The IRS is attempting to expand it's powers globally.

[Doktor Howl]

How about you stop with the nose in the air attitude and requote just the relevent bits?  I admit I have a short attention span.  I read about two or three paragraphs and what you said, and I honestly can't see what you're talking about that's any different or any less bullshit.  


Also, ECONOMINCS AND BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS ARE LIKE THE BIBLE TO SOME PEOPLE.  You, for instance.  Because how could it be wrong?  Of course it isn't wrong.  Its everyone else who is wrong.

eh, didn't mean to come across as a snob.  I highlighted the part that was most relevant, and provided a follow up link when Roger asked for a source on something I said.

Yeah, it would clearly remain in print if the information they gave proved to be inaccurate on a consistent basis.  

I believe that's the tabloid business model you're confusing a business publication with.

I fail to see any practical difference.

Please link me to the Forbes headline/cover story warning about the housing bubble and bank fuckery, any time between 1995 and 2005.

You can sell anyone ANYTHING, if you're the one telling them what's true.

delivered, from 2001.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/03/076.html

Oh, and I'm sure you'll laugh to find out that Ron Paul was making speeches before congress warning about it in 2002.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/


but he's just a crazy old fucker who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  right?

1.  They pointed out the bubble, but they entirely neglected to mention things like mortgage bundling, etc, that caused the real damage.  In the article, it is treated as a simple supply & demand problem, not a pillaging effort on the part of most of our large banking institutions.  In other words, it's a warning, but it isn't reporting.

2.  I never said Ron Paul didn't know what he was talking about, economically (I have and do say that he's utterly ignorant of the US constitution), I said he was a fraudulent grifter...And I stand by that, as hordes of dumbfucks perk their ears and wallets up at the hilariously in-your-face word "MONEYBOMB!"...AGAIN.

[Scribbly]

I just did a search on the FT to try and track down what they think about the  Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

Unsurprisingly, dual citizenship does not come up.

The most recent article states that:

From Washington, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act means that any investment manager with US clients has to have disclosure compliance agreements with the US Treasury

The FATCA seems to basically be a way to try and cut down on tax evasion. One of the biggest challenges that globalization has posed has been the ability of governments to tax their citizens; where that money comes from, where it is stored, and who actually has control of it has become very opaque. This kind of legislations looks to me to simply be a way of trying to pin down on that.

And I think that the quoted blog is a scare piece whipped up to try and get people to protest that on false pretences. There's no doubt it genuinely could hurt off-shore assets held by American citizens, and some off-shore investment managers are considering pulling out of that market as a result.

Since it is basically tax evasion, though, I'm hard pressed to think of that as a bad thing.

[Doktor Howl]

I just did a search on the FT to try and track down what they think about the  Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

Unsurprisingly, dual citizenship does not come up.

The most recent article states that:

From Washington, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act means that any investment manager with US clients has to have disclosure compliance agreements with the US Treasury

The FATCA seems to basically be a way to try and cut down on tax evasion. One of the biggest challenges that globalization has posed has been the ability of governments to tax their citizens; where that money comes from, where it is stored, and who actually has control of it has become very opaque. This kind of legislations looks to me to simply be a way of trying to pin down on that.

And I think that the quoted blog is a scare piece whipped up to try and get people to protest that on false pretences. There's no doubt it genuinely could hurt off-shore assets held by American citizens, and some off-shore investment managers are considering pulling out of that market as a result.

Since it is basically tax evasion, though, I'm hard pressed to think of that as a bad thing.

It's still bullshit.  You should pay taxes where you live, as those are the services you are using.  SSI is different, of course.

[Scribbly]

So how do you determine where someone lives if they travel across multiple different countries for the majority of the year? Especially if they have multiple homes across multiple countries?

[Doktor Howl]

So how do you determine where someone lives if they travel across multiple different countries for the majority of the year? Especially if they have multiple homes across multiple countries?

You pick a home of record, just like the military does.  It should be the place you spend most of your time, or where you live when you aren't in a hotel.

[Scribbly]

Okay...

So just checking, we both agree that if you are a 'US Citizen' by choice (that's where you are 'recorded'), there's no reason why you should try to avoid the government taxing your income, regardless of where it originates? (Which is, as far as I can tell, the purpose of FATCA).

[Doktor Howl]

Okay...

So just checking, we both agree that if you are a 'US Citizen' by choice (that's where you are 'recorded'), there's no reason why you should try to avoid the government taxing your income, regardless of where it originates? (Which is, as far as I can tell, the purpose of FATCA).

Resident, not citizen.  If, for example, I worked in England, and lived there most of the time, they should get my taxes, as I am driving on their roads, etc.

[Scribbly]

Ah, I see.

Yeah, I can see the sense in that.