
It’s a disaster
Richard
I’m confused by your assertion that this deal means tax evasion will increase. For the last 50 years (or more) there has been no tax collected re monies hidden in swiss bank accounts. None. Now there will be something close to the tax otherwise payable in the UK plus the possibility of full disclosure to HMRC – something that was previously thought to be impossible.
Seems to me this REDUCES the prospect of tax evasion using swiss bank accounts. What am I missing please?
More lies
The European Union Savings Tax Directive has collected tax from Switzerland since 2005
But why confuse your poor little head with facts Mark?
No wonder you gave up tax practice
Your grasp on reality seems remarkably poor
“The European Union Savings Tax Directive has collected tax from Switzerland since 2005”
Richard, I believe that the cumulative total collected by Switzerland since 2005 amounts to less that CHF 50 million. We all know it is a joke.
But it was there and was to be upgraded
You seem to have forgotten how the EUSTD works. The Swiss only levy withholding tax if the recipient of the interest is an individual. It doesn’t yet catch corporate-owned accounts. So no tax is being collected at present on such income. But the UK client who owns it is still guilty of tax evasion so as a result of this new deal tax will be collected.
And how does it get collected from discretionary trusts and such arrangements which are the norm? Tell me that?
Richard, as I wrote in a post further below, the EUSD revision is now far more likely to happen now than before the Switzerland-Germany agreement (the UK agreement is of lesser importance in the EU context). This revision will take care of the trusts, foundations, anstalt, etc. Switzerland has agreed in principle to incorporate most of the EUSD revisions in its bilateral agreements with the EU.
I’ll now wait to see
I don’t trust a word you say
And why should I? You’re without any ethics at all
What has labour got to do with it? They are not in power. This is a sure sign of you actually knowing what is happening is wrong but cannot admit that it is the Tories that are doing it.
I am such a novice in these areas and I do not mind admitting it and I am very grateful that Richard writes these blogs in terms that I can understand and even in my limited scope of the machinations of this deal I can see it is profoundly wrong – why can’t you?
It is shabby and we will all pay for this, however, since you asked the question, no I do not think that Labour would have done this.
@Gracie
You may be a complete novice. I am not.
As a result of my personal dealings with senior officials in HM Treasury and HMRC over the last ten years I have some insights and knowledge. Many things happen and would happen regardless of who is in power. Hence my question.
Oh come on Mark
That’s really patronising and unbecoming of you
And sure officials have massive sway – which is why I have laid into Hartnett but the difference between Stephen Timms and David Gauke is enormous – and I really don’t think you can deny it
Come on Richard. Gracie said she was a complete novice. I am not. Simple fact.
I accept that you believe Dave Hartnett’s actions are determined by the Coalition. I think he has done exactly the same as he would have done under Labour and that this undermines your argument. We will have to agree to disagree.
I actually believe ministers have some influence in Hartnett
The evidence supports my case
Take Vodafone
Take this deal….
We don’t disagree
i contend you are wrong
Of course they’re protecting tax-evaders.
They’re backed by tax-evaders.
Parliament of whores.
Their stupidity is only surpassed by their indifference to the fury and rage that is growing in this country.
You’ve lost me Richard. In mor senses than one.
And who’s being patronising now? (Rhetorical Q)
Delighted to have lost you
You may have noticed I’m not a fan of those who spread misinformation for tax havens or the Tories
And patronising? To a former chair of the ICAEW tax faculty?
Oh come on. Be a big boy and take the bruises. If you want to play politics they happen.
If you don’t want to play don’t peddle misinformation for David Gauke
What the hell Richard? I love coming across your blog and getting all your facts and figures. You’ve helped me quite a bit, but you can be so unnecessarily rude sometimes. I thought Mark was genuinely trying to engage in a polite way here… Glad I’m not one to be alienated from facts because of the character delivering them…
I have known Mark a long time
And I communicated here and by email in that context
And yes I will be robust
Ethics demands it in the face of prasgmatism on issues of right and wrong
Very interesting.
Do you know why the Germans agreed a similar deal to the British (though, as you say, it might not get parliamentary approval) when the Germans don’t have a City of London-style network of tax havens in ex-colonies to support ?
I don’t understand why if this EU Savings Tax Directive was on the table why the Germans have been negotiating independently with Switzerland.
At least the Germans negotiated far more money
And even then their parliamentarians are having the wisdom to reject it
Because they can see that an EU deal is better than the grubby Swiss offering
The Germans have only negotiated “more money” because German citizens have more money in Swiss bank accounts. The pre-payments will be offset by the actual amounts raised anyway.
In fact, the UK authorities have negotiated higher tax rates on future income than Germans will be charged.
You still haven’t explained why the German government has been negotiating with the Swiss independently of wider EU negotiations. It just doesn’t fit with your theory that Osborne made this agreement with the Swiss to boost City of London interests. It seems more likely that the pragmatic Germans and Britons realised an EU agreement wasn’t likley.
As I have said elsewhere, Denis McShane thinks this is the best possible deal realisable. So I doubt there will be much criticism in Parliament.
The Germans have lower rates of tax on investment income
Please don’t use dumb arguments
And I’ve never heard Denis McShane present an argument in parliament
I have heard a lot of things that suggest his own ethics are well, suspect, like a criminal investigation of his expenses for a start
And you’re relying on him for support?
You are desperate
I’d like to know the answer to this too… and calling argument “dumb” won’t help me, a total novice in economics, understand any better. So far, it does sound like the real reason is because the EU deal isn’t likely, and not because the UK is trying to protect tax havens… of course, I am willing to be corrected with facts and argument, and not insults hopefully.
