For access to confidential private Swiss banks accounts, why not “wealth asylum”, something like political asylum?

Sir, John Gapper writes “there are decent reasons apart from tax evasion, or even legal tax avoidance, for the wealthy to put money in Swiss banks”, yet he with reason asks “the rich”, whether that is “any way to behave”, since doing so they will “resemble money launderers”, “Private banks must be more than laundries” February 12.

But Sir, why should a rich have to give up his private Swiss bank account if his reasons are decent?

It seems that what could be needed is something like a Swiss government office where a person can go and request “wealth asylum”. He would there of course have to present reasonable evidence of his source of wealth not being illegal.

If granted, such asylum would offer special confidentiality rights, which would be guaranteed for as long as the Swiss government does not receive substantial proof that shows the application contained major falsehoods.

If Robin Hood could hide in Sherwood Forest why can’t wealthy hide in private banks? I mean let us be frank; there are many bad Sheriffs of Nottingham out there.

If persons are allowed to carry guns against bandits, why not, in these Piketty days, can the wealthy carry private Swiss bank accounts against some overly greedy government bureaucrats?

And sometimes even if its not all "legal": If a poor North Korean managed to evade paying taxes and escape with some money, should not his capital have right to anonymous asylum?

But why on earth should you think about putting the burden to decide about what’s decent and what’s is not, on a small bank clerk who might rarely been out of his country?

PS. Am I wealthy? No! But just like for instance a shoe-artisan in Milan knows it, I know that the higher the number of wealthy around me, the more likely I am to be better off… and so, sometimes, though not too frequently, I also have to think a bit about how to keep the wealthy wealthy. If you have to be a servant, then most often, though not always, you are better served having to serve a wealthy master.

I am very suspicious of those who seem wanting to promote shared poverty… because quite often it sounds like their populist business plan for trying to become very wealthy themselves. And I do oppose the redistribution profiteers

PS. But then, now and again, I get hit by the thought: "If the wealthy could not safeguard their wealth in other countries, then perhaps they would make a stronger stance and defend their wealth more in their own country". And that sometimes could be what is really most needed.

When fighting inequality, before redistributing, eliminate some of its worst man-made causes.

Sir, on the front page you label Martin Wolf’s “A more equal society will not hinder growth” as “Robin Hood’s economy” April 23. Just in case, and since so many have recently been mixing up Robin Hood with the Sheriff of Nottingham, let us be clear in that Robin Hood indeed helped the poor, but he was not a tax collector for King John… much the contrary.

Many years ago in an op-ed, I wrote that since justice lies on a never ending continuum, which made it hard to know where you find yourself, the most effective way to fight for justice was by attacking the much easier identifiable injustices. In the same vein, since it is hard to define what equality we need, before the grave, it is better to combat the most egregious sources of inequality.

Right now many economic injustices firmly anchored in what is known as rent extraction or crony capitalism are important inequality drivers. Trying to make up for the bad results, by for instance a tax on wealth, without correcting those drivers will lead to even more inequality.

There are many man-made causes for inequality. Two of those that I have been proposing to end are:

First: It makes no sense if we want to make our capitalism vigorous that the usually ample profits obtained under the protection of a patent, or through the power of an extravagant market share, should be taxed at the same rate, that those more meager profits resulting from having to compete naked and unprotected in the market. As a result the capital accumulation of “the protected” will be higher than that of “the unprotected” with very dire long term implications to the dynamism of capitalism.

Second: It makes no sense whatsoever to allow banks to obtain higher risk-adjusted returns on equity when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to “the risky”. And that is the direct result of those so obnoxious risk-weighted capital requirements. Robin Hood would never agree with allowing banks to lend, in risk-adjusted terms, more favorably to the “infallible sovereign” or to the AAAristocracy than when lending to a “risky” Sherwood Forest entrepreneur.

Again, let us be sure that we fight inequality by reducing its causes, not by increasing the profits of the intermediaries in redistribution, the merchants of inequality reduction.

