With the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, it has become clear that in this new decade anything is possible and nothing is immutable. From one day to the next, open borders were closed, while social and economic life was brought to a standstill worldwide. Now, a few months later, we face a new reality. The consequences of the crisis are clearly visible.

Covid-19 has led to great uncertainty in society. The danger of epidemics is suddenly real again. To avoid infection, people are prepared to make vast concessions. All over the world, people are giving up their privacy to gain a little more security through various applications. Billions of dollars in aid are tacitly accepted, even if it is uncertain how this aid will be financed or repaid. Questions about the medium and long term consequences are being ignored. Asking them is seen as a sign of a lack of community spirit. Yet they must be asked.

As we struggle with Covid-19, solidarity is the top priority. The intent is to strengthen the cohesion and trust within society, and help us get through these difficult times.

However, it becomes problematic when the call for solidarity is used to undermine basic civil rights, to expand bureaucracy, to hinder entrepreneurship or weaken democracy, or to increase control over the individual by methods supposedly meant to contain the virus. A look back into the past shows that such ostensibly temporary measures can mutate into a permanent state of affairs.

Paradoxically, however, solidarity is disregarded when it

comes to the future of the younger generations, who will have to bear the consequences – financial and otherwise. Could the threat posed by the virus possibly be overshad- owed in the medium and long term by the effects of the measures taken to overcome it?

All of us – young or old, living alone or in a family, entre- preneur, business leader or politician – should consider the consequences of the crisis initiated by the virus and then decide the right path for the long term: restrictions, control and heteronomy or entrepreneurship, trust and self-deter- mination. More than ever before, now is the time to address these values and realign our economic and social systems in such a way that future generations also have bright prospects, and the future is not gambled away due to fear of the virus.

Gisela von und zu Liechtenstein
Member of the Management Board

A mega-project is quietly being developed that will have far-reaching consequences and represent a significant intrusion into the financial privacy of each individual. Economists Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman are driving forward this project, called the Global Asset Registry. Their vision is to uncover the hidden wealth of nations. But what will the consequences be?

Greater equality and justice

Imagine that everything you own and acquire is entered in a register of assets, stating your name, place of residence and tax number. Anyone in the world can inspect and access the information about your possessions. What do you think about it?

Under the leadership of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate   Taxation   (ICRICT),   to which also Mssrs. Piketty, Stiglitz and Zucman belong, work is underway on a global, centrally managed asset register. A first Global Asset Registry Workshop, held in Paris in July 2019, generated a wealth of ideas. Land, houses, apartments, other real estate, cars, bank accounts, life insurance policies, safe deposit boxes – all types of assets, without exception, could be included in this register, and it should be as accessible as possible to the public.

In the Roadmap for a Global Asset Registry (GAR), ICRICT argues that the prevailing inequality of wealth poses a serious threat to the economy, society and democracy. It does not explain exactly what this danger is. But it does see the solution in the complete disclosure of property owner- ship. The ICRICT admits that the effective extent of wealth inequality is unknown. But it hopes that the GAR will bring hidden wealth to the surface and then reveal the extent of wealth inequality.

To this end, ICRICT wants to link the wealth data that the GAR collects with those already collected by existing instru- ments – such as the Common Reporting Standard, the Beneficiary Register or Country-by-Country Reporting – or those contained in other national registers. Any additional data could then be collected at a later stage. Those behind the project eventually want to be able to trace asset ownership back to its origin, if possible.

For the common good

The ICRICT justifies its striving for comprehensive asset transparency by stating that it wants to revive a «broken social contract», according to which private property only receives protection from the law if, in return, ownership

relationships are disclosed and applicable taxes are paid. The argumentation suggests that it is striving for an ideal «Contrat Social» in which the common will and the common good prevail  over  everything.  Individual  rights and goods are to be subordinated to this common will and common good. The conviction seems to be that inequality of property becomes inequality among people. Conversely, however, this means that there would no longer exist any room for individual freedom of action and decision-making, or for property rights.

Political decision makers are an important target group.

As outlined in the GAR Roadmap, ICRICT would like to give them a basis for discussing an «appropriate» level of inequality and supporting appropriate taxation. Further- more, ICRICT sees the GAR as an instrument to prevent crime and abuse of power; tax authorities or citizens of corrupt states should be able to take action against their governments. They argue that the advantage for ordinary citizens or businesspeople is the complete transparency and the resulting convenience of only  having  to  sign  tax returns, for example. The data on belongings would already be stored centrally.

What role does Covid-19 play?

The project’s argumentation is largely based on estimates and assumptions. It  follows the widespread  notion that  the

«rich» are getting richer and the «poor» are getting poorer because a certain percentage of the world’s wealth is accounted for by a certain percentage of the population, and this percentage is decisive for all social problems and injustices. This is the basis for the idea that justice is achieved when everyone has the same amount of wealth. But is it not much more important that people have the ability to exit poverty and the chance to increase their living standards, instead of everyone having equally much or, conversely, equally little? Discussions about rich and poor often fail to take into account that worldwide poverty has fallen significantly in recent decades (as confirmed in surveys by the World Bank and other organisations), and that living standards are generally much higher today.