Of course, would love to see the EU deal go through instead…
For someone who says he does not like aggressive comments you seem quite good at them
I cannot prove judgment. You seem to be demanding I do so. It does not flatter your case
Read this blog and you will note it was thought the EU deal would happen in July. Italy delayed it. The swiss always put their deal forward to undermine 2_ deal and now Germany has illegally (probably) signed and uk has signed to try to kill the deal to support its own tax havens
The politics have changed as a result and the EU deal will be harder now. What is so hard to understand about that?
Genuinely baffled that you thought my comment aggressive but no big deal.
You are saying the deal failed because of bilateral negotiations. Others are saying there were bilateral negotiations because the deal had failed. Others say this was because the Swiss would.never have decided to reverse their stance on secrecy. You disagree and say that they would have.
From reading your blog and the comments, that’s what I know…
I’ll set up an e-petition along the lines of suggesting a debate in the commons about the new agreement? Or perhaps a stronger push to terminate the UK – Swiss tax deal in lieu of signing up to the European Union Savings Tax Directive?
100,000 signatories says the house of commons has to debate it…
Great idea!! It seems very suspicious that this deal was brought to a conclusion during the parliamentary recess. So much for the transparency of the Coalition. Please keep us posted about e-petition, are you on Twitter?
This what the right do nowadays…on every single issue. You can’t discuss the merits of an argument particular to a point in time without some right-wing duffer factionalising it. What Labour would or wouldn’t do is not at all relevant. Labour policy will be relevant in four years time. Now…supporting criminality is a great phrase because if it is at all correct this is about as serious a charge as can be levelled at a government. The fact that the first respondent chose to ignore that is telling I think. This issue needs to grow a big pair of legs and be set running. I’ll be writing to my MP who, I believe, used to be an accountant. Game on.
“…if it is at all correct…”
I’ve explained my position above. IF (and I think it’s a big IF) there was a better deal to be done then I’d be very surprised and disappointed.
All those criticising the deal seem to forget that the monies have been accumulating untaxed in swiss bank accounts for many, many years. The previous Government, in power for 13 years, did NOTHING towards collecting ANY tax on these monies. I’m comfortable that the present deal is an ENORMOUS step forwards from the previous position.
(Not shouting, Richard – caps just used for emphasis).
Oh come on Mark
I can now fairly say you are talking complete bollocks
Dawn Primarolo chaired the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation for ten years – with enormous success
And the UK participated in the European Union Savings Tax Directive and successfully imposed it on its tax havens under Labour
I know you’re Tory but you really don’t have to ignore the facts as well. Bluntly I’m accusing you of lying – because what you are saying is blatantly untrue
And yes – Switzerland is covered by these measures – so all you’re saying is just wrong – Labour transformed this – not as much as it should have done, biut transformed it none the less
Anyone who can say they’re comfortable with this deal:
a) supports tax evasion
b) supports the undermining of the rule of law
c) supports the idea there is one law for the rich and another for all the rest
d) wants to increase the tax gap
e) is happy with illicit activity – because this deal endorses it
f) …..I could go on
But frankly I can’t be bothered. Behind that smug exterior Mark you’re just like all the rest
Your insults, inaccurate assertions and non-sequitors damage your credibility Richard. Shame. I thought you were better than that.
I’m not so much pro-Tory as I am anti-Labour;
You miss the other possibility that some people are more open-minded and refuse to be forced to reach the same conclusions as you without due consideration and a review of all salient facts.
I refute all of your points a-f, but as you say, what’s the point? You’ve lost me now. And resorting to personal insults (especially when you do it for effect) is so not worthy of you.
I made no personal insults
I pointed out you were out of depth with no clue what you were talking about (and therefore you came nowhere near being open minded or considering the facts as you claimed) but carried on regardless from blind political prejudice, which you acknowledge
And if you think I need your endorsement to secure credibility – think again
Only relevant when it appears in their manifesto.
In an election they seem destined to lose after the forthcoming gerrymandering on the electoral boundaries.
You have to remember that the banking system known as British, the one that originated in Holland (Dutch finance, as Disraeli called it), after failing to find national acceptance by canny Hollanders finally took root and flourished here. It’s from this country it spread around the world, so it’s natural it should still have enormous influence here. The banks run the place, really, and have done for centuries. This is them flexing their muscles a little. More to come too, I’d think.
BB
It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if Cameron and Osborne’s motivation was to scupper any attempts to regulate the City of London’s network of tax havens. It is a very profitable business for them indeed.
“Does the profession really want looters in all night courts but tax evaders to walk away scot free”
Apparently the answer is yes.
Tax-evader = socially-acceptable looter
Scandalous. Who do I write to / how can this be made more widely known?
Your MP is a good start, seriosuly
Great blog, and great post. Interesting to see the contrast in the way the Government treats tax avoiders compared with their treatment of benefit cheats. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Osborne family’s offshore trusts – not to mention the financial arrangements of the Tories’ wealthy backers.
Good to see someone holding this government to account, as the Opposition don’t seem to want to.
Indeed, I recall an earlier commentator to one of your earlier posts stating that s/he would want to see evidence that there was no _conflict of interest_ on the part of those who negotiated the agreement. Such proof would seem to be very relevant.
Its a pragmatic approach by both the UK and Germany. Collecting a lot of tax is better than the risk of getting nothing. The Swiss have held firm on banking secrecy as they said they would. The fact is that whilst the Crown Dependencies are small and can be bullied, Switzerland is too large to bully (and it has other industries and large companies which are too important to the EU) and that’s the crux of the matter. The German and UK government have also realised the fact that its better to get a significant amount of tax out of Switzerland than to see all that money disappear to Hong Kong and Singapore, totally out of the reach of the EU.
It is easy to say that these deals should not have been done, but pragmatism in collecting much-needed tax revenues has taken priority over principles.
