NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,536299,00.html
Liechtenstein Furious at Germany Over Tax Probe

The tiny principality of Liechtenstein, a major European tax haven, has threatened Germany with legal action because German authorities paid an informant for stolen financial data on hundreds of investors who now face prosecution for alleged tax evasion.

Liechtenstein is angry at Germany for having paid €5 million to an informant (more...)for a DVD containing financial details of up to 1,000 wealthy Germans with accounts in the tax haven in a deal that has sparked the biggest tax evasion probe in German history.

The DVD included details on Klaus Zumwinkel, who resigned as chief executive of Deutsche Post AG last week after the data prompted a tax probe into him.

"With its attack on Liechtenstein, Germany isn't solving its problems with its taxpayers," Prince Alois of Liechtenstein, the principality's head of state, said in the Liechtenstein capital of Vaduz. He added that it was questionable "whether such a course of action is compatible with the basic principles of the democratic state."

He criticized the BND for paying "a convicted lawbreaker" for the data. The prince said such behavior would be "totally inconceivable from a legal point of view" in Liechtenstein and countless other European states. "In our country, fiscal interests don't outweigh the rule of law," the prince added.

The prince also said that his country placed a lot of importance on the privacy of its citizens, which included respect for banking secrecy. Any tax evasion wasn't Liechtenstein's fault but stemmed from the "criminal energy of Germans," he added.

Liechtenstein now appears to be considering legal action against Germany. "We are currently discussing various legal measures with relation to the banking data illegally obtained in Liechtenstein," Klaus Tschütscher, Liechtenstein's justice minister and deputy head of government, told Germany's Börsen-Zeitung newspaper.

The tax dispute is expected to top the agenda of a pre-arranged meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Liechtenstein's head of government Otmar Hasler on Wednesday in Berlin. In an attempt at damage limitation ahead of the visit, Hasler told Bild newspaper: "We're taking the situation seriously. But we don't think the good bilateral relations between Germany and Liechtenstein will be endangered by the criminal activities of individuals."

Police, tax authority investigators and prosecutors on Monday searched offices and private apartments across the country including the offices of the venerable private banks Metzler and Hauck & Aufhäuser, where they sifted through the financial records of clients with assets in Liechtenstein. The Munich office of Dresdner Bank was also searched.

A total of 125 searches are planned for this week in the nationwide tax probe which came to light last Thursday with a search of the Cologne villa of Zumwinkel, accused of having hidden assets in a Liechtenstein-based foundation.

Meanwhile political pressure is building in Germany for action against tax havens such as Liechtenstein. Thomas Oppermann, a senior member of the Social Democrat Party, called on Merkel to make clear in her talks with Hasler that "tax havens like that in Liechtenstein don't really have a place in modern Europe."

Anti-corruption organization Transparency International accused Liechtenstein of abetting tax evasion. "Tax evasion must be made a crime in Liechtenstein and Switzerland," Transparency board member Caspar von Hauenschild said. "Liechtensteiner must give up its bank client secrecy for European citizens, as must the Swiss."

But Liechtenstein's ambassador to Berlin, Prince Stefan of Liechtenstein, said: "One can't always assume that every customer who comes through the door is a criminal. We're not going to change our whole legal system, a system which includes the protection of the privacy of our citizens."

So, what do you think about the issue? Countries like Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands and many others specialise in building very good financial systems and getting foreigners to open accounts, companies and all sorts of other stuff there. That's not an easy thing to do, but for many of these tiny countries the best option not to be poor.

Of course a big part of that is the secrecy of banking, the knowledge that others can't find out how much money you have and where. Germany blatantly violated that by using the services of a criminal.

So who was right, who was wrong?

For those with a bit of time and interest, here is a big special report on offshore financial centres with lots of articles:
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8695139
Offshore financial centres are booming, thanks to their easy-going tax regimes. But the best of them are more than tax havens: they are good for the global financial system, argues Joanne Ramos

to be fair Germany did a naughty thing which really isn't something you should be doing when your trying to do law stuff

Liechtenstein should invade or better yet impose sanctions!

Of course a big part of that is the secrecy of banking, the knowledge that others can't find out how much money you have and where. Germany blatantly violated that by using the services of a criminal.
Earlier on the radio some expert made a big thing about the fact that the BND didn't pay the guy to go get them those documents but that he in fact was offering them on the, erm, black market or whatever you would call it, and so they can't be faulted because once it's out there it's okay to buy it.

Basically.

I'm too uninformed about the details to have much of an opinion on it, just thought that might be interesting (maybe not).

On another note, what bugs me much more right now is that the politicians are falling over themselves to sanctimoniously declare these evil rich people to be the tax-evading scum of the earth taking advantage of the common man.

When they're really just hoping that nobody will look into their own bank accounts and in those of their life-long industry friends and lobbyist buddies.

Puhleeze. If they're so interested in going after the big fish why is every single tax law geared toward benefiting the really rich?

:rolleyes:

Countries like Liechtenstein should not be persecuted, but celebrated as bastions of freedom. Just because they don't fleece their citizens to the extent other countries do is no reason to single out and malign them.

....I'm sorry but have I missed something huge other than massive tax evasion?

Countries like Liechtenstein should not be persecuted, but celebrated as bastions of freedom. Just because they don't fleece their citizens to the extent other countries do is no reason to single out and malign them.

That'll be as effective as that time when Rwanda imposed sanctions on France.

where will the saucy German businessmen get there pleasures now?!

Liechtenstein should invade or better yet impose sanctions!

That'll be as effective as that time when Rwanda imposed sanctions on France.

It's hard to say. Certainly one country's laws aren't inherently more important than another's. I suppose it would depend on the principle of doing or not doing this vs. the harm of doing or not doing so. I'd say the latter is more compelling if one was to argue against Germany's actions.

Finally! Those fiendish Liechtensteinians have had it coming to them for a long time. Always policing the world and sticking their noses into other people's business... I'm surprised they haven't been nuked yet.

....I'm sorry but have I missed something huge other than massive tax evasion?

Psssh. Don't criticize wealthy men celebrating their freedom. They are an example for all of us.sarcasm

Austria or something should just annex Liechtenstein and be done with it.

I will always be on the side of Lichtenstein, Switzerland and other more free capitalist countries that allow people to do what they want with their money. Just because Germany feels it needs to heavily control their citizens taxes IN state does not mean they can control what people do with their money OUTSIDE of German borders.

I beleive (though correct me if I'm wrong...and I MEAN it....because I never want to make the mistake if I'm wrong) that in America....it's tax evasion if you use that money here...but if you have a foreign bank account and you don't use that money here, the American governemnet can't technically do anything about it.

This is the way it should be.

Es lebe die Freiheit!

Austria or something should just annex Liechtenstein and be done with it.
What a dumb thing to say.:rolleyes:

Wouldn't be the first time...

I will always be on the side of Lichtenstein, Switzerland and other more free capitalist countries that allow people to do what they want with their money. Just because Germany feels it needs to heavily control their citizens taxes IN state does not mean they can control what people do with their money OUTSIDE of German borders.

Amen! :cool:

*gives TAi a box of donuts*

I will always be on the side of Lichtenstein, Switzerland and other more free capitalist countries that allow people to do what they want with their money. Just because Germany feels it needs to heavily control their citizens taxes IN state does not mean they can control what people do with their money OUTSIDE of German borders.If it's tax money, it isn't the citizens' money.

I will always be on the side of Lichtenstein, Switzerland and other more free capitalist countries that allow people to do what they want with their money. Just because Germany feels it needs to heavily control their citizens taxes IN state does not mean they can control what people do with their money OUTSIDE of German borders.
The thing is, the people are living in Germany and receiving the benefits of the tax payed social services for a significantly reduced cost (or free, for the more ballsy evaders). To me, it is no better than the bums that live off welfare. If you do not want to pay that much into the system, fine, go somewhere that doesn't require you to. Don't however just think you can leech the system by hiding your money elsewhere.

The thing is, the people are living in Germany and receiving the benefits of the tax payed social services for a significantly reduced cost (or free, for the more ballsy evaders).
The problem is that for genuinely rich people, virtually 100% of the benefit they receive from the government is in the form of externalities. They don't need welfare, they have private healthcare, send their kids to private schools, etc etc.

I'm sure if someone could actually do a calculation on these things, it would be easier to see why you need to be charged with a "wealth tax" as is happening in Germany right now - beyond just the simple progressive income tax. But I suspect that no one in the German government would see the need to do that, because the German tax system and welfare state is based on things like "solidarity" and asking what you personally get out of it is a great way of getting ignored.

