New tax law forces North Americans to seek freedom elsewhere

New Tax Law Chases Americans Away
By Jeff D. Opdyke, Editor of Profit Seeker

Dear Sovereign Investor,

How do you divorce your country?

I don’t mean the physical process of renouncing your citizenship to live the life of an expatriate. That’s simple enough; just a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork. No, I mean the emotional process of severing ties with the nation that bore you, that raised you up, that provided you the opportunity to succeed.

Expatriation happens all the time, all over the world, every day. And I understand the universal rationale — people following their dreams of a better life somewhere other than the country stamped on their passport. Most commonly, that’s people from foreign lands, roughly 1.1 million a year, flocking to America. Because as I’m routinely told on my trips abroad, America still maintains its image — however anachronistic — as the shining beacon on the hill, where the greatest symbol of freedom beseeches the world: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

But when the flow reverses noticeably, when Americans feeling tempest-tossed themselves are heading out through the “in” door, you’re left with my initial question: How do you divorce your country?

Between January and March of this year, a record 1,001 Americans terminated their relationship with America. They divorced their country.

Their reasons are varied. Some married a foreign national and decided to make a new life in the spouse’s homeland. Some are — or, were — hyphenated-Americans going home again for family or, given the booming economies in emerging nations, to pursue greater opportunities in faster-growing markets.

But many quit America because they feel America has quit them.

And I have to imagine they made their choice with the same sense of ambivalence I feel toward expatriation: Love of country, but hatred of how politicians, lobbyists and the legal system are warping or simply eradicating the ideals that made her so great.

People I know — people I’ve talked to many times — will say the solution is to vote those politicians out. That’s naïve. You can dress a donkey to look like a show pony, but it’s still an ass underneath — by which I mean that the American political culture is now so corrupted by money and influence that changing political flavors does nothing to alter the underlying reality of America’s political decay. It’s that decay that’s leading increasing numbers of Americans to abandon America.

We’re now at a run-rate that will see more than 4,000 Americans relinquish their U.S. citizenship — and that dramatically undercounts the real number. Certain types of expatriations, ones in which the expat is not required to file exit-tax forms, aren’t reported. Given that the exit tax kicks in when net worth tops $2 million, or average annual income exceeds $155,000 for five years running, it’s easy to see how the real number of expats is higher than the official numbers indicate.

Rise of the American Expatriate

Those escaping America for political reasons are a unique version of refugee — the American refugee. They’re fleeing because of financial persecution — or, at least, fears of its impending emergence. There’s no developed country in the world quite as desperate financially as our own. By now, we all know about the $17 trillion in debt, and the $125 trillion in on- and off-balance-sheet obligations that are of such enormity that the International Monetary Fund sees no way for that debt to go away through normal measures of economic growth or taxation. It — along with a growing chorus of other voices — sees some form of wealth confiscation as the only viable option.

Expats are seeking divorce because they sense this option is all that America really has left. When it will be executed, no one knows. But the expats are the visionaries. They see a dismal future for their wealth — potentially even society — here at home. They see government moves such as America’s taxation on global wealth or the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) as desperate moves by a desperate government groping for any cash to keep the beast fed until the beast’s own gluttony brings about a violent death.

So, how do you divorce your country?

Reluctantly? With heavy heart? With a melancholy sense of fait accompli, begrudgingly accepting that our future has already been cast and that, while this situation will change in the future — possibly though a violent separation of the union — we are powerless in the near term to change anything of importance?

The 1,001 new expats are sending us a message: As frustrated, angry, sad Americans, we have just two honest choices: Stay and try to arrange our lives as best we can to protect our family and our wealth from the ravages so clearly on the horizon … or pack up our memories, divorce our country and pump a little Green Day into your earbuds as we jet off to a new homeland … I hope you had the time of your life.

Until next time, stay Sovereign …

Jeff D. Opdyke
Editor, Profit Seeker

The Sovereign Investor Daily
55 NE 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Delray Beach, FL 33483

Advertisements

Question EVERYTHING!!!