It will be fascinating to see whether the German government ratifies the German/Swiss deal, and whether the EUSTD will be superseded by Swiss-type deals for the Crown Dependencies. After all, the Crown Dependencies can now play the discrimination card if they aren’t offered the same deal as Switzerland.
This tax deal openly rewards evaders
More people will evade as a result
How does that raise revenue?
Perhaps you would like to explain just how revenue would have been gathered by the government in the absence of this deal.
The critics of this arrangement have not explained what a viable alternative would have been considering the Swiss would never have given up their banking secrecy.
Simply a lot of hot air from the critics without offering a solution – and by the way I do think tax evaders have got a pretty good deal out of this, but at least the government is getting some tax revenue out of this, but better some rather than none as has been the case and would have been the case if this agreement hadn’t been concluded.
Oh what nonsense
I have worked long and hard on the European Union Savings Tax Directive
I was close to approval – and the UK has scuppered it
It would have raised for more
How dare you say we offer no alternative
We have endlessly
We support law and order
We support honest
And you just support crime
How would a revised Savings Directive have raised more given Switzerland’s very public stance on the issue, particularly regarding banking secrecy. In any case, Switzerland were only duty bound to enter renegotiations in 2013, with no guarantee of any agreement.
As a non-member of the EU, Switzerland was not bound by any new directive. The argument is bogus.
As ever you ignore political reality
Switzerland, Jersey, the Isle of Man all say ‘it’s our choice’ but they don;’t have one
And as I’m bored by your trolling for tax evasion I’m blocking you now
“I have worked long and hard on the European Union Savings Tax Directive
I was close to approval — and the UK has scuppered it”
But Richard, the EUSD will still happen. It will probably be signed some time in 2012 for implementation from 2015 onwards. The agreements with Germany and the UK will help facilitate that. It will however make the withholding regime for Luxembourg and Austria permanent and retain full banking secrecy. The UK had very little to do with this. Germany was in the driving seat.
Here is what happened in a few words. From 2009 onwards, it had become clear to many parties that the EU had failed to break the deadlock caused by Luxembourg’s and Austria’s refusal to abandon banking secrecy. In January 2010, soon after Schaueble took office, Europe’s German-speaking countries started to negotiate the matter outside of the EU framework. Essentially Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg told Germany that automatic exchange was never going to happen, and that they should work on an alternative model. There was an informal meeting of the gang of five (with Liechtenstein) in August 2010 in which Germany and Switzerland agreed to start negotiations around their bilateral agreement.
The EU found out or was told about it, understood that Germany was no longer going to push for automatic exchange and started to redraft the revised directive on the basis of a compromise that would make the withholding regime permanent but retained the rest of the revisions. That is where Italy starting to throw its toys which in turn helped the UK government realize that the EUSD was not going anywhere fast. TO his credit, Osborne was successful in convincing the Swiss of starting a parallel process to that with Germany when the Swiss really did not need to.
You keep saying that the EUSD (with automatic exchange) was close to being signed. You are simply wrong, it has never been even close (and so is your not-so-secret source “inside” the EU). Everybody in German-speaking Europe knows that and there is nothing that the UK, which is a fairly marginal player in these matter, could have done about it.
And everything I know conflicts with the above
But everything you know comes from a source in the EU (who ironically is based in Zurich, but that is another story). The point I was making is that the German deal was put together outside of the EU framework, within an informal forum of Europe’s German-speaking countries.
I am very sure you did not know about this.
“it’s also very obviously deliberately designed to help tax evaders by making sure that the Crown Dependencies and others can remain in that sordid business”
While I disagree entirely that the Crown Dependencies are in the business of assisting tax evasion, can you answer a single question:
if you were a tax evader (particularly a UK one) why on earth would you use a crown dependency that has no banking secrecy and is ultimately answerable to the UK in preference to a foreign country that has statutory secrecy?
Because set up a company and trust in the Crown Dependencies and you have something much stronger than Swiss banking secrecy – as you well know
well I know I won’t persuade you otherwise but I didn’t want my silence to pass for agreement. As it is a criminal offence for any person in Jersey or Guernsey to fail to report any transaction which they reasonably believe is connected to tax evasion, and as in my experience people who are just doing a job don’t want to go to prison, I simply do not accept that companies and trusts are established frequently established for the purposes of tax evasion.
But I cannot prove that and you cannot disprove. What we can say is that ignoring obvious evasion would not be an offence in Switzerland: to the contrary, trying to report the evasion is what is likely to get an employee into trouble.
Ah – of course – not a penny of illegal cash in Jersey
Of course, we all know that’s true
Now go pull the other one
How on earth do you reach that conclusion?
Read the article
They’re doing it to support our tax havens
While I disagree entirely that the Crown Dependencies are in the business of assisting tax evasion, can you answer a single question:
Out of interest then, in your point of view, what are the Crown Dependencies in the business of exactly? Why would anyone want to register a business vehicle or trust in a Crown Dependency rather than “onshore”?
The vast majority of private trust business in the Channel Islands is from middle eastern clients. In fact, if you look at the trust litigation in the islands, you might even conclude that 100% of the trusts are from middle eastern clients, though I suspect the real figure is around 80%.
They use the channel islands because they were advised to do so in the 80s and 90s and then the pattern became established. The tax treatment is straightforward, the legal expertise is second to none (whether you like it or not, as a matter of fact Jersey is one of the leading generators of respected tax jurisprudence in the world), the track record for administering trusts impeccable.
Middle eastern clients have seen enough upheaval to want to place most of their wealth outside of the region and to take estate planning very seriously (if you were worth billions and had several wives and dozens of kids, wouldn’t you?).
In my experience, none of this has anything to do with tax avoidance or evasion and hand on heart I can honestly say in over a decade I have only ever seen one trust that was settled by an EU resident person (and that was back in the 1970s).
