Swiss banking & you
Switzerland’s oldest bank, Wegelin & Company, whose foundation pre-dates that of the United States, is to close permanently after surrendering in a New York court battle against the U.S. Internal Revenue “Service.” The directors admitted to helping more than 100 wealthy Americans shelter their income from taxation. They were the last of the Swiss banks to offer this (actual) service, every other having been hounded “voluntarily” out of the business by the jackboots in Washington, DC.
Wegelin’s ability to resist was cracked last year, by a series of IRS moves against its directors which forced the bank to sell off its core non-American assets quickly, to protect the deposits of its non-American customers. The IRS prosecution tactics, against Wegelin & other Swiss banks, exhibit the lawlessness with which U.S. government agencies now habitually operate. They were able to exploit the honour of the Swiss banking system, in which directors still hold personal liability. They went after the directors individually, to get at a bank which itself had no U.S. branches, & was entirely outside IRS jurisdiction. As well, by publicizing their prosecution, they were able to wreck the bank’s business internationally: for few customers will take the risk of dealing with a bank that the U.S. government is determined to harm.
To his moral credit, the bank’s managing director, Karl Hummler — who is also incidentally the president of Neue Zürcher Zeitung, among the world’s oldest & most reliable daily newspapers — risked personal ruin to fight for the privacy of his clients. He pushed the Swiss government to defend banking customs & practices that had been recognized for centuries. Several of his fellow directors buckled, however, once their personal assets were attacked, & one at least has delivered a puling “admission” to the media that what his bank had been doing (entirely within Swiss law since time out of mind) was “wrong.” Perhaps he thought this would make the hard-faced goons at the IRS go a little easier on him personally.
The Swiss are under attack from foreign tax departments on several fronts. Their government had just come to an arrangement with the German tax authority, to turn over a large proportion of the “hidden” assets of every German national with a Swiss bank account. Unsatisfied with this act of rapine, the German Bundesrat (upper house) has refused to ratify the agreement, & now the German authorities are pushing for more.
Nanny States everywhere, themselves surpassing bankruptcy from incredibly irresponsible fiscal behaviour, are working both directly & in consort against all “offshore” locations where banking privacy is still maintained, & where they consider the tax rates to be too low. In previous generations, they tried to “make the rich pay” with ruinous graduated income taxes. The rich escaped by offshore accounts, by leaving the country themselves if necessary, or through the loopholes their lobbyists were able to get the politicians in their pay to write into tax legislation. This latter remains the American “compromise,” & the (grievously mislabelled) “fiscal cliff” deal struck two days ago contains all kinds of new loopholes & subsidies for the sort of corporations that contributed generously to the Obama campaign, especially Hollywood & media & “wind farms” (in the broadest sense).
The whole promise of democracy, as the Athenian mob quickly discovered, is the appropriation of wealth. As a great Scotsman said (Alexander Fraser Tytler, in one of the few quotations that can be traced to him on paper): from its Hellenic beginnings democracy consisted of servility to demagogues, who “maintained their influence over their partisans by the most shameful corruption & bribery, of which the means were supplied alone by the plunder of the public money.”
We (the living) now witness an advanced stage of this development, in which cooperative international efforts are directed to removing the last places on Earth where wealth might be preserved from the demonic grasp of “progressive” tax collectors. Once this object has been achieved, the agents of “democracy” may impound whatever they wish, from anyone, utilizing that monopoly of power which they have achieved by the reduction to impotence of every agency in civil society not already under the thumb of the government bureaucracy.
That is what Obama is about, & all that Obama is about, though let us say in his defence that he is only the latest demagogic embodiment of “progress” to enjoy the support of an idiotized electorate, & hardly among the more intelligent of the political operators. Woodrow Wilson might be presented as the first U.S. president to openly espouse “progressive” totalitarianism, articulating the ratcheting principle that has not changed from his day to this. One century after he first won election, the last restraints of the old U.S. Constitution are now being overturned, on Wilson’s own expressly anti-Constitutional argument.
It is also the centenary of the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This was required to enable the central government to impose income taxes, supposedly to offset tariff reductions. The basic rate was set at 1 percent; but only a tiny fraction of the population made enough money to pay even that. Who could object? The top rate of 7 percent applied only to income at a level beyond the dreams of their avarice. So why shouldn’t people who were that rich pay “a little more”?