The measures initiated because of Covid-19, however, could interrupt the decline in poverty, leaving a lasting mark on the economy and society. Across the globe, social and economic prosperity will weaken and poverty will increase again. Here and there, the virus will also tempt to maintain restrictions on fundamental rights and increase control over citizens. A comparison of these developments with the objectives of the GAR reveals a complex picture of the future: The opportunities to shape life according  to  one’s  own  ideas will dwindle. The right to own, use, dispose of and be- queath legitimately acquired property will gradually be restricted. Authorities and centralised organisations, on the other hand, will be given greater scope for action.

What does this mean for the future?

The world is moving into a challenging age. The claim to equality and justice ignores the fact that in a world where everyone is equal, no progress can be made. To paraphrase Friedrich A. von Hayek: «A social market economy is not a market economy, a social constitutional state is not a constitutional state, a social conscience is not a conscience and social justice is not justice.» Why? Because with the word «social» individual liberty rights are being gradually eroded.

Whether and how the GAR project will be able to really establish itself depends ultimately on the extent to which politicians, especially in Western democracies, will adhere to the principles of the rule of law – because the project attacks the principle of the rule of law and personal rights. It will also depend on how aware each individual becomes of the dangers that emanate from such comprehensive transparency.

A global register of assets would neither bring crime to a standstill, nor would it close the gap between rich and poor, nor eliminate inequality. On the contrary, it would make a mockery of fundamental human rights and expose every citizen. Social progress and social prosperity would be destroyed because private property would be destroyed.

Realism instead of clichés

The GAR Roadmap also argues that offshore structures through foundations or trusts hide the existence of proper- ty and provide fertile ground for tax evasion, tax avoidance or financial crime. Here, the authors seem to be deliberate- ly negating all developments of recent years in the field of tax compliance and the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing in favour of their project.

The purpose of foundations, trusts or other legal asset structures is to organize assets in such a way that business, family or charitable goals and projects can be realized. However, this presupposes that assets are preserved and protected, for example against the dangers arising from current political and economic developments. Foundations and trusts are instruments with which assets can be preserved over the long term and aligned with a specific purpose – so that also future generations have good prospects.

In Liechtenstein, the Law on Token and TT Service Providers will soon enter into force. In FinTech circles, the law is already known as the Blockchain Act. In this newsletter you will learn more about this law and also what opportunities will arise from a digitalised economic system.

In an interview with Claudio Grass, H.S.H. Prince Michael von und zu Liechtenstein talks about the value of private property in today's world, what the tasks of a state are, what opportunities and risks are foreseeable, and what distinguishes the Principality of Liechtenstein. The interview was published in two parts on www.proaurum.de

The Western World can look at a Golden Age. The decisive factors behind it were the concept of a free market economy and the awareness of the need for cooperation. But today's burning question is: how will the future look like? The voices of egalitarianism are becoming louder and are accompanied by an increasing entitlement mentality. We would like to share our thoughts on this with you in the current I&F-Newsletter. Therein, you will also discover the key factors that have enabled the Principality of Liechtenstein to become a successful business location.

Prince Michael von und zu Liechtenstein in talks with Barbara Dietrich (www.diplomatic-world.com) about Liechtenstein and the world. The key question is: What makes Liechtenstein so successful?

"Last night the wife said: Oh Boy, when you're dead you don't take nothing with you but your soul, think!" This line, that John Lennon once sang, holds implications which many People grapple with: the awareness of one's own mortality. In this essay Count Francis von Seilern-Aspang explores the various opportunities that come along with a conscious wealth and succession planning.

Geopolitical developments have a decisive influence on private wealth, both in a positive and negative sense. Just like in a crime investigation, the "murder" is a given - of greater interest is how it happened in the first place. In a similar way, Geopolitics examines the events happening around the world. In her exclusive essay for www.finews.ch Princess Therese von und zu Liechtenstein illustrates the relationship of Geopolitics and Wealth Preservation and Management.

Is the Private Sphere still private? Marc Zahn analyses this question in an essay which he contributed to www.finews.ch

In the eyes of many, certain areas of Europe are virtually heaven on earth. But reality reveals a different picture. Thus time would be right, to reflect once more on values. An exclusive essay written by Count Francis von Seilern-Aspang for www.finews.ch 

In this Essay H.S.H. Prince Michael von und zu Liechtenstein illustrates the challenges for Wealth Protection in times of Big Data.

There's an old adage that says that true happiness lies within oneself. Transposed to the financial industry, this could be interpreted as meaning that happiness lies in the culture and values that prevails at those companies?

An interview on the future of Wealth Management in the context of Wealth Preservation.

This newsletter explains what Wealth Preservation is all about, especially in terms of younger generations. And you will learn about the variety Liechtenstein has to offer. 

Facts and background information on the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEI).

This newsletter addresses the risks and jeopardies which are a bane to wealth, and illustrates what is needed to preserve wealth in the long-run.  

This newsletter includes information about the Swiss Tax Treaties with Germany, Austria and Great Britain. 

An article about the Liechtenstein foundation in the context of family governance. 

Free-access-link

This newsletter takes a deeper look at the Liechtenstein Tax Law and further explains why private wealth should be protected and preserved.

This newsletter gives you an insight into Family Governance. 

This newsletter takes a closer look at the term transparency and informes about the recognition of Liechtenstein foundations under the civil law in Switzerland. 

This newsletter overviews the Liechtenstein Tax Law. 

This newsletter provides information on the Liechtenstein Discretionary Foundation.

Contact us:
via phone or via e-mail

Contact
crossmenuchevron-right