Say you had a next-door neighbour named Sam who abuses his dog. Sometimes his dog comes to your property to seek refuge, but he just crosses right over the property line, retrieves his dog, and keeps beating it. When you confront Sam about his behaviour, he claims it’s justified because he fed and trained the dog when it was a puppy. Also, he says, there’s ten more dogs at the pound waiting to be adopted, and if his ungrateful dog runs away he’ll just get a replacement and it’s no skin off his back. In fact, Sam says, he’s a hero because those dogs at the pound might die if they don’t get adopted.
Well sure, I guess Sam is right about one thing: he’s unlikely to suffer much harm if his dog runs away. But you can’t seriously argue that Sam’s ability to abuse his dog without repercussions makes that abuse moral. And that assessment doesn’t change whether the pound has a hundred dogs waiting for adoption, or a thousand dogs, or no dogs at all.
And clearly this argument holds a fortiori when we are discussing the relationship of free human beings to the governments they institute, rather than dogs to their masters. But Homelanders often like to pretend that their country’s large population or high number of immigrants & naturalised citizens make it perfectly acceptable to abuse emigrants and renunciants, or to ignore their concerns. A fairly typical example is this recent comment by a law professor trying to “justify” the U.S. government’s violation of American emigrants’ fundamental right to renounce citizenship:
A bit of picking and choosing of numbers to made things sound dramatic. In 2013, 750 Americans renounced citizenship. That’s 1/3 of 1% of the traffic through LAX (LA International Airport) on a single day. At that rate, assuming no births or deaths or in-migration, we’ll run out of Americans in 4 million years.
Then Sam threatens the neighbours’ dogs too
Next, emboldened by the lack of response to his beatings of his own dogs whether on his own property or his neighbours’ properties, Sam claims the right to beat your dogs too on the theory they’re really his dogs, because your dog was a puppy of a dog adopted from Sam or your dog’s mother hid under Sam’s porch when it was giving birth, and you never paid Sam $2,350 to get a formal notification certificate proving that your dogs don’t belong to him.
However, Sam says he won’t actually need to beat your dogs if he can just look in your window to keep an eye on them. He says steaks are going missing from his house, and he just wants to make sure his dogs aren’t misbehaving and stealing his steaks.
Should you let Sam look in your windows, even if he promises he’ll just check up on the dogs and not peep at your daughter in the shower? Of course not. Anyone with the slightest bit of self-respect would press charges. If Sam’s earlier actions of beating his dogs weren’t already criminal, invading his neighbours’ privacy definitely is, and someone with that little respect for his neighbours is a menace to everyone on the street.
And once again, the morality of Sam’s actions has zero relation to the number of dogs at the pound waiting for adoption, or the number of people who want to buy a house on your street, or how good-looking people think Sam is, or any other such irrelevancies.
At what point does it become the fault of all the dog owners on the street for not stopping Sam?
But suppose you don’t call the police. Not only that, you foolishly lend your lawnmower to Sam, because if you don’t he might let his lawn get overgrown and then property prices in the whole neighbourhood would suffer, and besides that he offers to pay you couple of bucks every time he uses your lawnmower.
Next, Sam catches an animal that really was stealing steaks from his house. It turns out he wasn’t lying about the thefts. Of course, the animal Sam caught was one of his own home-grown fat cats, rather than his neighbour’s dog, but that doesn’t matter in Sam’s logic: now he says if you don’t let him into your house any time he wants to check up on your dog or beat it, he won’t give you back your lawnmower.
At this point, it’s your own fault and you should write off your lawnmower entirely. If you’re lucky, maybe your dogs will bark at Sam next time he comes by, and scare him away. It might take them a few tries before they succeed, of course. But the fact that they’re even making an effort just proves that the dogs have more dignity than their human protector.
This is brilliant.
Wow Eric! Brilliant, priceless, powerful.
Love the timing — just after the abuse of the $2350 and the reality that renunciations are going up in a public way (Toronto dates)
Great stuff!!