Question Everything
By Jeff Thomas

From Internationalman.com

Image
The average person in the First World receives more information than he would if he lived in a Second or Third World country. In many countries of the world, the very idea of twenty-four hour television news coverage would be unthinkable, yet many Westerners feel that, without this constant input, they would be woefully uninformed.

Not surprising, then, that the average First Worlder feels that he understands current events better than those elsewhere in the world. But, as in other things, quality and quantity are not the same.

The average news programme features a commentator who provides “the news,” or at least that portion of events that the network deems worthy to be presented. In addition, it is presented from the political slant of the controllers of the network. But we are reassured that the reporting is “balanced,” in a portion of the programme that features a panel of “experts.”

Customarily, the panel consists of the moderator plus two pundits who share his political slant and a pundit who has an opposing slant. All are paid by the network for their contributions. The moderator will ask a question on a current issue, and an argument will ensue for a few minutes. Generally, no real conclusion is reached—neither side accedes to the other. The moderator then moves on to another question.

So, the network has aired the issues of the day, and we have received a balanced view that may inform our own opinions.

Or have we?

Shortcomings
In actual fact, there are significant shortcomings in this type of presentation:

The scope of coverage is extremely narrow. Only select facets of each issue are discussed.
Generally, the discussion reveals precious little actual insight and, in fact, only the standard opposing liberal and conservative positions are discussed, implying that the viewer must choose one or the other to adopt as his own opinion.
On a programme that is liberally-oriented, the one conservative pundit on the panel is made to look foolish by the three liberal pundits, ensuring that the liberal viewer’s beliefs are reaffirmed. (The reverse is true on a conservative news programme.)
Each issue facet that is addressed is repeated many times in the course of the day, then extended for as many days, weeks, or months as the issue remains current. The “message,” therefore, is repeated virtually as often as an advert for a brand of laundry powder.
So, what is the net effect of such news reportage? Has the viewer become well-informed?

In actual fact, not at all. What he has become is well-indoctrinated.

A liberal will be inclined to regularly watch a liberal news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his liberal views. A conservative will, in turn, regularly watch a conservative news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his conservative views.

Many viewers will agree that this is so, yet not recognise that, essentially, they are being programmed to simply absorb information. Along the way, their inclination to actually question and think for themselves is being eroded.

Alternate Possibilities
The proof of this is that those who have been programmed, tend to react with anger when they encounter a Nigel Farage or a Ron Paul, who might well challenge them to consider a third option—an interpretation beyond the narrow conservative and liberal views of events. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

By contrast, it is not uncommon for people outside the First World to have better instincts when encountering a news item. If they do not receive the BBC, Fox News, or CNN, they are likely, when learning of a political event, to think through, on their own, what the event means to them.

As they are not pre-programmed to follow one narrow line of reasoning or another, they are open to a broad range of possibilities. Each individual, based upon his personal experience, is likely to draw a different conclusion and, thorough discourse with others, is likely to continue to update his opinion each time he receives a new viewpoint.

As a result, it is not uncommon for those who are not “plugged-in” to be not only more open-minded, but more imaginative in their considerations, even when they are less educated and less “informed” than those in the First World.

Whilst those who do not receive the regular barrage that is the norm in the First World are no more intelligent than their European or American counterparts, their views are more often the result of personal objective reasoning and common sense and are often more insightful.

Those in First World countries often point with pride at the advanced technology that allows them a greater volume of news than the rest of the world customarily receives.

Further, they are likely to take pride in their belief that the two opposing views that are presented indicate that they live in a “free” country, where dissent is encouraged.

Unfortunately, what is encouraged is one of two views—either the liberal view or the conservative view. Other views are discouraged.

The liberal view espouses that a powerful liberal government is necessary to control the greed of capitalists, taxing and regulating them as much as possible to limit their ability to victimise the poorer classes.

The conservative view espouses that a powerful conservative government is needed to control the liberals, who threaten to create chaos and moral collapse through such efforts as gay rights, legalised abortion, etc.

What these two dogmatic concepts have in common is that a powerful government is needed.

Each group, therefore, seeks the increase in the power of its group of legislators to overpower the opposing group. This ensures that, regardless of whether the present government is dominated by liberals of conservatives, the one certainty will be that the government will be powerful.