The real significance of the income tax system was that it gave government agents the ability & right to pry into every aspect of any citizen’s private life, in search of “hidden income.” The graduated tax rates could themselves be jacked up later: the progress of progressive “progress,” as it were.
This speech, by the intelligent American pundit George Will, to a student audience in Washington University at St Louis, does a fairly good job of twirling the strands together. Will, who has no religion, is speaking in defence of the citizen’s right to practise his religion. But hear him out, O ye agnosticks, for by extension he is also defending that citizen’s right to be anything at all, outside government control; & he is defending the original American Constitution on grounds which every True British Tory happens to share. He exquisitely “pins the tail on the donkey” — showing that by “progressivism” he does not mean anything vague; & if he associates it with the Democrat Party he is not merely expressing an opinion. From Wilson to FDR, to LBJ, to Carter, to Clinton, to Obama it has been, demonstrably, their constant theme.
Why do I defend the rich? Not for their own sakes; God knows they have done me no favours. It is because they are used by the politicians to excite that public envy & greed, by which the liberties of all the people are ultimately undone. For what can be brought down upon the rich — who can afford lawyers for good fellowship — can then be brought down so much more easily upon you, gentle reader — who face the hard-faced goons of “progress” & “democracy” all by your lonely little self. And with the fate of your children bundled nicely on the table.
I wouldn’t grieve too much over the “moral” Swiss bankers. The banks of Switzerland were “respected” by people trying to hide their money for various reasons, only one of them being to avoid paying taxes. Privacy in banking is good, to a point. But it was their absolute privacy rules that also allowed the Swiss banks to be used by some Nazis to stash stolen funds, or for criminal activities to hide their money. In short, the Swiss banks were a victim of their own success and reputation.
I don’t begrudge the rich their wealth (except, maybe, if it is just inherited) but nobody, except some speculators, get rich without a lot of help from others.
It was chiefly because of Swiss banks that the Jews of Germany were able to hide anything from Hitler.
In discussions of bank privacy I find that the Swiss banking act of 1934 is often cited as if it were the source of the whole concept. As ever, what liberals believe is very close to the opposite of the truth. Bank privacy was the normal condition, going back to the earliest mediaeval Florentine, Venetian, & Genoese banks, if not to the ancient Babylonians. The Swiss were codifying customs & practices that were hardly new. What makes the Swiss unusual is their preservation of such traditions to very nearly the present day, in the face of manifold challenges from modern or post-modern statists.
In fact, as opposed to liberal fantasy, it was always possible to unearth records of the most obscure numbered accounts through a Swiss court subpoena. But serious crimes had to be alleged, & the plausibility of the allegations shown. What the IRS & other tax authorities (including the Swiss one) were prevented from doing was going on shopping expeditions. In particular, until quite recently when they were strong-armed by a united effort through the OECD, the Swiss maintained a crucial distinction between tax “fraud” (very specific, & evidence-based), & tax “evasion” (quite vague, & evidence-seeking). Within Switzerland itself, to this day, the distinction is maintained to protect Swiss nationals from the rapacity of their own tax department; but foreigners no longer enjoy such protection.
In recent times, the Swiss courts have been generally quite cooperative in going after terrorist suspects, drug lords, & money known to have been stashed by fallen Third World dictators. I would not even begin to discuss popular myths from the more distant past without presenting more background than would belong even in an Idleness Comment.
Except to say, attacks on Swiss banks, for aiding in tax evasion, have a long history, coterminous with the introduction of income taxes almost everywhere. The new thing is not that, but the reckless lawlessness with which U.S. & other foreign government agencies have pursued them.
What is this “Democrat Party” you speak of?
Oh go ahead, Ty. … Guess!
I believe it’s the same entity that was called “the party of death” by some church higher-up a few years back.
What we are seeing, I think, is the fully matured version of Enlightenment Man, unless this is still a larval stage and we’re waiting on Antichrist to hatch.
What’s an economic illiterate like Acartia (the earliest commenter today) doing trying to understand your essays? His final sentence marks him as an Obama populist, disqualified from serious discussion of privacy, individualism & achievement.
Hey, Newmarket. Readers are hard to find. And I’m still lagging behind Lady Gaga.
In hope of raising the level of this dialogue, I wish to point out the error of Otiosus in his statement that Mr. Will has no religion.
I happen to know that George Will is a baseball fan, albeit a heretic in his veneration of the Chicago Cubs.
