Cross-posted from MapleSandbox.ca:
Green Party Promises to Repeal FATCA
At last, one of the parties has promised to repeal FATCA if elected.
The Green Party platform pledges:
We will repeal as unconstitutional the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). It essentially deprives any Canadian with US connections (even those short of dual citizenship) of full rights to privacy and treats them as a lesser Canadian.
In addition, the Green Party vows:
We will also repeal Bill C-24 which allows the minister of citizenship to revoke citizenship. Other threats to Canadians will be eliminated with the repeal of Bill C-51.
The Green Party says It’s Time to Restore Democracy. Amen.
Thanks to Tim for sending this to several of us.
I like what I see. Now if the Greens only had a chance of forming the government. At least we know Elizabeth May and the Greens are in our corner and still fighting for us.
Dash: totally agree with you on “wealthy” and “tax evader ” Just saying that’s how they/we are caricatured.
Note that, as a dual citizen living abroad, my main problem is CBT and dual taxation. FATCA without CBT, ie resident based taxation is in a way the US’s typically arrogant and aggressive way of dealing with life but it’s in theory similar to Belgium asking me to declare my French bank account if I live in Belgium. They just do it in a secure and non threatening way and the day I leave Belgium they will never try to have me keep filing. That said it remains quite irritating to have to declare accounts one has elsewhere but not at home.
@Brockers…..especially UK Brockers…..first lets put politics aside and remain focused on the goal of getting the USA out of the lives of “former pats.”
Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of the Labour Party.
From the following article just out he is in favor of ending the so called “special relationship” with the USA.
Jeremy is a guy who likes taxes but I am wondering if we could now get the Labour Party UK on our side?
Again politics aside, any idea on the type of words to use to make such entry now that there has been a profound leadership change? Brockers have been brocking around the world and are perfecting there MS Word skills in this regard so I am open for words to use based on the persona of this type of person.
Serious thing George. This is worth scratching a few thoughts out of the head. Even though he seems more of an activist and less pro actual work …. he might well be receptive to taking up the flag for this sort of thing.
@nervousinvestor, I think the Green Party position in Canada helps in my idea so I can use that. I had also been thinking we need to get Greens all around the world to adopt a uniform position on FATCA.
There is lots of UK census data that basically shows 150,000 US Persons and almost half of them do not identify with the USA and only have a UK passport.
The financial blackmail with the UK…..and also each of the five eyes….shows the special relationship died a long time ago. So we/I can appeal with that.
The key is that he is not “in love with America” unlike Blair, the Millibands, Cameron.
On these boards I have been talking about “reciprical and mirror image taxation.” If the UK adopted CBT for its citizens in the USA because the USA has CBT for those with clinging nationality in the UK, it would generate money for the UK Treasury.
Now having seen the NDP, the Greens especially and looslely the Liberals take a position that can be used in the UK to influence the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, UKIP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and now Labour.
But again I am looking for ideas and catch phrases that can be used to direct the conversations…..
Myself and others have worked on this in the past and found Green parties in Europe to really not be interested in what the Green Party in Canada. I think their are some deep seated ideological differences. At the beginning of the Green Party of Canada platform it says something like the fundamentals of the Canadian Economy and Canada as a country remain strong but Stephen Harper as a absolutely horrid Prime Minister(In my opinion a very good and strong indictment of Harper). I highly doubt the UK Greens or SNP, UKIP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru would say the “fundamentals” of the UK economy are “strong.” Some of it is the fundamentals of the UK aren’t really strong but there are also deep seated dislikes of the present day UK as a country.
**I wonder if the fact May immigrated to Canada from the US makes her less likely to think the grass in greener on the other side of the fence in the same way a native Brit like Jeremy Corbyn might think so.
***The Bloc Quebecois clearly doesn’t like present day Canada with or without Stephen Harper but the Bloc is almost on the verge of total irrelevancy.
Compare the focus of the Greens, Liberals, and NDP on Stephen Harper(Harper all the time) to Jeremy Corbyn below who doesn’t even mention David Cameron. You don’t see Mulcair talking about the injustice of Canada you instead see Mulcair talking about the injustice of Stephen Harper
“Minutes after he was declared the winner, Corbyn said that the huge support for his candidacy showed how people are “fed up with the injustice and inequality of Britain.” Plus it proved just how out of touch the party leadership has been. “The media and many of us, simply didn’t understand the views of young people in our country. They were turned off by the way politics was being conducted. We have to and must change that. The fightback gathers speed and gathers pace,” he said, according to the Guardian. Corbyn said his first act as Labour leader would be to attend a demonstration to show support for refugees.”