The thing is, the people are living in Germany and receiving the benefits of the tax payed social services for a significantly reduced cost (or free, for the more ballsy evaders). To me, it is no better than the bums that live off welfare. If you do not want to pay that much into the system, fine, go somewhere that doesn't require you to. Don't however just think you can leech the system by hiding your money elsewhere.
But wouldn't that also mean that they couldn't use that money in Germany (well, they could but bringing it into the country would mean having to pay taxes on it)? Doesn't that mean it's their money to do with it what they see fit. If I wish to invest my money outside my nations borders, there's nothing this government can do...because the money is not under their jurisdication, right?
If it's tax money, it isn't the citizens' money.
Well but it's NOT tax money because they are not spending it in the German state, but rather keeping it outside the country....so technically it's NOT tax money.
Amen! :cool:

*gives TAi a box of donuts*
*Gladely takes them but shares them with other like minded pro-Lichtenstein people*

But wouldn't that also mean that they couldn't use that money in Germany (well, they could but bringing it into the country would mean having to pay taxes on it)? Doesn't that mean it's their money to do with it what they see fit. If I wish to invest my money outside my nations borders, there's nothing this government can do...because the money is not under their jurisdication, right?
If it came from a source inside German jurisdiction, then yes I do believe they should be able to tax it.

Well but it's NOT tax money because they are not spending it in the German state, but rather keeping it outside the country....so technically it's NOT tax money.If they're making it in Germany, then it is tax money, regardless of where it's ultimately spent. (Or at least I would assume that's how German law works.)

If they're making it in Germany, then it is tax money, regardless of where it's ultimately spent. (Or at least I would assume that's how German law works.)
But isn't that how offshore banks work? That's it's not tax money because you put it outside the country and aslong as you don't spend it inside the country, it's not legally their tax money...?
If it came from a source inside German jurisdiction, then yes I do believe they should be able to tax it.
But by bringing it outside their legal boundries, their borders...it is no longer their money. It's like if someone robs a store in California and then goes across the border to Mexico, he's not technically under pursuit anymore (given that the Mexican governemnt has no problem hosting him) because it is outside Californian legal boundries.....same thing applies for offshore banking.

The problem is that for genuinely rich people, virtually 100% of the benefit they receive from the government is in the form of externalities. They don't need welfare, they have private healthcare, send their kids to private schools, etc etc.

I'm sure if someone could actually do a calculation on these things, it would be easier to see why you need to be charged with a "wealth tax" as is happening in Germany right now - beyond just the simple progressive income tax. But I suspect that no one in the German government would see the need to do that, because the German tax system and welfare state is based on things like "solidarity" and asking what you personally get out of it is a great way of getting ignored.True, but its not like they avoid all the things the government pays for. Roads, sewers, and other utilities tend to be public. Most western governments subsidize the cost of food with tax money. There is the police department which will deal with crime (If you where genuinely rich, you'd be a genuinely good target for a thief).

Even if they use private services where available, are they entirely private? In Canada, private schools still receive an amount of public funding. Private healthcare gets funding here too, even as it competes against the public system.

But isn't that how offshore banks work? That's it's not tax money because you put it outside the country and aslong as you don't spend it inside the country, it's not legally their tax money...?No, I don't think so.

But by bringing it outside their legal boundries, their borders...it is no longer their money. It's like if someone robs a store in California and then goes across the border to Mexico, he's not technically under pursuit anymore (given that the Mexican governemnt has no problem hosting him) because it is outside Californian legal boundries.....same thing applies for offshore banking.I can't say about the America, but in Canada, the police department would contact the appropriate authorities in the states to have the criminal extradited back into Canada. So, yay, the search does go on.

I only think Mexico is a popular place to flee too because the Mexican government is largely useless, and its police department too corrupt to deal with. However, how often do you hear of Washington making a border break into BC?

I can't say about the America, but in Canada, the police department would contact the appropriate authorities in the states to have the criminal extradited back into Canada. So, yay, the search does go on.

I only think Mexico is a popular place to flee too because the Mexican government is largely useless, and its police department too corrupt to deal with. However, how often do you hear of Washington making a border break into BC?

No, wait..you're exactly right...but then this plays into my point. In MOST countries, "tax evasion" is illegal and they WILL report you...but in tax havens (look at the word..."tax haven"), "tax evasion" is not recognized. That's the whole point of Swiss banks, for example. Of course there is alot more pressure applied on Swiss banks than there used to be, and alot more regulations...but it's still generally free.

Now let's make the analogy. Some countries do not recognize extradition pleas from America...most do. Some countries do not recognize tax evasion from America. Most do.

See how it works?

No, wait..you're exactly right...but then this plays into my point. In MOST countries, "tax evasion" is illegal and they WILL report you...but in tax havens (look at the word..."tax haven"), "tax evasion" is not recognized. That's the whole point of Swiss banks, for example. Of course there is alot more pressure applied on Swiss banks than there used to be, and alot more regulations...but it's still generally free.

Now let's make the analogy. Some countries do not recognize extradition pleas from America...most do. Some countries do not recognize tax evasion from America. Most do.

See how it works?I understand your point, but do not agree with it.

No, wait..you're exactly right...but then this plays into my point. In MOST countries, "tax evasion" is illegal and they WILL report you...but in tax havens (look at the word..."tax haven"), "tax evasion" is not recognized.
Yes, so they won't ask you where the money is coming from. But the standard rule is nonetheless that you will be taxed where you live, regardless of where your income is earned or spent (apart from sales taxes, of course). Even if you say your residency is on the Cayman Islands, if you spend a certain amount of days in Germany, you are considered a resident there and will be taxed accordingly. The only rule is that you can't be taxed by different countries for the same money, so countries set up treaties and the like to work these things out, and those usually also include stuff on tax evasion.

Using foreign financial centres to evade tax is all about taking the money you earn and moving it abroad. Then, when the tax office asks you for a tax return, you don't tell them about the money in your Swiss bank account. And because Switzerland prides itself on secretive banks, no one can find out who that account belongs to - unless they start talking to criminals, as the German government did in this case.

So if the German government knows about the money, they can tax you for it. And if they find out that you lied on your tax return, they will come after you. I can't imagine the rules are any different for the US, but ask Smunkee - she does tax accounting.

But nonetheless, in Germany, tax evasion is a crime, and people don't have the right to the proceeds of crime.
Yes but....it becomes an international issue at this point..and since the German government cannot legally access the funds in the tax havens, it cannot convict you of anything. Legally, that money doesn't exist as far as Germany should be concerned, legally anyway.

For instance. In America (as in Germany), tax evasion is obviously a crime, duh, right? But if your money is in an offshore account in a country that protects it's clients AGAINST their home countries and does NOT recognize tax evasion....then America has no case because it legally has no jurisdiction over those money in foreign lands. The way they will convict you, if you any of that non taxed money is used in America...in which case kiss your ass goodbye, you're going to the federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.
I understand your point, but do not agree with it.
Well but it's not whether you agree or not...it's whether the countries in question recongize tax evasion as a crime. Tax havens generally do not, that's what makes them tax havens. Thus, legally, there is no legal reason why Lichtenstein, or other tax havens, should give up their clients to Germany (Germany is just the example in this case, obviously)....

See what I'm saying? Now, if you want to argue that you don't like it...that's another case. I see the points against it...but I personally support it.

No, wait..you're exactly right...but then this plays into my point. In MOST countries, "tax evasion" is illegal and they WILL report you...but in tax havens (look at the word..."tax haven"), "tax evasion" is not recognized. That's the whole point of Swiss banks, for example. Of course there is alot more pressure applied on Swiss banks than there used to be, and alot more regulations...but it's still generally free.

Now let's make the analogy. Some countries do not recognize extradition pleas from America...most do. Some countries do not recognize tax evasion from America. Most do.

See how it works?But nonetheless, in Germany, tax evasion is a crime, and people don't have the right to the proceeds of crime (I'd assume).

Yes but....it becomes an international issue at this point..and since the German government cannot legally access the funds in the tax havens, it cannot convict you of anything. Legally, that money doesn't exist as far as Germany should be concerned, legally anyway.I'm not sure about German law, but I would assume that in spite of the illegality of the gathering of evidence, it's still possible to prosecute, because otherwise they wouldn't have paid for the records.

For instance. In America (as in Germany), tax evasion is obviously a crime, duh, right? But if your money is in an offshore account in a country that protects it's clients AGAINST their home countries and does NOT recognize tax evasion....then America has no case because it legally has no jurisdiction over those money in foreign lands.
I think it's more because the U.S. wouldn't have the evidence that that money exists, if they don't have the records to the accounts in those foreign countries.

Germany is, as it were, the most wicked and destructive country in Europe, perhaps in the history of the world, so news like this should never be surprising.

Well but it's not whether you agree or not...it's whether the countries in question recongize tax evasion as a crime. Tax havens generally do not, that's what makes them tax havens. Thus, legally, there is no legal reason why Lichtenstein, or other tax havens, should give up their clients to Germany (Germany is just the example in this case, obviously)....

See what I'm saying? Now, if you want to argue that you don't like it...that's another case. I see the points against it...but I personally support it.
Ok, so you rape some chick, border rush to Mexico, then catch a flight to some ass backwards country where the chick would be considered the criminal. Just because that said ass backwards country does not consider you to be guilty of any crime, the US government should not try to get that government to extradite you?

