Jordan Peterson accuses the government of preying on the weak, those who can easily become addicted to gambling and thus provide revenue for government coffers. In the meantime, gambling exacts an untold price upon the health of society. The government in Canada thus plays the role of organized crime in administering a vice that makes victims of the weak. We see from this that we should not look upon the government as a benevolent entity, but as a threat to our well-being.
Similarly, the IRS and compliance condors prey on the weak. On Dec 15, 2012, at the FATCA Forum organized by John Richardson, I argued that the Canadian government’s stance, that it would not collect FBAR fines, meant that those of us affected by the threat of the IRS draconian FBAR fines would have to stand up for ourselves–we had to be Clint Eastwoods–and that left the IRS to prey upon the weak and vulnerable residents of Canada who feared what the IRS could do to them if they failed to enter the OVDP/OVDI, i.e., the last, best chance for people to get right with God. When innocent benign actors (the non-Clint Eastwoods) entered the ODVP, the IRS exacted many LCU (“life credit units”) and made their lives hell.
Remember to gamble responsibly. That’s the government’s message. And when it comes to the IRS, you are on your own.
Is it just me or is anyone else questioning why these stories about the Royals are cropping up so frequently now? The US income tax filing deadline is approaching and all of a sudden we’re getting bombarded with more articles than ever before about Meghan’s baby. Could it be that the tax compliance industry is feeding this narrative to the media as a subtle type of free advertising? The subtext isn’t simply a message to pressure expats, but a general “all Americans must file” attitude.
@Petlover, No it isn’t just you. That’s exactly how I see it. And this is how the media is complicit with the tax compliance industry.
I think the impending birth of Meghan’s baby is the reason for discussing the need to observe what the US does to Meghan’s baby. If the US leaves the baby alone then maybe the rest of “us” (“us” excluding those of us who already renounced) can feel more comfortable expecting to be left alone.
@Norman
I would think we may never find out.
Don’t know where to post this so Administrator please do your thing.
In Jamaica today, a Constitutional case to strike down National Identification System with full biometric and other data:
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/_NIDS_court_ruling_?profile=1605
It seems to me at first blush that there are rulings re Privacy and Rights that may be relevant to FATCA.
Let brighter heads examine the case. The Jamaican Constitution and the Canadian Constitution are very similar.
From the referenced article:
“Chief Justice Bryan Sykes, in handing down the ruling a short while ago, said the challenge was not premature, noting that once the claimant identifies a violation to his Constitutional rights then the burden is on the Government to show that the violation is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The chief justice said a court case relating to privacy challenge in the Supreme Court of India was considered, and on that premise noted that the right to privacy has at least three dimensions: privacy of person, informational privacy (right to disseminate personal information) and privacy of choice.”