What does Switzerland need to do to stop being considered a tax haven?
Many of us have seen films depicting Switzerland as a banking haven for tycoons. Although Switzerland has long since ceased to appear on lists of tax havens, it has not yet cleaned up its image as a recipient of income from large companies operating elsewhere in the world.
To that end, on June 18, Swiss voters will decide on a constitutional amendment to implement a new 15% corporate minimum tax, in line with a global agreement spearheaded by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). If voted through by the public, the new tax rate would come into effect in 2024, but would only apply to companies with a turnover of more than CHF750 ($839 million)
What would you advise the Swiss Confederation to do to end its image as a tax haven?
Our explanatory article on the OECD minimum tax vote, one of the topics of the June 18 vote:
From the article Explainer: the OECD minimum tax vote
On a Neste product was written 'produced in Belgium for Nestle Bahamas Ltd'. What has the Swiss tax haven to do with that?
Posts from Tokyo, Japan
Various tools can be used for good or evil.
(I'm not calling Switzerland a "tool"...)
It is the sinners who use tools for evil who are to blame,
Switzerland itself does not need to be falsely accused, nor does it need to bemoan itself.
Isn't it the authorities of the country responsible for supervising their own companies in the first place?
Isn't it the authorities' responsibility to put regulations in place to prevent money from flowing to tax havens?
The authorities have not developed the political power to create regulations, and have abdicated their responsibility,
Isn't it somewhat opportunistic to use this as an excuse to blame Switzerland?
日本 東京(Tokyo)からの投稿
様々な道具は、善にも悪にも使うことができる。
（スイスを「道具」呼ばわりしているわけではない。）
悪いのは道具を悪に使う罪人であって、
スイス自身が不当に非難される必要はないし、自らを嘆く必要もない。
そもそも自国の企業を監督する責任があるのは、その国の当局ではないか？
租税回避地に金が流れないように規制をかけるのは、当局の責務では？
規制を作れる政治力を当局が養わず、責務を放棄し、
それをスイスを非難する口実に使うのは、いささかご都合主義ではないのか？
There seems to be a belief out there that tax havens are necessarily illegal or at least something very negative. Personally I don't understand what the problem is. If a small country offers international companies favorable tax solutions what is the problem. The company gains something as well as the country in the expansion of its tax base. Where is the problem
Nothing, continue to be one and try to be more. If they call you a tax haven it is because you are doing things right and they are a tax hell.
Nada, seguir siéndolo y tratar de serlo más. Si te llaman paraíso fiscal es porque estás haciendo las cosas bien y ellos son un infierno fiscal.
Our country and the whole world should open cases against the U.S. for noncompliance with agreements made. Today if you want to fence or hide undeclared money go to the U.S. where I will open an e-mail account for you.
As always they have screwed us all over by imposing measures that we as first-class people take and they don't. Even sanctions are imposed unilaterally by them and we make them our own, like the good servants we are.
Perhaps it would make things easier to replace the federal council, which gives proof of impotence every day MORE
Il nostro paese e l’intero mondo dovrebbe aprire cause contro gli USA per non adempimento agli accordi presi. Oggi se vuoi ricolare o nascondere soldi non dichiarati vai negli Stati Uniti dove ti apro di un conto per e-mail.
Come sempre ci hanno fregato tutti, imponendo misure che noi da primi della classe adottiamo e loro no. Anche le sanzioni vengono imposte unilateralmente da loro e noi le facciamo nostre, da bravi servi che siamo.
Forse faciliterebbe le cose sostituire il consiglio federale che da prova di impotenza ogni giorno di Piu
Switzerland should institute generous financial rewards for whistleblowers who leak information about questionable financial activities, be it tax evasion, money laundering or sanction-busting.
The U.S. already does that.
American regulators like the SEC, CFTC, IRS award 10 to 30 percent of the seized money to the whistle-blower who reports, for example, tax violations to the authorities.
I believe Switzerland should do the same thing: make snitching on financial crimes profitable.
Taxes is decided by the people in democratic countries, this article is ridiculous.
Some countries have very high taxes som hav low taxes och there is nothing wrong to decide low taxes.
If SVP finance directors in the canton of Zug declare on television that they have not yet heard anything about sanctions for Russian oligarchs, then the rest of Switzerland should not be surprised if it is once again seen in every crime novel as a refuge for criminal money in the next ten years. The expression "tax haven" is somewhat hypocritical!
Wenn SVP-Finanzdirektoren im Kanton Zug im Fernsehen erklären, dass sie noch nichts über Sanktionen für russische Oligarchen vernommen haben, dann sollte sich die übrige Schweiz nicht wundern, wenn sie in den nächsten zehn Jahren wiederum in jedem Krimi als Fluchtort für kriminelle Gelder gesehen wird. Da ist ja wohl der Ausdruck "Steuerparadies" doch etwas heuchlerisch!
I'm not sure sanctions against Russia was a very clever move at all. Why would anyone intentionally antagonize or marginalize future and quite essential business partners. The US has been bullying other nations into complying with its insane foreign policy for too long. Concerning sanctions against Russia, the US and Ukraine could have, at any time, sat down with Russia and easily come to a peace agreement, but they refused to do this. Russia has legitimate security concerns but US foreign policy maintains that Russia is an enemy worthy only of destruction. Under these circumstances how could it be illegal to ignore US demanded sanctions against Russia? Is it a crime to be Russian and rich?
One rate of tax for all similar sized companies would help. Plus make the likes of ebay, Amazon, other international companies, the rich (who can afford clever accountants) pay the right amount of tax. Also a fairer system for all individuals. If I look at how much I pay, percentage-wise, I pay more than a married rich home owner with loads of children and at least one car. Plus I pay more because of where I live. If I moved to a cheaper tax area, I'd end up paying more rent, and end up with less desirable neighbours. So, whatever I do, I lose money. The system is rigged to help the already rich, not to help the poor.