You really are a fantasist
” whether you like it or not, as a matter of fact Jersey is one of the leading generators of respected tax jurisprudence in the world”
Your world maybe
Nowhere else
And your last claim just says you keep your eyes closed
Like most offshore professionals
Noses too – which is useful as the business stinks
Interesting. So your argument is basically that the Channel Islands are home to oil-money that is nervous of the political instability of the jurisdictions from whence it came. Of course the irony must not escape you that these same jurisdictions are dictatorships run by the very same owners of this oil-money. This is not to say that such actors would not be interested in secreting assets away in trusts and vehicles the real owners of which can be hidden to outsiders.
roger phlegm you cannot be serious. There have been a number of convictions in the UK courts over many years of UK residents involved in tax evasion using the facilities provided by Channel Islands banks, trust companies and other professionals. Some of those CI residents have been prosecuted for such offences. From my personal knowledge of working as both an Inspector with HMRC and in a big 4 firm, the issue is rife in the CI because professionals there take the view that UK tax is none of their business and its up to their UK based clients to take advice on in the UK on their tax affairs and properly comply. Effectively they generally turn a blind eye though a minority go much further and are actively involved. The CI money laundering rules are are a hollow sham and the UK ones are not much better. How many tax related money laundering prosecutions have been based on reports from tax professionals in any UK or crown dependency jurisdiction, compared to the number of reports made? It is miniscule percentage and clearly no deterrent to the evader. The only answer is complete transparency between friendly jurisdictions such as EU members and their acolytes as the revised EU directive would provide. The Swiss banks and government have been on the ropes over their dodgy dealings for several years now, another banking crisis will reveal just how much they need co-operation with EU and the US. Why let them off now?
You’re spot on I think
As the US Senate has noted, and agreed
The BBC reporting is as if this is a good deal for the tax payer! Any concern that has been aired has been that it doesn’t come in until 2013, so the tax evaders will have time to move their monies to a more advantageous tax haven. The BBCs analysis is apparently infantile but presents a clear bias in favour of Osborne’s policy.
BBC analysis is almost always infantile on tax
“But George said so” is their excuse
It beggars belief that Hartnet would sacrifice the mega billions that exposing UK citizens and companies offshore arrangements through complex tax haven structures to full UK taxation might yield, for the sake of peanuts from the Swiss. Oh wait, this is the man who already let Vodafone off the hook for many billions for a quick earner. Also the man who is quite willing to trumpet having 5 “ghost” plumbers arrested in the UK while pocketing the cash from the far richer ghosts who’ve used Switzerland and allowing them to remain anonymous. I wonder how many of those are plumbers? The double standards are shocking and I share your sense of outrage Richard.
[…] Cameron and Osborne did the Swiss tax deal to support tax evasion – there’s no other exp… The UK — Swiss tax deal does not meet with my approval, as some will have noticed. The deal is outlined here. My objections are littered through the blogs preceding this one. But let’s stand back for a moment and consider why the UK have done this deal — uniquely (because it seems unlikely that the supposedly similar German one will get parliamentary approval and so will not happen). […]
[…] Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK, also points out that the deal cuts off EU wide action at the knees: “It’s important to say this deal was not needed. The revised European Union Savings Tax […]
Richard – would you consider drafting a model letter to MP’s? I’m sure many people would use it.
If I have time
Let me try…
I am VERY Disappointed to have heard on the radio that the bank bonanza (for which the UK was the most guilty country) is not going to affect those with Swiss accounts. DISASTER.
They are being allowed a year to re-organise their finances and only if the money is still there in December 2012 will they then have some taken (Euan Davis TODAY programmme said a few billions over SEVERAL YEARS that’s a pinprick).
By the sound of his voice he must have a Swiss account and is not at all worried about the state of the nation. He must therefore not be on the side of justice. How coloured their thinking is, those BiG JOB holders, in an over-digital, over-media-ised or numerical/finance world (except you, richard murphy of course, you are commendable – IS THIS ENOUGH FOR A NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE in parliament?). BRAVO! FOR PUBLICISING ALL THIS!
No wonder people rioted — maybe there’ll be some more — people are so powerless unless they act together, but shame that not many of them are more sacrificial FOR THE REASONS BELOW. If more people acted together the Government WOULD have to listen. Not that people who worked all their lives creating real value should be penalised by people damaging their property. But what about those literally creaming off profits from others’ hard work and protected by layers of employees – distancing themselves from a range of hand skills and sometimes passing habits like this to their children.
Here’s ANOTHER set of REASONS for YOUR ALTERNATIVE POLICY shared in July (GREEN QUANTITATIVE EASING). It goes like this:
The UK got fat on banking, as you say. When I went back to Australia in 1984 after working in the UK for nearly 10 years, the AU$ was about 1.6 to the GBP pound. I did not get much for my few pounds and got decent pay when i got there. I could save up to put a deposit on a house in the Hills. In the next few years the AU$ went down to nearly AU$3.00 per pound so i could afford to subsidise it when i got back here. Luckily i avoided the temptation to sell any house, and did not put the money into shares or pensions etc, etc – avoiding the clutches of the finance industry. Temporarily it looked like shares were better at a few points. But i had less stress, marveling at the unpaid time others would spend “managing their portfolio”. The GBP pound was kept high on the profits (imports and ill-gotten gains in financial investments – all these activities tending to impoverish the “third” world) sucked in by the banking bonanza – kept high in the Blair/Brown years. High exchange rates kept the poor from investing even in the simplest tools and equipment – fueling poverty and “aid”. Now it is back down to around AU$1.6 per pound even with Australia squandering her mining wealth in a greedy dash no better than the banks (for example the Yilgarn Craton should not be mined in Western Australia, they’d be better off investing in Solar Energy faster and living on less as the UK will be Forced to Do)
NOW WE FACE A “DOUBLE-DOUBLE WHAMMY”: your green quantitative easing G-QE is the only way out AND WE NEED IT FAST!!! Why?
