More on the Murphmeister and his claims about Swiss banks

We\’ll never get him to admit it of course. But the tax campaigners have really shot themselves in the foot over this one. There just isn\’t the vast amount of tax evading money they claim hiding in tax havens.

23 thoughts on “More on the Murphmeister and his claims about Swiss banks”

  1. “(And if a “non-dom” doesn’t have to report their non-UK sourced income, then we wonder what is the point of then hiding their foreign assets in a Swiss bank?)”

    Oh for a world in which activists actually had a basic grasp of what they were agitating about… See also: guns, pr0n, environment, nuclear power, passive smoking, etc etc etc ad infinitum and back again.

  2. “the tax campaigners have really shot themselves in the foot over this one”
    Well, hardly Tim. Objective achieved more like it. This isn’t economics, or banking, or tax law. This is political narrative. The narrative read: “Devious rich people hide their ill gotten money with crafty Swiss bankers to avoid righteous taxes.” Amended narrative now reads: “Devious rich people continue to hide their ill gotten money with crafty, lying Swiss bankers with connivance of tax authorities & neo-liberal politicians.”
    Got to remember. The point of the narrative is to create grievance, not material gains. The lack of result is a best outcome.

  3. A classic Worstallism:

    “Well, OK, say that that’s true. What should we do? Well, obviously, we need to go and find out whether it is in fact true.”

  4. I expect Murphy Richards to come along to explain the self-evident truth that the lack of money is proof of the existence of these monies.

  5. There is another reason why people might use Swiss banks: they are about a thousand times better and easier to deal with than a British bank, which is largely made up of whining jobsworths telling you what is not possible. The Swiss are still bankers, rather than people who operate computers which tell them no.

  6. Unfortunately, your slavish desire to condone criminality makes you look like idiots.

    You haven’t grasped the concepts at all, have you?

    You bleat some semi-religious nonsense about how clever you are without any understanding of real life.

    Hint: Switzerland excels in secrecy.

    you tits.

    Also i knew of several structures that operated through CHF to disguise its provenance.

    A limp wristed attempt by fuckwits like Hartnett was doomed to failure.

    Worstall argues like a simpleton that there are both, nothing to see here, and that if there is something to see, they’re rich and deserve it.

    He speaks like a child. A moron.

  7. Arnald – Long time, no troll.

    Waiting until the end of Wimbledon to see who’s been trip-trapping over the neoliberal bridge I see?

    Unfortunately as with most lefties, including our bought-and-paid for shill of the main taxman’s union, your pot of tax-evaders gold that you hoped to steal has vanished with the transience of the rainbow.

    This is not exclusively because it didn’t exist, but rather that the people being accused of evading taxes in Switzerland, by-and-large didn’t have accounts in their own names in Switzerland.

    Not condoning such behaviour obviously, but any tax evader worth his salt gave up Switzerland years ago when the Swiss banks made a deal with the IRS to cough up US depositors for a share of the proceeds.

    Such evaded hoards as do exist are in the names of Bermudan trusts or foundations in Singapore and elsewhere, or more likely earning a crust on the stock markets of the far east.

    Has it ever occurred to you that HMRC setup this arrangement knowing full-well there was no hoard to be collected, but as a PR stunt for HMRC/HM Treasury, but also to rub Ritchie & the TJN’s nose in the ordure when it was shown to be weapons grade bullshit.

    It’s like Ritchies melodramatic hyperbole about the tax gap being 120 billion quid, which is just a cover to distract the proles from the fact that austerity is largely the fault of the left inflating the public sector and pissing away trillions on bureaucrats and bullshit.

    You’re lot laid the turd, the least you can do is acknowledge it’s yours.

  8. The Meissen Bison

    Also i knew of several structures that operated through CHF to disguise its provenance

    Good to get your grammar sorted out before writing a post in which you call others fuckwit and moron.

    Hint: plural noun, singular possessive pronoun.

    That apart, you might indulge us by telling us more about these ‘structures’. I for one am intrigued that the use of one convertible currency, like CHF, over another can have an impact on the opacity of a transaction.

  9. I wish Timmy had an edit function for comments.

    Obviously I meant “Your lot (i.e. lefties) laid the turd, the least you can do is acknowledge it’s yours.”

