RIGHT TO SECURE LIFE
Lastly, we have the argument that by preventing taxation, tax havens and rich people are preventing the "right of everyone else to secure the minimum necessary to sustain life." This is indeed a strange "right" which we have never heard of before. It isn't that we have the right to live but that we have the right to secure the sustainment of our life from other people's wealth. Our life is more valuable than their life. Basically this means that we have the right to forcefully demand food (so that we won't starve), shelter (so that we won't die from exposure), and health care (so that we won't die from preventable diseases). Let's assume that this is so (not true but let's play), but then why is that in most countries in the world the budget percentage allocated to food, shelter and health care is tiny when compared with the military and bureaucratic salaries (see Much Salary About Nothing) and other wasteful expenditures that governments are so addicted to? If this so-called "right" is so incredibly critical, why is that governments are not so expressing where it matters, which is their budgets? Strangely enough, even when collection from taxes increases, food, shelter and health care budgets are not selectively increased. They are only increased in the same percentage as tax collection increases (if any). This indicates that food, shelter and health care is of limited interest to governments and not of critical importance to them. Otherwise budgets (and more importantly) increases in budgets would so indicate. But if governments are not keen on supporting this so-called "right", why is that "rich people" must do so? Furthermore, most governments do not have laws guaranteeing food, shelter and health care to citizens and if these countries deem such laws unnecessary, why is that Tax Maximization Lobbyists are so keen on them? Why is that Tax Maximization Lobbyists must be more communists than the countries they purport to lobby for? Where does the right of Tax Maximization Lobbyists to demand more theft come from? Who gave them this privilege? Answer? Nobody. They do not represent anybody other than themselves while most of the time benefiting (directly or indirectly) from your taxes. In this sense, they are your employees but with one critical difference; you can't fire them!
Furthermore, this so-called "right" has been tried before and it was called communism. In communism (at least theoretically) you had that right and we all know how wonderfully it worked and how satisfied people were under it. Seriously. Under communism every citizen had the right to food, shelter, health care and work! Furthermore, under communism taxation was 100% because everything de-facto belonged to the state! So, how exactly will an increase in taxation (i.e. the destruction of capital) help people?
But let's not be disingenuous as our opposition is. We fully acknowledge that if collection from taxes would rise, governments would spend more on food, shelter and health care and so people (non-rich people that is - whatever that may mean) would benefit. Temporarily at least.
The problem is that as capital is removed, progress is delayed. Most countries in the world do not have property taxes beyond municipal ones. This is so for a very valid reason. Outright taxing wealth just because there is wealth is counterproductive. It only leads to less wealth and hence less taxes. Even communist countries (such as Uruguay) have learned this lesson and are phasing such tax out. They fully understand that taxing asset capital leads to less production. But capital is capital. There is no such thing as a difference between capital from productive activities and capital as assets. They are all capital and if you remove capital (from any source) the effects will be the same; less production which translates to less goods and services.
As such it is far better "for the greater good" (as socialists would have it) if capital is left in private hands which will increase productivity and hence increase our standards of living (see Those Bastards - The Rich People), thus negating the need for the so-called "right" "to secure the minimum necessary to sustain life" in the first place. We don't want people to be beggars as this so-called "right" would indicate, we want people to be rich; as rich as they can possibly be.
Furthermore, if we consider that Human Rights Are Economic Problems how exactly will the increase in economic problems produced by a decrease in wealth help the poor?
In addition, as the Offshore Leaks Data of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) would seem to indicate, most people having offshore accounts are not rich people. They are average people with a little bit more wealth which they want to protect. If rich people would be the vast majority, by now the scandals would be unending…yet…not much is going on. Considering that the amount of data is staggering (100,000+ records) and that it was published one and half years ago, and that for any intent and purpose government resources are beyond vast, something massive should have popped-up by now, but no. Not much is going on. Basically, the idea that only fat, hyper-wealthy people have offshore accounts is a myth. Most people having offshore accounts seem to be average people fed up with being robbed blind, and we can't blame them for that… but apparently Tax Maximization Lobbyists can.
Lastly, many countries on earth seem to have a split personality. On one hand they tax heavily their citizens and demand the disappearance of tax havens so that they may tax them even more efficiently. On the other hand, they act as tax havens themselves for non-residents. And we are not talking about strange and far away countries, without going too far the US actually qualifies. Humm… It would seem a case of do as I say but not as I do. How much more hypocritical can governments -and politicians- get?
The bottom line is that Tax Maximization Lobbyists are socialists (or communists) and as such they believe that there could be a free lunch. There is no such thing. You have to pay with real wealth for what you consume. The more you consume the less you produce and the less you produce the less you will have to pay for your consumption. This is not rocket science but the most basic of economic truths… although it would seem that Tax Maximization Lobbyists never learned it. Remedial economics anyone?
REFORMATION
When it seems appropriate to them, Tax Maximization Lobbyists tell us that tax havens have voiced their reformation while not doing so substantially. We are puzzled as to what exactly they refer to. Basically, there are no more tax havens on earth. As far as we can tell, there isn't a single country on earth lacking some sort of Tax Information Agreement Exchange (mostly modeled upon the OECD model). Furthermore, many countries have already signed the Automatic Exchange of Information Agreement with many more to come thanks to the relentless pressure of governments who blatantly interfere with the sovereignty of others (see This Is The End). As the world situation stands today, you have no more financial rights. They are all gone. You don't have any more rights to your money, your information or your wealth. From now on is all downhill into communism. You can thank Tax Maximization Lobbyists for this "success".
HAVOC
And, finally, when all else has failed, governments tell us that they will wreak havoc on anyone who tries to put an end to their schemes. These very same governments will stop at nothing and resort to any method of bringing to submission sovereign tax havens… including blackmail. Sign or we will cut you off from SWIFT. Sign or you won't be able to transfer any funds anywhere. If Switzerland capitulated, what can you expect from other countries? Even more considering that SWIFT was already fully compromised by the action of so-called government organizations that analyze and report on all kinds of financial transactions. But even this was not enough; nothing short of absolute victory was demanded… or else… we will create havoc in your economy.
In fact, banks have no choice but to operate in capital markets where there are customers. Robbery-averse citizens in Sao Paulo, Hong Kong, Paris or Moscow attempting to guard themselves from crooked governments will be unable to transfer funds if SWIFT is cut-off from tax havens. In fact, the world's governments have already taken a series of steps to increase the abusive behaviour of their tax collection -legal- racket organizations. For example, the US Facta now requires tax havens to maintain all the information needed for full automatic information exchange on all individuals and the schemes they operate, while the EU's new rules for banks have set a precedent for all companies that operate internationally. All this in blatant disregard of tax havens' sovereignty. While there is much more that governments will do, there is ample evidence that the threats are anything but bluff.
CONCLUSION
Even a casual glance at the arguments that Tax Maximization Lobbyists use reveals the glaring inconsistencies between them. They want us to believe that these jurisdictions must be reformed and that they are not helpless victims of bullying by large economies. It's no wonder that the world is in troubles. The signs are that people will flock in increasingly larger numbers to wherever protection is afforded against outright robbery from governments. People don't want to be robbed through taxation. People want everybody to be afforded the same protection against governments, and no amount of sophistry will change their minds.
But then again, maybe you believe that we must pay our "fair share" and that tax havens are skirting this obligation. Fair enough. Keep paying your fair share. Just one thing, when you reach zero, don't come complaining back to us.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