It's hard to say. Certainly one country's laws aren't inherently more important than another's. I suppose it would depend on the principle of doing or not doing this vs. the harm of doing or not doing so. I'd say the latter is more compelling if one was to argue against Germany's actions.
Tax evasion in Liechtenstein is regarded as nothing more serious than getting a speeding ticket, whereas in Germany, it's a serious crime.
But isn't that how offshore banks work? That's it's not tax money because you put it outside the country and aslong as you don't spend it inside the country, it's not legally their tax money...?
Taking the money out of Germany without paying taxes for it is a crime.
But by bringing it outside their legal boundries, their borders...it is no longer their money. It's like if someone robs a store in California and then goes across the border to Mexico, he's not technically under pursuit anymore (given that the Mexican governemnt has no problem hosting him) because it is outside Californian legal boundries.....same thing applies for offshore banking.
Stealing a car and taking it to Mexico but staying in the U.S. would still get you arrested for stealing a car, no?
But nonetheless, in Germany, tax evasion is a crime, and people don't have the right to the proceeds of crime (I'd assume).
That's right.
I'm not sure about German law, but I would assume that in spite of the illegality of the gathering of evidence, it's still possible to prosecute, because otherwise they wouldn't have paid for the records.
It's not like they hired someone to steal.
The person in question approached the German intelligence agency with information on international cash flow, information that every intelligence service is highly interested in.
As it happens, the data also contained information about people who evaded taxes and thus committed a crime.
Only then did the Bundesnachrichtendienst contact their colleagues at the tax office as they were to required to do.
I think it's more because the U.S. wouldn't have the evidence that that money exists, if they don't have the records to the accounts in those foreign countries.
And there is a difference in courts, too. I believe that in the U.S. information attained this way would be "fruit off the forbidden tree" - but over here, while being argued over, it's not dismissed as easily for the crime happened nevertheless.
Germany is, as it were, the most wicked and destructive country in Europe, perhaps in the history of the world, so news like this should never be surprising.
Fuck you.

Ok, so you rape some chick, border rush to Mexico, then catch a flight to some ass backwards country where the chick would be considered the criminal. Just because that said ass backwards country does not consider you to be guilty of any crime, the US government should not try to get that government to extradite you?
To continue with your example, said country the criminal fled to has a history of making a living of hiding criminals, supporting them in their flight.

Just like Liechtenstein, Monaco, or Andorra support tax evasion.

Surely such evidence would never stand up in court as it was illegally obtained?

Fuck you.

I best be careful it would seem, lest I find myself among the many many other innocent and harmless civilians under the graves that dot Europe marked:

"Fusille par les Allemands"

I'm kinda glad that the OECD and Luxembourg are backing Germany in this against Liechtenstein's "Help! Help! We're being oppressed!" rhetoric. Liechtenstein is currently aiding criminal activity in Germany, whether directly or indirectly. Germany has a right to put a stop to it, just as much as Israel had a right to go after Hezballah for kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

Surely such evidence would never stand up in court as it was illegally obtained?Wouldn't necessarily matter. It can be used as an indicator for sufficient suspicion that illegal activity has occured and thus as a basis for search warrants. This could be a different matter entirely, and the evidence contained on the DVD itself wouldn't be needed in court.

But wouldn't that also mean that they couldn't use that money in Germany (well, they could but bringing it into the country would mean having to pay taxes on it)? Doesn't that mean it's their money to do with it what they see fit. If I wish to invest my money outside my nations borders, there's nothing this government can do...because the money is not under their jurisdication, right?

Well but it's NOT tax money because they are not spending it in the German state, but rather keeping it outside the country....so technically it's NOT tax money.

*Gladely takes them but shares them with other like minded pro-Lichtenstein people*

Actually they offense is that those money has been transfered to Liechtenstein and a good amount also has been transfered back to Germany to be spend there underhand and thus avoiding taxes.

Surely such evidence would never stand up in court as it was illegally obtained?
Maybe, maybe not - but like Laerod pointed out, it can be used to back up reasonable suspicion or probably cause which then lead to evidence that can be used in court.
I best be careful it would seem, lest I find myself among the many many other innocent and harmless civilians under the graves that dot Europe marked:

"Fusille par les Allemands"
Enough of this flamebaiting. I'm done with you.
If you don't want to partake in the discussion of the topic of this thread - get lost.
I'm kinda glad that the OECD and Luxembourg are backing Germany in this against Liechtenstein's "Help! Help! We're being oppressed!" rhetoric. Liechtenstein is currently aiding criminal activity in Germany, whether directly or indirectly. Germany has a right to put a stop to it, just as much as Israel had a right to go after Hezballah for kidnapping Israeli soldiers.
So am I.

Just pointing out the historical realities which inform a healthy skepticism toward anything Germany ever does, and a wary eye on that most catastrophic of all nations.Yeah, why should one rely on reality when one can rely on prejudice :p

Just pointing out the historical realities which inform a healthy skepticism toward anything Germany ever does, and a wary eye on that most catastrophic of all nations.

Historical perspective of Germany's actions with respect to its neighbors is important to keep in mind, and is a card turned in Lichtenstein's favor from the get-go.
Again, get on topic or get lost.

Historical perspective of Germany's actions with respect to its neighbors is important to keep in mind, and is a card turned in Lichtenstein's favor from the get-go.I seriously doubt there'll be any beheadings of Liechtensteiners should they not convert...

Enough of this flamebaiting. I'm done with you.
If you don't want to partake in the discussion of the topic of this thread - get lost.

Just pointing out the historical realities which inform a healthy skepticism toward anything Germany ever does, and a wary eye on that most catastrophic of all nations.

Historical perspective of Germany's actions with respect to its neighbors is important to keep in mind, and is a card turned in Lichtenstein's favor from the get-go.

Liechtenstein is currently aiding criminal activity in Germany, whether directly or indirectly.
The only thing Liechtenstein is doing is

a) not asking where the money is coming from;
b) not cooperating when anyone asks where the money is coming from.

That's what good bankers do, because it's none of their business. Fact of the matter is that offshore financial centres are a force of competition that tax collection agencies don't like to face. If people have realistic ways of getting around paying taxes, then for a government so survive it would have to do things with the money that are acceptable to the people who pay it. Tax evasion is a way of forcing these monopolies to be at least a little bit more disciplined, and if financial centres like Liechtenstein can provide a vehicle for that, then good on them. Whether it's the EU yelling at Switzerland, the US yelling at the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or the OECD yelling at Liechtenstein, we're just witnessing a lazy monopolist complaining about competition.

Historical perspective of Germany's actions with respect to its neighbors is important to keep in mind, and is a card turned in Lichtenstein's favor from the get-go.
You're being obnoxiously silly.

The only thing Liechtenstein is doing is

a) not asking where the money is coming from;
b) not cooperating when anyone asks where the money is coming from.

That's what good bankers do, because it's none of their business. Fact of the matter is that offshore financial centres are a force of competition that tax collection agencies don't like to face. If people have realistic ways of getting around paying taxes, then for a government so survive it would have to do things with the money that are acceptable to the people who pay it. Tax evasion is a way of forcing these monopolies to be at least a little bit more disciplined, and if financial centres like Liechtenstein can provide a vehicle for that, then good on them. Whether it's the EU yelling at Switzerland, the US yelling at the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or the OECD yelling at Liechtenstein, we're just witnessing a lazy monopolist complaining about competition.


You're being obnoxiously silly.

And c) Not asking where the money is going to. Since it will be transfered back to Germany at one time for the owner of the money, who still lives in Germany usually, be able to make any use of its money.

BTW, with the same logic you could sanctify murder since the state usually has a monopoly of violence and any nation who give safe haven to murderers would just instilling some competition. Like the GDR for example did give safe haven for RAF terrorists.

The only thing Liechtenstein is doing is

a) not asking where the money is coming from;
b) not cooperating when anyone asks where the money is coming from.

That's what good bankers do, because it's none of their business. Incorrect. The same argument could be used to vindicate people who sell stolen objects. Liechtenstein is profitting from criminal activity. Why, it's not at all implausible to accuse Liechtenstein of actively attracting citizens of other countries and actively supporting them in committing crimes. There have been numerous instances where Swiss bankers have been caught on tape advising their would-be clients on how to best cheat their country where they have citizenship.
Fact of the matter is that offshore financial centres are a force of competition that tax collection agencies don't like to face. If people have realistic ways of getting around paying taxes, then for a government so survive it would have to do things with the money that are acceptable to the people who pay it. Tax evasion is a way of forcing these monopolies to be at least a little bit more disciplined, and if financial centres like Liechtenstein can provide a vehicle for that, then good on them. Whether it's the EU yelling at Switzerland, the US yelling at the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or the OECD yelling at Liechtenstein, we're just witnessing a lazy monopolist complaining about competition.Incorrect. It is not acceptable competition. Acceptable competition would be having lower taxes and thus attracting new residents or citizens. That is acceptable. What Liechtenstein is doing is akin to black market competition to the regular market.
You're being obnoxiously silly.He's in China, and by extension of his rationale, a communist.

