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.
To those that feel that voting Green is ‘throwing away’ or wasting your vote: There is a change brewing in Canada. Many people would have felt the same way about voting NDP before the last election and yet, look at them now as the official opposition and the Liberals behind them. Our system of parliament works best when there is a minority government because this forces the recognized parties to work together. What we need is more Green MPs to strengthen the opposition to the larger parties when they run amok. The Green Party is known for standing up, when everyone else is afraid to do so, and pointing out the elephant in the room. A perfect example of this was when Elizabeth stood up and said that Bill C-51 was wrong and should be stopped when no one else wanted to take sides. She has done this repeatedly and is doing it again with their new platform and their statements against FATCA and Bill C-24. Don’t vote strategically… no one knows what the outcome will be so this is a waste of your vote… vote with your heart and with your mind. Read the various platforms (sorry, only the Greens have published theirs so far) and then vote according to your principles. Only then will the will of the people be represented. (As best as it can be under first past the post)
The Libertarian Party of Canada has also issued a statement, cross-posted here somewhere, against complying with FATCA.
Off topic, but a nice FATCA-on-the-ground article from Hong Kong: http://harbourtimes.com/2015/09/09/harbour-view-fatca-me-no-fatca-you/
” rather than using its power to project the values that made it great, it is projecting Soviet style bureaucracy and fear “
@Fred
The danger is being lumped in with unsympathetic wealthy US tax evaders who come to hide their money
I’m beginning to think that these so-called “unsympathetic wealthy US tax evaders” are a bit of a mythical creature.
Just because someone is rich, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are unsympathetic or have fewer human rights than someone of middle class or less means.
For someone who is wealthy, I would ask: where did they make their money? If they made their money in the US, then there should be a paper trail regarding their finances within the US that shouldn’t require the US gov’t to run roughshod over their rights and the rights of the countries they currently live in.
And if they made their money outside the US, I think they have as much right to feel indignant about the US trying to tax (or otherwise) grab their money as the more small pocketed people do.
It’s just a hunch, but I suspect that if one looked in detail at the lives of these so-called “wealthy tax cheats”, you’d probably find–apart from a higher net worth–similar stories to those of many more middle class Brockers: people who’ve expatriated, often long ago, and want nothing more than to live a live outside the US free of US gov’t harassment.
@Barbara
purely because Rand Paul is involved, even if they agree with him (heck, even Rand Paul never mentions it publicly)
As a US resident and citizen who supports the ADCS-ADSC–and who is embarrassed by the US gov’t behavior when it comes to FATCA–Rand Paul has been a huge disappointment to me. I wanted to vote for Senator Paul because of his role as a plaintiff in the Bopp lawsuit. And yet his unwillingness–at least so far–to open a public dialogue on this matter leaves me with no opening to support the man. If I signed up to volunteer for the Rand Paul campaign (https://www.randpaul.com/volunteer) and stated that my reasons for doing so were because of Senator Paul’s opposition to FATCA, people would look at me like they didn’t know what I was talking about.
@Fred
In the US the Bopp lawsuit will not attract much sympathy, unfortunately.
That’s because the Bopp lawsuit–although absolutely valid on its merits–isn’t being marketed in such a way as to attract sympathy. The same lawsuit could be marketed much differently and attract much more sympathy.
In the US, 13% of the population is foreign born–that is about 40+ million people. About half of those people can vote and many of the rest are potential future voters–that is a very significant voting block. Immigration is a huge issue politically in the USA. The Bopp lawsuit should be marketed as challenging a law that unfairly discriminates against immigrants.
And yet that doesn’t seem to be happening for some reason. All of the Bopp plaintiffs live overseas except for Rand Paul who is inexplicably keeping his cards very close to the vest. And the publicity (such as their was) surrounding the lawsuit talked very narrowly about overseas citizens and green card holders.
The heading at the main FATCA legal action page (www.fatcalegalaction.com) states: FATCA is a grave danger to every American living abroad. FATCA affects at least 40 million people living stateside, but this lawsuit isn’t being marketed to those people for whatever reason.
The Bopp lawsuit had and still has the potential to attract far more sympathy stateside if it were “sold” in a different way.
@Dash1729
RO avoids associating resident Americans with FATCA like the plague. Americans, especially those living in the U.S. have no business keeping offshore accounts, don’t you know?
@bubblebustin
RO avoids associating resident Americans with FATCA like the plague.
Yes, and I’ve never understood that strategy. It’s as though RO feels that, when it comes to resident Americans, RO actually supports the position of the US gov’t on FATCA. It is hard to continue to support an organization that feels that way.
It is also difficult to support a presidential candidate who involves himself in a foreign-based lawsuit and then won’t discuss his stand with resident Americans–even resident Americans who really wanted to support him.
And then there is the problem that the Bopp lawsuit has thrown even overseas US persons under the bus unless they happen to live in one of four specific countries. It is getting harder and harder to feel good about the Bopp lawsuit.