The first roller to squeeze the UK (we are already feeling the PAIN): rising energy prices. Hence your EXCELLENT idea: G.Q.E. Pain not felt much by those with jobs over £50k. The other squeeze IS, OF COURSE DECLINING MONEY (more decline to come) will be really painful – I am forecasting long-term less than 50% (a SPIRAL of decline) yet to kick in so I THINK A LOT MORE AUSTERITY IS RIGHT and a lot of it will be in finance (sorry, readers)and in government. (sorry abt the shouting). The NEXT pair of ROLLERS (think of a steel mill – will we survive the heat?) :
>
Rising IMPORT PRICES together with SKILLS DECLINE. In a short survey i did in the West Midlands (backbone of Britain – small businesses) there was a group of 30 industrial i=units down the back of a church. I went in to speak to them : those who were actually open were less than 40%. Here’s what i found: generally these businesses are one-man bands with the owner approaching late 50s – late 60s. None of them want to take on an apprentice and there is no government assistance anywhere near worthwhile. I forecast within 5 to 8 years they will not be there. They won’t even be able to sell the real estate (if they own any of it).
SO THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS TOO SLOW ! ! **WE NEED GREEN QUANTITATIVE EASING**!!. AND SUBSIDIES TO TAKE ON APPRENTICES, PAYING THE COST OF THEM FOR 2 YEARS OR MORE.
AND FINALLY WE NEED to spend it on MATERIALS FOR EXTERNAL SUPER-INSULATION behind cladding on the OUTSIDE of SOLID WALLS and also SUPER-ECO BLINDS AND CURTAINS TO snug up the houses and commercial/industrial buildings, getting away from the disastrously energy-intensive policy of demolition and big-build and onto IMPROVING OUR BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
Thanks
>
ian.greenwood[at]phonecoop.coop
The alternative economic policy we need
Just to add: super-eco blids SHUTTERS and curtains – many roller shutters could be retro-fitted
RATHER THAN ARGUING – LETS JUST GET ON WITH IT. To emphasise: If it could be grasped by politicians and officials just how serious this double-double whammy could be, surely my offered road map of increased interest rates and a “floor” on savers’ rates to help get their investments underway, diverted base rate interest on any free money created, regulation of loan rates on wholesome business to encourage free enterprise (especially super-insulation that ultimately saves gas imports as well as saves on warming) and reduction of VAT to 10 % with the other 10% redefined as ET diverted to the investments needed to correct successive governments’ poor record on actually assisting householders and small businesses rather than big business creaming off half the value from energy improvements. We need Sustainability in Trade, Environment, Education and Resources: STEERglobal.org still has some information.
To take an example of profiteering that needs regulating or maybe delivering by big business or a new SUPER-INSULATION AUTHORITY: a recent visit from a sprayed-polyurethane roof insulation salesman offered a contract that would have netted £4000.00, but when pressed “another company I know of” would do it for £1900.00. When they arrived the roof-space was a little hard to access (not much headroom) so they declined the job. They turned down £1900 for about 2 hours work (plus 1 hour each way traveling) involving 2 semi-skilled blokes, a Van with a pump and long hose (and polyurethane tank). Cost of material: less than £250. Hourly rate on that “cheap” basis – the same as a daily rate for a highly skilled excavator and machineL that is 8 times more lucrative.
This is going on all over the country and there is nothing to say the sprayed polyurethane insulation material will not degrade after 30 years and crumble or fall off. Contrast this with the super-insulation material likely to last over 100 years if not indefinitely. I did the first half of the job myself from underneath with super foil (Triso Super 10) in half a day using £120.00 cost of materials and the other half will be £220.00. Those guys did me a favour by declining the job. They wouldn’t even do the easy bit for half the money, preferring to drive 60 miles back home and do another £4000 “on a plate” job that would take about 2 hours – paid for by an unsuspecting customer.
[Highest cost of living and waste is in the UK – and the science/maths enjoyed only by a small minority – which has allowed “rip-off Britain” culture to spread across the world assisted by such bigoted organs as the “Economist” preaching free market messages (you have to dig for the facts in there). That end up forcing people to pay high prices – that is not a free market.] When is the government going to do its Job — which is to govern, but preferably look ahead as well? Even the US is not as bad as this with the UK’s D-D risk I tell of (see above: we are sitting on the brink). The US is sitting rather prettier than the UK being something like 80% self-sufficient. Are the people with the control in the UK the ones with the Swiss or off-shore bank accounts? Rhetorical question: I’d look out if i were them, we could always have SANCTIONS on Switzerland and the tax havens!
Or are they safe in the knowledge that no one will bother? If more people would drink a little less, smoke a lot less, eat less and more healthily (eat more basically for some of the meals even for the richer people) and ‘Luxury’ themselves less (with a little more manual work thrown in – good learning) perhaps then wouldn’t they have time individually help to sort out this situation? As Richard has shown, one cannot rely on government always for these basic issues, one has to be bothered and should be heard. It might take a while of concentrated effort by a good few people to change the habits handed down several generations, so let’s start now!
Just asking for clarification. Why and how does this bi-lateral deal necessarily scupper the EU Tax Directive?
Becasue the Swiss will use this as a weapon to say no now – previously they did not have one
I agree that this agreement is convenient for the UK tax-avoidance industry (i.e. the city and all the satellites from Jersey/Isle of Man to Cayman and beyond) – if the Swiss (and the Austrians and Luxembourgers – I know that’s wrong) won’t abandon their banking secrecy then a stance of “why should we abandon ours”, that is British equivalents in terms of trusts etc, is easier to maintain. I can see that and so why it’s possible to interpret this agreement with the Swiss as a machievalien masterstroke on behalf of the City of London and it’s client diaspora of rich and super-rich that allows the status quo to persist.
