Secret International Bank Accounts

[Dan Conner]

Earlier this year, the Obama won a major international court decision against UBS in Switzerland. The court determined UBS was guilty of exploiting US tax laws and encouraging people in the US to exploit the secrecy of Swiss bank accounts to dodge taxes in the US. As a result of the court case, UBS has agreed to divulge names of US bank account holders. The Obama Administration gave account holders until 10/15/09 to reveal their bank accounts without criminal prosecution. However, they would still be subject to back taxes, penalties and interest. As of the end of the amnesty period over 14,000 people have acknowledged their illegal bank accounts. It is expected the US will recovered many billions of dollars in back taxes from these account holders alone. Plus there are many billions more out there. I feel it is about time the Government recover taxes from wealthy people looking to dodge their societal responsibility.

[Dan Conner]

I understand there is approximately $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue from people hiding money illegally in foreign tax havens.

[Dan Conner]

Is there a reluctance of other posters to defend this unlawful act by the richest among us?

[Dan Conner]

Earlier this year, the Obama won a major international court decision against UBS in Switzerland. The court determined UBS was guilty of exploiting US tax laws and encouraging people in the US to exploit the secrecy of Swiss bank accounts to dodge taxes in the US. As a result of the court case, UBS has agreed to divulge names of US bank account holders. The Obama Administration gave account holders until 10/15/09 to reveal their bank accounts without criminal prosecution. However, they would still be subject to back taxes, penalties and interest. As of the end of the amnesty period over 14,000 people have acknowledged their illegal bank accounts. It is expected the US will recovered many billions of dollars in back taxes from these account holders alone. Plus there are many billions more out there. I feel it is about time the Government recover taxes from wealthy people looking to dodge their societal responsibility.Still no comments?

[Matt Christianson]

While I'm not a fan of paying taxes (who is, really?) I still pay them because it is my legal responsibilty to do so. I' don't care if you earn $20 or $20 billion everyone must follow the law. I don't think many will disagree. But it's no social responsibility...its a legal one.

[Dan Conner]

While I'm not a fan of paying taxes (who is, really?) I still pay them because it is my legal responsibilty to do so. I' don't care if you earn $20 or $20 billion everyone must follow the law. I don't think many will disagree. But it's no social responsibility...its a legal one.You quibble over a word? It is a social responsibility. Taxes are the law because it is a social responsibility that we must ALL do our part to contribute to this society. Yes, we all pay taxes. That is an obligation we all have to our country (society). It is lso a legal one.

Do you think laws exist only onto themselves? It is the social contract we MUSY all follow to live here free.

[Matt Christianson]

Yeah I dont' know ayone in this forum who has ever quibbled over a word before. And I wasn't quibbling. You asked for responses and I gave you one. Wasn't looking for a fight.

[Dan Conner]

Yeah I dont' know ayone in this forum who has ever quibbled over a word before. And I wasn't quibbling. You asked for responses and I gave you one. Wasn't looking for a fight.Man, you consider that a fight? I was looking for some substance, not debating yours or my meaning of a word.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Is there a reluctance of other posters to defend this unlawful act by the richest among us?

I don't know that any of us here are defending tax outright evasion, however, this story demonstrates one reason why 'tax the rich' strategies don't work very well: The 'rich' have the ways and means to shelter their wealth from burdensome taxes. I can't hire a tax lawyer to help protect my meager retirement savings because hiring a lawyer would cost much more than my potential tax savings, but to someone earning millions a year, having a few lawyers and accountants on hand to hide money (via trusts, loopholes, offshore accounts, etc.) is a worthwhile investment.

[Dan Conner]

I don't know that any of us here are defending tax outright evasion, however, this story demonstrates one reason why 'tax the rich' strategies don't work very well: The 'rich' have the ways and means to shelter their wealth from burdensome taxes. I can't hire a tax lawyer to help protect my meager retirement savings because hiring a lawyer would cost much more than my potential tax savings, but to someone earning millions a year, having a few lawyers and accountants on hand to hide money (via trusts, loopholes, offshore accounts, etc.) is a worthwhile investment.Maybe that's another good reason to highly tax them at the front-end before they "hide" their money. Maybe the high marginal tax rates of 30 years ago should be used again. That will make it harder for them to skip out on their responsibility.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Maybe that's another good reason to highly tax them at the front-end before they "hide" their money. Maybe the high marginal tax rates of 30 years ago should be used again. That will make it harder for them to skip out on their responsibility.