And c) Not asking where the money is going to. Since it will be transfered back to Germany at one time for the owner of the money, who still lives in Germany usually, be able to make any use of its money.
Yes. The point is that the banker doesn't need to know anything about where the money comes from and what it will be used for. His business isn't making value judgements, but being a neutral and safe place to store wealth.

BTW, with the same logic you could sanctify murder since the state usually has a monopoly of violence and any nation who give safe haven to murderers would just instilling some competition. Like the GDR for example did give safe haven for RAF terrorists.
It's the same principle, but the results are a bit different. If people get murdered, that's bad. If the German government is forced to spend money where it actually does some good, then in my view that's a good thing.

By the way, Einstein fled the German government and went to the US, along with lots of other people. Again, the same principle but you'd be hard-pressed to call it a bad thing. The existence of alternatives is the only reliable way we have of limiting government power and I'd be inherently sceptical about governments arguing against these alternatives.

Yes. The point is that the banker doesn't need to know anything about where the money comes from and what it will be used for. His business isn't making value judgements, but being a neutral and safe place to store wealth.Proof for this?
It's the same principle, but the results are a bit different. If people get murdered, that's bad. If the German government is forced to spend money where it actually does some good, then in my view that's a good thing.Incorrect. Helping tax evasion does not force the government to spend money where it actually does some good.
By the way, Einstein fled the German government and went to the US, along with lots of other people. Again, the same principle but you'd be hard-pressed to call it a bad thing. The existence of alternatives is the only reliable way we have of limiting government power and I'd be inherently sceptical about governments arguing against these alternatives.I'm all for people being allowed to leave where they are. Countries should only be allowed to restrict who enters. Money and people leaving a country are not comparable.

Incorrect. The same argument could be used to vindicate people who sell stolen objects.
I suppose this one is a question of perspective. I don't think a significant percentage of today's tax money rightfully belongs to the community (and none of it belongs to the government), unlike stolen goods which rightfully belong to their owners.

Liechtenstein is profitting from criminal activity. Why, it's not at all implausible to accuse Liechtenstein of actively attracting citizens of other countries and actively supporting them in committing crimes.
So next time you go to a bank, you would be happy to fill out a little booklet detailing exactly where the money you put into an account came from, knowing that this information will be made public if the bank feels the need?

Failing to do so would mean that perhaps you stole some of that money, so they'd be profiting from criminal activities. Given the sheer number of possible combinations of crime and object, really everyone you ever have anything to do with would really need to check you out from top to bottom, just to be on the safe side. Gläserner Mensch, and all that...

There have been numerous instances where Swiss bankers have been caught on tape advising their would-be clients on how to best cheat their country where they have citizenship.
Again, I'm not all that outraged. But that's just myself, if the German government manages to get their hands on them I see no legal boundaries to trying them for it.

Of course, neither are there any good reasons why the Swiss government should care either way.

Incorrect. It is not acceptable competition. Acceptable competition would be having lower taxes and thus attracting new residents or citizens. That is acceptable. What Liechtenstein is doing is akin to black market competition to the regular market.
A black market is just a regular market the government doesn't officially sanction. Of course you're not going to see any government sanction a market for minimising one's tax bill, but the real point is that the existence of this market is a fault of the government's way of taking and spending money in the first place. If someone were to avoid Estonian taxes, then you'd have a case - but you don't have to be particularly selfish, evil or criminal to want avoid the German tax office. There is no logic, fairness, solidarity or sense in what they do, particularly to rich people.

So really, my approach to all of this is that if they want to tax someone, they can try and find the money. I'm don't see the point of making it intentionally easy for them and I don't see the point of demonising those who have the sense or means to make it hard. What I would like the German government to do with regards to tax evaders is acknowledge when it is beaten and leave it at that, not to start funding foreign criminals or international "let's beat the little guy" contests. Or better yet, start providing some value for money for all taxpayers, not just those who can't afford to pay anyways.

Proof for this?
Proof of what a bank does?

Incorrect. Helping tax evasion does not force the government to spend money where it actually does some good.
It reduces the amount of money it has available, forcing it to economise. You're right, that doesn't mean it will necessarily do any good - but in that case it wouldn't have done even without any tax evasion and we'd be better off minimising the money the government gets full stop.

And in the long term, if people feel they actually fund something worthwhile, it stands to reason that they'd feel less compelled to go out of their way not to do so.

I'm all for people being allowed to leave where they are. Countries should only be allowed to restrict who enters.
A curious distinction.

Money and people leaving a country are not comparable.
And a vastly more curious one.

The only thing Liechtenstein is doing is

a) not asking where the money is coming from;
b) not cooperating when anyone asks where the money is coming from.

That's what good bankers do, because it's none of their business. Fact of the matter is that offshore financial centres are a force of competition that tax collection agencies don't like to face. If people have realistic ways of getting around paying taxes, then for a government so survive it would have to do things with the money that are acceptable to the people who pay it. Tax evasion is a way of forcing these monopolies to be at least a little bit more disciplined, and if financial centres like Liechtenstein can provide a vehicle for that, then good on them. Whether it's the EU yelling at Switzerland, the US yelling at the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or the OECD yelling at Liechtenstein, we're just witnessing a lazy monopolist complaining about competition.


You're being obnoxiously silly.

Proof for this?
Incorrect. Helping tax evasion does not force the government to spend money where it actually does some good.
True chances are high that people evading taxes would do this regardless for what the money it would be spend. Its the fact that they have to give away money which bothers them, not the issues for which the money is spend.

I actually doubt that Germany spends its money for worse issues than for example the PRC does.

I'm all for people being allowed to leave where they are. Countries should only be allowed to restrict who enters. Money and people leaving a country are not comparable.
Not to mention the fact that Einstein's live had been in danger. I somehow doubt this is also the case with Zumwinkel and his millions he is accused to have hidden in Liechtenstein.

True chances are high that people evading taxes would do this regardless for what the money it would be spend. Its the fact that they have to give away money which bothers them, not the issues for which the money is spend.
They give money away by the millions for other stuff. So it's not the giving away part at all, it's the purpose which the giving away serves. You could argue that if a government is constrained to taking only tax money that is given voluntarily, it would become useless as a government, but I think that's a rather vile view to take on what exactly the use of a government is in the first place.

I actually doubt that Germany spends its money for worse issues than for example the PRC does.
Chances are that if people get the chance to avoid taxes in the PRC, they probably do. But just because China kills more of its own citizens doesn't tell us anything about the morality or not of the US enforcing the death penalty - it's not a thing I would consider relative.

Not to mention the fact that Einstein's live had been in danger. I somehow doubt this is also the case with Zumwinkel and his millions he is accused to have hidden in Liechtenstein.
Didn't it turn out that he actually already had paid what he was supposed to? I mean, I didn't keep up with the news, but a lot of this is just the boulevard press having a field day.

Germany is, as it were, the most wicked and destructive country in Europe, perhaps in the history of the world, so news like this should never be surprising.

You're just jealous of their freedom.

Ignorant, but jealous.

They give money away by the millions for other stuff. So it's not the giving away part at all, it's the purpose which the giving away serves. You could argue that if a government is constrained to taking only tax money that is given voluntarily, it would become useless as a government, but I think that's a rather vile view to take on what exactly the use of a government is in the first place.
To be fair, I actually believe it to be good tat you question the governments monopolies, but I can't see why you do this mainly in the fiscal sector.

Your view seems to be rather restricted.


Chances are that if people get the chance to avoid taxes in the PRC, they probably do. But just because China kills more of its own citizens doesn't tell us anything about the morality or not of the US enforcing the death penalty - it's not a thing I would consider relative.
It did sound that you were under the impression that Germany spends its money particularly bad.

But to bring this back to Germany and Liechtenstein, do you believe that Liechtenstein spends its money better than Germany?

Didn't it turn out that he actually already had paid what he was supposed to? I mean, I didn't keep up with the news, but a lot of this is just the boulevard press having a field day.
I believe it not to be jugded yet. that's why I used accused

....I'm sorry but have I missed something huge other than massive tax evasion?

It's not actually tax evasion. It's simply not giving the state obscene amounts of money that it will only misuse.

You're just jealous of their freedom.

Ignorant, but jealous.

That's a fascinating point of view, I'm sure!

That's a fascinating point of view, I'm sure!

What, that's all the comeback you can think off? You disappoint me.

What, that's all the comeback you can think off? You disappoint me.

Fascinating, I'm sure!

Germany is, as it were, the most wicked and destructive country in Europe, perhaps in the history of the world, so news like this should never be surprising.
Achso...und China steht für Recht, Frieden, Freiheit und Einigkeit und hat noch nie etwas Unrecht gemacht, oder? Schau das Speigelbild an.....

Fuck you.
Relax...don't get yourself banned because of his ignorance and inability to see the world (and his country) for how it really is.

I sure wish I were wealthy enough not to have to pay any taxes...

Relax...don't get yourself banned because of his ignorance and inability to see the world (and his country) for how it really is.

Who invaded whose country in August 1914?

Which was the pesky country that killed all those Jews and started that great big war a few decades later?

You must have some pretty outlandish notions about how the the world really is.

Who invaded whose country in August 1914?