@Dash1729
I bet Bopp plays to win and as a result minimizes any unnecessary angles that would increase his exposure to failure. I know it’s hard to trust when in the back of many our minds RO is doing this to allow the U.S. to keep its tax haven status, but this lawsuit is the best thing we’ve got going on in the U.S. right now (AFAIK),
@Bubbles, “I bet Bopp plays to win”
Brilliant observation and that is encouraging…..
Was hoping to pop in to IBS and see a ruling from Canada….looks like not today..sigh.
@George
I predict the ruling will happen some time between Sept 16-21 inclusive. I believe Justice Martineau will avoid ruling on weekends, Sept 11, Rosh Hashanah, or Yom Kippur.
I agree that RO avoids associating US residents with FATCA. Isn’t that why all of the plaintiffs, except for Rand Paul, are non-residents? I think a lot of people would agree that FATCA (or even OECD’s CRS) would be okay if the US practiced RBT and did not place any reporting requirements on US persons abroad. It seems like a slippery slope for those inside the US who want to repeal or change FATCA.
Unless he rules against the plaintiffs, then he can take his own sweet time rather than make a “bare” ruling.
I wish I knew what he means by a “bare ruling”.
From what I understand, Marie, it’s basically a decisive ruling with his reasons for how he came to the decision he made coming at a later date. Justice Martineau said he would try to gave a ruling sooner than he normally would because of the time constraints. A positive sign, considering he could take his time with a ruling that’s in favour of the defendants (to allow the IGA to stand).
@Bubblebustin
Thanks, that does sound kind of promising.
You’re welcome, Marie. The cynic in me worries that the banks and Harpies will “get to him”, ugh!
@marie
I think a lot of people would agree that FATCA (or even OECD’s CRS) would be okay if the US practiced RBT and did not place any reporting requirements on US persons abroad.
If the US practiced RBT and didn’t place any reporting requirements on US persons abroad, then what would be the possible justification for something as one sided as FATCA? Why should the entire world get involved in a one sided effort to enforce US tax law–even if the US made its tax law more reasonable? If the US got rid of CBT would the US itself have any interest to pursue FATCA?
The CRS may make more sense since it seems a bit more reciprocal.
@ Dash
If the US practiced RBT I think the justification for something as one sided as FATCA would be to catch US residents with unreported bank accounts located outside the country. It would still be heavy handed since it carries the 30% withholding for any bank that does not comply. But at least it would only be targeted at US residents. CRS does not make sense for the US since they have no desire to share bank data on non-resident aliens with foreign countries.
“The Bopp lawsuit should be marketed as challenging a law that unfairly discriminates against immigrants.”
It is 100% true that the law unfairly discriminates against immigrants to the US, including people who immigrated legally — and also unfairly discriminates against holders of non-immigrant visas that permit them to reside legally in the US for moderate lengths of time.
However, if the Bopp lawsuit were to be marketed that way, it would become even more of a loser than it is now. A lot of homelanders hate immigrants. Homelanders think the drawbridges should have been burnt down after their ancestors arrived on those shores and massacred the First Nations.
Another reason to love Elizabeth May is what was just announced on CBC news as I post this:
“Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says that if Stephen Harper wins a minority government, she is prepared to call the Governor General and ask that she be given time to mediate a coalition with the opposition parties and ensure the Conservatives don’t take power.” See the full thing below:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-election-2015-elizabeth-may-interview-1.3224696
This is good news for all of us ABCers trying to unseat Harper, and worried about a vote split.
@Marie
As you say it would still be heavy handed. Why should the entire world be lining up to support such heavy handed US gov’t tactics?
@Norman Diamond
Hating immigrants will IMHO prove to be the losing strategy of 2016 in much the same way that hating LGBTQ people is the losing strategy of 2015. Yes there are people who feel as you describe among the ‘homelanders’. But they are on the wrong side of history and allying with them is the wrong strategy for winning a marathon.
@Jan
Interesting perspective from Ms. May. Apparently she wants to mediate a coalition but not herself be part of the coalition. If I were the GG I’d agree but subject to a rather strong condition: that Ms. May be willing to herself dirty her hands a bit and be part of the coalition.
“Yes there are people who feel as you describe among the ‘homelanders’. But they are on the wrong side of history”
Yes of course. That’s why I used such abrasive language in describing their position, ‘Homelanders think the drawbridges should have been burnt down after their ancestors arrived on those shores and massacred the First Nations.’
“and allying with them is the wrong strategy for winning a marathon.”
I didn’t say anyone should ally with them, just that when Bopp could proceed without provoking more enemies maybe it was the prudent thing to do. If that immigrant from France in NY harbor holding a torch and a pro-immigration poem ever obtains the sympathies of homelanders again, that will be the time for Bopp to market his case differently.
Not that he has a chance anyway with US courts being the way they are now.
@Norman Diamond
The foreign born population in the USA has today surpassed even the previously high levels it achieved back in the days when Emma Lazarus penned that poem.
I think a lot of Brockers have a view of homeland Americans as being a very ‘redneck’ bunch. That might have true 3-4 decades but from the perspective of those who actually live here it is out of touch with present day reality. Maybe it is still true in a few less economically successful states like Kentucky which has produced more than one national newsmaker in the last week.