Tell me again why it's fair for anyone to be taxed at a higher rate than anyone else?

[Dan Conner]

Tell me again why it's fair for anyone to be taxed at a higher rate than anyone else?Since time in memoriam, our country has taxed at a progressive rate. There are many reasons, some of them being:
Since subsistence living costs are not as flexible as income, the poorer you are a greater and greater percentage of gross income is consumed in necessary living expenses. For example, if a person is earning $40,000/year and pays 15% ($6000) in taxes, they might not have any income left over for health insurance, home purchases, property taxes, or even many food items. Someone who earns $500,000/year would be taxed $75,000/year, but they would have $425,000/year of income left to live a very affluent life style.

People with very high earnings are able to invest money for retirement and have that money managed professionally. Lower earning people can not afford to do that. In fact, many times they have no money left over after subsistence.

High earning people are better able to trake advantage of the benefits of our society by making more use of our highways, and Federally subsidized air travel and parks. Also, they are generally better able to avoid public service because they have the financial means to avoid doing so. In other words, there aren't proportionately as many rich kids in the military as poor kids.

Most of the wealth in our country is inherited, not earned, anyway.

The rich paying more taxes is kind of a quid-pro-quo anyway. Since they have been fortunately enought to grandly benefit in and by our society, paying more taxes is like a thank you for their good fortune.[/

I'm sure there are many other reasons that I can not think of off-hand.

[Steven Schmidt]

You quibble over a word? It is a social responsibility. Taxes are the law because it is a social responsibility that we must ALL do our part to contribute to this society. Yes, we all pay taxes. That is an obligation we all have to our country (society). It is lso a legal one.

Do you think laws exist only onto themselves? It is the social contract we MUSY all follow to live here free.

Everyone pays some form of taxes, but I believe the specific tax being spoken of in this thread is income tax. While the wealthy may hide some income, they still usually pay some income tax. The poor, however, often do not. Because of the income tax system we have in place, it is not their legal obligation to pay, but you sound like you believe it is their moral obligation. What do you think should be done about the poor not fullfilling their "social contract"?

[Dan Conner]

Everyone pays some form of taxes, but I believe the specific tax being spoken of in this thread is income tax. While the wealthy may hide some income, they still usually pay some income tax. The poor, however, often do not. Because of the income tax system we have in place, it is not their legal obligation to pay, but you sound like you believe it is their moral obligation. What do you think should be done about the poor not fullfilling their "social contract"?They meet their legal responsbility. Apparently, you like to judge the poor, even though they seem to be judged by almost everyone all the time. I feel the rich need some more attention, in the form of judgement, because they have benefited so much from our country (society). The poor can fulfill their societal responsibility by being as independent as possible and volunteering services.

Also, there is a big distinction about "usually pay some tax", even though required to pay more by law, and not paying tax because they are not required to do so by the law. If this is the case, the rich are acting criminal and the poor are not. The poor are meeting their tax responsibilities and the rich are not.

You know, one of the frequently touted reasons the wealthy use to rationalize extremely large incomes, is the tremendous responsibilities they have, but they often duck those responsibilites. Employees lose their jobs to support ever increasing executive salaries and taxes are increased on ordinary people to compensate for the reduction of corporate and individual taxes of the wealthy. Our country is getting to be too much of a win-win for the wealthy and a lose-lose for everyone else. There is much discussion today about the disappearing middle class. We are becoming more like a thrid-world nation with an exaggeration of difference between the haves and have-nots.

[Steven Schmidt]

In your earlier post you said everyone has a moral responsibility to pay income tax. Now you're saying the poor don't have to if they try to be independent and volunteer their services. I'm sorry, but that is not the same thing as paying taxes.

You have said that I am judging the poor, I disagree. I simply took a fact, that not everyone pays income taxes, and applied it to one of your statements, that everyone has a moral obligation to pay taxes. Then I asked what you wanted to do about it. Is it worse to judge the poor than it is the wealthy? You are more than happy to talk poorly about the morality of some of the wealthy, yet you get defensive when I even mention the morality of the poor. Seems like a double standard.