PS. Sir, just to let you know, I am not copying Martin Wolf with this, as he has asked me not to send him any more comments related to the capital requirements for banks, as he understands it all… at least so he thinks.

FT if this is the way European banks “derisk”, there is no doubt that Europe is getting to be much riskier.

Sir, Patrick Jenkins writes “banks have derisked since the crisis, cutting loans to companies and individuals…amplified their investment in sovereign bonds” “Time to force banks to kick their easy money habit” November 28.

To me anyone calling a reduction in loans to citizens and private sector and an increase in loans to the sovereign as a process of “derisking”, is either a communist or has no idea what he is speaking about.

And the “Funding for Lending” schemes that Jenkins refers to as a way of solving the “weak supply of credit to smaller business”, will not make a dent to a problem which derives from those insane capital requirements for banks where these, in marginal terms, under Basel III, need to hold 7 percent in capital when lending to a European, but zero percent when lending to its sovereign.

No Sir, if European banks are “derisking” this way, there is no doubt that Europe is getting to be a much riskier place.

Don´t you find something to be very wrong when banks are given so many incentives by the Regulator of Nottingham to lend to King John and not to Robin Hood?

Professor David Camroux, referring to a Robin Hood tax, seems to be just another applicant to the position of a Sheriff of Nottingham.

Sir, here is David Camroux, an Associate Professor of Science Po, quoting Jean Baptiste Colbert in that “the art of taxation” is taxing so that it is least noticed; writing that the FTT proposed by the European Commission could raise about €30bn to €35bn annually; and indicating it as an amount “rather small in comparison to the revenue needs of the 11 European Governments concerned”, and still he has the gall to refer to it as a Robin Hood tax, “FTT a feather in the cap for the average taxpayer”. May 30.

Sincerely as far as I am concerned Mr. Camroux is clearly only showing credentials to apply for the position of a Sheriff of Nottingham.

Perhaps one day we will find FTT as uncontroversial as VAT Camroux writes. Indeed, but was that to happen, that would just mean another regressive feather plucked from the goose average-taxpayer and put in an average European Commission bureaucrat cap.

If Professor Camroux really wants to help the average taxpayer, then what he should do is to question the revenue needs of their respective governments.

PS. There was a time that the FTT could have been a Robin Hood tax. That was when it was seen as an instrument to obtain resources from rich countries so as to help poor countries. But that was, at least, a financial crisis ago.

EU, ECB, what “Robin Hood” taxes are you talking about? Sounds like mislabeling to me

Sir, Ralph Atkins writes “ECB offers to recast‘Robin Hood’ tax amid fears over market impact” May 27, and I just have to ask “What Robin Hood tax?” as in its current form it seems just to be another tax collected by a Sheriff of Nottingham to feed the coffers of Prince John. 

PS. Never forget, nothing as effective against tax-havens than tax-heavens

FTT is no longer a “Robin Hood tax”, now just another “King John tax”, to be collected by another Sheriff of Nottingham

Sir, Alex Barker and Philip Stafford report that “Brussels looks at incentives to ease collection of ‘Robin Hood’ levy” May 23, and I do think some clarification is in order. 

There was a time, many years ago, when some thought that the financial transaction tax was going to be used to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest countries. And so those days, branding FTT as a “Robin Hood” tax made some sense. Not any more, now it is a quite ordinary and traditional “King John” tax to be collected by a Sheriff of Nottingham. 

I do not mind the distribution from the rich to the poor… what I do mind is that in the collection and distribution process, most funds transferred end up in pockets other than those of the poor.

PS. Against tax-havens, nothing is as powerful as tax-heavens 

Has Robin Hood sold out and now been co-opted by King John as a neo-Sheriff of Nottingham?

Sir, Ralph Atkins and Alex Barker quote Simon Chouffot saying “You can draw parallels between the Sheriff of Nottingham and financial services, and Robin Hood redistributing gains back to those who needed it.”, “Robin Hood tax: A long shot”, May 21.

Sorry but I am utterly confused, I always saw the Sheriff of Nottingham as the tax collector for bad King John, and Robin Hood as providing good people a safe-haven in the Sherwood Forest.