But, as many people have pointed out on this thread, it’s not clear how the Germanic block (excluding Germany itself) could have been persuaded or forced, least of all perhaps by the British, to abandon banking secrecy. After all the Germans have their diaspora of rich and super-rich too and presumably their money is managed in the Germanic block.
The general populace of Germany is I’m sure like ours baffled and bored by detailed discussions of tax. Most people are. I am. To force the ruling classes of these countries to abandon their means of hiding their and their friends wealth will take a groundswell of popular opinion and understanding that I don’t think exists yet. Nicholas (you know who I mean), you and others are making admirable attempts to change this – but allowing smooth tongued apologists to rile you into seeming small minded doesn’t help.
I found this, http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/esd-guidance/s17-s18-si-reporting.htm. Presumably this is all stage one of EUSD. It all looks very impressive and complete, however, as someone here has pointed out, the practical result since 2005, with regards to Switzerland, has been the cumulative collection of, they say, about CHF50m. That indicates to me that stage one was easy for them to sign upto.
So, why are you so sure that in the absence of this recent deal the Swiss (and presumably in their wake the others) would have signed up to stage 2 of the EUSD, which if I understand this correctly, requires them to abandon banking secrecy.
Coercion works
The Uk has undermined it
Last time the Swiss gave in to a concerted EU front
They were doing so again
That is why I think what has been done is deliberate by UK to undermine an EU deal – as so often is the case by Tories and their City friends
Do you honestly think Switzerland would have signed up to the EUSTD? Because if, as I suspect, they would not have, then surely this is as good a deal as the UK could have hoped for?
Yes I do think they would
In fact I’m certain of it
Remember they have already
If they have already signed up to it then what’s the problem?
The fact is that it would require a referendum in each Swiss canton to approve it and the complete removal of Swiss banking secrecy. As much as we’d like that it ain’t going to happen.
You have provided absolutely no evidence that Switzerland was ever going to shoot itself in the foot and sign up to the EUSTD, you have merely asserted it. No serious commentator thinks the Swiss would have signed up to it.
And why did the Germans negotiate their own deal as well then?
They are in stage 1
It’s stage 2 that has been scuppered
Why not do some research before asking elementary questions that show you’re purely driven by dogma?
Get a petition up and running and I will rouse all my family and friends and acquaintances to support it.
As will I.
I need to work on this – even of I have a bank holiday weekend break coming up
Good job I blog through them
[…] professional tax scold, Richard Murphy of the so-called “Tax Justice Network” (my prior comment about TJN here), in his usual […]
Tax evasion is what’s killing the global economy. Under the guise of jobs protection – often jobs that cost the real economy (ie the one that actually recycles and builds infrastructure) more than they’re worth – many of the world’s corporations avoid paying their fair share in taxes while squirreling away (draining) the resources of their respective countries. As long as we live in a two-tier economic society, where increasingly squeezed lower middle class are the only ones paying their way, the international economy will continue to mindlessly eat the legs out from under itself. We may as well have a vacuum cleaner from space sucking up our resources as some of those corporations. Although at least that way we might at least avoid some of their pollution.
Problem (as well as post #17 above ) seems to be that Gordon’s “lower middle class” or even upper – is often now not too good at his/her mental arithmetic 20 years after calculators became the norm. Lack of use (as we are walking around we should often be thinking in numbers to arrive at simple understandings) erodes arithmetical mental ability. This is needed for quick observation and decision-making – a vital skill. Just as lack of thinking/motivation/action atrophies the body (and more often the political system) lack of understanding of numbers applied to the real world holds us back.
Those that ARE paying the extra tax on INCOME often think they have LITTLE TIME to get involved in the sterling work like Richard has sacrificially done – he probably needs a true apprentice (as #17 above) and the funding for it, as well as payment (so could I). Mr Murphy cannot go on for ever — his Opponents are relying on that — yet Treasury officials often lack experience at a hands-on business level — ie in production (where the real money, real wealth, exists that is real inventiveness, sustainability, minimisation of materials and effort, innovation, etc). We need to get away from relying too much on factories and automation now with labour surpluses in the West. And too much on a digitalised world – getting back to provide real jobs for humble people actually making things and living locally and steady-state (there’s a lot of satisfaction to be had).
Since Richard is doing the work of several government officials and better than they could ever do — why not reward him for such good work (why not also in the meantime have a “donate” button on the blogsite, like Cryptogon.org – the other global economics/finance site WORTH READING?)
Why not as well create a Nobel ‘Peace and Communications Prize 2011” for RICHARD [adding to my suggestion to one of those for Paul Grignon for MONEY AS DEBT – “Ace Video!”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544
FASCINATING one senior chap said (about the Video) who was from ACCA accounting group: the one with ETHICS as a core principle. YET as yet A CLEAR SEPARATION OF BANK-CREATED MONEY (which needs to be in all bank reports) has not been made Public. Where are the Accountants that need to be banding together to Get This To Happen (or how much progress has been made, that I do not know of)?
OR (diverting ONTO THE another MAIN SUBJECT) How ethical is it to Rip people off who invested, by those engaged in “Profit Taking”. [Looks like the Game could soon be Up for Britain!]
We need to ACCOUNT PROPERLY for commercial-bank-created money and get rid of a lot of Wasteful Speculative Activity in banking “investment” and finance – stop Kidding Ourselves about a lot of our activity! See Double-Double Whammy (#17) coming our way, so get our costs down and our production up. And get Green QE as Richard says. If that was underway it would help a lot, but we need SIMULTANEOUS ACTION on several fronts.