Which was the pesky country that killed all those Jews and started that great big war a few decades later?

You must have some pretty outlandish notions about how the the world really is.
I'd consider the notion that the Germans are still imperialists and Nazis pretty outlandish. Besides, most of their population wasn't even born before 1945.

Who invaded whose country in August 1914?

Which was the pesky country that killed all those Jews and started that great big war a few decades later?

You must have some pretty outlandish notions about how the the world really is.

You are aware that that was 2 generations ago, yes?
And you are also aware that only a very small minority of Germans today actually were alive back then?
Or are you more Old-Testament on this issue, the sins of the fathers and all that for the next few hundered generations?

Germany is, as it were, the most wicked and destructive country in Europe, perhaps in the history of the world, so news like this should never be surprising.No. That would be the UK / British Empire. Today, however, the US is trying hard to become the most wicked and destructive country in the world.

*claps enthusiastically*

Finally someone has the guts to go after the criminals who avoid paying their fair contribution to society by illegally hiding their money in tax havens such as Liechtenstein.

Seriously, let the tax havens whine as much as they want. All the G-7 ought to trample tax haven's banking secret policies and finally put a stop to tax evasion and terrorism funding, two of the worst problems our governments have to face and made possible only because a handful of corrupt, extremely rich governments in small countries threw all sense of morality and decency out of the window in order to make more money.

Which is precisely why the world ought only to keep a weary eye on them, rather than more drastic and forceful measures.
Eh? You need to keep a weary eye on Germans because they aren't Nazis?

I'd consider the notion that the Germans are still imperialists and Nazis pretty outlandish. Besides, most of their population wasn't even born before 1945.

Which is precisely why the world ought only to keep a weary eye on them, rather than more drastic and forceful measures.

No. That would be the UK / British Empire. Today, however, the US is trying hard to become the most wicked and destructive country in the world.

That's a remarkably novel take on history, and I'm sure you can become a college professor one day and publish a book about it!

I can already imagine a title:

"Ten Oceans of Blood: How the British Empire was Worse than Both World Wars - A Deconstructionist Study in Conflicts and Suppressed Histories and Voices"

You can't use that though or I'll take you to court.

You are aware that that was 2 generations ago, yes?
And you are also aware that only a very small minority of Germans today actually were alive back then?
Or are you more Old-Testament on this issue, the sins of the fathers and all that for the next few hundered generations?

Not a hundred generations, I imagine if they behave themselves for 5 that would be enough.

The German spirit can be forgiven, but not forgotten.

Eh? You need to keep a weary eye on Germans because they aren't Nazis?

You should read an entire sentence before posting a purported reply, and when you make an earnest effort to reply, reply to what the sentence means, not to some imaginary meaning concocted from words in the sentence taken out of their sensible context.

Not a hundred generations, I imagine if they behave themselves for 5 that would be enough.

The German spirit can be forgiven, but not forgotten.

150 years?
Wow.
I think the world was a bit rash forgiving the US for their genocide of Native Americans, slave trading and the murder of millions of Africans, then.

The world is perfectly free to do as it pleases, as is the United States.

I can't help but think you've failed to comprehend something about what you've read though.

to wit:

"...forgiven, but not forgotten."

I'm sure you've got a well thought out notion there, all the same.

Ah. So you're trying to use as many words as possible to say that in your opinion, Germany is forgiven for what happend 60 years ago, but that you personally are taking it upon you to make sure everybody remembers it?

150 years?
Wow.
I think the world was a bit rash forgiving the US for their genocide of Native Americans, slave trading and the murder of millions of Africans, then.

The world is perfectly free to do as it pleases, as is the United States.

I can't help but think you've failed to comprehend something about what you've read though.

to wit:

"...forgiven, but not forgotten."

I'm sure you've got a well thought out notion there, all the same.

Firstly, the Cayman Islands are a British Territory, not an independent nation!
(if we forget these things then the USA will try and take over parts of Britain!)

Next, Liechtenstein is a doubly landlocked Country, it has no access to a sea nor do it's neighbouring countries. Therefore It can't fight Germany. (much as people would love a world war 3 (Maybe the USA could be on time this time!) against Germany ).

The sensible thing to do is boycott German products and foce all governments to impose trade sanctions on Germany until it apologises, stops the Prosecutions and Compensates Liechtenstein.

I'm siding with the Germans here.

The only reason the world isn't a totally dog-eat-dog place where the little players get gobbled up and spit out by the big players is the forbearance of the big players. The little Tax Havens find ways to abuse The Establishment, but they owe their very existence to The Establishment. If they get too smug and proud and arrogant, and take advantage too much, the big powers may one day question why they are bothering to maintain the system. Invasion is not going to happen, but if the little guys insist on finding loopholes in the Rules, expect the bigger powers to update those Rules.

They give money away by the millions for other stuff. So it's not the giving away part at all, it's the purpose which the giving away serves. You could argue that if a government is constrained to taking only tax money that is given voluntarily, it would become useless as a government, but I think that's a rather vile view to take on what exactly the use of a government is in the first place.


Chances are that if people get the chance to avoid taxes in the PRC, they probably do. But just because China kills more of its own citizens doesn't tell us anything about the morality or not of the US enforcing the death penalty - it's not a thing I would consider relative.


Didn't it turn out that he actually already had paid what he was supposed to? I mean, I didn't keep up with the news, but a lot of this is just the boulevard press having a field day.

Firstly, the Cayman Islands are a British Territory, not an independent nation!
(if we forget these things then the USA will try and take over parts of Britain!)

Next, Liechtenstein is a doubly landlocked Country, it has no access to a sea nor do it's neighbouring countries. Therefore It can't fight Germany. (much as people would love a world war 3 (Maybe the USA could be on time this time!) against Germany ).

The sensible thing to do is boycott German products and foce all governments to impose trade sanctions on Germany until it apologises, stops the Prosecutions and Compensates Liechtenstein.

I can't see what the fact of Liechtenstein being landlocked should have any effect on its ability to fight Germany :confused:

I also do not think that Liechtenstein should have the ability to force any other nations to become involved into this nor why it should have the ability to force Germany for stopping the prosecution of German citizens for tax evasion.

While the way how the German tax office has come into possession of the informations is doubtable at best and should have consequences for the tax office, I do not think that this is really a legitimation for WWIII.

It has no border with Germany therefore can't fight it.

Also it's doubly landlocked. That means if it annexed the country next door it still wouldn't have a coastline.

It has no border with Germany therefore can't fight it.

Also it's doubly landlocked. That means if it annexed the country next door it still wouldn't have a coastline.

But please why do they need a coastline to fight Germany :confused:

Liechtenstein and Germany are on the same continent.

If they would annex Austria or Switzerland they surely wouldn't have a coastline, but a common border with Germany.

Tough I do not see any logic in Liechtenstein annexing any of its neighbors.

It has no border with Germany therefore can't fight it.

Also it's doubly landlocked. That means if it annexed the country next door it still wouldn't have a coastline.
You do realize the utter ridicule of such an idea as "Liechtenstein declaring war on Germany", right?

I'm not sure how much discipline tax evasion puts on a government. It would appear more to increase taxes further than get the government to reduce taxes. Cutting taxes is always easier when tax revenues are high than when they are low after all. So basically tax evaders put negative externalities on those who are honest with their taxes. I'm going to have to side with Germany.

You should read an entire sentence before posting a purported reply, and when you make an earnest effort to reply, reply to what the sentence means, not to some imaginary meaning concocted from words in the sentence taken out of their sensible context.
I can only reply to what you post. If you say one thing and mean another, it really isn't my problem. As far as I'm concerned, when you suggested that we keep a wary eye on the Germans in reply to my pointing out that they aren't Nazis, you meant just that.

If they would annex Austria or Switzerland they surely wouldn't have a coastline, but a common border with Germany.

Tough I do not see any logic in Liechtenstein annexing any of its neighbors.
EFFECTIVELY, Liechtenstein was annexed to Switzerland a long time ago: the currency is the Swiss franc, there is no customs at the Swiss border (although there is at the Austrian side), etc. The only reason it is not just a canton of Switzerland is that Switzerland is constitutionally a republic, so Liechtenstein would have to get rid of their princes in order to formally join the Confederation, and they still like the prince.

EFFECTIVELY, Liechtenstein was annexed to Switzerland a long time ago: the currency is the Swiss franc, there is no customs at the Swiss border (although there is at the Austrian side), etc. The only reason it is not just a canton of Switzerland is that Switzerland is constitutionally a republic, so Liechtenstein would have to get rid of their princes in order to formally join the Confederation, and they still like the prince.
As I've understood Dukeburyshire suggested the other way round, not Switzerland annexing Liechtenstein, but Liechtenstein annexing Switzerland.

Why Liechtenstein should do this and why Liechtenstein thus urgently seems to need a ocean shore is beyond my horizon.

Still, no Swiss person thinks that Lichtenstein is a part of Switzerland...
Maybe we need to ask some Swiss people. My impression was that the Swiss most decidely do consider Liechtenstein just a slightly irregular canton (sort of like Washington, DC is not a regular state, but is certainly in the US).