When seen in this light, if the television viewer were to click the remote back and forth regularly from the liberal channel to the conservative channel, he would begin to see a strong similarity between the two.

It’s easy for any viewer to question the opposition group, to consider them disingenuous—the bearers of false information. It is far more difficult to question the pundits who are on our own “team,” to ask ourselves if they, also, are disingenuous.

This is especially difficult when it’s three to one—when three commentators share our political view and all say the same thing to the odd-man-out on the panel. In such a situation, the hardest task is to question our own team, who are clearly succeeding at beating down the odd-man-out.

Evolution of Indoctrination
In bygone eras, the kings of old would tell their minions what to believe and the minions would then either accept or reject the information received. They would rely on their own experience and reasoning powers to inform them.

Later, a better method evolved: the use of media to indoctrinate the populace with government-generated propaganda (think: Josef Goebbels or Uncle Joe Stalin).

Today, a far more effective method exists—one that retains the repetition of the latter method but helps to eliminate the open-ended field of alternate points of view. It does so by providing a choice between “View A” and “View B.”

In a democracy, there is always an “A” and a “B.” This illusion of choice is infinitely more effective in helping the populace to believe that they have been able to choose their leaders and their points of view.

In the modern method, when voting, regardless of what choice the individual makes, he is voting for an all-powerful government. (Whether it calls itself a conservative one or a liberal one is incidental.)

Likewise, through the modern media, when the viewer absorbs what is presented as discourse, regardless of whether he chooses View A or View B, he is endorsing an all-powerful government.

Two Solutions
One solution to avoid being brainwashed by the dogmatic messaging of the media is to simply avoid watching the news. But this is difficult to do, as our associates and neighbours are watching it every day and will want to discuss with us what they have been taught.

The other choice is to question everything.

To consider that the event that is being discussed may not only be being falsely reported, but that the message being provided by the pundits may be consciously planned for our consumption.

This is difficult to do at first but can eventually become habit. If so, the likelihood of being led down the garden path by the powers-that-be may be greatly diminished. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

Developing your own view may, in the coming years, be vital to your well-being.

 

Has America gone over to the collectivists completely?

What follows is a recent article by Nick Giambruno, one of the excellent writers over at internationalman.com. I suggest that you subscribe to their excellent updates and learn about internationalization, asset and privacy protection, and how to enjoy what freedom remains in the world. It’s time to start thinking here, people. Can you really stomach what is happening to the land of your birth? Is it time to ask yourself if staying in the US is the intelligent thing to do?

 


 

 

You’d Have Better Luck Converting Them to Become Jehovah’s Witnesses

By Nick Giambruno

internationalman.com

 

I’d bet that many of you have thought about or discussed the following question: “What are the chances that the political situation might improve in the US?”

I know I have.

Unfortunately, I have long concluded that the chances are slim to none… and slim is out of town.

The reason for this is simple: a growing majority of voters in the US has deeply ingrained collectivist impulses in some fashion or another. In other words, they’re addicted to the heroin of the failed policies of the welfare, warfare, and nanny state.

Speaking of the nanny state, New York City is perhaps one of the most infamous incarnations of it. The bureaucrats in the Big Apple have a particularly strong affinity for regulating every aspect of the personal lives and businesses of its residents. It’s all done “for your own good,” of course—the standard catch-all justification for big government.

The latest example of which is Mayor Bill de Blasio’s absolutely ridiculous “Vision Zero” plan. This plan seeks to reduce traffic deaths to zero by drastically increasing police enforcement.

It’s delusional to think that fatal accidents could ever be fully eliminated, no matter how many police officers or enforcement cameras there are on the streets. It’s not unlike trying to totally eliminate bathtub falls by putting a police officer or a camera in every bathroom.

Jaywalkers in particular have been singled out for extra attention by the police in “Vision Zero.”

Consider the story of Kang Wong, an 84-year-old man who was recently stopped for jaywalking near Broadway and 96th Street at around 5 in the evening. Wong, who apparently didn’t understand what was happening or why he was being stopped, tried to walk away from the police. The situation escalated, and the police ended up arresting and bloodying him.