So then, I nominate both of them for this PRIZE (Paul for a 2006 version) and a similar one for Kevin Flaherty – founder of Cryptogon – maybe he could get a 2010 version) to keep them motivated.
MEANWHILE
Let’s not discredit those who work fewer paid hours and get less money – let’s recognise their skill at living more cheaply, if they are getting paid very little that means their lack of spend has a lower environmental/ecological cost (after all, their 20% VAT is a much higher proportion than large “earners” pay).
Sometimes those on low pay or none did not have the advantages of a “good” education (say from their Mum motivating them in the “right” way for a balance between practical and digital activity, for example) so it is hardly their fault: just as those going into finance sometimes have made a slightly silly choice not to improve their practical (money-saving) skills so that when their pension money evaporates (at it has done for some) they might suffer in retirement a loss of fun by not being able to fix things, with nails, screws, joints etc. Not very many have a £2 million fund to sit on in a “retirement village” of their choosing. They might have thought in their youth, for example, that their lack of DIY is good because it is providing jobs for others. Whereas I’d say, having been in both positions – sometimes it is very healthy and therapeutic to sweep or polish the floors, decorate, wash up by hand, bringing balance to one’s life, having more random thinking/action time about where to give their money away (even the lower income taxpayers could be aiming to save or give away 50% – saving gives security). They could be saving money at the same time as exercising without a boring Gym.
Sorry if I am “going on”.
I only put this here to help understanding of some of the BASICS that are missing in the thinking of many that ARE ADDING TO THE DIVIDES Richard tells of – thus adding to the lack of potential to work together more, because of lack of motivation [how many council properties could be better maintained using self-help and fun training?.
My Basic message is SAVE UP more – and get the money as quickly as possible into some real investment such as SUPER-INSULATION (ten times better than an uninsulated solid wall, 4 times better than the current building regulations insist on) AT A SMALL FRACTION OF THE COST OF tear down and REBUILD. We need all this TO AVOID INFLATION AWAY OF THE MONEY VALUE – (IT’S A SPECTRE COMING UP TO STALK US!) By all means ring me 0121 449 0278 to join in the MOVEMENT to change the government’s thinking towards a PROPER SUBSIDY and away from support ONLY of big business as demolition and WASTE OF MATERIALS proceeds mainly to line the pockets of developers – UN-NECESSARY WASTE (sorry to go on!) rather than dismantling. We need to change their (and our) stereotypical thinking, usually by building a relationship – it is hard work. ( or write to ian.greenwood@phonecoop.coop ) Don’t we need to Co-operate more to get our cost of living down (to deal with the double-double whammy or Bureaucratic builders i say above)?
I should add my work is supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust – although they are not responsible for it
I am not seeking donations, but thanks for your concern
Announcement during recess; the ‘spin’ put upon it; the fact that FT says it is not ‘expert’ in this field; the convincing arguments that you make –
[though is ‘something better than nothing:; EUSTD discussions have been 10 years; was there going to be an eventual agreement?]
– all this makes the whole #taxdeal exercise cynical and fuels the sense of injustice and inequalities.
I have an MP who will support it strongly (Mike Freer, ex Barclay’s Banker) and he’ll understand much more than I do.
Presumably, in any case, there will not have to be any Parliamentary debate or discussion?
Make sure you have a good Bank Holiday weekend, though (British) weather looks bleak; what about Switzerland?
[…] that “stashing the profits of tax evasion in Switzerland is over”. It’s nothing of the kind. Switzerland is making a one-off deduction from all UK accounts held in Swiss tax havens like Zug or Zurich, but […]
The deal is not needed.
What is needed is to participate in the “Challenge to Switzerland by citizens against tax havens”. This challenge is due to start on 15 October 2011. There is also another proposal for a “Challenge to British tax havens” due to start 1 March 2012. See further details in http://www.citizensforaction.weebly.com
Sorry the previous posts are a bit long. In addition to the great idea for the petition and the no-confidence motion in parliament – [Haven’t the conservatives gone a bit too far if its as serious as you say?]
Would it be OK to post the two fundamental questions: Can we not rein in the speculators,
1. remove some of (our) money, (bit by bit) that they play with (I liken it to an inflated toadstool on a stalk of injustices, one of which is the money as Debt mentioned above, blocking out our sun – or the ability to take time off to enjoy it when it DOES shine). Money pumped up by constant inflation through the commercial banks, allowing them to siphon it off-shore. The Swiss accounts are only part of the problem, we need to incentivise real investment rather than profit-taking – see 3 below.
2. invest that money in super-insulation, energy-enveloping CORRECT DETAILING IS NOT THAT COSTLY -e.g shielding gaps between houses etc, etc .Green QE could be almost immediate and I have an R&D programme and model project to help them spend it as well -a Model that would show these processes for the Nation at fairly modest costs – centrally located in the UK which should be of interest to the treasury. Surely to STORE SOLAR UNDERGROUND – and a demonstrator to show how its done should be URGENT, to save gas imports?
3. look into reducing the rewards accruing by forcing prices up, whether of currency, shares or commodities, by the Big Investors, then selling all at once and then re-buying MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE MARKET?. Profit-taking sounds too harmless a term. Have the Germans got rules that prevent re-buying and if those rules were to exist, shouldn’t that prevention be for several years? I hope you can answer this very fundamental point.
All the best to you and your bloggers – can action over these other two points be acted n in the weeks to come through the various departments- otherwise it’s NOBODY’S JOB, we need a united voice. Your framework needs to go through, but so does 1 & 2 above?
Very interesting Richard, but I still cannot see that this scuppers an EU deal. If (and it may be a big IF) EU Member States agree on a directive the Swiss will be obliged to fall into line.
I thought that Luxembourg had already conceded its banking secrecy (I don’t know about the Austrians). Are you concerned that the UK (and possibly Germany?) will attempt to veto an EU directive? In which case you will be correct.
