Again for those of you that understand French or that do not mind making sense of translation tool outputs, please find here a link for tomorrow night’s live debate on Swiss bank secrecy and US attempts to weaken it: http://www.infrarouge.ch/ir/1887-banquiers-suisses-tricheurs The debate will be available for view on the tsr.ch website by at least Wednesday night. Please feel free to enroll on the site and post your comments straightaway, (even in English— I have seen at least one comment in English accepted and displayed on the site).
Reblogged this on Stop Unconstitutional Double Taxation and commented:
New Debate on Swiss TV
Thanks will have a look. Interesting news tonight quoting US ambassador to Switzerland saying that he thought Swiss banks really wanted to cooperate with the IRS, but they were being hindered by Swiss gov’t and banking laws. Like yeah, right… Guess it may be the lead up to the real story tommorrow.
Hi Jeff: Will we be able to watch this online? I wasn’t quite sure what you meant: will it be available after Wednesday, or do we have to watch it before Wednesday?
The best thing banks around the world can do, and are already doing it: SAY NO TO US CITIZENS.
I’m sorry, but businesses and countries have to go whats best for them. The US has created laws that make American citizens undesired customers all over the world. The renunciation guide website ‘hit the nail on the head’ when they said that they recommend “renouncing” because things are only going to get worse. They wrote that AT LEAST a couple of years ago. And things HAVE gotten worse.
The US does not want citizens residing abroad and filling “foreign” tax coffers, so they make our lives difficult. I’m currently a US Citizen, but I can’t wait to pay the $450 fee. I think I’ll host a party! I will call it my “FREEDOM PARTY”. Whoever wants to fly to Brazil can attend! 🙂
@geeez: I disagree. If banks refuse service to US residents who are complying with US tax laws and to US persons abroad (dual or otherwise living legally abroad and paying their taxes abroad) then they commit criminal acts of discrimination (under EU and local discrimination laws). They hamper the right of US persons to be economically competitive and even to be employed and feed themselves and their families. We cannot allow other countries to change their discrimination laws to make an exception (or simply to ignore them in the case of US persons). To do this would be to start down the same road of discrimination that the Nürnberg laws started in ’35, and of which the early effects were similar to what happens to people who are refused bank accounts today (inability to function economically in their business abroad, or even in their country of residence). If we allow such a pattern of discrimination to start, it will only get worse because the victims will seem like losers to the uneducated and such victims would gradually be perceived as an underclass to be gotten rid of (burden on welfare). All hell could break loose again. Remember we allowed it to do so in the Balkans in the ’90s before we reacted in a limited fashion; this despite the promise of “never again” in ’45 and ’46.
@Petros: the debate is not broadcast live over the internet (to my knowledge) but can be viewed the following day (and far into the future) via the TSR website. I will post a link on Wednesday, but the video should be reachable from the above blogging link I posted before.
@ Jeff That’s great. I haven’t watched TSR for years. I look forward to brushing up on my Swiss. Cheers.
Pingback: Politicians all around the world discuss FATCA | The Isaac Brock Society
Pingback: Politicians all around the world discuss FATCA | The Isaac Brock Society
Jefferson: In a perfect world, I agree 100% with you. But unfortunately, the US passes ridiculous laws that affect people who have few ties to the US anymore. The US is the only country in the world to do this.
I don’t quite know what was the intention of this FATCA. The US obviously makes very few distictions between US Residents and US citizens. But the overwhelming feeling that I get is that the US does not want “patriotic” Americans living overseas. They want us there, under their control, engaging in their economy. The only thing left is to actually hear a politician vocalise this.
The US is a good place to live. If I didn’t have a life and a family in another country, I might be there.
@Geeez I feel that sometimes one must be an Idealist (while taking some expedient oppourtunities when they come up if they do not compromise the ideal long-term).
In this case, I say, do not renounce, because you never know when the IRS will try to go after you again anyway. Better to preserve your right to vote and lobby from afar as long as your State allows it (if you can stay physically out of the US for the years to come). People’s lives have aleady gotten completely messed up due to this perscecution. If the number of Americans abroad diminishes then the remaining minority will be even more vulnerable to further abuse.
Already many cannot vote. I think that those that are able should stand their ground, even if in effective exile. If one renounces, then if (s)he subsequently tries to speak up for minnows then the others might ask “why do you care, it is not your business”.
I think we are all trying to do something, but we need to be more active in our efforts to spread the word. Already, I see some non-US Swiss people on Infrarouge starting to understand our dilema. We have to present this problem as one that concerns citizens of all nations, not just Minnows Abroad.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
(I was neither Whale nor terrorist)
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
(Didn’t have 10k abroad)
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
(Had 10k but am Minnow)
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
(not a Yank civilian abroad)
When they came for me,
(Am married to a Yank,
or knew one years ago).
there was no one left to speak out.
— Martin Niemöller (JDT)
(please read Yank to include “High Plainsman”, Rockymountainman, Suthnah’ or other regional connotations).
What about the NDAA of 2012 (arbitrary secret police powers for the military, arbitrary detention)?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
Not to mention the federal court case that upheld the President’s right to order the summary execution of a US Citizen: http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/10/10/the-extrajudicial-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki/ (Not that the person in question would be one I would wish to associate with, but due process is due process— the guy was killed without trial).
If they want to start an holocaust on “minnows” then lets remind them of Sobibor, Warsaw Uprising, and the Declaration of Independance. The experiences of WWII and of the Communist-bloc countries thereafter showed that totalitarian police states do not survive forever.
@all Video of last night’s debate on Infrarouge now available on http://www.infrarouge.ch/ir/1887-banquiers-suisses-tricheurs
@Jefferson — thanks for this updated quote.
As someone commented previously, “and then they came for the expats… and I remained silent”.
@all as to video of last night’s debate, I just watched it and skipped over some of the parts (especially the remote discussions with the German official). It doesn’t appear that anyone really addressed the issue of US-Person-Minnows-Abroad. Watch the video if you are interested in Whales-stateside and Criminal-Whales abroad, or in the general negotiations around various banks, otherwise there might be some comments on the debate from several weeks ago (http://www.infrarouge.ch/ir/1880-eveline-widmer-schlumpf-grande-invitee-infrarouge) about the risks to Swiss sovereignty that might be meaningful to you.
I was very disappointed that Céline Amaudruz (President of Swiss People’s Party Geneva Chapter and member of the Swiss lower chamber) who showed up for the Widmer-Schlump debate (and was very convincing) did not show up (or was not invited) last night. She is a staunch defender of Swiss sovereignty and the rights of the people.
The Socialist lady who showed up last night really rubbed me the wrong way except for one of her comments complaining that we (Switzerland) keep treating the problem on a bank-by-bank basis instead of constructing a global strategy and sticking to it. I believe that someone mentionned that the strategy should be subject to Swiss direct democracy (Referendum, Initiative), but maybe I am confusing with a comment on the Widmer-Schlump debate. As for the other participants, I have mixed feelings as to the opinions of all of them.