Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

No, in fact, you cannot take your ball and go elsewhere...

Rate this topic


Greebo
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/28615/Its_Of...l_Controls.html

Excerpt:

On March 18, with very little pomp and circumstance, president Obama passed the most recent stimulus act, the $17.5 billion Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2487), brilliantly goalseeked by the administration's millionaire cronies to abbreviate as HIRE. As it was merely the latest in an endless stream of acts destined to expand the government payroll to infinity, nobody cared about it, or actually read it. Because if anyone had read it, the act would have been known as the Capital Controls Act, as one of the lesser, but infinitely more important provisions on page 27, known as Offset Provisions - Subtitle A—Foreign Account Tax Compliance, institutes just that.

In brief, the Provision requires that foreign banks not only withhold 30% of all outgoing capital flows (likely remitting the collection promptly back to the US Treasury) but also disclose the full details of non-exempt account-holders to the US and the IRS. And should this provision be deemed illegal by a given foreign nation's domestic laws (think Switzerland), well the foreign financial institution is required to close the account. It's the law. If you thought you could move your capital to the non-sequestration safety of non-US financial institutions, sorry you lose - the law now says so. Capital Controls are now here and are now fully enforced by the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked into the actual law, and from what I figure, this only applies to US persons, so a way around it would be this:

There will be foreign banks which will agree to this, and report on every American who has an account with them, to the IRS. If that American were to move his money into one of those foreign banks, then leave the US and renounce his citizenship, the bank may simply stop reporting on him, and the person is free to move his money wherever he wishes, including to a Swiss bank which is not party to this agreement.

Are you aware of any laws preventing this (assuming the person hasn't broken any other US laws of course)?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked into the actual law, and from what I figure, this only applies to US persons, so a way around it would be this:

There will be foreign banks which will agree to this, and report on every American who has an account with them, to the IRS. If that American were to move his money into one of those foreign banks, then leave the US and renounce his citizenship, the bank may simply stop reporting on him, and the person is free to move his money wherever he wishes, including to a Swiss bank which is not party to this agreement.

Are you aware of any laws preventing this (assuming the person hasn't broken any other US laws of course)?

I'm not - but why should I *have* to be? If it's my money, morally earned, what right does the US have to tell me I can't move my earned value to other countries if I so wish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not - but why should I *have* to be? If it's my money, morally earned, what right does the US have to tell me I can't move my earned value to other countries if I so wish?

It doesn't have any right. But it does do it anyway, so we should find out if giving up on the US entirely is a viable option or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...we should find out if giving up on the US entirely is a viable option or not.

It is sad that my first thought after reading that article was exactly this. It is so entrenched an anti-individuality that I question the point in pursuing my interests here. It is slowly becoming a place where I simply can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is sad that my first thought after reading that article was exactly this. It is so entrenched an anti-individuality that I question the point in pursuing my interests here. It is slowly becoming a place where I simply can't.

The trends are certainly frightening. However, the obvious question becomes where does one go that's better? I continue to believe that this country is worth fighting for and I think it can be turned around. Unfortunately I can also see that we are fast approaching the point of no return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trends are certainly frightening. However, the obvious question becomes where does one go that's better? I continue to believe that this country is worth fighting for and I think it can be turned around. Unfortunately I can also see that we are fast approaching the point of no return.

That's the $1,000,000 question. Every time I have to ask it I reach the conclusion that even though this place is turning into a second-rate socialist toilet, it doesn't get any better. The scale of this crisis is absolutely biblical. I don't think there is much I can do so I'm just going to live my life for me and try to keep my head up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the $1,000,000 question. Every time I have to ask it I reach the conclusion that even though this place is turning into a second-rate socialist toilet, it doesn't get any better. The scale of this crisis is absolutely biblical. I don't think there is much I can do so I'm just going to live my life for me and try to keep my head up.

I still think we should look into buying a small country out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think we should look into buying a small country out.

St. Vincent & the Grenadines has a population of only 118 000. Vanuatu has 221 400.

How about carving a country out of an existing one? If the country is too far down the road to totalitarianism, maybe it is easier to break off a chunk and put in place a proper limited government there.