Still, the Reverend Mr. Will once reminded us that, “Baseball is heaven’s gift to mortals.”
As an aside, I have to ask Lord Jowls how it is he learns and incorporates Jowlsesian phrases into his responses. To wit:
This is too much.
Where else to go?
Will you also stand for this undemocratic decree?
In the hope of raising the level of this dialogue …
I am quite taken with these gems and am wondering if I assume a new posting alias I will assimilate an understanding that will guide me to this way of emoting — echoes of my forebears.
Is it a proper English thing? As my family name is Lewis, Welsh, is there any hope?
“Oh go ahead, Ty. … Guess!”
Oh, maybe the Democratic Party?
Forgive my being silly, but as a long time, quite happy and appreciative reader (who even liked the “we”), I see “Democrat Party” as an instant indicator of hack culture warriors down south, and not your usual high quality work.
There was a time when one could “dialogue” with fools and knaves because they were a protected minority and it was considered bad form to hurt their feelings. Now that fools and knaves are everywhere in charge, we see that the “feelings” were actually merely anxieties and entirely self-focused. And so we must also resort to irony quotes when describing any “positive” attribute of fools and knaves. Now Madam Gaga is an “important” talent who has an “important” “message” for the “youth” of the world and I will not have her “good” “name” disrespected in this forum. It took a lot of people to make her “rich”.
Ty, on the question of quality, I have called these Democratics worse over the years, & while writing often pause to consider, “Isn’t there a more redneck way to put this?” Alas, it is because of these Democratistical people that I am too often prevented from showing Republicanites the contempt they deserve. (And don’t get me going on the Canadian tribes: the Gliberals, Selfservatives, & Nasty Demented Party.)
While as a United Empire Loyalist one cannot really approve any political party Stateside, & both notions (“democratic” & “republican”) rather stick in our craw, we would probably choose the Federalists as the least bad option.
David, very interesting about the Swiss banks and their latest capitulation. What frightens me is the raw power – the unblushing raw power – the seemingly unstoppable raw power of the United States.
Their culture, such as it is, has swamped the earth and left a sticky scum. If the Chinese were to overwhelm the West with sheer numbers, or were Islam to overwhelm us with the sword would they all be wearing butt-crack-revealing-baggy pants and hoodies?
Sad to say the Swiss bankers chose Mammon. I put on my Miraculous Medal this morning.
Otiosus, thank you for the defence.
Newmarket, my last comment was simply stating that rich people are dependent on others to obtain their wealth. It wasn’t intended as a judgemental statement. I am an executive in an international company. The success of my career is completely dependent on the people who work for me. Rich people, with the exception of individual speculators, are also dependent on the people who work for them. This Is not a left, right, or an economic statement. It is just a statement of fact. If the person is incapable of organizing and motivating his/her staff, they will not remain rich for long.
As with everything, there are exceptions to this. There are many dot com millionaires running around who’s only skill was to sell a non product to greedy and ill informed investors. Buyer beware! (I would write it in Latin but I am not that smart.)
What is your point, Acartia, in claiming that “rich people are dependent on others to obtain their wealth”?
Are you saying that builders, entrepreneurs, inventors & innovators who employ helpers somehow don’t deserve the wealth they generate? Creating jobs diminishes their achievements?
Corporate executives wouldn’t normally characterize investors as you do, as “speculators” & “greedy and ill-informed,” so I can only conclude that, regardless of your education & your international employer’s best efforts, you are an economic illiterate.
Western governments have become like robber barons of old. Their henchmen are euphemistically known as a “service”. In fact, all them are rightfully industries. The government really is a pure profit making industry which they call IRS or HM Customs and Excise.
In all these government run money raising industries, the taxpayer has no say whatever, unlike in Switzerland, where the government has no say in setting tax policy. In fact, the Swiss have all and final say in all matters of Swiss policy. And just to rub it in that the Swiss people are supreme, the Swiss decided long ago that each sane male is legally obliged to keep a fully automatic assault rifle at home to defend the Swiss way of life. Such a system makes the citizen a responsible individual, willing and able to defend his way of life.
We in EU run Europe, are now beginning to see the merits of the Swiss way of running things.
Tytler or Tyler quote: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Ann Barnhardt is on a tax strike, on the grounds that the Republic is lawless, habitually violating the constitution.