Few New Yorkers question why the money extracted from them via taxation—to pay for the police—didn’t instead go towards dealing with real crimes (aggressions against people and property). Nor did many question the disturbing absurdity of the bloodying of an 84-year-old man spurred by the increased enforcement of jaywalking in the name of the “Vision Zero” fantasy.

This whole ordeal underscores why I’m not particularly optimistic that a significant number of Americans will change their views on collectivism and personal freedom anytime soon.

Many have been force-fed since a young age the notion that democracy is the most sublime form of government. I believe the reality, however, is quite different—especially once a society loses respect for the rights of individual. In other words, when the majority or the collective trumps all.

Then it only takes 51% of the people to agree to restrict the rights of the rest of the 49%—which amounts to nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie.

If 51% of the people vote to elect a guy who wants to turn their city into a police state in pursuit of the delusion of totally eliminating traffic deaths, they can. (Note: NYC mayor Bill de Blasio won in a landslide, with 73% of the vote.)

If 51% of the people vote to elect a guy who wants, in the name of the greater good, to force you to buy health insurance you don’t need or want, they can.

If 51% of the people deem it “fair” that the top income tax bracket to be 75%, then so be it. It’s already happened in France.

Or suppose that gold explodes to the upside (another way of saying the currency crashes) and 51% of the people demand, in the name of fairness, a precious metals windfall profits tax.

These are the kinds of possibilities that can occur in a democratic society with collectivist leanings.

It brings to mind the words of H.L. Mencken: “Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.”

Granted, the US has not arrived at some of these destinations yet… though I believe we are on the path toward it—and there’s no turning back.

The reason is simple: a growing majority of Americans are financially dependent on the government.

It’s estimated that around 47% of Americans are already receiving government benefits in some way.

But I believe 47% is not an accurate reflection of the situation.

We also need to consider all government employees as well as those in the nominally private sector who make a living off of the warfare state—like defense and other government contractors who win huge no-bid contracts.

Those involved in the military industrial complex are living off slops at the government trough just as much, if not more than those who collect food stamps and other traditional forms of welfare. Yet they aren’t counted in the statistics. So we need to include them to get a more complete picture of who is financially dependent on the government.

Anyone who exists off of political dollars instead of free-market dollars should be counted.

When these people are included, we’re well north of 50% of the American population (a solid majority and growing) that’s financially dependent on the government in some form.

This means the US has crossed the Rubicon.

It’s not good news for those opposed to collectivism.

This built-in majority of welfare recipients and government employees guarantees that there will be a solid voting block to continue—and accelerate—these policies. It would be foolish to assume that a meaningful number of these people would vote to stop the government from giving them benefits or otherwise vote to break their own rice bowls.

The notion that a significant number of people living off of government largesse will be brought around to an individualist or libertarian way of thinking is a pipe dream.

You’d have better luck converting them to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In other words, there is no hope for positive change to come from the political system.

Therefore, I believe your time and energy are best spent preparing for and protecting yourself from the effects of a collectivist system that eventually collapses under its own weight… like all of them eventually do.

Once you’ve realized that it is futile to stop this collectivist tsunami, the next logical question becomes “How do I protect myself and my savings?”

The answer is: the same way you would with a regular tsunami… get out of the way!

The good news is that thanks to internationalization, you don’t have to be a passive victim.

Moving some of your savings abroad in the form of offshore bank and brokerage accounts, foreign real estate, and physical gold held in safe jurisdictions, will go a long way toward protecting yourself. Obtaining a second passport is an important part of the mix as well.

It’s not all doom and gloom; the world is your oyster, and there are very attractive jurisdictions that are cause for optimism. And that’s what International Man is all about—making the most of your personal freedom and financial opportunity around the world.

If you are not already a member, you can click here to join here for free to get all the latest news and information about internationalization. You’ll also get access to other stuff like our very popular free special reports. Be sure to pass this on to your friends and family so they have access to this crucial information too.

IRS sets itself up as the premier spy agency

IRS seized 1.7 million GB of data last year

Digital Privacy

March 26, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

Every organization has a unique way of measuring its own success.