Eric — thanks for taking the time to put together this great analogy to what is going on with *US Persons Abroad* — I especially love the “Sam” to “Uncle Sam” parallel.
We’ve got the Canadian website collecting money, we’ve got the US site now, what’s needed is an EU website to collect money to get FATCA to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.
The boneheads in DC can’t see there’s something inherently with a law that prompts people to set up websites across borders to start knocking out its legs and efforts to make it harder to enforce.
Nice!
Brilliant analogy, Eric!
Don, “what’s needed is an EU website to collect money to get FATCA to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.”
ADCS and/or Bopp need to gain some traction first. Maybe a win in a lower court first, then something is more likely in the EU.
Also there are a lot of so called US Persons who do not realize they are and sadly, we need tens of thousands of the unknown Americans to get singed by the FATCA flame first.
I am not sure that many Americans are needed to upset the Fatca Planning. Recently, I hEard that billionaire Warren Buffet, whose Company Burgr King, just bought out Tim Horton of Canada whose business is similar. Buffet’s reasons are the incorpoations of Buffet Companies, and the efficiencies realised in savings. No doubt this is a relevant factor. Many persons including myself doubt that this is the real reason. I strongly suspect that is the evasion of Fatca Taxes which is the dominant reason for Buffet’s move, though this will be difficult to prove. So it is not a question of the amount of persons so much, but the amount of money that will evade Fatca’s reach. Perhaps the legal persons and the tax expperts would make their contribution to this opininion.
@Eric
Great post. The most interesting part of it though is the recognition that U.S. citizens are treated NOT as free people, but as animals or livestock – the property of the U.S. Government.
Note the following comment on the recent Robert Wood article where he discusses the increase in the renunciation fee:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/28/u-s-hikes-fee-to-renounce-citizenship-by-422/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1057-30187-7687
It has became painfully obvious that although “citizenship” is a word that describes membership in the political community of many countries, in the context of U.S. citizenship it means that one is a “chattel” which is owned by the U.S. government to do with what they please.
Think about it:
– 350 million life forms and only 2 political parties. How can it be a democracy if there is nobody to vote for
– highest incarceration rate in the world: If they don’t like you they will lock you up.
– mandatory military service – Iraq anyone? Why again were people sent to Iraq?
– the will stalk you all around the world to fill out forms
– erosion of human rights
– no public health care system
And know they attempt to hold in slavery those who wish to leave.
The analogies in your post are very clever. But, the most important one is the “property interest in the animal”.
The bottom line is very simple. U.S. citizens abroad are not “citizens” in manner that is related to the meaning of citizenship. The U.S. won’t listen to them. In many cases, they can’t vote (if it mattered anyway).
The truth is that those renouncing citizenship are NOT renouncing citizenship. There is no citizenship – in the sense of engagement and respect – to renounce. Some pieces of U.S. property are simply paying money to be free of U.S. control. After all, in some cases the slaves could buy their freedom.
And then there are those who are simply vanishing. They are not paying money to be free. They are simply NOT renewing their passports, disavowing their “USness” and getting on with their lives.
Those who stay out of the U.S. will dies as “Free Dogs”. The Homeland dogs will die as “Slave Dogs”.
I really hope that Jim will file the most comprehensive challenge to FATCA, CBT and FBAR, and be prepared to take it to the Supreme Court. In terms of funding, while expats are a source, I would hope that other US based sources will be found. This would be a fundamental lawsuit that would fought with all of the resources of the US government.
The United States has become a country of corporations. Corporations are now the real citizens of the U.S. Individuals are now really only the property of the government. As the the slaves in the antebellum South were sometimes able to purchase their freedom, now the price of freedom from bondage is $2.350. Well worth the price as far as I’m concerned!
@eric-once I wiped away the tears of laughter I had but one response: “woof woof!”