EFFECTIVELY, Liechtenstein was annexed to Switzerland a long time ago: the currency is the Swiss franc, there is no customs at the Swiss border (although there is at the Austrian side), etc. The only reason it is not just a canton of Switzerland is that Switzerland is constitutionally a republic, so Liechtenstein would have to get rid of their princes in order to formally join the Confederation, and they still like the prince.
Still, no Swiss person thinks that Lichtenstein is a part of Switzerland...it's just usually called that little rich mountain country/area in between "here and Austria".

Maybe we need to ask some Swiss people. My impression was that the Swiss most decidely do consider Liechtenstein just a slightly irregular canton (sort of like Washington, DC is not a regular state, but is certainly in the US).
But unlike Washington DC, Liechtenstein is recognized widely as a sovereign nation, regardless what Urs Average might think about this.

Maybe we need to ask some Swiss people. My impression was that the Swiss most decidely do consider Liechtenstein just a slightly irregular canton (sort of like Washington, DC is not a regular state, but is certainly in the US).
When it comes to Switzerland, I know what I'm talking about. I'm the most Swiss American you'll meet. ;)

D' Schwiizer soge nid dass Lichtenstein eis teil vo d Schwiiz isch. ;)

Swiss 100% don't consider Lichtenstein a part of Switzerland and any comparison to how Americans view Washington D.C. couldn't be farther from the truth.

Maybe we need to ask some Swiss people. My impression was that the Swiss most decidely do consider Liechtenstein just a slightly irregular canton (sort of like Washington, DC is not a regular state, but is certainly in the US).
I doubt it. I've been to Liechtenstein, and they're (rightly) proud of their independence.

That'll be as effective as that time when Rwanda imposed sanctions on France.

Well if sanctions can work both ways, Germans'll be going without false teeth for a while.

I doubt it. I've been to Liechtenstein, and they're (rightly) proud of their independence.
I've been to Liechtenstein. When I was on my post-college Wanderjahr, I heard a couple of German kids in a youth hostel arguing about how big Liechtenstein was, one saying it was just like a little town and you could walk across it in 15 minutes, and the other say oh no, a little speck on the map is deceiving, it's really huge. So I had to try walking across Liechtenstein. The map showed only one major road which made a giant S-shape, so I decided to hike straight east (Chur to Feldstein, if you want to break out a map). I discovered that there is a reason the road goes as it does: you go up, up, up, until there are only little logging trails, and then not even that, and then you are faced with a sheer drop. I dropped my sleeping bag, tried to chase after it, started tumbling head over heels, almost broke my neck until I came to rest in a nice soft patch of.... stinging nettles.

I returned by the road. For your info, it takes five hours to walk across Liechtenstein by the "straight" path, four hours to walk back following the curvy road. There was a barrier between Liechtenstein and Austria, no barrier at all between Switzerland and Liechtenstein. I didn't ask any of the locals how seriously they took the "independence" of Liechtenstein; my impression however was that it was more of a fiction than anything else.

I've been to Liechtenstein. When I was on my post-college Wanderjahr, I heard a couple of German kids in a youth hostel arguing about how big Liechtenstein was, one saying it was just like a little town and you could walk across it in 15 minutes, and the other say oh no, a little speck on the map is deceiving, it's really huge. So I had to try walking across Liechtenstein. The map showed only one major road which made a giant S-shape, so I decided to hike straight east (Chur to Feldstein, if you want to break out a map). I discovered that there is a reason the road goes as it does: you go up, up, up, until there are only little logging trails, and then not even that, and then you are faced with a sheer drop. I dropped my sleeping bag, tried to chase after it, started tumbling head over heels, almost broke my neck until I came to rest in a nice soft patch of.... stinging nettles.

I returned by the road. For your info, it takes five hours to walk across Liechtenstein by the "straight" path, four hours to walk back following the curvy road. There was a barrier between Liechtenstein and Austria, no barrier at all between Switzerland and Liechtenstein. I didn't ask any of the locals how seriously they took the "independence" of Liechtenstein; my impression however was that it was more of a fiction than anything else.
Intersting story, but I've already told you...Lichtenstein is viewed as an independent nation in Switzerland. 100%

Intersting story, but I've already told you...Lichtenstein is viewed as an independent nation in Switzerland. 100%
So the customs union and currency unification should really be viewed as like another EU, except with only two (rather unequally sized!) members? Is that a better analogy?

So the customs union and currency unification should really be viewed as like another EU, except with only two (rather unequally sized!) members? Is that a better analogy?
No....it's not like the EU at all because the EU is also a political and legal union....

I don't know what's so hard to grasp. Lichtenstein is an independent country...

As is the Vatican in Italy, as is San Marino and all those other little countries.

To be fair, I actually believe it to be good tat you question the governments monopolies, but I can't see why you do this mainly in the fiscal sector.
What other sector is there? Without money, a government can't do a thing.

Really, I've stopped seeing social and economic policies as fundamentally different. Both of them are the imposition of violence on people by the state in some form or another. If Liechtenstein made fake ID cards for people so that they wouldn't be persecuted, then we'd be in exactly the same situation as we are in this tax evasion case, and my answer would be no different: the fact that Liechtenstein does something that helps criminal behaviour according to German law is that German law inspires this particular criminal behaviour by being bad law.

It's just that fiscal competition between governments is probably going to occur more often because for some reason harsh taxation isn't seen in as bad a light as a harsh violation of a person in any other way and because money can flow freely across the world.

It did sound that you were under the impression that Germany spends its money particularly bad.
Well, compared to many countries, it does. There's cash going to the east, cash going to ridiculous levels of welfare dependency, cash going to fund Roland Koch's next anti-foreigner campaign, cash going to utterly bankrupt states (that one's a big one), cash going to feed many thousands of useless army conscripts and so on and so forth. And that's not even mentioning the collapse of the retirement system or spending money on EU farm subsidies.

I can see why people are hesitant to donate money to causes like that - the German government just plain sucks. ;)

But to bring this back to Germany and Liechtenstein, do you believe that Liechtenstein spends its money better than Germany?
It's a smaller country, so there's less opportunity for waste.

I can't seem to find a copy of their government budget on the web, so it's hard to tell you any more. I know that apparently they give money to churches, like Germany, which is a big no-no in my book. Otherwise I just know that most of the tax income goes to municipalities. So I can't say for sure whether they spend the money better, but I would suspect that it does.

I'm not sure how much discipline tax evasion puts on a government. It would appear more to increase taxes further than get the government to reduce taxes. Cutting taxes is always easier when tax revenues are high than when they are low after all.
Germany just had a record tax intake in the last budget. First thing they did was start a big fight on how to spend it, with the SPD now having proclaimed the economic crisis over and happily proceeding to try and revoke the reforms which got the place out of the slump in the first place.

So basically tax evaders put negative externalities on those who are honest with their taxes. I'm going to have to side with Germany.
But a government spending money badly puts negative externalities on everyone in the country, plus hurts those who get taxed directly.

I've been to Liechtenstein. When I was on my post-college Wanderjahr, I heard a couple of German kids in a youth hostel arguing about how big Liechtenstein was, one saying it was just like a little town and you could walk across it in 15 minutes, and the other say oh no, a little speck on the map is deceiving, it's really huge. So I had to try walking across Liechtenstein. The map showed only one major road which made a giant S-shape, so I decided to hike straight east (Chur to Feldstein, if you want to break out a map). I discovered that there is a reason the road goes as it does: you go up, up, up, until there are only little logging trails, and then not even that, and then you are faced with a sheer drop. I dropped my sleeping bag, tried to chase after it, started tumbling head over heels, almost broke my neck until I came to rest in a nice soft patch of.... stinging nettles.

I returned by the road. For your info, it takes five hours to walk across Liechtenstein by the "straight" path, four hours to walk back following the curvy road. There was a barrier between Liechtenstein and Austria, no barrier at all between Switzerland and Liechtenstein. I didn't ask any of the locals how seriously they took the "independence" of Liechtenstein; my impression however was that it was more of a fiction than anything else.
Hiking round that part of the world does not sound like my idea of fun. I went by car; the St. Gottard Pass was shut and the Tunnel had a queue because of a crash. Which meant driving all the way around Switzerland, and it seemed like a good idea to visit another country? (or two, we had lunch in Austria.)

Although by the looks of the place, they seemed quite happy to plaster their flag all over the place, although pretty much everywhere does when compared to the UK. Most countries in Europe don't have that much in borders anyway, thanks to Shengen.

It's happening AGAIN!!! D:

Clearly, both countries are completely wrong.

Lichtenstein has no obligations to Germany. They are a Sovereign State, and have obligations solely to their own populace. Germany can, of course, request that Lichtenstein assist them in enforcing GERMAN tax laws, but Lichtenstein has no obligation to actually do so.

However, likewise, Germany has no obligations to Lichtenstein. As another Sovereign State, Germany can purchase or deal with whomsoever they like - Lichtenstein can and should have no influence on that. So, Germany's purchase of the data was entirely proper.