Also you said in post #12 that "most wealth is inherited, not earned", implying that it was ok to tax them hard for that reason. Inherited wealth was usually earned, just not by the person currently in control of it. When the person who earned it passed on, they could have chosen to give the money to the government or charity if that was their wish. The fact that they chose to hand the wealth down to a decendent, does not make the wealth any less earned.

[Dan Conner]

In your earlier post you said everyone has a moral responsibility to pay income tax. Now you're saying the poor don't have to if they try to be independent and volunteer their services. I'm sorry, but that is not the same thing as paying taxes.

You have said that I am judging the poor, I disagree. I simply took a fact, that not everyone pays income taxes, and applied it to one of your statements, that everyone has a moral obligation to pay taxes. Then I asked what you wanted to do about it. Is it worse to judge the poor than it is the wealthy? You are more than happy to talk poorly about the morality of some of the wealthy, yet you get defensive when I even mention the morality of the poor. Seems like a double standard.

Also you said in post #12 that "most wealth is inherited, not earned", implying that it was ok to tax them hard for that reason. Inherited wealth was usually earned, just not by the person currently in control of it. When the person who earned it passed on, they could have chosen to give the money to the government or charity if that was their wish. The fact that they chose to hand the wealth down to a decendent, does not make the wealth any less earned.It is the same in some respects. Some people pay with taxes ($$) and others with time. However, if you are hell bendt to have the poor pay taxes, then, I suggest you ask your elected representative to set a minimum level of pay that law will allow payment of taxes. Meanwhile, I think it is very disingenuous to require people who can't afford it to pay taxes.

It is far worse to judge the poor: 1. they already have enormous stress caused by their limited ability to subsist., 2. they are already the object of much judgmentalism, and 3. why ask they do the impossible while not asking one who can pay taxes to do what is possible?

Making a statement that paying taxes and offering services are not the same thing is stunningly obvious. What is your point? Of course they're not the same. There is very little in anything that is the same. I'm sure you don't pay the same in taxses that I do. So what? I'm paying what I'm legally responsible to pay, do you? If you do, then we are the same in that respect, but probably not in the amount.

It is far worse to judge the poor. First, we should be endeavoring to build confidence and inspire a work ethic. I really can't think of an effective way to do that by judging, criticizing, and belittling. It's like trying to motivate children by telling them how worthless they are. 2. Second, the wealthy have already reaped enormous bounty in our society. They have disproportionately benefited in our economy. Like I said above, they many times justify that wealth by alleged enormous responsibilities. However, in many cases, they do not take any responsibility. They make the poor take it for them.

Taxes need to be levied based on the ability of one to pay them. It is ridiculous to tax people beyond what they earn or is possible to pay. That is a 100-year philosophy behind our tax system, and behind almost alll the tax systems in the world. So, there must be some value to that idea.

Also, when a person passes away, they can, and always have been able to, give their wealth to anyone they wish. People have even been known to give their wealth to dogs. However, that doesn't mean the recipient has aright to receive it tax free. Since it was never really earned by them, I think it should be taxed at a rate higher than the normal income tax rate. I think you are confused on the inheritance tax. It is not the giver that is taxed. It is the recipient. There are no restrictions for the donor. He can give it away, burn it, feed it to the animals, give it to his/her favorite pet, etc. However, the recipient, who did not earn it, has no right to evade taxation.

[Dan Conner]

A thought for this Christmas Season....


Arlington National Cemetery

Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.
Know the line has held, your job is done.
Rest easy, sleep well.
Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.
Peace, peace, and farewell...

Readers may be interested to know that these wreaths -- some 5,000 -- are donated by the Worcester Wreath Co. of Harrington,Maine. The owner, Merrill Worcester, not only provides the wreaths, but covers the trucking expense as well. He's done this since 1992. A wonderful guy. Also, most years, groups of Maine school kids combine an educational trip to DC with this event to help out. Making this even more remarkable is the fact that Harrington is in one the poorest parts of the state.
Please share this with everyone on your address list. You hear too much about the bad things people do. Everyone should hear about this.