@Yankee Boy. I’m afraid it winds up more than the 2,350. once you pay an accountant to file past taxes plus pay any taxes if owed. Transportation and hotel charges for a trip to a big city as some of us live remote to get to the US Consulate. You have to go back a couple of times. “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave”. Hotel USA!
Ann and Yankee Boy,
Many other costs over and above the renunciation fee itself. I was lucky enough to live in a city where there is a U.S. Consulate, so the extra costs for travel and accommodation to take care of this did not apply to me. None of this is fair; none of this is logical. It could be done the Canadian way, for instance.
…and then, of course, there are FX translations.
The US motto regarding citizenship:
“plenty more where those came from”.
As USCitizenAbroad said above; “…………..U.S. citizens are treated NOT as free people, but as animals or livestock – the property of the U.S. Government…….”
No need to extend any consideration to property.
When will the US State Department in concert with the US Treasury/IRS enact the Fugitive “USPerson” Act – in the same line as the Fugitive Slave Acts http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/fugitive.asp ?
“……… there was Washington, D.C. Not only did the nation’s capital allow slavery, it was home to the largest slave market in North America………”….”Of all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive’s right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners — commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.
For slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country…………..” “http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
The US offered a commercial/financial incentive for the Canadian government and Canadian Financial institutions (hello CBA, IIAC and your ilk) to look for and turn over the USPersons in Canada – even if they are Canadian citizens and legal permanent residents living within Canadian jurisdiction only. The Harper government signed the deal, using Canadian taxpayer revenue (ironically, our own Canadian taxpayer dollars and account fees used to fund the hunt Canadians down and tell the US where duals and permanent residents will be found – across the border on Canadian soil). The benefit? Canadian banks like TD can continue to expand into the US financial market – and make money selling services, etc. to American residents.
Great article, I love it!
Sam also has a long history of neglecting his dog.
“Say you had a next-door neighbour named Sam who abuses his dog. “
Well Eric gets one thing right, he realizes income tax is akin to dog beating. Unfortunately he thinks its okay as long as Sam keeps it at home like Dudley Doright does.
Now if only the stupid liberal Canucks hanging out at this blog could realize that not only are they getting beat even harder than Sam’s “fat cat” dogs, then maybe those said Canucks would finally stand up for a far more important issue: stop participating in and financing the hegemon’s wars of aggression on innocent families around the world.
@Secessionist: In this post I am referring mainly to OVDP. If you object to income taxes in general, there are various countries which do not levy them. Such countries also tend to lack mandatory-participation retirement systems, meaning you can work and save without being forced to invest in types of assets which incur extremely negative U.S. tax treatment. Later you can renounce your U.S. citizenship at your leisure.
If you sit there in Sam’s house scratching your fleas, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get beaten every time Sam trips over you. That’s independent of the morality of the situation. You bear blame for what you control: the fact that you lie there on the carpet whining about it instead of running out the doggy door. I only sympathise if you have already left but have to go back frequently to visit your friends & family who don’t want out.
@Eric: “If you object to income taxes in general, there are various countries which do not levy them. “
That is rich coming from a Brocker. How can I put it, Blinded by Hypocrisy maybe? How about this, why don’t YOU move to a country where the people don’t care that they are not allowed property rights or the right of any free man to keep the fruits of his labor. Why don’t you allow the rest of us to decide VOLUNTAILY which of the states haribrained schemes we want to be a party to. But no, Dudley’s lazy house dogs have to feed off of what the hunting dogs provide, all accomplished under force of the Dudley’s whip, while the house dogs sleep warm by the fire licking the grease from the hunt from their chops.
Why is the defining line of heinous tax abuse extra-territorial taxation? If both countries charged a flat 2%, would you people still be howling so? Clearly the total burden has something to do with it. Well the “Tea” in “Tea” party stands for “Taxed Enough Already”, but I am certain the majority of Brockers would be ashamed of being associated with an organisation like that, hated so much by the state that they have been smeared non-stop as racist and homophobic. But the Brockers believe they can escape all of the un-bersmirched because they still believe in the state, just not the American State as long as it pracices extra-tarritorial taxation.
