Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

icij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#61

Post by cpursley »

raquo wrote: post #52
cpursley wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perfect example of why taxing income is not the correct way. Things like progressive sales tax and taxing usage is. For example, those commuters should be taxed enough to support their burden each time they come in to the city. And for those companies within the city limits enjoying the infrastructure, protection of law, etc, a sales tax on their products sold should cover that. The point of tax extraction…

What should the sales tax be progressive on? You don't know the buyer's income when they pay for stuff. Some usage taxes might work, but unless they specifically target out-of-canton persons, they will just drive more rich people out of Zurich, exacerbating the problem. At the end of the day having every 20x30 miles plot of your country independently decide on taxation is not be the best idea. Different tax regimes c…

Good point, I should clarify:

A progressive sales tax not based on purchasers income, but the type of good. For example, luxury goods should be taxed higher and basic staples very low to none. This the wealthy could not avoid tax by simply shifting money around political jurisdictions. This system would encourage transparency, encourage wealth creation as well as thrift in lower and middle income earners.

Also, a side benefit (not that I entirely agree with it) is this is a way to enforce social policy like healthy eating. Tax unhealthy items like sugary food and tobacco highly (up to a point). This is done already in the United States successfully. And if you want more tube riders and less drivers in a city, have a very high toll and vehicle purchase tax. Singapore does this successfully.

Some countries that have no income tax already employ this to an extent by taxing certain sales and imports. I think this type of system is worth experimenting with at least on the city-state or state level (canton / province / state). If it does not work, you can always go back.

There's been talk of this type of system in the US but it's not likely to gain traction. The real reason for progressive income tax is not good policy, but divide and conquer class politics. Something all sides of the political probably spectrum agree with: governments need to be good stewards of tax revenue no matter the collection method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax (note the section on prebates for poor people - similar to basic income).

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#62

Post by callum85 »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #6

This doesn't appear to be the leaked data, but rather curated profiles of some of the people referenced in the supposedly leaked data. Am I missing something?

The complete list isn't public. Limited parts of the list have been given to relevant tax organisations in different countries. (Look up Hervé Falciani, the whistleblower, for more details.)

This feature probably shouldn't be called "Explore the Swiss Leaks Data".

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#64

Post by jsprogrammer »

VMG wrote: post #58
jakobegger wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying taxes is not "donating money". You are required by law to pay them. You get certain things in exchange, like laws that protect your property. If you think that you shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, why do you think that other laws should be enforced? If rich people steal from the state, why shouldn't poor people just take what they want from the rich? If you avoid taxes, you are stealing from everybody.

> You get certain things in exchange, like laws that protect your property. With the important difference that the price is non-negotiable, and set by the service provider alone. The people highlighted on the website chose to park their property elsewhere, so the government had zero cost in protecting that. The price is not in proportion to the quality of service at all, it's proportional to the income of the citizen…

>With the important difference that the price is non-negotiable, and set by the service provider alone.

Hunh? Most (all) of the states involved have some form of democratic government don't they? I know some of them still have monarchs (why?), but I believe their policy makers are elected by the general population, are they not?

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#67

Post by andy_ppp »

A flat taxation system (with say the starting point for tax at £25,000) seems like a good plan?

I also think taxes on business and taxes on individuals should also be harmonised.

Add in a general tax avoidance rule and you are good to go.

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#68

Post by dmichulke »

VMG wrote: post #58
jakobegger wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying taxes is not "donating money". You are required by law to pay them. You get certain things in exchange, like laws that protect your property. If you think that you shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, why do you think that other laws should be enforced? If rich people steal from the state, why shouldn't poor people just take what they want from the rich? If you avoid taxes, you are stealing from everybody.

> You get certain things in exchange, like laws that protect your property. With the important difference that the price is non-negotiable, and set by the service provider alone. The people highlighted on the website chose to park their property elsewhere, so the government had zero cost in protecting that. The price is not in proportion to the quality of service at all, it's proportional to the income of the citizen…

In addition, if "not mentioning 3 mn" is theft, then surely "wasting 3 mn" as government official is theft as well.

However, this type of accountability is somehow not there. So it seems the rules are different, depending on what side you are.

Finally, a fundamental property law states that something is your property unless you voluntarily pass the claim to someone else. This principle certainly holds between private entities. The question is why it doesn't hold for the state?

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#69

Post by aidos »

Hermel wrote: post #53
aidos wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true?! If so it seems that a winning strategy is to actively try to dodge the system but be prepared to pay it back when you know you'll get found out. That makes no sense. Why would that same rule not apply to other crime?

No, it is not a winning strategy as dogers have to pay a lot more due to punitive interest rates than those who correctly declared their taxes from the beginning. Furthermore, the same rule also applies to other crimes. The rule is called "innocent until proven guilty".

It's not really "innocent until proven guilty" though. You're guilty the whole time, it's just that you get off the hook if you never formally lie to HMRC. From what I understood of the original comment it's more like, innocent until you're formally challenged on it, decide to lie and are subsequently found out. That's literally a get out of jail free card.

    Murder someone, don't admit it, found out -> charged
    Murder someone, admit it -> charged
    Dodge tax, lie about it, found out -> charged
    Dodge tax, don't lie about it, found out -> not charged!
Do you know what the punitive interest rates are in these cases?

HMRC say that [0]:

    "Those who try to get an unfair advantage will have to pay:

    - any tax that is due
    - any interest that is due
    - any penalties that are due"
I can't find any information about the the penalties that have been handed out in real terms. There's potentially more to be gained by holding on to the cash and using to your advantage until you get found out (if you ever do).

Maybe it's a reasonable way for HMRC to do things but it's a bit weird that you can knowingly be in the wrong without having the risk of jail time hanging over you.

[0] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc....

Re: Explore the Swiss Leaks Data

#70

Post by edent »

VMG wrote: post #58
jakobegger wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying taxes is not "donating money". You are required by law to pay them. You get certain things in exchange, like laws that protect your property. If you think that you shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, why do you think that other laws should be enforced? If rich people steal from the state, why shouldn't poor people just take what they want from the rich? If you avoid taxes, you are stealing from everybody.

> You get certain things in exchange, like laws that protect your property. With the important difference that the price is non-negotiable, and set by the service provider alone. The people highlighted on the website chose to park their property elsewhere, so the government had zero cost in protecting that. The price is not in proportion to the quality of service at all, it's proportional to the income of the citizen…

> the price is non-negotiable, and set by the service provider alone.

Luckily, there are lots of different service providers. If you want to live in the low-tax heaven of Somalia, you're entirely free to do so.

Post reply on HN