Apple tracks very closely, for example, how many iPhones and iPads they sell. Facebook monitors how many total users they have.

And for the brand new Cyber Crime Unit (CCU) of the IRS Criminal Investigative Division, one of their key metrics for success apparently is the volume of data that they ‘seize’ in any given year.

In its recently released annual report detailing their operations and results during fiscal year 2013, the IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) announced that they had seized 1.7 MILLION gigabytes of data last year.

This equates to about 729 billion pages of text, or 24.3 BILLION email messages– roughly 78 email messages for every man, woman, and child in the Land of the Free.

More importantly, this constitutes a 100% increase over the amount of data seized in fiscal year 2012. And to be clear, “seized” means that you no longer have access to, or control of, the data.

I’m sure we can all acknowledge that there are bad people out there who commit crimes. And this is precisely who the CID is trying to go after.

Their report lists dozens of examples of nefarious criminals they caught last year, ranging from identity thieves to bank fraudsters to corrupt public officials.

But they don’t get it right all the time. They barely get it right half the time.

According to their own data, 43.1% of the people they’ve investigated over the last two years are either never indicted, or they’re acquitted at trial.

This means that 43.1% of people being investigated have not committed a crime. Yet many of them have had their data confiscated (and probably their assets frozen) while the investigation is pending.

Each business day, the CID opens an average of 40 new investigations. While 23 of them will end up serving time, 17 of them are wrongfully deprived of their assets.

Imagine if you’re an entrepreneur– watching a team of gun-toting investigators walk out of your office with all of your computers, even though you’ve done nothing wrong.

A simple misunderstanding or administrative error can bring your business to its knees.

If you use a service like Dropbox, it makes things even easier for the government to seize your digital assets and freeze you out of your own data.

In terms of asset protection, though, our digital assets are some of the easiest (and quickest) to protect.

Instead of using Dropbox, you can opt for a service like Wuala.

Wuala is quite similar to dropbox in that it synchs and backs up data securely in the cloud. The key difference, however, is that Wuala is based in Switzerland… so the company is not obliged to immediately follow law enforcement requests from North America (or anywhere else) without a great deal of diplomatic bureaucracy.

What’s more, Wuala ensures that your files are encrypted before they even leave your computer.

And since only you know your password, the most that Wuala employees would be able to hand over to any government agency is a bunch of encrypted gibberish.

Best of all, making the move to a service like Wuala costs nothing. Dropbox offers the first 2 GB of storage for free. Wuala offers 2.5x that– 5 GB for free. So it makes sense… no matter what.

About the author: Simon Black is an international investor, entrepreneur, permanent traveler, free man, and founder of Sovereign Man. His free daily e-letter and crash course is about using the experiences from his life and travels to help you achieve more freedom.

IRS creating new tax LOLs for BTC

Simon Black reports IRS dreaming up new ways to tax BTC holders. On the one hand, the government denies BTC is a currency. On the other, they are trying to tax them. Not that any of us are suprised that the government is greedy or hypocritical.

 

Image

 


 

Latest “Report from the Field” by Simon Black

I highly recommend Simon’s “crash course” and, if you are serious about protecting your assets and freedom, subscribe to his services.

 

http://www.sovereignman.com/

March 26, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

Well the IRS has certainly had a busy week.

1) Yesterday, the service released brand new rules pertaining to the taxation of Bitcoin. 

And particularly for anyone who was an early adopter of the digital currency, the new tax rules are a major blow.

In short, the Treasury Department has chosen to tax Bitcoin as ‘property’ rather than as a currency. 

This means that all those ‘Bitcoin millionaires’ out there who traded the Bitcoins they purchased for $0.01 for a shiny new Maserati will actually owe beaucoup bucks in back taxes.

More importantly, though, I think these rules set a rather dangerous precedent for gold.

You can see what I’m talking about here.

2) Last week, the Criminal Investigative Division of the IRS released its annual report, highlighting all sorts of lovely statistics about how many people they put behind bars.

To be fair, there are definitely some lowlifes out there. Corrupt Congressmen and thieving banksters were all nailed to the wall by the CID last year. 

