I know many here place blame for FATCA and the FATCA IGA on the Harper Conservatives, and I generally agree with that view. However, I do think in the video below John Robson (Canada’s equivalent of Daniel J Mitchell) makes some important points. I know many Brockers will not like the idea of shrinking government for the sake of shrinking government, but I do think Robson is on to something.
The persons to blame for FATCA is in the beginning, John F. Kennedy, it lay dormant until Carter in the 1970’s. Still U.S. persons ignored the citizenship type tax law. Mr Obama is a one world government socialist who believes he is president of the world and they are his to do with as he pleases and he pleases to tax them to the maximum. He was told that 7 million read.
The fault of governments around the world caused by The U.S.A.’s tax and spend government, causes mass taxation.
He also has the same voice as Daniel Mitchel, maybe only one note lower. Milton Freedman (re) stated that once PUBLIC spending passes 50%, the way that the majority receives more benefit is through the public sector. Because, the majority benefits from more, the majority of the democracy asks for more.
FATCA allows for more compliance jobs in the control sector and more administrative jobs inside the govt. And, as a Linked In contributor in the FATCA compliance world (whom Just Me had prodded) stated, “These are GOOD jobs”
Jobs in control. With no output of productive goods and services. “Good”?
The Fourth Branch – The Bureaucracy – also applies in the US. This Fourth Branch has assumed lots of power yet there was no provision for this in the vision of government by the US Founding Fathers.
CBT goes back to the 1913 income tax and started out as completed double taxation. In 1926 the taxation of foreign EARNED income was stopped because it was hurting business, although it always came back in for increasing groups of people, particularly under JFK and Carter. Foreign unearned income has always been taxed since 1913. The reporting requirements come from Nixon.
I definitely think that the bureaucrats are playing a big role in this. There was that AARO discovery during their trip to Washington that the Treasury had deliberately wanted measures put into a bill that were adverse to Americans abroad. Also, there is the revolving door. It isn’t Charles Rangel who is cashing in on FATCA with a job at a fancy NY bank now, is it?
Remember the British TV series … “Yes Minister” ? How true to real life that was.
Nothing new for me in this. The growth in the power of the Fabians. Yet I dare say that many folk have no idea. These same Bureaucrats use their power brutally to fight for the election of politicians that will continue to facilitate the building of their faceless power. And most of the Media seem to be complicit.
Here are some more videos from Robson that I think you will find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkO7cuzk1-c
The fox guarding the henhouse?
Some federal bureaucrats could pocket $50,000 for delivering job cuts
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/federal-bureaucrats-could-pocket-50-000-delivering-job-171934233.html
Great post Tim. I am going to listen to the FINA meetings again with this in mind. Against my tendency to go at some of the MP’s like Keddy, this may explain why some of them are so stuck in time with assinine comments like his. It was clear that the only level of the issue that MPs thought needed to be understood was the $$$ Canadian banks would lose and the impact of that on economy etc. One even tweeted to me that it was clear that I did not understand the situation. I am sure he did not.
Remember Gerard Keddy was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. Thus more than other members of the committee had unique access to CRA and a mandate to promote the views, policies, and desires of CRA. So I think it was no accident that Keddy was one of the most vocal advocates of the IGA.
Not sure I am understanding Tim. First, I seriously doubt CRA supports the IGA. Their refusal to adjust their position re foreign trust definition speaks volumes. That’s not the only indication we have of them being less than enthusiastic about this.
Keddy is not a lawyer etc. He is a “back-home kind of guy from shore of Nova Scotia. He fishes. He has relatives who are Americans. He strikes me as unconscious of anything outside ” the good old days” when everything was easy, nothing to worry about after all the US is our friend”….
I think he promoted the views of the banks.