Finally, I don’t live in Sams’ house and I certainly don’t want to live at Dudley Dorights where not only do you not have property rights, you can’t even howl at the moon (no free speech). But in the end they are both slaves to the same empire. Ditto the EU. Sovereignty is an illusion, welcome to hegemony. In fact my wish is to be allowed to live on this planet belonging to no state or association, especially those that believe they have the exclusive right to use force.
@Secessionist: as with most things in life it’s a matter of practicality rather than childish fantasies.
Defeating FATCA & extraterritorial taxation is unlikely but possible — but ironically, much of the fight relies on turning the power of other states against it (e.g. lawsuits, naturalising elsewhere & giving up US citizenship), because neither we nor you have any other way to fight it, only to hide from it.
So yes, you will find a lot of statists and converts to statism at Brock, often in the same way you find a lot of theists and converts from atheism to theism in a foxhole. And of course the rate of the tax levied (and its associated fines) makes a difference in how people react to it: very few people see the threat of bankruptcy in a 2% tax, especially if penalties would be proportional to tax owed.
Defeating a state’s own general power of taxation, from within the state, either by using the mechanisms of the state itself or by convincing everyone else in the state to vote against it, has a far more limited likelihood of success. You can either whine about how it’s your neighbours’ fault, or you can pick neighbours who are more congenial to your views.
Pingback: When it comes to #FATCA there are four kinds of #Americansabroad | Citizenship Counselling For U.S. Citizens in Canada and Abroad
“Defeating FATCA & extraterritorial taxation is unlikely but possible — but ironically, much of the fight relies on turning the power of other states against it (e.g. lawsuits, naturalising elsewhere & giving up US citizenship), because neither we nor you have any other way to fight it, only to hide from it.”
Unlikely is the key word here. As long as the hegemon rules the new world order, not only is Fatca a sure thing, but so is also an increasingly tight corralito around the citizen-income-tax-slaves that ultimately leads to gatca, capital controls, and closed borders.
On the other hand, it is inevitable that the dollar at some point will collapse like all other fiat currencies throughout history. It would have done so long ago if not for the global cabal of central bankers headquartered in Basel. Here is where the real chance for changing things lies. But the problem is all those statists who believe in the narrative and ignore the reality around them. Like Canadians who refuse to recognize that as a Nato lynchpin they are enabling never-ending wars of aggression and ethnic cleansing, and in the worst cases even genocide.
Canadians could do the entire world a massive favor. They could follow the footsteps of Hussein, Gaddafi, Putin and others and refuse to accept US dollars in payment for oil, gas and other raw material exports. That’s right, man up, grow a pair, and instead of being greedy partner to the hegemon and a major part of the problem, Canada could effect a very rapid solution while exercising some real sovereignty.
Instead we are stuck with Canadians whining about extraterritorial taxation while being a party to decades of mass murder around the globe. And that after already for centuries being a party to all the excesses of British Empire before. The rest of the world has far more on you, Canada, then you do on the US.
Finally, once you can justify in your own mind using the power of the state to steal from your neighbors, then using the power of the state to steal from your nations neighbors is a small step indeed.
@ Secessionist
“Like Canadians who refuse to recognize that as a Nato lynchpin they are enabling never-ending wars of aggression and ethnic cleansing, and in the worst cases even genocide.”
I concur. We are guilty as stated. But I’m still going to fight FATCA. I’m just that irrational I guess.
Canada is a “NATO lynchpin”? LOL! I think someone needs to look up the definition of “lynchpin”. Perhaps you meant “henchman”????
As for toppling the US$ in my lifetime or even within the next century, it will take quite a few Secessionists – like around 7 billion – to do that, and they’ll have to do a lot more than just shovel manure.
Oh if words could only be made tangible, there would be a limitless supply of fertiliser!