Unfortunately they only get it right about half the time, according to their own statistics. 

And the report shows a rather disturbing trend– they ‘seized’ 1.7 million gigabytes of data last year from individuals under investigation, more than double the volume of data seized in 2012.

But since almost half of these people are innocent, you can just imagine how much these investigation turn people’s lives upside down.

The CID report is a perfect example of the ‘multiple flags’ strategy that I advocate. 

If you use a cloud service like Google Drive or Dropbox, for example, you are making it incredibly easy for the government to freeze you out of your digital assets, even if you’ve done nothing wrong.

By shifting your assets to a similar service based overseas, especially one that’s encrypted, you can save yourself this risk. 

And best of all, it costs you absolutely nothing.

You can read more about it here.

Venezuela arrests three generals for alleged coup plot

"I sleep like an infant at night"

“I sleep like an infant at night”

Once again the dangerous antics of Saint Manure-o Hacia la Izquierda. Like all dictators, he sees plots within plots all around him. He distrusts the people and his own.
 
Venezuela arrests three generals for alleged coup plot

By Sofia Miselem (AFP) – 2 hours ago 

Caracas — Three Venezuelan air force generals accused of plotting a coup against the leftist government of President Nicolas Maduro were arrested Tuesday, amid a widening crackdown on the opposition.

The unidentified generals were in contact with opposition politicians and “were trying to get the Air Force to rise up against the legitimately elected government,” Maduro told a meeting of South American foreign ministers.

“This group that was captured has direct links with sectors of the opposition and they were saying that this week was the decisive week,” Maduro said.

The stunning disclosure — the first known significant threat from within Maduro’s government — comes amid a growing crackdown on the president’s opponents after more than six weeks of street protests that have left at least 34 dead.

– Betrayed by loyalists –

The generals have been summoned before a court martial, Maduro said, adding that the plot was uncovered because other officers come forward to say they were being recruited.

Asked for details about the generals, a senior source told AFP that the information is “being handled only through Maduro’s office.”

It is the first time in 15 years of socialist government that generals have been arrested for alleged coup plotting, said military expert Fernando Falcon, a retired lieutenant colonel.

Massive protests in April 2002 resulted in Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez, being briefly ousted — before he was restored to power for another decade.

Maduro and his government have been the target of near-daily protests fueled by public anger over soaring crime, hyperinflation and shortages of such basic goods as toilet paper.

Demonstrators are also angry at oil-rich Venezuela’s close financial and political ties to Cuba, the only Communist one-party state in the Americas.

Maduro earlier had said he fended off a coup bid aided or supported by the United States and other “fascists.”

Protests have mainly taken place in middle-class opposition strongholds. Maduro still enjoys support among Venezuela’s larger, poor population, allowing him to weather the weeks-long protests.

– Machado defies Maduro –

On Monday, National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello announced that a prominent opposition deputy, Maria Corina Machado, had lost her seat and parliamentary immunity, and could be arrested at any time.

At a news conference in Lima, Peru, a defiant Machado said she would return to Caracas on Wednesday, adding she feared she would be arrested on her arrival.

She said she was returning “because I am a Venezuelan deputy and I will enter Venezuela as such to continue fighting in the streets without rest until we achieve democracy and freedom.”

Machado angered the government by going before the Organization of American States last week as a guest of Panama to discuss the crisis in Venezuela.

Panama’s representative to the OAS, Arturo Vallarino, said the move to take away Machado’s seat was “proof of the arbitrary acts being committed in Venezuela.”

Last week, two opposition mayors were arrested, and another prominent opposition leader has been in jailed for a month, accused of inciting violence.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gSirjRFXHLSoOSkswXUh6h7INUrA?docId=7b182785-7233-417d-a3c4-0ce535daa7c1&hl=en

 

The coming collapse of the international monetary system with Simon Black and Jim Rickards

I suggest signing up for Simon Black’s updates at Sovereign Man. Also subscribe to Nomad Capitalist, International Man, and Capitalist Exploits.

It’s time to start thinking about getting your assets and your ass somewhere safer. The US is like a heavily armed bully, desperately broke and with a serious drug problem.