This whole "They should respect our laws!" crap, is just that.

Germany just had a record tax intake in the last budget. First thing they did was start a big fight on how to spend it, with the SPD now having proclaimed the economic crisis over and happily proceeding to try and revoke the reforms which got the place out of the slump in the first place.

I was generalizing tax evasion.


But a government spending money badly puts negative externalities on everyone in the country, plus hurts those who get taxed directly.

And if its spent wisely it will have positive externalities on everyone in the country including those being taxed.

If taxes are anything more than zero there will be incentive to cheat so I'm betting it takes place in Estonia and would in your semi-ideal government as well. If we look at the Public Choice economic school of thought people will get the sate to hand out as many benefits as they casn get while paying as few taxes as they can get away with. This won't change however the money is spent, whether wisely or unwisely, so what it comes down to is whether the state has the legitimacy to tax, at all, or not.

Also, what incentive does the German government or the average German citizen have to letting these tax evaders go unpunished? What specific policy changes have these evaders disciplined the government to take, with evidence I will add?

Hiking round that part of the world does not sound like my idea of fun.
I was young and insane at the time. It wouldn't sound like fun to me at this age. Even then, I didn't mean to hike so long: I had my sleeping bag in case I got stuck, but I thought I would catch the train from Feldkirch back to Chur. Then, when I got to the Austrian side, there was a customs booth there, and I realized my passport was with my other stuff back in the locker in Chur, and though I could have easily have evaded it, I decided "Why should I be a lawbreaker in this peaceful and eminently law-abiding principality?"
Most countries in Europe don't have that much in borders anyway, thanks to Shengen.
This was long before Schengen. Even so, most of the borders were rather a joke. Crossing from France to Italy, the corridor in the train station forked in two, with signs saying "Dogana" and "Uscita", and since there was a big line to go to "Dogana", I decided to try "Uscita" instead. Turned out those words mean "Customs" and "Exit" :D

Also, what incentive does the German government or the average German citizen have to letting these tax evaders go unpunished?
Very little. But then, what incentive does a German citizen have to pay a wealth tax?

What specific policy changes have these evaders disciplined the government to take, with evidence I will add?
None yet. Unfortunately it's only a drop in the ocean at this point. However there have been numerous cases of informal economies arising and forcing governments to reform laws in order to get people and money back into the open (an example (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/eJTR/2004/6.html)), so in principle it's certainly possible, if it could reach the sorts of scales necessary.

But even if it didn't, Einstein leaving Germany had little effect on German policy either, but you wouldn't say it was unjustified. If people feel oppressed, then you can't really blame them for trying to evade this oppression. And as silly as that may sound to you, I think when you reach the stage of a wealth tax used to pluck holes in a budget devoted to this (http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/bundeshaushalt2008/pdf/vorsp/vsp_m.pdf), you'd feel pretty shafted as a rich person.

Anyway, why are we spending seven pages arguing about an article in Der Spiegel (or should I say, in Dem Spiegel?) which is just a petty little magazine that hardly anybody has ever even heard of?

Very little. But then, what incentive does a German citizen have to pay a wealth tax?

They pay because they want to both stay in Germany and don't want to receive the penalties of tax evasion.

None yet. Unfortunately it's only a drop in the ocean at this point. However there have been numerous cases of informal economies arising and forcing governments to reform laws in order to get people and money back into the open (an example (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/eJTR/2004/6.html)), so in principle it's certainly possible, if it could reach the sorts of scales necessary.

But even if it didn't, Einstein leaving Germany had little effect on German policy either, but you wouldn't say it was unjustified. If people feel oppressed, then you can't really blame them for trying to evade this oppression. And as silly as that may sound to you, I think when you reach the stage of a wealth tax used to pluck holes in a budget devoted to this (http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/bundeshaushalt2008/pdf/vorsp/vsp_m.pdf), you'd feel pretty shafted as a rich person.

Einstein leaving Nazi Germany is an unfair comparison. Transportation costs have lowered and per capita income has increased and even a libertarian like yourself should consider the Nazis in a different category than modern Germany.

The legitimacy of the German government's ability to tax wont be affected much by Germany's actions here. If germans dont consider what they're government does is legitimate this wont stop change, and if they do there's no problem.

Anyway, why are we spending seven pages arguing about an article in Der Spiegel (or should I say, in Dem Spiegel?) which is just a petty little magazine that hardly anybody has ever even heard of?

Why does it matter what magazine the article is from?

Why does it matter what magazine the article is from?
I was joking about this incredibly silly thread:
Have you ever heard of Der Spiegel? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549757)

The fact that Liechtenstein actually calls itself a 'country' is funny enough by itself, it's closer to a cash register I'd say.

I was joking about this incredibly silly thread:
Have you ever heard of Der Spiegel? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549757)

I remember that thread, vaguely. I was bored by it.

The fact that Liechtenstein actually calls itself a 'country' is funny enough by itself, it's closer to a cash register I'd say.
It's citizens live much happier lives than those in your Communist countries or any communist country that will ever exist. (hopefully no more appear)

Seriously, let the tax havens whine as much as they want. All the G-7 ought to trample tax haven's banking secret policies and finally put a stop to tax evasion and terrorism funding, two of the worst problems our governments have to face and made possible only because a handful of corrupt, extremely rich governments in small countries threw all sense of morality and decency out of the window in order to make more money.
Of course, sovereign nations shouldn't be allowed to have their own rules.

I can't believe people are honestly making these claims.

It's citizens live much happier lives than those in your Communist countries or any communist country that will ever exist. (hopefully no more appear)

Ptttf, can Liechtenstein project power in any meaningful way?

Ptttf, can Liechtenstein project power in any meaningful way?
Maybe not in the sense you are thinking...not Soviet sense where they could build rockets but had to force their people to stay in the country so that people wouldn't see how well the rest of the world lived in comparison to themselves, but economic power in the sense that it is extremely attractive for foreigners to invest capital there, thus bettering the citizens of Lichtenstein and their country...

Same goes for Switzerland. Are you going to tell me that Switzerland and Lichtenstein arn't economically powerful? (Not in the way that they can fund a massive military buildup and take over the world, but in the way that the average citizen is pretty rich, for global standards, and the country is generally clean, modern and well finainced)

They pay because they want to both stay in Germany and don't want to receive the penalties of tax evasion.
So everyone's incentives are equally rotten and we shouldn't be passing judgement on who's right and who's wrong.

Einstein leaving Nazi Germany is an unfair comparison.
It's just an illustration of the principle. When a persecuted minority person flees a country they too are doing something illegal in the sense that they're trying to escape a law that is illegitimate. The same would go for the same person who doesn't leave the country but just goes underground. I think that needs to be kept in mind before anyone starts showering the tax evaders with abuse.

The legitimacy of the German government's ability to tax wont be affected much by Germany's actions here. If germans dont consider what they're government does is legitimate this wont stop change, and if they do there's no problem.
Of course there's a problem. Just because the majority says there isn't doesn't make it so. It's not the majority that gets charged ridiculous taxes which are then spent on others.

Maybe not in the sense you are thinking...not Soviet sense where they could build rockets but had to force their people to stay in the country so that people wouldn't see how well the rest of the world lived in comparison to themselves, but economic power in the sense that it is extremely attractive for foreigners to invest capital there, thus bettering the citizens of Lichtenstein and their country...

Same goes for Switzerland. Are you going to tell me that Switzerland and Lichtenstein arn't economically powerful? (Not in the way that they can fund a massive military buildup and take over the world, but in the way that the average citizen is pretty rich, for global standards, and the country is generally clean, modern and well finainced)

That's meaningless, history is changed by the ability of the country to project power.

That's meaningless, history is changed by the ability of the country to project power.
But peace is maintaned by the ability of the country to ensure it's citizen's tranquility, wealthiness and happiness.

Nations like the Soviet Union who boast power to use a facade to cover up their weak society come and go, but nations like Lichtenstein and Switzerland, should they not deviate from their current social style, can theoretically remain forever*.



*or unless the world changes so drastically in a way that humanity can right now not even fathom*.

I suppose this one is a question of perspective. I don't think a significant percentage of today's tax money rightfully belongs to the community (and none of it belongs to the government), unlike stolen goods which rightfully belong to their owners.A certain number of individuals desire the privileges of living in Germany (such as living where their job is, access to products and services available in Germany, and voting rights) without desiring to pay the price set for these services. That's not a question of perspective, it's cheating out on paying the bill.
So next time you go to a bank, you would be happy to fill out a little booklet detailing exactly where the money you put into an account came from, knowing that this information will be made public if the bank feels the need?Argumentation ad absurdum. For one, we're talking about sums vastly larger than this poor student earns. Secondly, the state currently has the legal authority to investigate bank accounts, no booklet required.
Failing to do so would mean that perhaps you stole some of that money, so they'd be profiting from criminal activities. Given the sheer number of possible combinations of crime and object, really everyone you ever have anything to do with would really need to check you out from top to bottom, just to be on the safe side. Gläserner Mensch, and all that...The question of where the money comes from in this case is not "what was done to earn it?", but "who's money is it?"