What is wrong with being considered a tax haven ?
rich people and companies create wealth that the poorer lot can use to elevate themselves . the poor bring nothing to the party !
the swiss politicos know this but the low life are jealous .
Zug and other areas attract multinationals who are only 5% of companies but contribute 25% of ch tax ?
keep complaining and more will shift to dubai bahamas holland !
I always felt that this referendum deliberately conflated two different issues:
1. approval or disapproval of a 15% minimum tax rate. Which no one seems to be opposed to.
2. for or against the distribution of the additional tax. That's the point of contention.
If someone is for 1 and against 2, should they put "yes" or "no"? Why would Congress want to deliberately confuse the two?
Finally, I don't think "tax havens" are an evil, if they are legal.
我总觉得这项公投将两个不同的问题故意混在一起：
1. 赞同或反对实行15%的最低税率。这 似乎没人反对。
2. 赞同或反对额外税收的分配方案。这才是争辩的焦点。
如果有人赞成1， 而反对2，他应该填“是”还是“否”呢？议会为什么要故意混淆二者呢？
最后说说，我不认为“避税天堂”是一项罪恶，如果避税是合法的话。
Welcome to Switzerland. The authorities deliberately complicate issues they do not want voters to vote for. One issue one vote is too logical for them. Plus, I've seen successful referendums that mean we pay more tax, get fewer holidays, etc, etc. If it helps the poor, the voters say no as it will cost too much. They never see the benefits, like me. I thought the basic income for everyone was a brilliant idea. But the already rich said no. They are rich for a reason. They do not like spending money, especially on the poor.
Uh, nothing ? Why on earth would Switzerland want to imitate their less successful neighbours ?
Exactly, its stunning to read. Switzerland is a great success store and have no reason to copy the EU fiasko. Switzerland is th best developed democracy the people decides not
politicians and not EU. If you do not like it move away.
Exactly! Besides, the same people that call Switzerland a tax haven is because their countries are tax hells where nobody wants to live because of the high taxes.
Exacto! Además los mismos que llaman a Suiza paraíso fiscal es porque sus países son infiernos fiscales donde nadie quiere vivir por los altos impuestos
companies and hnwi go to Ch because of low tax .
Swiss benefit from this so should leave this subject alone .Swiss individuals are NOT entrepeneurs and quite happy to be parasites off the safety net provided . Holland is quite happy to welcome welthy cos and individuals who are constantly hassled by these spoilt lowlifr
Strange question, all countries outside EU decides it own taxes, Switzerland the most democratic country is ruled by its people.
Switzerland must be understood as a tax haven in part of its history, which implies that it has the advantage of being a place for refuge values in crisis situations, but with a cost of certain isolation that can sometimes be justified or not in several facets, including the social one. The Swiss state, like other states, must base its economy on 9 basic tariffs, regardless of its status as a tax haven or not, which are: the overall debt, the treasury, the subsidized liability of the private sector, workers' contributions, pensions, social benefits, asset liability, insurance companies, whether private or official, and funds for official maintenance.
It is true that the fact that Switzerland is linked to the BIS Bank and at the same time is a tax haven could be frowned upon by some sectors of society, as it could be understood as a subjective feeling of excessive security, but on the other hand, it avoids probable high-risk situations with the European Central Bank based in Frankfurt but with its registered capital in Brussels and the International Monetary Fund. Therefore, the situation as a tax haven does not seem dangerous in principle, as long as it is in accordance with its constitutional values. Perhaps the problem may arise in particular at the level of the Swiss Ministry of Justice, when the Swiss Ministry of Justice wants to deposit amounts of money of illicit origin or of families or entities with historical memory there. It is true that from a fiscal point of view it could be technically admissible, but it would break the scheme of Swiss anthropology of neutrality that can be discussed today, but that with great wisdom was applied twice in the past. César De Lucas Ivorra, San Juan de Alicante, Spain.
Suiza se debe entender como un paraíso fiscal en parte de su historia, lo que implica que tiene la ventaja de ser un lugar para valores refugio en situaciones de crisis, pero con un coste de cierto aislamiento que pueda a veces estar justificado o no en varias facetas, incluso la social. El estado suizo, al igual que otros estados, deben de basar su economía en 9 aranceles básicos, independientemente de su situación de paraíso fiscal o no que son: la deuda global, el tesoro, la responsabilidad subsidia del sector privado, las cotizaciones de los trabajadores, las pensiones, las prestaciones sociales, la responsabilidad patrimonial, las aseguradoras sean privadas u oficiales y los fondos destinados al mantenimiento oficial.
Es cierto que el hecho de que Suiza esté vinculada al BIS Bank y ser al mismo tiempo un paraíso fiscal podría ser mal visto por algunos sectores de la sociedad, ya que podría entenderse como una sensación subjetiva de un exceso de seguridad, pero por otra parte, evita probables situaciones de alto riesgo con el Banco Central Europeo con sede en Frankfurt pero con capital social en Bruselas y el Fondo Monetario Internacional. Por tanto, la situación como paraíso fiscal no parece peligrosa en principio, siempre y cuando esté de acuerdo con sus valores constitucionales. Quizá el problema pueda darse en concreto a nivel del Ministerio de Justicia suizo, cuando cantidades de dinero de procedencia ilícita o de familias o entidades con memoria histórica quieren allí depositarlas. Es cierto, que desde un punto de vista fiscal podría ser técnicamente admisible, pero rompería el esquema de la antropología suiza de neutralidad que puede ser discutido hoy en día, pero que con gran sabiduría fue aplicado dos veces en el pasado. César De Lucas Ivorra, San Juan de Alicante, España.
Join the conversation!