Absurd that a party with a single member would be given a leading role in forming a government.
The Greens have doubled its seats in the last few years:
re; “……. a party with a single member…”
Are you saying that the voters ( 31,890 ) and riding that elected that single member don’t deserve any voice or role in government? That the voters who did vote Green in other ridings where the party didn’t win don’t deserve any recognition (because of first past the post)? That the single member shouldn’t be heard if they make or broker a reasonable rational constructive proposal? There are coalition governments all the time elsewhere in the world……
Ex. “.Coalition cabinets are common in countries whose parliament is elected by proportional representation, with several organized political parties often represented..”
As for “wealthy” and “tax evader” let me just mention that plenty of rich people (I heard a politician refer to the rich as “America’s most successful families” once because that sounds better.) donate plenty to charitable causes instead of endless, unjust wars; and could donate more if politicians weren’t stealing so much. There are plenty of cases, though, where they do not go out of their way to point it out, and these donations go unnoticed in political debate, because it is against their religion to mention it (Matthew 6:1-4 comes to mind).
“Absurd that a party with a single member would be given a leading role in forming a government.”
‘There are coalition governments all the time elsewhere in the world……’
I think the important words were “single” and “leading.” Even when independents, as singles, support the ruling party(ies), they don’t ordinarily have leading roles.
However, if ruling parties want to give a leading role to a single, they should be allowed to do so.
‘As for “wealthy” and “tax evader” let me just mention that plenty of rich people (I heard a politician refer to the rich as “America’s most successful families” once because that sounds better.) donate plenty to charitable causes’
I’m not quite sure how that’s relevant. Most of America’s most successful families of tax evaders are homelanders, aren’t they? Even Marc Rich was a homelander before escaping to Switzerland.
Also, most of America’s most successful families aren’t tax evaders.
Now, among America’s most successful families, do tax evaders donate plenty to charitable causes, or do law abiding successful families donate plenty to charitable causes?
(Sorry I donate minor amounts. I’m not successful, not tax evader, and no longer American.)
I can’t see what is “absurd” about the Green leader being “….willing to be a mediator or matchmaker between the NDP and Liberals to get them to work together…”, as in:
“..May said that she didn’t want to see the Conservatives form a minority government “simply because the NDP and the Liberals were paralyzed by their hyper-partisan dislike for each other.”…….
“If that’s the case again come Oct. 19, May said, she’s willing to be a mediator or matchmaker between the NDP and Liberals to get them to work together.
Mansbridge asked May what credibility she would need to have the Governor General take her call. She said constitutionally he would have to. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-elizabeth-may-full-interview-transcript-peter-mansbridge-1.3225264
“In our system of government, the Governor General would take my call. Any member of Parliament who wants time, as the leader of a party, to talk about presenting to our head of state, Her Majesty, through the Governor General a more durable, productive Parliament.”
However, May said the Green Party would not be part of any coalition and would remain an opposition party that’s able to hold the government to account.”..”…..
I would far rather that someone try to get the other parties to form a coalition than have Harper and the Cons elected again. What is absurd about that?
Hopefully the principle of if a country has a residential taxation system, it should also have only a residential tax reporting system with countries such as the US who are out of step.
Are Americans in the States so proud to be profoundly uncompetitive in the world?
“The Green Party says It’s Time to Restore Democracy. Amen.”
The FATCA-enabling Canadian legislation reflects democracy. As with the underage drinking laws, the vast majority shows depraved indifference to the rights of the outvoted minority.
Gang rape is a democracy. Five persons say YES, one person says NO, the majority rules and elects one of themselves “sheriff,” whose job is to handcuff the victim. One vote is useless and so is campaigning to a bunch of creeps who don’t give a fire truck about your rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada has the job of protecting innocent, outvoted persons against the will of the majority.
Too bad you don’t have a better word to use that means what you wanted to say. Yes, it does require more words to speak accurately, and that’s why so many documents contain that precise verbiage known as legalese.