Clearly there needs to be an EU deal. I would have thought that bilateral deals are easily evaded. I suspect that you are concerned that the UK does not want an EU directed level playing field, but cannot explicitly say so.
You hit the nail on head in second para
In principle deal is not dead
But politics is not about principles – and UK is in unprincipled fashion trying to undermine deal to protect its own tax havens
This is what would not have happened under labour I say
Difficult to say whether it would or would not happen under Labour, the fact is that it didn’t. Osborne’s agreement with the Swiss would be OK as an interim accord, but the Conservatives could be out to undermine an EU agreement. If so, I do not see the Swiss making the agreement work, because they will not want to tolerate advantages for the Channel Islands, Liechtenstein etc
As I see it it is up to the Swiss to decide how well the agreement is implemented – one of the weaknesses of the agreement.
1] Surely whether it’s Labour’s or the Tories’ ‘fault’ is less important than the issue of trying to get businesses to pay the proper tax they owe. And Richard, it just doesn’t make that any easier by being so obviously pro-Labour and anti-Tory, so I can only assume you’re happy for the mess to continue, as long as you can rubbish the Tories with it.
2] No-one (unless I’ve missed it – I couldn’t read ALL the above comments) has mentioned the fact that these businesses that are evading taxes also pay out to a lot of ordinary people, in the way of shares/dividends. Can you address that point, Richard?
Well I happen to think there remain real differences between parties – not as much as I would like – but in the circumstances I think your comment is naïve or just an intention to be rude
And re your second comment – people also make money drug trafficking – do you want pensions paid out of that too? If not why is tax evasion ok but drug trafficking not?
Came across this thread via the New Statesman and it’s been an real eye opener. I know of you Richard through my work (I’m an accountant) and because I’ve not visited your blog before I felt you carried gravitas on the problem of tax evasion.
Well; I had no idea that you were such a rude and patronising know-it-all.
Your last comment which makes a case for moral equivalence between tax evaders who illegally try to minimise the amount the government takes from their profits in taxes with drug trafficers who kill, main and destroy lives for profit says it all. You need to get a grip, man.
Respectfully you typify the corruption in the morality of a profession that cannot equate tax evasion with crime and tax havens as the places where the proceeds of crimes such as drug trafficking are located with the assistance of supposed finance professionals.
Get a grip you say? I have. It is why I detest those who happily excuse crime
Sure it upsets people like you. But if it does it is most certainly because I am detested by what you stand for.
And it is also because I am disgusted by the glib acceptace of crime that is too common and which uses exactly the same structures as drug and human trafficking and similar such crimes.
Moral equivalence? They are simply equivalent in so many ways that your position is utterly intolerable – and the world needs to know it.
@Hayes
Your point re: party politics was made above by a few people, and I agree with it. it would serve everyone better if this was seen as a long-standing issue of financial injustice that has been colluded with (through action or inaction) by many successive governments and is more an issue of an economic system (capitalism; profit above ethical values) determining political outcomes (tax havens) than any particular party’s principles.
I would love to agree with you but my experience tells me not to do so
A Tory MP was in Jersey last week singing its praises
I hear far too many of them saying such things as Hong Kong should be the model for the UK
And I am far too well aware that all the support for tax avoidance comes from Tory benches as does all the tolerance for tax evasion
I make no claim Labour is perfect – and as I am not a party member do not need to do so
But I do know this is a profoundly party political issue
I also know it is also always right wingers who accuse me of being rude when I do not even get remotely as robust here as most Daily Mail commentators do – so frankly I know that those comments are part of a deliberate political construct from the right too
Have no doubt this is about politics and when you deny it you are actually supporting the shift of wealth from poor to rich and all the oppression that goes with it. Denying that is a profoundly political act on your part
And also, I hate to say but will becayse it alwayse seems to be true, a proundly Conservative act too
Of course in that case you want me to shut up
And I will continue to point the moral corruption at the core of that party which is remarkably similar to that of tax havens
@Richard
Of course it’s about politics. That’s what I was implying. Except, for me at least, it’s not about party politics. The politics I speak of is a political system that inevitably serves the economic model of free capitalism (profit before ethics), or big business. The difference is that i feel all parties have, this far, served and fed this dynamic. The fact that these tax havens have existed to this day, and weren’t dismantled last year, or last decade, proves this – that politicians have serves businesses first, and citizens second.
So, i agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your protest, Richard. Indeed, i will be very willing to protest along with others to get this dynamic changed. But, I will do so without thinking this is something the Tories let happen. I will do so thinking that this is something politicians, ALL POLITICIANS, let happen. Ironically, I’m not sure to realize how much I share in your distain regarding this issue – it’s just that my distain is not funneled into one party, but that whole damn lot of them. Nothing ever seems to be done for the workers unless they take to the streets and demand it.
(As for your suspicion that I am somehow conservatice (implying party politics again) or have some political agenda aimed at serving the rich, I might inform you that I am a lowly support worker who has no party allegiances. My position on your political scale of “left” and “right” will depend on the issue at hand.)
Again, I would like to say I am very grateful that you brought this issue to my attention. I think it’s a disgrace now, and it’s a disgrace it has been let happen for so long by so many parties of so many governments in so many countries.
Well, I disagree on three points
One, I am a democrat and have to work through the party system – and will
Two, I do think Labour is the only hope here but it does need to become truly social democrat again and abandon neo liberalism
Three, the Tories are pro tax haven and represent a real obstacle
So fighting them is part of this
[…] Today programme heard mainly from the left’s favourite tax expert, Richard Murphy of the Tax Research blog, who called this deal “diabolical and stupid” and a deliberate act by Osborne and […]
Interesting as I was not on Today programme
Nick Shaxson was
I did about 20 other stations though