  10. It’s like Ritchies melodramatic hyperbole about the tax gap being 120 billion quid, which is just a cover to distract the proles from the fact that austerity is largely the fault of the left inflating the public sector and pissing away trillions on bureaucrats and bullshit.

    It’s not even as if there’s any austerity: is spending actually going down anywhere outside of maybe Greece?

  11. Tim W: your piece elides one important distinction. Yes, only the Yanks tax non-resident citizens on their foreign income – but the UK rule under which someone who is both a UK citizen and a UK resident can avoid tax on their overseas income on ‘non-domiciled’ grounds is very unusual in the opposite direction.

    Ted: Of course there’s spending austerity. To pretend there isn’t requires you to pretend there’s no difference between discretionary spending (department budgets), which is being slashed in the UK at least, and non-discretionary spending (welfare in general, mostly pensions and healthcare), which is rising because people are ageing.

    Tim adds: “can avoid tax on their overseas income on ‘non-domiciled’ grounds is very unusual in the opposite direction.”. It is indeed. But that’s not actually the argument here. The original claim was that there’s lots of tax evasion going on in Swiss accounts. As it turns out, there isn’t. Thus those original claims must be rejected: and in hte process all other claims by the same crew must be viewed with suspicion.

    Whether the law should be as it is is a different conversation from whether people are breaking the law as it currently is.

  12. “Of course there’s spending austerity. To pretend there isn’t requires you to pretend there’s no difference between discretionary spending (department budgets), which is being slashed in the UK at least, and non-discretionary spending (welfare in general, mostly pensions and healthcare), which is rising because people are ageing.”

    Does a pound spent on goods and services by a person on the dole, or a pensioner, have a lesser effect on the overall economy than a pound spent by a person employed by the State? If I were to make 10,000 State employees redundant, but were to pay them exactly the same amount in benefits as their former wages, would the overall impact on the economy be any different? Is there some magical property that means State employees have a larger economic multiplier than anyone else?

  13. If I were to make 10,000 State employees redundant, but were to pay them exactly the same amount in benefits as their former wages, would the overall impact on the economy be any different?

    Quite likely.

    In many cases, when they were employed and enforcing stupid regulations, they were actively harming the economy by far more than the cost of their wages. So by simply paying them the same amount of money to stay home and do nothing, the economy would improve.

  14. @Edward M Grant: That is distinctly possible! But there seems to be an argument to the converse – ie £10bn spent on benefits is less of a boost to the economy than £10bn spent on State employee’s wages. I can’t see it myself.

  15. Ironically, the more unpredictable the UK banking system becomes because of lefty posturing and hysterical media coverage, the more people will put cash away in Switzerland for safety, rather than tax evasion.

  16. Sam: Excellent youtube clip – 🙂

    Edward: Perhaps, it doesn’t have to be “by far more than the cost of their wages”? Ie, any harm whatsoever (in excess of any benefit delivered) suffices for this particular argument? And true of the state / politicians in general?

  17. the more unpredictable the UK banking system becomes because of lefty posturing and hysterical media coverage, the more people will put cash away in Switzerland for safety, rather than tax evasion.

    I present for the prosecution, m’lud, the insanity of simultaneously telling banks to “hold more capital reserves” and to “lend more (cheaply).”

    Or, if we are being really reductionist, the paradox of telling them to “lend more” and to “lend more prudently.”

    Can have one or t’other. Not both.

  18. Arnald logic: Noting (and having a jolly good chuckle) that there does not appear to be as much money being hidden in CH by UK taxpayers as was guesstimated = slavishly condoning criminality.

  19. Tim:
    I agree that if – as it appears – Ritchie failed to take into account non-dom UK-resident Uk citizens when calculating the Swiss tax gap, then he is a fucking idiot and an embarrassment. Which we already knew.

    That wasn’t my point though – I was replying to your:
    This is how the system works: it’s only Americans (and Eritreans) who have to pay home country taxes wherever they live in the world.

    …which implies to the casual reader that the people we’re talking about in Switzerland are Brits who don’t live in the UK.

    In fact, and presumably this is the reason Ritchie fucked up, most of them are Brits who *do* live in the UK, and who would be taxed on their Swiss income under almost every other country’s tax rules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *