Interesting show last night on TVOntario. The two “conservative” guests made a case for Romney with some success. David Frum came close to bringing up the “tax” issue and in fact talked criticially of Obama’s corporate tax policies as to how they affected Canada. Sheila Copps did not impress me and I thought Frum did a job on her. I thought though that Frum should have pushed not the level of American investment in Canadian energy but the level of American investment in manufacturing around the GTA and Ontario (striking right at Sheila Copps’ home base of Hamilton, ON). I kind of felt Sheila Copps sounded a little like Linda McQuaig. I still haven’t watched the whole show yet but I wanted to post it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPowKUpSxoE&list=UUu_u-P3cBFO7D-sAjxd_I-w&index=2&feature=plcp
Alex Swann, of the Gandalf Group- paraphrased by me; as long as they- Canada and the U.S.- focus on what is good for American then the two countries well continue to have good relationships (34 min. mark). So it seems that no matter who gets in office that if Canada wants to have a reltionship with the U.S. that it MUST show it is always willing to do what is in the best of interest of the U.S.
I would say that based on this reality that neither president will be best for Canada. But in the end it doesn’t matter because Canada has already lost the battle.
Don’t forget this one… Canada may be the better President 🙂
And speaking of Canadians… Some good words for Canadians in this Jon Stewart interview with Ben Affleck and his new movie Argo.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-9-2012/ben-affleck
Being a Canadian and spending as much time in the US as he does, I wonder how much David Frum knows about FATCA and FBAR’s?
Sheila Copp’s use of superlatives makes me wonder who she’s trying to convince. Because of FATCA, I’m starting to feel that any Canadian who supports Obama is a traitor to Canada.
*David Frum’s sister Senator Linda Frum would in theory have to comply with FATCA as her mother Barbara Frum(now deceased was born in the US). Also Linda Frum is quite wealthy too.
http://www.postcity.com/Bayview-Post/February-2010/Linda-Frum/
I remember Barbara Frum all the way back to her ‘As It Happens’ CBC radio days in the early ’70’s. Linda looks a lot like her. I didn’t like David much when he worked for Bush, but he seems to me to be more balanced hearing him talk these days. I get the feeling he downplays being Canadian in the US which kind of bothers me.
@Bubblebustin…
David Frum is now considered as a RINO by a segment of the Conservative right in America. He is now seen as a moderate Republican by the Dems, and he was kicked out of the AEI
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
@just me
that’s interesting, thanks.
The inherent contradictions between what homelanders interests are, and what we face in reality when we try to live a similar life ‘abroad’
This quote from Romney throws in to high relief the insanity and illogical punishment we’re taking for the mere existence of our local accounts and ordinary savings where we live outside the US . He says he’d lower or eliminate taxes on savings for the middle class US resident, yet, we’re subjected to confiscatory penalties merely for the EXISTENCE of our ordinary legal, post-tax accounts because they exist outside the US – where we live. And all our registered savings are treated punitively as ‘foreign trusts’, and treated harshly by the US. Yet, Romney says he’d exempt interest on US domestic savings for residents.
…”Romney added that he would lower tax rates for capital gains, dividends and interest for the middle class. “But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains,” he said. “No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier. If you’re getting interest from a bank, if you’re getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don’t have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there’ll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle-class? Because in the last four years, they’ve been buried. And I want to help people in the middle class”….http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/obama-romney-taxes-debate-64344-1.html?ET=webcpa:e6201:243968a:&st=email
But we’re paying expensive fees to merely report our account and savings existence, even on those that we have no financial interest or benefit from. We are forbidden our local equivalent opportunities to save for our families – all treated punitively as ‘foreign trusts’. And yet Romney and the Republican party says absolutely nothing about that. Our savings and accounts are somehow inherently evil and every single one is of equal risk under the BSA Bank Secrecy Act, as money laundering, terror-funding, tax evading opportunities simply on the feeble basis that they exist outside the US – where we live and work.
Basically, we’re deemed all criminals in waiting until we prove otherwise – forever.
@Badger- all so very true. It is the classic case of guilty until and unless proven innocent. So very much like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba or Khmer Rouge like. If you wear glasses or have visited the West then you must be a threat to the state. For the Khmer Rouge guilt of treachery was proven by whether or not a person wore glasses. The fact that the person needed corrective lenses just so that he/she could see wasn’t at relevant. The U.S. is following a similar logic with regards to its own non-resident U.S. persons. If you live outside of the U.S. and use a non-U.S. based financial institution therefore you must be an enemy of the U.S. Your need for a local financial institution doesn’t matter at all. Nor does the fact that you are operating under the laws of your country of residence.
Basically though it is the classic way in which the U.S. views the world outside of its borders. In the eyes of an American the world is divided up between the bad communist, the bad socialists and the good U.S. of A.
If you are a non-resident U.S. person then the law requires that you each year submit proof that you have not used your non-U.S. residency to commit a criminal act. Now with FATCA the U.S. is not only requiring its non-resident U.S. persons to prove their innocence but now every person who uses any financial institution must prove to the U.S. that he/she is not subject to U.S. law. Now just how perverse is that?
There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty. Which is something that I was led to believe was a prinicple that I was taught as being at the foundation of the U.S. justice system.
There is a presidential debate tonight (Oct. 23) for 3rd party candidates if anyone is interested … http://rt.com
It is going live in a few minutes but it will probably be archived later.
The Debate is here…
http://live.freeandequal.org/stream.html
@recalcitrant, apparently the right to being deemed innocent until proven guilty is not extended to us past the borders of the US – unlike extraterritorial taxation.
@Em and @JustMe, thanks for the link and the notice. Hope to hear the highlights. Submitted a question re FATCA, US extraterritorial taxation and US citizens abroad. Would be heartening to have one of our questions asked, or issue raised.
What if ???