Again, I'm not all that outraged. But that's just myself, if the German government manages to get their hands on them I see no legal boundaries to trying them for it.

Of course, neither are there any good reasons why the Swiss government should care either way.Exactly.


A black market is just a regular market the government doesn't officially sanction. Of course you're not going to see any government sanction a market for minimising one's tax bill, but the real point is that the existence of this market is a fault of the government's way of taking and spending money in the first place. If someone were to avoid Estonian taxes, then you'd have a case - but you don't have to be particularly selfish, evil or criminal to want avoid the German tax office. There is no logic, fairness, solidarity or sense in what they do, particularly to rich people.So your opposition to Germany in this case is primarily due to your opposition to the German taxation? You support criminal activity, so long as it's "just." Why is it just in this case?

So really, my approach to all of this is that if they want to tax someone, they can try and find the money. I'm don't see the point of making it intentionally easy for them and I don't see the point of demonising those who have the sense or means to make it hard. What I would like the German government to do with regards to tax evaders is acknowledge when it is beaten and leave it at that, not to start funding foreign criminals or international "let's beat the little guy" contests. Or better yet, start providing some value for money for all taxpayers, not just those who can't afford to pay anyways.Tax evasion is criminal activity. It may not be as bad as murder, but it is hardly something that should be tolerated simply because one doesn't like paying taxes.

Proof of what a bank does?No, proof that that is what a bank is supposed to do. Primarily because that is not what a bank is. If that was the case, then the NPD wouldn't have such a hard time getting bank accounts opened.

It reduces the amount of money it has available, forcing it to economise. You're right, that doesn't mean it will necessarily do any good - but in that case it wouldn't have done even without any tax evasion and we'd be better off minimising the money the government gets full stop.That doesn't even make sense. The idea that a government will become better at spending because it's denied taxes is hopelessly idealistic and more likely than not to backfire. It certainly is not an acceptable excuse to engage in tax evasion.

And in the long term, if people feel they actually fund something worthwhile, it stands to reason that they'd feel less compelled to go out of their way not to do so.That's not what people are like, though.

A curious distinction.You should always have the freedom to leave where you are, so long as you aren't infringing anyone elses rights. Settling down in someone else's place without permission is such an infringement.
And a vastly more curious one.A bit simplistic, but it holds. A person should be allowed to change their residence at will. However, their money is not an individual, and is tied to them.

A certain number of individuals desire the privileges of living in Germany (such as living where their job is, access to products and services available in Germany, and voting rights) without desiring to pay the price set for these services. That's not a question of perspective, it's cheating out on paying the bill.
But if the bill has no relation to what is actually being provided in terms of services, where does that leave its validity? If I go to a restaurant and order a glass of water but end up getting charged for a three course meal, how wrong am I for cheating my way out of paying? I mean, it's not like these people actually pay no taxes at all, it's just that they pay less than the state says they should.

Argumentation ad absurdum.
Not necessarily invalid if I'm not violating the basic principle you're talking about. Either you accept the idea of giving up your economic privacy completely, or there is some switch-over point.

Secondly, the state currently has the legal authority to investigate bank accounts, no booklet required.
Not in countries where the banking secret is considered a vital policy.

The question of where the money comes from in this case is not "what was done to earn it?", but "who's money is it?"
That too is nobody's business. The money is that of the person who earned it, the claim that any part of anyone's salary is naturally the government's is ridiculous. It's mine, and the state then takes a part of it.

So your opposition to Germany in this case is primarily due to your opposition to the German taxation? You support criminal activity, so long as it's "just." Why is it just in this case?
I don't consider law to be a valid guide of whether or not an activity is morally justified, yes. I think it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise.

It's just in this case because the German government spends its income in a way that makes it abundantly clear that it sees itself to a huge degree as a redistribution system. The means it uses to fulfill its chosen function are based on outvoting some and using them. No justification or individual consideration is given. Even if we were to accept a general moral premise that said income redistribution for the sake of achieving greater equality or less suffering was a good thing, then this lack of individual consideration still leaves us with a big chance of following this rule so badly that we're in fact not doing a good thing at all.

So yes, not only don't I think income distribution is not just, but I also think that the way it is being implemented is wrong. So why would you now expect me to not act on this conviction, or another country's government (or anyone else for that matter) to go out of its way to make sure that I can't?

No, proof that that is what a bank is supposed to do. Primarily because that is not what a bank is. If that was the case, then the NPD wouldn't have such a hard time getting bank accounts opened.
Banks have lots of functions. Storing money for people is one of them. Any exceptions of this rule aren't inherent in the notion of how a bank works, they're imposed by the people with the guns.

That doesn't even make sense. The idea that a government will become better at spending because it's denied taxes is hopelessly idealistic and more likely than not to backfire. It certainly is not an acceptable excuse to engage in tax evasion.
We know that governments have become better at making laws in other areas because of people's refusal to cooperate with them, so why not this one? Is it really so out of this world to think that if tax evasion was causing a serious dent in the state's budget, tax reform would be a solution? I know that's what a few third world countries are wondering about.

Actually though, I don't expect the German government to improve. Public discourse there is too dominated by this weird nostalgia for another supposed world in which the welfare state didn't cause any problems and Germany could happily sail towards prosperity without having to bother with the rest of the world. The very consideration that perhaps the 21st century requires a real and serious overhaul is squashed by mobs yelling "neoliberal" until they're hoarse.

It's this complete refusal to challenge the norm on these vital issues which is drowning the place, this perverse knowledge of what is needed to make things better coupled with the self-censorship of not allowing yourself to think it.

I actually had a bit of hope left back when Merkel was elected. But then she folded, took no advantage of the improvement her type of economic policies brought and excused herself from the stage as the SPD started mauling away at it again. And the worst thing is that if she actually stood for a bit of liberal reform, the voters would punish her - from a politician's perspective, she didn't make any mistake. So I don't think the German economy will ever get into consistent 3%+ periods of economic growth anymore. The government can't allow it.

But that's a different story. If it was another country, maybe a signal like tax evasion could make people think. But I suppose that won't be the case here.

That's not what people are like, though.
Did you know that Canada has an option on its tax forms to pay more than you're supposed to? And, get this, that people actually do it from time to time?

I suppose you can only get that when people feel their tax money is actually going to a good cause.

You should always have the freedom to leave where you are, so long as you aren't infringing anyone elses rights. Settling down in someone else's place without permission is such an infringement.
Whose right am I infringing by moving next door to you? I wouldn't have taken you to be in that sort of crowd.

A bit simplistic, but it holds. A person should be allowed to change their residence at will. However, their money is not an individual, and is tied to them.
The fact that money ignores borders is the beauty of it. It's the beginning of the end of the nationstate. A government that could be starved of its income from one fiscal year to the next would think twice before doing stupid things, before oppressing anyone, starting a war with anyone or wasting millions on idiotic pet projects or ex-bureaucrat senior benefit schemes.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,536299,00.html


So, what do you think about the issue? Countries like Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands and many others specialise in building very good financial systems and getting foreigners to open accounts, companies and all sorts of other stuff there. That's not an easy thing to do, but for many of these tiny countries the best option not to be poor.


So long as we're letting other countries build their economies on circumventing our laws, why don't we give Cambodia a subsidy to prop up its child sex trade industry.

So everyone's incentives are equally rotten and we shouldn't be passing judgement on who's right and who's wrong.

From many an economic perspective, especially the Public Choice school of thought, they are.

It's just an illustration of the principle. When a persecuted minority person flees a country they too are doing something illegal in the sense that they're trying to escape a law that is illegitimate. The same would go for the same person who doesn't leave the country but just goes underground. I think that needs to be kept in mind before anyone starts showering the tax evaders with abuse.

But tax evasion will happen whatever the tax rate whatever the money is spent on. Do the citizens of Estonia pay taxes if they can get away with not paying them? Do these rich citizens turn down coporate welfare for their businesses, barriers to entry for their industry, free college education for their children, and whatnot. Are they against a VAT, a tax that taxes those with lower incomes as a larger percentages of income than those with higher incomes? I think these need to be kept in mind before the tax evaders are heaped with praise.

Of course there's a problem. Just because the majority says there isn't doesn't make it so. It's not the majority that gets charged ridiculous taxes which are then spent on others.

Just because the these people dont wish to be taxed doesn't make it wrong either. Neither does it matter if its spent on others. In a minimal state the rich would still subsidize the poor too.

So long as we're letting other countries build their economies on circumventing our laws, why don't we give Cambodia a subsidy to prop up its child sex trade industry.
I see no reason to subsidise it, but it is their country. It's not my place to tell them what rules they should or shouldn't have.

Well if sanctions can work both ways, Germans'll be going without false teeth for a while.
Our false teeth don't come from Liechtenstein. (Hey Johnny, long time no see!)

Our false teeth don't come from Liechtenstein. (Hey Johnny, long time no see!)

Oh, I heard somewhere, a long time ago, that Liechtenstein produced false teeth. Thought it'd be appropriate in this conversation.