Ayn Rand opposed secession of states/provinces/territories in most cases, if the breakaway country simply wanted to put its own controls in place. But she did say it was moral for a portion of a semi-free or unfree country to secede and form a free country. For Canadian provinces: Alberta and Saskatchewan are the best candidates for secession. Both are resource-rich. Saskatchewan has just over one million people. Alberta has 3.7 million. Lots of resources, lots of land, and damn cold winters. Add to that the fact that the Canadian government actually has a legal framework in place for a province to secede. Canada is highly unlikely to use military force to quash a provincial secession. For US States: my immediate thought is that Montana, Wyoming and Idaho might be good candidates. New Hampshire possibly as well. How would the American government handle a state's secession in modern times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked into the actual law, and from what I figure, this only applies to US persons, so a way around it would be this:

There will be foreign banks which will agree to this, and report on every American who has an account with them, to the IRS. If that American were to move his money into one of those foreign banks, then leave the US and renounce his citizenship, the bank may simply stop reporting on him, and the person is free to move his money wherever he wishes, including to a Swiss bank which is not party to this agreement.

Are you aware of any laws preventing this (assuming the person hasn't broken any other US laws of course)?

In the mean time someone answered my question:

Called the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Act of 2008 (the HEART bill, for short), the main part of the new law deservedly gives benefits to soldiers. But the last part of the bill, under "revenue provisions," sticks it to anyone who no longer wants to live the American dream.

The new law, bill JCX-44-8, reads like this: "In general, the provision imposes tax on certain US citizens who relinquish their US citizenship and certain long-term US residents who terminate their US residency. Such individuals are subject to income tax on the net unrealized gain in their property as if the property had been sold for its fair market value."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/item...N#ixzz0jm8kPkaK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new law, bill JCX-44-8, reads like this: "In general, the provision imposes tax on certain US citizens who relinquish their US citizenship and certain long-term US residents who terminate their US residency. Such individuals are subject to income tax on the net unrealized gain in their property as if the property had been sold for its fair market value."

If they can do that, why not just tax citizens of foreign countries too? If everyone lived here, the government would have all kinds of cool stuff to steal. Who do these foreigners think they are denying us that? It isn't fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to take land that is owned and controlled directly by a functioning state is a good way to die.

However ancient Seuthopolis got me to thinking about seamounts. Did you know there are relatively large seamounts between 20m and 4m of depth in the ocean that no one owns.

It might sound a little far fetched but the engineering is not impossible and some of the places that have been offered up already are actually smaller than the large seamounts. Best thing is there is no one to fight... at the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to take land that is owned and controlled directly by a functioning state is a good way to die.

However ancient Seuthopolis got me to thinking about seamounts. Did you know there are relatively large seamounts between 20m and 4m of depth in the ocean that no one owns.

It might sound a little far fetched but the engineering is not impossible and some of the places that have been offered up already are actually smaller than the large seamounts. Best thing is there is no one to fight... at the start.

Interesting. So Galt's Gulch could conceivably be a country built on a seamount. I think it obvious that we should call it Atlantis. But considering they are referred to as "fragile ecosystems", any attempt to build on one would be met with considerable opposition from environmentalists. Out in the middle of the ocean they could attack brazenly if they so chose. Security in the construction phase would be a concern, but I think a manageable one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. So Galt's Gulch could conceivably be a country built on a seamount. I think it obvious that we should call it Atlantis. But considering they are referred to as "fragile ecosystems", any attempt to build on one would be met with considerable opposition from environmentalists. Out in the middle of the ocean they could attack brazenly if they so chose. Security in the construction phase would be a concern, but I think a manageable one.

They have to find out you are doing it first. The seamounts I was thinking of are hundreds of nautical miles from some of the most remote places in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have to find out you are doing it first. The seamounts I was thinking of are hundreds of nautical miles from some of the most remote places in the world.

Wouldn't a lack of initial on-site resources make this a logistical nightmare? How would such a tiny structure hold up during a massive storm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have to find out you are doing it first. The seamounts I was thinking of are hundreds of nautical miles from some of the most remote places in the world.

Now IF we could find a seamount that was totally uninteresting, and thus never studied by scientists or environmentalists, nor observed via satellite, and IF this seamount happened to be far away from any sort of shipping routes, we'd have a start. :)

Of course, then we have to ask "How do we prevent radio signals from this seamount from being picked up," "How do we keep its construction secret," "How could it be self-supporting," "How could it be made to be protected from natural phenomena," etc.

Of course, if anyone could answer all this, hell, I'm in! :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I never claimed it would be easy. Logistically it isn't impossible though, practically nothing is.

If you think about how a breakwater is constructed a pile of rock or preformed tetrahedrons to form an artificial barrier to the sea I would think that an outer ring which would act as a proper breakwater to dissipate the force of oceanic waves with a full water tight levee or dike inside of that. I would also build tall buildings all along this inner dyke to add mass to and back up the system.

Resources are scarce but as seamounts are usually composed of volcanic rock if we're lucky it would be basalt which has properties that are similar to carbon fiber (not as strong but about 5x stronger than steel) Other than that there's aquaculture, wave generated power (though other sources are better).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...